HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jacobus@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: Fantasy version of Ars Magica: Opinions Wanted PLEASE.
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:02:16 GMT

In article <C0LzvB.JwJ@rice.edu> swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
>  Or it could just be people's faith by itself. People with True Reason
>have the same limited ability to resist magic. (A lot of us think True
>Reason's silly, but it looks like WW's moving away from an absolute 
>position that God is the creator of the universe.)




"True Reason" is neither true nor reason--to be blunt, it is nothing more
than a distorted, and false, picture of a "scientific" outlook that has
less in common with science than do the activities of "primitive" healers
and other such pre-industrial "wise ones".


What I mean by this is that their "Reason" is virtually the complete opposite
of REAL reason--which is the use of the methods of rational thought and the
acceptance of THE EXTERNAL WORLD as the primary referent rather than an
internal prejudice.  What Third Edition Ars Magica presents as True Reason
is nothing more than the tenets of the charlatanic religion of Scientism.

Needless to say, since several of the players in our local Saga are practicing
scientists of some sort or another, we simply sneered at True Reason and
don't use it.
From: gt8601a@prism.gatech.EDU (Chris Gregg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: 2300AD questions
Date: 5 Jan 93 06:47:32 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

What (if any) is the address for a 2300AD mailing list or ftp site?
-- 
| Chris Gregg gt8601a@prism.gatech.edu  My dog, he barks, some. In your |
| mind you  visualize my dog,  but I have not  told you the type of dog |
| that I have!  You may even picture Toto from the Wizard of Oz.  But I |
| can tell you that my dog is with me at all times. *BARK*    -Sparky   |
From: dunkelza@titan.ucs.umass.edu (KEITH C MCCORMIC)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Game Systems vs. Worlds/Ideas
Date: 12 Jan 1993 15:04:38 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucc.umass.edu

In article <1993Jan12.172217.22514@cs.kuleuven.ac.be> philipd@cs.kuleuven.ac.be (Philip Dutre) writes:


>I think this heavily depends on the player's maturity in the gaming field. New
>players often tend to try out different rule systems, and often discover new
>possibilities to enhance their playing style that way.
>Once you play for several years, mechanics become less important, and the
>setting is indeed of major importance above a specific rule system. Also, once
>you get used to a system that you like and you think is good, why should you
>change?

  Um, this isn't correct.  At least entirely.  I have been playing for at 
least seven years, yet I still tinker with mechanics.  Maybe this is just
a syndrome which some personality types suffer from or something.  I don't
know.  I agree that background and stuff has become more important to me
than mechanics, but mechanics are an integral part of buying a system.
Why should I pay $20+ for a game that has rules that I dislike?  If the rules
suck, it can ruin the game (There are only a few exceptions, like 
Shadowrun.).


>Systems don't sell (anymore), settings do! 

   Tell that to Steve Jackson.  His company has been producing rules
for generic and mediocre settings for years, and he's making a fortune!!

Hi, SOS. :)



Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: user unknown <jsalter@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Stun Only
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:10:15 GMT


	Perhaps Stun Only should be a Limitation to villains only...

							-jsalter
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: brandon@caldonia.nlm.nih.gov (Brandon Brylawski)
Subject: Re: RQ: Heroquesting Re-addressed
Organization: National Library of Medicine
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 16:49:06 GMT

v124pz9t@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (David Cheng) writes:
: Right before Christmas, I spoke to Oliver Jovanovic about the HeroQuesting
: thread.  Because I was in a terrible hurry to get home, I did not
: have time to post his feedback.  Here it is (BTW, Oliver is the point
: man on the RQ4 revisions, and a total Gloranthan scholar too).
: 
: I asked if HQing caused retroactive change.  What follows is a rough
: paraphrase, from my ever-enfeebled memory:
: 
: 
: Heroquesting might be able to cause retroactive change, but the quest
: would be so difficult that this is near impossible.  For example,
: look at the Trolls.  Some of the best heroquesters ever known, with
: the _total_ support of their whole society, have failed to break
: the Trollkin curse.  
: 
: Back to trollkin:
: Should a Troll hero succeed at some point, it will not be like 
: trollkin never existed.  It will be a time remembered as cursed.
: But, since no culture likes to dwell upon its weaknesses, over
: the long run, that 'stain' on history will be de-emphasized.
: Rituals to the hero will still be conducted (lest the curse 
: reassert itself), but they will be taken for granted.
: 
: Yelmalio and the Hill of Gold:
: As Oliver understands it, if a powerful heorquester were to 
: take the place of Yelmalio, and beat Zorak Zoran, _only (he)_
: would get the fire powers.  He could then try to spread the 
: knowledge through the cult, and people following his rituals
: could get some limited fire powers back too.  But, his action
: alone would not be enough to retroactively change history,
: as if all Yelmalians always had the fire powers.  It is
: conceivable, but such a quest would be _so_ difficult that 
: it is nigh impossible.
: 
: Elmal => Yelmalio  (Elmal is the name in 'King of Sartar': just got it!)
: and
: Caladra and Aurelion
: 
: The reason people don't remember the true histories is because they 
: have been suppressed.
: 
: The Elmal/Yelmalio thing was kind of an embarrasment to both sides.
: Elmal was a loyal thane of Orlanth.  But, he kidnapped Lightning
: Boy from Orlanth, as a way to gain favor from the Fire gods, whom 

David, these are both examples of a heroquest to UNDO a curse or fight that
has already had effect. What about heroquests to retroactively ADD something
to a cult's history, ritual, or worldview? I recall Phil Davis describing
a Chalana Arroy Healer who quested to make the hummingbird a cult animal, and
after he succeeded (at idiotic risk, but never mind) everyone knew it had always
been so. It makes perfect sense to me that these are different categories of 
changing history. Once a stone tablet has been written on, it can't be erased,
but it can be added to in such a way that it looks like it was always there.
What do you think?

Brandon
From: bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: What do you look for in a magic system?
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:39:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1993Jan7.195612.14616@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> dddawson@lpl.arizona.edu (Doug Dawson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.182913.22367@ncsu.edu> jmkaraka@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH) writes:
>>The whole AD&D
>>concept of 'memorizing' spells is hideously inappropriate.  Off-hand, I
>>can think of only ONE fantasy world that uses anything even remotely
>>similar. 

	Not really (ok, ok, it's lame the way AD&D explains it).
Um, Roger Zelazny's Amber series features characters who can "hang"
spells and with a single thought of their mind, activate that spell
for use.  Otherwise spell-casting is quite time consuming and
inappropriate for combat.  (There's another book whose title and
author escape me that uses almost the same idea.)
	Under such an explanation, I could understand and accept
AD&D spells, but I think that there should exist rules which would
allow the casting of spells without memorization.  Time to cast
should certainly be lengthened (perhaps to the time required to
memorize), and perhaps the user should feel weakened after casting
such spells...

>  For what it's worth, my understanding has always been (based on
>  comments by Gygax) that the D&D spell system was essentially lifted
>  straight from the fantasy works of Jack Vance.  This agrees well with
>  the little Jack Vance I've read.

	Hmm.  I think I'll have to look into that.  I think that the
*D&D system is a bit too powerful so far as magic goes (as well as
the high proliferation of magic weapons).  Characters being able to
cast wishes?  Hmn.  (And the color spray spell is absolutely silly.
Simply too effective.  My game group has completely outlawed it and
a few others...)
	In fact, my own personal GURPS magic system is leaning
toward the camp where spells, if they are to be cast reliably (woe
to the spellcaster who fails!), they must be cast carefully.  Spells
generally take fairly long to cast and cost quite a bit of fatigue
(every 2 minutes reduces fatigue required by 1) -- again, making
them inappropriate for combat situations, but I do allow the hanging
of spells (which work similarly to keeping spells active -- each
hung spell is a cumulative -1 penalty to each successive spell
cast).  Such spells don't cost fatigue when activated, and take only
1 second to activate, which is nice.  There's room for abuse, of
course... (and speedy improvised magic is nearly impossible,
unfortunately.  This does influence the need to have certain well-
prepared spells hung beforehand, though, while still allowing
players to cast spells normally.)

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: hyatt@owlnet.rice.edu (David Waterman Hyatt)
Subject: Re: SR: Question about shielding
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:26:04 GMT

Shielding does not "raise" your Willpower.  It is simply an enhanced
form of Spell Defense.  I do not think that your anti-shielding theory
makes any sense at all.

Dave


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: JENKINS@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (Kent Jenkins)
Subject: Re: A Shadowrun Question (both 1st and 2nd ed.)
Organization: Ohio State Cyberpsycho Rehab Clinic
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:44:03 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1iq15kINN3td@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> by670@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>
>   A small point about about and availability of medical care for SINless.
>
>1. Cash does exist in the Shadowrun universe (at least I'm told it does by
>our group's Shadowrun trivia guru), but it is reserved for the shadier
>side of shady deals... I think Shadowrunners qualify. In addition to this
>certified credstick would be useable by SINless, as it requires no ID.

Cash does exist, as America and Japan are not the only countries in the world.
German Marks, perhaps even ECC Dollars (or whatever the ECC would want to call
them, tho they've long since collapsed in the Shadowrun world), and I'm almost
positive any insufficiently technologically advanced country would still be
using Hardcopy Cash.

And then there's Corperate Script.  I honestly don't know what these things are
supposed to do.  Lester?  Carl?  Mary?  Anyone more Worldly Wise want to take a
shot at explaining it?

>2. Medical care? That's what the street doc contact is for, true you can't
>get DocWagon, but it works. Most street docs will accept almost any form of 
>payment (including the cyberwear or body of the guy who lost the fight).

Milage May Vary.  Streetdocs, like any illegal personage, are rather fickle.

> -- Marc

I was reading the Neo-Anarchists Guide to Real Life and was rather unhappy with
the way they handled, or didn't handle Credsticks.  I have /always/ wanted to
know what they consider "standard information" on a Credstick.  What kind of
information can a decker, for instance, hack out of one?

DNA information?  Current address?  Or just an SIN, a bank account address and
a current ballance?  I can see deckers with no money just hacking the code on a
certified credstick and just making more.

I like certified credsticks, but just think they're too insecure.
/sig

---
Kent Jenkins	|	I don't want the world,
("Thenomain")	|	I just want your half.
		|
From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes)
Subject: Re: Killing Attacks (Hero)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:08:15 GMT

In article <phill.726814822@crash.cts.com>, phill@crash.cts.com (Phillip Sunbury) writes:
> In <1993Jan8.223807.8606@netcom.com> akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) writes:
> >Problem 1: the variable stun multiplier is a poor aproximation
> >of the hit location chart.  The chances of rolling a head hit
> >on the chart is 5%, but the chances of rolling a 6 are 16.7%.
> >It is also inconsistant with normal attacks.  If variable
> >STUNx is used for killing attacks, then there should be an
> >equivalent multiplier for normal attacks:

> Page 162 bottom, Stun multiplier for hit locations! Imagine that! also statisti
> cly it does more stun then killing because 12 is easier to roll then 13

I'm replying to this, mainly to clairify an earlier point I
made.  Yes, I know that there are STUN mults for normal attacks,
***when you use the hit location chart***.

The point is, when we don't use the chart, why are the stun
mults variable for killing attacks, but not for normal attacks?
To point out this inconsistiency, I made up the following chart
which would be the equivalent 1d6 stun die roll for normal attacks:

> >    1, 2: x1/2 STUN 
> >    3, 4: x1 STUN
> >    5:    x1 1/2 STUN
> >    6:    x2 STUN

Of course, I would never use this chart, since it is just an
added complication.  I also hate the extra variance.

> Well because the average stun mult for a killing attack is 2.666 then I guess y
> 
> u just want to make your killing attacks stronger. Maybe the reason they made ki
> lling attacks diffrent the normal attacks so they would be DIFFRENT! A gun can j
> ust nick you, or can blow your head off, a club on the other hands damage is usually more average. 

This point has been argued out in other messages, but basically:

If I punch you, I can hit you in the solar-plexus (lots of "stun"),
or on the arm (very little "stun").  My proposal for changing
the stun multiplier to a fixed x3 is not intended to make killing
attacks more powerful.  What makes killing attacks powerfull
is the *variance*, not the average result.  By eliminating the
variance, KAs become *less* powerful.

-steve
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Old time D&D reminiscing
Date: 7 Jan 93 02:51:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Newt World Order

In article <1if472INNo4c@titan.ucc.umass.edu>, dunkelza@titan.ucc.umass.edu (KEITH C MCCORMIC) writes:
>   Eldritch Wizardry, Blackmoor, and Chainmail are NOT D&D.  They are the 
> fore-runners of it.  Those three books were published two or three years before
> the very first printing of D&D in 1974.  

Bzzzzt. Bzzzzt. Bing! Only one out three right. I started playing D&D
right after Greyhawk came out (in 75 or 76, I forget), and the D&D
collector's edition was already out. *Blackmoor* (which had the first
module, _temple of the frog_, and the first hit location rules, for
D&D), *Eldritch Wizardry* (which had the first artifacts), and Gods,
Demigods, and Heroes came out afterwards and filled out the D&D line,
along with *Chainmail*, which was actually published before D&D was.

So you are right that Chainmail came out before D&D, but Gygax claimed
that you needed it to run D&D so it is part of D&D. Of course he also
claimed you needed a copy of Avalon Hill's _Outdoor Survival_ game
(name?) to play D&D so you can take that with a grain of salt. However,
I was able to play D&D quite well using only the Chainmail fantasy man
to man rules once I already knew D&D and we did so quite a lot, getting
one "demon hunt" monty-haulish campaign through a lot of adventures in a
short time using those rules. So my experience would indicate that
perhaps Chainmail *is* D&D.

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: by670@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Marc-Eivind Cruz Evensen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Killing Attacks
Date: 10 Jan 1993 07:24:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


... One other thing (I finally found the orginal post) 6D6!?! That's quite
a punch. If you're not averaging pretty serious damage with that, I'd be
quite suprised. I don't quite see how the  2d6 autofire rka could average
better that your 6d6. According to autofire rules, you hit an additional
time for every 2 above the to hit number. This alone would make that rare
(to do 6d6) unless the sidekick were highly skilled. In addition to this, I
believe that the hits are resolved separately (2d6+2d6+2d6+..., not (n*2)d6
(n being number of hits)), this would make your apparent armor/defense problem even worst for your sidekick... I gues I just don't understand the problem in
this.
    One other note, self restraint is the hallmark of the successful HERO
system game -- if you begin escalation, it will not stop until everyone
gets bored of blowing up buildings whenever they want to kill a fly.

-- Marc
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: gm1116@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: net.hero.bestiary?
Reply-To: gm1116@albnyvms.bitnet
Organization: University of NY at Albany
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 07:47:56 GMT

My query is not whether it is legal or not, but why you consider it unethical?
If I bought their system, I should be able to create anything I want
and, as long as no one else has copyrighted something similiar, I should
be able to give it to anyone else I want(ethically).  Now, the legal
angle may be different, I'm just wondering about the ethical angle.
And what if they don't want to publish what I created or anything
similiar?  Am I still constrained ethically because they might, some day
in the future, wish to?

I still think it would be like saying that all the IBM-Pc clones that have 
been created(certaiinly VERY similiar to an IBM-Pc) are unethical since
if you buy a clone that is a potential lost sale for IBM.

On a related note, does anyone know if GDW has to/does get permission
from the company that produced the game system an article submitted to them
is based on(like say a Star Wars adventure) before they can/do publish
the article?

Again, except for the last question, I am concerned with the ethical, not
the legal, aspects of this.

Badger
to Dave

Gary A Mort
GM1116@albnyvms
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Norrish)
Subject: Re: Dead Systems (was Re: Dumb Moves By Game Companies)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Victoria Uni. of Wellington, NZ.
	<1992Dec31.024928.8878@trl.oz.au> <249@trident.datasys.swri.edu>
	<1iqil6INNdcq@escargot.xx.rmit.OZ.AU>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:46:25 GMT

>>>>> On 11 Jan 93 01:31:18 GMT, rrdjro@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Jonathan
>>>>> O'Donnell) said:

Jonathan> With reference to the reviews of The Fantasy Trip (TFT) that
Jonathan> have been posted lately...

Jonathan> It's amazing to see people playing systems that have been
Jonathan> unsupported for so long.  I think that it's great, but I
Jonathan> guess the new game producers disagree.

Jonathan> The people that I know who play TFT love it.  They figure
Jonathan> that the system satisfies all their needs, so why go futher?

Jonathan> Another example is Dragonquest.  There is a really strong
Jonathan> group of DQ fans here in Melbourne, Australia.  The have
Jonathan> done a lot of development work and even vanity published
Jonathan> their stuff so everyone has a manual.  It's great!

Jonathan> What other unsupported (dead) systems are people still
Jonathan> playing?

I'm not sure if it really qualifies as playing, but I still own and
semi-regularly 'ponder' :-) over a system published by Corgi in
paperback format called "Dragon Warriors". It has a nice feel to it in
that the rules are simple, but seem reasonably well justified, and it
also has some really nice mechanics, (in particular the system whereby
mystics run out of magic power).

Jonathan> Does the existance of mailing lists help these groups?  Or
Jonathan> do they diverge into different 'house rules' factions?

If there is anything of this sort for DW, I'd be pleased to see it.

Jonathan> Presumably, the biggest disadvantage is a lack of outside
Jonathan> ideas from published material.  What are the advantages?

A sense of 'you-against-the-world'.... :-)

Michael.
From: oliver@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Opinions being requested
Keywords: Villains and Vigilantes
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:14:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
NNTP-Posting-Host: bodie.cs.unc.edu

In article <1993Jan5.065809.21145@walter.cray.com> ffej@carina.cray.com (Jeff Nelsen) writes:
> .......
>        Instead the battle; which looked like certain death, (one player
>was even consoling another about having to make a new character) was won
>by an incredible stroke of luck!  The heroes captured the villain!
>
>        My question is this:  What should I do with the villain now?
>Trial and prison?  Break him out? Big escape?  Somethe else I have not
>thought of yet?  Ideas and opinions appreciated..
>


I don't know anything about Villains and Vigilantes, so if this sounds 
stupid within the genre, it probably is...

What about having the guy undergo some sort of "conversion," a la
Chuck Colson/Linda Lovelace/ etc.?  The bad guy sees the Light (however
defined), and, voila, becomes a good guy.

Now, this newly-made good guy could then become an ally of his/her
former enemies (whether they want it or not!), or a
patron, or a hanger-on.  He could be come a help or a general well-meaning
pain in the ass, depending on how you want to play it.

Think of it -- after going through all of this trouble to get this
guy, the heroes may find themselves having to pull his (rehabilitated) 
ass out of the fire.  

You could play it straight -- and make it an encouragement for the
good guys to try and turn enemies into assets instead of blowing
them away outright -- or you could play it for the irony -- and
make them end up helping or receiving help from the guy in spite of
themselves.

And, of course, it could all just be an act.....


Bill Oliver
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: mavra@cpac.washington.edu (Peter D. Adkison)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Dumb Moves By Game Companies
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.misc
Date: 07 Jan 93 15:12:10 GMT
Organization: Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
	<1992Dec31.001743.25722@netcom.com> <1462@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
	<PETRI.WESSMAN.93Jan7012146@lk-hp-11.hut.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bailey.cpac.washington.edu
In-reply-to: Petri.Wessman@hut.fi's message of 7 Jan 93 01:21:46

In article <PETRI.WESSMAN.93Jan7012146@lk-hp-11.hut.fi> Petri.Wessman@hut.fi (Petri Wessman) writes:

>   Yup. WotC (hi Peter!) managed to put their new company on the
>   electronic "map" very quickly, and their style of active interaction
>   with net roleplayers is very refreshing compared to most other
>   companies who more or less ignore electronic communications. Now, if
>   only ICE had someone on the net.... :-)

Also Loyd Blankenship for Steve Jackson Games, Greg Porter for BTRC,
and Dave Nalle for Ragnorak have been very active on the net.

Also, on other networks there are some very active gaming company
presences, including ICE.  Check out Genie, America Online, and
CompuServe sometime.  We're on AOL and we promote it quite heavily
(its mentioned in all our new products as the place to talk to us
electronically), and we hope to be on Genie and CompuServe once they
agree to give us an overhead account.

				--Mavra!
				  Peter D. Adkison
				  Janitor, Wizards of the Coast
				  mavra@wizards.com

The above internet address should be used for e-mail if it is
different from the e-mail address in the header.

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc