HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.slug
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 18:04:35 GMT

bjbisset@eos.ncsu.edu (BILLY JOE BISSETTE) writes:
>
>But about
>your action resolution, something doesn't seem right about picking the lesser
>of the two values when the numbers on the dice differ by more than one... Is
>this because you don't want the varience of the result to be large(since this
>system allows a maximum modification of 4 I think)?  

Right.  Exactly.

>PS: Bernie Hsiung, you seem to be over analyzing everything, step back and take
>a break, this isn't the net.rpg thread...

Actually, I find his comments most useful!  Just because a game has a
goal of simplicity in play in mind doesn't mean it can't be complex in
the discussion phase.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
From: jliukkon@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Juha-Matti Liukkonen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg: stats contn'd
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:58:33 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad) writes:

>I think it's important that we keep this streamlined and reasonably
>simple, even at the complicated levels. The hieriarchy you propose
>looks reasonably good, but I think we'll let someone native fill in
>the right names.. ;-)

I wholeheartedly agree on this one :)

>Also remember than in such a hieriarchy, not all substats would have
>to be numeric, some could be boolean or text.

>-Magnus

True. The limit between a numeric and a boolean/text stat would need to
be set so, that all the stats that affect skills would be numeric (I
think that a boolean stat wouldn't be too easy to apply to a base
skill.) Some, mostly descriptive stats, would be better off as boolean
or text. We'd need to know something about the skill system before
drawing the actual lines (numeric/boolean/...,) though.
-- 
               Juha Liukkonen, aka jliukkon@cc.helsinki.fi
       University of Helsinki, Dept. of Paranormal Investigations
           "Trust me, I know what I'm doing." - Sledge Hammer
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: Skills
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 21:46:30 GMT

>>>>> On 17 Nov 92 17:29:26 GMT, jliukkon@klaava.Helsinki.FI
>>>>> (Juha-Matti Liukkonen) said:

	JM> would be 1/4 of max skill?) Then each skill would have a
	JM> racial base (humans swim better'n dwarves etc) and in

Ouch! I don't like the idea of putting race-specific info into every
skill that depends on factors that are race-dependent. That info
should be with the character, so skills can access it without knowing
why. I mean - show the physical data (bad proportions for swimming),
don't show the reason/method (race).

-Magnus
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: net.rpg -- some thoughts
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
	<1992Nov15.215228.18343@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 01:10:50 GMT

>>>>> On 15 Nov 92 21:52:28 GMT, jliukkon@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Juha-Matti Liukkonen) said:

Juha-Matti> I thought we might be able to say it simple: build is a
Juha-Matti> relative figure, and the racial base would be in the form
Juha-Matti> of a description and perhaps the strength/speed factors

Remeber that you need every concequence of your race as a number or a
boolean on your character sheet if it is to be usable by other rules.
If you create a human, you don't want to have to mess around with
race-dependent stuff. That's why I think the race modifiers should be
incorporated in an optional part of character generation, so you
wouldn't use it if you're only using humans.

Juha-Matti> (ie.  how much of your build is towards strength/bone
Juha-Matti> structure, and how much towards speed [there are specific
Juha-Matti> terms for the things I mean, I just don't know them :(
Juha-Matti> Something like aerobic and anaerobic muscle]) - humans
Juha-Matti> perhaps 50%-50%, dwarves 80%-20%, and elves 40%-60% etc...

This is interesting. I'll mention it in the faq. Btw I think we should
first decide on how to represent a human, and then look at what we
have to do to make that work for other races.

-Magnus
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: net.rpg -- offline
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:13:54 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle

Hey guys, this discussion is fascinating and all that, but it is consuming
95% of the bandwidth in this group. Would you mind terribly moving it off
line into a e-mail group? Perhaps you could post a bi-weekly FAQ update here
and in rec.games.frp.archive to let everybody know how it is coming along.
Thanks!!!

-- 
 Bob Hall                   |
 Boeing Computer Services   |  Behind every dark cloud,
 root@chicken.ca.boeing.com |  there's a Seattle Skyline.
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.slug: Action resolution
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 06:19:03 GMT

Hmm...  Intriguing concept.  What happens if the modified result from the
dice rolls moves you over or under the maximum results?

Well, it's definitely a SIMPLE concept and easy to learn.  BUT it's very
counter-intuitive for a GM to come up with stuff on the fly.  It's also
very limited, because the results are limited to the seven results that 
the stats/skills are defined as.

Will have to think on this concept a bit more before I can give a final
opinion, but you definitely get marks for creative dice conventions!

...Paul


-- 
+                +        +    +  + + +  +    +        +                +
  Paul Clegg, cleggp@aix.rpi.edu.   Project Galactic Guide Coordinator.
            System One RPG designer.   But generally unknown.
+                +        +    +  + + +  +    +        +                +
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: dmatiske@nd.edu (David Matiskella)
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: Attributes
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:54:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.135924.1@wharton.upenn.edu>,
millerl@wharton.upenn.edu wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov18.225507.4711@alf.uib.no>, magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad) writes:
> > For example, even though stats like Kinesthetic and Spacial are below
> > Intelligence, they would influence Agility (or the other way around).
> > When you calculate your stats, you just follow all the lines. 
> 
> The reason they seem wrong is that Agility and Dexterity are in the
> wrong tree. They are more highly correlated with intelligence than with
> physical power or mass. They are not physical stats, they are nervous
> stats, and as such belong in the Intelligence tree.
> 
> -- 
> whoah,
> +++++++++++++++++++++++23
> Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
> Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu
I have been reading and commenting on manyof the Stat ideas. I think that
we might get farther designing the game mechanics first and ten picking the
stats. For example when I fire my gun do I use my  gun skill or do I use
dexterity?
When I want to design something do I use engineering or my logic and
spacial ability
Deciding how the mechanics work will determine what skills we need. If we 
use skills
in the mechanics we don't need the 39 stats some suggested early, while if
skills play a
secondary role then we need more stats. 
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Bill Seurer)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.freeform: Post 2 of 2
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:57:05 GMT
Reply-To: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Nov20.083507.22285@news.columbia.edu>, jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
|> 	Well, Ars Magica is the main one I know about. That is darn 
|> simple: just take a d10 and add it to skill. With a stress die you 
|> complicate things a little more (1's mean roll again and double the 
|> result, 0's give a chance of botch), but it is still pretty simple. 

It's not QUITE that simple.  You also often add in an attribute and
sometimes another number or two (for arms when fighting for example).

|> 	As far as being dominated by luck rather than skill - that can 
|> easily be scaled away. Ars Magica does have luck very dependent. For a 
|> variant I ran, however, I just doubled all skill numbers. Now skill is 
|> more important with respect to attributes and luck. 

Also, often a skill is used in multiple rolls when such are used (again
combat is a good example) so this tends to mutiply skill effects.  Did
you actua double the numbers or just add twice the skill when rolling?
-- 

- Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN
  Internet: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com    America On-Line: BillSeurer@aol.com
Date: Sunday, 15 November 1992 04:23:00 PDT
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.06
From: "Anton Dovydaitis" <anton@anton.infoserv.com>
Organization: Ishi Press International
Subject: game system
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Distribution: world

On the subject of skills: you can spend an awful lot of time trying
to develop a game mechanic which gives statistically valid or subjectively
realistic results, and the system becomes the object, rather than the
play.  Even if the players don't simply manipulate the system rather
than play, the hidden consequences of the chosen system start to dominate.
That is, certain tasks or ways of accomplishing tasks, may be inordinately
favored or disfavored because of the game mechanisms, and the players and
the referee will gravitate or avoid these.  This can grossly distort the
game, especially if it is campaign game of any duration.

So really, what can you actually say about the skill of a character.
Using a medieval society as a base, I came up with the following
divisions, ranging essentially from 0 to 6.

	e	exposure: the character knows the skill exists and
		has seen others practice it.
	0	The character has had, but failed their training at
		the skill.  They know (or think they know more)
		about the skill than the average layperson, but would
		not be accepted as an apprentice in that field.
	I	The has had the training to be an apprentice and is
		competent.
	II	Same, but as Journeyman.
	III	The Character is a Master at the skill.  They are
		a competent judge of other people's skill, and can
		train others.
	IV	The Character's skill is reknown among Masters.
	V	Heroic: The character's skill is fantastic: at the limit
		of mortal ability.
	VI	Godlike: The character's skill is absurd or impossible.

This fits well with the 2d6 system discussed previously.  These levels are
not numbers to be fed into a formula or table anywhere, but distinctions.

For further discintion and refinement of characters, requisites can be
employed.  A requisite is an approximate ranking of some general or specific
trait or ability.  In order to keep some resemblence to most games, where
normal human requisites are around 10, and range from 3 to 18, I interpret
requisites as follows:

	11-K	Likely to be among the lowest ranked (worst) among
		2^K random individuals
	10+K	Likely to be among the highest ranked (best) among
		2^K random individuals

This exploits the approximation 2^8 = 256 ~ 216 = 6^3, and imposes a
simple log scale on a 3d6 requisite system.  Any additional requisites
can be added as needed, or ignored (e.g. Mana for for non-Mages or
Blacksmith Ability for non-Blacksmiths).

Of course, in order for this to be meaningful, you have to have a
population in mind, and have to make assumptions about your population.
This takes some work, but world building does.

---
---------------------------------------------------------------

Anton Dovydaitis
Ishi Press International
From: v121mhb5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (D.O.G. of S.A.R.P.A.)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: How many of you have seen Ars Magica?
Date: 23 Nov 92 05:09:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov22.204205@IASTATE.EDU>, cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald) writes...
>Jim Scannell writes,
>	  ...THe progression is
>	  somewhat logarithmic since +5 is considered a 
>	"mythic characteristic."
> 
>This is not the first time I have heard of a distribution
>being referred to as "logarithmic" in this newsgroup, and
>it confuses me.  Does this mean that the value approaches
>a maximum or minimum value asymptotically?  I was under the
>impression that the logarithm of x was the integral of 
>x to the -1 power, a singular function due to the n+1 term
>in the denominator going to zero.  I do not see how this
>fits any regular dice distributions, which tend to be either
>linear or bell curves.
> 
	Pardon me, I'm not a math major, and I guess I was reaching for
terms a little bit.  What I was trying to say is that the progression
between one step, say +1 to +2, is a much smaller interval in terms of
the relative increase in ability that comes from the step at +4 to +5.
A +1 is better than average, +2 is good, +3 is excellent, +4 is rather
extraordinary, and +5 is "Mythic".  Exponential might have been a better
word than logarithmic.

					Jim Scannell
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: Make a net.rpg newsgroup!
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
	<KETIL.92Nov19170147@sandel.ii.uib.no>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 17:00:49 GMT

>>>>> On 19 Nov 92 17:01:47, ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde) said:

	Ketil> I'm sorry, but I disclike the idea of creating another
	Ketil> newsgroup just to handle this, especially when this
	Ketil> subject fits so well with the charter for this group.

That seems to be the general opinion, so we'll keep it here. 

-Magnus
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.freeform: Action resolution
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 01:33:20 GMT

I wrote:

>I assume, since low initiative
>plays last card, that this is a contest of qualities, and not just a
>parry, so they go to the damage determination stage, whatever we hammer
>that out to be.  In other words, Joe got hit.

Sorry, blew it.  I should have written:  "since *high* initiative plays
last card ..."

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: picl17@fsphy1.physics.fsu.edu (Jeffrey Johnson)
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: Attributes
Followup-To: rec.games.design
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: picl17@fsphy1.physics.fsu.edu
Organization: F.S.U. Dept of Physics
Distribution:  world
Date: 18 NOV 92 09:56:11    

In article <1992Nov16.193447.25689@crd.ge.com>,  (Spike) writes...
>This is (yet another) attribute proposal. Yes, I
>know people seem committed to Form/Fit/Int/Instinct,
>but without an alternate proposal, developing this 
>system would be like an election in the pre-glasnost
>USSR (one candidate, one vote!).
> 
>Howard Gardener is a researcher working at one of
>the big east-coast schools (Harvard, perhaps? I don't
>recollect exactly) on the nature of human intelligence.
>He proposed that what we lump under the broad label 
>"Intelligence" is actually a collection of related, but
>different intelligences: Kinesthetic, Linguistic, Mathematic
>Spatial, Musical, Knowledge of Self and Knowledge of
>Others. I have always felt that this would make a good
>basis for a roleplaying game. Change Mathematic to 
>Logical, Musical to a more generic Aesthetic, and 
>rename the last two to the less-clunky Self-Awareness
>(or even Intuition) and Social, respectively.

I considered a similar system for my own Omniverse game system,
but ultimately rejected it for two reasons: number one, I wanted
to keep the number of stats to a reasonable number (I already had
six before the "intelligence" ones.  Number two, in talking to a
psychologist friend about this, he pointed out that all of the
categories of Intelligence are strongly correlated:  that is, that
if you have a high score in one, you're very likely to have a high
score in all of them.  Thus, it's more efficient to combine them
all into a few scores and have advantages and disadvantages to give
more specific kinds of intelligence.

Also, many of these intelligences fit into existing attributes.
Kinesthetic and Spacial are part of Agility; Social is part of 
Charisma.  Remember that psychologists don't neccesarily mean
what most of us think of as intelligence when they use the term!

Travis Casey
picl17@fsphy1.physics.fsu.edu

>The way I would use them would be to relate skills to
>various intelligences. High int in an appropriate area 
>would allow characters to learn those skills more 
>quickly. The logical way to do it would be to have each 
>skill controlled by two separate intelligences: Shooting =
>Kinesthetic + Spatial; Architect = Spatial + Logical; Fast-
>Talk = Linguistic + Social.
> 
>Ironically, although I didn't realize it when I was reading
>Gardener, Aftermath has a system very similar to this.
>Go figure.
> 
>Spike
> 
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: john@psych.toronto.edu (John Rick)
Subject: Net.rpg: problems with skill tree
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:54:14 GMT

Are we talking about hanging the skills tree from the attributes/stats tree
(as in Shadowrun, fr'instance)?

Since SR only has 50-odd skills (I haven't counted them) and we're thinking
of hundreds (!) this strikes me as being incredibly unwieldy (the SR skill
web already seems to me to have a few errors in it!).

Once we get down to very fine levels of detail / very specific skills, esp.
in a modern or future genre it will be impossible to tell what other 
skills affect the one you're trying to learn.

Lets see... architectural photography skill = 1/5 architecture skill +
  1/2 photography (or 2/3 still photo skill) + 1/6 Aesthetics stat + 1/12
  Equilibrium + 1/16 Intelligence + ....

This may end up sorta like the Ars Magica magic system (add up 8 stats, 
subtract 3 others, etc.) - but much worse!   

We may have to resort to giving only small sections of each tree ('cuttings')
possibly consisting of 2-4 levels of skill, devolving to some combination 
of stats at the top - am I being clear?

For example:

   Psychology - Clinical psychology - clin.neuropsych. - testing/diagnosis
                                                       - treatment
              - Experimental psych - neuropsych
                                   - social psych
                                   - lotsa others....
              - Social work - dysfunctional families ...
                            - young offenders ...
                            - poverty ...
              
I'm just making this up as I go along, but even with a small section of tree
that devolves to a stat (i.e. base Psych skill = some combination of stats,
years of education, etc) things can get really messy, as you can see.  We'd
need the advice of a million experts to create each tree (and of course, 
experts never agree!). 

Unfortunately, I don't have much in the way of suggestions for avoiding this
sort of mess.  The best I can suggest at the moment is to make the skills
very broad (i.e. archit. & nude photo. are lumped in with photo. in general)
so as to avoid too many levels and create a large number of stats which can
combined in various ways to yield different scores for a variety of skills.
After all, if both Psychology and Dream Interpretation skills are based upon
1/2 Intelligence + 1/3 Empathy + 1/6 Something Else ('Wisdom' 8-) that's 
hardly realistic...

Perhaps the 4 basic stats (FFII) already proposed each generate 3-4 others
when combined in various ways, which then generate another tier, giving
30-40 stats...

If you don't know exactly what the player should roll, you can always just
have them roll against a stat that sounds about right...

-- 
*** "Creation science...is not science because it depends upon a supernatural
*** intervention which is not guided by natural law.  It...is not testable and
*** is not falsifiable." - Justice Wm.R.Overton, U.S. District Court (Arkansas)
  =====>  Email: john@psych.toronto.edu -or- rick@lake.scar.utoronto.ca <=====
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (I Need a Life)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Diceless net role playing.
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:33:13 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: grotus.ecst.csuchico.edu

Andrew F Stratton writes:
>Here are some questions :-
>9. Would a net diceless rpg be possible - or would each GM end up
>   producing their own incompatible version?

I believe the point is that both are possible and intended.  I foresee
that the GM's will get this huge collection of modules and use only
the ones that they feel is applicible to their game.  Thus, my game
would be incompatible from yours (and possibly with other ones that
I run) but would be still derived from this project.


-- 
While anyone can admit to themselves they were wrong, the true test is
admission to someone else.
From: mathers@sibelius.trl.oz.au (Steven Mathers)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: game system
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:14:08 GMT
Reply-To: s.mathers@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

In article <17318@mindlink.bc.ca>, Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
|> mathers@sibelius.trl.oz.au (Steven Mathers) writes:
|> 
|> > When you sit down to `roll-up` a character for a given game, you generally
|> > have in mind the type of character you would like to play during this
|> > particular session.
|> 
|> Hmmm, I guess you haven't been reading the "random vs allocation" thread.
|> The point I keep bringing up is that your statement above only applies to one
|> group of gamers, _not_ all gamers.  Some of us do not have a type of
|> character in mind when we start a campaign; we like being surprised.

Actually, I think I may have started it.  I wrote the message above
about two weeks ago.  
|> 
|> When I roll up a character, I don't care if he's a scientist, a musician, an
|> army logistics officer, or a farmer who kept failing to enter university; I'd
|> equally enjoy role-playing any of them.  I'll give any of them an interesting
|> personality, based on their attributes, education/career history, personal
|> history, and anything else randomly determined or chosen at a whim.

Id say you were in the minority here, at least among the gamers that I
know.  In any event, a random character generation system imposes the
game designers philosopy on the player, whereas a 'design' type system
give the player the choices.  Im pro-choice, and in more areas than
character design.  The random profession idea is limiting.  The player
is restricted to whatever professions included by the designer are
in the table (assuming a table is your mechanic).

Lets say you have a design-based system, with the option of including
some random elements (at the players choice)  You could use the random
'take a flaw/problem, get some extra points ' option, and vv. 'Take a
special ability, loose some points'.  There are other OPTIONS you could
add to give a little randomness to the procedure if that is the players
desire.  Sure, giving the players the chance of designing the character
means that some players are going to take the 1-dimensional munchkin
route, but that's OK...they like being munchkins.  If you want something
a little more sophisticated, then thats OK too.  How many random
profession systems let players be butlers, hairdressers, telephone
sanitizers, piss-boys, village-idiots, etc..etc..