HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88)
Subject: Re: Military Mechs?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:29:38 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

canders@isr.harvard.edu writes:

> (Ninstar Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!) writes:
> >Mind you, sufficiently developed mechs would be more versatile than tanks
> >and more maneuverable.  But believe me they would never replace the tank
> >as a mobile gunnery platform.  Like so many vehicles in the military, it would
> >have it's own Niche to fill.
> 
> 	Tanks in BattleTech can be pretty annoying, and the self-propelled
> guns are a bitch too.  I was in a game where a light Mech Lance ran into a
> Lance of tanks (big mean tanks mind you) and the Mech's nearly got taken
> apart.  Even more recently one of the players in my Lance decided to ignore
> the tank in favour of attacking the nearby Mech.  Got shredded next round
> by the tank ...

In a mecha game that a friend of mine was putting together, Tanks were still
the mainstay military fighting vehicle.  The mecha  were  specialized hostile
enviroment strike vehicles, and comparitively rare.  However, their superior
mobility and  versitility gave them a position in military units not unlike
special forces  in today's militaries.

Battletech tanks annoy me a  bit.  For their cost, they are effective, but
they tend to be weaker than equal ton mecha, even in enviroments where they
are not considerably hampered.  This makes no sense to me.  It seems that
the reason for their weakness is the critical hits on them are more  vicious.
Why?  If anything, a tank has less vulnerability than a mecha.  It has one
'limb' (the turret).  However, for some reason it can become stuck.  Why
can't one  of a mecha's limbs become stuck?  If anything, mecha should be
much more vulnerable than  tanks  in terms of critial hits.  It has many more
moving/exposed parts than a comparitive tank.

-james
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn)
Subject: Re: Weapons (Big & Small vs. Medium)
Organization: California State University, Chico
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 20:12:58 GMT

Matt Madsen writes:
>If they're not carrying giganto weapons-of-death, they're carrying concealable
>weapons: pistols, daggers, etc.  But they still don't carry anything medium-
>sized. What can be done to change this?

I dunno about you, but the players I've seen carry weaponary ranging from 
none to "uh, you're not supposed to fire that in-system" level guns, swords
and bludgeons. Yes, SMGs, shortswords and regular bo staves (no tetsubo's
please ... bushido reference)

Personally, I like playing one humor (read "cute") character who loves to 
prance about with gravity-defying hardware (not the only thing about her
that defies gravity...) of the megatonnage range. It fits that sort of game.

However, I've played characters that use concealable weapons (spies, for
instance) and medium-sized gear (military people under a referee who knew
how to make the pigman regret having to sling nearly 30 lbs of M60 in 
South American heat.) I was very happy with the Thompson, and a ASP backup.
-- 
I am ready to meet my Maker.  Whether my Maker is prepared for the
great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
		-- Winston Churchill
From: v131p9t3@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Ninstar Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Military Mechs?
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:04:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <UeQRWRi00VpE0jzuUh@andrew.cmu.edu>, wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Henry Timmins) writes...
>Mechs rely on a different motor than tanks, which are better??
> 
>WHY? If mech motors are better, why not build a tank using it?

Mechs are generally built using a substance similar to muscle tissue, a strong 
polymer which contracts when it has a current run through it.  Given proper
experimentation and development, such a material could be more efficient than
A tank engine, lighter, and cheaper.  If you can develop the substance such that
it requires relatively little current to operate, then you can also save on the
size, weight, and cost of the power supply.  

Why this can't be used in a tank is left as an exercise for the intelligent.

As for any other equipment used in the two types of vehicles, the equipment and
materials should be fairly identical in cost, with some exceptions of course,
but none that would make mechs infeasible once they were developed.  Mind you,
development would cost a bit.  

Mind you, sufficiently developed mechs would be more versatile than tanks
and more maneuverable.  But believe me they would never replace the tank
as a mobile gunnery platform.  Like so many vehicles in the military, it would
have it's own Niche to fill.

James Shank           	#		v131p9t3@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
AKA: Ninstar Cybermage  #	or	shank@acsu.buffalo.edu
###############################################################################
"Ten thousand years old...He could be trouble." -Vampire Hunter D
"Every night I say a prayer, in the hope that there's a heaven..."-Styx
"How do you make ammends for a god's sins?"-Forgotten Realms
##############################################################################
Sneaky Types,Inc.:Clandestine operations for the common man.
	"Don't call us.  We'll just bill you when it's done."
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Best Super system
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:04:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Jul28.192000.277@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>	I'm not sure what you mean by the 'armored creampuff' line, but there
>IS a fix to the defense rolls, and its in the Basic Set, off all places :-)
>I don't remember the page number, but its in a sidebar. Its an optional rule
>that treats combat as a Contest of skills -- the defender has to make his
>defense roll by as much or more than the attacker made his attack roll. Or
>is this not what you want?

Armoured creampuff - a Gurps super can shrug off n points of damage with no
effect but n+m (m << n) kills him (eg, a character with DR of 50 and HT of 12
can take 50 points with no damage at all but 74 points makes him against
death and 84 means he's probably dead).

The quick contest of skills changes the problem from "can't damage" to
"can't be missed". It makes a character's dodge essentially useless.
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Best Super system
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:07:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

I presume, by the way, that you're defending GURPS supers. If not, my
apologies.

In article <0095E0DF.463CB440@abby.chem.ucla.edu> doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu writes:
>You're right.  You've shown us that there is ONE number which is wrong, and
>then proceed to say "If so many numbers are wrong that I spend my time
>changing nearly all of them, why should I bother to buy the official system
>and not my own?"
>
>Well, I haven't seen that many bad numbers in there.  Let me point out, 

There are many,  many,  many bad numbers. a FEW examples :

a) Cost of unaging, an advantage of almost no use in most campaigns
b) Cost of ablative defences
c) Fickle limitation (I believe this is the limitation, books aren't available)
d) Growth mechanics and costs
e) Str cost (comparatively hugely expensive to get a little damage, cheap to get
lots of it)
f) Cost of laser blast (free impaling advantage)
g) Cost of invulnerablity to bullets.
h) Costs of limited DR's.
i) Cost of alter (far too low cost for 1st level)

>however, that it is much harder to come up with good game mechanics than
>it is to come up with good costs... that's why you should "bother" to buy
>the official system.

Agreed, however the mechanics are also poor. A FEW examples

a) Using optional STUN rules, fight at full strength until suddenly drop
unconcious (what I like to call the DnD syndrome)
b) No clear rules (that I could find, anyway) for dodging vs area of effect
attacks
c) The "armoured creampuff" syndrome almost enforced by the rules if using
killing damage
d) Inability to build characters who can lift comic book levels of things
(a linear scale is inappropriate for a Supers campaign)
e) Broken gadget mechanics (I believe that it is still legal for a gadget to
cost negative points, at any rate the limitation values are broken)
f) Equipment being free of cost. It is trivial to build a horrendously
combat efficient "super hero" by bundling up on free gadgets.

Gurps is an extremely good game system for realistic campaigns, it quickly
loses it the further away from 100 pt realistic characters one gets. Its
completely lost it by the time that it gets to super heros.
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Weapons (Big & Small vs. Medium)
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:48:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bs06LG.Azp
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

mmadsen@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen) writes:

>I've noticed that characters in RPGs never carry medium-sized weapons.  Either
>they carry a rifle or a pistol.  They almost never carry a submachine gun.
>In fantasy games they carry a broadsword or, perhaps, a concealable dagger --
>never a short sword.
>It seems that players in a game have no incentive to carry a "convenient"
>weapon.  In the real world, commandos may use SMGs or shortened assault rifles
>because true rifles would be unwieldly, but this never seems to be the case
>in game-land.  Also, not even a swashbuckler will be caught with a smallsword;
>a rapier is bigger and better.

I don't know about this. Yes, some people can't be convinced not to carry 
huge guns when trying to do something stealthy, but most Srun players use
SMG's almost exclusively. They are small enough to be usable in tight
situations where another weapon would be just too damn long. The only thing
is that in SR, an SMG is a concealable weapon. 

As far as FRP's go, it's true that most people have no medium size weapons.
I've almost never seen anyone carry a shortsword, although I've played 
some characters who use them exclusively. The problem with weapons in 
FRP's is that these weapons didn't exist at the same time in history. No
one is going to manufacture short swords when the other guy is making
long swords. Swords became longer and longer as history went on. In most
FRP's, all weapons of all times are available together. One way to fix
that (and make your campaign more challenging) is to set the campaign
at a time when shortswords were common, polearms were considered the
heavy weapon of their time, and chain mail was a long way off. 

Axly
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: ins894r@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Aaron Wigley [Wigs])
Subject: Re: SRUN: Australian Outlook, Totems-
Organization: Monash University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:20:27 GMT

holmes@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Keith Harris) writes:
: ->>[Here are few extra totems that we dug around with.  Lizard isn't included,
:   and I also added which ones also came from African Origin...]<<
:     -Shivowtnoeh
: 
:   Totemic Identification      -Ant Eater-     (Australian & African)

Australian AND African? 
Keith - did you get my mail a while back about the Australian 
'Anteater' is the Echidna?

BTW Keith - have you noticed you are duplicating your posts?
There are both two copies of the same articles within one post,
and another copy of exactly the same article following up the first.

The Wigs of Oz
Aaron Wigley

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov
Subject: Re: Cyberpunk (was: SR: SRII combat mods)
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA
	<wilder.711507993@mik.uky.edu>
	<1992Jul18.215135.14517@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:33:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul18.215135.14517@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu (Chris Siebenmann) writes:

   (jeff wilder) writes:
   | And that's part of the point.  There are bound to be exceptions, of
   | course, but *most* non-combat oriented characters are going to have no
   | *interest* in *becoming* combat-oriented.  All you are doing is making
   | yourself a large and easily removed target.  What the fuck are Samurai
   | *for*, anyway?

    I second this, and will add another reason to not do it: it makes the
   soft-skinned deckers targets. Anyone shooting in a firefight is a
   target, and will almost certainly get shot at. Although the samurai
   might be able to teach the decker how to shoot a gun, he can't give the
   toughness and the speed that help him survive combat. And if you loose
   the decker or any other noncombat specialist that's along on a run in a
   firefight, you're screwed, because you *needed* these people with you
   (if you didn't, what in hell are you dragging them into a freefire zone
   for?).

Ha.  As GM a lot of my companies shoot at people who don't have guns
first.  The assumption in SR is that they're mages and need to be
toast first.  In normal cyberpunk the theory is that those people are
there for a reason...it's better to be safe than sorry.

'Sides...what are you doing in a firefight?  We do combat runs simply
for fun and games...the other variety tends to take a lot of brain
power for both GM and players and some nights we're not up for it.
Part of the reason my campaign has shut down for the past couple of
months is no ideas...the easy stuff is done and I'm not too enthused
about letting the players run the same trick on me again eh? ;-).

Another point...if you run into a firefight you're only thought should
be extraction.  I haven't met a corp yet that didn't have more bodies
to throw than you could kill.  

Nigel

   --
   cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu	           ...!{utgpu,utzoo,watmath}!utgpu!cks
--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Best Super system
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:42:36 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

Yes, it's true, after a feint maneuver your opponent will get a chance to do
something.  As long as your GM isn't silly enough to let the players know that
they've just been faked out, chances are they will sit there and attempt to
slug it out, secure in their (now false) knowledge that they probably won't
get hurt anyway.

I think that a high skill, but perhaps not as high power attack is an
excellent way to deal with PCs with high defenses... guess that's just
a matter of taste, and it seems that the GURPS designers felt the way I do.

-Doug Gibson
 doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu

Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.

"We have to tear you to shreds because we care." - EAC
From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: A different reason to use CHAMPIONS
Date: 21 Jul 92 08:57:34 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <BLK.92Jul20163252@vanity.mitre.org>, blk@mitre.org (Brian L. Kahn) writes:
> 
> This doesn't quite follow the "Best Super system" thread, but it
> figures in my choice of a super-hero system:
> 
> Champions has a PC based game coming out any minute now (or is it out
> already?) for role playing kicks, and Computer Gaming World said
> something about use of that as a GameMaster aide.  Whether there is
> support past simple creation of characters I don't know, but char gen
> is one of the harder parts of Champions.
> 

"The game will be out by Christmas; we didn't say which year..."
It should be out "soon"...

The game will include a character generation program, which uses
a mouse interface, and handles all the math of character creation.
Pretty much everything will be handled; some things that probably
won't be in the first version: package deals, racial maxima,
vehicle / base design, Ninja Hero maneuver design.

Note that the generator can handle the math, but many of the
"problem powers" won't be implemented in the game itself.

Multiform characters will have to build separate characters for
each form.

There is talk about marketing a "GM aide" program, which was written
by someone outside of Hero Software; it does not currently interface
with characters created by the generator.  This "GM aide" program
helps the GM keep track of combat sequence, status of characters,
and the like.

-steve
From: dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Gurps Supers is still broken
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:35:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.

In article <1992Jul26.193644.246@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
|>
|> |As written (using no optional rules), GURPS Supers is only going to work in
|> |a VERY gritty street level campaign where death is a very common occurence.
|> |Either that, or all of the heros are going to use some of the loop holes
|> |(ablative focus defenses springing to mind). I found that, as a GM, I just
|> |COULDN'T have my villains fight to the best of their abilities unless I was
|> |willing to kill half of the characters each night.
|
|	This is bad? :-)
|
|	As written, without optional rules, GURPS Supers *is* geared for a
|gritty street-level campaign. Are you complaining because they were successful
|at what they were trying to do? :-)
|
	YOW!  Watch the attributation, dude.  The text you quoted was from Mr.
Kim, not me.  I agree with you on the lethality issue.


dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com   ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis     GEnie: D.HEFFERNAN1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of everything...haven't
you learned; if it's not happenning to me it's not important?" -Murphy Brown
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Subject: Re: Mr. Fantastic in Champions
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:20:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.181500.27754@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> aq061@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Scott Devine) writes:
>
>I have been trying to convert my favorite Marvel characters into the more
>detailed game of Champions but I ran into some trouble with Mr. Fantastic
>and his unstable molecules.  I don't know how I should set it up, if any
>of you know a way please post or send me mail.  Thank you.

The way it is done in the comics "Unstable Molecules" are just the
special effect associated with the power "Instant Change"

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
From: smash@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Scott Mash)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp
Subject: Talislanta move rate per day.
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:33:51 GMT
Organization: Smasher Land BBS (614)593-8359


What is the rate of movement for the different speeds in Talislanta,
I have looked through the guidebook and haven't been able to find
anything related to distance/day. 

Scott Mash


-- 
| smash@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu         |  Scott A. Mash               |
| smash@bigbird.cs.ohiou.edu         |  Smasher Land RPG BBS        |
| system@smashland.nelsonville.oh.us |  (614) 593-8359, 2400 Baud   |
| cs819@ouaccvmb.bitnet              |  RPG Textfiles And Utilities |
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: SR: Deckers and Guns
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:53:21 GMT

	I was reading this whole long thread on deckers with guns.
	I pondered for a moment and thought of our Firearms 6 
	Decker who has only fired her weapon ONCE in combat. Why?
	The reason is because the rest of the group moves somewhere
	slower than warp speed but faster than lightning. 
	Wired Reflexes 2 : The samurai all have it. 
	Increased Reaction +2 or +4: The mage has one, the Shaman the
	other.
	The end result is that most combats are lasting ONE turn
	to resolve. I am getting this sort of "We are wickedly
	out of control 'cause no one can stand up to this sort
	of firepower" feeling. Has anyone else had this problem?

	I find that even though combat is more deadly now with
	the burst rule, we have gone so far in front of everyone
	else that all the competition is hamstrung by the time
	the first turn is halfway over. The opposing samurai
	has usually been nuked by a Manabolt with all the dice
	in the magic pool in it. (Does anyone else think that
	the pools are massively in favor of mages? Samurai have
	no pool where they can dig up an extra six dice to 
	shoot with, why do mages have them?) 

	Giving the decker a gun just has him toting a big piece
	of stell he won't ever use. Heck, I'm tempted to play
	a Decker just 'cause at least in the Matrix, things 
	are not so wildly on our side.

	Axly
From: jwadsley@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Huge Robots as weapons, are they valid? Does it matter?
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:37:27 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <RATINOX.92Jul27211609@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>, ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat) writes:
>>>>>> On 27 Jul 92 19:11:10 GMT, a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer) said:
> 
>> Veltyen writes:
>> There is one valid reason that seems to have been missed on this thread.
>> Psychology.
>> 
>> Think about it, which is better to cow the natives.
>>   a) a box on wheels (or treads etc)
>>   b) a vaguely humanoid mean son'o'bitch.
>> 
>> Look up adeptus titanicus for this sort of idea expounded. Of course this is
>> only really effective if the "natives" are quite superstisious.
> 
> JF> So, we spend billions of dollars developing a 'mech that's only
> JF> effective for cowing natives?
> 
> Veltyen has an excelent point. Which would scare *you* more, 45 tons of M1
> Abrams rolling at you at 50mph, or 45 tons of humanoid, walking steel
> bearing down on you at 50mph? I'd be more afraid of getting stomped on like
> a bug than ground under steel tracks.

Neither. Getting eaten by a mech spider would. Getting eaten by a squad of
tank sized mech spiders would be even worse.

Getting back to the other case, I think you would say:
"Thank God, they sent a mech. Sergeant, blow up the left leg and we'll be outa
here." :-) It would be easier to dodge a mech than a tank. The mech pilot can
not see his legs. Bit of a design flaw huh? 

James Wadsley.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA