HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Psionics
Date: 25 Jul 92 19:25:54 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu (Brandon Cope) writes:

> Most games I've seen generally do this (treat it[psionics] as a science); any
> 'inconsistancies' are easily explained by some races being more 'psychically
> aware' than others.

That's mere handwaving.  The "explanations" don't include a plausible
scientific explanation for why a basic force (along the lines of gravity and
the strong nuclear force) in the universe can't be detected on instruments, yet
can be detected and controlled by a sack of electrochemical activity (a brain).
The common way around this is to claim that there is something special about
life or sentient life.  This translates as "magic".

The way I see it, if you postulate a previously unknown force/effect--something
that can be detected/controlled through some odd quantum mechanical effect--and
work that into your game as FTL, instantaneous communication or whatever, that
can be SF.  If you want to add "wish fulfillment" powers for characters, like
those old childhood desires ("I wish I could be somewhere just by thinking it."
"I wish I could know what that person was thinking."  "I wish I could kill
someone with just a thought."), and then wrap it in pseudo-scientific
explanations, then it's fantasy.

It's like the present discussion about Battlemech: the point of the game is to
have giant suits of powered armour beating each other up, not to extrapolate
reasonable technological advances.  That the game includes some high-technology
trappings does not make it a SF rpg.  Along the same lines, using a term like
"a previously unknown force, controlled by a sentient being's lifeforce" rather
than "spirit magic" does not make psionics science fiction instead of fantasy.
The intent of the "powers" determines whether it is SF or fantasy.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: tomscud@owlnet.rice.edu (Thomas Reid Scudder)
Subject: Re: HERO vs. GURPS
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:12:31 GMT

In article <Bs27t8.Mx3@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> joshua salter <jsalter@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>
>	Which is better, (and for what)? HERO or GURPS?

AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

RUN AWAY!  RUN AWAY!  RUN AWAY!

Where's my kill file when I need it?

sigh

Tom Scudder
tomscud@owlnet.rice.edu
From: A@A
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: The BEST Superhero game
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:24:26 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <thornt_g.711772199@kultarr> thornt_g@cs.uwa.oz.au (Sebastian Nobwit  
DeLaBler) writes:
>M E Campbell writes:
>
>> I'm sorry, but I refuse to play a game that cannot support a character
>> walking across a room.
>> There are two characters in a room  10 AP across. One can move at 2 AP
>> a turn, the other can move at 3 AP. How many ap of time does it take for
>> them to meet??
>
>> If you can explain this to me without going into higher mathematics, I'll
>> buy the system.
>
>Ok, howabout this:
>I assume you mean the characters are on opposite sides of the room and are
>walking towards each other.
>Add each character's movement speed together. 2 AP's + 3 AP's would probably 
>still fall into the 3 AP range, but I would make it 4. 10 AP's of distance
>at 4 AP's of speed would take 6 AP's of time. There you go. Maths worthy
>of an Honour's degree.

Better yet the one walking at 3AP's is walking twice as fast as the on walking  
2 APs, so covering twice as much ground in the same time.  Simeple algebra:
2x+x=3x.  The room is 10AP's across and so it is 8AP's more or 250 times what  
the character can walk in one AP of time (4 secs )  250 /3 = 83; 83 is near 64  
rounds which is 6 AP's ( 7 if you want to pick )

> [stuff deleted]
>So, does this mean you'll buy it?
>
I've already bought it and no I wouldn't.  I've already run a campaign in it, 
and I wouldn't.

>nobwit@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: Psionics
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:28:51 GMT

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>mar@physics.su.OZ.AU (David Mar) writes:
>> In my game, psionics _does_ exist because of another basic force in the
>> universe. I don't have a detailed explanation of exactly what that force is
>> or how it interacts with other things (mainly because I can't be bothered
>> trying to write down some consistent equations and trying to solve them).
>
>Doesn't that make it fantasy, rather than science fiction? I think the general
>consensus is that science fiction is the extrapolation of an actual or 
>imagined science or technology on society.  If you don't have an explanation 
>for the science (psionics), then how can you extrapolate properly from it? 
>In the extreme case, the effects are applied for reasons other than extra-
>polation, with a weak attempt to claim that it is still SF. 

	Wait a minute - you're saying the only valid 'science fiction' is 
that which attmept to extrapolate the future as realistically as possible? 
(Qualified by making certain assumptions.)

	I'd disagree strongly with this. Science fiction is fiction which 
uses the excuse of science/technology to introduce elements that often 
would otherwise be fantasy. The purpose of SF is not solely to investigate 
possibilities of the future. You don't need to have a PhD and to have 
rigorously proven your ideas to write it. 

	'Hard' SF is the sort which is rigorous in its science. 'Soft' SF 
is less concerned with the scientific details/proof, and is willing to 
introduce reasonable elements without documentation. 

	Anyhow, fairly rigorous ESP experiments have produced positive results 
which have not yet been explained. This is not to imply that I believe in ESP, 
but extrapolating from that is not fundamentally different from extrapolating 
from other phenomena which do not yet have a successful model - like the 
17KeV neutrino or high-temperature superconductivity. If something has a 
higher temperature superconductor than what we have at present, then it is 
invalid in the same way that psionics is - because you can't give a working 
model for why.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "All the world will be your enemy, Prince with
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | a Thousand Enemies. And if they catch you, 
Columbia University         | they will kill you."            - Watership DOwn
From: gharris@jade.tufts.edu (George W. Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: The late, lamented Iron Crown...
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:40:28 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA
Originator: gharris@jade.tufts.edu

In article <RANNOU.92Jul21223546@zuse.info.polymtl.ca> Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou) writes:
>
>Well, the fact isn't that TSR sucks or not... It is that ME licensing going
>to TSR would mean that all those D&D players would suddenly have access to
>yet another book(s) to buy, and thus Tolkien would make far more money that
>way...

	Well, aside from the fact that ol' JRR is dead, you also have the 
serious possibility that TSR would do to RM & Hero what they did to Dragon-
Quest after they ran SPI out of business: issue limited runs every 7 years 
to keep the trademarks fresh, and publish no supporting materials at all.
Why?  Because it's so much easier to publish endless dreck for their cash
cow.

>Patrick Rannou.
>| Rannou@info.polymtl.ca    |
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
prunes than rhubarb does."              -Groucho Marx 

gharris@jade.tufts.edu          George Harris, Tufts Univ. Dept. of Mathematics
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Subject: Re: Hero System for anything but supers
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:56:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.021151.178@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>> Hold it, 15 is hardly an "average" weapon skill in GURPS.  I suspect you've
>> seen some real power-gamers at it with GURPS, since I've RARELY seen a
>> starting character with even ONE stat of 15, and never played one with a
>> stat of 15... and I've been playing GURPS for about four years.
>
>	About the only time I've seen 15+ for starting characters in a combat
>skill is either for a Guns-type skill (that gets an IQ bonus) or a character 
>based on 150 or more points.
>	I *always* make sure I have a literate character. I tend to balance
>stats on characters, with most running from 11-13 (I spend about 60-80 points
>on stats).

Hmmm...

Generally, I design characters with either a DX or IQ of 15 (depending
on whether the character is more combat or thinking oriented).  Of course,
I tend to pile it on in stats and advantages for beginning characters (the
most logical approach, I feel, given the GURPs experience rules).  Thus,
I usually end up spending 130-140 points on stats and advantages and buy
all of my skills at the 1/2 point level.  I thus end up with skills
at the 13-14 level initially, but I but up my important ones to 15 real
soon.

Joe Dzikiewicz
dzik@access.digex.com
From: A@A
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Martial Arts: Which system is the best...
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:18:57 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <1992Jul16.215414.16834@news.unomaha.edu> PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu  
(FALL88) writes:
>covin@tartarus.uchicago.edu writes:
>[ stuff deleted ]
> 
>>  My impression was that the rules were intended as an option for 1) GM's to  
>>easily design their own styles, if they wished; 2) Extremely  
>>mature/game-balance-oriented players to design their own styles, with GM  
>>permission, if the GM wished to allow such; or 3) heavily munchkinized games.
>
>Yes, the rules state that.  That's what I meant by 'do as I say, not as I
>do.'  They tell you this, then proceed to design their mongoose style.  Game
>rules are driven by example.
>
>My comment is just why not make a set of rules that would allow style 
>building without having to introduce unbalancing mechanics?  I've seen
>several just as good systems for martial arts, none of which had the
>same possible abuse factor.  It can be done.
>
>-james

That's like saying that a sewer worker *accidentally* left the manhole cover  
off, so I have to walk into the manhole.  "It was there in my path."  
Yes I can understand being fooled once into trying the martial arts design  
rules.  But to some people it doesn't matter what kind of disclaimer Hero puts  
on things, ( the disclaimer was pretty CLEAR, IMO )  And to some it doesn't  
matter if there is a stop sign or a magnifying glass ---" it doesn't say 'DON'T  
USE THIS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!', and so I can use it in my game, and if I  
don't like it, well then Hero is just a bad system."

See, I think that with anybody that plays Hero, they like the fact that Hero  
tries to let you do as much as you can with their rules, so they don't give you  
stock martial arts ( although in DI, they did ), instead they allow you to  
design your own martial art.  Hero knows that the system is not watertight, and  
so they put the mag-glass there to WARN the players.  Now, we can be curious  
and try the system, but to say that it is Hero's fault because they allowed us  
to do what we did, just doesn't wash.  ( I've seen alot of this " the  
Magnifying Glass didn't properly warn me" stuff in this group for a while now.)

Also, James, you say that a system can allow you to build your own martial arts  
styles, without the abuse.  That may be true, but will it allow you to build  
fantastical MA-styles as well, for all spin-off genres: cyber martial arts?  
starflung alien martial arts? those ridiculous ninja movies?  And if we limit  
all martial arts to the same effects, don't we kinda get the same martial art  
over and over again, seeing that the Hero way is to differentiate by the kind  
of maneuver and not the maneuver itself?

Oh well...
John J Cassidy		Cassidy@cps.msu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88)
Subject: Re: HERO vs. GURPS
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:17:25 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu writes:

> A few things: GURPS scaled attribute costs are only appropriate in human
> normal type games, where the law of diminishing returns is in effect.  On
> a simple play-balance basis, it's not so important, and not really a big
> issue in the high-fantasy and superhero games.  Also, due to the fact that
> each effect is scaled, not the final result, it just becomes a point-
> cruncher's wonderland as players discover buying a little bit of everything
> instead of lots of one.  For example, if you want to build a 'people person'
> the best way to go about it is to get the +1 level of everything.  You final
> result, the reaction bonus, is *not* scaled.  Therefore, this seeming 
> strength of GURPS can be pretty easily loused up anyway.

Mistake in the delivery of the last part, about building the people person.
The reaction bonuses are, in themselves linear.  However, they help out some
skills, that in total are fairly expensive.  A design I saw in a GURPS 
Humanx game (built by a real point munchkin) was:

INT 13 (right up to the break point)
skills each bought up to the 2 pt level
Advantages helping the skills after that

Which pretty soundly defeated the point of diminishing returns.  Of course,
the maturity of this guy and his friends (they were 25-30 or so) was quite
questionable.  One of them boasted about her super-armor, this guy about his
super-manipulativeness, and the last about his super-speed.  Funny, the last
one threatened to kill my character just because I had the same DX/HT/running
as him (he considered it to be his special super-formula, I considered it to
be obvious).  They weren't into much roleplaying, to say the least.

-james
Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.advocacy:1353 rec.games.frp.dnd:2225
From: marrou@cs.ucf.edu (Lance R. Marrou)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: 10% XP bonus
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:05:59 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

Well, those characters with higher stats usually "learn" more than
other characters.  What you are proposing is to advance the 
"weaker" characters faster.  For example, two 1st level mages, one
with an 18 INT and the other with a 14 INT start out together.
Later, many years down the road, the one with a 14 INT will become
an ArchMage before the other.  Sound reasonable? Not!  To _best_
simulate (while keeping things easy) a character with better
attributes learning faster, we give them a 10% bonus.  What I 
don't understand is why some classes don't get any bonus.

Lance R. MArrou
marrou@ist.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: mperry@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Psionics
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:06:51 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <13871@mindlink.bc.ca>, Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:


> Neural
> network theory is quite new, but it is not hard to draw plausible projections
> of its abilities.  I expect that in a few years there will be AI's equivalent
> to insects, and within a few decades, AI's equivalent to small animals.  How
> long to a sentient AI?  I don't know; the projections aren't capable of showing
> that...yet.

Who suggests that small animals are not sentient? Don't be fooled into thinking
that small animals are not sentient, they are often intelligent, can conducted
reasoned thought, but are catergorised by you - a mere human.

What is required to become classed as sentient?
A claim that ones self is!
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: buzzsaw@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael Elias Campbell)
Subject: Re: The BEST Superhero game
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:45:10 GMT

In article <thornt_g.711687055@kultarr> thornt_g@cs.uwa.oz.au (Sebastian Nobwit DeLaBler) writes:
>
>I don't get it? How can anyone even THINK that ANY superhero
>game comes ANYWHERE NEAR the all-time, ultimate, super-supremo
>game --  
>
>	DDDDD       CCCCC   !!
>	D    D     C        !!
>	D     D   C         !!
>	D     D   C         !!
>	D     D   C         !!
>	D     D   C         !!
>	D    D     C
>	DDDDD       CCCCC   !!
>
>Come on, folks! You just CAN'T beat it! It's got everything!
>
 I'm sorry, but I refuse to play a game that cannot support a character
 walking across a room.

 "What are you talking about?" You ask?? Well take a look at this:

 There are two characters in a room  10 AP across. One can move at 2 AP
 a turn, the other can move at 3 AP. How many ap of time does it take for
 them to meet??

 If you can explain this to me without going into higher mathematics, I'll
 buy the system.
From: laird@think.com (Laird Popkin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: HERO vs. GURPS
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:19:44 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: django.think.com

In article <1992Jul30.204437.6268@news.unomaha.edu> PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88) writes:
>In <4817@armltd.uucp> dseal@armltd.co.uk writes:
>
>> >And, contrary to GURPS belief, realism hardly makes a system 'universal.'
>> 
>> I don't think this is "GURPS belief". GURPS frequently abandons realism for
>> the sake of universality - simple examples being magic and psionics. The
>> main emphasis on realism in GURPS is not really on being realistic all the
>> time, but on knowing when you are being realistic and when you're not (e.g.
>> consider the emphasis in GURPS Martial Arts and some others on telling you
>> when a skill/advantage/whatever is "cinematic"). Knowing this is useful: it
>> helps tell both the GM and the players when they can rely on their common
>> sense, and when they may have to think out exactly how the world works.
>
>In the rundown of the word GURPS (Generic Universal Role Playing System), when
>it gets to the word Universal, GURPS boldly declares that it is Universal 
>because it is realistic.  No joke.  Right out of the front of my GURPS book.
>(Admittedly, 3rd ed, but I don't think GURPS philosophy has changed in 1 ed.)
>This is the base of GURPS: being realistic makes you able to make correct
>decisions, which leads to being universal.  I obviously think that this is
>a crock of shit.

So you are saying that an RPG which can't model reality decently is more
universal?

Basing an RPG on modeling the real world decently (with extensions such as
magic, psionics, etc., handled in a 'believable' way) seems like a pretty
good foundation.  GURPS doesn't limit you to playing 'realistic' campaigns,
but it does do a good job of making it clear when you're being 'cinematic',
so you can consciously decide what sort of campaign you want to play.  That
sounds pretty universal.

GURPS doesn't claim to be completely universal -- it's clearly overkill for
something as "silly" as Toon, and it doesn't help chess players at all.
GURPS' "universality" is that it can handle any RPG genre in which it makes
sense to try to model things in a 'believable' manner.

>-james

- Laird


-- 
- Laird Popkin, Thinking Machines

Connection Machine: Massively parallel supercomputer.  Also a cool black
cube with more blinking lights than you can shake a stick at.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Psionics
From: a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:51:33 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <13681@mindlink.bc.ca>, Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
> (sjm8118@ritvax.isc.rit.edu) writes:
> 
>> Does anyone else out there think that psionics is the copout of a SF world
>> designer that cannot work within the framework of his own SF world's
>> technology to provide a good story/adventure?
> 
> I don't think it's a cop-out for that reason.  I think it's often a cop-out in
> terms of tacking on some psi rules simply because other games have psi rule
> sections (and just as bad, and tacked on for the same reason).  I haven't seen
> psionics included properly in a game, whereby they are an integral part of the
> rules and background.

	Offhand, the best example I can think of are the Flinx books by
Alan Dean Foster, which are covered in GURPS Humanax, of psionics that are
intregral to the plot (the main character is a telepath). 

> 
> Psionics, as offered in many games, would have major implications for many
> facets of everyday life.  It would have social, political, economic,
> technological and military implications.  It would be on the order of us
> discovering a way to use quantum mechanics to send instantaneous messages, or a
> way to control gravity with a small, low-power device.  Does any rpg reflect
> this?

	In the above sourcebook, I believe psionics are not well liked by the
establishment (big surprise, huh?), so generally powers are kept secret. I 
don't think things are as bad as in the Traveller universe, where psi use is,
for all practical purposes, illegal. 

> Besides, the way psionics is usually treated in games and books, it's fantasy
> (magic) and not science.  If you want it as a science, you'd have to provide an
> adequate scientific explanation and make the effects of those "new forces"
> apply consistently throughout the universe.

	In a recent issue of Challenge (well, about a year ago...), there was
an article on how people on low-tech worlds (4-) could use psionics, among
other things, to effectively duplicate magic.
	
	Most games I've seen generally do this (treat it as a science); any 
'inconsistancies' are easily explained by some races being more 'psychically 
aware' than others.

Brandon Cope