HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ahankin1@cc.swarthmore.edu (A. Luke Hankins)
Subject: Re: New Name for Flesh Golem wanted!
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:02:48 GMT

dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Lamb) writes:

>In article <1992Jul29.171022.9040@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason steiner) writes:
>>jonathan@mantis.co.uk (Jonathan Egre') writes:
>>> 
>>> The name "golem" does indeed come from an Eastern European/Jewish myth.
>>> The original "golem" was made from clay, and animated by writing "golem"
>>> (in Hebrew) on the clay, I believe.
>>
>>the story i read mentioned a ghetto's holy man writing something
>>on a piece of paper and placing it in the golem's mouth. the golem
>>then protected the people from their oppressors or somesuch typical
>>thing. just as typical, when the paper was taken from its mouth
>>it collapsed on its creator.
>>

>As with a lot of legends, I wouldn't be surprised if this one exists
>in several variations. [ ... ]

>"The Red Magician" by an author whose name I forget (Ellen? Edith? /
>Goldstein? Goldman?) has said magician discussing with a rabbi what
>word might have been used to animate the original golem.  The magician
>eventually makes a golem and picks "Adam" ("clay" but also the name of
>the first man).  The rabbi is enraged, considering this blasphemy
>(imitating God), and manages to strike out the aleph, leaving "dam"
>("blood"), whereupon the golem bleeds copiously and collapses.

along with these there is the story of the golem created, but the word of
animation was "yahweh" (the name of god). this is from the school of thought
that claims that knowledge of someone's true name will give you power
over/of that person/demon/deity. it is because of this that in hebrew there
are no vowels, and therefore "yahweh" is not god's true name. (it's all very
complicated, and nothing that's so pressing that i have to go into detail,
right?)

 this thinking led to the knowledge of a demon/devil's name to
banish/control it...

-- 
______________________________________________________________________
===Starman-* 		|	ahankin1@cc.swarthmore.edu
			|	tnx luke
________________________|______________________________________________
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: GURPS: Playing yourself
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:02:29 GMT

tmyoung@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Thomas M. Young) writes:
>Finally, on the topic of magic: I had in mind creating types of elementals
>and spirits to play the roles of fossergrim, sylphs, and so forth.  Much
>of the magic that I've read about has depended on securing the cooperation
>of such beings.  Are the ally rules in GURPS sufficiently robust to allow
>shamanism to function by simply adding allies rather than casting specific
>summoning spells?  Or will a character mage with just a few communication
>and necromantic spells and a large number of (spirit) contacts, allies,
>and patrons be unbalancing?

	No, the ally rules in GURPS are not sufficiently robust. Point values 
for distinctly non-human creatures like spirits are not a good indicator of 
their value to the PC. 	This came across heavily in a Fantasy game I was in 
where someone had an intelligent steed that worked out to under 75pts in
Fantasy Folk. It is very easy to come up with very useful, low-point allies. 
	OTOH, the contact rules have contacts as generally much too expensive, 
I have found. 

	Basically, you must set a point value based on how much of an asset 
the spirit is, and how much of a liability. Allies who travel with you are 
very useful, but they are also a liability, as they can get into trouble. 
Contacts are not nearly as useful, and they can only help in limited 
circumstances and times, but they will not usually be drawn into the action. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "All the world will be your enemy, Prince with
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | a Thousand Enemies. And when they catch you, 
Columbia University         | they will kill you."        - Watership Down
From: jwadsley@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Fantasy Genre...
Date: 28 Jul 92 09:50:15 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <dlaird.0w6q@terapin.com>, dlaird@terapin.com (Delbert Laird) writes:
> The spells are "purchased" as components.  The game system in which they spell
> laws would take place also use a point-generation system.  In the precluding
> system so far, there are three catagories of components:  Control, Subject,
> Modifier.......No spell may have more than one Control, but may use multiple
> Subjects and Modifiers.
> 
> An example:    Create  Fire   Range   (Character may create/apply fire at      
>                                 range..ie Fireball or Pyrokinesis.)
> 
> Now that the spell caster has purchase the 3 componens listed above, he may
> then use them with any further components he/she purchases....That is, there is
> no finite spell (as in AD&D or D&D)...The creation of a spell is dependant on
> what components the character has available.

Is there a chance of failure associated with each component or is there just a
set cost and a set chance?

If you have skill or ability ratings for each component you might consider
something like this:

For example, you might have 30% create skill, 40%
fire association and 50% range skill. You could reduce or increase these
chances depending on the type of effect desired. For example the standard
create fire with range spell might generate 1 cubic metre of fire with burning
alcohol intensity ( low ) at 10 metres range. By accepting a -10% penalty the
mage could enhance the power of any component by a set factor. For example, by
sacrificing 10% create ( leaves 20% ), 20% fire association ( leaves 20% ) and
30% range skill ( leaves 20% ) the mage could produce 2 cubic metres of fire
with brush fire intensity at a range of 80 metres ( 10x2x2x2 ). The lowest
skill remaining after subractions from all the components actually used
( 20% in the example ) is the chance to cast to the spell.
However, the spell might take 1 round to cast normally but the caster may
decide to take 4 rounds instead. Then you could make it 4x20%=80% chance to
cast it.

There are no spell casting chances in D&D. All spells just work. This is fine
for D&D, but if there is the possibility of new wizards finding big components
or being able to use them, I think that you should introduce skill levels.
In the above example, you could replace the percentages by skill levels of 3
for create, 4 for fire and 5 for range. The spell would then have these
possible variations: 1/2/4 cubic metres volume, 50/100/200/400 degrees
centigrade and 10/20/40/80/160 metres range. ( You might not want exponential
scales for temperature ). The skill levels would act to restrict the power of
mages.

Just some thoughts,

James Wadsley.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: Genres
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:15:33 GMT

woodhams@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Michael Woodhams) writes:
>Ben Franklin could easily have predicted that fitting horses with
>steam powered pogo sticks was not going to be the transportation mode
>of the future. 

	Yes, and Newton could have easily predicted that light could not 
form interference fringes, because light was clearly corpuscular in nature: 
it moved in straight lines, and makes sharply defined shadows. Edison could 
have easily predicted that no real material would have zero electrical 
resistance. 

>You can suspend your disbelief all you like (in this
>case, by the neck until dead) but there's no way giant huminoid robots
>will ever be a better military buy than something like a tank.

	That's silly. Just postulate (as I think Btech has) that biotech is 
developed to cheaply produce tremendously powerful artificial muscle fiber. 
This cannot easily be used for driving tank wheels, but is well suited for 
powering mechs. The biotech means that the reactions involved cannot be 
cheaply converted for use in other engines. 
	I'll admit I can't think of any good reason for them to be human-
shaped, but postulating further, I'm sure one can be cooked up. Also, there 
may be a cultural bias towards that shape. (Don't tell me cultural bias has 
nothing to do with warfare - why don't we use chemical weapons, after all?) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "There are more things in heaven and earth, 
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | Horatio, then are dreamt of in your 
Columbia University         | philosophy."

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: Military Mechs?
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:22:00 GMT

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>>If you can't bring yourself to beleive that giant robots are a *possibility*,
>>how can you play *any* science fiction game?  FTL travel is no more unlikely
>>that giant robots.  Sentient robots/androids/computers are no more unlikely
>>than giant robots.
>
>You're mistaken.  Theoreticians are still arguing about possible ways to
>achieve "FTL" travel.  Until they tie up all loose ends and show that it is
>impossible, gamers and writers have some leeway as to using it.

	I have yet to encounter any 'loose ends'. All of the excuses I 
have heard for FTL are about as theoretically impossible as one can get. 
Which is not to say that someone won't find a hole in our current under-
standing and produce it, but that it is comparable to alot of other 
'scientifically impossible ideas'. 

>
>Those "mechs" simply don't make sense. Technologically they are possible, but
>economically and militarily they are idiotic.  Their only reason for existence
>in games or stories is in being "cool". If you accept that, you can enjoy your
>game.  However, there's no point in trying to justify their existence to
>others.

	I don't see how you can conclude they are economically idiotic. Mechs 
rely on a different type of motor than tanks do - how do you know how 
expensive that will be in an interstellar economy? And if its cheap enough, 
then it makes sense militarily because you can build enough of them. 

	Technology is extremely difficult to predict - and future 
technologies can produce alot of interesting results depending on 
what discoveries you postulate. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "All the world will be your enemy, Prince with
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | a Thousand Enemies. And when they catch you, 
Columbia University         | they will kill you."         - Watership Down
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu (Chris Siebenmann)
Subject: Re: SR: Blood 'n guts games
Organization: Ziebmef home away from home
Date: 25 Jul 92 06:13:55 GMT

 The amount of bloodshed in a Shadowrun game varies highly from GM to
GM; most of the ones I've played in have been not very combat oriented,
so it's certainly possible. In my personal opinion, combat works best
as a rare punctuation to normal things and as a sign that something has
gone wrong. I suspect that encouraging everyone to have something to do
outside of combat helps a lot, as does giving them things to do.

 I feel that it's also important to talk to your players and explain
just how things work in your universe, both combat related and not
combat related -- just how far can a typical 'runner with a rep
push a ganger (or vice versa), a Mafia soldier, a Yakuza man, things
like that? My personal feeling is that much 'combat' will be posturing,
near-threats, followed by one or the other side backing down then it
becomes obvious that they can't get what they want without the
costs being too high to pay.

 Atmosphere, not blood.

--
"SVR4 much more resembles a high-speed collision between SVR3 and
 SunOS--you can find bits and pieces of both systems in unlikely places,
 some intact while others are barely recognizable."	- Dick Dunn
cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu	           ...!{utgpu,utzoo,watmath}!utgpu!cks
From: fischer@greco-prog.fr (Francois Fischer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: world (atmosphere, etc.) generation?
Date: 22 Jul 92 05:17:21 GMT
Reply-To: arrakis@hugo.int-evry.fr (Nicolas Hurisse)
Organization: Greco Programmation du CNRS

In article <1992Jul20.140531.12983@linus.mitre.org> ejd@yabba (eRic Donaldson) writes:
>
>I was wondering what RPG's out there have rules for generating worlds,
>such as atmosphere, land/water ratio, temperature, etc.  I imagine
>that most of the sci-fi/space games have these, but I don't feel like
>plowing through hundreds of them just to find 'em.  So, if you know of
>an RPG that creates worlds, please let me know.
>
Try SPACE OPERA.
The best world generation systeme I've ever seen!

                  Nicolas Hurisse (arrakis@hugo.int-evry.fr)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu (Chris Siebenmann)
Subject: Re: Cyberpunk (was: SR: SRII combat mods)
Organization: Ziebmef home away from home
Date: 25 Jul 92 06:26:49 GMT

ins769v@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Veltyen) writes:
| I ran my group through the stuffer shack senario once. [...]

 The Stuffer Shack is a combat example, not a real scenario; I wish FASA
would stop pretending. It is also extremely deadly, as the opposition
is full PC-caliber archetypes (more or less). Run it with care, if at
all.

--
"SVR4 much more resembles a high-speed collision between SVR3 and
 SunOS--you can find bits and pieces of both systems in unlikely places,
 some intact while others are barely recognizable."	- Dick Dunn
cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu	           ...!{utgpu,utzoo,watmath}!utgpu!cks
From: silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: New Name for Flesh Golem wanted!
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:19:22 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

jdale@cats.ucsc.edu (Jonathan Dale) writes:
First of all, why not just call it "the great undead" or something.

>>It strikes me that all these variants have the golem being rather too
>>easy to destroy.

Well, in non-gaming fantasy, most monsters are rather easy to destroy if you
know how (either through arcane knowledge or because someone likes you and
told you how to), are very lucky (usually because you are very virtious), or 
are very clever and figure out how to do it. Someday I'ld like to run or
play in such a campaign. One problem is that everyone (or enough everyones)
know the old legends, the difficulty as a GM is deciding whether a PC is
worthy enough to kill the monster, or if the player has come up with a 
clever enough idea to do it etc. When I was running Pendragon, I used to
give all the really tough monsters (fiends, giants) a fatal weakness.
I usually gave enough clues to determine it, along with enough false clues,
of course. If the players deduced the weakness, I tilted the combat in their
favor (if not, well, a large Giant in Pendragon, if it hits, can squash a
knight and his horse by stepping on them.). If they came up with a plan
to exploit something that was plausable as a weakness, but that I hadn't
intended as such, I gave it to them if I judged them worthy of it (mostly
by how well they had role played that session and how well they had
followed their alighnment.)
	Anyway, thats my 2c worth.
-- 
ami silberman - janitor of lunacy
	silber@cs.uiuc.edu
From: gobeski8618@iscsvax.uni.edu (Steve 'Gobes' Gobeski)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Champions
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:38:59 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Jul24.180334.31529@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman) writes:

> A couple of comments. First, skills still cost too much. If one has three
> INT skills, its cheaper to buy up INT rather than the skills. There are
> a couple of ways to fix this:
> 1. Make skills cost only 1 point to increase the ability by 1.
> 2. Make an assumption about what the skills really mean. I think that most
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^               ^^^^
> people have about three skills at anything over the familiarity level.
  ^^^^^^

Yeah, like assume that, unless you have skill in say, Security Systems, all the
INT in the world isn't going to help you one bit when you're trying to disable
that alarm!!!  Unless of course you want to implement some sort of default
system, a la GURPS; Champs skills are all-or-nothing:  you either have the
skill, or you don't.  Period.

Most supers tend not to have lots of skills, they don't need them, they're
supers.  Heroes (75pt) on the other hand, tend to have all skills and no
powers.

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Military Mechs?
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason steiner)
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:48:36 EST

chem7l@jetson.uh.edu writes:
> 
> Just to clear things up:
> BattleMechs use a fusion power plant, the main purpose of which is to 
> generate electricity. The "synthetic muscles" contract when exposed 
> to electric current.

> Thus, the BattleMechs fusion engines generate the energy needed for 
> locomotion directly. On the other hand, vehicles have to have electric 
> motors to convert this electricity into mechanical energy. Of course, 
> Thus, vehicles which require wheels or fans to move at high RPMs require 
> extra drive equipment.  That is why vehicles with fusion engines 
> require drive equipment equal in weight to half the weight of the engine -- 
> larger fusion engines produce more electricity and therefor require larger 
> electric motors to convert that electricity to mechanical energy.  

funny how electricity-kinetic converters weigh so much on tanks & -nothing- 
on mechs. oh, i forgot, we're dealing with a myomer muscle, which -must- 
have zero density, or pretty close. in addition, the technology
that can produce them is incapable of building a small, efficient
electrical motor. (not very hard to do, even by today's standards.)

face it, BTECH is pure fantasy. it looks cool, it's fun to play, but
any attempt to apply logic, engineering or design to the process is
bound to show just how laughable the idea is.

jason "who, me? i play Centurion." steiner

--
would you could you should you cross thru if i could wipe my eyes a blinding
compromise another pinky shave enlightens the brow now cow to die another day
if you prefer outside be blessed sir ostracize better bastard now forgotten
well instead of favored son of hell in hopes to open eyes - scaterd few, U
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: dennis@Lise.Unit.NO (Dennis G Landsem)
Subject: MegaTraveller GM Aid v2.00 now available.
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.misc 
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 15:36:17 GMT

MegaTraveller GM Aid is a Windows 3.1 program with the following features:


  1. Basic Character Generation for Aslan, Imperial, Solomani, Vargr and 
     Vilani characters.

  2. Word Generation for Aslan, Darrian, Droyne, Vargr, Vilani and Zhodani
     languages.

  3. Implementing Hard Times changes for sector data files. Easy location of
     autonomous polities.

PS: You should be able to run this program under Windows 3.0, but you'll
    probably experience some problems with disappearing text.

The program is available by anonymous ftp (thanks, Dan) from

       sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca    

in the directory

       pub/traveller/software

The files are 

      mtgmaid.zip
      mtgmaid200.readme

DGL
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com ()
Subject: WANTED: RQ & EPT materials
Originator: jjm@oasis.zycor.lgc.com
Organization: Landmark/Zycor  (Austin TX)
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:46:00 GMT

I'm looking for some oldies to add to my library. I'm _mostly_ 
interested in originals, but I'd be more than willing to pay 
reasonable reproduction costs for copies (xerox) if no originals
are for sale ( I at least want the data! ).

RuneQuest ( < 3rd Edition ):
	PAVIS
	THE BIG RUBBLE
	WHITE BEAR - RED MOON
	WYRMS FOOTNOTES (I have about 1/3 of the total 
		- mostly the later ones)
	Anything other than:
		Cults of Prax, Cults of Terror, Griffin Mtn.
		Runequest Companion, Snakepipe Hollow

Empire of the Petal Throne (etc.):
	Older issues of THE IMPERIAL COURIER ( I have some of these)
	ditto of THE JOURNAL OF TEKUMEL AFFAIRS (ditto)
	SALARVYANI ARMY LISTS BOOK
	MISSUM
	THE BOOK OF EBON BINDINGS

As for the reverse, I have most of what's not listed above, and would
be happy to trade copies with anyone else whose collection has holes.

Interested parties may address me either @work (above)  or 
@school (below)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
john j medway                          jmedway@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu

"Free your ass and your mind will follow.
 Be pure, be vigilant, behave."           - Shriekback
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Huge Robots as weapons, are they valid? Does it matter?
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:14:29 GMT
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
In-reply-to: a481@mindlink.bc.ca's message of 28 Jul 92 04:58:03 GMT
X-Get-A-Clue: Have two, they're small.
X-Signature-Virus-Protection: Version 1.51
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.14.1 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]

>>>>> On 28 Jul 92 04:58:03 GMT, a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer) said:

> Richard Pieri/Stainles writes:
> 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.

JF> What it is, is a _silly_ point. If you're going to build an army of
JF> 'mechs just to scare primitive natives, I wager that you'll lose any
JF> war.

I'm not talking about "primitives," I'm talking about *you*, "J.D. Frazer."
Which would scare the bejezes out of you? Which is more likely to scare an
infantry company sh*tless?

JF> Except a war against primitive natives of course. :-) But then, it
JF> would be cheaper just to roll in with a mechanized division. Much
JF> cheaper.

The way the military mindset tends to work is that they'll pay more money
if they think it gives them tactical or psychological advantage. And as
long as they *think* they have an advantage, morale is kept up.

Now, if you're going to argue strategy and tactics, *I* wouldn't use a
Battlemech company against Iraq; I'd use more conventional forces (infantry
and tank-hunting aircraft) and save the heavies for the (former) Soviet
forces.

JF> I was among the first to point out that Battletech is a fun game, but
JF> I'll argue any attempt to justify it technologically, militarily or
JF> economically.

Tanks aren't econimical, either. They're incredibly expensive to
manufacture and serious fuel hogs. Doesn't stop the world's armies from
using them, now does it? :-)

--Rat

||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
                                                   __        ___ 
Richard Pieri, Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat/   | /| / /   | The Worlds
Internet: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu   /__  |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
    UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!splinter!ratinox/   | /| / / / | | Association:
  BITNET: UA_RLP@NUHUB{.BITNET}               /__  |/ |/ / /  | | I will solve
  USNail: 14 Westdale RD  Holbrook, MA 02343 /   | /| / / /___| | any problem
 ICBMnet: 42 deg 1 min N, 71 deg 0 min W    /    |/ |/ /_//_____| for you.