HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Game mechanics for swimming
Summary: Want to implement
Keywords: skills,swimming
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:41:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: acf9.rose.702614490
Organization: New York University


  I am doing some work on swimming as an adventure activity and want to
flesh out an appropriate game mechanic.  I have a few questions:

  1.  What does it mean to fail at Swimming?

  2.  What is the mechanic to use in drowning?  I want to permit a skill
      called "Hold Breath" which defaults to Toughness.  Successfully
      holding ones breath prevents drowning damage, although it doesn't
      necessarily help one to escape the water.

  3.  I would expect that a once a player goes into a drowning condition
      that each round they must survive an attack which is equivalent to
      not breathing in water.  It should be possible for a player with
      marginal swimming skills to stay afloat for some time, occasionally
      taking damage by sinking and breathing in water.  Thus they could
      be rescued.

  4.  How would you run a rescue of a drowning person as a dramatic
      skill resolution?

  5.  What do you think of these ideas in terms of overall game playability
      and entertainment balance?

--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: jogle@dopey.vlba.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim))
Subject: Re: Test
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, 9 Apr 1992 20:24:58 GMT

Chris & Rick write:
> 
> > Is the list alive?
> 
> 	I think so.  I've been missing some mail lately, but it's shown
> up on alt.games.torg.
> 
> 	Claaaaaaaaaay?

I think someone must have ripped up one of the Black Marble Wombat's stelae
and they're still reeling from the backlash.... 8-)

Kansas Jim (jogle@nrao.edu)
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:56:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: acf9.rose.702615369
Organization: New York University

[jogle@dopey.vlba.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim)), Sean M. and Rick Pim
 discussing Tech axioms wrt the Airplane engine vs. glider flight in
 the introductory Solo Adventure in the Rulesbook.]

  How about this?

  1.  The plane without power is a passive contradiction.  This is
      checked in the beginning of the Scene.  I suppose if an airplane
      failed its passive contradiction check, it would start falling
      apart (screws and bolts and welded seams would no longer hold).

  2.  The engine is an active contradiction and is checked each round
      as the character pilots the plane around the Reality Storm.
      If the player roles a "1" while using his Air Vehicles skill,
      the plane disconnects and the engine dies.  As the gliding 
      properties of the vehicle are a passive contradiction, they
      still exist.  (Re: Kansas Jim, gliding isn't prohibited in
      the LL, else birds wouldn't be able to fly, what is prohibited
      is the making of machinery to do this.)

  However this solution violates the what Kansas Jim said regarding
WEGs ruling on armor undergoing disconnection.  I would try to work
out how the armor violates the axioms and reduce the effect accordingly.
So that tungsten steel plate would reduce to plate mail, while Kevlar
armor would reduce to padded cloth armor.  (Disintegration of the
violating material substance.  In the first case, the tungsten steel
undergoes a phase change with the tungsten and much carbon precipitating
out leaving a low carbon steel allow in its place.  In the second place,
the Kevlar itself disintegrates.)

  Then again, I've always been confused between disconnection and
transformation anyway.  (If you disconnect, you are no longer able
to relate yourself to the unliving objects in the old way.  But where
does this leave the unliving object which caused the disconnection?
If it is still in the old axiom set, then there should be no effect upon
passive contradictions.)


--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Z_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (BRANDON COPE)
Subject: the working of axiom levels
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, 13 Apr 1992 13:46:19 GMT


Unfortunately, the very long post I sent on this never made the list due to the
mailer problems we were having (well, I think so anyway...). This is a shorter
version.

What I'm about to say probably contradicts the rules and information in the
game, but its the only way to think of the limits on the various axioms in a
logical way (to me, anyway). First of all, the Darkness Device of a machine
sets the limits of what is possible within a cosm, usually working with a High
Lord. The Everlaws are the 'police force' that make sure these axiom limits are
not broken (well, actually the Everlaws do more than that, but...). Thus, all
axiom limits are arbitrarily set. For cosms without a Darkness Device (like
Core Earth in the boxed set), there is no limit on the Social Axiom, and
usually not on the Tech Axiom. The Magical and Spiritual Axioms can vary a
great deal, depending on if the cosm is magic-rich or magic-poor, or how much
the Powers That Be want to get involved in the affairs of men (the occurances
in the Old Testament would have required a Spiritual Axiom of about 17 or so).
Thus, until a Darkness Device artificially limits the Axioms in a cosm, the
Social and Tech Axioms are unbounded, at least as far as the natural laws of
the cosm will allow. What this basically means is that tech gear from the
Cyberpapacy and Nippon Tech will function perfectly well in Core Earth. It also
means we don't have to worry about why a 3' bow will work in the Living Lands,
but a 7' won't, since the rules are arbitrarily set anyway.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
!  a generous and sadistic DM,  ! "Just a traveller, on an endless flight !
!	Brandon Cope		!  But no matter which way I turn, I      ! 
!-------------------------------!  	journey into the night;		  !
! a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu	!  Going round in circles, til the 	  !
! z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu	!	mountians fall,			  !
!-------------------------------!  To believe in so many truths,	  !
! "But ... but ..., it's NOT	!  Makes no sense at all,		  !
!  our fault!"			!  Makes no sense at all"	          !
!      Kei and/or Yuri		!	the Alan Parsons Project	  !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes)
Subject: Re: 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: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:20:51 GMT

Mark Cogan(marcogan@student.anu.edu.au) sez:
 ! I think that the axioms _limit_ both possibility and understanding; so not
 ! only will a sailboat not work in the Living Land, anyone operating under
 ! those axioms won't even be able to understand how it could work. However,
 ! axioms do not grant intuitive knowledge, either for possibility-rated
 ! people, or for ords. If they granted intuitive knowledge for the P-rated,
 ! how come some P-rated Zulu (say, Shaka. He must have been P-rated) didn't
 ! invent tech 22 goodies? 

where are you going to get parts in the middle of the jungle?
any way, he probably had a few miracles going for him, and a
primative's usual dislike of tech (we dont need the white man's things)

 ! As for the Law of Action, why does the _character_ have to be concious of
 ! 'rolling two dice'? One of the properties of Core Earth is that it exist in
 ! three-dimensional space. Are you concious of this thiree dimensionality
 ! every time you turn a corner or go up some stairs? Does one say 'whoa, time
 ! to translate along the z-axis here...' to oneself before climbing a ladder?
 ! No, we just climb. Similarly, Nile characters simply 'try real hard' and
 ! (in the game-implementation of the Nile), get to roll 2 dice. Its the
 ! _player_ who decides _what_ to roll.
 ! 
 ! Similarly for all world laws. Ayslish charcters are not concious of thier
 ! 'honor adds' in the way the players are; Kanawa people may not be aware of
 ! the rewards of vengance in the same way the players are. And, as discussed
 ! a while ago, I think that Possibilities work the same way (i.e, the
 ! charcters are not concious of them in anything resembing the way the
 ! players are)

but when my decker goes to the Nile, he has to follow local WL as well.
my decker has never spent 2 poss, never thought in an "action packed" way,
and rarely bothers with the morality of his actions, yet he now has an Inc.
if there is not some knowledge of this, i will ignore my inc, or be consantly
told "You dont do want you wanted" since it would be against the WL
(or even worse, the GM siphons poss without my knowledge)

for most of the WL, they just apply (Honnor adds, Stealth in Nippon),
and the character just gets bonuses to certain rolls.
(the GM can even keep track, so the players dont know their not in kansas...)
but some others require some knowledge to use (Action, real high Honor)
at least on the players part, and therefore, IN SOME WAY, on the characters.

a lot of this comes from our adventure in Thebes, and our characters were 
expected to use the LoInclination, yet we AS PLAYERS didnt even know what 
the WLs were, much less our characters...

dave "see previous comment: CE edinos and inclination" oakes
From: jgrace@netcom.com (Joseph Grace)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Core Earth, Pure/Mixed/Dominant Zones, and Bureacracy
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:48:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.p=sj3wc.jgrace
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

During this discussion of Zones, I realized that the most bureacratic
institutions have the least chance of surviving invasion since by their
very definition --- they lack possibilities (i.e., they are abundant
in Inertia Points (tm)).

At least according to my memory, pure zones are easiest to control
and dominant zones are difficult to control (since the possibility
energy makes dominant zone reality unstable and resists control).

Anyway, taking this view of the world, I am a little surprised
Washington DC is in a dominant zone!  Especially with all its
hardpoints.  If anything it's pure due to its bureacratic inertia!!-)

Oh well, I just rejoined the net recently so please refrain from
harsh flames if I'm misguided (did I tell you I am *very* sensitive?-).


= Joe =
jgrace@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: boyes@forty2.enet.dec.com (Mark Boyes)
Subject: Re: Axiom mania!
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 12:44:49 GMT


In article <BPOSTOW.92Apr10155256@fred.oberlin.edu>, bpostow@fred.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow) writes...
> 
>if say, an ayleish person is using an uzi in Nippon, and discos [this
>is a rule of 1 right] then he is considered a nippon local. Can he or
>can he not continue to use the uzi, and if not, why not.

He can use it: he just has certain other problems e.g. can't cast spells
over Axiom 2, can't gain possibilities. And he had better not *lose* that uzi!

>--
>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]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Mark Boyes,   | Psychological Profile: Cpt. Hawkeye Pierce meets Binky Rabbit
Basement Flat | Kinsey Rating: Nobody knows I'm straight.   | You can dance or
28 Walton St. | Preferred Mail: boyes@com.dec.enet.forty2   | you can sit and
Oxford, UK    | Phone Day: (0734) 206708 Night (0865) 53868 | stare at the floor
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Jeff Sullivan <jas@ISI.EDU>
Subject: New Indices
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, 7 Apr 1992 23:16:25 GMT


Has anyone brought the new-index file up to date for things other than the 
Basic Set manuals?  There's lots of work out there for the enterprising person
Why, I daresay that WEG might be interested in such a product...

jas
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes)
Subject: Re:  the working of axiom levels
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 03:59:10 GMT

from: somebody(???) - my mailer refuses to name:
 ! My whole point was that, with the information WEG has provided, there is *no*
 ! internal consistancy. That's why I was soaying that some things will have to be
 ! changed from the official rules to make things work.

give an example that cannot be explained with in the TORG framework,
and i will be more than happy to tell WEG to change things
(like they are going to listen to me in the first place)

i think that almost everything CAN be explained in the TORG cosmology,
except for the exact tech level for guns, and other things WEG
knows nothing about
(the system is good, the classifications weak)

dave "3' vs 8' - the great debate continues" oakes

Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes)
Subject: Re: 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, 13 Apr 1992 20:17:05 GMT

Sean Malloy(malloy@nprdc.navy.mil) rebounds:
 ! On Apr 12,  1:06am, Carl Rigney wrote:
 ! > In article <gatemail1.0b96113332764@morticia> you write:
 ! > >Why would a 3' bowstave work as a bow at Tech 7 while a 6' bowstave -- the
 ! > >same shape, the same wood -- wouldn't?
 ! > 
 ! > Whats a 3?  What's a 6?  What's a '?  All three are missing at Tech 7 /
 ! > Social 7, so both bows are the same in the eyes of Lanala.
 ! 
 ! You're dodging the question -- unless you believe that a Tech axiom of
 ! 7 also _must_ create a deity named Lanala to explain why a given
 ! object does or doesn't work.
 ! 
 ! But isn't the existence (or lack thereof) a function of the Spiritual
 ! axiom? It sounds like you've fallen victim to the "Any Tech 7 cosm is
 ! the Living Land" mindset and fallacy.
 ! 
 ! Perhaps you could make another shot at answering the question if you
 ! assume that the Spiritual axiom of the cosm being discussed is 0.

lets go one better: TECH 7, all others 0.

i agree with rick, life is not supported this low, so we go on

TECH 7, all others 5
(i feel that reality as we can comprehend breaks down at 3-4)

this is a pretty feeble cosm, but the infiniverse guarantees its existance
(and might be a proto-Nippon Tech as well)

why are 3 inchers the limit? simple:
things bend, or they dont, regardless of size
and the force they beend with is constant.
(remembeer, the living are excluded, but might still be limited in some way)
as it turns out, usefull materials for bows hit the limit at 3'
(at least the equiv limit of tech 23 3' bows -
 pieces of steel one foot in diam may bend the same as 3 inches of wood)

the tech axiom rises when someone looks at animals,
realises big animals are stronger than little animals,
and decides that wood and steel and everything works the same.
"instant" TECH 8
(of course such logic might require SOCIAL > 5,
 so this cosm might be in quite a rut until Prated 
 people make an effort)

theres a thought: do the interests of the first Prated person/thing
in a cosm determine its future axioms?
(the first axiom to increase will be easier to keep increasing)

dave "questions are never solved - they just change appearance" oakes
From: Rick Pim <RICK@QUCDNEE.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Cylent Scream Question
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 21:04:00 GMT

> are  Rick Jones <albert@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu>

>       Here's an easy one.  I'm about to run "Rebel Without A Soul"
>(a good adventure, even if they do read too much Ghost Rider).
   i thought so. i ran through that right after "the forever city"; it
led fairly nicely to several week's worth of (i thought) reasonably good
stuff.

>Where
>the heck is Bornei?  Is it part of Borneo itself?  If so, where?
   my atlas spells it Brunei. its a teeny little country in the NW part
of the island of borneo, on the coast.


rp
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: bpostow@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow)
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:51:41 GMT

In article <gatemail1.0b10410144112022@morticia> malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) writes:
>
>   The Solar System is going to change from geocentric to heliocentric
>   because a bunch of people on the Earth are no longer so egotistical as
>   to consider the Earth to be the absolute center of the universe.
>
>   Tell me another one, Unca' Erick!

THAT IS THE POINT!!! that is EXACTLY how it works!!!!!! that is the
purposes of Axiom levles. they change with what the people in the
given cosm believe. before Coppernicus [sp] the univerce of CE WAS
geocentric, then for a brief period of time it was heliocentric, then
after Newton I think it changed to whatever it is now with everything
just sort of hangin out... B-) THAT is EXACTLY how it works. 

if you don't like the axioms, play a different game. [remember CE is
not the universe we live in. come to think of it, TORG isn't the
universe we live it, and we can't use any/all of of the things we
assume about the consistancy of our universe ]
>
>   -- 
>   random sig #115:
>   Sean Malloy                                  | Veteran of the Bermuda Triangle
>   Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | Expeditionary Force
>   San Diego, CA 92152-6800                     |      1990-1951
>   malloy@nprdc.navy.mil                        | 
--
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]






Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Subject: Re: Is anybody here?
Organization: New York University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:07:28 GMT

Rick Jones <albert@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu> writes:

>	Well,  firstus, it's not really in character for an Aylish elf
>to want cyberware, but if he did take it, he'd be a walking contradiction.
>4 case anywhere but Aysle, Cyberpapacy or Tharkhold.  And of course, if 
>he does disconnect, he's asking to get the wasting disease.  If he really
>wants cyberware, I'd advise him taking a Cyberpapacy/Tharkhold character.

  4 case everywhere, including Aysle and Cyberpapacy.  In Aysle because
he has cyberware, and in Cyberpapacy, for being an elf.
--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy)
Subject: Re: Axioms
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 19:58:32 GMT

on Apr 16,  2:40pm, Bronis Vidugiris wrote:
> Yep - but the competing models at the time worked, it's just that they
> were overly complex (as you more or less pointed out).  It was just the
> simplicity of the new models that made them attractive.  It's the simplicity
> of physical laws in an inertial frame that makes Newtonian mechanics
> attractive, too - though it's later been superceeded.

No, the point is that the model _didn't_ work; that's why they kept
having to patch it. The problem was that the patches became more and
more complex and artificial, because they were fixed around the one
_unshakeable_ premise -- that the Earth was naturally the center of
the universe.

The original Copernican heliocentric theory proved to be just as
flawed -- it assumed that the planets moved in circles around the Sun.
This is a fair approximation for most planets, but it failed for Mars
(and would have failed badly for Pluto had the instruments of the
period been able to detect it). The difference was that the patches to
the Copernican theory were minor and retained the same basic
structure.

-- 
random sig #112:
Sean Malloy                                  | This message is programming you
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | in ways that will not become
San Diego, CA 92152-6800                     | apparent for months, or even
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil                        | years.
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes)
Subject: Re:  the working of axiom levels
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, 13 Apr 1992 19:52:41 GMT

Brandon Cope(a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu) offers:
 ! logical way (to me, anyway). First of all, the Darkness Device of a machine
 ! sets the limits of what is possible within a cosm, usually working with a High
 ! Lord. The Everlaws are the 'police force' that make sure these axiom limits are
 ! not broken (well, actually the Everlaws do more than that, but...). Thus, all

but the everlaws exist with out DD (and hamper DD too) 

 ! axiom limits are arbitrarily set. For cosms without a Darkness Device (like
 ! Core Earth in the boxed set), there is no limit on the Social Axiom, and
 ! usually not on the Tech Axiom. The Magical and Spiritual Axioms can vary a
 ! great deal, depending on if the cosm is magic-rich or magic-poor, or how much

why cant you have social rich or tech poor cosms?
(and the magic and spirit - just like the other two - are set by 
 the living inhabitants of the cosm, with some variation)

 ! but a 7' won't, since the rules are arbitrarily set anyway.

that is the point of the discussion
(beyond yelling at ourselves in the ether)
the rules are abitrary, but can we find internal consistancy?
(not just within a cosm, but in the meta-cosms as well)

dave "finding rules beyond measurable reality" oakes
Organization: Junior, Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA