HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: The Random Roll Question :-)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 09:20:35 GMT

mudge@titan.ucs.umass.edu (A Happy Otter) writes:

> On a personal level though I find that it is a bit unrealistic to have a
> group that starts out with the same potential for similar stats. In my
> generally cynical view this seems a little bit unrealistic.

I suppose it means that character groups in point-allocation systems form a
very tiny section of groups in a world: the groups where everyone just
happened to be more or less equal.

I suppose this also means that "balanced characters" point allocation is much
more restrictive than random generation, since it is limited to a very small
subset of possible groups.

Of course, point allocators could simply roll for their starting points.
O:-)

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: dunkelza@titan.ucs.umass.edu (KEITH C MCCORMIC)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Re: RPGs and Suicide
Date: 21 Jan 1993 18:19:23 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucs.umass.edu

In article <35546@sales.GBA.NYU.EDU> drcheng@sales.GBA.NYU.EDU (David R Cheng) writes:
>In article <elliott.53@oliafd.shel.isc-br.com> elliott@oliafd.shel.isc-br.com (Elliott Kleinrock) writes:
>
>You cannot conclude causality from correlations.
>
>The relationship between gaming (or anything really) and suicide
>is a correlation.
>
>To get real ~proof~, you must examine statistically significant samples
>over a period of time.  If someone has looked at 1000 gamers, and
>1000 non-gamers, and compared their suicide rates over 5 years, I would
>be inclined to accept the results.
>
>The "statisitics" compiled by the anti-gaming people are so porous
>and questionable that you cannot apply real statistical enquiry
>to them.
>
>-David Cheng
> drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu
>

  Actually, since the anti-game lobby only reports a little over 100
game-related deaths (This is what THEY feel are game related), I
would think it rather pointless to argue about it.  Besides, I would
figure that more gamers are of a Homocidal bent than Suicidal.

Just my $.02

Dunkelzahn
From: maillet@tls-cs.cert.fr (Luc Maillet)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:26:13 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: CERT, CS Dpt. Toulouse, France

In article <1k2u0kINNhf2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan25.231928.7328@news.columbia.edu> jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
|> 
|> >	The question is, does SR *make* munchkins by its style? I don't know. 
|> >I do know that SR attracts many more beginners than GURPS, and that 
|> >munchkins are more often beginners - so its not suprising that one finds 
|> >more munchkins in SR games. 
|> 
|> This is a very valid point; I have noticed that lots of AD&D-types move up
|> to SR as their first non-TSR game. 
|> However, most of the SR players that I've met who want more than combat tend to
|> move to other games. (CP2020, GURPS CP, et al.) <shrug> Again. Your milage may
|> vary. 

  Strange. Here, the munchkins play CP2020 and RQ. Non-munchkins play AD&D,
SR, and Rolemaster. Guess it depends EXCLUSIVELY on the players, and not on the
game.
|> 
|> >>I also think the background is crap. It's derivative, unoriginal, full of 
|> >>munchkin-bait, and, most importntly, it's -NOT- cyberpunk. 
|> >	Well, it never claimed to be pure cyberpunk - it never billed 
|> >itself as a simulation of cyberpunk literature.
|> 
|> Actually, it did. Am I the only person who remembers all the ads about the 
|> new 'cyberpunk meets magic' game?

  Well, anyone with his right mind can see this is not CP genre. That's not
important IMHO, despite what you say. I think the background is good, despite
being full of holes. As for being munchkin, hey, do you think RPGs are tools
of Satan, and influence players to commit evil deeds and suicide ? That's the
same thing. The players are responsible - and only them.

								Redwing.
From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Burn, GURPS, BURN!
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:57:02 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan25.190932.21023@sco.COM> paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson) writes:
>In other words, GURPS is only capable of modelling SOME comic book universes.
>It cannot handle the traditional, 4 colour genre of comic books well.

Right. Even as a GURPSoid, I realize this, and don't use GURPS Supers for the
classic slam-bang kind of game. For that I use Champions, which is, by far, 
the best game for simulating highly heroic games or any kind. (Some friends 
and I are currently using it to run an all-Anime cross-genre game. Pretty
surreal, but it works.)

But Champions doesn't work for low-powered gaming, or realistic game worlds,
even superpowered ones. (A Wild Cards game in Champions would not work for
shit.)

Thus, neither system is perfect for -all- games, despite their claims. And most
players of either system -realize- this. 

If Sea Wasp hates GURPS because it can't do his brand of superheroes, then he
must hate Champions because it can't do low-powered realistic games, and he 
must hate TORG because it can't cope with non-cinematic gaming, etc etc etc.



-- 
    "Well, do you ever get the feeling that the Story's too damn real
                        and in the present tense?"
               Christian Wagner - cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga)
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:28:31 GMT

911087e@axe.acadiau.ca (JOHN ANTHONY ENZINAS) writes:


>you bring up a point about skills in SR. They are my biggest complaint and 
>they were not changed in SRII. 
>i have a chacter with an int of 6. he has a chemestry of 6. if i make up a 
>troll with an int of 1 and a chemestry of 6 they will be equally good, even 
>though the first is a genius and the second can't spell his owne name.

I think the reason that SR divorced skills from stats is that, in most
cases, there is no direct correlation between a stat and a skill. For
example, while your INT 6 character may have learned his knowledge skill
of 6 in a much shorter time, he has the same knowledge as the troll (who
may have taken years and years to learn it). Intelligence doesn't relate
to just plain knowledge. How easily it is acquired, yes, what you know,
no. Of course, as a GM, I probably would take exception to someone with
INT 1 taking Chemistry at a 6. Just isn't in character.
The separation of skills from stats is a pretty cool idea in my book.
Sure, there is some connection between how dextrous you are and how
well you fire a gun, but it's not the massive effect it has in most
games that tack a skill onto an attribute.  The same thing is true 
of most skills. Stat+skill just overvalues stats too much.

Axly

********************************************************************************
*  Axly       *   "Just because its my gun doesn't mean I'm the one who fired  **             *    it."                                                        *
* Red Sword   *   "OK, I fired it, but I didn't think I'd hit any civilians."  *
*  Targa      *   "Well, yes, it did occur to me that I might hit one or two   *
*             *    civilians. But I really never thought I would hit all of    *
*             *    them. "                                                     *
*             *      - Axly                                                    *
********************************************************************************
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: mfterman@flower.Princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire)
Subject: My Problems with GURPS
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:07:08 GMT

1. There are only four attributes, and sometimes the distinction
between Strength and Health can get extremely confusing.

Yes, yes, I know that if you add in a lot of the advantages and
disadvantages, you have a larger set of attributes, but a lot
of attributes that are directly calculated from these stats should
be separated out, like fatigue and hit points. Additionally, this
disconnection between Health and fatigue points is really odd to
my mind, and doesn't make a lot of sense.

2. For all of its being generic, it loves to invent a lot of
specific cases, rather than coming up with a generic framework
for creating any instance of a given class.

HERO has a system for creating any Psych Lim or Physical Lim.
Additionally, the strength of a disadvantage can be freely tailored
to a given genre depending on how debilitating it is in that
campaign. Illiteracy is a lot less of a disadvantage, if any in
a fantasy campaign.

Additionally, for all its claims to be all things to all people,
it has a rather limited magic system. HERO system is more complex,
on the other hand you can create any sort of magic system you want,
to give the campaign the right sort of feel.

3. GURPS has claims of realism through its point value system,
though it seems rather arbitrary in point cost values.

This point has been hashed out elsewhere. While making some skills
more costly to advance in does make sense, as does the idea of
increasing cost at higher levels, the base skill costs seem a bit
odd to me. Additionally the costs of advantages and disadvantages
seems more oriented towards point balance than realism. Point
balance and frequency of traits in real life are quite different
in terms of cost.

There are other little things, like hit points in a system that
works on realism, and so forth, but that's my main complaint. I've
nevered considered running a campaign in GURPS, though I might
play in someone else's, because I feel that there are much better
mechanics out there. I do collect interesting sourcebooks for
ideas for the most part.

-- 
    Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Mean Ol' Top, Priest of Shub-Internet
    Disclaimer: Nobody else takes me seriously, why should you be the first?
mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu mfterman@pucc.bitnet terman@pupgga.princeton.edu
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: ABPD103@UCSVAX.UCS.UMASS.EDU (John F. Donoghue)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Random Rolls
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:41:39 GMT
Organization: UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS - AMHERST
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: deimos.ucs.umass.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1jpbq2INN6k4@titan.ucs.umass.edu> dunkelza@titan.ucs.umass.edu writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.220026C.12671@news.vanderbilt.edu> 
>        talbert@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Robert Talbert) writes:
>
>>What's wrong with getting the character you want? At least in GURPS you have
>>to *pay* for what you want. It's not like you can just whip out a godlike 
>>character with no disadvantages or anything. Face it, nobody who plays in a 
>>game where the character stats are random *wants* them to be random. 
>
>  You wanna bet?  About half of the people who responded to my survey
>wanted some element of randomness in character creation.

That just shows that half the people out there are worthless munchkinoids
in dire need of reeducation.  :-) :-(

>  Much more fun?
>Maybe for people who can't deal with weird characters...

If a person can't deal with weird characters, then he shouldn't be playing
one.  The biggest bane of role-playing is people whose idea of their
character is limited to some pointless stereotype based on some low and/or
high stats.  If the stats don't flow naturally from the player's idea of
just what and who their character is, then the character will inevitably
end up as a pale archetype at best.  Point systems allow the player to
build the character that they see in their mind.

>  I never said that power gaming was the way to go, but in real life, 
>people often do get something for nothing.

Yes, that is true in real life.  It is also true in most point-based
systems as well.  Player characters generally start out with at least
a little more than your average Joe Peasant.  But the question is whether
it is fun to have a system that allows some of the characters to be
handicapped and others over-powering at the same time.  I would say
no; in my experience that leads to the game being dominated by one or
two players while the rest of the group sits in boredom.

>> [stuff about game design deleted]
>>   The end product (what there was of it anyway) was so much like GURPS I 
>>just gave up and bought the damned thing. Y'all can flame away, but I am 
>>convinced. 
>
>  You must not be as good of a game designer as you thought, huh?
>
>Dunkelzahn

Certainly GURPS suffers from certain flaws.  But I am in agreement with
the general philosophy of the game.  Specifically, give the player enough
flexibility to play her character the way that she wants.  Don't force
arbitrary categories and random barriers on her.  Random generation is
the ultimate insult.

hans dykstra
abpd103@deimos.ucc.umass.edu
From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Date: 24 Jan 1993 17:24:01 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan24.164759.18686@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> flindholm@mta.ca writes:
>In article <1jt6g1INNomv@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner) writes:
>>Cyberpunk isn't about being heroic. It's not about being able to toast anything
>>in existance with your Assault Cannon/Flatline Program/CyberVehicle/KillSpells,
>>it's not about combat, it's about -people-. In ShadowRun, the people get left
>>behind under all the hardware.
>  Actualy, I havn't ever noticed my players behave heroicly. They seem to 
>relate better to the brutal world in Cyberpunk.

In this case, 'heroic' means 'larger than life to a cinematic extent'. Player
morals/ethics aren't relevant.

[Game system bitching and responses deleted]

I'm not going to debate game mechanics anymore, as I don't have SRII, and more
than a few of my gripes about SR are probably not problems for a lot of people.

>>And this brings up my other gripe about Shadowrun; it's almost all $#@! combat
>>or military-style crap. Extractions, assaults, thefts, it's all violent and
>>it gets -OLD- fast. The character creation system is munchkin in the -extreme-,
>>and it's flat-out impossible to integrate some character types and 
>>personalities into an SR campaign, because the whole thing's based around 
>>military-style operations. It's dungeon-crawling, except the dungeons are above
>>ground and the orcs are called 'Security Guards'.....
> What exactly do you do in Cyberpunk? 

One does what one does in all (good) roleplaying: roleplay characters, solve
problems, and develop the characters and the gaming world. The SR plotlines
in the modules (and in most of the games I've seen run) tend to be of the 
"there's a building/complex/sewer system, and somewhere in there is a 
computer disk/new chip/scientist/kidnapped girl, and you need to go in and 
steal/destroy/retrieve/extract/kill/rescue it/him/her" - type. Basically they
tend to be (in my experience) AD&D plotlines, with guns. 

As others have pointed out, not everyone runs games like these, but, in my 
experience, SR games tend to be rather munchkin, and, IMHO, the game system and
background encourages such a manner of playing.

-- 
    "Well, do you ever get the feeling that the Story's too damn real
                        and in the present tense?"
               Christian Wagner - cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell)
Subject: Re: Burn, GURPS, BURN!
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:57:03 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa

In article <C19yDr.HG2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga) writes:
>durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell) writes:
>>Um, I hope nobody's under the impression that Hero stat costs are
>>balanced just cause they vary by stat.  The same argument -- that
>>a given stat has differing value depending on the genre -- applies
>>to Hero as much as it applies to GURPS.

>Well, they are at least a step in the right direction. For the most part,
>I've found the point cost for the statistics to be rather well thought out
>in most of the genre. Did you have a specific problem in some genre?
>We've already heard plenty of complaints from those who've dumped their
>points down the STR sink playing modern era GURPS. 

I suppose.  The argument, though, is that STR is worth more in a fantasy
genre than it is in a modern genre.  Neither GURPS or Hero reflects this
making them both equally flawed in this respect.  I guess you're arguing
that the Hero cost is closer to being balanced for both genres than 
GURPS is?  I disagree there -- I think GURPS is well-balanced for 
fantasy, not as well-balanced for modern, very unbalanced for supers,
while Hero is tuned perfectly for supers but gets weaker the farther
away from four-color stuff you go.

-- 
Bryant Durrell					   durrell@chop.isca.uiowa.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 I feed on the flesh of the living, and I vote.
From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 04:18:38 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <2530@blue.cis.pitt.edu> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>In article <1k2u9qINNhf4@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner) writes:
>><ahem> As said 'ranter' (isn't -all- of r.g.f.advocay ranting in one way or
>>another?), I'm 'ranting' around a game background, style, and system that 
>>(IMHO) encourages a play style that I think most of us here happen to find
>>abhorent. 
>	Actually, your rants about the background are the ones I find most
>incomprehensible. You've called it derivative and flat. 

And, IMHO, it is. 

>	To be honest, I haven't a clue as to how it's any MORE derivative
>than most other games, and it's sure a lot LESS derivative than others.
>The history is worked out in rather interesting detail and the basic 
>idea and working of the Awakening seemed rather original to ME. That 
>background is one of the reasons I LIKE ShadowRun.

To me, the SR background is basically all of the 'classic' cyberpunk trappings
shoved together (cyberware, the 'net, death sports, arcologies, etc), without
any of the -real- depth one finds in the literature. And the magic stuff isn't
particuarly impressive either; it's as derivative as the background is. The
history is just silly; American Indians taking over the western US? I'm sorry,
but this is ridiculous, even if one does accept they used magic to do it....

I may be a classic liberal, but there's more 'white liberal guilt' shoved into
SR than the last Democratic National Convention.....

However, I can see why some people like having such a fleshed-out background
pre-made for use; it's not my style, tho, so it seems useless to me. <shrug>

>>I'm -trying- to be relativly civil, as well. If I'm failing, let me know, 
>>alright?
>	That's your mistake.  This is .advocacy, remember?

Yes, but being completely rabid is -your- job, Sea Wasp. :)

-- 
    "Well, do you ever get the feeling that the Story's too damn real
                        and in the present tense?"
               Christian Wagner - cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: Burn, GURPS, BURN!
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:39:40 GMT

doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu writes:
>dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga) writes:
>>I think that the whole idea of default skills is one of GURPS biggest 
>>holes. High stat characters can do everything well, which isn't reality 
>>at all. If they want to pay points for the skills, I can deal with a high 
>>IQ person being great at lots o' stuff, but getting it for free makes
>>GURPS seem kind of bogus.
...
>The point is, I am a firm believer in default skills because of personal 
>experiences like this.
>
>You don't get these things for free in GURPS.  You pay for them as part of 
>the cost for IQ.

	The trouble is then that you can't get a person who is very smart 
without his being knowledgable in *everything*, because of all of the 
defaults which come from IQ. Not only does it represent an overall 'intelli-
gence' that I don't believe in any more than IQ tests, but it also represents 
training in an endless array of fields, willpower, perception, social 
skill, etc. 
	Defaults in many cases are justified (especially those from other 
skills), but the defaults from IQ in particular assume an unwarranted level 
of education (defaults for Literature, etc.). 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "You're on the cutting room floor, Chaplin.
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | Not a good place to be."
Columbia University         |                  (from the movie 'Chaplin')
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: ShadowRun HEROIC??? (was Re: Burn, GURPS...)
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:24:44 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

In article <C1DwrB.EAp@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga) writes:
>Well, at least there is a universe. You may not like it, but there is one
>there. Heck, the really valuable thing to us is that items have names.
>Ares Predator II vs. Colt Manhunter debates between samurai are things
>that would happen..of course in a GURPS world where all weapons are 
>generic GUN in black and white, there is none of that. FASA gives you 
>a universe you can start with, and I think that's very important for
>a GM. You can put your own personal touch on their universe. Creating
>your own universe from whole cloth..*laugh* I go to school, I don't 
>have that kind of time. 

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

As for creating a universe from whole cloth, you don't really need to for most
games.  Create a small area and work from there.  Or, if you don't need to
create all of it (for instance, I've run a few games in an alternate
California, so the geography is pretty much set already, with some amusing
little similarities in the non-geographical aspects that have caused MANY dice
to be thrown at me by players), a larger area will do.  I have a vague idea
what sorts of places are around outside the main area of play, and I don't need
to bother with drawing up a large-scale map.  If I want a certain type of
place, I know EXACTLY where to put it.  It makes it MUCH easier to come up with
things, especially on the fly.  Some PCs get in an argument with a minor noble
from some rural area, and want to track him down later?  No problem!  In about
a minute, I give them his name and a place name, and when they ask for more
info I have a good idea of what I'm going to tell them.  Maybe some Purist Snob
GMs (TM) out there will look down on this, but for the most part the players
never even notice, and it makes my life much easier, so who cares?  After all,
I go to school, so I don't have the time to create an entire universe from
whole cloth.



-Doug Gibson
 doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu

Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.

"We have to tear you to shreds because we care." - EAC
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy