HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Date: Wed,  8 Apr 1992 00:27:26 -0400 
From: Andrew David Weiland <aw1s+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: what ARE axioms? (who cares how they work)
	<rose.702684315@acf9>

David Rose writes,
>tech   = manipulation of unliving by unliving.
>magic  = manipulation of unliving by living.
>social = manipulation of living   by living.
> spirit = manipulation of living   by unliving.
    [It finishes the sequence, doesn't it?  It doesn't have to make sense.]

Sounds interesting.

>  [My original interest with axioms (0/0/0/0) was abstract.  I wanted
>   to be able to describe skills which had no axiom requirements.
>   These are very natural: running, swimming, dodging, climbing,
>     breaking, intimidation, unarmed combat, find ....]

First off, Intimidation is a social skill and doesn't belong in that
list.  No interactive skill could work at a 0 social axiom; including
Manuever, Trick, and Stealth (think about it a minute).

Which brings me to an interesting point; the Social axiom has no
relation to the various interactive skills.  In fact, the social axiom
has no limiting effect on the characters.  Maybe the Social axiom should
determine when social skills are usable, and what effect they could have
(example: Persuasion and Charm can be used against enemy at axiom level
10).  Admittedly this would only have a serious effect in the case of
the Living Land and the Land Below.

The one exception is Psionics, which is dependent upon the Social Axiom
(among other things).  But psionics are pretty rare, and I don't like
the psionic system; it's more of a poor man's magic system than a system
of interpersonal powers.
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Rick Jones <albert@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Nippon Tech in Cali
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:52:34 GMT

	Here's how it goes.  Here's the important set of stelae.
Sacremento is in the triangle CDF.

	A	B

C	    D		E

	F	G

	Now the American/Nippon forces yanked up F, and then,
Nippon planted new stelae in CDF, and the edeinos we able to replace 
F so that DFG remains intact.  The mixed zones are all the ones in the 
hex.  Now the map does not show that the Living Land did a lot 
of expanding east (someone remember where their new stelae are?),
and there's a malestrom bridge in Colorado, I think.  The map
in Nippon Tech (I think calling the Realm and Sourcebooks 'Marketplace'
would sound better, but that's me) reflected the changes in Nippon,
but not in the Living Land, and Greg Gordon was kind of catty about
that, when he spoke on GEnie.  
	Well, the Infiniverse Update is due out this month, so
we'll see new maps then.
-- 
Rick Jones				Systems Support Center
albert@bcm.tmc.edu			Baylor College of Medicine
Voice: 713-798-7352			standard disclaimers apply
Thank you all for coming, I'll spend your money foolishly.-J.Buffett
From: albert@chain.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Rick Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: Pure/Mixed/Dominant Zone Question (New GM asking)
Date: 8 Apr 1992 18:55:24 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine

In article <1992Apr8.121327.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> jberends@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>I haven't figured this out yet.  Is Core Earth mostly a pure zone?  If so, does
>that mean that characters from different cosms are going to have a heck of a
>lot of trouble in Core Earth?

	Nope, they don't explicitly say so, but most of Core Earth is 
dominant, not pure, so non-CE characters will have problems if they 
disconnect, but they aren't totally hosed.

>Also, in a Living Land-Core Earth mixed zone, would casting high-axiom magic
> spells be very difficult? 

	If a 1-case contradiction is what you call difficult, then yes,
it's difficult.  

>I'm probably being very dense, and i'm sure you've all discussed this before,
>but i'd appreciate some help.

	It's not dense, since a lot of us had the same question ourselves.
It's not your fault you didn't come in on the ground floor like us.
-- 
Rick Jones				Systems Support Center
albert@bcm.tmc.edu			Baylor College of Medicine
Voice: 713-798-7352			standard disclaimers apply
Thank you all for coming, I'll spend your money foolishly.-J.Buffett
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: bpostow@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow)
Subject: Re: The Great Axiom Slugfest Continues
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:08:17 GMT

THANK YOU JIM!!!!!!!!
--
Brian Postow :: The Pasta Knight - that noodle head in shiny armour
reachable at:
bpostow@occs.oberlin.edu
sbp2530@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu		this space left unintentionally blank.
sbp2530@oberlin.bitnet.edu

Computer scientist do it backwards -- [Mathmatician's point of view]
From: aw1s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew David Weiland)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:44:09 GMT
Organization: Junior, Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>Now hang on. Just how does this tech axiom thing work? Core Earth is
>Tech 22 (or whatever). But people in Core Earth who have not been
>exposed to their technology do not have an 'intuitive understanding' of
it. >For example, I had to be taught how to drive a car, and any
intuitions I >had regarding that are from the familiarity I have with
cars in the media >and so forth. Whan anthroplogists once showed films
to some Zulus, the >Zulus first had to learn to understand the ideas of
what films were, what
>accurate recording mediums were, and so forth (the Zulus apparently
>wondered where the people went when they walked off the movie >screen)
In a recent African election, Masai tribesmen had to be first >acquinted
with the idea of writing implements in order to vote...

"Intuitive understanding" is not a characteristic of tech level, but
rather one of transformation.  You gain new abilities when you transform
to a new reality; abilities that correspond to a lifetime's experience
in that reality.  In the case of the Cyberpapacy, those abilities are
technological.  Another case is the Living Land; transformed humans get
faith as a consequence of their transformation, because faith in Lanala
is general to the Living Land.

>Now, it would be just silly to say that the CE Tech axiom was 'lower' in
>the areas I'm talking about. Surely what the tech axiom marks is the
>level to which technology (define it how you will) *can* be used, not
the >level to which it *is* used. 

I agree.

>I prefer to see things this way: the axioms measure the upper bounds of
>things. So CE's Social and Tech axioms have always been as high as they
>are; democracy ahs always been possible, but it takes time to develop.
>Conversely, the magic and spiritual axioms allow for moderately
>powerful spells and miracles, but most people do not belive in, or use,
that
>knowledge. 

You're neglecting the fact that axioms are subject to change.  The magic
and spiritual axioms are subject to large shifts at certain periods in
history (the crash on Tharkold, something similar on Earth, for the
magic and spirit axiom levels).  The social and technological axioms
don't change suddenly, but shift gradually over time (though a series of
large shifts would make more sense in some cases).
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu (T. Erik Browne)
Subject: Re: A can of worms to detonate
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:03:49 GMT

In article <rose.702960818@acf9> rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose) writes:
>Michael P Collins <mc7f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>>I'll regret this tomorrow, but anyway...
>
>>Doesn't the Ayslish Law Of Observation make Quantomechanical systems
>>contradictory in Aysle?
>>--Evil Incarnate
>
>  Rather the contrary, I should think.

I've never seen a quark.  Nobody I know has seen a quark.  If you can't
observe it, then it doesn't exit.  Therefore, quantum particles don't exist
in Aysle.  Which I think is a good idea, since quantum mechanics is one of
the screwiest sciences I have ever encountered.

>--
>David Rose
>Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
>251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
>rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Erik Browne                          | Harvey Mudd College
tbrowne@hmcvax.claremont.edu            | Claremont, CA  91711
tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu           | Best college west of Upland
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry.  No .sig today.
From: hudson@dragon.ulowell.edu (Kevin Maurice Hudson)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Long time no see! (dammit)
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:38:25 GMT
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b

==> On Sat, 11 Apr 92 22:28:00 HDT, meaton@musubi.pubnet.com (Michael) said:

  M>         Secondly, I've got a bit of a poser here for the folks on
  M> the list.  I have an idea for a Cosm that is sorta-invading
  M> sorta-not invading Core Earth. 
  M> ...
  M> So, what should I do? Scrap the idea entirely? Submit it anyway?
  M> Create it and send it to the FTP directory? Does anyone want a
  M> brief overview of the Cosm before they chip in their two cents?
  M> Does anybody care?  Am I asking too many questions? :-) :-)

Well, I'd say to submit it to the group.  I believe that WEG is no
longer considering any new cosms.  I know one of their contract
workers, who wanted to submit a 'terminator/man vs machine' cosm; they
told him that they are not considering any more cosms.  I too am
working on a cosm that is not really here to take away possibilities.
They just wanted a way to deal with their population explosion and did
not have the technology to travel into space, or some such.  I started
to work on it when someone in this group mentioned the Bermuda
Triangle.  We'll see what comes of it.

--
Kevin Hudson				Xriva Uhqfba
hudson@dragon.cpe.ulowell.edu		uhqfba@qentba.pcr.hybjryy.rqh
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Chris Pearce <cpearce@morticia.cnns.unt.edu>
Subject: The Great Axiom Slugfest Continues
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:44:06 GMT

> At the point where a layer of cambium a couple of millimeters thick
> is structurally strong enough to support a 50' tree, you can hang up
> any pretense of rationality.

Hmmm. My last point on the matter -- unless someone happens to post
something patently ridiculous (many smileys).

It is enough for me to accept that different cosms have different laws
of physics, which account for all occurrances in the realm. I don't feel
the need to try to apply our laws of Physics to an imaginary world that
never claimed to have the same laws of physics that we seem to. The
benefit of this way of thinking is that you can *change* anything you
don't like without worrying about incorporating your changes into
a new set of laws of physics!

Sean -- quit taking it so seriously! I know you are a physics type
(it is at least a hobby with you). But Rick Pim is also -- and *he*
doesn't seem to have any problems with this! (more smileys)

Oh, and yes, I still maintain that when a Torg character changes his
perception of the world that the world changes!

> Sean Malloy                                  | Had this been an actual

-- 
Chris Pearce -- cpearce@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
--
  "Bugger me with a fish fork"
     - Gen. Melchett, BA4
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Proposed Skills Info Template
Summary: What dya think?
Keywords: skills,template
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:52:17 GMT
Organization: New York University


  The ongoing quest for complete mastery of TORG cosm mechanics. :-)

  Here is an example skill template I am considering using, what do
  you think?

[begin]
   Find (PER) [Social:4]
   Find hidden things.
   Unskilled use permitted in all modes.
   Macro:
     - Search a location for hidden objects (including hidden doors).
       Used actively vs. Stealth
      *Quick Search          +2
      *Unobtrusive Search    +2
      *Specific Item         -1
      *Each add'l 1/2 hr     -1 (cannot use with quick search)
      *Destructive Search    -4
       Hastily placed        -2
       Unconcealed           -1 (for destructive search +1 instead)
       Skillfully Hidden     +2
       Specially Hidden      +6
     - Notice a change in something seen before (specific location).
       Used as passive defense vs. Stealth
       Unfamiliar location   +4
       Personal Residence    -4
       Something added or
         removed             -2
   Action:
     - Trying to spot someone who is hiding from you.
       Used as active defense vs. Stealth
       Known appearance      -3
       Hidden                +2
     - Trying to locate something hastily.
       Used actively vs. Stealth+2
       modifiers as macro skill (cannot use extra time).
[end]

  Abstractly the above is:

  Name (ATTR) [Restrictions, could be axiom or cosm]
  description of what skill is about
  which modes must be used skilled
  Macro modes (i.e. not rounds):
  - first mode
    how used (actively, active defense, passive defense vs. counter skill)
   *difficulty modifier1 (<-- asterisk denotes player selection)
    difficulty modifier2 (<-- no asterisk determined by GM)
    difficulty modifier3 ...
  - second mode ...
  Active modes (i.e. rounds):
  - first mode (as with macro modes)


  Strike anyone, or do you have something you use?
--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: James H. Kiley<jkiley@andy.bgsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Long time no see! (dammit)
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:15:08 GMT

Michael--
My recommendation regarding your new cosm would be to post a short 
summary here, with the attachment, "Does this suck?"
Most of the folks on here know what they
*bleah* *I hate my mailer*
know what they're talking about re Torg and they (we?) will know, or
at least have strong opinions on, whether or not you should bother...

Just MHO, of course...


Jim Kiley, Astronomer Wannabe

Jim Kiley			|"Fighting fire with empty words,
jkiley@andy.bgsu.edu		|"While the banks get fat, the poor stay poor,
ba-py403@andy.bgsu.edu		|"The rich get rich, the cops get paid 
jkiley@dad.bgsu.edu		|"To look away as one percent rules America"
				
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: "Johann A. Hibschman" <hibschmn@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: world laws
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 02:52:27 GMT


     Is there any coherent system for determining whether a particular
law of a cosm applies to natives outside of that cosm.  I.e. Do Aysle
characters pick up Honor and Corruption outside of Ayle, and can they
use their Honor and Corruption anywhere except in Aysle?  I'd be inclined
to say that yes they can.
     However, do Nile characters get to use the Law of Action wherever
they go?  I'd answer this one a no.

     There are many more examples where these came from, but what I'm
looking for is a coherent way to determine what applies where (other than
common sense, which cannot be trusted, at least in my case).  I'd suggest
that laws which apply only to the character (accumulation Honor, etc.)
work everywhere, laws which give characters strange skills work anywhere
with a risk of disconnecting, and laws which involve more than one character
(Law of Action, Law of Pain) only work inside the cosm (and in reality
bubbles).  Agreement?  Disagreement?  Apathy?

---
Johann Hibschman                       WARNING: Taking me seriously has been
hibschmn@phoenix.princeton.edu         shown to be a leading cause of
                                       spontaneous decapitation.
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: marcogan@student.anu.edu.au
Subject: How do axioms really work?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:52:35 GMT

Rick Jones writes recently in response to the alternate cyberpapacy debate:

>	Ah, but when thetech axiom leapfrogged from the Dark Ages to
>Cybertechnology, people got an intuitive understanding of technology.
>For most people, it's enough so they turn on the light switch and

Now hang on. Just how does this tech axiom thing work? Core Earth is Tech
22 (or whatever). But people in Core Earth who have not been exposed to
hiher technology do not have an 'intuitive understanding' of it. For
example, I had to be taught how to drive a car, and any intuitions I had
regerding that are from the familiarity I have with cars in the media and
so forth. Whan anthroplogists once showed films to some Zulus, the Zulus
first had to learn to understand the ideas of what films were, what
accurate recording mediums were, and so forth (the Zulus apparently
wondered where the people went when they walked off the movie screen) In a
recent African election, Masai tribesmen had to be first acquinted with the
idea of writing implements in order to vote...

Now, it would be just silly to say that the CE Tech axiom was 'lower' in
the areas I'm talking about. Surely what the tech axiom marks is the level
to which technology (define it how you will) *can* be used, not the level
to which it *is* used. You don't (unfortunately) see the machines cutting
down the Amazon rainforests suddenly disconnecting becuase such technology
has never been used there before: such objects are allowed anywhere on Core
Earth. But that doesn't mean that any Core Earther can 'intuitively' use
them.

Now: Is 22 really CE's tech axiom? Which is to say, is that as far as we
can go? Or are tech axioms increased by research (if so, ours has increased
dramatically in the last century. Can other axioms be increased by research
or experementation. 

I prefer to see things this way: the axioms measure the upper bounds of
things. So CE's Social and Tech axioms have always been as high as they
are; democracy ahs always been possible, but it takes time to develop.
Conversely, the magic and spiritual axioms allow for moderately powerful
spells and miracles, but most people do not belive in, or use, that
knowledge. 

So the Living Land can *never* have magic, for example.

I think this 'intuitive sense' busisness is better handled by a world law:
like the Law of Magic in Aysle

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who speak, do not know   	       	Mark Cogan
 Those who know, do not speak"  	       	marcogan@student.anu.edu.au
From: albert@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Rick Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: Campaign variations
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:32:18 GMT
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b

> There's a group of cross-cosm baddies forming in my game
> to oppose the PCs, but they're being headed by a Nippon corporate exec that
> one of the players campaigned as a Nemesis.  The only problem is that about
> half of the PCs that have enemies in this group have been retired in favor
> of new characters (Baddie: "Hah, I have you now!"  PC: "Who are you?")

	Isn't that always the way.  A few adventures after a PC 
(foolishly) campaigned a Nemesis with Victor Manwarring, he decided 
he wanted a different character (funny that).
-- 
Rick Jones				Systems Support Center
albert@bcm.tmc.edu			Baylor College of Medicine
Voice: 713-798-7352			standard disclaimers apply
GEEZ Mahn, I'm surrounded by amateurs!- Sebastian (the Little Mermaid)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu (T. Erik Browne)
Subject: Re:  world laws
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:12:17 GMT

In article <gatemail1.0b97154215192@morticia> marcogan@student.anu.edu.au writes:
>But I still don't know what the GodNet is (or will be...)

Wait for it, wait for it.  All will be explained when the proper time has
arrived (at least that's the impression I got).
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Those who speak, do not know   	       	Mark Cogan
> Those who know, do not speak"  	       	marcogan@student.anu.edu.au
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Erik Browne                          | Harvey Mudd College
tbrowne@hmcvax.claremont.edu            | Claremont, CA  91711
tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu           | Best college west of Upland
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry.  No .sig today.
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Bruce Onder <onder@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: unknown difficulty 
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:31:45 GMT

Trent sez:
> So even if characters can't make accurate estimates (down to the DN),
> they should *usually* be able to get it pretty close (+/- a couple DN),
> unless something strange is going on that they can't see (the big, slow
> guy is actually Charles Barkley, and not so slow after all).

GMs could use the Difficulty Chart (the ones with descriptors like
"Tough", "100:1" etc, although personally I don't like those labels).

That way, when Joe Stormer tries to shoot Big Thug, the GM can say
"that looks pretty easy."  The player could look on the chart and see
that "Easy" is a 5, so he sets an action value of 5-8 in his mind.

Yeah, that works...

> So maybe the character shouldn't know the exact DN beforehand.  But
> if it's appropriate, the GM should say "a 13's not going to do it,
> but you seem close...", whereupon the player could quickly decide to
> "try harder".  This wouldn't, of course, work for something like shooting
> somebody, where the character might be able to tell after the shot that
> he "just missed", but wouldn't be able to do anything about it until the
> next action.

If the GM tells you it looks pretty easy to open the door, and you
fail with a 10, I think that's enough evidence in itself to suggest
that something's up.

You run up to a fire door and yank.  Nothing.  You think "Oh, it's
locked."  You may assume that fire door locks are very tough, and
decide to blow a PP and two cards on it.  Or you may decide to just
give another tug and see what happens.  But that revision of the
difficulty estimate should be up to the player, not the GM.

If this is what you mean, I agree with you.

> As a player, I never have my character spend on normal perception checks,
> precisely because it isn't something a character would be able to judge.
> If you don't even know what's happening...  On the other hand, if the
> character is in a nasty place and on edge and attempting to hear
> anything and everything...

That's funny.  Your characters *always* seem to be on edge, trying to
hear anything and everything.  :)

Of course, they all carry huge duffel bags to store all their
equipment, so this might not be relevant. :)

Bruce
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg