Forums of the Megaverse®

lather wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:the ability to invent.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Invention is an event, not an ability, and it's an event you can't just will to happen.

Hm. You're contradicting yourself.

I'm correcting myself.

Also, I never said it was something that a PC just wills to happen.

No, but you did indicate that it was the norm among Operators to invent things, and you said "Operators have the same capability has Vagabonds do: 100%. This is a choice the Player makes about the Character."

If you weren't saying that it's something the players can just choose to do, feel free to clarify.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Invention is not part of geekiness or geeky passion, nor of the desire to create.

Yes; of course, I never said it is. I said that it's the result.

It's not that either.
You can invent things without being a geek, and you can be a geek without it resulting in invention.
In fact, most geeks never invent anything new in their life.

Killer Cyborg wrote:A person can be the biggest geek in the world, and be passionately driven to create, dedicate his/her entire live to his passion, and STILL not invent anything new.

I never said they will invent anything, just that they'd want to and try to.

You said, "Inventing stuff? What Operator doesn't? That's part of being an Operator."

Killer Cyborg wrote:For every one new invention, there are countless failures from people who are just as qualified on paper, and who have just as much drive or more.

Irrelevant.

Only without the "ir".

You started all this by saying, "Inventing stuff? What Operator doesn't? That's part of being an Operator."
The fact that most people who try to invent things never actually do so, regardless of qualification, goes directly against this claim.

What operator doesn't?
The vast majority of them.

Vrykolas2k wrote:The point, as I read it, is that since there are no rules for invention, nothing gets invented in the game, at least according to you and KC.
"I just came up with a great idea for my Operator to try and research/invent..."
"No. There are no rules governing your OCC being able to invent anything."

That is a failing on both parts then. We were not clear, and you did not understand. I knew what KC was saying, so I assumed (wrongly so apparently) that others did too.

Vrykolas2k wrote:But I'll be watching your posts carefully from now on to see if you do anything similar to her.
In fact, I think I see a couple of "spams" from you in this very thread... being somewhat skewed in and of themselves (and in at least one instance being pretty close to an actual personal attack)...

Please, point them out and I will clarify.
Also, do not mistake my posting style for a personal attack. As far as I can see, the closest thing to is asking Lather to view my sig in order to fully convey the emotions I'm feeling every time I have to read his posts (here).
That is, his posts read like he's being willfully ignorant - I can't tell do to the impersonal nature of the internet, so I continue to atleast attempt to explain.

I also understand your desire/need to defend your spouse; I can't fault you for that. But be warned - I don't put up with condiscending or sarcastic remarks - which is what her post was. I will respond in-kind when offered as much, except that I can often give better than I recieve.
This isn't a threat; I'm quite literally asking you (and her) to tone it down when offering a reply, and that you atleast attempt to contribute to the thread (even if it's for off-topic convos) instead of offering the above. If you do so, you will find that I am unconditionally tolerant and fair.

Vrykolas2k wrote:Hell, anyone who's ever watched the show Star Trek knows Scotty, who's basically an Operator, invents something to keep the Enterprise going on a fairly regular basis.

Anyone that's familiar with Star Trek also knows that every problem is solved with the modulation of something, or changing the frequency of the shields/phasers/torpedoes, etc... All this aside, Scotty was considered to be one of thee most brilliant engineers at Star Fleet, let alone the most inventive. That doesn't mean this applies to the PCs though; at level 1 through 7 they are hardly living legends. even at 15th, it would require quite the rep...

Also, this isn't Star Trek; and the Operator isn't exactly on-par with a Star Fleet Engineer.

Vrykolas2k wrote:He uses his electrical/mechanical engineer skills in unorthodox ways in nearly every episode. I think people who play their Operators in a similar way need an xp award, not a "No, your OCC can't do that, you need to be a... well, the OCC doesn't seem to exist."

I'll point out that Scotty, as well as other Star Fleet engineers have a few more engineering skills than just electrical and mechanical.

Vrykolas2k wrote:I'd just have them roll two or three times, and if all two or three rolls were successful, possibly at negatives depending on the situation, then the device works more or less as it should, and can probably be improved upon later.

This is a house-ruling; not a book-ruling. As it stands, all you can do is ask the GM; if he says no, then you have your answer.

But as far as TW devices go, there are actual rulings for the invention of stuff. That I believe is the biggest difference here.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

lather wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:the ability to invent.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Invention is an event, not an ability, and it's an event you can't just will to happen.

Hm. You're contradicting yourself.

I'm correcting myself.

We have an edit button for that very purpose.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Also, I never said it was something that a PC just wills to happen.

No, but you did indicate that it was the norm among Operators to invent things, and you said "Operators have the same capability has Vagabonds do: 100%. This is a choice the Player makes about the Character."

If you weren't saying that it's something the players can just choose to do, feel free to clarify.

There are few things - if any - that are significant to the story that a player can just choose to do. There's no reason to believe that invention is one of them. So there's no reason to think that Operators can just invent things. Furthermore, capability doesn't imply anything except........capability. I'm capable of killing my neighbours but it doesn't imply it's normal for me to kill my neighbours.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:A person can be the biggest geek in the world, and be passionately driven to create, dedicate his/her entire live to his passion, and STILL not invent anything new.

I never said they will invent anything, just that they'd want to and try to.

You said, "Inventing stuff? What Operator doesn't? That's part of being an Operator."

I did say that. What I meant was that they're not guaranteed success simply because they want to invent something, but that they will want and try to invent stuff while doing their thing.

Dog said, "My point was that you had to invent equipment in order to make a skill useful." The inventive nature of Operator repair-work and modifications-work means that inventing equipment to make things work is part of being an Operator.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You started all this by saying, "Inventing stuff? What Operator doesn't? That's part of being an Operator."
The fact that most people who try to invent things never actually do so, regardless of qualification, goes directly against this claim.

Operators aren't most people. Failure is still a learning experience. A failed invention attempt is still an invention attempt. You can fail at invention every time, it doesn't make you not inventive. It just makes you not successful at it.
And it's not like an invention has to shatter the world order to be an invention; it can be something small and seemingly insignificant, and still be an invention.

Killer Cyborg wrote:What operator doesn't?
The vast majority of them.

Got a book and page number that says this?

Vrykolas2k wrote:The point, as I read it, is that since there are no rules for invention, nothing gets invented in the game, at least according to you and KC.

No.
The point is that lather's assumption that all Operators (or even most of them) invent new technology is incorrect.
As support for that point, I have brought up:
-The fact that new invention isn't easy or common; if it was, then there wouldn't be any ceiling on technology, people would just decide to invent new stuff all the time.
-The fact that there is nothing in the books allowing Operators to come up new inventions, or to indicate that they have this capability in any unusual degree.

"I just came up with a great idea for my Operator to try and research/invent..."
"No. There are no rules governing your OCC being able to invent anything."

Actually, I'd allow and encourage such activities, but it would not be easy to actually do, and the effort might never come to fruition.
Invention would be something to be worked on and/or completed in the course of a campaign, not just as a matter of course. The vast majority of Operators wouldn't ever attempt or succeed in such a project.

Hell, anyone who's ever watched the show Star Trek knows Scotty, who's basically an Operator, invents something to keep the Enterprise going on a fairly regular basis.

For example?

He uses his electrical/mechanical engineer skills in unorthodox ways in nearly every episode.

Yes.
Innovation is not invention.

I'd just have them roll two or three times, and if all two or three rolls were successful, possibly at negatives depending on the situation, then the device works more or less as it should, and can probably be improved upon later.

I guess your world is full of flying belts, and nobody has cancer.
Mine isn't.

lather wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

lather wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:the ability to invent.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Invention is an event, not an ability, and it's an event you can't just will to happen.

Hm. You're contradicting yourself.

I'm correcting myself.

We have an edit button for that very purpose.

No. The edit button is for fixing mistakes, not retconning posts once you've made a mistake.
I was (apparently) wrong about there being rules for any class to invent, and I'm not going to go back and change what I wrote in order to make it appear that I was correct.

Killer Cyborg wrote:you did indicate that it was the norm among Operators to invent things, and you said "Operators have the same capability has Vagabonds do: 100%. This is a choice the Player makes about the Character."

If you weren't saying that it's something the players can just choose to do, feel free to clarify.

There are few things - if any - that are significant to the story that a player can just choose to do. There's no reason to believe that invention is one of them. So there's no reason to think that Operators can just invent things.

We are in agreement on this.
I do not see how your statement here works with your previous statements quoted above.

Furthermore, capability doesn't imply anything except........capability. I'm capable of killing my neighbours but it doesn't imply it's normal for me to kill my neighbours.

You indicated that invention was normal for Operators.
If you do not actually feel that way, then feel free to clarify or amend.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You said, "Inventing stuff? What Operator doesn't? That's part of being an Operator."

I did say that. What I meant was that they're not guaranteed success simply because they want to invent something, but that they will want and try to invent stuff while doing their thing.

Your questions indicate expected success as routine.
Also, not every operator will want to try to invent stuff.
That depends entirely on the personality of the person involved.

Dog said, "My point was that you had to invent equipment in order to make a skill useful." The inventive nature of Operator repair-work and modifications-work means that inventing equipment to make things work is part of being an Operator.

Got any examples?

Killer Cyborg wrote:You started all this by saying, "Inventing stuff? What Operator doesn't? That's part of being an Operator."
The fact that most people who try to invent things never actually do so, regardless of qualification, goes directly against this claim.

Operators aren't most people.

But they are still people, and not entirely unusual people.
There is nothing to indicate an above-average level of success in invention.

Failure is still a learning experience. A failed invention attempt is still an invention attempt. You can fail at invention every time, it doesn't make you not inventive. It just makes you not successful at it.

Agreed.
There is a difference between "What Operator doesn't invent things?" and "What Operator doesn't, at some point in his life, attempt to invent something?"
The first was your position based on your post(s).

And it's not like an invention has to shatter the world order to be an invention; it can be something small and seemingly insignificant, and still be an invention.

Agreed.
Still rare.

Killer Cyborg wrote:What operator doesn't?
The vast majority of them.

Got a book and page number that says this?

Nope.
What I have is:
-the fact that new invention is rare
-the fact that the books never indicate that Operators are an exception to the above fact.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

lather wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

lather wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:the ability to invent.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Invention is an event, not an ability, and it's an event you can't just will to happen.

Hm.
You're contradicting yourself.

I'm correcting myself.

We have an edit button for that very purpose.

No. The edit button is for fixing mistakes, not retconning posts once you've made a mistake.
I was (apparently) wrong about there being rules for any class to invent, and I'm not going to go back and change what I wrote in order to make it appear that I was correct.

There's an edit box you can add to a post explaining the edit. Since the quotes I provided are from the same post, the edit explanation would not be problematic in the least.

Killer Cyborg wrote:If you weren't saying that it's something the players can just choose to do, feel free to clarify.

I did, and you said - as I recall - that it was odd that you didn't get that from what I was saying.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You indicated that invention was normal for Operators. If you do not actually feel that way, then feel free to clarify or amend.

I feel it is normal. They may come up with something that doesn't work or doesn't stick but that's beside my point. My point is that they come up with such things as a matter of routine, which just means a regular basis the degree of which . Since: (a) success or fail doesn't change the fact that something was invented, it just says whether or not that invention succeeded or failed in its purpose; and (b) it could be easy enough for the GM to allow straight away or it could be difficult requiring some skill checks, Then: the success or fail has nothing to do with it.

lather wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:No. The edit button is for fixing mistakes, not retconning posts once you've made a mistake.
I was (apparently) wrong about there being rules for any class to invent, and I'm not going to go back and change what I wrote in order to make it appear that I was correct.

There's an edit box you can add to a post explaining the edit. Since the quotes I provided are from the same post, the edit explanation would not be problematic in the least.

No point in doing it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:If you weren't saying that it's something the players can just choose to do, feel free to clarify.

I did, and you said - as I recall - that it was odd that you didn't get that from what I was saying.

An apparently contradictory statement does not qualify as clarification.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You indicated that invention was normal for Operators. If you do not actually feel that way, then feel free to clarify or amend.

I feel it is normal. They may come up with something that doesn't work or doesn't stick but that's beside my point.

Coming up with something that doesn't work or doesn't stick is not invention.

My point is that they come up with such things as a matter of routine, which just means a regular basis the degree of which.

My point is that you have nothing backing this opinion up.

Killer Cyborg wrote:An apparently contradictory statement does not qualify as clarification.

It's clear enough that other people got it. I'm not sure what else there is for me to do.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Coming up with something that doesn't work or doesn't stick is not invention.

It has to work to get a patent, but it doesn't have to work to be an invention.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

My point is that they come up with such things as a matter of routine, which just means a regular basis the degree of which.

My point is that you have nothing backing this opinion up.

Sure I do. You just don't agree with my interpretation of the source.

lather wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:An apparently contradictory statement does not qualify as clarification.

It's clear enough that other people got it. I'm not sure what else there is for me to do.

What other people?

Killer Cyborg wrote:Coming up with something that doesn't work or doesn't stick is not invention.

It has to work to get a patent, but it doesn't have to work to be an invention.

Yes, it does.
Otherwise it's just a failed attempt at an invention.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

My point is that they come up with such things as a matter of routine, which just means a regular basis the degree of which.

My point is that you have nothing backing this opinion up.

Sure I do. You just don't agree with my interpretation of the source.

That's because your interpretation has nothing to do with the text.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

lather wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:An apparently contradictory statement does not qualify as clarification.

It's clear enough that other people got it. I'm not sure what else there is for me to do.

What other people?

The ones that got it; the ones that didn't think I was saying odd and contradictory things.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Otherwise it's just a failed attempt at an invention.

I almost wonder what source you're using.

Killer Cyborg wrote:That's because your interpretation has nothing to do with the text.

That's your opinion.

lather wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

lather wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:An apparently contradictory statement does not qualify as clarification.

It's clear enough that other people got it. I'm not sure what else there is for me to do.

What other people?

The ones that got it; the ones that didn't think I was saying odd and contradictory things.

Right.
I'm trying to discern whether these people you are referring to exist in reality, or just within your own imagination.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Otherwise it's just a failed attempt at an invention.

I almost wonder what source you're using.

The Rifts description of Operators.

Killer Cyborg wrote:That's because your interpretation has nothing to do with the text.

That's your opinion.

And my opinion is right.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

lather wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

lather wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:An apparently contradictory statement does not qualify as clarification.

It's clear enough that other people got it. I'm not sure what else there is for me to do.

What other people?

The ones that got it; the ones that didn't think I was saying odd and contradictory things.

Right.
I'm trying to discern whether these people you are referring to exist in reality, or just within your own imagination.

I may have imagined them posting their understanding. How would I know?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Otherwise it's just a failed attempt at an invention.

I almost wonder what source you're using.

The Rifts description of Operators.

Apparently your copy is different from mine.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:That's because your interpretation has nothing to do with the text.

That's your opinion.

And my opinion is right.

Whatever makes you feel good.

lather wrote:I may have imagined them posting their understanding. How would I know?

Apparently you wouldn't.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The Rifts description of Operators.

Apparently your copy is different from mine.

Or you imagine that it is.

Killer Cyborg wrote:And my opinion is right.

Whatever makes you feel good.

It's as much a curse as it is a blessing.