HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lange@CS.UCLA.EDU (Trent Lange)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: unknown difficulty
Date: 16 Apr 92 05:48:32 GMT
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b


Kansas Jim writes:
>You do have a point about players who don't know the system well enough being
>disadvantaged though - in that situation, what I do is give them a vague
>idea of how difficult the task seems.  For example, if their skill is higher
>than the difficulty I tell them that its an "easy task".  If their skill is
>much less than the difficulty I tell them that its "an almost impossible
>task" or something similar.

But shouldn't you do that, in most cases, for all players?  For example,
I played paintball for the first time last Saturday.  I am not what one
would call experienced in Fire Combat or Dodge in any sense of the word.
However, it didn't take very long at all to get a quick guage for how
dfficult a shot was and how likely I was to be able to hit somebody
(or, in my case, come anywhere within a mile of hitting them).

You could *tell* when somebody had good cover, and when they didn't.
You could *tell* when they were using that cover well by dodging quickly
behind it after their shots, and when they weren't dodging so quickly
(therefore giving you a better shot).

Now, sometimes one's estimate of the difficulty might be wrong -- maybe
they were moving slowly because they hadn't seen you, but could quickly
dodge when they did, or maybe their cover was greater than you could
tell from your angle.  But, in general, you could tell with pretty
good accuracy how difficult a maneuver or shot was that you had to
pull off.  Maybe not down to the exact DN, but pretty close.

So given that, I would imagine that *most* cases in Real Life (tm)
you have a pretty good guess as to how difficult something is (you can
see how long the jump is, you can see how tough the mathematical problem
looks, you can judge whether a person is susceptible to a quick talker,
and so on).  Your estimates may be wrong, of course, though they'll
usually be pretty close.  And sometimes you can't tell at all (like on
a perception check, where you don't even know what's happening).  But to
be "fair" to the characters and give them the knowledge that they would
have, a GM should either (a) explain in full detail what the character
sees ("the shocktrooper is behind a rock that's covering about
two thirds of his body, and every couple of seconds he's peeping his
head out, but just for a split second"), or (b) sum all that information
up by giving the player a rough estimate as to how difficult the action
is ("it looks to be about a difficulty of 15 or so to hit that
shocktrooper behind the rock").

As a player I'd prefer the first method, as long as it gives the
information the character would have.  I'd understand, however, if
a GM sometimes wanted to save time and just give out an estimated DN.
But, in general, *one* of the two should be done, except for those
(relatively rare) cases the character wouldn't be able to tell at all.

- Trent Lange
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: the rose sand mage
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:54:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: acf9.rose.702582855
Organization: New York University

oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes) writes:

>i think that your mage might get bigger/easier spells
>since all of them would require a "sand" theorem,
>and he will obviously (by concentrating on 1-2 spells)
>be much better than average in his chosen field,
>but as you noticed, he is not limited (much) in 
>the spells he can cast, just how (requires sand)

  Which makes him a perfect foil as a NPC.  He would be formidable at the
seashore (but not unstoppable) and devastating in a desert.  Anywhere else,
he would be greatly reduced in power (limited almost by the amount of sand
that he can carry).
--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Z_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (BRANDON COPE)
Subject: Re:  the working of axiom levels
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:36:54 GMT

My whole point was that, with the information WEG has provided, there is *no*
internal consistancy. That's why I was soaying that some things will have to be
changed from the official rules to make things work.
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: MY VIEW: Cyberpapacy
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:10:14 GMT
Organization: New York University

bpostow@wilma.cs.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow) writes:

>hmmm, I agree with Erik... I think that it is too easy. the miracle
>being this easy defeats its own purpose. If there is a Cyberpriest in
>the party... there is no problem... they can saction whatever they
>want... and no one will have to worry about getting nonsactioned
>stuff, they can saction it themselves... With it this easy, there will
>be MUCH more tech running around in parties which is the exact
>opposite of the purpose [right>]

  I agree, and after reading Erik's article and thinking on it for a while
I began to see the same problem.  Not that it would be impossible for
a PRC priest, but such a priest should have an equivalent social effect
as that of founding a heretical religious movement.

>I have two possible solutions:

>1) make it much harder... a diff of say, 19-20

>2) restrict it's use to those with special permission of a Bishop.
>That way only specific people can do it... 

  What about

3) Reducing the effect so that a rather substantial congregation is
   required to make a Many-on-One faith role to sanction significant
   amounts of high technology?

   That way a lone priest might be able to sanction the odd screwdriver
 or pocket penknife or flashlight, but requires a parish church to sanction
 computer or cybertechnology.






--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes)
Subject: Re:  trick shots
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:32:16 GMT

Brandon Cope(a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu) wonders:
 ! What about having the Fast Draw skill simply mean that you don't have to 
 ! use an action to draw a weapon? If you really screw up, you drop the gun
 ! (or worse), but a normal failure just means that you have to spend an
 ! action to draw the weapon anyway.

i dont think that TORG requires a full action to ready most weapons
so it would make no difference (unless the char is set back, which
should overide most skills any way)

also, i want failure to be just that: failure,
not "oh well, i failed, i will go again when it is my turn"
THAT is hellisly unbalancing (a HASTE for free)

dave "not really with it today" oakes
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: jogle@nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim))
Subject: Re: Ideas for an adventure
Reply-To: jogle@nrao.edu
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 01:18:53 GMT

In article 0b95135192186@morticia, RICK@QUCDNEE.bitnet (Rick Pim) writes:
>> are Scott Galliand <$CSK605%LSUVM@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
>
>>         2) Statistics on the Allorizer gadget that Blackpool created.

>  mentioned back in Infiniverse #1, i think. :-)

It sure was; I always wondered why that gizmo never got used (now we know).

>but (as always), i'd love to see this. hell, i'd still love to see
>a writeup on anything even remotely complicated. (the allorizer, the
>chekhov machine, the rocket ranger armour, you name it. :-)

Well, if WEG goes ahead with the gizmo book they always keep talking about
it could happen....

Or if I ever get the time I'll write up those gizmo examples I keep saying I'll
work on....
---
Kansas Jim (Jim Ogle, Torg guru)
jogle@nrao.edu (NRAO-VLBA, Socorro New Mexico)
"I'd be apathetic if I cared."


Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Chris Pearce <cpearce@morticia.cnns.unt.edu>
Subject: You posted something preposterous!!!
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:49:56 GMT

> The Solar System is going to change from geocentric to heliocentric
> because a bunch of people on the Earth are no longer so egotistical as
> to consider the Earth to be the absolute center of the universe.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Exactly! This is the breakthrough you need to make,
Sean!!! Why is it a problem?? 

In the Torg multiverse, people invent science instead of discovering it!

We now return you to your current program...

-- 
Chris Pearce -- cpearce@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
--
  "Bugger me with a fish fork"
     - Gen. Melchett, BA4
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: A can of worms to detonate
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:13:21 GMT
Organization: New York University

tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu (T. Erik Browne) writes:

>I wasn't trying to wave a magic wand and try to make things go away.  Physics,
>in whatever form it exists in in these other cosms, does make a difference.
>My problem is with people trying too hard to make our physics work in some
>places, like the LL.

  Good.  That a discussion of "physics" is relevant to play of a cosm is
the only point I felt needed to be made.  Even if one is talking about
a cosm where Earth physics doesn't work.

>  Like the bow discussion.  I think it was Sean who was
>talking about how a thicker, longer branch could hold his weight,
>and therefore should make a more powerful bow.  I say that the bigger
>stronger branch will hold his weight, but it will still only provide
>enough power for hunting.  There has to be some consistency, but there
>are places where hand waving is necessary.

  This is a discussion that isn't going to go anywhere until both sides
understand the position that the other side is trying to protect.  I don't
think there needs to be agreement, after all (unless the two of you play
in the same campaing :-).  But you might have a more productive argument
if you each understood what the other thinks is important.  Maybe you
could agree to disagree.

  I am interested in discussion which illuminates how one applies the Tech
axiom in lo-Tech places.  "Yes, dammit!  No, dammit!" discussion doesn't
do this for me, though.

--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Rick Pim <RICK@QUCDNEE.bitnet>
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:09:00 GMT


> are  malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy)

>No; what I am saying is that the specifications as to what works and
>what does not that WEG gives for the various Tech axiom levels, if it
>is interpreted as being that a tool that exceeds the Tech axiom _won't_
>work, by its very nature denies that _laws_ of physics can exist.

>For example, all pieces of dead wood are dead wood; if there are
>_laws_ of physics, then they all must obey the _same_ laws.

   this is a philosophical point, and not a scientific one. it certainly
appears to be true in our universe, but this is axiomatic; it is assumed
without proof and _believed_ to be true.it is assumed because it is
convenient to assume it and because it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling,
but it can not, even in principle, be proven. (we cannot tell that the
same physical "laws" hold in all parts of our universe because we are
not causally connected to parts of our universe.)

    further, the game problems do not occur in our universe. the
universe is a gedanken universe; more, it is someone _else's_ gedanken
universe. the futility of applying 20th century physics in this
environment is pretty clear.

>A better example is firearms. At Tech 19, recoil-operated machine guns
>are possible; submachine guns are not possible until Tech 20.
   this is nitpicking. there's what? a pararaph on this? so the authour
was presumably thinking "well, submachine guns occurred later, so they're
higher tech, so we'll stick them one level higher." perhaps it is
possible to build a tech 19 mp40. perhaps it's also possible to build
something akin to the steam-powered gatling gun mentioned earlier (which
our Victorian Lunatic wants to do). i don't intend to worry about either
because worrying about details such as that isn't my idea of fun. get
with the genre. :-)

rp
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: cdr@kpc.com (Carl Rigney)
Subject: Re: Axiom Ceilings
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 02:49:31 GMT

In article <BPOSTOW.92Apr11151016@occs.cs.oberlin.edu> bpostow@occs.cs.oberlin.edu asks:
>If axiom levels are a pre-set ceiling. then what are the CE say, tech
>axiom. [sorry for the grammer] I mean, if there is a glass cieling for
>tech for each cosm, then what is CEs. Why do we have any reason to
>believe that the tech that we are at now is the highest we can be? we
>have been progresing in tech pretty much steadily since the middle
>ages. So, why is what we are at now the top?? why isn't 28 the top? or
>24? who can know??? 

Here's a fun thought.  Core Earth's axioms have been the same as they
are now throughout its history.  It's just that when a cosm finally
reaches the limit in all its axioms, that signals the Cosm Raiders to
come and feed.  Think of it as ripening.

After all, wasn't there some breakthrough by Mara Hachi-Two that led to
the invasion of her cosm by Tharkold?

--
Carl Rigney
cdr@kpc.com

"I take this to mean that if you play your cards right, you could
become a junior deity yourself.  Totally cool, in my opinion.  Get your
own little universe, have the peons adore you-- it'd be great."
-- Cecil Adams
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes)
Subject: Re: Axioms
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:23:59 GMT

well, i was hoping for non-cannonical conversation, and i got it
i was going to ride this one out, but all sides are talking,
very loudly, and no one is listening, except in judgement.

so here is my final (i hope) statement on axioms,
not that it is THE final word, but it is all i care to say (for now)

we have been looking at the axioms in a vacum!
we complain tech this and tech that and damn the consequences.
but a cosm is the sum total of ALL of its axioms:
the "Laws of Physics" we attack each other with 
are functions not only of tech, but social, magic, and spirit as well

a tech 7 cosm may be similar to another tech 7 cosm,
but they are not the same unless all axioms are the same
(and even then, the World Laws offer differences)

in the LL, the driving force is spirit, 
so the Laws are the "Will of Lanala,"
and Lanala chooses tech 7

in the 7/5/5/5 cosm, the driving force is tech (weak tech)
and so there is a PHYSICAL reason that certain bows dont work.
possibly it is because everything bends equally,
creating the infamous "foam rubber cosm"
(of course, with a social of 5, there is no complex relationship 
 among the items of the cosm, no underlying continuity,
 so it is possible that no one single "Law" of physics holds 
 for everything in the cosm equally. it may only be so for wood,
 or just long bows and foam rubber)

look for an answer in only one fourth of the cosm,
and you will finds flaws three fourths of the time.

dave "I will not discuss TORG physics, I will not..." oakes
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: bpostow@barney.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow)
Subject: questionaire II
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:15:33 GMT

a good way to tell which type your campaign is is to see how often you
use non-combat skills in non-dramatic skill res.


--
Brian Postow :: The Pasta Knight - that noodle head in shiny armour
reachable at:
bpostow@occs.oberlin.edu
sbp2530@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu		this space left unintentionally blank.
sbp2530@oberlin.bitnet.edu

Computer scientist do it backwards -- [Mathmatician's point of view]






Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: bpostow@barney.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow)
Subject: Re: MY VIEW: Cyberpapacy
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
	<rose.702587414@acf9> <1992Apr8.214105.7021@muddcs.claremont.edu>
	<rose.702777247@acf9>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:20:05 GMT

hmmm the ritual thing sound really good. It would probably have
something to do with raising the community rating of the miracle.. I
am not quite sure as to the mechanic of community nor how it affects
stuff..

I don't think that there would be a problem with manufacturing either,
you just have 100 cyberpriests and all of the workers who will be
working there bless a factory, poof, you are in business. 

an interesting side affect of this system [i don't think it is bad
either] is that say, a CE person coming into CP will have disco
problems. Because his automatic pistol and kevlar vest are above the
12 tech axiom and WERE NEVER BLESSED. only CP tech can be used safely
in CP... I think that that adds a LOT of spice to the cosm. 


hmm, is it just the tech that has to be blessed or is it ever specific
item that is blessed? I mean, in a cyberdeck factory, do yo have to
have a resident Cyberpriest and a resident congregation who ALL day
long just bless cyberdecks? or does some bishop somewhere look at some
plans for a cyberdeck and say "cool, it's blessed" or whatever [insert
ritual here]?

--
Brian Postow :: The Pasta Knight - that noodle head in shiny armour
reachable at:
bpostow@occs.oberlin.edu
sbp2530@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu		this space left unintentionally blank.
sbp2530@oberlin.bitnet.edu

Computer scientist do it backwards -- [Mathmatician's point of view]
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: MY VIEW: Cyberpapacy
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:24:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: acf9.rose.702584668
Organization: New York University

erich@lighthouse.caltech.edu (Erich Schneider) writes:

>In article <rose.702354273@acf9> rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose) writes:
>>  In a nutshell, if CyberFrance is all high tech, then how does it
>>differ from a high tech Core Earth area like NASA (in Galveston)?

>Essentially, the papists are the government.  Replace the government
>with a dictatorial theocracy.  People don't vote, and there probably
>aren't any "protest groups"; since the government is the extension of
>the Vicar of Christ, anyone who disagrees with it is a heretic, and
>fit to be burned or worse.  Most citizens work for various big
>Church-sanctioned companies, with the same range of industries as in
>any cyberpunk milieu.  Entertainment programs, distributed over the
>GodNet, are cleared by the Church and reflect its official morality.

  Ooohhh.  So CyberFrance is like a high-tech pre-Gorbachov U.S.S.R.
where Catholicism rather than communism is the operant ideology.

>  In medieval times, the Church
>was a big presence in people's lives, since they went to mass everyday
>and important times were marked by religious holidays; in the
>Cyberpapacy, everytime you access the Net you have a religious
>experience (and most workers do this several times a day).

  In medieval times, the Church was a big prescence in people's lives
because the people had very few alternatives.  There was no literacy,
no daily entertainment, most people had to work very hard all of the
time in order to survive, and their lives were often cut short by
things outside of their own ability to control: disease, invasion,
war, accident, unthinking rage, wild animals, famine or insanity.

  On the other hand in CyberFrance, I would expect that one of the
problems that Jean Malreux I and his religious establishment is
experiencing is that more and more of the population is tuning into
the GodNet for more and more religious experiences.  It would be like
an addictive high.  Those for whom access was denied would become
depressed, paranoid, or destructive.  If the cyberpriests tried to
restrict the access to religious highs, the suicide rate would rise.
Productivity must be falling there faster than it has been here in the
U.S.A.

--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Peter A. Schott <pact_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu>
Subject: Is anybody here?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:22:44 GMT

Is there something wrong with the server, or is everybody just too busy to
send mail out?  I haven't gotten anything for quite a while, which seems odd
considering the amount of mail I received when I first subscribed.
  Anyway, I do have a small question about something that I probably missed in
the rules.  What exactly are the rules for cyberware for characters from realms
where the Tech axiom is less than the required level?  I have one player who 
wants a cybernetic elf.  Are there any special disconnection rules for this sort
of thing?  If not, should the elf be limited for not fully understanding cyber-ware?  Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, but they don't have to be limited to the elf.  I also have a core-earther who wants to use more powerful
spells.  I would assume that the same applies to this situation, but again am 
unsure.
  Thank you in advance.		Pete Schott
[the man with no clever phrase to throw in after his name]
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: jogle@dopey.vlba.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim))
Subject: Re: unknown difficulty
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:14:34 GMT

Brandon states:

> No, I think that if they fail, they can immediately use a possibility, if they
> desire. the examples in the rule book seem to pooint in this direction.

Except that it says in the rules that if the GM tells the player the result
it is too late to spend a Possibility on the action.

Kansas Jim (jogle@nrao.edu)
 

Newsgroups: alt.games.torg