HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Music & Roleplaying
Date: 15 Aug 92 03:22:28 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1992Aug14.210051.15521@Csli.Stanford.EDU> kyle@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Kyle Wohlmut) writes:
>Uh, sorry, but listen again... the opening piece of Carmina, 'Fortuna
>Imperatrix Mundi,' was actually -used in- Conan, I think it was the
>Halle Orchestra recording.  Since I don't own the Conan soundrack, I
>guess it may not be on the Conan album-- perhaps they couldn't get the
>rights to it (tho I don't think it's copywrited... funny...).  Anyway
>that piece was definitely in the film.

	No chance in hell.

	I own both MOVIES. I'd be really interested to know where in either
Conan the Barbarian OR Conan the Destroyer you think it was used, because
I've watched both of them many times, often paying special attention to
the movie, and I am pretty damn sure that I have NEVER heard Carmina
in either of the two.

	So in what scene were you thinking it showed up? It's not the opening
scene of either one. 

                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:55:24 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug21.040740.6306@tronsbox.xei.com>, dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan) writes:
>In article <BtALB5.6rH@acsu.buffalo.edu> swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann) writes:

>|Why should I have a handle on what they're going to do with it?  I
>|can't read their minds.  And furthermore, what do I care what they do

>	You should be familiar with your players likes and dislikes and their
>mannerisms.  That's the GM's job.

Familiar, yes.  Mannerisms and likes and dislikes, sure.  What about about
new players?  What about players who try to be unpredictable, or genuinely
try and perhaps succeed in playing their characters unlike themselves???

>|Do you know the location of EVERY knothole in that whole floor, so if
>|a wizard tries to drop a wizard eye through it, you'll know whether he

>	Floors are solid objects where I come from; we don't have holes in them
>that go all the way through to the next floor.  It would sort of defeat the
>purpose, nicht?

Then you have obviously never been in old construction, where boards don't
always line up, and knotholes frequently did fall out and leave holes.
Furthermore, even quality contruction in medieval times would be chewed up
by mice.  Floor sometimes _did_ have their purpose defeated, absent modern
building codes they sometimes collapsed. 

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
How about we all do something reasonable?  I bet that'll confuse 'em!
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: durrell@chop.isca.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell)
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:07:53 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa

In article <1992Aug22.034747.14223@tronsbox.xei.com> dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan) writes:
>	It is catagorically impossible to write a satisfactory mystery if you
>don't have the facts of the case nailed down cold before things get
>underway.

Clearly, this is some use of the word satisfactory I have not yet
encountered.

Tell me, Dennis.  I've run a partially improved mystery adventure
that I enjoyed running and all my players enjoyed playing, to the
degree that one of them said he'd play anything I ran.  How exactly
was it unsatisfactory?

Bryant

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: pluther@percy.rain.com (Pat Luther)
Subject: gamer seeks gamers
Organization: Percy's mach, Portland, OR
Distribution: pdx
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:00:45 GMT



Hello out there!
This should be limited to Portland, but it didn't work last time,
so don't flame me if you see it in Quebec!

Anyway, I'm recently moved to Portland and am looking for other
role-playing gamers to, well, role-playing game with.

Anyone out there who could stand to meet another player?
Not interested in pure hack'n'slash games, always interested in
new systems (especially Amber, which I have but have not yet tried)
And I'm willing to GM after playing with a group for a while....

					??pat

-- 
Pat Luther: Lex's Evil Twin
picard!pat@percy.rain.com <-- NeXTmail OK.
pluther@percy.rain.com (sometimes quicker)
luther@uop.edu (slowest of all...)
From: dans@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Dan Sullivan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:54:31 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta

This has been a very interesting thread, and I would like to butt in 
with a question, if no one minds. I suppose I fall somewhere in between
the two extremes; I try to prepare important NPCs ahead of time and outline
who knows (and loves/hates) whom, but once the action starts anything can
happen. And sometimes, minor NPCs can grow into big roles without anyone 
planning for it.

For example, the party encountered an NPC in some hangout in their favorite
city. The NPC I have in mind happened to start out as a bookseller, and event-
ually metamophosized into a full-blown Major NPC who was perpetrating all sorts
of arcane nastiness. But at the start he was just some lousy bookseller; I had 
no idea he was so important. Since the encounter was unexpected and unplanned, 
I just made up a name and bits of personality for the new NPC. The party conversed
with this person, then went on their merry way.

Now, I may have thought that this person was minor, but the way he kept cropping
up at odd times in the campaign started to suggest otherwise. His personality 
and background became more and more detailed as the campaign progressed. This is
perhaps the *best* part about winging it as a GM; *you* get entertained nearly
as much as the players do. But there's a price to pay for this fun:

One of the party members remembered something the NPC said and did during one 
of their first meetings, something which was totally inconsistent with the 
character as he eventually developed. I had no memory of the initial encounter; 
indeed it really was just a minor conversation. But this information caused a 
hole, or inconsistency, in the adventure that threw things into confusion for 
the party (and for myself).

Now this example was a big error, but smaller errors, while not really
destroying things, can mess them up a bit: say you forget what color the drapes 
in some room are, or which way to pull a lever to disarm a trap, or how many 
kids Grum the peasant has. All these little inconsistencies distract the players
from the adventure by disturbing the "curtain" behind which the GM makes his 
magic.

Sorry if I took too long to get to this, but my question is: how to you manage 
to remember all the little details if they're not written down? Especially from
one play session to the next, the mountains of detail (especially if you don't
know what's going to be important) can get overwhelming, at least for me.

-- 
Dan                                             o
                                     ____  o o
Dan-Sullivan@orl.mmc.com            (_/\_)o
Martin Marietta Electronic Systems    ()=o
MP 1160, Orlando, FL USA
"Less is more only when it's better" - Neil Peart
From: macgyver@turtle.cis.ohio-state.edu (MacGyver)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Dangerous Journeys Questions
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:20:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science

In article <1992Aug14.204119.22840@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jnoyes@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James E Noyes) writes:
>Also, can anyone give an accurate date for the release of THE EPIC OF AERTH 
>book.  there isnt a hobby store locally tht can give me any information.  They
>all say the same thing "No idea"

September is when the book is scheduled for release...


-- 
Wilson MacGyver                      |"I do like a road, because you can be 
Internet:macgyver@cis.ohio-state.edu | always wondering what is at the end
=====================================| of it."
Disclaimer:All opinions are mine only|=======================================
From: mosson@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Diceless or Senseless?
Date: 17 Aug 92 08:09:27 GMT
Reply-To: mosson@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)

In article <1992Aug6.131545.5995@hellgate.utah.edu>,
hnguyen%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Hung Nguyen) writes:
> |> In combat, things are a bit more cut and dried, but that's life.
> |> If someone is better than you are, then they're _better_ and you
> |> probably know it, and you probably lose, unless you have another
> |> advantage working to your favor.
> 
> One question, have you ever fought in any full contact combat yet.  Do you
> even ever experience combat.  I not talking about a fight here a fight
there where
> you have no idea who better then who until afterwards.  If you have
you should
> know damn well that no fighter is consistence everyday of his life.  Someday
> he or she can't be touch while others he makes small mistake that
allows him or
> her to be defeated.
> 
> What diceless does not cover is if the oponent are of relatively equal
skilled.
> Who would win in an amber system.  Given same terrain each time.  Is
it not true
> by the amber system, the better one will win each an everytime. 
However it is 
> not true in real life.  I will bring in SCA combat as an example.  For
those of 
[...]
> 
>  - Hung -

  I'm sorry to have to remind you this, but...

	THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE! Especially in AMBER.

  In AMBER, all things besides being equal, the rule of the world is:
the best man
wins. The trick is to make things besides different...

							Redwing.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: hnguyen%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Hung Nguyen)
Subject: Re: Diceless or Senseless?
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:18:05 MDT
Organization: University of Utah

In article <2258@cix.cict.fr>, mosson@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug6.131545.5995@hellgate.utah.edu>,
|> hnguyen%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Hung Nguyen) writes:
|> > |> In combat, things are a bit more cut and dried, but that's life.
|> > |> If someone is better than you are, then they're _better_ and you
|> > |> probably know it, and you probably lose, unless you have another
|> > |> advantage working to your favor.
|> > 
|> > One question, have you ever fought in any full contact combat yet.  Do you
|> > even ever experience combat.  I not talking about a fight here a fight
|> there where
|> > you have no idea who better then who until afterwards.  If you have
|> you should
|> > know damn well that no fighter is consistence everyday of his life.  Someday
|> > he or she can't be touch while others he makes small mistake that
|> allows him or
|> > her to be defeated.
|> > 
|> > What diceless does not cover is if the oponent are of relatively equal
|> skilled.
|> > Who would win in an amber system.  Given same terrain each time.  Is
|> it not true
|> > by the amber system, the better one will win each an everytime. 
|> However it is 
|> > not true in real life.  I will bring in SCA combat as an example.  For
|> those of 
|> [...]
|> > 
|> >  - Hung -
|> 
|>   I'm sorry to have to remind you this, but...
|> 
|> 	THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE! Especially in AMBER.
|> 
|>   In AMBER, all things besides being equal, the rule of the world is:
|> the best man
|> wins. The trick is to make things besides different...
|> 
|> 							Redwing.

True, Roleplaying is not real life.  But his example was.  His statement indicates
that he is talking about real life.  "In combat, things are a bit cut and dried, but
thats life. "  I then just attack him because his observation of real combat was
not true.  Second my example said nothing about the Amber is real or not.  I was
pointing out the fact that diceless sytem is less realistic than a dice system.
Now NOTE that I comparing Diceless versus Dice system not any game system like
GURPS, Palladium, or Amber.  I looking at the concept not a particular game system.  If you enjoy knowing that the gamemaster has complete control over the
game and no real random event will occur, thats fine.  But by definition, randomness is the lack of knowing what will happen, no matter who you are.
If you believe in Fate and the astrology stuff you can argue that nothing then
is random because all is know before hand.  But I won't even debate with people
with those ideas, becasue I don't want to get into what people believe is true.

 - Hung -
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: tmurray@socrates.umd.edu (Tony Murray)
Subject: Re: (amber question at bottom) about Chaosites
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:20:14 GMT

gt9405b@prism.gatech.EDU (Lord Goodgulf the Ma-a-a-agical Wizard) writes:

>In article <darknite.714026978@camelot> darknite@camelot.bradley.edu (John S. Novak III) writes:
>>Its so consistent through the game, though, that I tend to doubt
>>its an error.  The whole deal with the Chaosites' (Courtesans'?)
>>stats seems unfair to me.  The Courts are supposed to be as
>>'real' as Amber, and every bit as powerful.  Why is Chaos rank
>>lower than Amber rank?
>>
>   Actually, I think it's fairly consistent with the books that Amber rank
>is higher than Chaos rank.  Think about it.  There's all kinds of Great Houses
>(or whatever they're called) in the Courts, with whole bunches of nobles.  Now
>if these people were, on average, about as good as an Amberite, they'd have
>mopped the place up long ago.  Also, Corwin, after going through all kinds of
>hell, barely even paused to take out one of their best swordsmen (albeit the
>Chaos Lord was playing fair, but still......)

There's another (purely theoretical) justification if one wishes to
apply it (in conjunction with Goodgulf's justification above):  That
being that Chaos is naturally...well...chaotic and freeform (the
people are, the living areas are (see _Prince_of_Chaos_ for details), 
and even the symbol of power which gives them access to Shadow is
freeform.  Amber on the other hand is orderly.  

It is at least *possible* that at birth a prince of Amber and a
prince of Chaos may be born with the same level of strength and
other abilities, but that in Amber, where life as a whole is
more orderly, the prince there would have learned to better
marshall and order his abilities and powers.  This theory goes
on the basis that raw energy may be powerful, but FOCUSed energy
is much more effective.  This possibility works across each
of the attributes.

I'm not claiming this is right. That would be ridiculous. It's
just something to think about before immediately saying that
the game system has that bit all wrong.


-- 
--Tony Murray (tmurray@socrates.umd.edu)
  Graphics Illustrator
  University of Maryland University College

Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.misc:4151 talk.religion.misc:14198 talk.religion.newage:3807
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Survey
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:41:45 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.misc
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu


In article <920818174611_70253.2621_CHC74-1@CompuServe.COM> you write:
>When you die, where will you go?  (in the ground is not a valid answer)

	Then I'm invalid; in the ground is where the body goes. Most
likely the remainder of me (mind) will cease to exist as a coherent entity.

>If you were to die today, would you go to heaven?

	If there's any part of me that would survive death, and if there
was a heaven, probably, because I don't think I've done anything bad enough
to warrant endless torment.

>If you were to die today and God asked you, "Why should I let you into my
>heaven?" What would you say?

	"Why shouldn't you? If you expected me to do some particular thing to
GET here, you should have made your existence clear, not broadcast through
the agency of loons, charlatans, and bozos everywhere, with no way to tell
which people were telling the truth and which were just out to steal and
cheat and get a cushy job with no qualifications. A couple of appearances
on the Discovery Channel could have done a heck of a lot. 
	"I know that I haven't done anything bad enough to warrant hell,
at least, if Hell is the way most people paint it.
	"If you don't like either choice, gimme back my bod in full repair
and I'll just finish my life..."


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan)
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:48:34 GMT

In article <qd#n57#.harp@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
|In other words, they found the guilty party: the minion.  However,
|their observations allowed me to realize that there was a deeper plot.
|I then improvise the new plot.

	That's "changing reality".  If the perp was working for someone else,
that should have been noted beforehand.  If the players convince themselves
that he was, well, they can look all they like but they're not going to find
any proof....

|But it's just as easy to leave a big, illogical hole in a totally
|pre-planned campaign, too.  I'm sure even some published modules have
|such holes.

	SOME published modules?  Damn near every one I've ever seen has
Mack-Truck-sized holes in it.

	However, when I draw up a mystery, there aren't any holes.  That's what
the 11"x17" flowchart is for. ;-)


dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com   ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis     GEnie: D.HEFFERNAN1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That's what the short ones are FOR." --Murphy Brown
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: goodwin@orionsci (Ben Goodwin)
Subject: Re: Diceless or Senseless?
Reply-To: goodwin@orionsci.UUCP (Ben Goodwin)
Organization: Orion Scientific, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:45:00 GMT

In article <Bszpwu.513@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
>J.P.Brannan <J.P.Brannan@cornell.edu> writes:
>
>
>Actually, there are restrictive things about Amber. It doesn't
>matter how good the best guy in the world is in GURPS, or SRUN, or
>ADD. You can always improve a skill, even if it's glacially slow. In
>Amber, you are sort of stuck with your initial bid. 

OK, I'm confused now.  They give a couple of different methods for
increasing your skills, either using ladder method or making the person
wait til they have enough points to jump up to the next level.

As a matter of fact it says you can increase your skills up to the
level of the elder amberites.  And as for being slow, yes, its meant
to be.  You get maybe 6 points every few months or so they suggest.

Remember, you are the equivilent of a cybered sam with gun skill
25, strength 25, etc ... :)  Takes awhile to raise those abilities.

Another Amber question.  I read the rules on how to increase levels,
the stuff about saying what you want in what order and the GM giving
you things until you run out of points.  I am definitely missing
something though.  Say I want conjuration.  It costs 25 points.
The GM awards 10 points to each character.  I don't have enough so the
points get shelved.  It says that they can go into your good stuff or
into an article's good stuff?  Is that where they have to go, or can
go?  Or does the GM just keep a record of my points and when I have
the needed 25, tada, I go off and learn conjuration?  

Yours in confusion,

-- 

-Ben
From: yt1@eng.cam.ac.uk (Y. Tremblay)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Diceless or Senseless?
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:21:08 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Organization: Cambridge University Engineering Department, UK

In article <2236@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu writes:
>>>>>> On 10 Aug 92 05:54:08 GMT, PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88) said:
>
>F> In any game, the GM can do the things you mention.  In a diceless game,
>F> there are more pre-distened solutions, making diceless bad, or, more
>F> specifically, not as good.  The other implications you made up.
>
>Good? Bad? NOT! Dice are tools. Like any tool, they aren't inherently
>"good" or "bad" but it is the *USE* of the tool that is "good" or "bad."

    I couldn't have said it in a better way.

>I'm not totally against dice in RPGs; I wouldn't *dream* of trying to
>remove dice from Champions combats--wild happenings are the stuff of 4
>color comics. But when a coherent and cohesive storyline is more important
>than defeating the villain of the week, my opinion is that dice are a tool
>that should not be used.
>
    I would say more important than defeating the villain of the week but 
rather: "When you cannot accept all the possible results."  Dice may let
the villain defeat you too.

>Lemme tell you something about our Amber session last Saturday night and my
>character, Harrison Rable. Harri's been living on Shadow Earth for the past

  [ Nice description of the character, situation and combat deleted ]
>
>--Rat

    Yes, it is a really good description of a combat.  It gives an idea of
the Amber setting.  I do like it but (yes there is a but) in the Amber 
setting.  It is actually a description that both side of diceless roleplaying.
The beauty of the perfect scenario and the immuability of this scenario.
It was a beautiful combat, but one that the GM had decided the result 
beforehand.  You didn't have any chance.  You could have done what you 
wanted it was impossible to move from this predetermined conclusion. 

    It is what some of this discussion was about,  if the GM decide that he
is stronger than you, you cannot do anything against it.  Not even try, it 
_is_ fixed.  It may works in the Amber setting where power level are so
black and white.  I am stronger than you or I am weaker than you and the
strongest alway win.  It certainly totally kill hack'n slash type of gaming.
However, I don't see it apply to a more earth-like setting, where the better
don't alway win.  Tyson have been beaten by Douglas, but is there anyone to
say that Douglas is a better boxer ?  Did he use a trick ?  Why Kasparov
doesn't win every single chess match he plays since he is the best.  

Yannick
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc