HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Advantages
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:36:30 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <17132@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>I previously mentioned that GURPS advantages sounded like highly quantized
>attributes.  A "Strong Will" advantage is basically the same as a "Will"
>attribute with only three possibilities: average (not appearing on character
>sheet), exceptionally high, or exceptionally low.

Right. And since most characters have a Will roll that is equal to their IQ 
score, having a separate Will "attribute" is kind of a waste of space. 

>How many of these attributes-that-are-not-labeled-attributes does the typical
>GURPS character have, and are they really easier to keep track of than 15
>attributes set in a nice, clean 5x3 matrix that is standard for all
>characters?

Yes, it is easier. Because if a character doesn't have Strong or Weak Will, 
they, in effect, don't have the attribute. And if they do have it, they write
the final adjusted score down next to the advantage/disadvantage. 

It's the same with things like sense rolls, hit points, or fatigue. Most 
characters won't have to deal with these "attributes", because they're exactly
equal to their base IQ, HT, or ST. So why clutter up a character sheet with
extra attributes, when most of the characters won't have to deal with them?

-- 
    "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: gharris@jade.tufts.edu (George W. Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Advantages
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:12:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov9.201244.13001
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA

In article <40702@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:
>
>	But it's not.  Stats are almost always increased BY FAR more
>often than any advantage or disad that affects them.  That's why
>they are stats and adv's/disad's are what they are.

	This is a very interesting statement.  Compare it with the following:

	Stats are almost always increased BY FAR more often than any advan-
tage or disad that affects them.  That's because they are stats and advs/
disads are what they are.

	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.

	Moreover, there is the psychological angle.  If players are forced
to make a conscious decision about their character's Will, or HPs, rather
than having it default to something unless they make an effort, they are 
more likely to leave it at the default.  So, if you changed the GURPS
system to one that had, say, just two or three more attributes (say, WL,
PR and SZ), then I would be willing to bet that characters created under
that system would have WL different from IQ, and HP different from HT,
much, much more often than standard GURPS characters [You would, of course,
have to adjust attribute costs accordingly, and I would propose that HP be
the average of HT and SZ; you could also use SZ in determining damage].

	So, in conclusion, the argument that additional attributes would
not contribute to GURPS because most characters currently created in 
GURPS have those `attributes' at the level of their default, is an invalid
one, because the fact that GURPS is structured the way it is (with advs/
disadvs limits and default values) encourages characters to be created 
that way.

--
gharris@jade.tufts.edu          
George W. Harris              	"He'd kill us if he had the chance."  
Dept. of Mathematics            
Tufts University              			The Conversation
From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Advantages
Date: 10 Nov 92 11:43:17 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <17221@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
writes:

>Oh, I see.  The "simple" GURPS system is even more complicated than I
>thought. Not only do you have to check attributes and
>advantages/disadvantages, you may have to add numbers in game time...or does
>the player write down "WILL = <number calculated from advantage level and IQ
>and anything else that applies>"?
>
>Sounds kludgey to me.  :)

I thought sensible players in virtually any system precalculated numbers in
this way. I certainly do: e.g. in AD&D, I'll write down my character's THAC0
figures with each weapon which he or she normally wields, including bonuses
for strength, magic, etc., simply to minimise the number of calculations I
have to do during play. In GURPS, if my character has Animal Empathy, I'll
add the appropriate bonus to all animal skills when writing them down on the
character sheet, again to avoid calculations during play. Etc., etc., etc.

An additional benefit of writing down such precalculated figures is that it
helps to ensure that you don't forget bonuses or penalties. This helps to
ensure smooth play: late corrections e.g. to reported damage figures can
really disrupt and slow down combat.

So yes, if my GURPS character has Strong Will +3, the entry in the IQ box on
my character sheet will probably read something like "14 (Will 17)". If I'm
asked to make a Will roll and don't simply know my character's Will offhand,
I'll look up the IQ box. If it mentions Will specifically, then that's the
figure I use; if it doesn't, then I use the IQ figure. Not really very
complicated...

Personally, I don't think it makes a great deal of difference whether there
are a lot of attributes or a few plus modifying advantages: you tend to
write down about the same amount of detail for any well-designed character
either way. And anyway, most of the character detail is in things like skill
lists, so even a doubling of the attribute section doesn't make a great deal
of difference to the overall size...

What does make an enormous difference to the ease of use of a system is how
familiar you are with it. Precalculating the right figures and finding good
places to write them on the character sheet can speed most systems up
immensely.

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...
From: bell@beethoven.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Character Detail
Date: 9 Nov 92 01:30:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: borg.17332
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <17254@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
]bell@beethoven.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:

]>+ I prefer random-generation, because that suits my creative needs best.  If
]>+ I had to use point allocation, I'd probably end up rolling some numbers to
]>+ give me some direction.

But then by your own words, you're using a random generation system:
]If you use dice to determine how to allocate points, you are using random
]generation.  Random generation means letting the dice decide the numbers.

But you then go on to say:
]>+ I also think that I'd like the PA character less,
]>+ since so much of it has already been determined, leaving less to
]>+ explore--and surprise me--during role-playing.

But you already said you'ld use dice to make the decision for you,
so it ISN'T a point allocated character by your definition.  So why would
you like it less?

I can see an objection to point allocation systems when they fail at their
attempts at balance, which they often do, and thus the minimaxers have a
field day.  But otherwise, every point allocation system "contains" a
random generation system.  So why do you dislike them, or like them less?

   -Andrew Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu
From: cpearce@nemesis.acs.unt.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: CFD: Name change for rec.games.frp.advocacy
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:33:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: mercury.1992Nov11.003319.22507
Organization: University of North Texas

The breakup of rec.games.frp into the rec.games.frp.* hierarchy has
pretty much accomplished its aim: to allow readers to sift through
the roleplaying discussion more easily while allowing discussion about
roleplaying games to go largely unhindered.

However, the original architects of the breakup have acknowledged that
they felt that cosmetic changes might need to be performed as the splinter
newsgroups obtained their own purposes.

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.

I, too, acknowledge that the proposed change may not precisely describe
the de facto charter of this newsgroup, but, like the original architects
of the breakup, I submit that, if necessary, we could break up the
proposed hierarchy into rec.games.frp.GURPS-has-no-magic-system,
rec.games.frp.GURPS-has-too-few-stats, and rec.games.frp.I-scoff-at-
one-second-rounds.

Thank you.
--
Chris Pearce, cpearce@nemesis.acs.unt.edu
From: dlewis@sandia.UUCP (Dave Lewis )
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Date: 4 Nov 92 13:00:30 GMT
Organization: Sandia Natl Labs, Div. 9224

In article <17103@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) writes:
>
>> If this is true, it sounds like what you mainly need is personal discipline
>> in order to take advantage of the benefits of point allocation so that your
>> creativity can be fully expressed.
>
>That sounds contradictory to me: "improve your personal discipline in
>limiting your creativity so you can express your creativity more fully."

An inability to choose between options during a creative process does not in
itself indicate creativity. Increasing your ability to choose between options
will not reduce your creativity. Instead it will increase the effective
expression of your creativity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lewis
It is inevitable that we shall eventually become indistinguishable from our 
machinery! OR Computers, Martial Arts, and RPGs are better than Sex, Drugs, 
and Rock n'Roll! Well ... Maybe not better than Sex!
uucp:      ...{ucbvax | gatech}!unmvax!sandia!dlewis
InterNet:  unmvax.unm.edu!sandia!dlewis   or   sandia!dlewis@unmvax.unm.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: dmgirard@nyx.cs.du.edu (David Girardot)
Subject: re: Adventurers
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 17:34:43 GMT



>Heh.  For the past couple of years I've been trying to do away with the
"adventurer" mentality.   Generally, the characters are the exception and
not the rule.  Being "adventurers" gives them no special place in society
beyond their actual social position/accomplishments.  I also have been
trying
to work up character-based motivations for parties and adventures rather
that artifical ones (like the obstreperous "you see a sign that says
adventurers needed).

I think the historical and literary pre-runner of the "adventurer" are
there, however.  Look at the Leatherstocking Tales, or Gulliver's Travels,
or the Oz books, or Indian Vision Quests.  Granted, none of these are the
banal, institutionalized stuff that's been mentioned, but they're
examples of what "adventurer" could mean in a realistic game world.  And 
then there's always the old standby: a group of folks from diverse
backgrounds thrown together by fate and kept together by circumstance...

--David

--
                    dmgirard@nyx.cs.du.edu
                 Girardot@Vax.Dickinson.Edu
From: bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Advantages
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:17:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: sdcc12.40851
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Nov9.195951.12743@news.tufts.edu> gharris@jade.tufts.edu (George W. Harris) writes:
>	But the problem with this is that Stupid Joe with the Strong Will
>advantage has a lower will than Brilliant Josephine with the Weak Will
>disadvantage.  So you have a not uncommon case where the words are at odds
>with reality.

	Not really.  Stupid Joe's will is higher than what it would
normally have been, thus the reason for the Strong Will.
Alternately you can rule that IQ <> Will and make a new Will stat
that starts at 10.
	Alternately you can make 5 perception stats (6 when you
count the overall Alertness advantage).  Add in Charisma,
Attractiveness, Double-Jointed (+3 to climbing rolls and stuff!),
High Pain Threshold, Language Talent, Longetivity (how you age),
Absolute Direction, Animal Empathy, A ton of reaction statistics,
Musical Ability, Various reputation adjustments, Voice...

	...Uh-huh...
>--
>gharris@jade.tufts.edu          
>George W. Harris              	"He'd kill us if he had the chance."  
>Dept. of Mathematics            
>Tufts University              			The Conversation
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Test post, please ignore
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:10:40 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu

Coyt D Watters writes:
>I write:
>>As for asb, what's wrong with that?  There was a thread on that group
>>a while about re: rpgs as well.  Nearly thought about crossposting
>>a followup here, but figured it's be as bad as mixing bleach and 
>>ammonia.  =)
>Well, normally I ignore tests (though, I have, of late begun followups to 
>them), but this one was the first anonymous posting to r.g.f.m that I've 
>seen.  The only groups I've seen anonymous posting on have been asb and
>alt.sex, so calculating 2+2=2^2...  B^)

2+2=2^2 depending on your frame of reference and your definition of both
functions.  =)  I guess with that finnish anon.poster, anyone can now
post anon to any group.  Btw, I think the alt.sex.<deviation optional>.
personals allow for anon postings.

>Not a thing wrong with asb, it's one of the (ahem) more enlightening groups
>on the net.  It's refreshing to know that there is a forum for people who's
>recreation is a little off the beaten path (or should I say ON the beaten
>path?).

I dunno, I'll postulate that they're of the opinion that "trussed is trust"
or some other witticism.  For the rest of you reading through 100+ post a
day there looking for my golden droppings, two thoughts:

1) think of how that is sooooo similar and reminescent of the old r.g.f

2) I don't post there, anon or otherwise.  I don't read it now, either.
   So there!  Nyah!!!

>I do agree, crossposted threads from there are probably a bad thing.

But this thread has been a bit of fun.  Can't be all fire and bombast.
Not all the time at least.

>-Coyt (who is REALLY depressed - the last store I found JOLT at has closed.)

Here's a mix I dare you to try: instant coffee and substitute for the
water, Mountain Dew.   =)  <heheheheheh>

-- 
Ogden's Law:
	The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch
	up.
From: dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:13:29 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Nick Janow Opines:

>To me it's like buying a house.  One way is to have one built from scratch,
>from your own dream design.  Once it's built, you can live in it, but there's
>nothing left to do but dust and vacuum.  Another method is to buy an old
>house. It's more work, but there's so much potential for changes: enlarge a
>window, move a door, add a skylight, etc.  For me, there's a lot of pleasure
>in renovating an existing house, but none in living in it once it's
>completed.
>
>To me, building a character from a concept is like buying a completed dream
>house: there's nothing left to do but dust and vacuum in it.  A
>randomly-generated character has lots of potential for developing an
>interesting personality.  It also has little personality surprises that turn
>up during play, since I haven't predetermined what the stats mean.

So what you're saying is that random generation allows you to go back and

ignore or override the results of the dice and replace them or misinterpret
or ignore them so you can play the character the way you want?

I'm not surprised...

Your example of building vs. remodeling the house falls a bit short.  You
have to consider that if you're using random allocation, you are essentially
signing a contract which says you can't make any modifications or additions
to the house.  So you can redecorate the house, but if it's too small, or
has an uneven floor you're not allowed to build an addition or level the
floor because that's part of the structure of the house when you get it.

Dave
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign - A systemless suggestion
Date: 11 Nov 1992 16:17:28 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu
Keywords: Systemless, translation-of-scores, MILAHSE.


[Glenn Barnett talks about a marvel-like words only system (MILAHSE)
for describing characters for rec.frp.games.campaign]

This is good stuff.  Anyone at the WotC experts list (newly resurrected)
heard this?  Glenn, you may want to join that mailing list: experts-
request@wizards.com.

However, why not install it as a standard for rec.games.frp.archives?
It could go in the charter part of the FAQ postings in r.g.f.announce,
amd Mitch Gold can tack it on in any post that adheres to it, or post
it separately on a regular basis.
-- 
Main's Law:
	For every action there is an equal and opposite government
	program.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Character Detail
Reply-To: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 13:59:44 GMT

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>
>Part of my objection is that if it's my decision, I'll optimize the character
>in some ways.  

What on earth is wrong with optimizing your character in *some* ways?

>I'll avoid characteristics I'd find it easier to not play, and
>choose others to improve the "power" of the character or give him "larger
>than life" personality quirks.  That's human nature, and part of it will
>probably be subconscious.  How many GURPS players build a character with
>characteristics that they don't "choose" to have?  :)

This is a bizarre paragraph, almost alien to me.

Not many GURPS players build a character with characteristics they
don't "choose" to have, true, but that does not mean that every GURPS
character is built optimized for power and with a larger-than-life
personality.  Far from it.  I haven't made one of those in years, in
fact.  Sure, the temptation is there when you first begin to play, but
if you're a real role-player, you'll tire of that and go on to making
more interesting and less powerful characters.

Every character I make has skills that are probably useless to the
adventure because they fit the background of the character and the
character wouldn't make sense without it.  For example, if the
character was raised in the country, I give him points in Agronomy
(farming), since I can't imagine a country kid not working in the
fields and picking up the basics of farming.  I think I've managed to
use the skill once per year in the last five years, but every country
character still has it.

I resent your implication that every GURPS player makes only
power-optimized characters.  Although it's possible to do so in GURPS,
it isn't the norm in my gaming group.  Most characters will have some
powerful specialty, yes, but usually less so than a typical AD&D
character, to be honest.  And I've played a 25-point dependent when my
main character died, and had a great time doing it.

I've also GMed many GURPS games at cons where a player, unknown to me,
will come up and ask if he can play a character he brought.  In 1987 I
would wince, knowing that it would be power-optimized, as you think.  But
in the last two or three years, I haven't had *one* power-optimized
character handed to me by a stranger.  All have been well fleshed-out,
balanced, interesting characters, often with an advantage that either
limited power (I've seen a lame, one-eyed veteran fighter) or was damned
hard to play.

Perhaps you're basing your prejudices against GURPS players on beginning
GURPS players, when the temptation to go for power is strong.  People
outgrow it, Nick.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:31:24 GMT

dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) writes:

> This has nothing to do with how you generated the character.  Generating a
> character by point allocation has everything to do with making a fully
> developed, internally consistent and interesting character.  That character
> is going to be just as adaptable to different situations as a randomly
> generated character -- in fact, you can design a character who is more
> flexible and less limited, by design, so that he will be prepared for odd
> situations.

You're ignoring the psychological differences in the two methods, and that is
a critical factor in this issue.  It is also, as displayed in recent
comments, a factor that is very difficult for people with different
psychological make-ups to understand.  Unfortunately, it is also a factor
that is difficult to explain, or even define.

A person who likes to start character generation with a character "they want
to play", probably has a difficult time comprehending how someone might not
have a particular character they "want to play".  In the same way, your
arguments (and statements) lead me to believe that you are having difficulty
comprehending how a player can be very creative using a random generation
method.

> In roleplaying you're not designing characters to fit a particular
> situation, you're designing them to be PEOPLE in their world, and to deal
> with the situations they get thrown into, whatever they are.  And that's
> the case with both PA and random characters -- but PA lets you do it
> better.

Your last statement is outright incorrect.  PA does not let _me_ do it
better; it lets Dave Nalle--and others who share his preferences regarding
character generation--do it better; or at least do it in a way that they
believe is better for them.  However, what is the correct system for Dave
Nalle is not the correct system for each and every rpg player in the world.

Actually, that is what this whole debate comes down to Dave: are you
convinced that what is correct for you is correct for me and every other
gamer in the world?  That is what you have clearly stated several times
before, with respect to character generation.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.advocacy:3154 rec.games.frp.dnd:6065 rec.games.frp.misc:8080