HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Reviews: Dangerous Journeys, Dreampark
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 22:01:48 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

I have to differ with both reviews Christopher Pound posted in a couple of
respects.  I do agree with both of his final conclusions, though (but for
different reasons).  I don't know the Harnmaster system so I can't say
anything about his comparisons between it and Mythus, but would like to know
why he persists in referring to Mythus as AD&D3.  I think that it is both
misleading and demeaning.  Mythus is a fine game system in its own right, it
is not a mere revision of AD&D.  The Mythus rules and setting bear little
resemblence to what I remember of AD&D1.  Calling Mythus AD&D3 does a 
disservice to both AD&D advocates and AD&D detractors.  People who like
Gygax's AD&D1 I think will be disappointed if they expect Mythus to be an
extension or derivation of it and those gamers who are not AD&D fans might be
put off by AD&D3 references when Mythus is quite a different game and one
which they might find they like.  I find it strange that the review starts
out by saying that Mythus has hundreds of useless rules and cumbersome charts
and then ends with the note that only minor alterations are needed to make
Mythus a playable system.  I think it is premature at this point to judge
the Mythus magic system or to comment about the quality of the spells.  The
Mythus Magick book promises to have 1,000 spells while the magick rules in 
the Mythus book are merely a tiny exerpt of them (hence the dozens of 
references in the rulebook to the Mythus magic book).
The review of Dream Park doesn't mention one flaw in the game that I think is
fairly significant.  The action resolution system does not allow for 
automatic success or failure for any task being performed.  To resolve an
action a player rolls 1d6 and then adds his skill modifier to the roll. 
If the total matches or exceeds the difficulty number for the task, the 
character succeeds.  The problem comes in when the character's skill level
doesn't fall within the die roll range of the difficulty number.  Since
difficulties range from 6 to 14 and skills from 1 to 12, this happens fairly
often.  The problem is aggravated with the way in which tasks are rated.
Changing a lightbulb is rated as a 6 task.  Changing a lightbulb in a hard
to reach space is rated as an 8.  Performing a task that requires the best
possible skills, a lot of experience, and a lot of luck is rated at 14.  This
means that an average, unskilled person has no chance whatsoever of being
able to change a lightbulb in a ceiling light, and only a 1 in 6 chance of
doing so with a table lamp.  On the other end of the scale it means a person
with a 12 skill can perform tasks the system rates as 1 in a million 
actions 5/6ths of the time.  A person with an average skill level will
only fail an average task on a roll of 1.  The game's action resolution
system is quick and simple and looks good on paper but falls flat on its face
in practice.  
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88)
Subject: Re: CHAMPS: Marksman....
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:54:56 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

gil@smtc21.engr.scarolina.edu writes:
[about a x3 peneterating attack]
> Ginsu is a martial artist in style only, a highly trained and 
> disciplined warrior from another dimension where there is no
> learning 'curve,' but rather a straight line.  Her triple pene
> is a function of superb training and equipment, of an unearthly
> level.  And though one could quadruple harden a couple using 3
> points, I'm pretty sure no such thing exists even in the Champions
> universe.  And yes, I do have a 'real' attack in Ginsu's multipower.
> A 4d6 punch.  Or was that a 4 1/2d6 HKA?  I forget....  :)

You're not sure if a quadruple hardened defense should exist in a game
where you have a character with triple penetrating?  First, by the 
rules, yes it can.  Second, by the rules, a triple penetrating attack
can't exist.  If you want to go by what exits in the 'Champions 
Universe', the answer is neither....  :)

Pull out your 4 1/2d6 HKA, and let your attack be dealt with by his
defenses.  He can, and should, have quad hardened defenses in a game 
where all you have to justify loads of penetrating killing is 'linear
training.'

Although Mechanon isn't awe-inspiring like Dr. Destroyer, he is still
flexbile and covers the defenses pretty well.  Add in his ability to
always come back, especially with improvements (like the ones that cost
3 pts) and in some ways he is more menacing than Dr. D.  Not to mention
that he makes Dr. D. look like a benevelont ruler...

-james
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: rivers@mdnitedkas.enet.dec.com (Kim Rivers)
Subject: Re: HERO vs. GURPS
Reply-To: nm%%decwrl::'%s"
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:30:49 GMT


In article <4817@armltd.uucp>, dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal) writes:
Subject: Re: HERO vs. GURPS


For the record, I've played both, and actually, I like both.  I admit I've used
and have played in a CHAMPIONS type scenario with the HERO rules and played a
more 'realistic' fantasy/medival style campaign with the GURPS.  However,
I'm also playing in a game where there's crossover betwixt fantasy/sci-fi with
GURPs, and that campaign isn't especially realistic.  


>However, to try to be reasonably objective: as you say, Hero can be easily
>modified - probably more easily than GURPS. The flip side of this seems to
>me to be that Hero *has* to be modified. For instance, GURPS provides you

No, it doesn't, not any more than a GURPs game (with the caveat that this
depends on what kind of campaign you are running.  Sure, GURPS has a few spells
right in the basic book, but if you shell out another $12-15 for the HERO
fantasy book, what it consists mainly of is magical items, spells, and some
monsters.  I wouldn't call that modifying, not really, and it's not any worse
than buying a sourcebook.


>with lists of spells, etc.; Hero tells you how to design a spell. The latter
>is better if you *want* to design your own spells - it's just a waste of
>time if you don't want to put in that much effort.

In my current campain, the HERO Fantasy spells are too weak, actually, and it's
a lot easier/better for the players and for me if they design their own.  It's
not half as hard as it might seem, but perhaps that's because we're all used to
the system and can whip up a Turn Into Newt spell pretty easily.

>A lot depends on the extent to which the GM wants to hand-craft his
>campaign. If you really just want to get a campaign going without much
>system design work (as opposed to world design work), GURPS is almost
>certainly the better system. Enough of the details have been worked out in
>the published rules that you can simply say something like "we're using
>GURPS Basic, the GURPS Magic spell system and the GURPS Martial Arts
>non-cinematic rules", design characters and a world and start playing.

True, but I am not convinced that you have to do that much tailoring for a HERO 
adventure.  They outline martial arts, weapons, transports, animals and some
archtypes for you in the basic book that with no more fuss than is usually
required to write character's up, you can and get going.  Your mileage may
vary, depending on what kind of campaign you are trying to start.  Agreed that
magic spells are not on the basic book, but see above.


cheers,

kim
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+  Remember, no matter where you go, I'm not with you.          +
+                                                               +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: HERO vs. GURPS
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:09:43 GMT
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University

laird@think.com (Laird Popkin) writes:
>Basing an RPG on modeling the real world decently (with extensions such as
>magic, psionics, etc., handled in a 'believable' way) seems like a pretty
>good foundation.  GURPS doesn't limit you to playing 'realistic' campaigns,
>but it does do a good job of making it clear when you're being 'cinematic',
>so you can consciously decide what sort of campaign you want to play.  That
>sounds pretty universal.

	The foundation of GURPS is on average level humans in the real 
world. This is not as much of a universal system as one which founds itself 
on more abstract principles. Why? 
	Because GURPS does not scale universally. The further you move away 
from reality and the human norm, the more you have to patch and replace the 
system. The base system is full of mechanics based on human norm values: 
the calculation of Move, the Fatigue=ST approximation, the Move=Dodge 
approximation, the fixed penalties to Move for Encumbrance, etc. Just look 
at the difference between animal stats and character stats: Move/Dodge, 
IQ/Perception, HT/Hit Points, etc. Combat is firmly grounded in SCA-like 
combats, which it represents much better than, say, a fight between two 
rabbits. 
	I would be intrigued to see how GURPS Bunnies and Burrows works. 
Being one of the few people I know who actually ran in B&B adventures, it 
continues to hold a dear spot in my heart. At any rate, a quick look at the 
system will show that without *serious* modifications, B&B will be a 
complete loss. 

	Admittedly, I only know of one system that is really universal - and 
that is an unpublished RPG called Spellcrafter (by Richard Garfinkle). Being 
designed by a math major, its combat works just as well between two inch 
high faeries as between 10 meter giants. Of course, there is a price - it is 
much more abstract than most systems - so that in mechanics, slugfests feel 
much the same research projects. 
	A truly universal system should be based on as flexible a set of 
mechanics as possible, so that it can represent a myriad of possible universes,
rather than being based firmly in our paltry 'reality'. 

	Yes, it is possible to invent new rules and mechanics for GURPS to 
handle new situations. But that hardly makes GURPS 'universal'. After all, 
the same can be done for any other game. The only difference is where the 
'default' setting is. For GURPS, it is human-norm reality. For other games, 
it is generally something else. One may argue that human-norm reality is 
more central than anything else to most game settings, but I am not sure of 
this. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "All the world will be your enemy, Prince with 
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | a thousand enemies. And if they catch you, 
Columbia University         | they will kill you."       - Watership Down
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Psionics
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:33:13 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan) writes:

> What's more, the real problem with your statement is that anything, including
> "[your] own SF world's technology", can be used as a copout. Technology gets
> (ab)used more than psionics, I'd say.  ST: TNG cops out on its own technology
> every other episode.

ST:TNG is hardly a good example, since it isn't really SF.  It's an adventure
show with a few SF trappings, but without any attempt at self-consistency.

I agree, though, that anything can be used as a cop-out.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Psionics
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:44:28 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Jul23.134214.23791@nic.unh.edu>, dqk412@kepler.unh.edu (David Q Kennard) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.170929.1436@ultb.isc.rit.edu> sjm8118@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>>      Does anyone else out there think that psionics is the copout of a SF 
>>world designer that cannot work within the framework of his own SF world's
>>technology to provide a good story/adventure?
>>
>>                                  Scott McDonough
	
	No, I don't think its a copout. It may not fit with 'hard' science
fiction, but there are lots of SF books out there with psionics (or some
derivative), so it *is* part of the genre. It also lessens the importance
of 'super-technology'.

> 
> Does anyone else out there think that SF technology is a copout of a
> world designer who cannot work within the framework of his own world's
> base principles to provide a good story/adventure/characterization?
> 
> Dave Kennard

	No, I don't believe this either. Granted, Silly Tech (tm) [see Star
Trek] can take away from the story, but it *usually* doesn't hurt things.
SF technology, again, is part of the genre. I'm not sure what you mean
by "his own world's base principles"; do you mean ours? If so, then why
are you bothering to play SF, since most (but not all) of it can't happen
(maybe...).
 
	It sounds like Scott doesn't like psionics and Dave doesn't like
SF technology. If you don't like it, then don't use it; but Star Wars without
the Force isn't Star Wars, and Star Trek without matter transporters and
warp dive isn't Star Trek.

Brandon Cope
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: SF or FF (Future Fantasy)?
Date: 28 Jul 92 05:42:02 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:

> Wait a minute - you're saying the only valid 'science fiction' is that which
> attmept to extrapolate the future as realistically as possible? (Qualified by
> making certain assumptions.)
> 
>         I'd disagree strongly with this. Science fiction is fiction which
> uses the excuse of science/technology to introduce elements that often would
> otherwise be fantasy.


        'Hard' SF is the sort which is rigorous in its science. 'Soft' SF
is less concerned with the scientific details/proof, and is willing to
introduce reasonable elements without documentation.

The problem is agreeing on terminology.  Does a romance novel become science
fiction if you have the heroine drive off in a fusion-powered car?  Does an
adventure novel become SF if you replace the hero's cutlass with a "light
saber"?  Does a "spaghetti western" become a "Science Fiction Adventure" movie
if you replace the revolvers with blasters?

"Hard SF" and "soft SF" are too vague to be really useful.  Does anyone know of
any better terms, or have some terms to propose?  Should Star Wars be listed as
"Future Fantasy"?

> Anyhow, fairly rigorous ESP experiments have produced positive results which
> have not yet been explained. This is not to imply that I believe in ESP, but
> extrapolating from that is not fundamentally different from extrapolating
> from other phenomena which do not yet have a successful model - like the
> 17KeV neutrino or high-temperature superconductivity.

The following uses the definition of SF as "extrapolation of scientific
principles or technology":

Extrapolating from some measured results is science fiction.  Reading a report
of "unexplained results" in an experiment and then writing a story where the
characters read minds instantaneously across galactic distances or toss a car
aside using telekinesis is not science fiction; that's writing fantasy.  If you
take a few desired psi powers and write up a consistent set of laws regarding a
"new basic force" that explains them, and then make sure that those laws apply
to everything in the book/game that they should apply to, then it's SF.  If you
simply say "psi is based on a new basic force" and then add psi powers to suit
a storyline or game plot, then it's fantasy.


Does anyone feel that this is too rigid or limiting a definition of SF?  Would
Battletech gamers get upset if their game became labeled "Future Fantasy"
instead of SF?  Would editors, reviewers and librarians be able to agree on a
particular book being SF or FF?  :)

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan)
Subject: Re: Psionics
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:18:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.170929.1436@ultb.isc.rit.edu> sjm8118@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
|
|      Does anyone else out there think that psionics is the copout of a SF 
|world designer that cannot work within the framework of his own SF world's
|technology to provide a good story/adventure?
|
|                                  Scott McDonough

	Hardly.  Psionics, like just about any other story element, can be used
for a vast number of purposes.

	Outside of, say, a Supers campaign, I would tend to use psionics to
instill an element of mystery.  The players tend to be a little less
cock-sure when the world is clearly more than they can see.

	What's more, the real problem with your statement is that anything,
including "[your] own SF world's technology", can be used as a copout.
Technology gets (ab)used more than psionics, I'd say.  ST: TNG cops out on
its own technology every other episode.

	Personally, I don't think I've ever "copped out" wrt technology.  If
some device proves to be a pain in the rear thruster, I expunge it.  If some
capability is needed to make the society work, I include it.  Simple.


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
From: A@A
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hero System for anything but supers
Keywords: Gurps
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:44:48 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <0095DE99.76FAD3C0@abby.chem.ucla.edu> doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu  
writes:
>Hold it, 15 is hardly an "average" weapon skill in GURPS.  I suspect you've
>seen some real power-gamers at it with GURPS, since I've RARELY seen a
>starting character with even ONE stat of 15, and never played one with a
>stat of 15... and I've been playing GURPS for about four years.
>
>IMHO, a starting skill of 12 is perfectly reasonable for a starting fighter,
>especially if you've got a weapon/shield combo or a defensive weapon (staff,
>rapier, and the like).  People pay for those 15 DX's... they either can't
>penetrate heavy armor, or they can't take much damage before keeling over.
>Or, alternatively, they're VERY vulnerable to anything requiring an IQ roll.
>At any rate, IMHO it just isn't worth it to get the 15 DX.  Of course, I don't
>like to play characters with an IQ of less than 12, so I suppose that colors
>my choice of point expenditures quite a bit.

In my experience, ( in non-cinematic campaigns, mind you ), I have played two  
characters with an atttribute of 15 and one with 16.  One 15 in ST, one in DX,  
and the 16 in ST.  In a fight you damage others *so* fast that you really don't  
suffer the cut-backs in the other areas.  And I didn't really have a deficit in  
other stats, I just had some mainline skills, and only the ones I needed; I  
didn't try to become a jack-of-all-trades, like the "typical" GURPS characters  
I've seen.  I just tried to do a few things well and forget the rest, that's  
what the other party members are for anyway.

Incidently, on the subject of Hero vs. GURPS for the normals-genre,  a friend  
of mine loved to point out the scant breakpoints in normal Hero stats.  He  
liked GURPS better because it simulated normal-level play much better.  But  
since he has run numerous rounds of GURPS, he has decided that PC's should only  
have a maximum of 13 in a stat.  In my opinion, he is saying that GURPS does  
not handle normals that well, but it can be made to.  In the same mode I've  
tried to make Hero a break-point-less game.
>
>-Doug Gibson
> doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu

John J Cassidy		Cassidy@cps.msu.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: A@A
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: SF roleplaying--fave system
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:54:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <Broy0L.CA8@acsu.buffalo.edu> lnorton@acsu.buffalo.edu (Louis  
Norton) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul20.010456.21087@midway.uchicago.edu>,  
deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu (daniel edward brighoff) writes:
>>
>>	I'm interested in starting a sci-fi campaign and, not having experience
>>with a lot of systems or the cash to make a lot of purchasing mistakes ...   
>>Here's my background:
>>
>>STAR FRONTIERS:...
>>TRAVELLER(Original): ...
>>SRUN(i know it's c-punk; bear w/ me): ...
>>GURPS:...
 	
>>Overall, i find Ars Magica, CoC, and Hero the best systems.  Whether 
>>i'd go for hard or soft depends on what my players would want.  Though I have 
>>no _particular_ interest in playing something w/ a Star Trek background, i 
>>wouldn't rule it out if the system were good.  Also, what supplements or  
>>references (system dependent of no) do y'all find most helpful?  E-mail me at 
>>dada.uchicago.edu if y'all don't wanna eat up bandwidth.  Thanks.
>>-- 
>>	Daniel "Da" von Brighoff (deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /\
>>	951 E. 54th Place				    /__\
>>	Chicago, IL  60637				   /____\
>>							  
>
>	Well, I think that if you're interested in a SF campaign you should
>check out Battlelords of the 23rd Century, which is a relatively new game. 
>It has an excellent system and original races and background. Support material 
>is still in the production stages but based on the first book, it should be 
>excellent. I don't know if you will find the book at this time but it might
>be worth looking for.
>
>Babbling DM

That reminds me of an interesting, if uneven, game called 2300AD.  I like the  
low-powered technology ALOT, I like the way that characters will not be jetting  
to wherever they want to go, the GM can schedule more conflicts this way,  
without having to worry about character whim.  I bought Traveller 2300 when it  
first came out, the combat system stunk (if you do not like severely-lethal  
combat), and so I hijacked it all for Hero source marterial.  I've seen little  
of the current system, though.

John J Cassidy 		Cassidy@cps.msu.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Fantasy Game Worlds
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:00:50 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle


Regardless of game system, what do you think is the best pre-industrial Fantasy
world currently supported by a gaming company? In particular, how would you 
grade the following aspects of the various game worlds?

 - Colorful and detailed monsters

 - Well thought out personas

 - Social interaction

 - Economic realism

 - Political realism

 - Geographic flavor

 - Enjoyable Atmosphere

 - Depth and grandeur

 - Quality of the scenarios

 - Overall rating

There's probably some other categories I missed.
-- 

  Bob Hall - Systems Analyst, Boeing Computer Services
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.arts.sf.misc