HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jacobus@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Genres
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:09:09 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <3651@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> hummell+@pitt.edu (Andrew G Hummell) writes:
>Tanks are already pretty much obsolete now.  The average infantry soldier can
>carry a tank killing rocket.  An A10 Warthog can chew up tanks like bubblegum,
>with proper air support.  Tanks are only effective against troop transports,
>buildings, and other tanks.
>

Tanks were pretty much obsolete in 1939, just ask the French Generals who
hid behind the Maginot line and the Ardennes forest.  (By the way, extending
the Maginot line all the way to the channel may not have "saved France",
since the thinking of the time rated the Ardennes as "impenetrable"--it
was this "impenetrable" Ardennes which served as the route for the major
German advance--the Low Countries invasion was a feint in WWII.)

Furtheremore, the "average infantry soldier" might be able to cary a
"tank killing rocket", but what percentage of these soldiers would actually
be issued them, and how many of these "tank killing rockets" would actully
kill a tank.  Sure a mobility kill "counts as a kill", but the tank could
still finish off the offending infantry with its turret weapons--what infantry
schmuck really wants to take that chance.  

True, the A10 is a tank killer bar none, but the US Air Farce has decided
to phase out the A10 (even AFTER Desert Storm)--in favor of the F-16,
if you can believe it.  Why?  Jet jockies hate the A10, because it isn't
fast and glamorous.  Furthermore, A10 pilots keep making F-16 pilots look
like fools when it comes to precision and ground support (yes, Virginia,
the US Air Farce actually tries to make F-16s to ground support).  
Unfortunately, it's the high-flyboys who become colonels, not the ground
support pilots.

>Giant humanoid robots (if such beasts *could* be built -- I beleive that is
>*very* unlikely) would have advantages such as terrain (a walking robot can
>move across terrain that is impassable for tanks), more armor, more firepower,
>more manuverability, more versatility (a giant humanoid robot could be used
>to pick heavy things up and move them, i.e. construction work).
>

What evidence have you that a humanoid tank could mount more armor than 
could a tracked vehicle of the same total mass?  The same for weaponry????
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: Joe_Neldrett@lppl.mi.org (Joe Neldrett)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: gamma world
Distribution: world
Date: 20 Jul 92 22:36:59 EST
Organization: Les's Place BBS

In a message dated Mon 20 Jul 92  7:35, ejd@yabba (eRic Donaldson) wrote:

 ED> I have a bad feeling this thread is going to die out very fast, as it
 ED> always does.  So before it does, I'll do my part to keep it alive.
 ED> Anyone know how many modules were actually put out for GW, and to
which
 ED> releases do they correspond.  Also, does anyone have any
 ED> modules/adventures that they have put together themselves.  Due to the
 ED> limited availability of pre-fab materials, it would be interesting to
 ED> see what others have come up with.

 ED> As for myself, I haven't played in a while, but I am starting teaching
a
 ED> group characters how to play.  I decided to take them through the Very
 ED> First Gamma World Module, The Legion of Gold; only b/c I've done it so
 ED> many times and it will help get me back in touch with that lost world.


 ED> So keep this thread alive!

Well here is my attempt to keep the thread alive. I've been playing Gamma
World since (I believe when it was relatively new) I was in 7th grade back
when I bought my copy of the first edition. Over the years I have gone over
to playing rather than running the games and enjoy it quite a bit. However
I always had more fun playing the first edition than the newer ones. The
guy who runs the TSR games in my group (D&D which I don't play, Gamma
World, and Top Secret) also likes the first edition better and says its
much less complicated to run.  We have a lot of fun with the older stuff
like Legion of Gold and The Cleansing War of Garik Blackhand (I think is
the title.) I also wish my copy of the minimodule that came with the
GameMasters Screen hadn't gotten lost. That was a fun one too. 


 -- AEd V1.36f/EvaA

-- Via DLG Pro v0.992

#========================================================================#
|Joe Neldrett a.k.a. Shmoominator    E-Mail: Joe_neldrett@lppl.mi.org  //|
|Ex-Michigan Technological University Chem/ME Student                \X/ | 
|                                                                        |
|      "Too-da-loo, go with god, and don't accept any wooden nickels."   |
|  //                                                     - George Carlin|
|\X/ (c)1992 Redfender's Red Army Hockey Team Enterprises INC.           |
#========================================================================#
From: olds@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Angel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: SR: Spell Locks useful?
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:48:27 GMT
Followup-To: Re: SR: Blood 'n guts games
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

>Jerry Stratton writes:
>
>Here's a question for Mage/shaman players. Do you find spell locks at all
>useful for keeping spells on yourself? I thought about having a spell
>(Oxygenate) locked on my latest character, but I couldn't think of a
>reasonable way to protect myself against spell grounding. I mean, as
>near as I can tell from the  rules, anyone with a spell lock is a
>sitting duck for astral mages/shamans.

	Yes they are uselful if you are the type who can't handle the
	modifiers from holding it.  Not too many people can.  There is
	no reasonable way to protect yourself from grounding, but as
	long as you don't abuse spell locks, I don't see why a GM would
	taunt you for having one.  Granted, he will still use it and 
	save it as a last resort...or maybe second ;) but I don't
	see why you really need to worry about it if you aren't abusing
	them.....if you aren't locking Personal Comabt sense, with increased
	reactions +4 and armor I don't see why the GM would hold it against
	you every time you play...but there is always the possiblity of 
	grounding....

ATTENTION AXLY :
	 I just thought that you might want to know, that
	 not all gm's "don't use them in astral combat much".
	 Ours does ... EVERY  chance he can get.  Call him
	 cruel, but most of the people who have locks have a
	 reaction spell locked, thus, most of the time they are
	 able to hold their actions to protect their locks...
	 kind of makes 'em useless but hey, they have the
	 quickness when it is really needed....also, most 
	 people no longer have locks anymore....very few
	 still are brave enough to keep them... ;)

			Gemini, The twin Hermetic Female Mage
	         	    (* yikes, what a ?title? *)
			email olds@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
From: mckinney@cs.utexas.edu (Durwood Y. McKinney)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: RQ: Armor Overlapping Rules
Date: 21 Jul 1992 13:06:50 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cash.cs.utexas.edu


Yes, the armor layering rules are really messed up.  According
to them, you can layer armor (2 layers) as long as the bottom
layer is non-rigid.  Allowable combinations include Ringmail
& Cuirbolli (8 AP), bezainted & cuirbolli (7AP), Ringmail&Ringmail
(10AP), all the way up to plate&chain (15AP).  When you start figuring
in multipliers for iron armor things get really disgusting.  of course
all of this is "balanced" by the removal of limits on bladesharp 
(bladesharp 10 is now possible, and even feasible to learn with access
to low POW cult spirits) and the grossest runequest spell of all
time, Damage Boosting.  Armor and damage values end up being the dominant
factor in the game and skill and natural advantage play a lesser role.

In my last game I tried the fixes of a) disallowing layering while
increasing the protection value of all armor except soft+stiff leather
by two, b) putting a 6-point cap on all variable spirit magic, and
3) designing my own sorcery system that has a much more limited version
of damage boost.  This seemed to work pretty well.

Ken McKinney
mckinney@cs.utexas.edu
.
From: jrp3935@tamsun.tamu.edu (Jonny Ray Purvis)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Richard the Lionheart
Date: 26 Jul 92 06:25:34 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

Speaking of genres:

This game was once advertised as an upcoming project of Columbia Games, the
people who make Harn products.  Did it ever come out?  If so, could someone
please give a review of it.  If not, is there a planned release date?  This
was supposed to be an accurate treatment of England in 1190, including a map
and known historical figures.  As I am a history nut, and prefer historical
'realism' in my campaigns, this would be ideal for me.

Thanks,
Jon Purvis
jrp3935@tamsun.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: bkdavis@eos.ncsu.edu (B K DAVIS)
Subject: Re: Best Player Lines
Originator: bkdavis@c00100-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: bkdavis@eos.ncsu.edu (B K DAVIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 04:50:14 GMT


One night we were playing SR. I was playing Brebane my samurai. The physical 
adept of the group said to an npc "You had better give us our money ".
The Merc leader (The Npc) said "Oh really little boy and what are you going to
do if I don't". Mao (who's char is 17) said "Don't you threaten me."
The npc a Merc leader said to Mao (The PA) "I do not make threats I make promises".
At that point I spoke up and said to him and the rest of his crew 
"WELL I DO NOT MAKE THREATS.....
..... I MAKE BODIES".
Needless to say we got our money.

Brebane
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn)
Subject: Re: Point or Random Systems, What about both?
Organization: California State University, Chico
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 06:38:40 GMT


I'd much rather have a point-allocation system. One friend has
an iteresting interim solution: you allocate rolls. Basically,
you have so many dice to spread amongst your stats. Distribute
them, then roll. Other games on the market have you roll first
then either distribute the rolls, or sum the rolls and spread
out the points.
-- 
"I'd love to go out with you, but I'm staying home to work on my
cottage cheese sculpture."
From: jwadsley@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Military Mechs?
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:53:27 +1000
Distribution: world
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <13840@mindlink.bc.ca>, Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
> jwadsley@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> 
>> Anyway a comment on energy conversion:
>>    ....
>>      heat to electrical - not possible as far as I know
> 
> It's possible, and being used.  Space probes usually use thermionic generators,
> which use heat to directly drive a current flow.  Thermal photons can be
> converted by solar cells or even tiny rectennas.  There are undoubtedly other
> methods.

I was aware of solar cells but going via photons seems very inefficient. Solar
cells are very inefficient anyway. I had a tickling at the back of my mind
which said 'They probably are possible you know...' but I replied: 'Yeh, but
they're not very efficient at all so why bother?'. I spoke to my chem engineer
father on this one and he says that heat to electricity or heat to mechanical
will always be inefficient, regardless of the process used. Thus a couple of
final comments:

Electrical motors are currently at least 90% efficient. With superconductors,
new permanent magnets and so on they are likely to get better. Thus mechs can
not be more than 10% better at the electrical to mechanical step.

Wheels are very efficient. It is effectively constant acceleration to drive a
wheel. Legs on the other hand are inefficient because you must accelerate one
way to lift the leg, stop and accelerate the other way. You are continuously
wasting the energy you already put in by reversing direction.

I like the mechs on bikes solution. I reckon ditch the trail bikes for Harleys.

Hey, look at Robotech. They had mech bikes and mech tanks. They stayed in
bike and tank form for all movement and all but close in combat. Robotech also
has more reasonably sized mechs. I don't know anything about the game mechanics
though. Transformation is probably an engineering nightmare anyway.

James Wadsley.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Bill Seurer)
Subject: Re: GURPS: Alien races -- Too powerful?
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:40:35 GMT
Reply-To: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester
Keywords: GURPS Aliens Space

On "point breaks" for non-humans in GURPS Fantasy and GURPS Aliens.

SO WHAT!   (Pet Peeve warning!!)

If there is going to be any meaningful difference between races some are
going to probably be better than others at certain things.  If all your
elves are are humans with pointy ears who live in the woods, why bother?

Now in GURPS (and I assume other point games) it will be "cheaper" to make
a strong, tough, (stereotypical) dwarven fighter than an equivalent human
fighter.  Now, if the only reason a player wants to be the dwarf is 
'cause it's cheaper, that's her problem.  She's a lousy roleplayer.  Dump
her and get some real players who want to play a dwarf 'cause they fell
in love with the little buggers while reading Lord of the Rings (or 
whatever) and want to be a DWARF, not a short little human tough guy.

It is really easy to spot these players too.  The best way is to listen
while they create characters.  "Hey, my new character Blamo the Mighty
will be 5 points cheaper if I make him a Half-halfing/half-ogre" is a 
dead giveaway.

What I consider truly criminal is a system like AD&D1 where non-humans are
purposely crippled 'cause "otherwise everyone would want to be one."

Gee, I should start a movement.  "GMs for the abolishment of pseudo game
balance myths".
-- 

- Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN
  Internet: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com    America On-Line: BillSeurer@aol.com
From: cxc4107@hertz.njit.edu (Christopher Lee Cavender)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Anyone Heard of Rifts
Date: 26 Jul 92 04:22:49 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

I am currently invovled in a Rifts campaign. Or at least it started out as a
rifts campain. Our DM sort of went insane recently and will now allow crossovers from ANYWHERE. We have a Jedi, A Klingon, some sort of wierd alien thing,
a Two-Headed Psionic troll, and of course me. Im the normal one in the glitter armor. UNfortanatly when he went insane he also turned into a munchkin. :( Ah,
well it was fun (if wierd) while it lasted.
						Chris
From: hummell+@pitt.edu (Andrew G Hummell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Genres
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:18:10 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1682D1FB5.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:
>>
>>Hence the need for a computer interface to translate the pilot's movements
>>into a scaled-up mech's movements.
> 
>     That's still a kludge -- you'd get timing problems right and left.
>By the time you've changed the pilot's sensory inputs enough so that the
>sensory feedback (which seems to be the ONLY possible justification given
>for mech vs. tank) matches what he'd expect -- okay, I've raised my left

I agree that the technology isn't available now, but Battletech takes place 
in the far future.  Who is to say what technology in the future will be 
like?  Do you think Ben Franklin could imagine a Cray II computer while
he was experimenting with electricity?  Could the Wright brothers envision
supersonic jets while they were experimenting with powered flight?  Who
knows where technology will be in 100 years, let alone thousands of years in 
the future?  It is all a matter of suspension of disbelief (as is any sf
or fantasy game).



Andy
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "I'm not insane...just a reasonable facsimile."  | Hummell@unix.cis.pitt.edu
  "Character is what you are in the dark."         | Andy Hummell ...that's me 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Rifts
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:58:02 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

But that's the point.  If you hit a PC in MDC armor with a HMG (an SDC weapon)
THE PC WON'T EVEN FEEL IT!  It's the MDC *armor* that is silly, not the
MDC system itself.

-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
From: Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Dangerous Journeys
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 01:59:03 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Well, let's see...as I remember it...
1. HP is Heroic Persona
2. OP and EP I believe are Other Persona and Enemy Persona
3. MPG is Monstrous Personage
4. M,P, and S stand for Mental, Physical, and Spirit
5. STEEP is Study Training Education Experience Practice

I couldn't find what exactly the difference was between full and partial 
practice other than a full practice priest or mage being able to store 10
times more heka.  The entire magic system in the Mythus rules is a waste of
space.  It's all duplicated in the magic book and I can't imagine running
Mythus without the magic book.  There is just an incredible number of 
references to the magic book throughout the Mythus rulebook.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: cjudd@esk (Craig Thomas Judd)
Subject: Re: Military Mechs?
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 04:36:02 GMT

In article <Brxso7.5y2@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
>Well, the big problem I have with future tanks being big robots is that they
>would just be too damn easy to hit. Missles are already very effective if 
>used against modern tanks correctly. Most of the big robots in the games
>can't move very fast and are as big as a house. I'd say it would be damn
>easy to slam missles into those robots all day long from fast hover vehicles.
>Future combat means either missles or a very good explanation why no one
>uses them. 

Uh, most of the big robots in BATTLETECH can't move very fast. Granted, neither
do the Destroids from Robotech, but look how fast the Veritechs move!

Missiles are a major problem, and are the best weapons to use in Robotech. But
if you look at the Mekton II rulebook, it points out that being large doesn't
make you easier to hit, if you move fast. Mecha aren't necessarily better than 
tanks in this respect; but then, what CAN stand up against a direct hit with a
cruise missile? 

Didn't someone previously arrive at the conclusion that the best army would be 
entirely composed of infantry? Well, it may have been a sarcastic response, but
what is a mecha other than heavily armored and armed infantry? Mecha, or at 
least power suits, could be built smaller than 15m, you know :-)

Mecha are more versatile than tanks. Yes, you could use a tank to move cargo,
but a mecha already has the equipment built in. 

And lastly, I agree with the person who said mecha are there to be cool. Heck,
none of my players pilot a machine if the design isn't good! It may be 
interesting to look at the pros and cons of mecha, but until they go into 
production, I'm happy to just sit here in my metal suit.

Yours mechanically;

-- 
   \/\ "Abide by the contract of blood and inherit me!" Grossporina, SM2 /\/
====\/\"Shit, it's that skinhead again!" Kaneda about Col., AKIRA Book 3/\/====
=====\/\      *** WANT ANY MANGA ARTWORK DONE? Just email me! ***      /\/=====
      \/\   cjudd@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au      a.k.a. Kuroto Shiro   /\/
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: adam@owlnet.rice.edu (Adam Justin Thornton)
Subject: Re: New Name for Flesh Golem wanted!
Organization: Milo's Meadow
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:59:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.043223.546@njitgw.njit.edu> cxc4107@hertz.njit.edu (Christopher Lee Cavender) writes:
>Okay all you creative net-types! I need a new name for Flesh Golems! And DONT
>give me varations on Frankenstein! There is no reason to name a medivail monster
>after a 19th centuray fictional creation!
>						Chris

"Fred"

Adam
-- 
"Man is conceivied in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the
 stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud.  There is _always_
 something." -- Robert Penn Warren | Vote Cthulhu in '92! | adam@rice.edu
If Rice shared my opinions I wouldn't have this disclaimer | 64,928
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: Military Mechs?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:40:50 GMT

PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88) writes:

>canders@isr.harvard.edu writes:


>In a mecha game that a friend of mine was putting together, Tanks were still
>the mainstay military fighting vehicle.  The mecha  were  specialized hostile
>enviroment strike vehicles, and comparitively rare.  However, their superior
>mobility and  versitility gave them a position in military units not unlike
>special forces  in today's militaries.


*sweaty and frustrated 'Mech technician is taking a break*

"What's up Bill?" his friend asks.

"Ever try and put a green beret on a 'Mech?"

*grin* Someone had to say it..

Axly
From: jacobus@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Military Mechs?
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:18:19 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Jul25.002200.1503@news.columbia.edu> jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>	I don't see how you can conclude they are economically idiotic. Mechs 
>rely on a different type of motor than tanks do - how do you know how 
>expensive that will be in an interstellar economy? And if its cheap enough, 
>then it makes sense militarily because you can build enough of them. 



First, assuming that the "different motor" relied upon is some sort of
pseudo actino-myelin ("synthetic muscle") analog, there is no reason whatsoever
why a tank could not use the EXACT SAME MOTOR!!!!!!!!!!

After all, it is very simple to transfer linear motion into circular motion
(It's called a piston).  Furthermore, if for some insane reason, one
does not want to do this then one's best bet would be to have something with
six or eight legs that scuttles along the ground with as low a profile as
possible.  A humanoid shape would be too vulnerable to air attack and too
easy to knock over when compared with a multi-base shape.