Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Carnivorous Races
99 views
Skip to first unread message
ppint. at pplay
May 16, 2013, 12:45:38 PM5/16/13
to
- hi; in article, <jg8e6ax...@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:
> Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>> Tetsubo wrote:
[]
>>>I see omnivores as the best design for an intelligent race
>[]
>>I agree. However if the carnivorous intelligent races generally have
>>low populations with lots of prey available, then it's feasible.
>>Gathering an army would be a massive undertaking and the army would
>>have to feed off the enemy as much as possible.
>>It's only humans that breed beyond their food supply.
>
>Uh, ***no***. Absolutely everything _except_ humans reproduces as hard
>as it can at all times and a very common result is exausting their own
>food supply. Animals *suck* at long-term planning, and having almost
>all of your children starve to death is the _norm_.
- this is not true for the big cats, and nor is it true
for most pack-hunters; i suspect it is not true for most
obligate wild carnivore species, as any predator species
that destroys one hundred per cent of its possible prey
species - or anything remotely resembling this - destroys
itself. the domestic cat and dog are certainly capable
of destroying local populations of some species, especially
where introduced into "island" (isolated) ecosystems that
previously lacked any comparable predator, as is the humble
hedgehog(!); but iirc the success rate of the big predators'
hunts is around one kill in ten - low enough to be coped
with by the prey species, and the rate of reproduction of
the big predators is low enough to maintain a population
sufficient to expand only relatively slowly, even when one
or more of the prey species increases considerably and rel-
atively quickly. big predators occupy large territories
and prey upon migratory animals, as a rule; but hunting is
itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
of whatever species. this is why c.j. cherryh chose her
leonine spacefaring species in the chanur sequence, the hani,
to be primarily a pride-based civilisation, somewhat extended
to a workable kith-based clan structure, naturally somewhat
imperfectly: co-operation is necessary for culture to arise.
- i believe it's mainly in ecologically marginal territories
that they are likely to outbreed their food supply to the
point of death by starvation being anywhere near the norm
for their young. by and large the big cats spend more time
sleeping, lazing, digesting, grooming and playing (especially
females with their young) than hunting - which they would
scarcely do, if starving.
- predator species' weaponry and prey species' defences
tend to co-evolve, maintaining an approximate parity;
domestic cats and their more distant cousins' ability to
expand populations rapidly may be linked to the propensity
of their small mammal prey species populations to explode
occasionally - explode in number, that is, not percussively.
(- though that _would_ make for an *_interesting_* range
of problems for predators and rpg adventurers alike ;-) )
>Plants are even worse, naturally.
- very few plants are obligate carnivores, and scarcely any
are known habitually to go abroad hunting their prey.
- love, a ppint. as is excluding sentient & sophont triffids
[n.b. cross-posted; followup currently set to r.g.frp.dnd]
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"The Dinner was loose again."
- _Chanur's Homecoming_, C. J. Cherryh, 1987
Phantasia, Daw & Methuen Books
sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:
> Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>> Tetsubo wrote:
[]
>>>I see omnivores as the best design for an intelligent race
>[]
>>I agree. However if the carnivorous intelligent races generally have
>>low populations with lots of prey available, then it's feasible.
>>Gathering an army would be a massive undertaking and the army would
>>have to feed off the enemy as much as possible.
>>It's only humans that breed beyond their food supply.
>
>Uh, ***no***. Absolutely everything _except_ humans reproduces as hard
>as it can at all times and a very common result is exausting their own
>food supply. Animals *suck* at long-term planning, and having almost
>all of your children starve to death is the _norm_.
- this is not true for the big cats, and nor is it true
for most pack-hunters; i suspect it is not true for most
obligate wild carnivore species, as any predator species
that destroys one hundred per cent of its possible prey
species - or anything remotely resembling this - destroys
itself. the domestic cat and dog are certainly capable
of destroying local populations of some species, especially
where introduced into "island" (isolated) ecosystems that
previously lacked any comparable predator, as is the humble
hedgehog(!); but iirc the success rate of the big predators'
hunts is around one kill in ten - low enough to be coped
with by the prey species, and the rate of reproduction of
the big predators is low enough to maintain a population
sufficient to expand only relatively slowly, even when one
or more of the prey species increases considerably and rel-
atively quickly. big predators occupy large territories
and prey upon migratory animals, as a rule; but hunting is
itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
of whatever species. this is why c.j. cherryh chose her
leonine spacefaring species in the chanur sequence, the hani,
to be primarily a pride-based civilisation, somewhat extended
to a workable kith-based clan structure, naturally somewhat
imperfectly: co-operation is necessary for culture to arise.
- i believe it's mainly in ecologically marginal territories
that they are likely to outbreed their food supply to the
point of death by starvation being anywhere near the norm
for their young. by and large the big cats spend more time
sleeping, lazing, digesting, grooming and playing (especially
females with their young) than hunting - which they would
scarcely do, if starving.
- predator species' weaponry and prey species' defences
tend to co-evolve, maintaining an approximate parity;
domestic cats and their more distant cousins' ability to
expand populations rapidly may be linked to the propensity
of their small mammal prey species populations to explode
occasionally - explode in number, that is, not percussively.
(- though that _would_ make for an *_interesting_* range
of problems for predators and rpg adventurers alike ;-) )
>Plants are even worse, naturally.
- very few plants are obligate carnivores, and scarcely any
are known habitually to go abroad hunting their prey.
- love, a ppint. as is excluding sentient & sophont triffids
[n.b. cross-posted; followup currently set to r.g.frp.dnd]
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"The Dinner was loose again."
- _Chanur's Homecoming_, C. J. Cherryh, 1987
Phantasia, Daw & Methuen Books
alie...@gmail.com
May 17, 2013, 5:17:15 AM5/17/13
to
On May 16, 9:45 am, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay")
wrote:
> - hi; in article, <jg8e6axgn2....@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
BTW is that the Tetsubo that used to hang out in ABPW?
> >>>I see omnivores as the best design for an intelligent race
> >[]
> >>I agree. However if the carnivorous intelligent races generally have
> >>low populations with lots of prey available, then it's feasible.
> >>Gathering an army would be a massive undertaking and the army would
> >>have to feed off the enemy as much as possible.
> >>It's only humans that breed beyond their food supply.
>
> >Uh, ***no***. Absolutely everything _except_ humans reproduces as hard
> >as it can at all times and a very common result is exausting their own
> >food supply. Animals *suck* at long-term planning, and having almost
> >all of your children starve to death is the _norm_.
>
> - this is not true for the big cats, and nor is it true
> for most pack-hunters;
> for most pack-hunters; i suspect it is not true for most
> obligate wild carnivore species, as any predator species
> that destroys one hundred per cent of its possible prey
> species - or anything remotely resembling this - destroys
> itself.
Yes, it is true. Typically, prey populations explode in spring, and
predator population expands one litter-bearing-period later, then the
prey thins out and so do the predators.
Look up "predator prey boom bust cycle".
Prey are rarely if ever hunted to extinction and predators choose
other prey if their preferred game isn't available but change takes
adapting and some just don't manage it.
> the domestic cat and dog are certainly capable
> of destroying local populations of some species, especially
> where introduced into "island" (isolated) ecosystems that
> previously lacked any comparable predator, as is the humble
> hedgehog(!); but iirc the success rate of the big predators'
> hunts is around one kill in ten - low enough to be coped
> with by the prey species, and the rate of reproduction of
> the big predators is low enough to maintain a population
> sufficient to expand only relatively slowly, even when one
> or more of the prey species increases considerably and rel-
> atively quickly.
Typically more than one predator species hunts in a given area.
> big predators occupy large territories
> and prey upon migratory animals, as a rule; but hunting is
> itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
> other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
> of whatever species.
Nonsense. Lions and cheetahs hunt the same ground, but rarely the
same prey. Hyenas are less choosy and will steal prey from either
given the opportunity (usually if there are more hyenas than cats)
Mind you cheetahs usually hunt in groups of two, but still.
> this is why c.j. cherryh chose her
> leonine spacefaring species in the chanur sequence, the hani,
> to be primarily a pride-based civilisation, somewhat extended
> to a workable kith-based clan structure, naturally somewhat
> imperfectly: co-operation is necessary for culture to arise.
I always thought she chose lions as her model because they were
sufficiently cooperative to have the potential to form a culture,
given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.
> - i believe it's mainly in ecologically marginal territories
> that they are likely to outbreed their food supply to the
> point of death by starvation being anywhere near the norm
> for their young. by and large the big cats spend more time
> sleeping, lazing, digesting, grooming and playing (especially
> females with their young) than hunting - which they would
> scarcely do, if starving.
Where their are prey there are predators. In Africa, the hunting
territories of lions, cheetahs, hyenas, etc. overlap though they
usually don't hunt the same prey. In the Americas you find mountain
lions and grizzlies hunting the same turf as well, though not usually
the same prey at the same time.
> - predator species' weaponry and prey species' defences
> tend to co-evolve, maintaining an approximate parity;
That is thought to be why American pronghorn antelope can run so
fast- the American cheetah (now extinct) ate the slower ones.
> domestic cats and their more distant cousins' ability to
> expand populations rapidly may be linked to the propensity
> of their small mammal prey species populations to explode
> occasionally - explode in number, that is, not percussively.
Yep, the "boom bust cycle".
> (- though that _would_ make for an *_interesting_* range
> of problems for predators and rpg adventurers alike ;-) )
A couple years back there was a discussion in rec.arts.sf.science
about exotic biochemistries based on compounds we would call
explosives and whether lifeforms could eat each other "safely". I
suggested that grazers might want to avoid the crabgrass' "detcord"
stems...
> >Plants are even worse, naturally.
>
> - very few plants are obligate carnivores, and scarcely any
> are known habitually to go abroad hunting their prey.
Plants don't just eat animals...
Do you know how the strangler fig got its name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_plant
Mark L. Fergerson
wrote:
> - hi; in article, <jg8e6axgn2....@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
BTW is that the Tetsubo that used to hang out in ABPW?
> >>>I see omnivores as the best design for an intelligent race
> >[]
> >>I agree. However if the carnivorous intelligent races generally have
> >>low populations with lots of prey available, then it's feasible.
> >>Gathering an army would be a massive undertaking and the army would
> >>have to feed off the enemy as much as possible.
> >>It's only humans that breed beyond their food supply.
>
> >Uh, ***no***. Absolutely everything _except_ humans reproduces as hard
> >as it can at all times and a very common result is exausting their own
> >food supply. Animals *suck* at long-term planning, and having almost
> >all of your children starve to death is the _norm_.
>
> - this is not true for the big cats, and nor is it true
> for most pack-hunters;
> for most pack-hunters; i suspect it is not true for most
> obligate wild carnivore species, as any predator species
> that destroys one hundred per cent of its possible prey
> species - or anything remotely resembling this - destroys
> itself.
predator population expands one litter-bearing-period later, then the
prey thins out and so do the predators.
Look up "predator prey boom bust cycle".
Prey are rarely if ever hunted to extinction and predators choose
other prey if their preferred game isn't available but change takes
adapting and some just don't manage it.
> the domestic cat and dog are certainly capable
> of destroying local populations of some species, especially
> where introduced into "island" (isolated) ecosystems that
> previously lacked any comparable predator, as is the humble
> hedgehog(!); but iirc the success rate of the big predators'
> hunts is around one kill in ten - low enough to be coped
> with by the prey species, and the rate of reproduction of
> the big predators is low enough to maintain a population
> sufficient to expand only relatively slowly, even when one
> or more of the prey species increases considerably and rel-
> atively quickly.
> big predators occupy large territories
> and prey upon migratory animals, as a rule; but hunting is
> itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
> other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
> of whatever species.
same prey. Hyenas are less choosy and will steal prey from either
given the opportunity (usually if there are more hyenas than cats)
Mind you cheetahs usually hunt in groups of two, but still.
> this is why c.j. cherryh chose her
> leonine spacefaring species in the chanur sequence, the hani,
> to be primarily a pride-based civilisation, somewhat extended
> to a workable kith-based clan structure, naturally somewhat
> imperfectly: co-operation is necessary for culture to arise.
sufficiently cooperative to have the potential to form a culture,
given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.
> - i believe it's mainly in ecologically marginal territories
> that they are likely to outbreed their food supply to the
> point of death by starvation being anywhere near the norm
> for their young. by and large the big cats spend more time
> sleeping, lazing, digesting, grooming and playing (especially
> females with their young) than hunting - which they would
> scarcely do, if starving.
territories of lions, cheetahs, hyenas, etc. overlap though they
usually don't hunt the same prey. In the Americas you find mountain
lions and grizzlies hunting the same turf as well, though not usually
the same prey at the same time.
> - predator species' weaponry and prey species' defences
> tend to co-evolve, maintaining an approximate parity;
fast- the American cheetah (now extinct) ate the slower ones.
> domestic cats and their more distant cousins' ability to
> expand populations rapidly may be linked to the propensity
> of their small mammal prey species populations to explode
> occasionally - explode in number, that is, not percussively.
> (- though that _would_ make for an *_interesting_* range
> of problems for predators and rpg adventurers alike ;-) )
about exotic biochemistries based on compounds we would call
explosives and whether lifeforms could eat each other "safely". I
suggested that grazers might want to avoid the crabgrass' "detcord"
stems...
> >Plants are even worse, naturally.
>
> - very few plants are obligate carnivores, and scarcely any
> are known habitually to go abroad hunting their prey.
Do you know how the strangler fig got its name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_plant
Mark L. Fergerson
Tetsubo
May 17, 2013, 5:38:37 AM5/17/13
to
This got me thinking of the cicada season we are currently entering
here in the Eastern US. Cicadas work on the predator satiation model.
You simply overwhelm your predators with food. They just can't eat all
of your species. The ones that survive live to breed the next
generation. So what if we expand that model to larger creatures. This on
the Tiny or even Small scale. We could be traditional and make them
insectoids. Or we could make them something different, mammals. reptiles
or since this is a fantasy world even humanoids of one type or another.
Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass School of
Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies were the natural
predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch and burst forth from the
earth. The player characters have already moved on like the murder hobos
that they are. They hear a rumor that things have gone pear-shaped in
the province they recently cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
Maybe this infestation is how goblins breed and the survivors grow up
into orcs... hmmm...
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
here in the Eastern US. Cicadas work on the predator satiation model.
You simply overwhelm your predators with food. They just can't eat all
of your species. The ones that survive live to breed the next
generation. So what if we expand that model to larger creatures. This on
the Tiny or even Small scale. We could be traditional and make them
insectoids. Or we could make them something different, mammals. reptiles
or since this is a fantasy world even humanoids of one type or another.
Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass School of
Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies were the natural
predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch and burst forth from the
earth. The player characters have already moved on like the murder hobos
that they are. They hear a rumor that things have gone pear-shaped in
the province they recently cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
Maybe this infestation is how goblins breed and the survivors grow up
into orcs... hmmm...
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Robert Carnegie
May 17, 2013, 7:21:21 AM5/17/13
to
On Friday, 17 May 2013 10:17:15 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> I always thought she chose lions as her model because they were
> sufficiently cooperative to have the potential to form a culture,
> given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
> intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.
Is that the case with lions? I gathered that females do most of
> I always thought she chose lions as her model because they were
> sufficiently cooperative to have the potential to form a culture,
> given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
> intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.
the work, which sounds like pretty good thinking if you're a male.
Apart from that she may have been mainly thinking of the title.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collective_nouns> has the
selection, and some work better than others.
I don't recall squirrels /ever/ appearing in the Dray Prescot books.
Oh, well. Wait, were there mysterious powerful unseen aliens...
or aliens who /appeared/ as humans, but may have been other...
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 17, 2013, 7:24:29 AM5/17/13
to
Why is this suddenly being crossposted here to rec.arts.sf.written?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
David DeLaney
May 17, 2013, 10:09:43 AM5/17/13
to
On 2013-05-17, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> This got me thinking of the cicada season we are currently entering
> here in the Eastern US. Cicadas work on the predator satiation model.
> You simply overwhelm your predators with food. They just can't eat all
> of your species. The ones that survive live to breed the next
> generation.
They _also_, interestingly enough, use a model where they're only available
> This got me thinking of the cicada season we are currently entering
> here in the Eastern US. Cicadas work on the predator satiation model.
> You simply overwhelm your predators with food. They just can't eat all
> of your species. The ones that survive live to breed the next
> generation.
in certain years ... which are a prime number of years apart. 17 is the usual
one but not the only such. The thinking (not that there was any thinking, just
survival, but you know what I mean) was that if your predators are on any
sort of multiyear cycle themselves, they HAVE to match your prime factor or
they'll essentially never see you. (Yearly-cycle predators still have to wait
that many years to see you again, and may have changed their habits in the
meantime or been wiped out or learned to sing.)
Dave, and don't forget the coathanger stage
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
lal_truckee
May 17, 2013, 12:06:20 PM5/17/13
to
On 5/17/13 4:24 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
> Why is this suddenly being crossposted here to rec.arts.sf.written?
I think it's because they're arguing without even a waving of hands
>
> Why is this suddenly being crossposted here to rec.arts.sf.written?
toward facts and someone therefore thought the thread belonged in the
Speculative Fiction group.
Anthony Nance
May 17, 2013, 12:17:43 PM5/17/13
to
In rec.arts.sf.written "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> Why is this suddenly being crossposted here to rec.arts.sf.written?
>
I think it's because the original cross-poster (a regular here) had
>
> Why is this suddenly being crossposted here to rec.arts.sf.written?
>
included a mostly throwaway comment about triffids in the response.
alie...@gmail.com
May 17, 2013, 5:43:09 PM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 4:21 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 17 May 2013 10:17:15 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > I always thought she chose lions as her model because they were
> > sufficiently cooperative to have the potential to form a culture,
> > given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
> > intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.
>
> Is that the case with lions? I gathered that females do most of
> the work, which sounds like pretty good thinking if you're a male.
Male lions don't *need* brains- all they do is eat what the females
> On Friday, 17 May 2013 10:17:15 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > I always thought she chose lions as her model because they were
> > sufficiently cooperative to have the potential to form a culture,
> > given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
> > intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.
>
> Is that the case with lions? I gathered that females do most of
> the work, which sounds like pretty good thinking if you're a male.
bring down, defend the feeding pride (from hyenas etc.) or perform an
occasional "show kill", and um procreate..
> Apart from that she may have been mainly thinking of the title.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collective_nouns> has the
> selection, and some work better than others.
"Chopped".
So was Pratchett's Mr Teatime a crow in a past life?
Mark L. Fergerson
Wayne Throop
May 17, 2013, 6:22:03 PM5/17/13
to
: "nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com>
: Male lions don't *need* brains- all they do is eat what the females
(Though I suppose you could count that as a subtask of "procreate".)
: Male lions don't *need* brains- all they do is eat what the females
: bring down, defend the feeding pride (from hyenas etc.) or perform an
: occasional "show kill", and um procreate.
And kill cubs of the outgoing male pridekeeper, and drive off rival males.
: occasional "show kill", and um procreate.
(Though I suppose you could count that as a subtask of "procreate".)
Will in New Haven
May 17, 2013, 6:36:08 PM5/17/13
to
a cheetah. And between lions and hyenas, prey-stealing goes both ways.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
May 17, 2013, 6:41:34 PM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 5:43 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 4:21 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 17 May 2013 10:17:15 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > I always thought she chose lions as her model because they were
> > > sufficiently cooperative to have the potential to form a culture,
> > > given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
> > > intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.
>
> > Is that the case with lions? I gathered that females do most of
> > the work, which sounds like pretty good thinking if you're a male.
>
> Male lions don't *need* brains- all they do is eat what the females
> bring down, defend the feeding pride (from hyenas etc.) or perform an
> occasional "show kill", and um procreate..
A male can kill a hyena quickly. When a lioness gets going on a hyena,
> On May 17, 4:21 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 17 May 2013 10:17:15 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > I always thought she chose lions as her model because they were
> > > sufficiently cooperative to have the potential to form a culture,
> > > given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
> > > intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.
>
> > Is that the case with lions? I gathered that females do most of
> > the work, which sounds like pretty good thinking if you're a male.
>
> Male lions don't *need* brains- all they do is eat what the females
> bring down, defend the feeding pride (from hyenas etc.) or perform an
> occasional "show kill", and um procreate..
the other hyenas often have time for a rescue, so they are not as
scared. Without the males, the lionesses would lose too many kills.
And there are big prides that hunt huge prey, hippos, rhinos,
giraffes, young elephants, and the males do a lot of the killing in
those prides. Even the very common preying on buffalo often engages
the male(s)
P. Taine
May 17, 2013, 7:37:32 PM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:43:09 -0700 (PDT), "nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com>
wrote:
My youngest sister coined "a copse of policemen".
P. Taine
wrote:
P. Taine
Robert Bannister
May 17, 2013, 9:32:03 PM5/17/13
to
groups with their brothers until they feel strong enough to take over a
pride?
--
Robert Bannister
J. Clarke
May 17, 2013, 11:07:12 PM5/17/13
to
In article <acc014e6-ff7d-4693-b1c6-61ed3c76c525
@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, willre...@yahoo.com says...
>
> On May 17, 5:43ï¿œpm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 17, 4:21ï¿œam, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, 17 May 2013 10:17:15 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes ï¿œwrote:
> > > > ￜ I always thought she chose lions as her model because they were
@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, willre...@yahoo.com says...
>
> On May 17, 5:43ï¿œpm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 17, 4:21ï¿œam, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, 17 May 2013 10:17:15 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes ï¿œwrote:
> > > > ￜ I always thought she chose lions as her model because they were
> > > > sufficiently cooperative to have the potential to form a culture,
> > > > given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
> > > > intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.
> >
> > > Is that the case with lions? ï¿œI gathered that females do most of
> > > > given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
> > > > intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.
> >
> > > the work, which sounds like pretty good thinking if you're a male.
> >
> > ￜ Male lions don't *need* brains- all they do is eat what the females
> >
> > bring down, defend the feeding pride (from hyenas etc.) or perform an
> > occasional "show kill", and um procreate..
>
> A male can kill a hyena quickly. When a lioness gets going on a hyena,
> the other hyenas often have time for a rescue, so they are not as
> scared. Without the males, the lionesses would lose too many kills.
> And there are big prides that hunt huge prey, hippos, rhinos,
> giraffes, young elephants, and the males do a lot of the killing in
> those prides. Even the very common preying on buffalo often engages
> the male(s)
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM>
> > occasional "show kill", and um procreate..
>
> A male can kill a hyena quickly. When a lioness gets going on a hyena,
> the other hyenas often have time for a rescue, so they are not as
> scared. Without the males, the lionesses would lose too many kills.
> And there are big prides that hunt huge prey, hippos, rhinos,
> giraffes, young elephants, and the males do a lot of the killing in
> those prides. Even the very common preying on buffalo often engages
> the male(s)
ppint. at pplay
May 17, 2013, 11:41:01 PM5/17/13
to
- hi; in article,
<b732a3c3-9f56-4078...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
willre...@yahoo.com "Will in New Haven" observed:
>> > � � � � �big predators occupy large territories
of the big cats in africa.
- but lions kill both leopards and cheetahs when they
catch them, hunting them down if they become aware of
them in their territories; and especially, or perhaps
most often successfully, female cheetahs with young.
leopards are probably more liable to survive, being
able to climb trees (habitually taking their kill up
into them also), but lions will force them to leave.
- all cheetahs living today are descended from as few
as a dozen and a half individuals, according to gene-
analysis: i believe they are the most marginal of all
the african big cats. lions and leopards do not eat
the cheetahs & cubs they kill, so they are not preying
upon them.
- love, ppint.
[n.b. was re-cross-posted; follow-up re-set to r.a.sf.wr]
He is behind me. You are in front of me.
If you value your lives, be somewhere else"
- delenn, babylon 5
<b732a3c3-9f56-4078...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
willre...@yahoo.com "Will in New Haven" observed:
>> > � � � � �big predators occupy large territories
>> > � � � � and prey upon migratory animals, as a rule; but hunting is
>> > � � � � itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
>> > � � � � other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
>> > � � � � of whatever species.
>>
>> � Nonsense. Lions and cheetahs hunt the same ground, but rarely the
>> same prey. Hyenas are less choosy and will steal prey from either
>> given the opportunity (usually if there are more hyenas than cats)
>> Mind you cheetahs usually hunt in groups of two, but still.
>
>It doesn't take two hyenas to drive off a cheetah. A big dog can kill
>a cheetah. And between lions and hyenas, prey-stealing goes both ways.
- indeed, hyenas kill more than do lion, or any other
>> > � � � � itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
>> > � � � � other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
>> > � � � � of whatever species.
>>
>> � Nonsense. Lions and cheetahs hunt the same ground, but rarely the
>> same prey. Hyenas are less choosy and will steal prey from either
>> given the opportunity (usually if there are more hyenas than cats)
>> Mind you cheetahs usually hunt in groups of two, but still.
>
>It doesn't take two hyenas to drive off a cheetah. A big dog can kill
>a cheetah. And between lions and hyenas, prey-stealing goes both ways.
of the big cats in africa.
- but lions kill both leopards and cheetahs when they
catch them, hunting them down if they become aware of
them in their territories; and especially, or perhaps
most often successfully, female cheetahs with young.
leopards are probably more liable to survive, being
able to climb trees (habitually taking their kill up
into them also), but lions will force them to leave.
- all cheetahs living today are descended from as few
as a dozen and a half individuals, according to gene-
analysis: i believe they are the most marginal of all
the african big cats. lions and leopards do not eat
the cheetahs & cubs they kill, so they are not preying
upon them.
- love, ppint.
[n.b. was re-cross-posted; follow-up re-set to r.a.sf.wr]
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"Only one human captain has ever survived battle with a Minbari fleet.
--
He is behind me. You are in front of me.
If you value your lives, be somewhere else"
- delenn, babylon 5
Tetsubo
May 18, 2013, 4:46:45 AM5/18/13
to
On 5/17/2013 6:36 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On May 17, 5:17 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 16, 9:45 am, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay")
>> wrote:
>>
>>> - hi; in article, <jg8e6axgn2....@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
>>> sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:
>>
>>>> Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>>>>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>> BTW is that the Tetsubo that used to hang out in ABPW?
I don't know who wrote this, but yes I did used to hang out and post there.
> On May 17, 5:17 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 16, 9:45 am, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay")
>> wrote:
>>
>>> - hi; in article, <jg8e6axgn2....@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
>>> sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:
>>
>>>> Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>>>>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>> BTW is that the Tetsubo that used to hang out in ABPW?
Tetsubo
May 18, 2013, 4:50:25 AM5/18/13
to
On 5/17/2013 11:41 PM, ppint. at pplay wrote:
> - hi; in article,
> <b732a3c3-9f56-4078...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> willre...@yahoo.com "Will in New Haven" observed:
>> n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ppint. at pplay")> wrote:
>>>> big predators occupy large territories
>>>> and prey upon migratory animals, as a rule; but hunting is
>>>> itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
>>>> other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
>>>> of whatever species.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Lions and cheetahs hunt the same ground, but rarely the
>>> same prey. Hyenas are less choosy and will steal prey from either
>>> given the opportunity (usually if there are more hyenas than cats)
>>> Mind you cheetahs usually hunt in groups of two, but still.
>>
>> It doesn't take two hyenas to drive off a cheetah. A big dog can kill
>> a cheetah. And between lions and hyenas, prey-stealing goes both ways.
>
> - indeed, hyenas kill more than do lion, or any other
> of the big cats in africa.
Interesting piece of research I once read speculated that hyenas
> - hi; in article,
> <b732a3c3-9f56-4078...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> willre...@yahoo.com "Will in New Haven" observed:
>> n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ppint. at pplay")> wrote:
>>>> big predators occupy large territories
>>>> and prey upon migratory animals, as a rule; but hunting is
>>>> itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
>>>> other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
>>>> of whatever species.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Lions and cheetahs hunt the same ground, but rarely the
>>> same prey. Hyenas are less choosy and will steal prey from either
>>> given the opportunity (usually if there are more hyenas than cats)
>>> Mind you cheetahs usually hunt in groups of two, but still.
>>
>> It doesn't take two hyenas to drive off a cheetah. A big dog can kill
>> a cheetah. And between lions and hyenas, prey-stealing goes both ways.
>
> - indeed, hyenas kill more than do lion, or any other
> of the big cats in africa.
co-evolved with the smilodons or saber-toothed tigers. Picking up what
the cats with those huge teeth couldn't eat. Not sure if that is what
happened of course. But the scavenging hyenas survived while the
smilodons did not.
Robert Carnegie
May 18, 2013, 8:06:04 AM5/18/13
to
> So was Pratchett's Mr Teatime a crow in a past life?
puzzling many of his audience.
Apparently the collective for teatime is "selection".
<http://www.properbiscuits.co.uk/blog/?p=199> for instance
is one getting a very negative review.
J. Clarke
May 18, 2013, 10:45:57 AM5/18/13
to
In article <kn7f50$ofm$2...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net says...
For certain values of "survive". Smilodon was a New World species.
There were also New World hyenas. Neither survived.
There were also New World hyenas. Neither survived.
Will in New Haven
May 18, 2013, 4:27:48 PM5/18/13
to
idea that they can't hunt doesn't fly.
Will in New Haven
May 18, 2013, 4:32:03 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 4:50 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 11:41 PM, ppint. at pplay wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > - hi; in article,
> > <b732a3c3-9f56-4078-9da3-1c12624af...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> On 5/17/2013 11:41 PM, ppint. at pplay wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > - hi; in article,
> > willreich...@yahoo.com "Will in New Haven" observed:
> >> n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> ppint. at pplay")> wrote:
> >>>> big predators occupy large territories
> >>>> and prey upon migratory animals, as a rule; but hunting is
> >>>> itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
> >>>> other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
> >>>> of whatever species.
>
> >>> Nonsense. Lions and cheetahs hunt the same ground, but rarely the
> >>> same prey. Hyenas are less choosy and will steal prey from either
> >>> given the opportunity (usually if there are more hyenas than cats)
> >>> Mind you cheetahs usually hunt in groups of two, but still.
>
> >> It doesn't take two hyenas to drive off a cheetah. A big dog can kill
> >> a cheetah. And between lions and hyenas, prey-stealing goes both ways.
>
> > - indeed, hyenas kill more than do lion, or any other
> > of the big cats in africa.
>
> Interesting piece of research I once read speculated that hyenas
> co-evolved with the smilodons or saber-toothed tigers. Picking up what
> the cats with those huge teeth couldn't eat. Not sure if that is what
> happened of course. But the scavenging hyenas survived while the
> smilodons did not.
Except that hyenas hunt more than they scavenge. I think there ought
> >>> ppint. at pplay")> wrote:
> >>>> big predators occupy large territories
> >>>> and prey upon migratory animals, as a rule; but hunting is
> >>>> itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
> >>>> other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
> >>>> of whatever species.
>
> >>> Nonsense. Lions and cheetahs hunt the same ground, but rarely the
> >>> same prey. Hyenas are less choosy and will steal prey from either
> >>> given the opportunity (usually if there are more hyenas than cats)
> >>> Mind you cheetahs usually hunt in groups of two, but still.
>
> >> It doesn't take two hyenas to drive off a cheetah. A big dog can kill
> >> a cheetah. And between lions and hyenas, prey-stealing goes both ways.
>
> > - indeed, hyenas kill more than do lion, or any other
> > of the big cats in africa.
>
> Interesting piece of research I once read speculated that hyenas
> co-evolved with the smilodons or saber-toothed tigers. Picking up what
> the cats with those huge teeth couldn't eat. Not sure if that is what
> happened of course. But the scavenging hyenas survived while the
> smilodons did not.
to be a word for prey-stealing that differentiates it from picking up
some skin and bones that the predator left behind. Hyenas take kills
from lions (and vice versa) and this is not at all the kind of
activity that vultures and sometimes jackals do when they scavenge.
Also, I am pretty sure that the hyena evolved on a different continent
than ol smiley.
alie...@gmail.com
May 19, 2013, 7:16:09 PM5/19/13
to
On May 18, 1:46 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 6:36 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 5:17 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 16, 9:45 am, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay")
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> - hi; in article, <jg8e6axgn2....@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
> >>> sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:
>
> >>>> Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
> >>>>> Tetsubo wrote:
>
> >> BTW is that the Tetsubo that used to hang out in ABPW?
>
> I don't know who wrote this, but yes I did used to hang out and post there.
That was me- hello again, long time no see!
> On 5/17/2013 6:36 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 5:17 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 16, 9:45 am, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay")
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> - hi; in article, <jg8e6axgn2....@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
> >>> sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:
>
> >>>> Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
> >>>>> Tetsubo wrote:
>
> >> BTW is that the Tetsubo that used to hang out in ABPW?
>
> I don't know who wrote this, but yes I did used to hang out and post there.
I really miss the discussions with you and Doc and the others- I
occasionally look in on the group but it just isn't the same. I did
post some pics of a nice sirupate I recently acquired and got some
good feedback but not the help in researching it I was looking for. My
own Google-Fu eventually came through but I'm sure Doc could have
identified who made it. ;>)
> --
> Tetsubo
> Deviant Art:http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
> YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
later today.
Mark L. Fergerson
Tetsubo
May 20, 2013, 7:40:26 AM5/20/13
to
On 5/19/2013 7:16 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On May 18, 1:46 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/17/2013 6:36 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>>
>>> On May 17, 5:17 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 16, 9:45 am, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay")
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> - hi; in article, <jg8e6axgn2....@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
>>>>> sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:
>>
>>>>>> Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>>>>>>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>>>> BTW is that the Tetsubo that used to hang out in ABPW?
>>
>> I don't know who wrote this, but yes I did used to hang out and post there.
>
> That was me- hello again, long time no see!
>
> I really miss the discussions with you and Doc and the others- I
> occasionally look in on the group but it just isn't the same. I did
> post some pics of a nice sirupate I recently acquired and got some
> good feedback but not the help in researching it I was looking for. My
> own Google-Fu eventually came through but I'm sure Doc could have
> identified who made it. ;>)
I do miss the group. But I am not willing to pay for access. Plus my
> On May 18, 1:46 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/17/2013 6:36 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>>
>>> On May 17, 5:17 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 16, 9:45 am, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay")
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> - hi; in article, <jg8e6axgn2....@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
>>>>> sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:
>>
>>>>>> Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>>>>>>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>>>> BTW is that the Tetsubo that used to hang out in ABPW?
>>
>> I don't know who wrote this, but yes I did used to hang out and post there.
>
> That was me- hello again, long time no see!
>
> I really miss the discussions with you and Doc and the others- I
> occasionally look in on the group but it just isn't the same. I did
> post some pics of a nice sirupate I recently acquired and got some
> good feedback but not the help in researching it I was looking for. My
> own Google-Fu eventually came through but I'm sure Doc could have
> identified who made it. ;>)
time is taken up quite a bit by YouTube now. I also haven't sketched in
a couple of years now.
William December Starr
May 20, 2013, 10:42:11 PM5/20/13
to
In article <kn4tje$ftt$1...@dont-email.me>,
-- wds
Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> said:
> Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
> population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass
> School of Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies
> were the natural predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch
> and burst forth from the earth. The player characters have already
> moved on like the murder hobos that they are. They hear a rumor
> that things have gone pear-shaped in the province they recently
> cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
Why are you assuming that they'd even ask themselves those questions?
> Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
> population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass
> School of Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies
> were the natural predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch
> and burst forth from the earth. The player characters have already
> moved on like the murder hobos that they are. They hear a rumor
> that things have gone pear-shaped in the province they recently
> cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
-- wds
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 21, 2013, 7:18:37 AM5/21/13
to
Robert Carnegie
May 21, 2013, 8:54:04 AM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 12:18:37 UTC+1, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 5/20/13 10:42 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>
> > In article <kn4tje$ftt$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> said:
> >
> >> Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
> >> population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass
> >> School of Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies
> >> were the natural predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch
> >> and burst forth from the earth. The player characters have already
> >> moved on like the murder hobos that they are. They hear a rumor
> >> that things have gone pear-shaped in the province they recently
> >> cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
> >
> > Why are you assuming that they'd even ask themselves
> > those questions?
>
> Because most PC groups are heroes, and heroes
> ask questions like that.
I mainly know roleplay gaming through works by Aaron Williams,
> On 5/20/13 10:42 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>
> > In article <kn4tje$ftt$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> said:
> >
> >> Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
> >> population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass
> >> School of Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies
> >> were the natural predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch
> >> and burst forth from the earth. The player characters have already
> >> moved on like the murder hobos that they are. They hear a rumor
> >> that things have gone pear-shaped in the province they recently
> >> cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
> >
> > Why are you assuming that they'd even ask themselves
> > those questions?
>
> Because most PC groups are heroes, and heroes
> ask questions like that.
representing both gamers, and game characters usually with
quite a lot of "genre-savvy". On the one hand, being given
information like that counts as an "adventure hook",
a starting point; on the other hand, what's in it for them?
Which is why the customer should take care to get some
kind of after-sales guarantee, or insurance.
Also see the reaction to bad news from Passholdt:
<http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20050801>
But in real life and in quite a lot of fiction, it seems
to me that when species A, which was keeping species B
in check, is driven close to extinction, human beings
are often a pretty good substitute for the job of
stomping out species B as well. We're usually responsible
for A. But there are exceptions where B is too much
for us to deal with; notably in Australia.
Walter Bushell
May 21, 2013, 12:45:40 PM5/21/13
to
In article <e18804fb-61b2-4a1d...@googlegroups.com>,
brothers. When the males lose their pride, they basically starve. At
sexual maturity the males are kicked out of the pride and spend time
wandering until they can kick the males of another pride out and they
are basically skeletal then. When the males lose their pride, they
basically starve.
It's very bad news when a lion loses his pride. It's all Dukkha.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 17 May 2013 10:17:15 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > I always thought she chose lions as her model because they were
> > sufficiently cooperative to have the potential to form a culture,
> > given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
> > intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.
>
> Is that the case with lions? I gathered that females do most of
> the work, which sounds like pretty good thinking if you're a male.
The males do the fighting including other males usually bands of
> On Friday, 17 May 2013 10:17:15 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > I always thought she chose lions as her model because they were
> > sufficiently cooperative to have the potential to form a culture,
> > given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
> > intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.
>
> Is that the case with lions? I gathered that females do most of
> the work, which sounds like pretty good thinking if you're a male.
brothers. When the males lose their pride, they basically starve. At
sexual maturity the males are kicked out of the pride and spend time
wandering until they can kick the males of another pride out and they
are basically skeletal then. When the males lose their pride, they
basically starve.
It's very bad news when a lion loses his pride. It's all Dukkha.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Will in New Haven
May 21, 2013, 1:13:06 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 12:45 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <e18804fb-61b2-4a1d...@googlegroups.com>,
> In article <e18804fb-61b2-4a1d...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 17 May 2013 10:17:15 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > I always thought she chose lions as her model because they were
> > > sufficiently cooperative to have the potential to form a culture,
> > > given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
> > > intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.
>
> > Is that the case with lions? I gathered that females do most of
> > the work, which sounds like pretty good thinking if you're a male.
>
> The males do the fighting including other males usually bands of
> brothers. When the males lose their pride, they basically starve.
Because they are usually badly injured and sometimes out of practice
>
> > On Friday, 17 May 2013 10:17:15 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > I always thought she chose lions as her model because they were
> > > sufficiently cooperative to have the potential to form a culture,
> > > given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
> > > intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.
>
> > Is that the case with lions? I gathered that females do most of
> > the work, which sounds like pretty good thinking if you're a male.
>
> The males do the fighting including other males usually bands of
> brothers. When the males lose their pride, they basically starve.
at hunting. Often the hyenas get them before they have _time_ to
starve.
At
> sexual maturity the males are kicked out of the pride and spend time
> wandering until they can kick the males of another pride out and they
> are basically skeletal then.
That is insane. If the males could not hunt and keep themselves in
At
> sexual maturity the males are kicked out of the pride and spend time
> wandering until they can kick the males of another pride out and they
> are basically skeletal then.
condition they could never take over another pride. On several
occasions males have been known to regroup and take a pride back,
although I have never heard of an individual doing it.
David DeLaney
May 21, 2013, 2:28:08 PM5/21/13
to
On 2013-05-21, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 5/20/13 10:42 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>> Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> said:
>>> Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
>>> population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass
>>> School of Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies
>>> were the natural predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch
>>> and burst forth from the earth. The player characters have already
>>> moved on like the murder hobos that they are. They hear a rumor
>>> that things have gone pear-shaped in the province they recently
>>> cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
>>
>> Why are you assuming that they'd even ask themselves those questions?
>
> Because most PC groups are heroes, and heroes ask questions like that.
Though usually their immediate answer involves "how can we get more loot and
> On 5/20/13 10:42 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>> Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> said:
>>> Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
>>> population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass
>>> School of Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies
>>> were the natural predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch
>>> and burst forth from the earth. The player characters have already
>>> moved on like the murder hobos that they are. They hear a rumor
>>> that things have gone pear-shaped in the province they recently
>>> cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
>>
>> Why are you assuming that they'd even ask themselves those questions?
>
> Because most PC groups are heroes, and heroes ask questions like that.
experience out of this?".
Dave
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 21, 2013, 2:59:47 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/13 2:28 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2013-05-21, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 5/20/13 10:42 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>>> Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> said:
>>>> Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
>>>> population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass
>>>> School of Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies
>>>> were the natural predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch
>>>> and burst forth from the earth. The player characters have already
>>>> moved on like the murder hobos that they are. They hear a rumor
>>>> that things have gone pear-shaped in the province they recently
>>>> cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
>>>
>>> Why are you assuming that they'd even ask themselves those questions?
>>
>> Because most PC groups are heroes, and heroes ask questions like that.
>
> Though usually their immediate answer involves "how can we get more loot and
> experience out of this?".
Depends on where you game, I guess. That was rarely the question for
> On 2013-05-21, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 5/20/13 10:42 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>>> Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> said:
>>>> Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
>>>> population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass
>>>> School of Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies
>>>> were the natural predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch
>>>> and burst forth from the earth. The player characters have already
>>>> moved on like the murder hobos that they are. They hear a rumor
>>>> that things have gone pear-shaped in the province they recently
>>>> cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
>>>
>>> Why are you assuming that they'd even ask themselves those questions?
>>
>> Because most PC groups are heroes, and heroes ask questions like that.
>
> Though usually their immediate answer involves "how can we get more loot and
> experience out of this?".
most players/PCs in my experience. Which is pretty extensive (started
gaming in 1977). Of course, it's going to be somewhat self-selecting; I
wouldn't play with people for whom the game was a matter of collecting
more points.
Wayne Throop
May 21, 2013, 3:37:12 PM5/21/13
to
: "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
: Depends on where you game, I guess. That was rarely the question for
: most players/PCs in my experience. Which is pretty extensive (started
: gaming in 1977). Of course, it's going to be somewhat self-selecting;
: I wouldn't play with people for whom the game was a matter of
: collecting more points.
What with it being a "role playing game", and the character, role and all,
: gaming in 1977). Of course, it's going to be somewhat self-selecting;
: I wouldn't play with people for whom the game was a matter of
: collecting more points.
doesn't know squat about experience points, and often has a role that
should not care about loot, and all. If you care about experience
and/or loot in those circumstances, you aren't playing the role,
you're breaking character.
Of course, that only moves the problem to a different level.
Since the role is being played for points, the issue really isn't
"what's the best way to gather experience points here", but "what's
the best way for me to get experience points without breaking character".
There's still going to be some warpage of the character due to the
meta-level influence on the player *playing* the character. So it's
a sliding scale of 4th-wall breaking until ya can't stands it n'more.
Will in New Haven
May 21, 2013, 4:16:03 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 2:59 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
getting experience points. In fact, a group of my characters ran into
a drunk in a bar and he, being intoxicated and willing to tell people
things they were not meant to know, described experience points and
how one got them.
They decided that they didn't _want_ any. Of course, PCs in my game
were rarely self-styled adventurers and/or heros.
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/13 2:28 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2013-05-21, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/20/13 10:42 PM, William December Starr wrote:
> On 5/21/13 2:28 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2013-05-21, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/20/13 10:42 PM, William December Starr wrote:
> >>> Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> said:
> >>>> Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
> >>>> population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass
> >>>> School of Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies
> >>>> were the natural predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch
> >>>> and burst forth from the earth. The player characters have already
> >>>> moved on like the murder hobos that they are. They hear a rumor
> >>>> that things have gone pear-shaped in the province they recently
> >>>> cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
>
> >>> Why are you assuming that they'd even ask themselves those questions?
>
> >> Because most PC groups are heroes, and heroes ask questions like that.
>
> > Though usually their immediate answer involves "how can we get more loot and
> > experience out of this?".
>
> Depends on where you game, I guess. That was rarely the question for
> most players/PCs in my experience. Which is pretty extensive (started
> gaming in 1977). Of course, it's going to be somewhat self-selecting; I
> wouldn't play with people for whom the game was a matter of collecting
> more points.
I never saw character decisions motivated purely or even mostly by
> >>>> Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
> >>>> population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass
> >>>> School of Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies
> >>>> were the natural predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch
> >>>> and burst forth from the earth. The player characters have already
> >>>> moved on like the murder hobos that they are. They hear a rumor
> >>>> that things have gone pear-shaped in the province they recently
> >>>> cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
>
> >>> Why are you assuming that they'd even ask themselves those questions?
>
> >> Because most PC groups are heroes, and heroes ask questions like that.
>
> > Though usually their immediate answer involves "how can we get more loot and
> > experience out of this?".
>
> Depends on where you game, I guess. That was rarely the question for
> most players/PCs in my experience. Which is pretty extensive (started
> gaming in 1977). Of course, it's going to be somewhat self-selecting; I
> wouldn't play with people for whom the game was a matter of collecting
> more points.
getting experience points. In fact, a group of my characters ran into
a drunk in a bar and he, being intoxicated and willing to tell people
things they were not meant to know, described experience points and
how one got them.
They decided that they didn't _want_ any. Of course, PCs in my game
were rarely self-styled adventurers and/or heros.
Robert Carnegie
May 21, 2013, 5:06:56 PM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 20:37:12 UTC+1, Wayne Throop wrote:
> What with it being a "role playing game", and the character, role and all,
> doesn't know squat about experience points, and often has a role that
> should not care about loot, and all. If you care about experience
> and/or loot in those circumstances, you aren't playing the role,
> you're breaking character.
On reflection, the character issue applies in _Nodwick_
> What with it being a "role playing game", and the character, role and all,
> doesn't know squat about experience points, and often has a role that
> should not care about loot, and all. If you care about experience
> and/or loot in those circumstances, you aren't playing the role,
> you're breaking character.
/and/ in _Full Frontal Nerdity_; the party in _Nodwick_
includes a powerful cleric whose cooperation with her
sc‰oundrel companions depends on a bare minimum ethical
standard on their part (as far as she knows what they
get up to).
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 21, 2013, 10:19:40 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/13 3:37 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> : "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
> : Depends on where you game, I guess. That was rarely the question for
> : most players/PCs in my experience. Which is pretty extensive (started
> : gaming in 1977). Of course, it's going to be somewhat self-selecting;
> : I wouldn't play with people for whom the game was a matter of
> : collecting more points.
>
> What with it being a "role playing game", and the character, role and all,
> doesn't know squat about experience points, and often has a role that
> should not care about loot, and all. If you care about experience
> and/or loot in those circumstances, you aren't playing the role,
> you're breaking character.
>
> Of course, that only moves the problem to a different level.
> Since the role is being played for points, the issue really isn't
> "what's the best way to gather experience points here", but "what's
> the best way for me to get experience points without breaking character".
No, that's again only for players where that's the issue. I generally
> : "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
> : Depends on where you game, I guess. That was rarely the question for
> : most players/PCs in my experience. Which is pretty extensive (started
> : gaming in 1977). Of course, it's going to be somewhat self-selecting;
> : I wouldn't play with people for whom the game was a matter of
> : collecting more points.
>
> What with it being a "role playing game", and the character, role and all,
> doesn't know squat about experience points, and often has a role that
> should not care about loot, and all. If you care about experience
> and/or loot in those circumstances, you aren't playing the role,
> you're breaking character.
>
> Of course, that only moves the problem to a different level.
> Since the role is being played for points, the issue really isn't
> "what's the best way to gather experience points here", but "what's
> the best way for me to get experience points without breaking character".
don't play with players where that's the issue. The issue is "how do I
get to do cool stuff and get spotlight time", if it's anything, and that
doesn't necessarily translate to XP and gold, though it certainly can.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 21, 2013, 10:21:05 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/13 5:06 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 20:37:12 UTC+1, Wayne Throop wrote:
>> What with it being a "role playing game", and the character, role and all,
>> doesn't know squat about experience points, and often has a role that
>> should not care about loot, and all. If you care about experience
>> and/or loot in those circumstances, you aren't playing the role,
>> you're breaking character.
>
> On reflection, the character issue applies in _Nodwick_
> /and/ in _Full Frontal Nerdity_; the party in _Nodwick_
> includes a powerful cleric whose cooperation with her
> sc�oundrel companions depends on a bare minimum ethical
> On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 20:37:12 UTC+1, Wayne Throop wrote:
>> What with it being a "role playing game", and the character, role and all,
>> doesn't know squat about experience points, and often has a role that
>> should not care about loot, and all. If you care about experience
>> and/or loot in those circumstances, you aren't playing the role,
>> you're breaking character.
>
> On reflection, the character issue applies in _Nodwick_
> /and/ in _Full Frontal Nerdity_; the party in _Nodwick_
> includes a powerful cleric whose cooperation with her
> standard on their part (as far as she knows what they
> get up to).
>
And despite the other characters' questionable (at best) ethical
> get up to).
>
leanings, if you *EVER* hurt Piffany they will DESTROY you.
Wayne Throop
May 21, 2013, 11:51:54 PM5/21/13
to
: "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
: No, that's again only for players where that's the issue. I generally
: don't play with players where that's the issue. The issue is "how do
: I get to do cool stuff and get spotlight time", if it's anything, and
: that doesn't necessarily translate to XP and gold, though it certainly
: can.
Seems the simplest approach to im plement that plan is to only play
: I get to do cool stuff and get spotlight time", if it's anything, and
: that doesn't necessarily translate to XP and gold, though it certainly
: can.
with groups that don't track XP at all. (The gold and loot thing
is still going out of character, is it not.)
Or possibly... you don't object to going out of character at all,
as long as it's character breakage that's directed at your prefered
goals? Which seems a little... well... a bit out of the spirit of
the thing, innit?
( That's actually a question, not an asseriton in the form of a question,
since I don't really do RPGs. )
( also, xref the start of GrrlPower
http://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/48
)
"My real power is dice karma!"
--- Sydney Scoville, Jr.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 22, 2013, 12:29:44 AM5/22/13
to
On 5/21/13 11:51 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> : "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
> : No, that's again only for players where that's the issue. I generally
> : don't play with players where that's the issue. The issue is "how do
> : I get to do cool stuff and get spotlight time", if it's anything, and
> : that doesn't necessarily translate to XP and gold, though it certainly
> : can.
>
> Seems the simplest approach to im plement that plan is to only play
> with groups that don't track XP at all. (The gold and loot thing
> is still going out of character, is it not.)
Depends on the character. Poplock Duckweed, as shown in _Phoenix
> : "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
> : No, that's again only for players where that's the issue. I generally
> : don't play with players where that's the issue. The issue is "how do
> : I get to do cool stuff and get spotlight time", if it's anything, and
> : that doesn't necessarily translate to XP and gold, though it certainly
> : can.
>
> Seems the simplest approach to im plement that plan is to only play
> with groups that don't track XP at all. (The gold and loot thing
> is still going out of character, is it not.)
Rising_, isn't averse to finding a way to fill up his pockets (or
neverfull pack) with money while hero-ing. Kyri Vantage, on the other
hand, wouldn't THINK of it without being poked about it.
>
> Or possibly... you don't object to going out of character at all,
> as long as it's character breakage that's directed at your prefered
> goals? Which seems a little... well... a bit out of the spirit of
> the thing, innit?
together; you don't want the anti-hero near-sociopath in the same group
as the good-guy crusader unless both players are VERY good and know how
to design such characters such that they somehow CAN work together
without going out of character.
Robert Carnegie
May 22, 2013, 6:25:12 AM5/22/13
to
On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 20:37:12 UTC+1, Wayne Throop wrote:
> What with it being a "role playing game", and the
> character, role and all, doesn't know squat about
> experience points, and often has a role that
> should not care about loot, and all. If you care
> about experience and/or loot in those circumstances,
> you aren't playing the role, you're breaking character.
If you mean clerics, sure they care about loot, see the
> character, role and all, doesn't know squat about
> experience points, and often has a role that
> should not care about loot, and all. If you care
> about experience and/or loot in those circumstances,
> you aren't playing the role, you're breaking character.
other thread about the existence of gods where I probably
pointed out that the Pope lives in a big palace made
of gold. I usually do. (Although I think the current
Pope prefers to use the less grand palace, next door,
which is only made of silver.)
As for XP, isn't that analogous to attributes that a
character may desire? A chance to practice reading
ancient runes without your tongue falling out, and a
rounded-out resume to offer to your next party?
"Where does thee see thyself five years hence",
that sort of thing?
Will in New Haven
May 22, 2013, 9:42:10 AM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 12:29 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > : "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
that's life, er death.
> > : "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
> > : No, that's again only for players where that's the issue. I generally
> > : don't play with players where that's the issue. The issue is "how do
> > : I get to do cool stuff and get spotlight time", if it's anything, and
> > : that doesn't necessarily translate to XP and gold, though it certainly
> > : can.
>
> > Seems the simplest approach to im plement that plan is to only play
> > with groups that don't track XP at all. (The gold and loot thing
> > is still going out of character, is it not.)
>
> Depends on the character. Poplock Duckweed, as shown in _Phoenix
> Rising_, isn't averse to finding a way to fill up his pockets (or
> neverfull pack) with money while hero-ing. Kyri Vantage, on the other
> hand, wouldn't THINK of it without being poked about it.
>
>
>
> > Or possibly... you don't object to going out of character at all,
> > as long as it's character breakage that's directed at your prefered
> > goals? Which seems a little... well... a bit out of the spirit of
> > the thing, innit?
>
> No, you stick with character. But choose characters that can work
> together; you don't want the anti-hero near-sociopath in the same group
> as the good-guy crusader unless both players are VERY good and know how
> to design such characters such that they somehow CAN work together
> without going out of character.
I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
> > : don't play with players where that's the issue. The issue is "how do
> > : I get to do cool stuff and get spotlight time", if it's anything, and
> > : that doesn't necessarily translate to XP and gold, though it certainly
> > : can.
>
> > Seems the simplest approach to im plement that plan is to only play
> > with groups that don't track XP at all. (The gold and loot thing
> > is still going out of character, is it not.)
>
> Depends on the character. Poplock Duckweed, as shown in _Phoenix
> Rising_, isn't averse to finding a way to fill up his pockets (or
> neverfull pack) with money while hero-ing. Kyri Vantage, on the other
> hand, wouldn't THINK of it without being poked about it.
>
>
>
> > Or possibly... you don't object to going out of character at all,
> > as long as it's character breakage that's directed at your prefered
> > goals? Which seems a little... well... a bit out of the spirit of
> > the thing, innit?
>
> No, you stick with character. But choose characters that can work
> together; you don't want the anti-hero near-sociopath in the same group
> as the good-guy crusader unless both players are VERY good and know how
> to design such characters such that they somehow CAN work together
> without going out of character.
tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
that's life, er death.
Will in New Haven
May 22, 2013, 9:44:22 AM5/22/13
to
Most of my player-characters want to get something done and then go
_home_ At least they don't think of adventuring parties as some sort
of normal thing.
Tetsubo
May 22, 2013, 9:53:11 AM5/22/13
to
enjoyment is a dick move. Are you a Libertarian? If you knew me, you
would know how severe of an insult that was.
I'd game with Sea Wasp any time. You, not so much.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 22, 2013, 10:17:56 AM5/22/13
to
in-party fighting. This (A) isn't fun for most players, and (B) is
highly counterproductive in two ways. First, you could end up with some
player characters getting taken out of play because of what other PCs
do, wasting the many hours put into developing those characters. And
second, *I*, as the GM, am throwing all sorts of problems your way. You
don't need to make more for yourself.
Unless the POINT of the group was to make a bunch of people who didn't
work together, and see how they come apart, but that's not really
interesting to me or most players I've dealt with. We can see THAT in
real life.
Robert Carnegie
May 22, 2013, 10:36:25 AM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 14:42:10 UTC+1, Will in New Haven wrote:
> [Incompatible gaming characters]
party with incompatible goals, but I just now didn't find it.
> [Incompatible gaming characters]
> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
> that's life, er death.
There probably is a TV Tropes page about having someone in the
> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
> that's life, er death.
party with incompatible goals, but I just now didn't find it.
Robert Carnegie
May 22, 2013, 10:48:12 AM5/22/13
to
concept of "gap year"?
As I say, I'm not familiar with the reality of roleplaying,
having not got in with the active gamers at school or later -
but I got the impression that characters as well as players
typically see campaigning as a career path, if only to more,
better, and lootier campaigning. But fiction, from
_Treasure Island_ to _The Lord of the Rings_ to _The Iliad_,
indeed is just as much about "get something done and then
go home" as about "latest holder of the Dread Pirate Roberts
franchise".
dr...@bin.sh
May 22, 2013, 10:59:43 AM5/22/13
to
In rec.games.frp.dnd Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ? ? ? ? No, you stick with character. But choose characters that can work
something in the water?
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "Ryan Dancey put a portable hole inside a bag of holding,
|_|_[T]_|_| and no void appeared -- out of fear of Ryan Dancey."
-- der_kluge
>> ? ? ? ? No, you stick with character. But choose characters that can work
>> together; you don't want the anti-hero near-sociopath in the same group
>> as the good-guy crusader unless both players are VERY good and know how
>> to design such characters such that they somehow CAN work together
>> without going out of character.
>
> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
> that's life, er death.
man, what is it with all the tools in new haven?
>> as the good-guy crusader unless both players are VERY good and know how
>> to design such characters such that they somehow CAN work together
>> without going out of character.
>
> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
> that's life, er death.
something in the water?
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "Ryan Dancey put a portable hole inside a bag of holding,
|_|_[T]_|_| and no void appeared -- out of fear of Ryan Dancey."
-- der_kluge
Will in New Haven
May 22, 2013, 11:34:08 AM5/22/13
to
friendship with the guys around the table. Some roleplaying.
In the most recent example, a character helped the other characters
find and obtain a major item, both magically and symbolically, and
wanted the King he served to have it. He, the player, knew that he
would probably die in the attempt and he did. Sure, an NPC could have
played that role but Jack wanted to and his character was suited to
it.
Are you a Libertarian?
Small l, but yes.
If you knew me, you
> would know how severe of an insult that was.
>
> I'd game with Sea Wasp any time. You, not so much.
Will in New Haven
May 22, 2013, 11:37:26 AM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 10:17 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
In a sense, the most recent major example of this was a character who
did what an NPC could have done but it suited his character and he
enjoyed doing it. He did end up taken out of play, dead, and he had
taken many many hours to develop but the hours were fun and so was his
fate.
>
> Unless the POINT of the group was to make a bunch of people who didn't
> work together, and see how they come apart, but that's not really
> interesting to me or most players I've dealt with. We can see THAT in
> real life.
The adventuring party is an artificial construct and sometimes we
don't observe its boundries.
did what an NPC could have done but it suited his character and he
enjoyed doing it. He did end up taken out of play, dead, and he had
taken many many hours to develop but the hours were fun and so was his
fate.
>
> Unless the POINT of the group was to make a bunch of people who didn't
> work together, and see how they come apart, but that's not really
> interesting to me or most players I've dealt with. We can see THAT in
> real life.
don't observe its boundries.
Will in New Haven
May 22, 2013, 11:43:57 AM5/22/13
to
stories that work out like fiction to the stories that work out like
D&D sessions, even in my gaming sessions.
One of my first gaming characters in someone else's game had a goal.
He wanted to get rich and/or marry a wealthy woman because his father
had gambled and whored the family fortune and they became impoverished
nobility.
That GM did not hand out much treasure but there was a merchant's
daughter who had discovered that she had the talent for magic who was
part of our group. At the end of several adventures, we _still_
weren't particularly wealthy, although we were all around tenth
level.
Her father found the prospect of his daughter marrying a baron, even
an impoverished one, delightful and she thought the idea was pretty
cool. So we no longer went adventuring.
Neither of us, and especially not my character, had set out to become
high-level adventurers.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 22, 2013, 1:51:32 PM5/22/13
to
incarnation of Mike Ford's magical 17th-century campaign...ended up
dieing in a duel with one of the other player characters after causing a
bit too much collateral damage -- at the level of poisoning the entire
village to get one person we were after. (Basically the entire rest of
the party challenged them, somebody fairly early on killed them.)
Playing ones character to the hilt!
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
David Dyer-Bennet
May 22, 2013, 1:53:11 PM5/22/13
to
incarnation #2, or some such, challenged a goddess to a duel. Didn't
end well, but what else could the character do? Wouldn't have been
right to just let it go!
David Dyer-Bennet
May 22, 2013, 1:54:17 PM5/22/13
to
> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
> that's life, er death.
Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
> that's life, er death.
at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 22, 2013, 2:04:13 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/13 1:54 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
>> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
>> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
>> that's life, er death.
>
> Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
> at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.
>
"Show us this... loyalty. Throw yourself onto your sword."
> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
>> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
>> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
>> that's life, er death.
>
> Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
> at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.
>
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 22, 2013, 2:17:49 PM5/22/13
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in
news:ylfkhahu...@dd-b.net:
We once had a character who poined a village well. The reward for
capturing him was less than the reward for killing him. He ended up
collecting the reward himself - the character, not the player -
dead, by use of a Magic Jar.
I have seen a player with two characters leave one behind to be
killed (and probably easten) by the bad buys, after the latter did
something incredibly stupid.
Confilict between characters, even deadly confilict, *can* be fun,
if it's handled right, and everyone knows that's the point.
Generally, I use it as an excuse to kill characters while they're
distracted, as a message to the players.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:ylfkhahu...@dd-b.net:
capturing him was less than the reward for killing him. He ended up
collecting the reward himself - the character, not the player -
dead, by use of a Magic Jar.
I have seen a player with two characters leave one behind to be
killed (and probably easten) by the bad buys, after the latter did
something incredibly stupid.
Confilict between characters, even deadly confilict, *can* be fun,
if it's handled right, and everyone knows that's the point.
Generally, I use it as an excuse to kill characters while they're
distracted, as a message to the players.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Will in New Haven
May 22, 2013, 3:52:32 PM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 1:51 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
By the way, I never said this shouldn't be _rare_ In fact, if it isn't
memorable it is happening too often.
memorable it is happening too often.
Will in New Haven
May 22, 2013, 3:54:17 PM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 1:54 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
that sense more than half a dozen times in (counting) forty-three
years of playing.
--
Will iin New Haven
> Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
> > tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
> > same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
> > that's life, er death.
>
> Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
> at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.
I don't think the characters in my games have used the word "party" in
>
> > I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
> > tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
> > same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
> > that's life, er death.
>
> Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
> at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.
that sense more than half a dozen times in (counting) forty-three
years of playing.
--
Will iin New Haven
Moriarty
May 22, 2013, 6:15:16 PM5/22/13
to
the reasons its so fun.
-Moriarty
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 22, 2013, 7:02:02 PM5/22/13
to
Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote in
news:9279560b-30fa-4282...@ks18g2000pbb.googlegroups
.com:
But, as I recall, death is a minor inconvenience in that game.
news:9279560b-30fa-4282...@ks18g2000pbb.googlegroups
.com:
Moriarty
May 22, 2013, 7:17:00 PM5/22/13
to
On May 23, 9:02 am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote innews:9279560b-30fa-4282...@ks18g2000pbb.googlegroups
convenience.
"Oh look, Bob's dead. Just as well we bought that 5000gp worth
diamonds, isn't it?"
Sure, Bob would have to put up with being Raised at a level lower than
he was but, given the way XP is assigned in 3.5, he wouldn't stay a
level behind the rest of the party for long.
At higher levels, when True Resurrection becomes available, the only
inconvenience suffered is a mere 25,000gp loss to party funds.
-Moriarty
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote innews:9279560b-30fa-4282...@ks18g2000pbb.googlegroups
> .com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 12:36 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 14:42:10 UTC+1, Will in New Haven
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > [Incompatible gaming characters]
> >> > I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort
> >> > of tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals
> >> > involved on the same adventure several times. Sure, someone
> >> > gets the short straw but that's life, er death.
>
> >> There probably is a TV Tropes page about having someone in the
> >> party with incompatible goals, but I just now didn't find it.
>
> > Incompatible goals is the entire POINT of _Paranoia_. That's
> > one of the reasons its so fun.
>
> But, as I recall, death is a minor inconvenience in that game.
This is true. OTOH I've played D&D campaigns where death was a minor
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 12:36 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 14:42:10 UTC+1, Will in New Haven
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > [Incompatible gaming characters]
> >> > I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort
> >> > of tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals
> >> > involved on the same adventure several times. Sure, someone
> >> > gets the short straw but that's life, er death.
>
> >> There probably is a TV Tropes page about having someone in the
> >> party with incompatible goals, but I just now didn't find it.
>
> > Incompatible goals is the entire POINT of _Paranoia_. That's
> > one of the reasons its so fun.
>
> But, as I recall, death is a minor inconvenience in that game.
convenience.
"Oh look, Bob's dead. Just as well we bought that 5000gp worth
diamonds, isn't it?"
Sure, Bob would have to put up with being Raised at a level lower than
he was but, given the way XP is assigned in 3.5, he wouldn't stay a
level behind the rest of the party for long.
At higher levels, when True Resurrection becomes available, the only
inconvenience suffered is a mere 25,000gp loss to party funds.
-Moriarty
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 22, 2013, 7:39:52 PM5/22/13
to
Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote in
news:0e9564a6-5b73-4792...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 23, 9:02�am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote
>> innews:9279560b-30fa-4282-b462-e478
> ff40...@ks18g2000pbb.googlegroups
after it. Or an A in front of it, for that matter.
break stride. The guards at the bottom of the stairs were a bit
surprised. Briefly. (IIRC, he also did 32,000 points of damage per
attack.)
news:0e9564a6-5b73-4792...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 23, 9:02�am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote
> ff40...@ks18g2000pbb.googlegroups
>> .com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 23, 12:36 am, Robert Carnegie
>> > <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 14:42:10 UTC+1, Will in New Haven
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > [Incompatible gaming characters]
>> >> > I bet you regard not being able to work together as some
>> >> > sort of tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable
>> >> > goals involved on the same adventure several times. Sure,
>> >> > someone gets the short straw but that's life, er death.
>>
>> >> There probably is a TV Tropes page about having someone in
>> >> the party with incompatible goals, but I just now didn't
>> >> find it.
>>
>> > Incompatible goals is the entire POINT of _Paranoia_. �That's
>> > one of the reasons its so fun.
>>
>> But, as I recall, death is a minor inconvenience in that game.
>
> This is true. OTOH I've played D&D campaigns where death was a
> minor convenience.
I've played D&D campaigns where it's note even that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 23, 12:36 am, Robert Carnegie
>> > <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 14:42:10 UTC+1, Will in New Haven
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > [Incompatible gaming characters]
>> >> > I bet you regard not being able to work together as some
>> >> > sort of tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable
>> >> > goals involved on the same adventure several times. Sure,
>> >> > someone gets the short straw but that's life, er death.
>>
>> >> There probably is a TV Tropes page about having someone in
>> >> the party with incompatible goals, but I just now didn't
>> >> find it.
>>
>> > Incompatible goals is the entire POINT of _Paranoia_. �That's
>> > one of the reasons its so fun.
>>
>> But, as I recall, death is a minor inconvenience in that game.
>
> This is true. OTOH I've played D&D campaigns where death was a
> minor convenience.
>
> "Oh look, Bob's dead. Just as well we bought that 5000gp worth
> diamonds, isn't it?"
>
> Sure, Bob would have to put up with being Raised at a level
> lower than he was but, given the way XP is assigned in 3.5, he
> wouldn't stay a level behind the rest of the party for long.
Kids these days. Thinking that D&D should have a version number
> "Oh look, Bob's dead. Just as well we bought that 5000gp worth
> diamonds, isn't it?"
>
> Sure, Bob would have to put up with being Raised at a level
> lower than he was but, given the way XP is assigned in 3.5, he
> wouldn't stay a level behind the rest of the party for long.
after it. Or an A in front of it, for that matter.
>
> At higher levels, when True Resurrection becomes available, the
> only inconvenience suffered is a mere 25,000gp loss to party
> funds.
One character was cut in half by a molecular wire, and didn't even
> At higher levels, when True Resurrection becomes available, the
> only inconvenience suffered is a mere 25,000gp loss to party
> funds.
break stride. The guards at the bottom of the stairs were a bit
surprised. Briefly. (IIRC, he also did 32,000 points of damage per
attack.)
Moriarty
May 22, 2013, 7:58:26 PM5/22/13
to
On May 23, 9:39 am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote innews:0e9564a6-5b73-4792...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.c
> om:
<snip>
> >> > Incompatible goals is the entire POINT of _Paranoia_. That's
> >> > one of the reasons its so fun.
>
> >> But, as I recall, death is a minor inconvenience in that game.
>
> > This is true. OTOH I've played D&D campaigns where death was a
> > minor convenience.
>
> I've played D&D campaigns where it's note even that.
>
>
>
> > "Oh look, Bob's dead. Just as well we bought that 5000gp worth
> > diamonds, isn't it?"
>
> > Sure, Bob would have to put up with being Raised at a level
> > lower than he was but, given the way XP is assigned in 3.5, he
> > wouldn't stay a level behind the rest of the party for long.
>
> Kids these days. Thinking that D&D should have a version number
> after it. Or an A in front of it, for that matter.
Heh. When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. In a cupboard
somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack complete with
Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters. There were only 3
alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
I just gave the version number because 3.5 is the one I've played a
lot over the past decade. Its also far and away the best.
> > At higher levels, when True Resurrection becomes available, the
> > only inconvenience suffered is a mere 25,000gp loss to party
> > funds.
>
> One character was cut in half by a molecular wire, and didn't even
> break stride. The guards at the bottom of the stairs were a bit
> surprised. Briefly. (IIRC, he also did 32,000 points of damage per
> attack.)
Yeah, once you get higher level characters running around capable of
doing shitloads of damage or casting 'Save or Die' spells, the game
needs readily available resurrection or it falls apart quickly.
-Moriarty
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote innews:0e9564a6-5b73-4792...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.c
> om:
<snip>
> >> > Incompatible goals is the entire POINT of _Paranoia_. That's
> >> > one of the reasons its so fun.
>
> >> But, as I recall, death is a minor inconvenience in that game.
>
> > This is true. OTOH I've played D&D campaigns where death was a
> > minor convenience.
>
> I've played D&D campaigns where it's note even that.
>
>
>
> > "Oh look, Bob's dead. Just as well we bought that 5000gp worth
> > diamonds, isn't it?"
>
> > Sure, Bob would have to put up with being Raised at a level
> > lower than he was but, given the way XP is assigned in 3.5, he
> > wouldn't stay a level behind the rest of the party for long.
>
> Kids these days. Thinking that D&D should have a version number
> after it. Or an A in front of it, for that matter.
somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack complete with
Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters. There were only 3
alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
I just gave the version number because 3.5 is the one I've played a
lot over the past decade. Its also far and away the best.
> > At higher levels, when True Resurrection becomes available, the
> > only inconvenience suffered is a mere 25,000gp loss to party
> > funds.
>
> One character was cut in half by a molecular wire, and didn't even
> break stride. The guards at the bottom of the stairs were a bit
> surprised. Briefly. (IIRC, he also did 32,000 points of damage per
> attack.)
doing shitloads of damage or casting 'Save or Die' spells, the game
needs readily available resurrection or it falls apart quickly.
-Moriarty
David Dyer-Bennet
May 22, 2013, 9:40:03 PM5/22/13
to
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
> On 5/22/13 1:54 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
>>> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
>>> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
>>> that's life, er death.
>>
>> Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
>> at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.
>
> "Show us this... loyalty. Throw yourself onto your sword."
Since it's to the party, not to some individual leader, I think that
> On 5/22/13 1:54 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
>>> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
>>> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
>>> that's life, er death.
>>
>> Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
>> at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.
>
> "Show us this... loyalty. Throw yourself onto your sword."
could easily be rejected.
Or I could throw the sword down flat and then lie on it :-).
David Dyer-Bennet
May 22, 2013, 9:44:10 PM5/22/13
to
you a place in the adventure. New characters get created on a rough par
with the power levels of wherever everybody else is, for example.
The problem of a player you decide you didn't want in the group is
harder, but we haven't had much trouble with that. (I've done very
little gaming, and nearly all of it in rather exalted company.)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 22, 2013, 10:25:41 PM5/22/13
to
until 1974, and the rules for real fantasy RP weren't done until 1972 at
the earliest. In 1970, AFAIK, it was at best at the "wargame with some
personality" stage.
Unless you count just playing "let's pretend" with a few rules, in
which case I guess it's been around since the dawn of time and I've been
doing it for at least 45 years.
Insofar as "party", mine use the term a lot, or related terms
appropriate to the genre.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 22, 2013, 10:26:23 PM5/22/13
to
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 22, 2013, 10:28:13 PM5/22/13
to
In my own, death is more than an inconvenience and getting raised from
the dead is neither certain, nor something you can just get done because
you have the money.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
May 23, 2013, 12:21:10 AM5/23/13
to
On 2013-05-22 19:58:26 -0400, Moriarty said:
>
> <snip>
was one of the big changes in the second edition.
I'm probably misremembering.
--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1466291532/
>
> <snip>
>
> Heh. When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. In a cupboard
> somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack complete with
> Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters. There were only 3
> alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
I don't remember ANY alignments in the first edition -- I thought that
> Heh. When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. In a cupboard
> somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack complete with
> Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters. There were only 3
> alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
was one of the big changes in the second edition.
I'm probably misremembering.
--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1466291532/
David Johnston
May 23, 2013, 12:28:48 AM5/23/13
to
On 5/22/2013 10:21 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On 2013-05-22 19:58:26 -0400, Moriarty said:
>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Heh. When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. In a cupboard
>> somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack complete with
>> Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters. There were only 3
>> alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
>
> I don't remember ANY alignments in the first edition -- I thought that
> was one of the big changes in the second edition.
>
> I'm probably misremembering.
>
>
Started out with just Law and Chaos.
> On 2013-05-22 19:58:26 -0400, Moriarty said:
>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Heh. When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. In a cupboard
>> somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack complete with
>> Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters. There were only 3
>> alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
>
> I don't remember ANY alignments in the first edition -- I thought that
> was one of the big changes in the second edition.
>
> I'm probably misremembering.
>
>
Moriarty
May 23, 2013, 12:39:46 AM5/23/13
to
-Moriarty
Mart van de Wege
May 23, 2013, 2:23:10 AM5/23/13
to
> On May 22, 9:53 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> That us 'unfun'. Screwing your fellow players over for your own
>> enjoyment is a dick move.
>
> So your _character's_ loyalty to a cause is less important than your
> friendship with the guys around the table. Some roleplaying.
So you picked a cause for your character that would inevitably bring you
>> That us 'unfun'. Screwing your fellow players over for your own
>> enjoyment is a dick move.
>
> So your _character's_ loyalty to a cause is less important than your
> friendship with the guys around the table. Some roleplaying.
into conflict with the other guys around the table. Some friendship
you're showing there.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Will in New Haven
May 23, 2013, 8:51:33 AM5/23/13
to
On May 22, 10:25 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
of the leaders in conferences, etc. But I wasn't thinking of that. I
just subtracted wrong. Thirty-three years.
--
Will in New Haven
>
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 5/22/13 3:54 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > On May 22, 1:54 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >> Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >>> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
> >>> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
> >>> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
> >>> that's life, er death.
>
> >> Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
> >> at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.
>
> > I don't think the characters in my games have used the word "party" in
> > that sense more than half a dozen times in (counting) forty-three
> > years of playing.
>
> Er... what? I don't think D&D was around in 1970. It wasn't published
> until 1974, and the rules for real fantasy RP weren't done until 1972 at
> the earliest. In 1970, AFAIK, it was at best at the "wargame with some
> personality" stage.
Chainmail or other wargaming rules, but you played the parts of some
> On 5/22/13 3:54 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > On May 22, 1:54 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >> Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >>> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
> >>> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
> >>> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
> >>> that's life, er death.
>
> >> Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
> >> at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.
>
> > I don't think the characters in my games have used the word "party" in
> > that sense more than half a dozen times in (counting) forty-three
> > years of playing.
>
> Er... what? I don't think D&D was around in 1970. It wasn't published
> until 1974, and the rules for real fantasy RP weren't done until 1972 at
> the earliest. In 1970, AFAIK, it was at best at the "wargame with some
> personality" stage.
of the leaders in conferences, etc. But I wasn't thinking of that. I
just subtracted wrong. Thirty-three years.
--
Will in New Haven
>
Will in New Haven
May 23, 2013, 8:54:37 AM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 12:21 am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> On 2013-05-22 19:58:26 -0400, Moriarty said:
>
>
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Heh. When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. In a cupboard
> > somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack complete with
> > Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters. There were only 3
> > alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
>
> I don't remember ANY alignments in the first edition -- I thought that
> was one of the big changes in the second edition.
>
> I'm probably misremembering.
Law and Chaos in the original little pamphlets. Neutral was also
> On 2013-05-22 19:58:26 -0400, Moriarty said:
>
>
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Heh. When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. In a cupboard
> > somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack complete with
> > Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters. There were only 3
> > alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
>
> I don't remember ANY alignments in the first edition -- I thought that
> was one of the big changes in the second edition.
>
> I'm probably misremembering.
discussed somewhere, so that made three. We played before we got the
pamphlets, going by descriptions that people gave us.
I remember at least four character classes: Fighter, Magic User,
Cleric and Thief. But Thief might not have been an official class.
Robert Carnegie
May 23, 2013, 8:56:47 AM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, 23 May 2013 07:23:10 UTC+1, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > So your _character's_ loyalty to a cause is less
> > important than your friendship with the guys around
> > the table. Some roleplaying.
>
> So you picked a cause for your character that would
> inevitably bring you into conflict with the other guys
> around the table. Some friendship you're showing there.
It's a /game/. In chess, the game is to kill /all/
> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > So your _character's_ loyalty to a cause is less
> > important than your friendship with the guys around
> > the table. Some roleplaying.
>
> So you picked a cause for your character that would
> inevitably bring you into conflict with the other guys
> around the table. Some friendship you're showing there.
of the other player's characters, but most specifically
their number one character. There isn't anything else
in the game. But it doesn't mean that you aren't friends.
Roleplaying is also the only way that some of you are
going to interact at all meaningfully with "women".
/Accurate/ roleplaying means that "she" is /still/
going to turn you down. But anything else would be...
fantasy.
Will in New Haven
May 23, 2013, 8:59:17 AM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 2:23 am, Mart van de Wege <mvdw...@mail.com> wrote:
not matters of life and death and just led to minor inter-character
bickering, much of it humerous. And even that didn't happen all of the
time.
In the one major life-or-death incident, the character had been around
a long time and had those goals as the natural result of his
background. For quite awhile, his loyalties didn't cause conflicts
with the varying groups of people he had adventured with.
Then something came up that led to the major conflict. No one resented
the player, although the characters resented that character. But then
again there were no children in the game.
> Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > On May 22, 9:53 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> That us 'unfun'. Screwing your fellow players over for your own
> >> enjoyment is a dick move.
>
> > So your _character's_ loyalty to a cause is less important than your
> > friendship with the guys around the table. Some roleplaying.
>
> So you picked a cause for your character that would inevitably bring you
> into conflict with the other guys around the table. Some friendship
> you're showing there.
In most of the cases of this sort of thing, the conflicting goals were
>
> > On May 22, 9:53 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> That us 'unfun'. Screwing your fellow players over for your own
> >> enjoyment is a dick move.
>
> > So your _character's_ loyalty to a cause is less important than your
> > friendship with the guys around the table. Some roleplaying.
>
> So you picked a cause for your character that would inevitably bring you
> into conflict with the other guys around the table. Some friendship
> you're showing there.
not matters of life and death and just led to minor inter-character
bickering, much of it humerous. And even that didn't happen all of the
time.
In the one major life-or-death incident, the character had been around
a long time and had those goals as the natural result of his
background. For quite awhile, his loyalties didn't cause conflicts
with the varying groups of people he had adventured with.
Then something came up that led to the major conflict. No one resented
the player, although the characters resented that character. But then
again there were no children in the game.
Will in New Haven
May 23, 2013, 9:06:38 AM5/23/13
to
On May 22, 9:44 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote in
> >news:ylfkhahu...@dd-b.net:
It helps if the power levels at the time aren't all that high. When my
character decided to marry someone else's character and they both
retired the group wasn't in the middle of an adventure or quest or
anything but there was still some kvetching about the loss of power
for "the party," which wasn't even planning anything.
I think I was a tenth-level fighter and Gwen's was a ninth-level mage.
In John Leyland's game that was a very high level but he worked out a
solution. We got characters "brevetted" to a level only slightly
lower. And they were brothers, so we couldn't get married again.
>
> The problem of a player you decide you didn't want in the group is
> harder, but we haven't had much trouble with that. (I've done very
> little gaming, and nearly all of it in rather exalted company.)
We had one guy look around and say "no one likes me" and no one
disagreed and he stopped playing with us. We have had more players
pass away than quit on us. Some kid's hobby.
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote in
> >news:ylfkhahu...@dd-b.net:
character decided to marry someone else's character and they both
retired the group wasn't in the middle of an adventure or quest or
anything but there was still some kvetching about the loss of power
for "the party," which wasn't even planning anything.
I think I was a tenth-level fighter and Gwen's was a ninth-level mage.
In John Leyland's game that was a very high level but he worked out a
solution. We got characters "brevetted" to a level only slightly
lower. And they were brothers, so we couldn't get married again.
>
> The problem of a player you decide you didn't want in the group is
> harder, but we haven't had much trouble with that. (I've done very
> little gaming, and nearly all of it in rather exalted company.)
disagreed and he stopped playing with us. We have had more players
pass away than quit on us. Some kid's hobby.
J. Clarke
May 23, 2013, 9:37:51 AM5/23/13
to
In article <500a78b0-86c4-46d6...@googlegroups.com>,
rja.ca...@excite.com says...
king is never captured in standard chess. When a situation is reached
where the next move will be a capture the losing player capitulates,
with a formal process for doing so. Killing other pieces is incidental
to that goal--you can kill them all and still end up with a draw.
rja.ca...@excite.com says...
>
> On Thursday, 23 May 2013 07:23:10 UTC+1, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> > Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > So your _character's_ loyalty to a cause is less
> > > important than your friendship with the guys around
> > > the table. Some roleplaying.
> >
> > So you picked a cause for your character that would
> > inevitably bring you into conflict with the other guys
> > around the table. Some friendship you're showing there.
>
> It's a /game/. In chess, the game is to kill /all/
> of the other player's characters, but most specifically
> their number one character.
Not quite--the goal is to force the opposing king to surrender. The
> On Thursday, 23 May 2013 07:23:10 UTC+1, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> > Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > So your _character's_ loyalty to a cause is less
> > > important than your friendship with the guys around
> > > the table. Some roleplaying.
> >
> > So you picked a cause for your character that would
> > inevitably bring you into conflict with the other guys
> > around the table. Some friendship you're showing there.
>
> It's a /game/. In chess, the game is to kill /all/
> of the other player's characters, but most specifically
> their number one character.
king is never captured in standard chess. When a situation is reached
where the next move will be a capture the losing player capitulates,
with a formal process for doing so. Killing other pieces is incidental
to that goal--you can kill them all and still end up with a draw.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 23, 2013, 9:51:22 AM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/13 8:56 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 23 May 2013 07:23:10 UTC+1, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> So your _character's_ loyalty to a cause is less
>>> important than your friendship with the guys around
>>> the table. Some roleplaying.
>>
>> So you picked a cause for your character that would
>> inevitably bring you into conflict with the other guys
>> around the table. Some friendship you're showing there.
>
> It's a /game/. In chess, the game is to kill /all/
> of the other player's characters, but most specifically
> their number one character. There isn't anything else
> in the game. But it doesn't mean that you aren't friends.
The chesspieces are not generally invested with personality and you
> On Thursday, 23 May 2013 07:23:10 UTC+1, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> So your _character's_ loyalty to a cause is less
>>> important than your friendship with the guys around
>>> the table. Some roleplaying.
>>
>> So you picked a cause for your character that would
>> inevitably bring you into conflict with the other guys
>> around the table. Some friendship you're showing there.
>
> It's a /game/. In chess, the game is to kill /all/
> of the other player's characters, but most specifically
> their number one character. There isn't anything else
> in the game. But it doesn't mean that you aren't friends.
don't come to think of them as characters separate and distinct from
others.
In an RPG, your character is likely to be something you invest many
hours in developing for the game, one that presumably you like and want
to spend time playing. Taking a pawn in a game of chess is just moving a
counter around. Killing a player character in an RPG is wiping out the
potential stories of that character and, if done badly, wasting the
hours spent developing and playing the character previously.
This distinction was actually brought home to me by the best fan letter
I have yet received -- a fan letter for a piece of game-fiction that I
had written for WotC but they never published, which told the story of a
young mage and a strange construct in a war between two Planeswalkers
(the universe of Magic: The Gathering). The person wrote that my story
had given them such a vivid image of the world and the cards that he
could no longer think of them as just CARDS, and that he would ever
after be feeling a moral dimension to playing destructive spells such as
"Armageddon".
It was a wonderful letter, but I afterwards wondered if that meant that
I damaged his ability to play Magic against anyone who played it purely
as a game of counters.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 23, 2013, 9:52:47 AM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/13 8:51 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On May 22, 10:25 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 5/22/13 3:54 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>>
>>> On May 22, 1:54 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>> Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
>>>>> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
>>>>> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
>>>>> that's life, er death.
>>
>>>> Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
>>>> at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.
>>
>>> I don't think the characters in my games have used the word "party" in
>>> that sense more than half a dozen times in (counting) forty-three
>>> years of playing.
>>
>> Er... what? I don't think D&D was around in 1970. It wasn't published
>> until 1974, and the rules for real fantasy RP weren't done until 1972 at
>> the earliest. In 1970, AFAIK, it was at best at the "wargame with some
>> personality" stage.
>
> Chainmail or other wargaming rules, but you played the parts of some
> of the leaders in conferences, etc. But I wasn't thinking of that. I
> just subtracted wrong. Thirty-three years.
>
Okay. So you started about three years *after* me, not seven years
> On May 22, 10:25 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 5/22/13 3:54 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>>
>>> On May 22, 1:54 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>> Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
>>>>> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
>>>>> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
>>>>> that's life, er death.
>>
>>>> Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
>>>> at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.
>>
>>> I don't think the characters in my games have used the word "party" in
>>> that sense more than half a dozen times in (counting) forty-three
>>> years of playing.
>>
>> Er... what? I don't think D&D was around in 1970. It wasn't published
>> until 1974, and the rules for real fantasy RP weren't done until 1972 at
>> the earliest. In 1970, AFAIK, it was at best at the "wargame with some
>> personality" stage.
>
> Chainmail or other wargaming rules, but you played the parts of some
> of the leaders in conferences, etc. But I wasn't thinking of that. I
> just subtracted wrong. Thirty-three years.
>
*before*. That makes sense.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 23, 2013, 9:57:32 AM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/13 8:59 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On May 23, 2:23 am, Mart van de Wege <mvdw...@mail.com> wrote:
>> Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On May 22, 9:53 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> That us 'unfun'. Screwing your fellow players over for your own
>>>> enjoyment is a dick move.
>>
>>> So your _character's_ loyalty to a cause is less important than your
>>> friendship with the guys around the table. Some roleplaying.
>>
>> So you picked a cause for your character that would inevitably bring you
>> into conflict with the other guys around the table. Some friendship
>> you're showing there.
>
> In most of the cases of this sort of thing, the conflicting goals were
> not matters of life and death and just led to minor inter-character
> bickering, much of it humerous. And even that didn't happen all of the
> time.
>
You see, I call that "working together". "Working together" doesn't
> On May 23, 2:23 am, Mart van de Wege <mvdw...@mail.com> wrote:
>> Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On May 22, 9:53 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> That us 'unfun'. Screwing your fellow players over for your own
>>>> enjoyment is a dick move.
>>
>>> So your _character's_ loyalty to a cause is less important than your
>>> friendship with the guys around the table. Some roleplaying.
>>
>> So you picked a cause for your character that would inevitably bring you
>> into conflict with the other guys around the table. Some friendship
>> you're showing there.
>
> In most of the cases of this sort of thing, the conflicting goals were
> not matters of life and death and just led to minor inter-character
> bickering, much of it humerous. And even that didn't happen all of the
> time.
>
mean "there are never conflicts and no one disagrees and we all work as
part of the great commune, Comrade". It means that you don't screw each
other over by choosing goals and attitudes that are inevitably going to
result in major conflict. It means that despite the conflicts between
you, when unexpected danger presents, you assist even the guys you were
arguing with moments ago, rather than say "eh, whatever, they're not
really with me" or "hey, now I can loot THEIR corpses". It means that
even as a thief you don't rip off your party members because you depend
on them for things, too.
Tetsubo
May 23, 2013, 10:12:22 AM5/23/13
to
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Will in New Haven
May 23, 2013, 11:24:41 AM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 9:57 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
For the most part, that is how things went. The end of the very long
Quest for the Scepter campaign was a memorable exception, where one of
the player characters had loyalties to his King that overrode his
loyalty to the group of player characters.
I have always had great difficulty with the idea that one of my
characters would run around with someone who described him or herself
as a thief. Some would, of course, but most of the thief characters I
have encountered did not describe themselves thus.
Quest for the Scepter campaign was a memorable exception, where one of
the player characters had loyalties to his King that overrode his
loyalty to the group of player characters.
I have always had great difficulty with the idea that one of my
characters would run around with someone who described him or herself
as a thief. Some would, of course, but most of the thief characters I
have encountered did not describe themselves thus.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 23, 2013, 12:02:34 PM5/23/13
to
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 23, 2013, 12:03:20 PM5/23/13
to
David DeLaney
May 23, 2013, 12:14:49 PM5/23/13
to
On 2013-05-23, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> It's a /game/. In chess, the game is to kill /all/
>> of the other player's characters, but most specifically
>> their number one character. There isn't anything else
>> in the game. But it doesn't mean that you aren't friends.
>
> The chesspieces are not generally invested with personality and you
> don't come to think of them as characters separate and distinct from
> others.
...and here we circle RIGHT back to written SF. :)
>> It's a /game/. In chess, the game is to kill /all/
>> of the other player's characters, but most specifically
>> their number one character. There isn't anything else
>> in the game. But it doesn't mean that you aren't friends.
>
> The chesspieces are not generally invested with personality and you
> don't come to think of them as characters separate and distinct from
> others.
> It was a wonderful letter, but I afterwards wondered if that meant that
> I damaged his ability to play Magic against anyone who played it purely
> as a game of counters.
counter-counterer might not be able to figure out why or how before getting
beaten by quirky trolls and a selection of deadly green Life magic...
Dave, you animated your WHAAAAT? {WHACK}
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
May 23, 2013, 12:16:29 PM5/23/13
to
On 2013-05-23, Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have always had great difficulty with the idea that one of my
> characters would run around with someone who described him or herself
> as a thief. Some would, of course, but most of the thief characters I
> have encountered did not describe themselves thus.
ObSF: Mercedes Lackey, _Take a Thief_ and the subsequent-in-timeline novels
> I have always had great difficulty with the idea that one of my
> characters would run around with someone who described him or herself
> as a thief. Some would, of course, but most of the thief characters I
> have encountered did not describe themselves thus.
with Skif and Elspeth.
Dave, perhaps the Kingdom NEEDS a thief
David DeLaney
May 23, 2013, 12:20:43 PM5/23/13
to
On 2013-05-23, Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think I was a tenth-level fighter and Gwen's was a ninth-level mage.
> In John Leyland's game that was a very high level but he worked out a
> solution. We got characters "brevetted" to a level only slightly
> lower. And they were brothers, so we couldn't get married again.
In original D&D that was pretty high level too - the fighter was of a level
> In John Leyland's game that was a very high level but he worked out a
> solution. We got characters "brevetted" to a level only slightly
> lower. And they were brothers, so we couldn't get married again.
to acquire a cohort and lands and a keep, if I remember right, and the mage
would be getting or about to get her Tower and apprentices...
Dave, and probably an archenemy or two as well
David DeLaney
May 23, 2013, 12:21:49 PM5/23/13
to
On 2013-05-23, Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Law and Chaos in the original little pamphlets. Neutral was also
> discussed somewhere, so that made three. We played before we got the
> pamphlets, going by descriptions that people gave us.
>
> I remember at least four character classes: Fighter, Magic User,
> Cleric and Thief. But Thief might not have been an official class.
Were Elf and Dwarf also classes from the start, or did that come in with
> discussed somewhere, so that made three. We played before we got the
> pamphlets, going by descriptions that people gave us.
>
> I remember at least four character classes: Fighter, Magic User,
> Cleric and Thief. But Thief might not have been an official class.
the boxed Really Basic set?
Dave, and you tell the kids today about 'racial level limits' and they don't
BELIEVE you
David Johnston
May 23, 2013, 12:36:46 PM5/23/13
to
Will in New Haven
May 23, 2013, 12:58:05 PM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 12:20 pm, David DeLaney <daviddela...@earthlink.net> wrote:
got you military rank or much of anything else except new people to
fight. For that matter, I don't either.
> On 2013-05-23, Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think I was a tenth-level fighter and Gwen's was a ninth-level mage.
> > In John Leyland's game that was a very high level but he worked out a
> > solution. We got characters "brevetted" to a level only slightly
> > lower. And they were brothers, so we couldn't get married again.
>
> In original D&D that was pretty high level too - the fighter was of a level
> to acquire a cohort and lands and a keep, if I remember right, and the mage
> would be getting or about to get her Tower and apprentices...
>
> Dave, and probably an archenemy or two as well
John didn't run a campaign where puissance as an individual combatant
>
> > I think I was a tenth-level fighter and Gwen's was a ninth-level mage.
> > In John Leyland's game that was a very high level but he worked out a
> > solution. We got characters "brevetted" to a level only slightly
> > lower. And they were brothers, so we couldn't get married again.
>
> In original D&D that was pretty high level too - the fighter was of a level
> to acquire a cohort and lands and a keep, if I remember right, and the mage
> would be getting or about to get her Tower and apprentices...
>
> Dave, and probably an archenemy or two as well
got you military rank or much of anything else except new people to
fight. For that matter, I don't either.
Will in New Haven
May 23, 2013, 12:59:55 PM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 12:21 pm, David DeLaney <daviddela...@earthlink.net> wrote:
regular classes but it has been a long time.
>
> Dave, and you tell the kids today about 'racial level limits' and they don't
> BELIEVE you
We kludged our way around those while we were still playing TSR
rules.
> On 2013-05-23, Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Law and Chaos in the original little pamphlets. Neutral was also
> > discussed somewhere, so that made three. We played before we got the
> > pamphlets, going by descriptions that people gave us.
>
> > I remember at least four character classes: Fighter, Magic User,
> > Cleric and Thief. But Thief might not have been an official class.
>
> Were Elf and Dwarf also classes from the start, or did that come in with
> the boxed Really Basic set?
I believe that they _were_ classes and couldn't just be one of the
>
> > Law and Chaos in the original little pamphlets. Neutral was also
> > discussed somewhere, so that made three. We played before we got the
> > pamphlets, going by descriptions that people gave us.
>
> > I remember at least four character classes: Fighter, Magic User,
> > Cleric and Thief. But Thief might not have been an official class.
>
> Were Elf and Dwarf also classes from the start, or did that come in with
> the boxed Really Basic set?
regular classes but it has been a long time.
>
> Dave, and you tell the kids today about 'racial level limits' and they don't
> BELIEVE you
rules.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
May 23, 2013, 1:00:44 PM5/23/13
to
On 2013-05-23 08:54:37 -0400, Will in New Haven said:
> On May 23, 12:21�am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-22 19:58:26 -0400, Moriarty said:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>> Heh. �When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. �In a cupboard
>>> somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack complete with
>>> Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters. �There were only 3
>>> alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
>>
>> I don't remember ANY alignments in the first edition -- I thought that
>> was one of the big changes in the second edition.
>>
>> I'm probably misremembering.
>
> Law and Chaos in the original little pamphlets. Neutral was also
> discussed somewhere, so that made three. We played before we got the
> pamphlets, going by descriptions that people gave us.
Ah, we did that, too! I remember being dismayed, when I finally got to
> On May 23, 12:21�am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-22 19:58:26 -0400, Moriarty said:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>> Heh. �When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. �In a cupboard
>>> somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack complete with
>>> Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters. �There were only 3
>>> alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
>>
>> I don't remember ANY alignments in the first edition -- I thought that
>> was one of the big changes in the second edition.
>>
>> I'm probably misremembering.
>
> Law and Chaos in the original little pamphlets. Neutral was also
> discussed somewhere, so that made three. We played before we got the
> pamphlets, going by descriptions that people gave us.
read them through, at how some stuff worked; we ignored it and
continued to use our own rules.
> I remember at least four character classes: Fighter, Magic User,
> Cleric and Thief. But Thief might not have been an official class.
Will in New Haven
May 23, 2013, 1:01:48 PM5/23/13
to
a bit after the first rules came out, treated it as an alignment. It
wasn't just "I can do whatever I want." It was an attempt to find a
balance between Law and Chaos, good and evil being non-starters back
then.
Wayne Throop
May 23, 2013, 1:07:19 PM5/23/13
to
:: Started out with just Law and Chaos.
: And Neutral.
"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power?
Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
--- Zapp Brannigan
: And Neutral.
"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power?
Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
--- Zapp Brannigan
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 23, 2013, 1:37:15 PM5/23/13
to
Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote in
news:7d6901bc-33c8-4fb6...@v10g2000pbv.googlegroups.
com:
> On May 23, 9:39�am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote
>> innews:0e9564a6-5b73-4792-bb6d-8428
> 652d...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>
> <snip>
>
>> >> > Incompatible goals is the entire POINT of _Paranoia_.
>> >> > That's one of the reasons its so fun.
>>
>> >> But, as I recall, death is a minor inconvenience in that
>> >> game.
>>
>> > This is true. �OTOH I've played D&D campaigns where death was
>> > a minor convenience.
>>
>> I've played D&D campaigns where it's note even that.
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Oh look, Bob's dead. �Just as well we bought that 5000gp
>> > worth diamonds, isn't it?"
>>
>> > Sure, Bob would have to put up with being Raised at a level
>> > lower than he was but, given the way XP is assigned in 3.5,
>> > he wouldn't stay a level behind the rest of the party for
>> > long.
>>
>> Kids these days. Thinking that D&D should have a version number
>> after it. Or an A in front of it, for that matter.
> played a lot over the past decade. Its also far and away the
> best.
Newbie. *Real* D&D palyers started with the three little digest
books, sold in a little cardboard box. (Of ocurse, by that
standard, I'm a newbied, too, since I didn't start playing until
Greyhawk and Blackmoor were out.)
>
>> > At higher levels, when True Resurrection becomes available,
>> > the only inconvenience suffered is a mere 25,000gp loss to
>> > party funds.
>>
>> One character was cut in half by a molecular wire, and didn't
>> even break stride. The guards at the bottom of the stairs were
>> a bit surprised. Briefly. (IIRC, he also did 32,000 points of
>> damage per attack.)
>
> Yeah, once you get higher level characters running around
> capable of doing shitloads of damage or casting 'Save or Die'
> spells, the game needs readily available resurrection or it
> falls apart quickly.
>
The important thing to note is that, in our case, the stuff we
fought was just as dangerous. We eventually reached a point of
agreeing to, basically, lop about three or four zeroes off the end
of everything, and get rid of the more ridiculous magic items (like
the thing one guy had that made him immune to anything that started
with the letter "D". You know, dragons, dwarves, death. dungeon
masters.)
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:7d6901bc-33c8-4fb6...@v10g2000pbv.googlegroups.
com:
> On May 23, 9:39�am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote
>> innews:0e9564a6-5b73-4792-bb6d-8428
> 652d...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>
> <snip>
>
>> >> > Incompatible goals is the entire POINT of _Paranoia_.
>> >> > That's one of the reasons its so fun.
>>
>> >> But, as I recall, death is a minor inconvenience in that
>> >> game.
>>
>> > This is true. �OTOH I've played D&D campaigns where death was
>> > a minor convenience.
>>
>> I've played D&D campaigns where it's note even that.
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Oh look, Bob's dead. �Just as well we bought that 5000gp
>> > worth diamonds, isn't it?"
>>
>> > Sure, Bob would have to put up with being Raised at a level
>> > lower than he was but, given the way XP is assigned in 3.5,
>> > he wouldn't stay a level behind the rest of the party for
>> > long.
>>
>> Kids these days. Thinking that D&D should have a version number
>> after it. Or an A in front of it, for that matter.
>
> Heh. When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. In a
> cupboard somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack
> complete with Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters. There
> were only 3 alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
>
> I just gave the version number because 3.5 is the one I've
> Heh. When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. In a
> cupboard somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack
> complete with Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters. There
> were only 3 alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
>
> played a lot over the past decade. Its also far and away the
> best.
Newbie. *Real* D&D palyers started with the three little digest
books, sold in a little cardboard box. (Of ocurse, by that
standard, I'm a newbied, too, since I didn't start playing until
Greyhawk and Blackmoor were out.)
>
>> > At higher levels, when True Resurrection becomes available,
>> > the only inconvenience suffered is a mere 25,000gp loss to
>> > party funds.
>>
>> One character was cut in half by a molecular wire, and didn't
>> even break stride. The guards at the bottom of the stairs were
>> a bit surprised. Briefly. (IIRC, he also did 32,000 points of
>> damage per attack.)
>
> Yeah, once you get higher level characters running around
> capable of doing shitloads of damage or casting 'Save or Die'
> spells, the game needs readily available resurrection or it
> falls apart quickly.
>
The important thing to note is that, in our case, the stuff we
fought was just as dangerous. We eventually reached a point of
agreeing to, basically, lop about three or four zeroes off the end
of everything, and get rid of the more ridiculous magic items (like
the thing one guy had that made him immune to anything that started
with the letter "D". You know, dragons, dwarves, death. dungeon
masters.)
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 23, 2013, 1:49:07 PM5/23/13
to
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:knjuk6$f4k$3...@dont-email.me:
> On 5/22/13 7:58 PM, Moriarty wrote:
>> On May 23, 9:39 am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote
>>> innews:0e9564a6-5b73-4792...@g5g2000pbp.googlegr
Er, no, I really wasn't. One guy had a throne that made him "lord
of all he surveys," and clerics who worshipped him got up to 3rd
level clerical spells. Another guy had a character with his own
personal heaven. His followers went there when they died, and he
could "draw them back out" at will to do his bidding. Another guy
had a dragon character that was over a mile long (because size was
determined by hit points, and again, it had tens of thousands).
And you don't even want to ask about the Temple of Chaos made out
of still living, still aware dwarves, who were frozen in statis.
You had to walk up the steps to enter by putting your feet in their
screaming mouths. (They were all condemned criminals. You see, the
Dwarf king lost a bet - over whether or not a *player* had a can of
motor oil in his truck - and thus, spitting the in the street
became a capital crime, as was not spitting in the street).
Ah, those were the days.
>
> In my own, death is more than an inconvenience and getting
> raised from
> the dead is neither certain, nor something you can just get done
> because you have the money.
>
Yeah, money was no object. One guy built a temple out of gold -
over a billion gold pieces - and used several wishes to lose it,
and forget where it was, and make everyone else forget where it
was, or that it existed. Just for the hell of it.
news:knjuk6$f4k$3...@dont-email.me:
> On 5/22/13 7:58 PM, Moriarty wrote:
>> On May 23, 9:39 am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote
>>> oups.c om:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> Incompatible goals is the entire POINT of _Paranoia_.
>>>>>> That's one of the reasons its so fun.
>>>
>>>>> But, as I recall, death is a minor inconvenience in that
>>>>> game.
>>>
>>>> This is true. OTOH I've played D&D campaigns where death was
>>>> a minor convenience.
>>>
>>> I've played D&D campaigns where it's note even that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Oh look, Bob's dead. Just as well we bought that 5000gp
>>>> worth diamonds, isn't it?"
>>>
>>>> Sure, Bob would have to put up with being Raised at a level
>>>> lower than he was but, given the way XP is assigned in 3.5,
>>>> he wouldn't stay a level behind the rest of the party for
>>>> long.
>>>
>>> Kids these days. Thinking that D&D should have a version
>>> number after it. Or an A in front of it, for that matter.
>>
>> Heh. When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. In a
>> cupboard somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack
>> complete with Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters.
>> There were only 3 alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
>>
>> I just gave the version number because 3.5 is the one I've
>> played a lot over the past decade. Its also far and away the
>> best.
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> Incompatible goals is the entire POINT of _Paranoia_.
>>>>>> That's one of the reasons its so fun.
>>>
>>>>> But, as I recall, death is a minor inconvenience in that
>>>>> game.
>>>
>>>> This is true. OTOH I've played D&D campaigns where death was
>>>> a minor convenience.
>>>
>>> I've played D&D campaigns where it's note even that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Oh look, Bob's dead. Just as well we bought that 5000gp
>>>> worth diamonds, isn't it?"
>>>
>>>> Sure, Bob would have to put up with being Raised at a level
>>>> lower than he was but, given the way XP is assigned in 3.5,
>>>> he wouldn't stay a level behind the rest of the party for
>>>> long.
>>>
>>> Kids these days. Thinking that D&D should have a version
>>> number after it. Or an A in front of it, for that matter.
>>
>> Heh. When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. In a
>> cupboard somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack
>> complete with Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters.
>> There were only 3 alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
>>
>> I just gave the version number because 3.5 is the one I've
>> played a lot over the past decade. Its also far and away the
>> best.
>>
>>>> At higher levels, when True Resurrection becomes available,
>>>> the only inconvenience suffered is a mere 25,000gp loss to
>>>> party funds.
>>>
>>> One character was cut in half by a molecular wire, and didn't
>>> even break stride. The guards at the bottom of the stairs were
>>> a bit surprised. Briefly. (IIRC, he also did 32,000 points of
>>> damage per attack.)
>>
>> Yeah, once you get higher level characters running around
>> capable of doing shitloads of damage or casting 'Save or Die'
>> spells, the game needs readily available resurrection or it
>> falls apart quickly.
>
> Terry was talking about lower-powered games, though.
>>>> the only inconvenience suffered is a mere 25,000gp loss to
>>>> party funds.
>>>
>>> One character was cut in half by a molecular wire, and didn't
>>> even break stride. The guards at the bottom of the stairs were
>>> a bit surprised. Briefly. (IIRC, he also did 32,000 points of
>>> damage per attack.)
>>
>> Yeah, once you get higher level characters running around
>> capable of doing shitloads of damage or casting 'Save or Die'
>> spells, the game needs readily available resurrection or it
>> falls apart quickly.
>
Er, no, I really wasn't. One guy had a throne that made him "lord
of all he surveys," and clerics who worshipped him got up to 3rd
level clerical spells. Another guy had a character with his own
personal heaven. His followers went there when they died, and he
could "draw them back out" at will to do his bidding. Another guy
had a dragon character that was over a mile long (because size was
determined by hit points, and again, it had tens of thousands).
And you don't even want to ask about the Temple of Chaos made out
of still living, still aware dwarves, who were frozen in statis.
You had to walk up the steps to enter by putting your feet in their
screaming mouths. (They were all condemned criminals. You see, the
Dwarf king lost a bet - over whether or not a *player* had a can of
motor oil in his truck - and thus, spitting the in the street
became a capital crime, as was not spitting in the street).
Ah, those were the days.
>
> In my own, death is more than an inconvenience and getting
> raised from
> the dead is neither certain, nor something you can just get done
> because you have the money.
>
Yeah, money was no object. One guy built a temple out of gold -
over a billion gold pieces - and used several wishes to lose it,
and forget where it was, and make everyone else forget where it
was, or that it existed. Just for the hell of it.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 23, 2013, 1:50:16 PM5/23/13
to
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
news:knk580$8lf$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 2013-05-22 19:58:26 -0400, Moriarty said:
>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
Greyhake added a second axix of good, neutral and evil. Or maybe that
was AD&D. It's been a long time.
news:knk580$8lf$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 2013-05-22 19:58:26 -0400, Moriarty said:
>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Heh. When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. In a
>> cupboard somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack
>> complete with Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters.
>> There were only 3 alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
>
>> cupboard somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter Pack
>> complete with Gary Gygax module for level 1-3 characters.
>> There were only 3 alignments and 3 character classes IIRC.
>
> I don't remember ANY alignments in the first edition -- I
> thought that was one of the big changes in the second edition.
>
> I'm probably misremembering.
>
You are. The original game had lawful, neutral, and chaotic, IIRC.
> thought that was one of the big changes in the second edition.
>
> I'm probably misremembering.
>
Greyhake added a second axix of good, neutral and evil. Or maybe that
was AD&D. It's been a long time.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 23, 2013, 1:51:01 PM5/23/13
to
David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
news:knlgb1$qh1$2...@dont-email.me:
No, not even in the early days. That was having an alignment of
neutral.
news:knlgb1$qh1$2...@dont-email.me:
neutral.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 23, 2013, 1:51:58 PM5/23/13
to
Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:dac5b31f-3bd0-473c...@g3g2000yqg.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 23, 12:21�am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-22 19:58:26 -0400, Moriarty said:
>>
>>
>>
>> > <snip>
>>
>> > Heh. �When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. �In a
>> > cupboard somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter
>> > Pack complete with Gary Gygax module for level 1-3
>> > characters. �There were only 3 alignments and 3 character
>> > classes IIRC.
>>
>> I don't remember ANY alignments in the first edition -- I
>> thought that was one of the big changes in the second edition.
>>
>> I'm probably misremembering.
>
news:dac5b31f-3bd0-473c...@g3g2000yqg.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 23, 12:21�am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-22 19:58:26 -0400, Moriarty said:
>>
>>
>>
>> > <snip>
>>
>> > Heh. �When I started playing it, there was no 'A'. �In a
>> > cupboard somewhere I've still got my D&D Beginners Starter
>> > Pack complete with Gary Gygax module for level 1-3
>> > characters. �There were only 3 alignments and 3 character
>> > classes IIRC.
>>
>> I don't remember ANY alignments in the first edition -- I
>> thought that was one of the big changes in the second edition.
>>
>> I'm probably misremembering.
>
> Law and Chaos in the original little pamphlets. Neutral was also
> discussed somewhere, so that made three. We played before we got
> the pamphlets, going by descriptions that people gave us.
>
> discussed somewhere, so that made three. We played before we got
> the pamphlets, going by descriptions that people gave us.
>
> I remember at least four character classes: Fighter, Magic User,
> Cleric and Thief. But Thief might not have been an official
> class.
Added, I believe, in Greyhawk.
> Cleric and Thief. But Thief might not have been an official
> class.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 23, 2013, 1:53:14 PM5/23/13
to
Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:52c36766-9216-46e2...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 23, 12:21�pm, David DeLaney <daviddela...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-23, Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Law and Chaos in the original little pamphlets. Neutral was
>> > also discussed somewhere, so that made three. We played
>> > before we got the pamphlets, going by descriptions that
>> > people gave us.
>>
>> > I remember at least four character classes: Fighter, Magic
>> > User, Cleric and Thief. But Thief might not have been an
>> > official class.
>>
>> Were Elf and Dwarf also classes from the start, or did that
>> come in with the boxed Really Basic set?
>
> I believe that they _were_ classes and couldn't just be one of
> the regular classes but it has been a long time.
That is not my recollection. They had classes like humans. Race was
a completely different characteristic.
news:52c36766-9216-46e2...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 23, 12:21�pm, David DeLaney <daviddela...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-23, Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Law and Chaos in the original little pamphlets. Neutral was
>> > also discussed somewhere, so that made three. We played
>> > before we got the pamphlets, going by descriptions that
>> > people gave us.
>>
>> > I remember at least four character classes: Fighter, Magic
>> > User, Cleric and Thief. But Thief might not have been an
>> > official class.
>>
>> Were Elf and Dwarf also classes from the start, or did that
>> come in with the boxed Really Basic set?
>
> I believe that they _were_ classes and couldn't just be one of
> the regular classes but it has been a long time.
a completely different characteristic.
>
>>
>> Dave, and you tell the kids today about 'racial level limits'
>> and they do
> n't
>> �BELIEVE you
>
> We kludged our way around those while we were still playing TSR
> rules.
We ignored it because we though Gary Gygax was a twit.
>>
>> Dave, and you tell the kids today about 'racial level limits'
>> and they do
> n't
>> �BELIEVE you
>
> We kludged our way around those while we were still playing TSR
> rules.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 23, 2013, 1:56:33 PM5/23/13
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in
news:ylfkppwi...@dd-b.net:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in
>> news:ylfkhahu...@dd-b.net:
Yeah, we didn't think twice about running multiple characters.
Hell, it was an explicit part of Chivalry & Sorcery.
> New characters get
> created on a rough par with the power levels of wherever
> everybody else is, for example.
No, we just ran a bunch of them at once.
because the college wouldn't let us turn people away for no reason.
We did get good at making them fell less than welcome, though, with
a couple of notable exceptions (though even Frisbee eventually got
the point).
news:ylfkppwi...@dd-b.net:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in
>> news:ylfkhahu...@dd-b.net:
>>>>> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some
>>>>> sort of tragedy.
>>>>
>>>>> sort of tragedy.
>>>>
Hell, it was an explicit part of Chivalry & Sorcery.
> New characters get
> created on a rough par with the power levels of wherever
> everybody else is, for example.
>
> The problem of a player you decide you didn't want in the group
> is harder, but we haven't had much trouble with that. (I've
> done very little gaming, and nearly all of it in rather exalted
> company.)
>
We had our share of it, back in the Cal State Fullerton days,
> The problem of a player you decide you didn't want in the group
> is harder, but we haven't had much trouble with that. (I've
> done very little gaming, and nearly all of it in rather exalted
> company.)
>
because the college wouldn't let us turn people away for no reason.
We did get good at making them fell less than welcome, though, with
a couple of notable exceptions (though even Frisbee eventually got
the point).
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages