HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: singley@helix.nih.gov (Erick Singley)
Subject: Re: WereVamp->Ars?
Organization: (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:49:46 GMT

Min/maxing in vampire? Sure! Find me a system where you can't!  I'm sure even
in a non-combat oriented system (burrows and bunnies maybe?) one can have some
sort of combat-god oriented person.  One can look through vampire book and find
lotsa references to combat- but one can easily find such a selection in 
other systems as well.  Every session we've done has been directed towards
maintaining our secrecy (Masqurade), investigation, and even normal day-to-day
buisness where we have to think. (all right- you can get money IN/OUT of ATM
machines- how do you get a loan from a bank.  Find night hours? get a ghoul 
(then you've got ID problems)? Brave the SUN?
  I (being a player) have not actually READ the stories- but have enjoyed the
game due to the storyteller.  We don't have a lot of combat because we don't 
have it as a horror/gothic world where vampires and werewolves constantly
battle it out in a vallhalla fight for right.  This is not to say that the 
system doesn't have problems; and yes- when I pay for a game I expect it to work
But there isn't a system I've played yet where we'll need to house rule some-
thing. IMHO go with what has pleased you.  I had bad experiences with Amber-
but I can see where it might work at least (meaning the game mechanics)
   Keep making those characters where most of your emphasis is on the Person
and not some combat goal!  If the GM punishes you for it- you're in the wrong
campain, not the wrong system.  I have yet to have a combat-god in ANY system
and won't as long as I enjoy role playing.

As for the system mechanics, lets say they could use some fine tuning and
see what Vamp II changes (if it's as much as they did in Storyteller/Werewolf
I'll just go mad now and save myself the time)
Erick
From: dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: State of the art
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:45:25 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

>1) What are the TYPES we should be seeking the state of the art in?

I think this is meaningless.  I don't think you can have state of the
art distinctions in background or setting design, because what
defines quality of world design isn't likely to change.  That's like
saying something is 'state of the art' poetry.  It's  a silly concept.

And if you're comparing mechanics and innovations in actual rule
design, then it doesn't matter what the setting is, because if an
innovation is made it ought to be applicable to many different
genres.

>2) What are the state of the art games in each of these areas?

That said, I don't think that there ARE any new 'state of the art'
games which have been released lately.  We've been waiting for
a real leap forward for a while.  Most games being released
these days (mechanically) are either part of an already existing
standard, or even a leap backwards.

There are some games which have been mistaken for state of
the art changes, particularly the 'storyteller' games which are,
in my opinion, gigantic leaps backwards in game mechanics
design.

All I can identify is a trend, and that is towards giving more
control to the player and providing mechanics which are less
intrusive and more adaptable, so that the rules don't get in the
way of roleplaying.  The problem is that while a few games seem
to be following this progressive course, most of the really big
hits are going against that trend, with muddled, hard to follow
and manipulative mechanics.  Go figure.

>3) In what ways has the art become more specialised this year?

I think what's happened is that the market has become too
complex for one unified trend to sweep the market the way that
skill systems or point allocation systems did a few years ago.

All the things I've seen happening in the last year or so, like
Vampire and Werewolf and Shadowrun are very, very discouraging.
I think that bad game designs with good background material are
one of the banes of the roleplaying marketplace.  They lower
player expectations and condition them to accept inferior game
designs when they ought to be out looking for rules which do
justice to the background they come with.

The only innovation I've seen is the diceless system for Amber,
and it only works because of the specialized setting and the great
abuse done to reality by the Amber rules.  Diceless RPing may be
a big trend, but it still needs a lot of fine tuning before it would
work in most settings.

Dave
From: a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Date: 3 Oct 92 02:17:44 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:
>         Well, I'm not going to apologize for your lacking combat skills.
> (No offense intended here...read on)  The fact is that in combat, people
> tend to aim for the HEAD or the VITALS, and not the chest.  They are aiming
> with intent to KILL a person.

You just shot yourself out of the sky. Fact is, people who use firearms
within their professions are trained to shoot for the largest part of the
body, namely the chest. Reason: it's easier to hit. And the whole point of
shooting at someone is to put him down quickly so he can't shoot back.

My qualifications: I served as a correctional officer and in the Canadian
military. I was never told "Shoot for the guy's head. It might be harder to
hit, but you'll do him in quicker."

By the way, if the vitals aren't in the chest, where are they?

>        Again, I'll try out a few combats and see what "really" happens.
> The main points are the shoot for the vitals or the head. A "chest" hit
> means that your shot was not well-placed enough to penetrate an organ.  The
> bullet hit bones and glanced off, etc.

If a projectile strikes bone, it will generally shatter everything around
it, sending sharp pieces of your own skeletal structure throughout your
chest cavity.

I have no idea who wrote those combat rules, but they seem to need a lesson
in projectile trauma themselves. Either that, or it's your interpretation
that needs to be re-examined.

--
J.D. Frazer, a481@mindlink.bc.ca, (Vancouver, B.C., Canada)
-----------------------------------------------------------
*BRRRRAPPAPPAPPAPPAPPAPPAPPAPP!*
"MEIN LEBEN!" <thud>
"You shoulda thought about that when you signed up, buddy." - Valaria

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: GURPS High Tech, 2nd Ed.
Reply-To: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 02:41:59 GMT

I see the new High Tech, 2nd Ed. addresses some of the problems people
have been having with gunfire and GURPS.  While not as clean a mechanic
as "Coolness under Fire," it's a good start.  Chapter One has a section
on "Flinch, Buck Fever and Bullet Shyness" that makes a lot of sense,
but still doesn't quite bring gun battles into realistic realms.  The
problem is still Will, which needs to be divorced from IQ.  SJ admitted
as much a few years ago on the SJG BBS, but felt it was too late to
make it a separate stat.

Basically, Flinch is feeling the recoil before you pull the trigger
(negative modifier to gun skill), Buck Fever is tightening up under
pressure (ditto), and Bullet Shyness is a negative modifier to Will to
expose yourself to shoot back when under fire.

I don't play genres with gunfire, myself, beyond Black Powder weapons.
Anyone who plays this stuff try these rules?  Opinions?

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu (Dave Bonar)
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-28298]: sn01.sncc.lsu.edu
Reply-To: eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu
Organization: News and Views from LSU
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:28:02 GMT

In article <38888@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes...
>In article <1992Oct1.133721.4073@news.columbia.edu> jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>In article <38826@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:

>>rather from believability standpoint. The first GURPS game I was in, 
>>we were faced with a hijacker who we literally emptied our pistols into, 
>>and we were seriously worried that we would run out of ammunition before 
>>he dropped. At this point, the GM called a halt, and after that session 
>>we revised the rules to something much harsher: roll HT minus the number 
>>of hits you are negative to stay concious at negative HT, and a cumulative 
>>-1 per death check after the first. 
> 
>	Well, I'm not going to apologize for your lacking combat
>skills.  (No offense intended here...read on)  The fact is that in
>combat, people tend to aim for the HEAD or the VITALS, and not the
>chest.  They are aiming with intent to KILL a person.  You and your
>friends were just firing wildly, greatly reducing any chance you had
>to kill the guy.  Next time, remember to fire for the vitals or the
>head (the head's a nice double-whammy...guy has to roll to stay
>conscious and if you do enough damage, he's got to roll to stay
>alive as well).

	I think the first situation is more realistic.  From everything
I have ever heard, read or seem; almost no one goes through a firefight
aiming for the head and/or the vitals.  If you are dealing with specially
trained, very cool, very experienced types you might be able to claim that
they will aim for vital targets.  For normals; even normal hero types or
combat trained types, the idea is to get off the first shot and get off the
most shots.  Lead in the air is better then just standing around aiming if
the opponent is firing back and doing reasonable defensive actions (like 
moving and dodging).  

	Now, in a GURPS firefight the rules might well make it benifitial
to always aim for the vital spots.  If so I think they should be changed
or the specific game you are running should have lower average skills 
(probably the latter, most GURPS games I've seen tend to have extremely
high combat skills, especially guns).

	Of course, this doesn't apply in some situations.  Someone firing
from good cover might decide to aim for killing type shots.  Similarly the
first shots in a firefight are probably aimed for at least one side.  Its
very likely that someone will take aimed shots if the target isn't defending
(ie isn't trying to stay unhit).

Dave
__________
Dave Bonar
eebonar@lsuvax.sncc.lsu.edu
__________
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Superhero rp
Date: 27 Sep 92 13:35:03 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <Bv5L81.M57@rice.edu> tomscud@ruf.rice.edu (Thomas Reid Scudder) writes:
>In article <6286@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes: 
>|> 	In my completely godlike opinon, Chumpions isn't at all what I
>|> want in a superhero game. I like Marvel Super Heroes for a simple
>|> system; if I want more detail, I use a slightly modified Villains
>|> and Vigilantes.

>How much did you have to modify V&V?  I played it for a while before i found
>Champs, and I can't see much reason to go back...

	Not that much. As I recall, there were only three mods of any
significance. I can't remember what they were mainly because we modified
it over ten years ago and the changes are basically hardwired in my
brain -- I'll only notice them if someone says, "oh, but THAT isn't the 
way it is in the book!"

>Do you still roll up random characters? (hmm... ice powers, heightened charisma,
>heightened speed, and transmutation...)

	Sometimes, if I want to come up with a brand new character concept.
Or I use the other (book) rule: make character from concept. No modification
of the game there.

>Do you still use the silly "attacks vs. defenses" table for combat?

	That's one of the best things of the game. A different defense
 works differently against a given offense (i.e., that Ice Wall will be
real nice against a Flame Bolt, but a vibration attack will shatter it
easily, and it won't do jack against a psibolt.).

>Do you still use the xp system?  (actually not a bad thing...)

	Yep. I think we modified that somewhat... yeah, to make it a bit
like what Marvel's Karma turned out to be with respect to gaining
abilities (although that was more inspired by The Arcanum and its experience
system; in The Arcanum, you can gain XPs and go up in level, or use the XP
to buy a skill.

>The one thing i do remember about V&V is that it takes slightly less time to
>make a character than in Champions, but only slightly, because of the amount
>of calculations and referencing tables that is required.

	Well, I'd expect that an experienced user of both systems would
find it a lot faster to make a CONCEPT character in V&V than in 
Champions.


					Sea Wasp
From: leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Date: 27 Sep 92 00:46:29 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep25.211730.10798@news.columbia.edu>, jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
 > BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com writes:
   
   [Stuff about people surviving massive injuries deleted]

 > >So anyway, if a game is to model reality someone should be able to
 > >(rarely) survive massive injuries.
 > 
 > 	Yes, but the trouble is that in GURPS is happens all the time for 
 > people of HT 15 or greater. A quick check with a calculator will reveal 
 > that there is over a 50% chance that these people will have to be taken 
 > down to -5*HT in order to kill them. 
 > 	To clarify: odds are that someone of 15 HT can take a bazooka to 
 > the chest and live in GURPS. 
 > 
 > 	It is not a major rules problem in GURPS - but it is something that 
 > definitely should be fixed. 
 >

Easily done with house rules.  Just set a maximum limit to successful HT rolls,
like the rule that a Will roll always fails on a 14+.  Use whatever max limit you
feel most comfortable with.  No problem.
 
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > John Kim                    | "Deservin's got nothing to do with it."
 > jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu |
 > Columbia University         |                - William Munny, 'Unforgiven'

Leif the .sigless
From: dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: State of the art
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:51:53 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

You know, the problem with Alignments and things like Character Classes or
professions is not that they are a bad idea, or that they are unrealistic,
the problem with these things is that they shouldn't be built into the rules
of the game.

Things like alignment or character proffessions are essentially part of the
world background and the characters experience or personality.  They are not
the kind of thing which should be imposed on players or the world by the game
system.

I think this is one of the good trends in gaming.  The fact that more and
more game designers have realized WHERE the line between game mechanics and
world background or campaign elements is seems to me to be a very good thing.

If I were to define a difference between old and new generation game systems
it would be defined on the basis of mechanics which dictate how you should
play and develope your characters and world, and mechanics which allow YOU
to make those decisions.

Dave
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sexism in Gaming
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:40:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <QeoUCFe00WB75N6EF3@andrew.cmu.edu> cn0n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Cynthia K. Neelan) writes:
>However sexism in roleplay games very much DOES exist.  I currently
>play in three ongoing campaings that meet once a week in rotation.  I
>play a female charachters.  I am a female.  :)  The problems that I
>have experienced are two fold:
>
>I)  Obvious lack of Female NPC's

	Well, in the games I play in there's no shortage of female
NPCs... or PCs, for that matter. Especially since I play a 50/50 mix
of sexes (well, 49/49/2, actually).

	Many NPCs in our games come from former PCs, and some of the most
memorable (Elidon, the Silver Dragon; Starlight Steelwing; Kyrie Ross,
the Phoenix Saint; Mithras Silverstar; Natasha Denisov, the White 
Necromancer... to name a few) are women.

>II)  Male answer syndrome, or No *YOU* can't do that... but *I*
>can.....

	I've seen this before. From my own experience, I don't think
it's sexism in the usual sense... it's that most  women tend to 
TALK QUIETLY, so the GM hears the loud men and doesn't hear the women.
I used to relay the actions of several female players because they
simply couldn't (either physically or psychologically) talk at that
volume, while I had the loudest and most dominant voice in the group.

	So if the problem persists, choose a "designated shouter" who
will say "YO! Jareen's been trying to pick this lock for seven minutes,
GM! You deaf??" for you.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: mmadsen@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen)
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Reply-To: mmadsen@ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 3 Oct 92 22:11:12 GMT

While we're on the subject of modeling reality (particularly weapon
damage), does anyone know any good sources on _real_ trauma caused
by bullets, knives, baseball bats, etc.

Also, what would be a good newsgroup to ask about this.

Matt Madsen
mmadsen@ics.uci.edu
From: maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 22:13:05 EDZ
Distribution: world
Organization: Sweet Oblivion

a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer) writes:

> By the way, if the vitals aren't in the chest, where are they?

Yes, they are defined as within 2" (or was it 3") to either side of
spinal column, which, by the way, is a GOOD chest hit (lungs are not
good fight stoppers, neither is stomach area).

You were taught to aim for CENTER OF MASS, weren't you? If not, you
should have been... that's what all the personal protection teachers
tell you these days.

I think GURPS does this rather nicely - aim for vitals (-3) and a miss
by one is still a torso hit, so it's really only -2. Center of torso IS
vitals, the problem being that people don't realize they must claim
aiming so (which would be natural and default action, IMHO).

You could add a simple rule: If torso is hit by X (that's X better than
roll needed), the hit is vitals unless shooter specifically states
otherwise. Simple and effective. Oh, and have X be at least 4, or no-one
will make called vital shots anymore.



--------
maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)
Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) Official SRP Headquarters


Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.advocacy:2518 rec.games.frp.misc:6241
From: capron@lareth.UUCP (Michael P. Capron)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Reichstar (sp?)
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:56:03 GMT
Organization: UTek Users Group, Portland, OR

Actually, I rather liked Reichstar.  I thought the artwork was fine.  The game
mechanices *looked* reasonable, but I have only perused them.  Those world
aspects they did cover seemed well thought out.  However, a GM would have to
do a lot to actually put a campaign together based on the sparse framework.

Mike Capron
lareth!capron@cci632.cci.com
From: dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Supplements for Multiple Systems
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:56:47 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

I don't know how hard it is to do this.  I've worked on several supplements
which have been designed to work with multiple systems and did it just fine.

It's been pretty standard with the To Challenge Tomorrow line of background
supplements to include conversion rules for GURPS, Hero and several other
systems.

If the primary game for which the supplement is designed is sufficiently well
developed and the person writing the conversion rules is conversant with the
systems being converted to, it's pretty easy to make good conversion rules.

After all, what REALLY matters is the setting material, the adventures and
the general information on the background characters.  From that material any
good GM can estimate the actual stats for whatever system, he's using.

There are some very good supplements which include conversion material which
come to mind.  They start with a particular system, but are designed with a
real effort to be adaptable.  They are:

The Primal Order (Wizards of the Coast)
Over the Edge (Atlas Games)
Firepower! (Ragnarok)
Dark Continents (Ragnarok)

Dave
 

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: cm182s182@pdrome.UUCP (Clayton Miner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Character Development
Date: 1 Oct 92 10:49:23 GMT
Organization: The PowerDrome BBS [(716)825-3614 Excelsior]
X-BBS-Software: EXCELSIOR! v0.960

Different styles as you said.  My players are getting together really as a way 
of taking a short vacation from day to day concerns so the important thing is 
that they are having fun.  I have noticed that when the setting gets very 
intense they do tend to stay more in character so things balance out okay in 
the long run.  Still, that "Calgon take me away" bit was a classic...deeloped 
into a facet of the character and all, so....  ;)
 
Skeksis
From: elmo@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Yuri Villanueva)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Character Development
Date: 4 Oct 92 22:20:43 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

cm182s182@pdrome.UUCP (Clayton Miner) writes:

> Regarding your comments on players being docked for disruptive behaviour...I 
> have found that usually just threatening to penalize a player has been 
> sufficient for the most part although there have been the two memorable 
> ocasions where the charcters themselves were so damn disruptive to the 
> campaign that special efforts had to be made to remove them entirely...
>  [Discussion Deleted] 
> Nail 'em if they are out of hand, warn em if they are not paying attention or
> won't let someone else speak, but that is about it.
>  
> Skeksis

I have found that this works too:  If one player is behaving disruptively, 
penalzie the others.  Ostracism by peers is a very potent threat.  Just make
it clear that the others players' suffering resulted directly from the
culprit's actions.  For example, we're playing Cthulhu and a player named
Steve is just being difficult:

Steve :  Oh, I don't know.  I point the gun inside my mouth and pointing
         straight to my brain and then pull the trigger.

(This is the disruptive action I was talking about.  His character, quite
sane, had no reason to do this.  A completely unwarranted stunt which
shocked the other players.  It not only jeopardized the investigation, but
also took away from the other players' enjoyment of the game).

GM : Uh (Thinks for a while), You die, the bullet goes straight through your
     head, there is now some blood and tissue oozing through the bullet
     hole, and your fall to the ground makes one disgusting plop sound.
     Um, everybody else make a sanity check, if you fail, lose 1D8 sanity.

Everybody else : Thanks a lot Steve!  (Some players are mumbling about what
                 foul deeds they're gonna do to Steve afterwards).

Steve picked up a new character and behaved like a good boy this time. 
Everything went well and everybody including the bad boy enjoyed the rest of
the adventure now that nobody was being counterproductive.  Unfortunately,
it does sound like a power-play kind of scenario, but fortunately enough,
the GM found strength in numbers. :)