HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adler@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Philip Adler)
Subject: Space Gamer Magazine
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.misc
Originator: cwatters@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: Better Games
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:27:52 GMT

Better Games announces the return of Space Gamer Magazine. Issue one of the
new production has been on the shelves of fine gaming stores for several
months and Issue two is there now. The cover price is $4.95 and
subscriptions are
$25/year (six issues).

For more information, email me at: adler@gnu.ai.mit.edu
or write:

Space Gamer Magazine
PO BOX 11424
Burbank, Ca 91510-1424

Subscription requests should go to the same address.

Philip Adler
Associate editor/ Public Relations

Xref: sparky rec.games.frp:25265 rec.games.frp.misc:7967 rec.games.frp.dnd:5989
From: breaker@src4src.linet.org (Guy Sisalli)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Funny/Strange Campaign Settings
Date: 9 Nov 92 02:27:13 GMT
Organization: The Source for Source

In article <1992Nov5.151318.19379@odin.diku.dk> torbenm@diku.dk (Torben AEgidius Mogensen) writes:
>cmeadows@nyx.cs.du.edu (Chris Meadows) writes:
>
>
>>Hello, gamers!  I'd like to ask a question: What was the oddest  
>>setting you ever hosted a campaign in?  If it's funny, unusual,
>>or out and out weird, I want to hear about it!
>
>>I don't care what game it is--D&D, GURPS, Amber, whatever.  Just
>>give us the details.  :)
>
>>To start the ball rolling, I'll mention one of my own.
>[goes on to describe a slightly unusual city]


  At the moment I'm working on a strange(er than usual) paranoia scenario.  It;s called "Alpha Quest". I am borrowing my friend's Hero Quest set, adding 
Paranoia Miniatures, generating maps, organizing a line of skeletons in front
of a PLC desk...


-- 
This opinion is mastered to Dolby "B" standards for flame reduction. Decrease
flame responce when reading on non-Dolby equipment.             ///
USENET: breaker@src4src.linet.org                           \\\/// 
-------------------------------------------------------------\XX/-------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.dnd
From: u855271@franklin.cc.utas.edu.au (Peter Didlick)
Subject: Re: Funny/Strange Campaign Settings
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:15:44 GMT

breaker@src4src.linet.org (Guy Sisalli) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.151318.19379@odin.diku.dk> torbenm@diku.dk (Torben AEgidius Mogensen) writes:
>>cmeadows@nyx.cs.du.edu (Chris Meadows) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Hello, gamers!  I'd like to ask a question: What was the oddest  
>>>setting you ever hosted a campaign in?  If it's funny, unusual,
>>>or out and out weird, I want to hear about it!
>>
>>>I don't care what game it is--D&D, GURPS, Amber, whatever.  Just
>>>give us the details.  :)
>>
>>>To start the ball rolling, I'll mention one of my own.
>>[goes on to describe a slightly unusual city]

Well the oddest adventure - at least for my players - was the time they 
had to visit a strange and reclusive wizard in order to get a curse 
removed from one of the party members.

He lived in a tower (No!! I hear you say.) and was the keeper of the
local library where just about anything could be researched.  If you knew
the correct cross reference to look under.  Of course my players were
only too excited about discovering "That all powerful new spell to add
to my spell books."

The only difficulty was with the furniture in the library.  It was 
sentient.  There was a little stool that would wizz you around to
different sections in the library that were requested.  However it had
the attention span of a three year old and would constantly rush off
to do other things when a person was standing on it looking at the
highest shelf in the library.

Needless to say the party had a lot of fun.

Not really strange - but certainly one of the funniest gaming sessions
we ever had.... Except for the time that the party attacked a dragon
and all four fighters/theives/priests/etc rolled a one on their very
first attack  ->  Broken sword....Bent mace....Busted arrow string....
dead party...etc....Sound of d6 rolling deep into the night...

Kepp searchin

Pete!

Xref: sparky rec.games.frp:25279 rec.games.frp.misc:8286
From: dutech@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp,rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Silencers and Laser Sights in Shadowrun 2.0
Date: 13 Nov 92 07:59:49 GMT
Reply-To: dutech@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)
Distribution: world

In article <BxJJM1.Fpt@news.chalmers.se>, d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
(Bertil Jonell) writes:
> 
> In article <KETIL.92Nov10143606@sandel.ii.uib.no> ketil@ii.uib.no writes:
> >	Niels> Let's try calculating it. A very rough guestimate:
> >	Niels> Muzzle velocity: 2000 m/s (I think this is in the right
> >I think the AG-3 (norwegian army equipment, 7.62N ammo) has a muzzle
> >velocity of roughly 700 m/s which changes things a bit.
> 
>   You can't compute the drop with linear methods since it comes from the
> downwards acceleration of the bullet. Unless we are talking about slow(1)
> bullets the drop will be almost neglible on short ranges up to around 50m.
> 
>   (1) As a datapoint: Normal .22LR (it is hard to get any wimpier than that
> except for BB guns:) hits less than 10cm lower at 30m than on 15m.

  Problem is, we are talking about longer ranges (50-300m). Like I said in a
previous post, the doctrinal max range for assault rifle use is 300m. The drop
is NOT neglectible at such ranges, but I believe any targeting system
can easily
correct that (6 degrees elevation).

  BTW, when you say 'you can't compute the drop with linear methods...', do you
mean that, since y=-1/2.g.t^2 + v0t + x0, this is not linear (ballistic
trajecto-
ries introduce cos and sin), or that you must rely on non-linear aerodynamic
equations, which are MUCH more complex ? I think the latter is pushing
realism a
bit far...

								Redwing.

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp,rec.games.frp.misc
From: ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: Silencers and Laser Sights in Shadowrun 2.0
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of numerical analysis at the University of Bergen, Norway
	<1689A1238A.MHART00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
	<1992Nov10.102818.1974@odin.diku.dk>
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:36:06

>>>>> On 10 Nov 92 10:28:18 GMT, null@diku.dk (Niels Ull Jacobsen) said:

	Niels> Let's try calculating it. A very rough guestimate:
	Niels> Muzzle velocity: 2000 m/s (I think this is in the right


I think the AG-3 (norwegian army equipment, 7.62N ammo) has a muzzle
velocity of roughly 700 m/s which changes things a bit.

BTW, while *you* may very well be in 2053 (yes I *have* seen the
subject), I'm still only in 2000 (Twilight :-)

	Niels> If anyone wants to expand on these figures, please do.
	Niels> The two most important errors are probably muzzle
	Niels> velocity (how much for a handgun?  <<2000 m/s ) and the

Yes, anybody?

	Niels> shouldn't be a real problem in 2053.  Right. After all,
	Niels> even today we're using lasers for range finding. It

I'm not sure this is the same thing...but then again, I have never
seen either a rangefinder or a laser sight.

--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
Xref: sparky rec.games.frp:25256 rec.games.frp.misc:7786 rec.games.frp.dnd:5842
From: jng53092@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Gad)
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp.campaign
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:43:19 GMT

gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre) writes:

>In article <BxBLzo.HDH@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>>                      Revised Proposal (November 6, 1992)
>>
>>                            rec.games.frp.campaign
>>
>>Proposed Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.campaign
>>

>I'm still confused. Is this for stories based on live campaigns (i.e. campaigns
>where you and a few mates get together around a table and play) or net campaigns
>(where you sit at a terminal and the other players are all in Norway, Canada
>and Australia) ? If the former, then I and a hell of a lot of other people
>have found it more profitable to post these as serialisations to r.g.f.archives
>where I can post new chapters when I'm God Damned good and ready and not be
>held to one a month... Which reminds me, another thing I'm confused about:
>Is this an interactive storytelling process where others can carry on your
>story for you? Or does the GM  of the campaign have full control?

>Anyway, this is starting to sound like a mindless flame, which it's not
>meant to be, so I'll stop here. Please explain in greater detail so I won't
>be confused anymore, as I might even vote for this new group (even if I don't
>end up posting anything in it)...


Personally, I'm not that clear on this concept, myself.  If rgf.campaign is 
supposed to be a discussion about ongoing Realtime (non-Net) campaigns, then
rgf.archives will suffice for summerys and rgf.dnd or rgf.misc works for
discussion.  No new group needed.  If, on the other hand, rfgc is supposed to
be a haven for Net-Games, then a lot depends on how its going to be formatted.
Will rgfc be a place where players would post their actions with other players
posting thier reactions and actions and so on?  If so, wherein lies the 
difference between the new rgfc and alt.pub.dragons-inn?  Besides alt and rec
status, of course.  Actually, the original proposal for rgfc was for it to be
moderated, wasn't it?  Ok, then there is a differance, but I can't help but to
think that having rgfc moderated might not be such a great idea if its going
to be very much like apd-i.  Wander around apd-i for a little and read its FAQ
to see what I mean.  If, on yet another hand, rfgc is supposed to be a place to
post summeries for games run by a GM through email, rg.pbm or rgf.archives will
also suffice.

I suppose its certainly possible that rec.games.frp.campaigns is intended to be
something of a mix of the elements listed above, or even something entirely
new that I just didn't figure out.  IMHO, a lot more clarification is in order
here.  Otherwise, I find it difficult to vote for something that I haven't
gotten a handle on yet.

Jon Gad
jng53092@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: elandal@archtwr.tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen)
Subject: Re: Advantages
Organization: Chambers of the Archmage
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:56:10 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

George W. Harris (gharris@jade.tufts.edu) wrote:
: 	I would maintain that the reason that most people leave pseudo-
: attributes that default off of other attributes at the default is because 
: they are represented by advantages or disadvantages.  The primary reason
: for this would be that, if a pseudoattribute like Will or Perception or
: Mathematical Aptitude is changed from the default, it counts against one's
: limit of advs/disads, and restricts what else your character can do.  Thus,
: by placing these pseudoattributes in the ads/disads system, GURPS is dis-
: couraging players from using them.  It is more efficient to create a char-
: acter with a lower IQ than a higher IQ and Weak Will, because the former
: gives you more flexibility in allocation of points than the latter.

  First, I've never heard of advantage limit. Even though we have
stat-limit in high-point campaigns, and always have a disadvantage
limit, we've never had advantage limit.
  Strong Will and Weak Will aren't so usual (dis)advantages. But
perception (Alertness, Acute Vision, Acute Hearing, Acute Taste/Smell,
Bad Sight, Hard of Hearing, many others) are. I've seen MANY characters
with a level or two of Alertness, and/or a level or two of Acute Vision.
Acute Hearing isn't as common as Vision, but it's used also. As are Bad
Sight, and other perception related disadvantages.
  Remember, that Will is not always IQ based. Weak/Strong will also
affects some HT rolls, and Will can sometimes be based on HT instead of
IQ.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Character Detail
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:03:05 GMT

sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:

>+ My point was simply to refute the statement that having only four
>+ atttibutes keeps GURPS simple, when, for example, having a Will attribute
>+ would be no more complex than having Strong/Weak Will.
>
> Not just one more attribute, granted, but ten more would make it more
> complex.

Fourteen attributes aren't significantly more difficult to handle in game
play. How much longer does it take to locate STR among four attributes than
among fourteen?  The time difference might be in milliseconds; insignificant
in any case.  Considering that attributes are referred to only a few times in
an eight hour session (maybe not referred to at all), I don't that this could
be considered "more complex".

Are you considering character generation, where determining the starting
level for each skill might require looking up several attributes?  That does
introduce more complexity, but again it isn't significantly more, and it only
applies during the character generation stage.  Actually, looking up the
attributes in a standard list or matrix might be simpler than checking a list
of advantages as well as four attributes.

If you're considering complexity from the perspective of new players, that's
only significant for the first attempt at character generation.  It's not a
factor for a long-term campaign.

I ask again: what is this "complexity" that GURPS--and other "few attributes"
supporters--are trying to use as an argument against a larger number of
attributes?  "More complex" is not a valid argument unless you can define
what "more complex" is, and can show why it would negatively affect game
play.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: meierdalepau@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: RE:  Distribution
Date: 6 Nov 92 11:07:33 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

	The only reason I posted that message on this newsgroup was because 
nobody reads the general announcements newsgroup here at Buena Vista.  I 
figured that I'd have a better chance at posting it on a newsgroup read by 
gamers than one read by people who are either anti-RPG or have no idea what 
the post was about.

BTW:  This is not a flame either.

Dale Meier
From: loren@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu (Loren Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Summary: double column accounting
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:24:10 GMT
Organization: Wharton Marketing

In article <83070@ut-emx.uucp> dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) writes:
>The point is that point allocation IS a creative process, while random
>generation is a random process, or at best an interpretive process.

The other side's point is that double column accounting is a creative 
process too, at least as creative as point balancing a champions character, 
but I for one don't want to spend my time doing it. Do you?

>Do you see the difference?

The satisfaction that the player gets from distributing points in a PA 
system is pretty darn small, IMHO. If you live for that satisfaction then 
bully for you, but I see no reason to force everyone else to believe like 
you do.

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller              LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu
Shoes are the most basic prerequisite for liberty
From: dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:05:43 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

David Lewis writes:

>You're all missing a very important point in this silly debate: How is
>creativity judged, by examining the process or the product?
>
>If you say the process, then I don't know what planet you're from :-)
>If you say the product, then we could get Nick to give us his best
>effort and get someone from the PA side to give us their's and take
>a vote, but to do it realy right we'd need a few thousand characters
>in a blind study. In the end we'd be able to say that PA or RA in
>general yields characters that we thought were more creative
>or maybe just more appealing/better/cooler/detailed/etc.
>
>In summary: will creativity is a process, we don't generally try
>to judge the worth of a particular creative technique except by
>looking at the results of applying the technique.

Apparently you missed the point as well.

The point is that point allocation IS a creative process, while random
generation is a random process, or at best an interpretive process.

Do you see the difference?

Even if the results of the two systems are identical, point allocation
would still be more creative.

Whether that's enormously significant to all players is open for debate.

Dave

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: CX6L <CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: RE: META: Is it just my reader...?
Organization: McGill University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:25:18 GMT

Hi. Sorry to be the cause of wasted bandwidth, but...
...is it just our news reader here, or is r.g.f.misc
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,news.groups
From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp.campaign
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:14:31 GMT

In article <BxCG33.n4K@cck.coventry.ac.uk> gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre) writes:
>In article <BxBLzo.HDH@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>
>I'm still confused. Is this for stories based on live campaigns (i.e. campaigns
>where you and a few mates get together around a table and play) or net campaigns
>(where you sit at a terminal and the other players are all in Norway, Canada
>and Australia) ? If the former, then I and a hell of a lot of other people
>have found it more profitable to post these as serialisations to r.g.f.archives
>where I can post new chapters when I'm God Damned good and ready and not be
>held to one a month... Which reminds me, another thing I'm confused about:
>Is this an interactive storytelling process where others can carry on your
>story for you? Or does the GM  of the campaign have full control?

   1. This is for net-campaigns.  However, stories based on live campaigns
could also be submitted.  That was not an aspect I had considered, but
I wouldn't object.
   2. There isn't any restriction that you must post one a month.  You're 
free to post stories based on live campaigns to rec.games.frp.archives.
   3. Not an interactive story process, in that the GM has full control.
Of course, as always, the actions of the players *will* affect the campaign.

>Anyway, this is starting to sound like a mindless flame, which it's not
>meant to be, so I'll stop here. Please explain in greater detail so I won't
>be confused anymore, as I might even vote for this new group (even if I don't
>end up posting anything in it)...
>
Trust me, compared to some of the messages I've received, your message was
about as flamable as a wet asparagus... :)
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: CFD: Name change for rec.games.frp.advocacy
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:40:20 GMT
Organization: Newt World Order

In article <1992Nov11.003319.22507@mercury.unt.edu>, cpearce@nemesis.acs.unt.edu writes:
> I believe that the name rec.games.frp.advocacy has proven to be too broad
> a descriptor for this newsgroup and hereby propose that the group be
> renamed rec.games.frp.running-GURPS-flamewar.

Ridiculous! Next you'll be claiming that there's a difference between
Chili con Carne and Sphaggeti!

As if...

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Advantages
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:59:12 GMT

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

> I think the most important thing is that attributes be as descriptive as
> possible. In this, I have some objections to such things as the
> 'Smell/Taste' attribute in Legacy - although I can understand it if the
> game covers a range of species where Sm/T ranges widely. In humans, levels
> of Sm/T do not distinguish people significantly (not noticable in any
> normal circumstances).

Oh?  Do you personally have the smell/taste sensitivity to be a master chef
or a winetaster?  Can Scotish whiskey producers hire any person off the
street to blend their finest products (I understand it's a real art, mixing
just the right proportions of raw whiskeys)?  If some characters are walking
in the woods, might not the winetaster have a better chance of smelling the
sweaty soldier hiding in the bushes upwind?

It's not a major attribute for most characters.  It was added to fill out the
complete set of senses, and to allow characters who are wine connoisseurs or
fancy chefs, or who are "observant" in terms of scents.  Including that
attribute does not add a significant burden to the game, but it does add to
the options available for players.

One person posted a comment about preferring words to numbers: "Strong will"
rather than "Will 37".  Thinking about it now, I find "Sensitive taste" to be
"colder and harder" than a simple number (37).  The verbal description is
more limited; it places the character in a pigeonhole marked "sensitive
taste".  A number that represents a measurement of the character's ability
gives me an impression of a real person.

The designer of Legacy also plans a fantasy version of the system.  In that,
where characters live "closer to the earth", Sm/T will be more important.  An
herbalist will sniff and taste an herb to determine how much to use; an army
general might "smell the air" to forecast the morning's weather; a physician
will use odors to identify medical problems...

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Advantages
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:58:16 GMT

bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:

> Why not remove all the advantages and just make everything stats?  Boy,
> that makes my day.  Yes, I'm dripping with sarcasm. But if you want
> AttributeGURPS, go right ahead.  Looking at tons of numbers excites me as
> much as hearing about electron spin and How So-And-So Got Soooooo Drunk At
> Tijuana...
>
> I still prefer the advantages and you need to give me a really good reason
> to give them up.

Has anyone been asking you to give up advantages in favour of attributes?  I
think the thread started by challenging a comment about GURPS four attributes
making the system simpler than ones with more attributes.  I think it's been
shown that for a given level of character detail, neither system is obviously
"simpler".  The two approaches are different, and appeal to different people.
Furthermore, the approach that is superior for one person for one style of
gaming may not be the superior system for that person for a different gaming
system.

I personally think that the attribute approach is more consistent and overall
elegant than GURPS advantage system, but I'm not trying to convince anyone
that it is superior for everyone.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca