HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg.slug: Action resolution
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:11:43 GMT
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University

sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>Get two d6, of different colors.  Each player and GM announces which
>color represents better than average, and which color represents worse
>than average.
...
>At any action, roll these two dice.  If the difference between them is
>0 or 1, you did as well as your descriptive label.  That is, if you're
>Good at something, and the difference between the two dice is 0 or 1,
>you were Good at that action at that time.  The GM announces what level
>is need to complete an action successfully, if there is no contest of
>qualities. If the difference is more than 1, then whatever number is the 
>*smaller* of the two numbers is how many steps you did above or below your
>descriptive label.  
...
>Any comments on this?  Is this better or worse than the d12 business?

	Wow. This is *much* better than the d12 business, IMO. It removes 
having to remember those darn numbers, and it removes the arbitrary 
success/failure distinction. It is easy to determine what the difficulty 
of a task is - it is just how good one has to be to do that task most of 
the time. 
	I don't think the system is any more limiting than the stat 
distinctions - why should tasks be any more finely grained than people? 

	It will take a little getting used to - wish there were some 
simpler mechanism for generating a similar distribution of results. There 
is something a little counter-intuitive to the comparison of the dice: 
compare, see which is higher, and take the minimum. 
	It could be that this is easily overcome - I don't know. We'll 
have to try it and see, I think. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "Nostalgia ain't what it used to be."
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | "The future's not the same anymore."
Columbia University         | "What the hell's wrong with my langauge."
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg - the bell curve
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:13:59 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: GE Power Generation

In article <BxpHs1.792@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, wayne@bragg.bio.purdue.edu
(Wayne Twitchell) wrote:
> 
> O.K. its early (for me) so bear with my pathetic ramblings.
> I haven't been following the NET.RPG thread too closely so I don't know if
> this information will be current with the "design".
> SOme people like the 3d6 type of system (hero games and T$R among them)
> however there is a problem with the saving throws and modifier tables
> when you try and use them together.  Namely the bell curve.  (if you don't
> hown what I'm talking about ask a grown-up or ask yourself why you roll
> a 10, 11, or 12 far more  often than a 6 or 16.)  The problem with a
> straight modifier is that a +1 to a character with a 9 (in a 3d6 system)
> is far and away more potent than a +1 for a character with a 5.
> (Please check my math on this, as the cafeen hasn't hit me yet.)  What
> I think should be done is something akin to the Star Wars (tm) system.
> This will require more than one kind of die (Spike wake up!) but 
> I think the benifits out-weigh the trouble.

Okay, you got my attention.

> "Simply"total up all of the modifiers to the roll to a final number and 
> compare with the chart below.  use these dice to save against your skill
> or stat or whatever.
> 
> THE CHART BELOW (R)
> total
> Modifier	DICE 
> -5&lower	3d10+3
> -4		3d10
> -3		3d8+3
> -2		3d8
> -1		3d6+3
> 0		3d6
> +1		3d4+3
> +2		3d4
> +3		3d4-3
> +4&better	3d4-6
> Note that a + is a bonus modifier in the system (ie you have a +1 to hit is good).
> Thus using this system you have a "curve vs curve" type of saving throw.
> Have fun with it, throw it away, just don't ignore it.
> wayne
> wayne@bilbo.bio.purdue.edu

The problem I see with this proposal is that it adds an extra 
layer of information the player has to digest in order to learn
the game - namely "what dice do I have to roll at this point?"
Worse, it seems like it depends upon a moment-to-moment,
variable condition (net modifier). At least with AD&D, you 
have the "I roll d6 for falling damage; I roll d4 for my dagger"
situation. This increases the complexity drastically, and 
I can see how it might kill the fun factor.

Incidentally, unless my Alzheimer's is kicking in, I seem
to remember that Star Wars uses only one type of die -
and it's a d6! Actually, I like their resolution method -
abilities are rated in number of dice, and that's how many
you use, always. Difficulty of the task is reflected in the
number you must roll to beat.

Finally, I am *not* advocating d6's, especially the 3d6
resolution system. While this is basically a fine method,
one of the things I hate about GURPS is "no resistance
greater than 16," making it pointless to have an ability 
greater than16 if it is to be resisted. I'd like to see a 
larger spread in the dice, so that finer margins mean more.

P.S. I don't have a problem with modifiers meaning
different things at different skill levels.

Spike
From: magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: Make a net.rpg newsgroup!
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 00:15:54 GMT

>>>>> On 18 Nov 92 19:33:19 GMT, jkut@diku.dk (Jonatan Kutchinsky)
>>>>> said:

	Jonatan> Why don't you make a net.rpg newsgroup, where you can

I'll get to work at creating a rec.games.netrpg - which will be used
for design now and all kinds of discussions later. This will take some
time though, so we'll use this group in the meantime. (We might not
even get the new group, there's this vote you know.. :-)

-Magnus
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Net.rpg:Stats vs. skills
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:29:09 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: GE Power Generation

Brian Leet has made some points to the effect that
stats and skills are two different areas, and should 
be discrete. I would like to comment on this; I
think it's important enough to warrant a new thread.
(As if I appeared to *need* a reason for starting
a new thread :)

There are, IMO, two ways of looking at stats. First,
they can be considered aptitudes. If you have a high
intelligence, you learn quicker, retain better, etc. 
This should reflect upon how costly it is for you
to learn skills; high-INT characters should either
learn more in the same amount of time, or learn the
same amount of skill in less time, than average-INT
characters.

Second, attributes can reflect a character's basic
skill when it comes to dealing with a certain facet of
life. RPGs do not have specific "Turn Doorknob" or
"Climb Stairs" skills, because these are things all
adults are assumed to have learned how to do. They 
are filed under a characteristic, such as "DEX" which
represents the sum of such learning.

Personally, I favor the latter approach - although, in
the interests of playability, the two ideas can be 
lumped together - this is just a RPG, after all, and 
nobody expects levels of realism down to the 
molecular level.

Given that I prefer the latter idea, it should be no
surprise that I think of skills as highly specific
stats - areas where the character has invested 
time developing  a very defined use of his abilites.
In terms of game design, I feel that making skills
an extension of stats makes them easier to handle;
all character abilities work on the same scale, are 
resolved the same, are increased (roughly) the 
same, etc.

Spike

"I would shelter you, and keep you in light
 but I can only teach you
 night vision" - Suzanne Vega
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.freeform: cardplay
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:13:50 GMT

I sat through a class today thinking about the card system for task resolution,
and my ultimate conclusion is that it's not going to work.  For some very
simple reasons:

The purpose of introducing a random element into a roleplaying game (ie.
using dice/etc for task resolution) is to represent the fact that there is 
always some uncertainty in real life (or in a logical world, beit real or
fantasy).  Using a hand of cards is not going to help make the world seem
so mysterious.  For example, consider the following game occurence:

You're chasing the bad guy roof to roof.  He crosses a wooden plank he had
set up to cross a particularly wide alleyway.  Do you jump?

Possibility Dice:
     You can judge the distance and figure out whether or not you can probably
make the jump.  This is similar to real life, in that you still aren't entirely
sure if you'll make it or not.  The player is much less likely to consider
jumping if they think it's too much.

Possibility Cards:
     You look at the cards you have in your hand and think about the numbers
you currently hold.  "Hey, I've got a straight!  This jump is no problem!"
The choice is suddenly very strategic, but not "real-life" strategic.  It 
becomes even more of a number-crunching problem, and not an indeterminate
possibility.

If I've made the point the way I want to (which isn't necessarily true), using
cards creates an even more of a "play the numbers" situation than dice do, 
which is a situation that I think most games/gamers try to avoid in the first
place.  Basing an entire system on that concept is ridiculous.

...Paul


-- 
+                +        +    +  + + +  +    +        +                +
  Paul Clegg, cleggp@aix.rpi.edu.   Project Galactic Guide Coordinator.
            System One RPG designer.   But generally unknown.
+                +        +    +  + + +  +    +        +                +
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Net.rpg: How many of you have seen Ars Magica?
Reply-To: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:42:05 GMT

Jim Scannell writes,
	  ...THe progression is
	  somewhat logarithmic since +5 is considered a 
	"mythic characteristic."

This is not the first time I have heard of a distribution
being referred to as "logarithmic" in this newsgroup, and
it confuses me.  Does this mean that the value approaches
a maximum or minimum value asymptotically?  I was under the
impression that the logarithm of x was the integral of 
x to the -1 power, a singular function due to the n+1 term
in the denominator going to zero.  I do not see how this
fits any regular dice distributions, which tend to be either
linear or bell curves.

--
Charles F. Fitzgerald | '....Life's but a walking shadow,
Iowa State University | a poor player, that struts, and frets
cffitzge@iastate.edu  | his hour upon the stage,
                      | and then is heard from no more....'
                      | _MacBeth_, by W. Shakespeare.
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.slug: Traits
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
	<DOANE.92Nov22145430@helios.UCSC.EDU>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 23:02:41 GMT

doane@helios.UCSC.EDU (Jay Doane) writes:
>
>Perhaps a good way to start developing this idea is try to convert old
>favorite characters to SLUG. Post both the originals and the SLUG
>versions and let us see specifically what level of detail you have in
>mind. Later, these conversions could be placed in an appendix.

Good idea, thanks.  I'll look over some characters and mull it over
some.


-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg: stats - solution to Build/racial factors?
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:48:38 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: GE Power Generation

In article <1992Nov16.112908.4963@klaava.Helsinki.FI>,
jliukkon@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Juha-Matti Liukkonen) wrote:

[All kinds of stuff deleted - read the original post, you lazy bums!]

>                Juha Liukkonen, aka jliukkon@cc.helsinki.fi
>        University of Helsinki, Dept. of Paranormal Investigations
>            "Trust me, I know what I'm doing." - Sledge Hammer

Great, but what the hell does "Build" mean? Is it a generic sort
of thing? Or are we saying that "since all things have it, we 
should be able to quantify it, and create a scale wherein we
can classify *everything*? Don't get me wrong, I like the 
idea of esoteric base stats upon which more specific ones
are based. But do we want to fall into the same pit as all 
the other games? "Okay, the game has to define basic humans
somehow. I know! We'll decide what things all people must
have, and rate them on a scale."

Is this the only way?

Spike
Newsgroups: rec.games.design,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp
From: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth L. Blumberg)
Subject: Re: Stars
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.misc
Organization: Generic American College Kids (G.A.C.K.)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:48:03 GMT
Reply-To: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth L. Blumberg)
X-Posted-From: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

gdg019@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre) writes:
>
>The best one I have seen (I asked a similar question here and on sci.space)
>is a map and catalogue that comes with the 2300AD RPG. It gives you a map
>of stars near and around Sol and the catalogue lists their types and
>locations.

Unfortunately, several (about ten, if I recall correctly) of the stars were
renamed by GDW to fit their game world.  There is no way to determine the real
names of these stars from anything published by GDW, not even the "Colonial
Atlas."

I also rather doubt that anyone is going to shell out $20-$30 just for a star
catalogue.  And I *really* doubt that anyone is going to type in all those
damned numbers themselves.  (I know--I tried it.  Once.)

Seth L. Blumberg          \ Warning: This posting has been determined to cause
slb22@columbia.edu (play)   \ cancer in laboratory animals.  Please make sure
sethb@ctr.columbia.edu (work) \ that no white mice are allowed to read it.  
    > No one I know shares my opinions, least of all Columbia University. <
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: net.rpg.freeform: cardplay
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
		<clanti55.722322915@ursa>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 19:01:17 GMT

clanti55@ursa.calvin.edu (Christopher Lantinga) writes:
>
>To return to Stephan's original SLUG suggestion...  I like the idea of
>selecting anything in the world as skills/attributes. Perhaps a
>"standard" list to start out with, of the stereotypical ones, would be
>good, but by all means let it get weird.

Steffan, actually - a Welsh spelling.  I think rather than a "standard"
list, it would be fine to make a list of "popular" attributes that the
GM can accept or reject as she chooses.  I do think the GM should
supply a list of what she considers important attributes to the
players, though.  That suggestion will be added, thanks.

>I wouldn't *force* players to take negatives for every positive ...
>I'd give players a certain amount of positives for free.  

Okay - I can live with that - I'll write it in.

>And I'd make it a random amount.  

I'll pass on the random amount, though I have no objection to listing
it as an option.  I refuse to make anything random mandatory, though!

>Anyway, another great idea is that of leaving things in reserve for
>when they're needed.  ...
>a certain number of those should be given free, without negatives,
>too.

Sounds good to me, I'll write it in, thanks.

>(In my "dream system", characteristics would not necessarily be listed
>in terms of ability or power, on graded scales of any time.  They
>would be whatever properties defined the character, whether useful or
>not, and gave him a place in the story.  They would accumulate during
>the story, and not be spelled out beforehand (though they could be
>planned, they needn't be)...  But I'm not sure in how much detail such
>a thing can be done...)

Well, that sounds good to me - give me some examples of what you mean
and we'll see if we can work it in.  Sounds like Over the Edge to me,
which is close to what I want SLUG to be, but is copyrighted and has a
few problems, anyway . . .

>Ed Heil. Yes, THE Ed Heil
>c/o Chris Lantinga, clanti55@ursa.calvin.edu
>
-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: fks1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Scaramouche)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: Character Stats [based on skills]
Reply-To: fks1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:44:01 GMT

In article <dmatiske-221192224353@archmacconsultant.architecture.lab.nd.edu> dmatiske@nd.edu (David Matiskella) writes:

>	If you use stats as a potential would never be used in the game except
>to limit the skill of the user. For example the super dex character is
>terrible with the foil( lets give hime a scoure of 5,dex 60) while the slug
>is an
> experienced fencer with a score of 40, dex of 40.  When Slug fences Dex he
>kicks
>his ass. Dex goes off and spends a month practicing. His fencing now is 60.
>Slug mean while is off practicing also. However he is at the maximum level
>for his dex and can't get any better. Dex now kicks Slugs butt.(Note I am
>using Dex
>as the maximum value for the skill. YOu can use any formula you want.)
>	The problem with a system like this is that the characters knows from the
>beginning 
>how good he is going to get, and can tell if he is ever going to be among
>the best. It
>sort of depends on how you play wether this is desirable or not.

there are two ways to get around this problem.  
a) (the way i prefer) is not to set a max, merely increase the 'cost' 
(which is basically the ease of getting better) of the skill as some
function of the related attribute.  i.e. if your dex is between 10 and
20 it costs 10 points to raise a skill from 40 to 41.  if your dex is
between 20 and 21 it costs 8 points to do the same thing.

b) if there is a max, one could always increase the related stat.

my $0.02 
-- 
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------<<<
"It is human nature, I suppose to be futile and ridiculous"
"If the windmill should prove to formidable, I may see what can be done
           with the wind."            -Scaramouche (fks1@midway.uchicago.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: carl@gergo.tamu.edu (Carl D. Perkins)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: Character Stats [based on skills]
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Geochemical and Environmental Research Group - TAMU
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:53:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.194427.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca>, jbridson@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes...
>As for you statement that Joe shoudl be able to have low fencing, but high 
>Agility, it's perfectly easy to do this with this method of character 
>generation.  Easier than a lot of other systems, I might add.  A stat is a 
>representaion of a talent, or general level of ability in one direction.  
>If you're not good at anything involving this talent, obviously your 
>general level of ability won't be high.  In Joe's case, he gets a low 
>Fencing skill, but high in other Agility skills (eg. throwing, catching, 
>dodging, running, jumping...).  No-one can have high Agility, but be lousy 
>at all agility-related actions.  This high agility must be manifested 
>somewhere.

This is clearly nonsense. Someone who has never practiced the "agility
increasing skills" could still have a high inate agility. They simply have
not spent the time to learn to use it. Say someone like a bookworm type who
has never played any sports, but who could learn them rapidly and easily if
he became so inclined to do so.

>Robert Bridson (using the account of jbridson)

--- Carl
From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Net.rpg: Resolution
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:00:56 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: GE Power Generation

Here's an alternate resolution system of mine that 
I'd like to hurl in the path of our creative process.
Ironically, this system is exactly the same as the 
one used by AD&D, only better!

In order to resolve a task where the outcome is 
uncertain, the player rolls a d20. To this is added
the appropriate (skill? Characteristic? Both? We'll
see). On a roll of 20, the die is rolled again and added.
This continues for as long as the player continues to 
roll natural 20's. The total is then compared to the 
following table to determine "result points:"

21           1
22-23     2
24-26     3
27-30     4

And so on; each "band" is as wide as the number of 
result points generated. Normally, 1 result point 
indicates success. More difficult tasks might require
more result points. Personally, I prefer this to performing
a lot of extra math on my die roll.

Note that it is possible (though unlikely) to generate 
results of huge proportions. It is also interesting to note
that you could use this method either generically (the
GM "wings it" to determine the required result to succeed)
or with great mathmatical precision.

Spike
Newsgroups: rec.games.design,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp
From: Andrew.Stratton@cm.cf.ac.uk (Andrew F Stratton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Diceless net role playing.
Date: 17 Nov 92 10:53:42 GMT
Organization: University of Wales College of Cardiff

Since most of the net.rpg discussion seems to be about diced role
playing, could I open up the discussion for diceless role playing.

Here are some questions :-

1. Does diceless give more opportunity for misuse by the pcs?

2. Does it take longer/shorter to create a diceless character than under
   traditional systems?

3. Are there any more diceless games apart from Amber?

4. Are dicelss rpgs suitable for one off games?  Or are they best for
   campaigns.

5. Is it easier to `wing it' since npcs are simpler in statistics,
   though more comples in character.

6. What tips are useful for GMs and players?

7. Where do diceless really WIN over dice based rpgs?

8. Where do diceless really LOSE over dice based rpgs?

9. Would a net diceless rpg be possible - or would each GM end up
   producing their own incompatible version?

Just a start,
  Andy Stratton.
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg -- offline
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:47:09 GMT
Organization: Newt World Order

In article <4258@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>, hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall) writes:
> Hey guys, this discussion is fascinating and all that, but it is consuming
> 95% of the bandwidth in this group. Would you mind terribly moving it off

Before this discussion arose from the ashes, many people thought this
group was dead. I say keep it online. Quite a few people are interested 
in reading it, and I for one would prefer to read it in news rather than
mail. If Bob and others don't want to hear about it they can put this
line in their kill file:

/net\.rpg/:=:j

And if you want to talk board games or any other non-rpg game, I bet
you'll get more interesting opinions in a busy group than a quiet one.
Start typing.

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design