HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg)
Subject: Re: Board game design
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:05:04 GMT

In article <17353@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>I still monitor this group out of habit, but there seems to be nothing at all
>from board game designers or people who are interested in that topic.
>
>Is that topic covered by that group?  Is it worth posting on the subject or
>even bothering with this group if you aren't interested computer games or
>role-playing games?

Hmm...  I'd be interested in board game ideas; though I'm primarily inter-
ested in RPGs, I've been thinking about trying to come up with some board games
because they're less mentally taxing (and they're easier to playtest, I think).

What does it take to qualify as a board game?  I played Talisman a couple of
weeks ago for the first time, and I thought it was kinda neat.  I've been 
kinda playing in my head a "board game"...  A game based on the planetary
conquests of various forces; the board really only poses as a way of keeping
track of everyone; most of the gameplay is based on a card-game type of thing.

...Paul


-- 
+                +        +    +  + + +  +    +        +                +
  Paul Clegg, cleggp@aix.rpi.edu.   Project Galactic Guide Coordinator.
            System One RPG designer.   But generally unknown.
+                +        +    +  + + +  +    +        +                +
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: ericg@sopwith.ucs.indiana.edu (Eric C. Garrison)
Subject: Re: net.rpg:  mechanics
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:47:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.001923@IASTATE.EDU> cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald) writes:
>In response to Robert Bridson's article:
>
>Mechanic 1.)  Rolling 2d10 and multiplying the result.
>
>First, this would not allow all probabilities to be rolled.
>No prime number above a seven, and no number with prime number
>above seven as a factor, may be rolled using this method.
>This would mean that the probabilty distribution would be
>odd and, probably, difficult to determine.  This, in turn,
>would cause problems in determining the success criteria for
>given actions.  All in all, I would be against this usage.

In case anyone is curious, here is the breakdown I got by rolling
d10 * d10 one million times.  The result is followed by the percentage
of frequency to the nearest two places past the decimal.


Result 1: 1.00
Result 2: 2.01
Result 3: 2.01
Result 4: 2.98
Result 5: 1.99
Result 6: 3.97
Result 7: 2.00
Result 8: 4.01
Result 9: 3.00
Result 10: 4.02
Result 12: 4.00
Result 14: 2.00
Result 15: 2.02
Result 16: 2.98
Result 18: 4.02
Result 20: 3.99
Result 21: 2.01
Result 24: 3.97
Result 25: 1.00
Result 27: 2.00
Result 28: 2.01
Result 30: 4.00
Result 32: 2.01
Result 35: 2.01
Result 36: 2.97
Result 40: 4.01
Result 42: 2.01
Result 45: 2.03
Result 48: 2.01
Result 49: 1.01
Result 50: 2.00
Result 54: 2.00
Result 56: 1.97
Result 60: 1.97
Result 63: 1.98
Result 64: 0.99
Result 70: 2.00
Result 72: 2.02
Result 80: 2.00
Result 81: 1.00
Result 90: 2.02
Result 100: 1.00

Just got curious as to how the numbers would fall and thought
it might be interesting to anyone thinking of using this system.

Eric
From: apace@mta.ca
Subject: Re: net.rpg: A sample Design to Pick Apart
Reply-To: apace@mta.ca
Organization: Mount Allison U, Sackville, N.B. Canada 
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:37:09 GMT

	I have only one comment - I was about to suggest the very same thing 
myself. I must admit that the dice rolling part is
new to me. I like it! It's kind of like a security blanket for those who
can't quite bear the thought of role-playing without dice.
	We actually had a name for this "system" - Quest. One of my favorite
tricks was to let munchkin players go willd while creating their charracter.
Then I'd add a few fatal design flaws. "Sure you can have that 100% super-
accurate death gun..." Never said anything about batteries though.
	I'll lay bets that the above system will be more realistic, playable,
and fun than any net.rpg that you guys might eventually cobble together.

				-Tony Pace
				 apace@mta.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (T. Little)
Subject: Re: 3D map appearance in a computer game
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:58:40 GMT

mar@physics.su.OZ.AU (David Mar) writes:

[... Trying to display a 3D star map ...]

>And, well, that's about as far as I've gone. I'd like my game to cover
>on the order of 1000 star systems, and displaying this many on one map of
>_any_ sort will be no mean feat. So, ideas anyone?

That's rather a lot - the system I use is very similar to the computer game
Elite uses for its radar.  You show a coloured dot (say 2 pixels) for the
star in othogonal projection, and drop (or raise) a line (of same colour) to 
a 'baseplane'.

This works really well; unfortunately with lots of stars (more than about 50)
the 'height' lines get confused with those of other stars, and the impression
changes from a 3D map to a meaningless collection of vertical lines.

>What I'm really looking for is prospective game-player's opinions of how
>a map should look and be accessed in such a game. I'm writing for
>Macintosh, so options for pointing and clicking on various bits of the
>map are viable, although I'm not sure how one would implement 3-D scroll
>bars!

I expect you could use normal 'X,Y' scroll bars, and add a sloped (maybe even
perspective) 'Z' scroll bar.

>BTW, if anyone is interested in riding this game through development
>(ie. alpha/beta testing) drop me a line. It might take a little while to
>get to playable stage, but once there I'll be grateful for the help.

I have an Amiga (and no AMax Macintosh simulator) so no help there, sorry.
--
T. Little   a.k.a.   u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Net.rpg:Combat skills & damage
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:45:13 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: GE Power Generation

One thing I was thinking about earlier today from the net.rpg
FAQ list is the assertion that higher combat skills (i.e. better
combat results) should produce greater damage. At the same
time, however, folks generally seemed to want a "to hit" 
system that reflects hit location. I suggest that either one or
the other be used, not both. Consider: if someone stabs you
in the eye, it doesn't matter whether they're a skilled knight 
or an ignorant peasant. You're going to suffer the same (large)
amount of damage. What skill should affect is the *chance* to
hit someone in the eye. With hit locations, this is reflected in
penalties to hit someone in vital areas, with correspondingly 
greater damage when said vital areas are hit. Increased damage
based on result should be a fast and loose way to *simulate*
this effect without getting into area-specific damage.

Spike
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Random vs. Point Alloc CharGen
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 01:26:18 GMT

bell@pooh.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:

> Any idiot can generate a character randomly under a point allocation system
> -- although the reverse is not true -- so why are they objecting to point
> allocation systems on the grounds that they prefer randomness?

If you impose random generation on a PA system, you have a random generation
system.  Also, the latter (using a RG system to "build" a character from a
concept) is probably easier than the former.  See below for an explanation of
that.

> There are *other* reasons one might dislike point allocation; the need to
> number-crunch and the imbalances between supposedly equal characters, to
> name two.  But to object to point allocation systems on the grounds that
> one likes one's creative juices inspired by a little randomness seems
> specious to me.

The first two reasons don't bother me.  The latter is not specious; it is a
valid psychological preference.  Some painters like to paint images from
their minds; others prefer to paint things that exist, though their product
is a creative interpretation, rather than a direct copy.  Both painters are
creative, but neither will be happy being forced to use the other's preferred
method.

> The choice for the rules systems isn't selection versus randomness -- it's
> point-balanced versus random variance.  The two are *not* the same.

I haven't even considered the latter issue.  That's a topic for a completely
different discussion.  :)    The present discussion--as far as I'm
concerned--has been "start with character concept" vs "develop concept from
random numbers".

> But the GM dictates the base system.  If he/she dictates point allocation,
> the randomness preferrer can get out his/her dice.  If the GM dictates
> random rolling, however, and you prefer point allocation, you're out of
> luck.

I expect that the problem is close to equal difficulty both ways.  A PA
system lacks the weighing for each possibility.  It also only works until the
points run out (you can't "roll" a high last attribute if you've rolled high
earlier). The PA system can be used with dice, but the additions that make it
equivalent to a system designed for random generation make it no longer a PA
system.

I expect that the amount of work needed to convert a PA to a random
generation system is close to what it takes to assign point values to a
random generation system.

Actually, it's probably easier to use PA with an existing random generation
system, assuming that the players aren't min/maxers.  The players can simply
choose values for die rolls, then present the character to the GM for
judgement.  If a player was too greedy, the GM can reject the character.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: 3D map appearance in a computer game
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:55:41
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd, London Rd, Harlow, Essex, CM19 9NA, U.K.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.199.200.40
In-reply-to: torbenm@diku.dk's message of 11 Nov 92 15:49:28 GMT

Torben said that the elite people had patented that layout?!$  ie the grid with
lines attached.  This idea seems remarkably simple and obvious to stand as a 
patent.  Also they definately weren't the first to come up with it - I have a 
national geographic star chart which uses a cylinder instead of a grid.  
Again the stars connect via straight lines to the end of the cylinder - 
shown in perspective.  The star chart came out before elite ....

Still patent law is beyond me so maybe they could enforce that they were the
first to invent 3d perspective etc etc

Jonathan


--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  With fearsome eyes and fiery breath the dragon burnt the girl to death
                    -- from "Too Late Saint George"
From: torbenm@diku.dk (Torben AEgidius Mogensen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: 3D map appearance in a computer game
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:49:28 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

mar@physics.su.OZ.AU (David Mar) writes:

>One thorny point however, is the design of a map. Being the stickler for
>"realism" I am, I'd like a fully 3-D affair, which tends to be tricky to
>display on a computer screen.

One possibility is to use the design of the radar in "Elite" (not the
star map, which is disappointingly flat and even rectangular): You
have a perspective view of the stars and of a rectangular (flat) grid
which shows depth (and width at every level). Every star is joined by
a vertical line to the nearest point on the grid. This actually gives
a fairly good impression of the relative positions of the stars. One
point of warning, though: the designers of "Elite" have patented this
display style.

A variation of the "Elite" scheme which may be sufficiently different
to avoid the patent claim is to superimpose a 3D grid on the
perspective view, and connect stars to the nearest of the 4 enclosing
"walls" in the grid (left, right, top or bottom, but not front and
back as you can't "see" where they end). This will also avoid some of
the problems the "Elite" scheme has when vertical lines coinside.

Another possibility is rotating maps (this requires continual motion
to be usable, and also needs some depth cue to avoid "swapping" the
close and far points. Depth cues can either be dot intensity/size or
perspective projection rather than rectangular projection).
Alternatively you can use stereo images, but this requires either
special (e.g. red/green) glasses to see, or requires the user to cross
his/her eyes to merge the images, which some people find very hard to
do.

	Torben Mogensen (torbenm@diku.dk)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Lamb)
Subject: Net.rpg - "modularity"
Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:27:11 GMT

In article <Nov.10.19.13.45.1992.484@thorogood.rutgers.edu> morrow@thorogood.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) writes:
>(Spike) writes:
>>6) What do you plan to do with this monster when you're done? If you have
>>     multiple methods of handling combat, wounds, etc. you might think about
>>     saving rules chunks as "modules," allowing players to create their *own*
>>     systems from your components.
>
>Why write rules if you are going to ask the players to design rules?  Also,
>see the comments about "scaled" systems above.  The same goes for modules
>UNLESS you have "Combat Module A" and "Combat Module B", both of which
>are different and incompatable which you MUST choose up front.
>

Having players/GM's create a game from components is *not* the same as
having players write rules.  Instead the players/GM's are choosing
particular implementations from a list, and perhaps choosing values
for some parameters.  Thus:
a. There can be 2 "character creation" modules, one "build your own
   character concept" and one "random generation".  The mechanics of
   play AFTER character creation don't care which choice you make
   here.
b. In a point-based "buy-your-skills" character creation, the number
   of points players get to fiddle with is a parameter - all the
   point-based systems (Hero, GURPS, etc.) let you choose your "power
   level" by choosing how many points people get to fiddle with.
c. In an experience point system, the rate of advancement is a
   parameter: suggested number of points per adventure, per playing
   hour, per neat idea, etc. are all GM-settable parameters.
As with many respondents I've been working on my own system;  an important
goal has been to make the system modular (I'm actually trying to apply
some ideas from software engineering, where modularity of systems is
important for flexibility and ease of change).
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg:  mechanics
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:11:59 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: GE Power Generation

> 
> 2.  Use a standard deck of 52 cards (although you may even want to keep the 
> jokers - let them have special meanings), or two packs shuffled together.  
> Players either flip a card from the top of the deck for a "roll" of 1-13, 
> or actually are dealt hands, from which they choose what card for each
> "roll" - strategy is introduced!  Jokers might have special meanings, as 
> may the different suits, on top of their 1-13 value.  Maybe you can play a 
> Heart for someone else's hand (eg. a friend plays a 9.  You decide to help 
> her out, by adding your 5 of Hearts to her 9; she now has a total of 14.).  
> Maybe a Club means you can play another of your cards in combination with 
> the current one.  You get the idea.  You would need playtesting (and maybe 
> a statistical analysis to help) to figure out the best hand-size (or maybe 
> each character has a stat like Luck for number of cards in hand?!), how 
> often to refresh the hand, whether trades are allowable, whether discard/
> pick up new card is legal, etc.
>     I tihnk the GM should have a deck of his own.  Also, to retain some 
> element of surprise in the results (and maybe good-natured bluffing between 
> opponents?), both parties get to play a card, when it's a competitive 
> situation.  Also, a degree of success needs to be taken into account, 
> otherwise the strategy isn't so important - so that there is an advantage 
> to playing a really high card, even though you have a smaller one that 
> would still guarantee success.
> 
> Guess which mechanic I'm in favour of? :-)
> 
>     --- Robert Bridson (using the account of JBRIDSON)

This was one of the things that I really like about Torg. Actually, I like
the Torg mechanics a lot - combining dice rolling to resolve actions with
cards to control the flow of the *plot*. However, Torg isn't nearly
realistic
for me. No hit locations, for one.

Spike (Not Jones)

No sig - I've *got* to program my reader to insert a sig; this
is beginning to get tiresome! :-(
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: mavra@cpac.washington.edu (Peter D. Adkison)
Subject: net.rpg and Envoy
Organization: Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:01:59 GMT

Whoops, I didn't put the entire internet address down in my previous
post.  if you'd like to subscribe to the Envoy discussion, write to
experts-l-request@wizards.com.  Sorry about the confusion.

				--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.design
From: colin.buckley@rose.com (colin buckley)
Subject: 3D map appearance in
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 10:47:04 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 11-12-92 05:42
F(>This is a topic I'd like to see some discussion on (the glasses, not the eye
  >crossing :-).   I was trying to create a "3-d" look, using the same
  >techniques used on paper -- red/blue glasses looking at a double-imposed
  >red/blue-green image.  However, at least on the computer screen, I wasn't abl
  >to duplicate the effect.  I know I used the same colors (12 bit color here),
  >but it just didn't seem to work.  Anyone had any success with this?

The authors of FRACTINT (an IBM Fractal generator) tell you start close to the
screen, stair for a while and gradually move back until you see the depth.
The distance you must be depends on the distance between the red image and the
overlaping blue image or vice versa.

I don't know if I see 3D or not when I try.  Sometimes I think I see it
further inside or outside the monitor, but I might just be trying to convince
my self.  If the dame image would move at me I could tell by a duck reflex...
.----------------------------------------------------.
| Colin Buckley                                      |
| Toronto, Ontario, Canada                           |
| InterNet: colin.buckley@rose.com                   |
|                                                    |
| So Eager to Play, So Relunctant to Admit it...     |
`----------------------------------------------------'
---
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Net.rpg - General comments
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:40:17 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: GE Power Generation

In article <1992Nov11.161511.7521@odin.diku.dk>, torbenm@diku.dk (Torben
AEgidius Mogensen) wrote:
> 
> Anyway, I doubt I would play any system designed by a large collection
> of people (the aforementioned comittee effect). Some friends and I
> once tried to design a rpg, but we never finished due to lack of
> agreement over basic mechanical issues. I think the rpg's that
> generally play well are mostly designed by one or possibly two
> persons. What would you expect from a novel written by 25 people?
> 
> 	Torben Mogensen (torbenm@diku.dk)
>
It all depends upon whether you have a competent editor. Consider the
Wild Cards series (which is, in fact, written by about 25 people, but not 
all at once :-)  I think, to make net.rpg work, you should elect someone 
to be the ombudsman, whose job it is to Just Say No.

> P.S.
> I find (moderate) discussion of various aspects of mechanics and style
> interesting, but I would prefer each designer to choose what he/she
> likes best, rather than all trying to reach an agreement of what is
> "best".

I can see things boiling down to this.

BTW, I agree with many of the things you said in your reply. To the point 
re: d6, I confess that I am learning to hate the 3d6 bell curve. I would
like
to add, though, that I think net.rpg should at least stick to only one type
of
die.

Spike (As Usual, Not Jones)
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Board game design
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:01:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: charnel.1duk8eINN4h1
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: guzzler.ecst.csuchico.edu

Bruce Harper writes:
>I still monitor this group out of habit, but there seems to be nothing at all
>from board game designers or people who are interested in that topic.
>
>Is that topic covered by that group?  Is it worth posting on the subject or
>even bothering with this group if you aren't interested computer games or
>role-playing games?

Hmm, with the new rec.games.abstract, people there are talking as well
about game designs.  as for the sudden resurgence of rpg design, I'd
say that this is a brief flash.  It was mostly very dead for a long
time on that topic.

As for board game designs, I'd say the first step would be to post some
article that generates thought and/or responses.  You'll probably get
something going before long.

-- 
Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers.
		-- Leonard Brandwein
From: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: 3D map appearance in a computer game
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:21:32 GMT
Reply-To: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au

mar@physics.su.OZ.AU (David Mar) writes:

>What I'm really looking for is prospective game-player's opinions of how
>a map should look and be accessed in such a game.

A rotatible map is VERY easy for the mind to grasp, especially if colour
(or dot size) can be used to give greater depth perception.  If more
detailed information needs to be displayed, simply zoom in, and move the
centre-of-rotation.

--
Warwick
--
  _-_|\      warwick@cs.uq.oz.au            /Disclaimer:
 /     * <-- Computer Science Department,  /  
 \_.-._/     University of Queensland,    /   C references are NULL && void*
      v      Brisbane, Australia.        /  
Newsgroups: rec.games.design