HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 04:11:27 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <wilder.728041304@mik.uky.edu> wilder@nx02.mik.uky.edu (jeff wilder) writes:
>In <1k2sv4INNh5u@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner) writes:
>|The GURPS CP Adventures book is -not- hard-linked with anything in the GURPS
>|CP book. 'DNA/DOA' and company -are- hard-linked to the base SR rules. Do you
>|get what I'm trying to say here?
>This might explain a lot.  "DNA/DOA" happens to be the absolute worst of
>the SR adventures.  It's written by Dave Arneson, and absolutely holds on
>to the typical "dungeon crawl/kill the monsters/loot the bodies" feel of
>original D&D. Basically, this package sucks.

I know. I mentioned it because it came to mind while I was thinking of bad SR
modules. :>

  If you're judging a "typical"
>SR campaign by this adventure alone (or even in combination with only a
>couple extras--this one has enough odor to contaminate them all), you're
>making a huge mistake.

I'm not. 

>So be honest (and the temptation will be there to exaggerate, Chris): how
>many of the SR adventures have you looked over?

Everything up to about, er, 'Dragon Hunt', I think. I used to play a -lot-
of SR, before I became sick of it. Sold all my SR stuff a while before SRII 
came out; I skimmed SRII in the store, and decided that not enough had 
changed to warrant me spending money on it again.

>IMO, some of the packaged adventures are worth the bucks, despite the
>linear, "read it to em verbatim" style that I despise.  For me, a full-
>time worker and student, the plot-lines, the NPCs, and the maps justify
>the $8 a pop.

I bought 'em used, or borrowed friends; the only one I bought was 'Harlequin',
which I kept after selling everything else. Nicely done set of adventures, 
the best SR product made, period.

-- 
    "Well, do you ever get the feeling that the Story's too damn real
                        and in the present tense?"
               Christian Wagner - cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga)
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:53:54 GMT

cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner) writes:

>Heh. I guess that's where we differ. I -enjoy- playing interesting characters
>who may be less than competant. And CP literature is -full- of 'em....

I enjoy playing interesting characters who are competent. And CP literature
is full of them too. 

>Valid points. But, how many of us remember, for example, Molly's stories she
>would tell case? For the most part, we tend to remember when Molly would rip 
>people apart, and the fact that she had -really neat- cyberenhnacements. 
>Weak != Interesting, and Powerful != Interesting. But in many cases, extra-
>special abilities tend to overshadow the -character-. 

Well, that's you and what you remember. Me, the things I remember from
the books are the raw emotions these people felt. The thing about Molly
that sticks out most in my mind is her knowing that she's stuck on this
road too long, that she should have gotten off it like Case. YMMV.


><chuckles> Maybe so. But you can't get away with that in GURPS; gun combat is
>naaaaaasty; I recommended each of my campaign's players have at least HT 12, 
>just for surviveability's sake, even though we may have two fights an 
>adventure. I've seen very few people use GURPS for heroic-style roleplaying,
>because it doesn't cope that well with it. Unless you're -trying- get get silly
>results (like we were in a 350-pt 'Modern Action Movie' game we did for a 
>couple of weeks a while back), GURPS doesn't cope well with that style.

Gun combat is no more nasty in GURPS than in any CP 2020 or SRunII. To
be honest, our GM's suggestion on extending our characters life - "Don't
keep running the shadows." The longer you play, the more likely you
are to get your ticket punched. And that's with a campaign where there
isn't always combat, much less two gunfights a night. If you want 
"naaaaaaasty" gun combat, play with Phoenix Command rules for a night.
Then go generate new characters, and remind yourself that GURPS ain't
that tough.

Axly
********************************************************************************
*  Axly       *   "Just because its my gun doesn't mean I'm the one who fired  **             *    it."                                                        *
* Red Sword   *   "OK, I fired it, but I didn't think I'd hit any civilians."  *
*  Targa      *   "Well, yes, it did occur to me that I might hit one or two   *
*             *    civilians. But I really never thought I would hit all of    *
*             *    them. "                                                     *
*             *      - Axly                                                    *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: kelek@ais.org (Mike McDonald)
Subject: Re: The Random Roll Question :-)
Summary: Random rolls vs Point allocation
Organization: UMCC
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:37:57 GMT


  Random rolls and point allocation both have advantages and disadvantages
and both use creativity, and I use both in different situations.

Point Allocation
  This is a good system when you've got a picture of your character in
your head and you're familiar with the system, but can be somewhat
confusing for inexperienced players or someone who hasn't made up their
mind on what type of character to play.  The disadvantage of this is
that all of the characters are annoyingly balanced and uniform - weak
and powerful characters are impossible (weak and powerful characters are
a good change of pace every once in a while, as long as it doesn't
mess up balance completely).  This is also a problem with most RPGs which
encourage players to start at a certain level of power.  The point
allocation system encourages statistical balance, but there are loopholes
and other ways to tip the scales, so in the end the GM is the one
who needs to maintain balance, either by saying yes or no, or applying /
modifying the rules.

Random Rolls
  Random rolls give variety and direction, sometimes too much so, or
sometimes so limited by the rolling methods that it practically equals
point allocation.  The normal roll 3d6 and assign in order (how many
people use this, anyways?) occasionally creates weak or powerful
characters whether the player/GM wants it or not, and starts
leaning toward more powerful characters with different rolling methods, 
attempting to minimize scores, but making high scores more common.  If
the scores are taken in order, a certain kind of character is forced on
the player, and if the player switches around the scores, the whole
procedure becomes similar to point allocation, but still with the
risk of weak/powerful characters.  Nevertheless, sometimes the occasional
weak or powerful character is fine, and the overall random element is
there to give ideas to players who couldn't decide on what kind of
character they wanted.

When I Use What
  For PC creation, I usually have my players use point allocation,
unless they aren't sure what kind of character they want or have
no preference.  Every once in a while I may have a PC be weaker or
stronger than usual.
  For NPC creation, I use point allocation (usually modified on my
whim for how strong or weak I think the character is) for NPCs I've
pretty much already developed, and roll up random NPCs for ideas,
random encounters, or in cases when I can't make up my mind.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: elandal@archtwr.tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on GURPS
Organization: Chambers of the Archmage
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 10:30:17 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

[This was really interesting. I liked this. Read the whole post. I only
 commented one thing in it.]

Matt Madsen (mmadsen@bonnie.ics.uci.edu) wrote:
: In fact, I believe there
: are more than a few people who can bench press over 600 lbs. (they're
: called American Gladiators :^) -- that's about four times average, for
: a strength of 40!  So, the complaint about the ST-sink is well founded,
: but also easily fixed.

  Why does everybody always forget the extra effort?

: Matt Madsen
: mmadsen@ics.uci.edu
-- 
Elandal		(aka Ismo Peltonen)			| Hanuripolku 5B15
home (UUCP)	elandal@archtwr.tower.NullNet.FI	| 00420 Helsinki
Univ (internet)	ipeltone@cc.Helsinki.FI			| FINLAND
data		+358-0-5072005			voice	+358-0-537515
From: maillet@tls-cs.cert.fr (Luc Maillet)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Character Creation.
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:30:24 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: CERT, CS Dpt. Toulouse, France


  In answer to the long ( but quite interesting ) post of James Davis.

  What I believe is lacking in most character creation systems ( both RR and PA )
is that the player lacks a scale. And that reminds me of our latest MARVEL SH
character creation : we used the "scales" provided in the GM book. No rolls for
stats, no rolls for powers, nor rolls for talents, and no "point allocation".
We made up our PCs from a basic idea, comparing each and every characteristic
with those of well-known NPCs. As soon as we thought our PC was "worse" than
the NPC, we knew the stat value of our PC. It's easy, and it works. Far better
than the "basic" system.

  So I believe that, in order to create a character, you need a/the GM. For
the scale. You can give values to the PC attributes that way. You can give
value to the PC skills that way. Just for the record, I'm trying to work out
a "rules skeleton" to provide guidelines for such scales and character creation.

  But what I believe is more ( most ) important is the background of the charac-
-ter. All his/her previous life. The player must come up with it, sometimes with
the GM's help ( for places, NPCs, etc... ). Here in Toulouse, we often play parts
of a PC's background. One of my latests PCs ( Rolemaster/Shadow World ) was
created "in concept" last summer. We have played about 30+ hours since then, and
the background isn't done yet !
  Sometimes you don't have that much time before a campaign. But I still feel
necessary to know the previous life of the PC. Write a background. The more
detailed, the better. Every little parcel of past and present you can come up
with adds to the depth of the PC. Even in the RolePlaying Convention we're
organizing annually, where the players are given "pre-made" PCs, we make 3+
page-long backgrounds. Because it helps playing in character, far more than any
set of stats.

  Of course, all the above is with a big IMHO. I'm certainly no role-playing
judge. But I think both PAs and RR systems are flawed when they limit imagination
in order to preserve an artificial and inconsequential "game balance".

								Redwing

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga)
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:56:05 GMT

<CSD108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>Paraphrasing some of the major points:
>1. Characters have no moral/ethical codes.

>Well, this is more a problem with the players, I feel. In fact, some of the
>characters SHOULD have a moral code. The street samurai is supposed to have
>an ethical code like the samurai of Japan. If all they do is shoot everything
>in sight, they're nothing more than street punk wannabes.

Yeah, right. I doubt Gibson had any such moral code in mind when he coined
the term (Think Molly's got one?). Samurai is more a term regarding competence
and professionalism.

>Maybe, but one is usually balanced by another. The samurai might be good with
>his gun, but the mage can toast him easily.
    
    That really depends on his Willpower. Most mages start out with
    their manabolt spells and the occasional high Willpower samurai
    gives them fits.

Axly

********************************************************************************
*  Axly       *   "Just because its my gun doesn't mean I'm the one who fired  **             *    it."                                                        *
* Red Sword   *   "OK, I fired it, but I didn't think I'd hit any civilians."  *
*  Targa      *   "Well, yes, it did occur to me that I might hit one or two   *
*             *    civilians. But I really never thought I would hit all of    *
*             *    them. "                                                     *
*             *      - Axly                                                    *
********************************************************************************
From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 08:55:22 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <C1Fvxn.K5G@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga) writes:
>kogoma@triton.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma) writes:
>>In article <2464@blue.cis.pitt.edu> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>>>	Blame THAT one not on the system, nor on the players, but on the 
>>>GM. That kind of thing is just flat out STUPID. 
>>I'd like to suggest that the venomous jellyfish keep this statement in
>>mind the next time he rants about GURPS...
>Except that SeaWasp is ranting about the system. The other chap is ranting
>about the people who play that system in his experience, which is kind 
>of like saying you don't like Ford's because Bob drives them and you hate
>Bob. 

<ahem> As said 'ranter' (isn't -all- of r.g.f.advocay ranting in one way or
another?), I'm 'ranting' around a game background, style, and system that 
(IMHO) encourages a play style that I think most of us here happen to find
abhorent. 

I'm -trying- to be relativly civil, as well. If I'm failing, let me know, 
alright?

-- 
    "Well, do you ever get the feeling that the Story's too damn real
                        and in the present tense?"
               Christian Wagner - cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: b_kondalski@trwvssi.vssi.trw.com (Brian J. Kondalski)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Burn, GURPS, BURN!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 21:34:30 GMT
Organization: TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: trwvssi.vssi.trw.com
Keywords: flame GURPS Supers comics seawasp

[Lost of stuff deleted]

> >	Read your own line. YOU balanced it. If the GM balanced it,
> >the credit is the GMs. Not the system.
> 
> Sea Wasp, you seem to realize that, ultimately, it is the GM that
> matters, not the system.  (After all, good GMs will either work around
> what they feel is a bad system, or alter it to suit their needs and
> whims.)  So I won't bother addressing your arguments against GURPS.
> 

Normally I stay out of these system vs. system arguements, but the above lines
really caught my eye.  BRAVO!  I've always believed that the GM was the person
who could make or a break a system, or make a campaign worth playing.  A good
GM can work around a average or bad system and make it great.  If the campaign
you are playing in isn't any good, then the best system in the world won't make
any difference.  I guess I always make it clear to my players that the GM has
the final say.  Just because it is in print doesn't mean that it is gospel.  To 
me, every system will always need modification to fit into a group of players
expectations on how things should work.  And of course you have to keep an open
mind to their suggestions and run the rules the same way for all sides....

Brian Kondalski
b_kondalski@vssi.trw.com
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: Burn, GURPS, BURN!
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:09:02 GMT

cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner) writes:
>paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson) writes:
>>In other words, GURPS is only capable of modelling SOME comic book universes.
>>It cannot handle the traditional, 4 colour genre of comic books well.
>
>Right. 
>
>But Champions doesn't work for low-powered gaming, or realistic game worlds,
>even superpowered ones. (A Wild Cards game in Champions would not work for
>shit.)

	Why not? 

	I ran a 'realistic paranormals' game in Champions which was quite 
successful and realistic, IMO. Champions is not terribly different from 
GURPS on most points except combat. 
	As far as combat - I have not found that GURPS combat is 
significantly more realistic than Champs. It is more detailed, certainly, 
but with the detail comes more 'breakdown cases' where the system is 
unrealistic. 
	My Champs game was plenty gritty, with alot of long hospital 
stays, guns, and realistic fights. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "You're on the cutting room floor, Chaplin.
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | Not a good place to be."
Columbia University         |                  (from the movie 'Chaplin')
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:38:46 EST
From: <CSD108@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
 <1993Jan24.164759.18686@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>
 <1jujbhINN6e5@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>

Paraphrasing some of the major points:
1. Characters have no moral/ethical codes.

Well, this is more a problem with the players, I feel. In fact, some of the
characters SHOULD have a moral code. The street samurai is supposed to have
an ethical code like the samurai of Japan. If all they do is shoot everything
in sight, they're nothing more than street punk wannabes.

Also, my mage, for one, tries to NOT kill people if he can avoid it. He inter-
vened when some of the others members of the party were getting annoyed with
and ork child. He allowed a woman he was supposed to kill to go free because
he found her sobbing on her bunk (Yeah, I know, an old softie.)

2. Characters end up super-killer, super decker, super-magician,...

Maybe, but one is usually balanced by another. The samurai might be good with
his gun, but the mage can toast him easily. The decker might be a good hacker,
but he's a sitting duck for the samurai, and so on. Overall, I think the char-
acter types are pretty well balanced.

3. Not deadly

Not anymore. The average, unarmored Joe on the street could easily be taken
down by a hold-out pistol. A troll would probably require a heavy pistol.
And there's no way your gonna kill a dragon with an SMG. (unless you get real
lucky.)

4. It's all combat

Characters who consistently get involved in combat probably won't be around
long. Unless the GM fudges some rolls to keep them alive. This, of course,
means combat with roughly equal opponents, although even corporate goons or
wimpy gang member pose a threat in SR2.

The ideal run is one where you can get in, do your dirty work, and get out
without ever being noticed. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if
you have to draw your gun, it probably means you've screwed up.

All of this, of course is IMHO.

--Presto

_______________________________________________________________________
|  Trubble with speling? Trie  |  Internet: CSD108@psuvm.psu.edu      |
|       - N E R P S ! -        |  Bitnet  : CSD108@psuvm              |
|        Fore speling          |         "Monday's Bite"              |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Game Balance (was Re: Burn, GURPS, Burn)
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:13:51 GMT

slouie@ocf.berkeley.edu (Shelley Louie) writes:
>Points systems -> Balanced. Requires a decent GM and non-munchkin players
>to maintain a sense of realism.
>
>Random systems -> Realistic. Requires a decent GM and non-munchkin players
>to maintain a sense of balance.

	Uh, does anyone else feel the way I do about this? In my experience, 
complex point systems are only balanced if carefully monitored by the GM. 
This is *especially* true of Hero and GURPS. What point system do is give 
alot more flexibility and choice to the player, but they are realistic and 
balance only with much effort. 

	Random roll systems are more restrictive. The player always gets 
some choice: typical would be rolling a set of attribute numbers and then 
arranging them as he wants. Still, the character is much less 'personalized' 
to the player. However, they can be fairly realistic, and fairly balanced - 
although they often are not. Call of Cthulhu characters are usually 
realistic *and* balanced. Arduin Grimoire characters are rarely either. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "You're on the cutting room floor, Chaplin.
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | Not a good place to be."
Columbia University         |                  (from the movie 'Chaplin')
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga)
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:50:17 GMT

doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu writes:

>Yeah, you're right.  I guess I really DON'T fondly remember hearing a mercenary
>in a modern GURPS game extolling the merits of the M1 carbine.  Couldn't have
>happened, because it's really just a generic GUN.  Of course, it has different
>stats from other GUNs in GURPS, but it's still just a generic GUN.  Yeah,
>right.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but GURPS didn't invent the M-1 Carbine. GURPS
is great for copying all the modern weapons to a T, and then when shifting
to the future, we have "Laser Gun", "Gyroc Gun", and "Anyothertype Gun".
That's what I was complaining about, and the fact that GURPS bothered
to copy all the modern weapons but didn't even bother to name a manufacturer
or the guns for the future stuff. Heck, even DarkCon, when implementing
slightly futuristic guns, gave us names for the gun and manufacturer.

Axly

********************************************************************************
*  Axly       *   "Just because its my gun doesn't mean I'm the one who fired  **             *    it."                                                        *
* Red Sword   *   "OK, I fired it, but I didn't think I'd hit any civilians."  *
*  Targa      *   "Well, yes, it did occur to me that I might hit one or two   *
*             *    civilians. But I really never thought I would hit all of    *
*             *    them. "                                                     *
*             *      - Axly                                                    *
********************************************************************************
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy