HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Stelter)
Subject: Re: State of the art
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:02:44 GMT

dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) writes:

>And on another topic...

>Someone held up TORG as an example of the new State of the Art?

>That was a joke, right?  TORG is a horrible game system.  The setting is 
>fairly neat, but again, if we're looking for State of the Art mechanics,
>TORG isn't very realistic, is rather restrictive and dictatorial, and 
>isn't actually all that playable.

Flame on!    :)

Torg is not meant to be a realistic game; the rules state quite explicitly
that the rules system is meant to simulate the cinematic action of 
adventure films.  It's not a great game for wargamer-types or other folks
who enjoy real-world logic, granted; but if you're enjoy running adventures
in the Rambo/Star Wars/Indiana Jones vein, Torg is definitely the way to go.

As for the assertion that Torg "isn't actually all that playable," I guess
all I can say is that a lot of us have been playing Torg for years, and we
have come to the conclusion that it IS playable.  In fact, I have yet to
find a rules system that is more flexible (in that just about everything
a character could want to do--especially in combat--is covered by the
rules somewhere) and free of restrictions (in that the rulebook stresses
that the GM should ignore any rules that he doesn't approve of, and that
it actually gives guidelines as to how the GM can wing it more effectively).

I agree with the people who maintain that the term "state of the art" is
meaningless when applied to the gaming industry.  However, Torg definitely
is a groundbreaking game in that it introduces a whole bunch of new and
revolutionary concepts, particularly the Drama Deck and the Infiniverse.
One can therefore classify it as "state of the art" (in the sense of 
"new and different," regardless of whether or not one finds the system
worthwhile.  For example, I admit that Amber is definitely a spectacular
and thought-provoking departure from the RPG norm, and thus a "state of
the art" game, even though I think the game itself is pig doots.  :)


                                          --Steve Stelter
                                            sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: State of the art
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:03:59 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

>Well, my vote goes to Jorune... (not that I've even seen the third
<edition, but if it's as good as second edition, then heck, it deserves
>a mention

I'm afraid the third edition is a bit of a disappointment.  It's got lots
of added background material incorporated (Ardoth and Burdoth are added in),
but the mechanics have not been improved as much as one would have hoped.

The great thing about Jorune has always been the world background, and it's
definitely one of the best settings ever marketed. But plainly put, the 
mechanics are inadequate.  They're way behind anything resembling the state
of the art, though they aren't as bad as something like AD&D.

And on another topic...

Someone held up TORG as an example of the new State of the Art?

That was a joke, right?  TORG is a horrible game system.  The setting is 
fairly neat, but again, if we're looking for State of the Art mechanics,
TORG isn't very realistic, is rather restrictive and dictatorial, and 
isn't actually all that playable.

Dave
From: wildcard@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: shadowrun and Death.
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:10:58 GMT
Organization: Mankato State University

In article <1992Sep30.030321.18283@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, brehob@plantain.cps.msu.edu (Mark W Brehob) writes:
> I have only played SR on and off.  I don't know if this is covered in 2nd  
> edition rules, but the game system seems to be bad when it comes to dieing
> (Yes the whole 1st edition combat had problems...)  It looks like a mage,  
> with a treat deadly can save any char. after any hit.  One could get torn  
> apart by a heavy MG and still be treatable.  Am I missing something or is  
> this a game design flaw?
> Brehob

According to the new rules, a mage can only heal a number of boxes equal to the
number of successes he/she gets.  This makes for instant healing to be a whole
lot harder.  Take a good look at the treat and heal spells.

Thanx for letting me babble,
Th Foss
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: kucloak@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bryan Kennedy Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: SRUN1/2: Problem of Too Much Combat?
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:55:34 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Oct4.021745.12231@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, dmgirard@nyx.cs.du.edu (David Girardot) writes:
> 
> 
> Something always bothered me about srun, that is, that combat is a real
> big part of it.  Yes, I know the alternatives ... and corp/street
> intrigues are a good alternative.  However, here is the problem: I don't
> know of any introductory adventures in this vein.  I mean, there alre
> less-combat oriented adventures, but these usually end up in a big
> blow-out at the end.  The other problem is that much of character creation
> is combat oriented.   I mean, the big issue in char. design, as far as I
> have seen, is how much damage can I do how fast.  The combat-mentality is
> partially the heritage of rpg's ... wargames.  I mean, let's face it, the
> point of DnD was originally fighting bigger and better monsters to get
> bigger and better treasures.  And I think a detailed combat system just
> makes things worse.  IMHO, a combat system that's fast-and-loose is more
> than likely going to be found in a system in which combats are not the
> central isssue.
> 
> Well I have started another campaign and I've laid the wrong groundwork
> already.  The two chars made are walking machines of destruction.  At
> least I can impose realistic legal restrictions on gear ... but I doubt
> even that is going to be enough to get the players to think before leaping
> into a firefight.  The other problem is that I've been conditioned so that
> even I subconciously or not so subconciously want some good fights in a
> game.  Let's face it, it really helps move things along.
> 
> Oh well, twas a long strange road.  Any suggestions or comments would be
> helpful.  THanks.
> 
> --David
> 
> --
>                     dmgirard@nyx.cs.du.edu
>                  Girardot@Vax.Dickinson.Edu

Well, I think that second edition goes a long way toward solving this
problem.  Combat is so deadly now, only a real fool would go looking
for it.  If you send up characters against an equally matched group of
badguys, their medical bills may start costing more that what they are
getting paid.  Check out the Treat/Heal spell in second edition.  If
you are really hurt, it probably won't heal you all the way, and in
really doesn't work at all on the really cybered ones.  

Our team was never really combat oriented; we prefer the sneaky,
underhanded approach.  But I can say now after our first second
edition firefight, that the best idea now is when the drek starts
flying, find something big and bulletproof to hide beind.  (And now in
2nd edition, not even trolls are bulletproof.)
-- 
		
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Invincibility depends on one's self;	   kucloak@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
  The enemy's vulnerability on him.	    bkreed@oread.cc.ukans.edu
 		  --Sun Tzu 		      Bryan Kennedy Reed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: cm182s182@pdrome.UUCP (Clayton Miner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: State of the art
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:18:23 GMT
Organization: The PowerDrome BBS [(716)825-3614 Excelsior]
X-BBS-Software: EXCELSIOR! v0.960

Regading TORG:  My only complain was the need to go out and buy $114.00 worth 
of suplements to find out what was really going on...
 
Skeksis
Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.advocacy:2575 rec.games.frp:25202
From: peterw@cs.man.ac.uk (Peter Wake)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Storyteller System (Was:  WereVamp->Ars)
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:19:36 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

In article <1992Oct5.140518.8028@news.uiowa.edu>, durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.102220.3452@crc.ac.uk> aking@crc.ac.uk (Mr. A.W. King) writes:
>>Just a quick note, the following is not true:
>
>>You can never have more than ten dice in one roll.
>
>>Celerity adds to Dex and Potence to Strength so e.g. Dex(5)+Skill(3)+Cel(3)=11
>
>Yes, but the rules state that you can never use more than ten dice
>in a roll.  In the example you use, you'd be able to use that extra 
>die to try and do something else, or split the dice pool, perhaps.
>But you can't roll eleven dice at once.

The onnnly answer to this is that it is such a sill rule that you should
throw it away to start with...  So the Methuslah is onlu allowed to use
ten dice.  Say she (sic) has Str 7, Potence 5 for 13 she can only use
ten of her dice at once.  The same as Joe Tough with Str 5 and Potence 5.
How is this good?  This rules answer merely aggravates the problem.
'Powerful' characters have it bad enough without such a rule.

Powerful characters are not as powerful as they 'ought' to be because
rule glitches foul them up.  It's pretty easy to make difficulty 10s,
see my example in my first post.  You can make a *starting* character
that you have to roll a 10 to wound.  Give him Willpower 9 or 10 and
he can slug it out with Chicago's finest, give him a few XPs and
Protean and he will rip them to pieces.  Sure society will get him
eventually, but you shouldn't be able to make such a character
(that makes the rules fall apart) so easily.
--
Peter Wake
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: uplink@cwis.unomaha.edu (John M. Scheibeler)
Subject: Re: Super rp's
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:55:20 GMT

	Times like this make me wish I knew GURPS well enough to know what 
you were talking about. :)

	As far as I can understand, Champions has a very similar mechanic,
Defensive Combat Value.  In the game, it is possible to get a high enough
Defensive Combat Value (or DCV) that no directed attacks will hit you.
	What's the answer?  Area-effect attacks.  Attacks that hit a wide
area are going to be too large for an individual to dodge, no matter
how high his ability to dodge.  And a person who has spent enough points
to increase his DCV to this ungodly level usually skimps on more important
things, like Defenses.
	Now, in GURPS, this should translate, but from what I've read of
GURPS Supers (the 1st-ed. G-Supers sourcebooks Super Scum and ... I
want to say Super Studs but it's the book of Heroes GURPS published at
the same time as Super Scum) area-effect attacks are costly and might
not be seen as often as they are in Champions.

	Now, a message to Mr. Blankenship:

	I tried sending you mail, but my mail came back to me for some
reason.  I'd like to know if there's any truth to the rumor that
SJ Games is interested in buying Hero Games from I.C.E.?  I heard this
from Fredd Gorham, who lives near me, and whom I chat with on a semi-
regular basis.

uplink

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell)
Subject: Re: Storyteller System (Was:  WereVamp->Ars)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:17:40 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa

In article <1992Oct5.181936@cs.man.ac.uk> peterw@cs.man.ac.uk (Peter Wake) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.140518.8028@news.uiowa.edu>, durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell) writes:
>>Yes, but the rules state that you can never use more than ten dice
>>in a roll.  In the example you use, you'd be able to use that extra 
>>die to try and do something else, or split the dice pool, perhaps.
>>But you can't roll eleven dice at once.

>Powerful characters are not as powerful as they 'ought' to be because
>rule glitches foul them up.  It's pretty easy to make difficulty 10s,
>see my example in my first post.  You can make a *starting* character
>that you have to roll a 10 to wound.  Give him Willpower 9 or 10 and
>he can slug it out with Chicago's finest, give him a few XPs and
>Protean and he will rip them to pieces.  Sure society will get him
>eventually, but you shouldn't be able to make such a character
>(that makes the rules fall apart) so easily.

A couple points here...

First of all, this keys back into the combat system, which sucks
royally.  I'm *so* willing to admit that it isn't even funny.
They've tried twice and they haven't gotten it right yet.  My
fingers are unhopefully crossed for the next edition.  So yeah,
that's a valid complaint.

Second, yes, you can make starting characters who can flout the
rules of Kine society with relative impunity.  Relative to
humans, that is.  It's incredibly important for a Vampire GM to
remember that humans aren't the enforcers of civilized behavoir
in this world.  Other vampires are.  Society won't get that guy
in your example, the Camarilla will.  And damned quick, too, if
he's showing off his nature to that degree.

And, finally, if you're playing Vampire with munchkins who 
don't know how to roleplay...you're scrod.  The system requires
good roleplayers, people who will react well when the Prince of
the city tells them that he'll destroy everything they hold
dear if they don't cooperate.  A player who isn't willing to
enter into the spirit of the system can blow the whole thing 
out of the water.

My Vampire campaign was one of the best roleplaying experiences
I've ever had.  Why?  Because the Mafia don allowed danger to 
his mortal sister to affect his actions.  Because the incognito
British rock star fell in love, and couldn't resist showing off
his musical talent.  Because the Malkavian who had been trapped
in Faerie refused to follow 1990 standards of morality.  If 
your players don't want to allow their characters to be 
vulnerable, to be flawed, then don't play Vampire.  Me, I think
that flexible systems lend themselves to great roleplaying and
epic munchkinism.  The one is worth the other.

Bryant Durrell
durrell@chop.isca.uiowa.edu
From: gharris@jade.tufts.edu (George W. Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Super rp's
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:27:56 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA
Originator: gharris@jade.tufts.edu

In article <1992Sep27.203912.1217@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.174913.1197@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>> 	You are attacking a straw man -- I didn't say that all police and 
>> soldiers have combat reflexes, nor was I inferring that.
>
>	Gak, that should be 'implying', not 'inferring'. Sorry about the
>grammer mistake...

	Tsk, tsk.  That's `grammar' not `grammer' and besides, it wasn't a
grammar mistake, it was a usage error.

	As long as we're critiquing your writing.

>Brandon Cope
--
gharris@jade.tufts.edu          "She had ever chance for happiness, ever 
George W. Harris                chance in the world, and stomped ever one 
Dept. of Mathematics            of them chances down in the dirt like a 
Tufts University                bug."   _The Devil's Dream_
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: urban@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Art Urban (PROFS))
Subject: Re: Character Development
Organization: Atmospheric Technology Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:26:58 GMT

In article <cm182s182.051g@pdrome.UUCP> cm182s182@pdrome.UUCP (Clayton Miner) writes:
%As much as I enjoy refereeing, and as much as my players 
%seem o enjoy having me referee for them, the part of the game I hate the most 
%is awarding experience points.  To me, no matter how I look at it, it always 
%seems arbitrary and I am never sure that I am awarding the right number of 
%points for the right reasons.  I am looking for way around this problem and 

Well, what I'm about to offer works for me in my GURPS games, and I know
little about the StarWars mechanics, but the philosphy will still apply.

I like to hand out 1/2 Character Point per Hour of play. This does not allows
for accidental favoritism, or whimsy. This system will not be reasonable for
a group of players who are constantly screwing-off, as no role-playing is
being done. So my simply answer to you is: determine a fixed amount of exp
points to hand out per hour of play. If the players fail to "play" for most
of an hour, then do not count that hour.

This approach eliminated the concern I felt when a character simply had nothing
to do "in game" and "according to character", and technically should receive
no character points. Under this approach everybody gets the same amount as
long as they play the game.

Everybody has a different method, so don't feel compelled to prefer one over
the other. Do what feels right to you...

--
Art Urban 					       urban@stout.atd.ucar.edu
===============================================================================
 "Oh no! The canary exploded!"                                      -Tom Servo 
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:11:05 GMT

	A few words of explanation before this rant: this is not a real 
criticism of GURPS. The dying rules are a little broken for high HT's - 
they can be fixed fairly easily with house rules (someone suggested 
a max roll of 14, and that works fine - although I dislike caps of that 
sort). 
	No, I don't think it is that big of a problem, but it would be 
nice to fix it. 

>jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>	Yes, but the trouble is that in GURPS is happens all the time for 
>>people of HT 15 or greater. A quick check with a calculator will reveal 
>>that there is over a 50% chance that these people will have to be taken 
>>down to -5*HT in order to kill them. 

sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>I find it odd that you open this post with a discussion of brain shots
>and then ignore it here, where it is most relevent.  There is an easy way
>to take down even a berserker of HT 15: brain shot. 

	So what's your point? I didn't say that it was impossible to 
kill someone of HT 15. I said that it was a point in the rules that 
should be fixed, as it is unrealistic and not neccessary to reduce the 
lethality of the game for average characters. 

CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L) writes:
>To kill the character *outright* (ie, in battle), certainly. 

	Certainly one can handle the results after battle with common 
sense and GM fiat - no one would expect a detailed treatment of medical 
care. 
	My problem is primarily in battle, where high HT characters can 
take truly massive wounds and keep fighting at no penalty. Perhaps they 
should not die instantly, but they should at least drop - or failing that, 
they should take penalties more than halving Move. 

>
>You seem to think instant death, with the target falling
>over dead, is a realistic combat result. *It's not!* Adrenaline
>can keep someone who will be brain-dead in minutes up, conscious
>and fighting. For a good dramatization of a *real-life* case of
>this, obtain and watch the made-for-TV tape: "The FBI Murders".

	I can show you many tapes of unlikely events and seemingly 
impossible ones. I can show you tapes of people walking across hot 
coals and suffering no burns to their feet - does this mean that the 
heat damage rules are inaccurate? No. 
	
	I think it is fine to have *unlikely* results like this. 
What I dislike is that the *average* result of emptying a revolver 
into someone's chest leaves him still up and about. And I think it is 
rather silly for someone to argue that this is accurate. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "Deservin's got nothing to do with it."
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu |
Columbia University         |                - William Munny, 'Unforgiven'
From: dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: State of the art
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:16:45 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Donald Tsang writes & quotes:

>>But NOT the first multi-genre game.  TO CHALLENGE TOMORROW was originally
>>published in 1984, and it was (and is) simpler, more flexible and more
>>adaptable than GURPS.  In fact, but 1988 TCT was already in its third
>>edition.
>
>And the Hero System was perhaps even earlier.  Champions in 1981, and
>the Hero System officially designated in 1984 (this info from the
>Copyright dates listed in my Hero System Rulebook).  IMHO, "Designed to
>be used" is deceptive.

If you want to look at it that way, TCT originated from Ysgarth which was first
released to the public in 1979, so that makes it CLEARLY older than
Champions.

I was thinking in terms of the original release date of something more
or less generic, and TCT came out in the Spring of 1984, while I 
believe the first non-Champions Hero system stuff was not out until
late summer of '84, but who know...maybe I'm wrong.

In fact, I would say that Hero didn't become a truly generic system until
the late '80s when revised editions began to be released.  Early games
based on the Hero mechanics, like Espionage and Fantasy Hero were
quite different mechanically from the original Champions, and not really
fully compatible.

TCT has the distinction of having all versions use exactly the same core
mechanics, and also of having been designed from scratch as a multi-
purpose system.

Not that any of this is meaningful at all.  What matters is which system
serves your needs better.   And for my tastes, I like the simplicity and
flexibility of TCT over the randomness, power-gaming and inconsistency
of Hero System.

Dave

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: Storyteller System (Was:  WereVamp->Ars)
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 22:12:44 GMT

durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell) writes:
>peterw@cs.man.ac.uk (Peter Wake) writes:
>>6)  Difficulty above 9 for any task causes complete system break-down.
>>    i.e. The Antideluvian with 19 dice against starting character with
>>    Stamina 5, Fortitude 3.  However many dice he has chance of scoring
>>    a success (to wound) is the same as chance of losing one from a
>>    botch.  Furthermore Sta 10, Fort 10 is no better than above at
>>    resisting normal damage - still roll a 10.
>
>Hmm.  How carefully have you read the system?  You can never have more
>than ten dice in one roll.  And yes, it's very very difficult and risky
>to try something at a target number of 10.  They state this clearly.
>A 10 is like, oh, free-climbing the World Trade Towers.  It's at *least*
>as likely that you'll screw up fatally as it is that you'll make it to 
>the top.  I don't see how allowing for incredibly difficult things makes
>the system break down.

	What breaks down is that against a difficulty of 10, having more 
dice doesn't really help you: an experienced master is *more* likely to 
botch than an untalented beginner. 
	No matter how many dice you have, the average number of successes 
is always zero. As you get better (more dice), then the chance of successes 
increases, but so does the chance of botches. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | Alice: "But if I wasn't real, I shouldn't be
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | able to cry."  Tweedledum: "I hope you don't 
Columbia University         | imagine those are *real* tears."
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy