HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jjohnson@ccscola.Columbia.NCR.COM (Jeffrey H. Johnson)
Subject: Re: VOTE NOW!
Organization: NCR CCSD Columbia SC
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 16:34:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.095842.58201@cc.usu.edu> sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:

[lotsa stuff deleted]

>I think the practice of ``Netiquette'' (being polite, not flaming, 
>respecting the feelings and opinions of others) is okay, but it's too 
>often boring and unproductive, especially on discussion groups. Stirring
>someone up, stepping on toes, slaying sacred cows, etc., is sometimes
>the best way to prompt coherrant and meaningful conversation. Restrictions,
>even self-imposed ones, can be stifling.

Moron.

[Note:  the above has been an example of how much more boring and unproductive
posts which are not polite, are flames, and do not respect the feelings of
others are than posts which adhere to the guidelines of Netiquette.  Had this
been an actual flame with no special meaning, rest assured that it would
have found its way through e-Mail (or probably never even left my keyboard).
We now return you to the regularly scheduled advocacy posts, liberally
sprinkled with worthless drivel.]


>
>Okay,
>+  Chadd  L.  VanZanten   SL9B4@CC.USU.EDU  +
>+  ``You know,  I thought this was a good   +
>+  idea but this is one weird mama-jama.''  +
>+                    -- TV's Frank, MST3K   +

Still Okay,
Jeff
--
Jeffrey H. Johnson
jjohnson@ccscola.columbiasc.ncr.com

		"More human than human is our motto."
			-- Dr. Eldon Tyrell
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: GURPS Total Rewrite
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:28:01 GMT
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University

dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan) writes:
>jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>|	Saying that players won't take advantages that cost too much is 
>|exactly the problem I was talking about. You are unneccassarily restricting 
>|PC range and penalizing those who take those things for the sake of character
>|If something is not unbalancing, why not let it in? 
>|
>	If someone claims that they want something "for the sake of character",
>then my answer is that they won't care how much it costs if it's THAT
>important to their character conception.  

	That's what I said - you are penalizing them for being in character, 
by charging them more for something. 

>
>	If you let people have stuff on the cheap because it LOOKS useless, you
>deserve to get your head handed to you when (not if) they find a use for it.

	It depends how far you look, obviously. Yes, if someone is 
inexperienced or otherwise unqualified, then they may set costs badly. 
But then, if you assume inexperience on the part of the GM, the players 
can abuse the point system and other rules anyway. 

	My point is that ST is worth more in a Viking raids game than in 
an Ultra-tech intrigue game. If you set the costs for ST based on its 
maximum usefulness (Vikings), then it will cost alot. If you use the same 
costs for the Ultra-tech game, then no point-concious person will take high 
ST. If some character-concious person does take high ST, then he will be 
saddled with a less useful character. 
	I submit that this is silly and unfair, and that it would be better 
if a competant designer of the world-book or competant GM were to make an 
optional alteration in the costs for this. This sort of alteration should 
be suggested but not specified in the Basic Rules, and specified in some 
worldbooks (like it is now). 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "All the world will be your enemy, Prince with 
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | a Thousand Enemies. And when they catch you, 
Columbia University         | they will kill you."         - Watership Down
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: hutch@hutch (Stephen Hutchison)
Subject: Re: Forkless or Senseless (Winging It)
Keywords: just a joke
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 18:47:29 GMT

In article <65742@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7219a@prism.gatech.EDU (Christopher Michael Lawyer) writes:
>In article <11AUG199217034176@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> spzkny@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY) writes:
>>   Just because WINGS has a small following 
>>doesn't mean that it isn't the Best Thing Going!  Sure, there's more 
>>supporting material for CHILI (that Cheese-On-Top boxed set is a little 
>>much, though).  Damn money-grubbing @!@#@$#!!!
>
>While I will readily admit that CHILI can become expensive
>to run...I mean eat,  I have found that house rules..er I
>mean spices and flavors are just as good as the official
>supliments and are quite cheep.

To each its own.  I still think that BURPS is better.

>>>But now a new idea is threatening to thwart the oh-so-delicate
>>>balance of peas and order.  There is now a radical group of
>>>eaters who likes to go forkless.   Gasp!   I'll say it again
>>>just for shock.  Forkless!  Apperantly they prefer to avoid
>>>the random variation that forks provide and instead like to
>>>experience their chili with either their hands or going head
>>>first into the bowl.
>>
>>Well, WINGS is, perhaps, the only food designed especially for forkless 
>>eating.  Forkless eating just doesn't work with that archaic CHILI food.  
>>But CHILI doesn't represent REAL eating anyway.  I mean, if you let an 
>>implement do all the manipulating of the food, all you're doing is the 
>>chewing.  That's not REAL eating!  Eating is getting into the act, touching 
>>the food, and not being overly concerned about table manners and napkin 
>>placements.  You damn munchkin salad fork users, anyway!

No no no.  Munchkins are DONUT components and have nothing to
do with PEPR, CHILI, WINGS, or any other hot food system.
Oh, true, it's possible to burn your mouth if you eat them fresh,
but the damage is more realistic, caused by thermal heat, rather than the
real-seeming but actually only simulated heat of capsicum and other
temperature simulations.

Hutch  (BTW, "Munchkins" is tm. Dunkin Donuts.)
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: GURPS Total Rewrite
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:52:25 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

In article <1992Aug10.210828.23538@news.columbia.edu>, jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy) writes:
>>	Why don't you just say that DX and IQ cost 1.5x ST and HT?  It
>>tends that way, and so why don't you just fudge?  It omits a table.

Actually, I think the table ought to be there anyway.  Some people have a bit
of difficulty remembering how to multiply by 1.5, and the table ought to be
there so that they don't have to think about it... I've run into plenty of
players who were just astounded that I had "memorized" the skill/stat/points
chart.  Of course, this formula will help us generate the table as needed (and
thus not have to flip through the book for it), so it's a good idea.  Keep
both.

>
>	That's fine, I agree in this case its close enough. I wrote the 
>table pretty much as I came up with it. 
>
>	However, by keeping the logic behind it, you have an idea of what 
>things should cost in, say, a Supers game where the same maxima don't apply, 
>or in a game where certain advantages gained through characteristics are 
>less useful - i.e. cyberpunk game where chipped skills can be bought with 
>money (hence skill base is less important), .... 

I know there are at least some types of skill chip (physical skills, I think,
but I don't remember) that give you, effectively, a certain number of points in
a skill.  This makes DX just as important, because although you CAN buy a high
skill chip, do you want to shell out the big $$$ for a Karate (32) chip?  Not
to mention the acclimation time, which gets just awful for a chip with that
many point-equivalents.


-Doug Gibson
 doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu

Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.

"We have to tear you to shreds because we care." - EAC
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan)
Subject: Re: GURPS Total Rewrite
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:16:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.162801.22852@news.columbia.edu> jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
|	My point is that ST is worth more in a Viking raids game than in 
|an Ultra-tech intrigue game. If you set the costs for ST based on its 
|maximum usefulness (Vikings), then it will cost alot. If you use the same 
|costs for the Ultra-tech game, then no point-concious person will take high 
|ST. If some character-concious person does take high ST, then he will be 
|saddled with a less useful character. 
|	I submit that this is silly and unfair, and that it would be better 
|if a competant designer of the world-book or competant GM were to make an 
|optional alteration in the costs for this. This sort of alteration should 
|be suggested but not specified in the Basic Rules, and specified in some 
|worldbooks (like it is now). 

	It is neither silly nor unfair.  People will find uses for that ST,
even if just to carry around obscene amounts of goodies.  Or they'll use it
to intimidate people.

	If ST were COMPLETELY useless, then no one would take it no matter how
cheap it was.  If someone's pitching for a discount, it means that whatever
they're asking about is desirable to them in some way, so they should pay
for it.

	If this means that nobody in intrigue-based games will play a high ST
character, fine.  You don't expect to find Hanz und Franz on the diplomatic
corp.

	(That being said, I think ST is overpriced.  I charge about half price
for it...but I use that price in ALL settings.)


dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com   ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis     GEnie: D.HEFFERNAN1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of everything...haven't
you learned; if it's not happenning to me it's not important?" -Murphy Brown
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: dqk412@kepler.unh.edu (David Q Kennard)
Subject: Re: Joys of Dice
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:12:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.222349.195911@cs.cmu.edu> cscott+@CS.CMU.EDU (Curtis Scott) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.140033.7150@orionsci>, goodwin@orionsci (Ben Goodwin) writes:
>|> [Ben's description of diceless combat deleted]
>
>
>My question is this: Wouldn't roleplaying a scene like that in so much detail
>leave the other players rather bored? I mean, if the GM has to describe
>the length of the grass, the location of trees and rocks, and the details of
>every thrust and parry, that pretty well consumes his time.
>
>Based on the above (which was written by an admitted non-diceless player),
>I would expect diceless RPGs to go in cycles of interaction. Each player
>would get a period of time "in the spotlight," getting his questions
>answered and his interactions handled, then the GM would have to turn to
>the next player. In a "diced" system, these cycles go pretty quickly;
>the GM abstracts the player's behavior into a series of system actions
>and implements them using the rules. The old-style "round" structure,
>while it has lots of disadvantages, acts to keep the GM talking to all
>the players more or less evenly, at least during combat. In a diceless
>system, I can see these cycles getting slower, and that could lead to
>boredom for players not in the "spotlight."
>

Amber has a large component of player to player interaction, much of which
doesn't really need a GM. Thus, there's a fair amount for players to do
while one or more of the group "use" the GM for mediation/questions/interaction
with the rest of the world. There is a fair amount of "private conferences",
but I tend to see this in most any system my group plays.

Setting aside this roleplaying without GM stuff, however, it is also true that
the combat doesn't have to bog down. In fact, it can often go quite a bit
quicker than other games. Part of the "roleplaying description" on which
player success is based requires pacing. If the player seems to be dragging,
deliberate and cautious, then so's the character. One poster said Amber
combat should play at the pace of Paranoia or Toon. I agree. Keep moving.
Keep up the pace -- like real combat. If I'm GM in a diceless combat what
I'm really looking for is not the little tricks and knowledges that the 
player might not have; what I'm looking for is the impression that the player
feels *in the role and mindset* of combat, that she's acting *as her
character would in this situation*. Yeah, there's the potential problem
of the player acting as the player in that situation, but I try to account
for that as best I can and try to draw out the *character*.

Dave Kennard
DAVE@UNH.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chili Wars
From: canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 15:28:35 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <14997@umd5.umd.edu> mvw@anywhere.umd.edu (Martin V. Walser) writes:
>In article <4741@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> 
>seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>>>Beverage of the peasants!  Beer, when done proper, is a cacophony mixture 
>>
>>	"Beer, when done proper" is one of those self-contradictory
>>statements like "Military Intelligence", "Congressional Ethics" and so on.
>
>    I was going to stay out of this mindless food system war, but I MUST take 
>exception to that last statement.  You've OBVIOUSLY never partaken of a 
>quality homebrew which in its infinite glory is far beyond the lack of taste
>experience given by "American Beers" (which is the real oxymoron).  A *TRUE*
>beer drinker has Charlie Papazian's _Joy Of Homebrewing_ on his shelf, a
>batch in the fermenter and bottles of homebrew in the fridge.  The system
>outlined in Papazian's rules are far more playable and yet more realistic
>than any other food system around... A taste experience no other food system,
>solid or liquid can stand up to.  The best thing about THIS system, it can 
>accompany OTHER systems in a suppplementary manner as well as stand on its 
>own.

	Agreed!  Even as as we type, I am planning a campaign ... er ...
fermenting a batch, and playing/drinking another.  I had been familiar with
my own homegrown system ... er ... recipes based on the MEAD system, but
finally took the plunge at got Papazian's basic rules (JoH) for the BEER
system.  Very satisfying.  The mechanics were slightly more complex than
the MEAD system, but the campaigns were concluded much swifter.  I still
enjoy a good game ... er ... glass of MEAD though, as the it produces a
headier game ... ah ... brew.  Now I just need to find the rules for the
CIDER system ...
	I recommend the BEER system as excellant free-standing game or game
aid that complements any other FRP (Food Related Product).

Skaal,
Carl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Edlund Anderson	            	"Hefi ek ok aldri sva reitt vapn
canders@isr.harvard.edu			at manni at eigi hafi vidh kommit."
OR
anderso2@husc.harvard.edu			- Skarphedhinn Njalsson 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Put Up or Shut Up (Dice[less])
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:41:05 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

In article <RATINOX.92Aug10202851@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>, ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat) writes:
>Alright; it's time to put up or shut up.
>
>Everyone who likes dice, raise your hands. Ok, how many of you say that you
>will never go without dice because you don't want to give up the
>"randomness of the Universe" they represent. And how many of you have ever
>played RPGs without dice?

Well, I won't go without dice AS A GM because I already find it too frustrating
and time-consuming (let's be real, I'm a grad student and my oral exam is
coming up in a few weeks) to put together a semi-coherent adventure without
having to worry about deciding actions on the spot without the dice.  I tend to
think in terms of probabilities of things occuring (guess that's what I get for
going into quantum) instead of deciding yes/no/did_the_player_BS_me_well?

As a PLAYER, on the other hand, I have no objections to a diceless game.  It
might take some getting used to (what will I *DO* when I get bored?  Make my
character sheet into a paper airplane?  B^), but no objections.

NOTE:  I have stayed out of this discussion until now, but I feel that it is
important to point out that there exist more ways of looking at this than Rat
would have you believe.


-Doug Gibson
 doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu

Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.

"We have to tear you to shreds because we care." - EAC
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: Do U customize games 4 players?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:16:47 GMT

sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:

>Here are the arguments I've thought of for both sides. If I write ``custom''
>scenarios, where each character has his moment in the limelight, each 
>player will get to satifactoraly play out the character on a regular basis.
>On the other hand, my players are pretty sharp, and they would know that 
>I was customizing the scenarios. I dunno how they would react to this. They
>like realistic scenarios, and at the end of each game we sometimes note the
>plot weaknesses in the scenario. Customizing the adventures could be seen
>as a definite plot-hole (it's really hard to realistically have something
>to blow up in every scenario for the demolitions specialist).
>So, if I write reasonable, realistic scenarios, the characters will not 
>have as many opportunities to play out their specialties, but the plots 
>will be more solid. What would you do? 

Well, if the player is a specialist in something, he will figure out someway
to make his specialty contribute to the groups success on each mission. Write
the stories the way you usually do, and leave it up to the players to find
their niche. For example, the demolitions guy doesn't just blow things up.
He can also disarm bombs (always a nice plot device) and make the charges
you use to blow the doors when doing a hostage retrieval. Let the players
come up with inventive ways to use their skills and they'll probably enjoy
themselves.

Axly
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Put Up or Shut Up (Dice[less])
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:44:16 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

In article <uc-chan.713659547@mcl>, uc-chan@mcl.ucsb.edu (Christina Callihan) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>May I put forth a few propositions that I think most people can agree on
>(and which have already been mentioned, but I think some are missing them).

Please do!


-Doug Gibson
 doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu

Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.

"We have to tear you to shreds because we care." - EAC
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88)
Subject: Re: sprinters revisited (was Re: GURPS Total Rewrite)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 07:06:32 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <0095F3E3.DB244200@abby.chem.ucla.edu> doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu writes:

> 
> This probably violates some newsgroup charter or other, but I've got a
> suggestion:  let's look at some real examples from the world of sports.  Who
> are the fastest of football players?  They are the wide receivers and defensive
> backs:  not as big and strong as most other positions, but more agile.
> How about in the NBA?  Again, the less strong and more agile players are
> faster.
> 
> What does this tell us?  There is more evidence for DX belonging in the formula
> than ST.

Not having high ST and weight does not support that you have high DX, sorry.
The move advantage alone of having a better ST to weight advantage is what makes
these people good players for these positions.  Also, as another discussion
is revealing, height has a lot to do with it too.

Running seems to be a contest of ST and height overcoming weight, with HT
preventing you from getting worn out too quickly.  I'd not include DX since
you don't prove that these people have high DX, rather than that the maxima
of (ST+height)/weight expression occurrs below the ST of a good linesman.

-james
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY)
Subject: Re: Chili Wars
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 13 Aug 1992 08:38 EST  

In article <4655@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>,
 seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes...

>>>Who said anything about limp noodles and meat sauce? 
>>>That's not chili anywhere.  
>>It is in Cincinnati.  I don't miss a chance to put that place down! ;+)

>	Even in Cincinnati they know the difference between chili and 
>spaghetti. Even if there aren't any true CHILI devotees, there are some
>people of Italian descent.... :)

Ever had Cincinnati "CHILI" fly boy?  Go to Skyline and order a "four-way". 
You'll see what I mean.  By the way, I never pass up a chance to make fun 
of Pittsburg, too!  'Bout the only city that a Clevelander can feel 
comfortably superior to...

>>>we DO have "hot", "spicy" buffalo wings down here.
>>No you don't.  What you have is a cautious approximation of WINGS.  The 
>>Basic Set, if it were.  Here, we eat Advanced WINGS only.

>	Ha. Having been across this country and through several others,
>I can tell you straight out: there is no such THING as a REALLY spicy
>buffalo wing.  They can't hold enough of the spices.

In Pittsburg, they think nothing can compare to Iron City beer, too!
I say, go to the Buffalo Brew Pub, order a meal of hot wings and a glass of 
Amber (their own special brew) and enjoy a truly forkless meal...

>	TACOs, on the other hand, CAN be hot enough, as can a good strong
>bowl of chili. I prefer the convenience of TACOs, although you need special
>house rule -- er, you need soft fried tortillas in order to properly 
>experience them. 

So, do you use a fork when you eat that or not?  Sounds like a bastard food 
that could be eaten either way.  As such, it's probably inferior to both...

>	If you want REAL hot, eat peppers straight, drink Tabasco sauce, 
>and so on.

Only in Pittsburg...

                                                  James S. Zakany