Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:54 pm**

Natasha wrote:For some that is trivial. For some that unacceptably slows their game down.

The problem as we're seeing is that what is trivial means different things to different people.

Then every single skill should be trivial to those people.

Advanced math (We don't care if it takes calculus to solve how much fuel we can store takes too much time to roll%) We get it right!

Pilot Airplane (making combat maneuver rolls just slows us down with % rolls) I played a flight simulator once it's easy to do a loop-to-loop

WP energy rifles (because adding +bonuses to the d20 combat roll just slows down combat) I shoot and Hit!

GM: bad guys come
Players: we kill them
GM: you got skills to do it?
Players: Sure do
GM: Ok let's not pause for 1 second. You kill them
Players: What now?
GM:Later, someplace different, more bad guys come

very heavy sarcasm :roll:

*edit below*

I agree with KC on this completely.
As a side note to KC. I don't always agree with your posts, but I highly respect how you give the rules, the pg numbers, and present your arguments. and I even read one post earlier when you were shown a page with a rule against an earlier statement of yours and you admitted your error. That's a lot more then most of us do. Some of us (I've been guilty) will argue a point way after we know we are wrong just to try to 'win'.

But in this post I'll simply conclude. I see many untrivial uses for skills such as Math basic, which add to the game's enjoyment, and not just to PO the players. Situations where years later the players are laughing at how that time they mistook time X for Y and it led to a wild adventure of good memories.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:57 pm**

Dog_O_War wrote:See, his example was that in a stressful situation, I suddenly forget that there's a 13 in between 12 and 14 40% of the time. That I would need to roll to count 15 troops with guns.

No, my example was that you might not be able to count as quickly or accurately under stress.

The whys of this are beyond me. Near as I can figure, the only reasons I can come up with have nothing to do with the math skill directly.
Not seeing a dude has nothing to do with the math skill and would cause a mis-count

Keeping track of who you've counted and who you haven't counted would be part of "counting."

Forgetting a formality does not equal forgetting the basics of the system. That is (to use your example), your friend might not be able to say hello, but I doubt he forgot how to say hello.

Irrelevant, since nobody has said that a character would forget the basics of the skill.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:12 pm**

ZorValachan wrote:Just do my very first example:

CS civilian and NGR operative. How is that trivial?

For one, it's not basic math, but advanced math - any conversion is infact advanced math because it's algebra.
How it is algebra: Standard time resets the count every 12 hours; that is, every time you count to 12 you start over.
Military time does this every 24 hours instead.
it turns to algebra like so: 1am to 12pm = X. X = +0. 1pm to 12am = Y. Y = +12. This is the conversion from standard to the 24 hour clock.
Germany = G. G = +1 hour from 0.
Coalition = CS. CS = -6 hours from 0.

First you convert standard to 24 hours. At 12pm it is 12:00 hours.
Then you count the difference between the timezones; 6 + 1 = 7 hours.
You add those 7 hours to the CS time to get an accurate time in Germany; you subtract those 7 hours from Germany to get an accurate time in the CS.
12+7 = 19:00 hours in Germany when it's 12:00 hours in the CS.
If your meeting was at 21:00 hours, then you need to wait 2 hours (as 19+2 = 21).

For two, it's the easiest conversion on the planet, and the only way to forget it is through sheer incompetence. Though it is algebra, it is easy algebra to the point that most people don't realise that it is algebra (because we already have the entire equation).

ZorValachan wrote:The CS civilian informant is a buisnessman and has NEEDED knowledge. Something big and bad is going down in Chi Town that could affect the NGR-CS trade agreement on a major scale.

Your NGR guy has German time and military time drilled into his head.
The CS civilian has 12 AM hours and 12 PM hours in CS time drilled into his head.

The NGR guy gives the CS guy a coded message stating: a place, and the time 21:00 NGR to drop off the information.
This communication is 1 way, there is no way for the CS guy to ask for clarification.
If is definately in character and in game reality for the GM to give it like this. it's not a GM screw over.

This is all irrelivant information, as 21:00 hours is impossible to mistake for 9am in Germany. The only thing that becomes a factor is timezones, and that has nothing to do with math, and everything to do with general world knowledge.

ZorValachan wrote:In CS guy gets it. The player doesn't understand.
Another player says 'hey i think 21 is military time'
Maybe another says, yeah and NGR is probably on a different time than CS.
But the players can't figure it out quickly. You as the GM don't want to just give the answer to the players. it could lead to very interesting outocome depending on if they make or miss the drop off. So you say roll 'em. So CS guy rolls his % to see if his character figures it is 2:00PM.

This is a mis-use of the skill (which I mentioned in the first post I made in the thread - people simply do not know how to use the skill).
Knowing a timezone has nothing to do with a conversion from standard to military time.

ZorValachan wrote:if he does, all might go as planned

If he fails. he is there an hour early? and hour later? do CS counter-ops pop up? The GM then has a great opportunity for chase, trying to find the NGR op. etc.

This is not trivial use of the skill.

You're right; this isn't even a use of the skill.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:27 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Dog_O_War wrote:See, his example was that in a stressful situation, I suddenly forget that there's a 13 in between 12 and 14 40% of the time. That I would need to roll to count 15 troops with guns.

No, my example was that you might not be able to count as quickly or accurately under stress.

The whys of this are beyond me. Near as I can figure, the only reasons I can come up with have nothing to do with the math skill directly.
Not seeing a dude has nothing to do with the math skill and would cause a mis-count

Keeping track of who you've counted and who you haven't counted would be part of "counting."

Forgetting a formality does not equal forgetting the basics of the system. That is (to use your example), your friend might not be able to say hello, but I doubt he forgot how to say hello.

Irrelevant, since nobody has said that a character would forget the basics of the skill.

Except you, right here;

Killer Cyborg wrote:No, my example was that you might not be able to count as quickly or accurately under stress.

(bolded and underlined for emphasis)
As I stated, unless I missed a digit whilst counting to 15, there is no believeable way a person can screw up counting in sequence (unless the numbers were really high).

This puts us right back to where we started btw, as I stated this waaay back when the arguement first popped up. You're saying that a person can't forget the basics of a skill, and that mentioning such is irrelivant.
And yet you're stating that a person could somehow forget how to count - which is the basics of the skill.

Care to retract or rethink your position?

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:46 pm**

Dog_O_War wrote:As I stated, unless I missed a digit whilst counting to 15, there is no believeable way a person can screw up counting in sequence (unless the numbers were really high).

You're underestimating the power of stupidity.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:49 pm**

The Beast wrote:
Dog_O_War wrote:As I stated, unless I missed a digit whilst counting to 15, there is no believeable way a person can screw up counting in sequence (unless the numbers were really high).

You're underestimating the power of stupidity.

I prefer to give the people I game with the benefit of the doubt :lol:

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:52 pm**

ZorValachan wrote:
Natasha wrote:For some that is trivial. For some that unacceptably slows their game down.

The problem as we're seeing is that what is trivial means different things to different people.

Then every single skill should be trivial to those people.

Seems like quite a leap there.

Ah, well, game on.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:19 pm**

Dog_O_War wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Dog_O_War wrote:See, his example was that in a stressful situation, I suddenly forget that there's a 13 in between 12 and 14 40% of the time. That I would need to roll to count 15 troops with guns.

No, my example was that you might not be able to count as quickly or accurately under stress.

The whys of this are beyond me. Near as I can figure, the only reasons I can come up with have nothing to do with the math skill directly.
Not seeing a dude has nothing to do with the math skill and would cause a mis-count

Keeping track of who you've counted and who you haven't counted would be part of "counting."

Forgetting a formality does not equal forgetting the basics of the system. That is (to use your example), your friend might not be able to say hello, but I doubt he forgot how to say hello.

Irrelevant, since nobody has said that a character would forget the basics of the skill.

Except you, right here;
Killer Cyborg wrote:No, my example was that you might not be able to count as quickly or accurately under stress.

(bolded and underlined for emphasis)
As I stated, unless I missed a digit whilst counting to 15, there is no believeable way a person can screw up counting in sequence (unless the numbers were really high).

And as I said, "Keeping track of who you've counted and who you haven't counted would be part of 'counting.'"

And, honestly, you have never, ever miscounted anything?
Unless it was a really high number?
You can tell at a glance the difference between 12 people shooting at you and 13-15 people shooting at you?
Or between 20 and 21 people?

This puts us right back to where we started btw, as I stated this waaay back when the arguement first popped up. You're saying that a person can't forget the basics of a skill, and that mentioning such is irrelivant.
And yet you're stating that a person could somehow forget how to count - which is the basics of the skill.

Show me where I said they could forget to count.
Give a direct quote.

Or quit making stuff up.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:55 pm**

Dog_O_War wrote:
The Beast wrote:
Dog_O_War wrote:As I stated, unless I missed a digit whilst counting to 15, there is no believeable way a person can screw up counting in sequence (unless the numbers were really high).

You're underestimating the power of stupidity.

I prefer to give the people I game with the benefit of the doubt

Are you sure you want to do that?

Are you really, really sure?

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:26 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:And as I said, "Keeping track of who you've counted and who you haven't counted would be part of 'counting.'"

And, honestly, you have never, ever miscounted anything?
Unless it was a really high number?

Yes.
I've made addition mistakes, but counting from even 1 to 300 I'm not prone to a mishap.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You can tell at a glance the difference between 12 people shooting at you and 13-15 people shooting at you?
Or between 20 and 21 people?

Sure - you can't?!

Besides this - I'm a bad example. I can tell at a glance the difference between 12 people and 13-15 people because I have a very good memory for visuals (though at a distance my eyesight might get in the way). Being shot at is a situation I've never been in; we've got laws and police protection where I'm from.

That said, in a setting where life is cheap, a few bullets won't run-hot the blood of most characters.

Also, FIREBALL! Your example is applying real-life to a games' rules-system.

Killer Cyborg wrote:This puts us right back to where we started btw, as I stated this waaay back when the arguement first popped up. You're saying that a person can't forget the basics of a skill, and that mentioning such is irrelivant.
And yet you're stating that a person could somehow forget how to count - which is the basics of the skill.

Show me where I said they could forget to count.
Give a direct quote.

Or quit making stuff up.[/quote]
:-?

I didn't make stuff up. Your words state that a character never forgets how to count, and yet here you are (quoted by me in an above post) that a character can make a mistake while counting. Mistakes are literally forgetting the orders of operation, and in the case of counting that literally means "forgetting to count".
Again, you're saying two contradictory statements here. I don't mean this to sound condiscending or cruel, but you're wrong, and your words have betrayed it.

That is, how can a person both never fail and possibly fail at a task deemed trivial by the both of us? Even in a heated situation you've stated that the basics of the skill are never forgotten (as per your comments on speak: language. I don't suddenly need to roll that when I want to talk once bullets start flying, do I?), and yet at the same time you're saying that a heated situation would make you roll for this.

Either your description was wrong, and you need to restate your arguement, or you were wrong, and the skill truely is trivial in that situation. Which is it?

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:38 pm**

Rules lawyers :roll:

The Beast wrote:Are you really, really sure?

Mmm Clint Eastwood. And yes I'm feeling lucky!

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:54 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Noon wrote:I'm inclined to say that skill use tends to influence what latter situations occur. Cool sounding skills will influence cooler situations to occur. Dull skills influence duller situations. Situation doesn't pop up by itself - it's (presumably) partly determined by prior skill use.

Counting how many shots your enemy has left in his clip isn't cool, then charging in when he's out of ammo isn't cool?

It's not the skill, it's what the situation is and how you use it.

No, it's not cool. Instead it's actually a perceptual mistake to link 'basic maths' with 'count the bullets', since it's the GM's subjective choice as to whether 'count the bullets' applies or not.

That the GM might decide to link something cool to basic math use, doesn't make basic math cool. It's a perceptual mistake to think so - unless the GM's brain is more like a vending machine, where if you press the 'basic math' button, it always mechanically sets off 'count the bullets' in the same way pressing a button on a vending machine always drops a certain foodstuff.

I'll admit I enjoy indulging in the idea that things do connect in that way, but like watching a magicians show, I know I'm just falling for an illusion. And like a magicians show, its better when the assistant is hot/the skill actually sounds cool, by itself.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:34 pm**

I am actualy kind of fascinated at the idea of using or not using skills based on the coolness factor and then argueing the point based on the subjective nature of a GMs ruling.

I am trying to piece together the conflicting elements of that line of reasoning, but I think I've just failed my Literacy: English roll.

But Wait! I don't really think that skill is all that cool, so I guess I'm good? I think?

Seriously though, what is the "perceptual mistake" that is being made? He is giving an example of a situation where he thinks it could be used, and I guess, that he thinks that use is cool. It's a legit use, and whether its cool or not is so purely subjective that its nonsense to try and argue against by pointing out the subjective nature of the rule itself.

This conversation is boiling down to:
"That skill isn't cool"
"I think its cool here"
"No its not. It relies on the GM using it that way, so that's not actually cool."

What?

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:45 pm**

Dog_O_War wrote:
Jesterzzn wrote:Basic Math: 60% does not mean that the player thinks 2+2=5 40% of the time. It means that under challenging conditions that would require a skill roll he may or may not (based on the roll) be able to come up with the answer at that time under those conditions. He can use another action and try again, or he can just wait until the external challenges have passed and he has plently of time to do the basic math (no roll needed).

Your example is exactly the kind of simplicity that we've been talking about though.
See, his example was that in a stressful situation, I suddenly forget that there's a 13 in between 12 and 14 40% of the time. That I would need to roll to count 15 troops with guns.
The whys of this are beyond me. Near as I can figure, the only reasons I can come up with have nothing to do with the math skill directly.
Not seeing a dude has nothing to do with the math skill and would cause a mis-count.
Yeah, that's all I've got for a reason to fail counting to 15 in a "stressful" situation. Even if God himself were leaning over my shoulder giving me a critique as I did it, I simply cannot believe a person could forget how to count; it quite literally is thee most basic function of math that we learn; it is impossible to forget.

You are getting so tied up in the term "forget" that you are missing the point.

You do not forget the 13. You just have a 60% chance to not make a mistake in your counting. I've read later on where you have said you never misscount, I guess because of your excellent brain, but I think you are forgetting (probably failed a roll somewhere) that YOU are not the character. Your CHARACTER might not have your perfect counting ability even with God himself staring down his neck. Crazy, I know.

Jesterzzn wrote:If you have ever been in a high stress situation you can probably relate. No one forgets how to say "hello" under normal conditions. I've seen friends forget how to open their mouth when they meet women. For them Speech: Basic required a roll...and they failed.

Forgetting a formality does not equal forgetting the basics of the system. That is (to use your example), your friend might not be able to say hello, but I doubt he forgot how to say hello.

I know this from experience...

As it relates to pallaidum's skill system the net effect is the same. They fail the roll, they then fail to do what they wanted to do. They can try again next action.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:01 pm**

The Beast wrote:Are you really, really sure?

That is the most unrealistic scene in movie history. How did that guy forget the 6? Inconcievible!

Also, that was the most uncool line by Eastwood. A speech about basic math? BORING!

I know some people think that line is cool, but they are actually making a perceptual mistake. Clint Eastwood is cool. The line is boring and something you might hear on Mathnet. So not cool.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:05 pm**

Dog_O_War wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:And as I said, "Keeping track of who you've counted and who you haven't counted would be part of 'counting.'"

And, honestly, you have never, ever miscounted anything?
Unless it was a really high number?

Yes.

Ha, ha!
You forgot how to count!

I'm a bad example. I can tell at a glance the difference between 12 people and 13-15 people because I have a very good memory for visuals (though at a distance my eyesight might get in the way).

I'm not sure what memory has to do with it, unless you're saying that you've memorized what 12 people shooting at you looks like vs. 13 people shooting at you.
Or unless you're talking about taking a quick glance, then remembering what you saw and counting by memory, which isn't the same as counting the enemy as you glance.

Being shot at is a situation I've never been in; we've got laws and police protection where I'm from.

And I guess they never shoot at you?

Also, FIREBALL! Your example is applying real-life to a games' rules-system.

Yes, it is.

And "fireball" isn't really an argument.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Show me where I said they could forget to count.
Give a direct quote.

Or quit making stuff up.

I didn't make stuff up.

And yet you can't show me where I said anything about forgetting how to count.
Almost as if I never said it.

Your words state that a character never forgets how to count, and yet here you are (quoted by me in an above post) that a character can make a mistake while counting. Mistakes are literally forgetting the orders of operation, and in the case of counting that literally means "forgetting to count".

Because there's only ONE possible mistake to make when counting? :roll:

Wrong.
The main mistake/failure you can make when attempting to count a bunch of enemies (or anything) at a glance is simply not counting them fast enough.
Big difference.

You can also start counting, then lose track as a shot wings by your ear or something else distracting happens. You haven't forgotten how to count; you've just forgotten what number you were on.

Again, you're saying two contradictory statements here.

Nope; you're just making stuff up.

That is, how can a person both never fail and possibly fail at a task deemed trivial by the both of us? Even in a heated situation you've stated that the basics of the skill are never forgotten (as per your comments on speak: language.

They're not forgotten, but that doesn't mean you can't screw it up.
Just like when you roll low on a strike roll, that doesn't mean you've suddenly forgotten how to punch/kick/shoot; it just means you made a mistake.

I don't suddenly need to roll that when I want to talk once bullets start flying, do I?),

You might, under certain circumstances.

Either your description was wrong, and you need to restate your arguement, or you were wrong, and the skill truely is trivial in that situation. Which is it?

Neither.
You're just making stuff up.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:08 pm**

Noon wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:Counting how many shots your enemy has left in his clip isn't cool, then charging in when he's out of ammo isn't cool?

It's not the skill, it's what the situation is and how you use it.

No, it's not cool.

Hm.
I guess we have different definitions of "cool," then.

Instead it's actually a perceptual mistake to link 'basic maths' with 'count the bullets', since it's the GM's subjective choice as to whether 'count the bullets' applies or not.

It's always GM's subjective choice as to whether a skill applies. :-?

That the GM might decide to link something cool to basic math use, doesn't make basic math cool. It's a perceptual mistake to think so - unless the GM's brain is more like a vending machine, where if you press the 'basic math' button, it always mechanically sets off 'count the bullets' in the same way pressing a button on a vending machine always drops a certain foodstuff.

I'll admit I enjoy indulging in the idea that things do connect in that way, but like watching a magicians show, I know I'm just falling for an illusion. And like a magicians show, its better when the assistant is hot/the skill actually sounds cool, by itself.

No idea what you're trying to say here.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:47 pm**

Dog_O_War wrote:
ZorValachan wrote:Just do my very first example:

CS civilian and NGR operative. How is that trivial?

For one, it's not basic math, but advanced math - any conversion is infact advanced math because it's algebra.
How it is algebra: Standard time resets the count every 12 hours; that is, every time you count to 12 you start over.
Military time does this every 24 hours instead.
it turns to algebra like so: 1am to 12pm = X. X = +0. 1pm to 12am = Y. Y = +12. This is the conversion from standard to the 24 hour clock.
Germany = G. G = +1 hour from 0.
Coalition = CS. CS = -6 hours from 0.

Just because you turned it into an equation doesn't make it algebra.
I never said they would mistake it for 9:00AM. But I have seen MANY people think 21:00 is either 8:00PM or 10:00PM, because they are not used to the concept of military time. That puts stress on them and they mess up on their BASIC math.
Adding or subracting that 12 is addition or subtraction. You don't need algebra. You chose to make it an equation. But it doesn't have to be.

Then there was a 7 hour difference.
It's the same as if you took 1+1=2 and decided 1+1=X therefore it is algebra, which is also incorrect. You can do this part with addition or subtraction and not algebra.

Dog_O_War wrote:For two, it's the easiest conversion on the planet, and the only way to forget it is through sheer incompetence. Though it is algebra, it is easy algebra to the point that most people don't realise that it is algebra (because we already have the entire equation).

That's inconsiderate of all the millions of people who actually cannot do this. Millions? Yes. Quite simply In my travels around the world very few people could remember what time it was where I lived. When we would make times to meet online or for my trips, they gave me their time and I converted, because they often made mistakes.
Again, by this reasoning ALL addition and subtraction is algebra to you.

Dog_O_War wrote: This is all irrelivant information, as 21:00 hours is impossible to mistake for 9am in Germany. The only thing that becomes a factor is timezones, and that has nothing to do with math, and everything to do with general world knowledge.

Wrong. world knowledge would tell you 'hmmm they are 7 hours ahead of us' Basic math allows you to subract 7 from their time to get your time.

Dog_O_War wrote:
This is a mis-use of the skill (which I mentioned in the first post I made in the thread - people simply do not know how to use the skill).
Knowing a timezone has nothing to do with a conversion from standard to military time.

I never said that either. But it does afftect when people from 2 different time zones are discussing plans.

There were 2 parts. A conversion 'chain'. One of the parts was military to standard time. The other was time zone.
neither needed algebra.

21-12 = 9 is not algebra just because you want to write it in the equation 1am to 12pm = X. X = +0. 1pm to 12am = Y. Y = +12.

9-7 = 2 is not algebra just because you can write a-b = c

and while 9-7 IS easy, there are MANY people who simply get confused when words such as PM or time zone are used. It becomes stressful to them.
Add that to the climax of a plot hinging on getting information to the right person and it is a valid use of a Basic math roll.

I'm sure you will now take this and make up some new equations say its advanced math and that your point is made.

Just because you can do it with advanced math, doesn't mean you can't do it with basic math. For all those people who don't have the advanced math skill, you wouldn't let them convert military time ro standard?
So either you make all your CS grunts take advanced math or they can't tell both their officer and family what time their next leave begins or you go down another path and say 'this is another reason why PB system is broke'
I've read too many of your threads. Squirm and twist telling everyone else they are wrong and you are right and when confronted with evidence to the contrary you fall back on PB's system is broke.

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:49 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:No idea what you're trying to say here.

That the GM might decide to link something cool to basic math use, doesn't make basic math cool.

Firing off a mega salvo that blows up a deaths head transport could be linked by a GM to having to pass a basic math roll.

Just because the salvo and smoking, plummeting deaths head is cool, doesn't make the basic maths skill cool. Nor does counting fired bullets being tied to a passing basic maths roll, make basic maths sexy and hot. The coolness of each thing does not osmotically pass its coolness onto the lame basic maths roll.

Needing to pass basic maths rolls to complete cool situations is like a nerd standing next to a super model - he doesn't get any hotter for standing there.

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:12 am**

useless skills....huuummmm

how about 'RPG Design'?

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:29 am**

Greetings and Salutations. Well, I'm going to try and avoid getting too caught up in this, but just felt I should point out a few thoughts.

1) Should Mathetmatics: Basic be automatic? Now this depends on what a person means by "automatic." If you mean not needing to be rolled, but still selected, I can see the argument. I'll admit I don't think I've ever had a player roll it in a single one of my games. I do know people that can make addition mistakes all the time. I know people who can figure out a complicated math problem (easily Advanced Math), but ask them to show their work and they'll mess up the addition a lot of the times. That's something I don't personally care to represent in my games though. Admittedly, I never had a player try to count the number of bullets in a gunfight before either. Of course, I do more story/environment games where the situation is more the focus then the rest, so not quite the same and may be part of the reason. If you meant an automatic skill known to all characters, well, I'll address that along with why I can see it's not an automatic skill and still requires a roll when selected.

Mathematics: Basic is included in games like Rifts and Palladium Fantasy (where I believe it started). Neither of these environments are guaranteed to have people who will have the skill. Yes, it is fairly automatic to us who grew up in schools teaching it to us. However in Rifts and Palladium Fantasy schools are NOT something everyone has access to. That is the same reason why literacy isn't as common in these environments. Some locations may be the exception, but the world as a whole can be quite ignorant. In these types of environments they have NOT had the same thorough training as we have in modern day life. Math can be a luxury, not a basic area of knowledge, and as a result they may very well be far more inclined at making mistakes. ((I'll be posting something I wrote at the end of this post. I posted it once in the PF forums, but not all here would have read that so I thought it would be nice to include here.))

Note: While I don't know all settings, in Heroes Unlimited (a modern day setting) skills such as reading, writing, basic math, and pilot: automobile are all starting skills to all characters (at least in my copy they are). This only helps to show that it's more basic ... to us.

2) Killer Cyborg, while I agree with your stance on the matter, to help clarify the little problem of what Dog_O_War is trying to say is: "No, my example was that you might not be able to count as quickly or accurately under stress." Take the highlighted part and it says "you might not be able to count accurately." His argument is that to not "count" accurately means you can't go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. In your example of counting CS troops it's not counting, but adding 1+1+1+1+1=5, thereby addition and NOT counting. That's, from what I can tell, the argument. I just thought I'd try to explain the confusion there.

Disclaimer: By no means am I saying I agree with that stance, but that's what I believe he's trying to argue, a means to try and address a single word to avoid the point of the idea.

3) For the record, I'm fine with the skill. While I may not use it, I fully understand it being there for those who wish to use it in their games. It's a game created for lots of people, not just me. I don't have players roll for it because I think the skills in Palladium are notoriously low, it's my preference and it quite clearly works for many so who am I to say their way is wrong?

Okay, that should cover most of what I wanted to say. I doubt this will really help that matter at all, but I wanted to put my thoughts in on the matter. I feel many forget worlds like Rifts and Palladium Fantasy aren't the world as we know it. Anyways, that should be it for now. Have a nice day to one and all. Farewell and safe journeys.

Something I wrote for Palladium Fantasy, but will post here now (only an excerpt which I think touches on our topic):

As is well known, player characters are heroes that tend to be extraordinary. Most individuals are common folk with little knowledge or skill outside of their need to survive. Except for healers, few have any type of medical training, not even first aid. Outside of nobles and students of magic few know the language of the elves. Go to a small farming village and there is a decent chance not a villager among them will know the most basic phrase.

Normal individuals seeing these skills displayed may very well view them as truly extraordinary and with great wonder. A character swimming across a river may be viewed as a water sprite, or at least half. An individual who can look at the stars and know them via astronomy may be viewed as a psychic with divinity. While these skills may not be rare to an adventuring party, to an average individual they can appear almost mystical in the ability and a character with hand to hand: martial arts may be immediately thought to be a palladin without question, for only a palladin is said to be able to fight with such skill.

Another not so common skill is math, not even basic. This means very few actually know how to count except possibly high enough on their fingers, anyone who can count higher is truly impressive. As a result, going shopping can be a problem. While unable to count, most individuals know certain figures in relation to spending and receiving change. This is possible not because the farmer can count, but because certain figures are simply memorized to help in such ordinary circumstances. The shape and size of currency is memorized to help with rough ideas.

Despite memorization techniques by commoners, it is not difficult to take advantage of an individual if the merchant knows the math. Spouting off enough figures will likely confuse all but the sharpest (or skilled) minds. However, taking advantage of individuals can be dangerous, and typically not done to locals who are relied upon for repeated business. The more often someone is taken advantage of, the more chances there is for it being discovered (cousin visiting who can count, but if you give him a different amount than you've given him for the last 10 years your customer might notice!).

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:57 am**

Noon wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:No idea what you're trying to say here.

That the GM might decide to link something cool to basic math use, doesn't make basic math cool.

Firing off a mega salvo that blows up a deaths head transport could be linked by a GM to having to pass a basic math roll.

Just because the salvo and smoking, plummeting deaths head is cool, doesn't make the basic maths skill cool. Nor does counting fired bullets being tied to a passing basic maths roll, make basic maths sexy and hot. The coolness of each thing does not osmotically pass its coolness onto the lame basic maths roll.

Needing to pass basic maths rolls to complete cool situations is like a nerd standing next to a super model - he doesn't get any hotter for standing there.

I thought I understood the point you were trying to make. No, that's not entirely true. I kinda thought I knew the general ballpark your point might be playing in. Yea, that's probably more accurate.

Then I read this clarification. Now, I too am lost. :-?

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:18 am**

Turns out that rules lawyering ruins conversations, too, not just games.

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:21 am**

Noon wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:No idea what you're trying to say here.

That the GM might decide to link something cool to basic math use, doesn't make basic math cool.

Remember me saying that no skills are cool, only situations?

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:49 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Noon wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:No idea what you're trying to say here.

That the GM might decide to link something cool to basic math use, doesn't make basic math cool.

Remember me saying that no skills are cool, only situations?

Yes, it's what I initially refuted right after you first said it

I'm inclined to say that skill use tends to influence what latter situations occur. Cool sounding skills will influence cooler situations to occur. Dull skills influence duller situations. Situation doesn't pop up by itself - it's (presumably) partly determined by prior skill use.

If your arguement is to just repeat that no skills are cool, then that's the end - you made a statement, I refuted it, you repeated it, I'm off to get a beer.

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:05 am**

Jesterzzn wrote:
Noon wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:No idea what you're trying to say here.

That the GM might decide to link something cool to basic math use, doesn't make basic math cool.

Firing off a mega salvo that blows up a deaths head transport could be linked by a GM to having to pass a basic math roll.

Just because the salvo and smoking, plummeting deaths head is cool, doesn't make the basic maths skill cool. Nor does counting fired bullets being tied to a passing basic maths roll, make basic maths sexy and hot. The coolness of each thing does not osmotically pass its coolness onto the lame basic maths roll.

Needing to pass basic maths rolls to complete cool situations is like a nerd standing next to a super model - he doesn't get any hotter for standing there.
I thought I understood the point you were trying to make. No, that's not entirely true. I kinda thought I knew the general ballpark your point might be playing in. Yea, that's probably more accurate.

Then I read this clarification. Now, I too am lost.

Not that KC cared about skills and coolness, but what's to get lost about? A skill doesn't become any cooler if after the roll a cool thing happens. Eg, if after a basic maths roll the GM declares you know when the guys out of ammo and can charge, although the knowing and charge is cool, that doesn't make basic maths any cooler.

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:29 am**

Ah, found your prior question

"That skill isn't cool"
"I think its cool here"
"No its not. It relies on the GM using it that way, so that's not actually cool."

What?

Your summing up seems to capture it pefectly? Not sure what else your asking?

An example would be like one of those toy steering wheels a kid can have in a car. If the kid hits the accelerator on the toy steering wheel and by chance the adult hits a hard acceleration at that time, if the kid associates the cool feeling of acceleration with him putting his foot down on the toy accelerator, that's a perceptual error. A miss association.

Me "That toy steering isn't cool"
Kid "I think it's cool here"
Me "No it's not. It relies on your dad pushing the accelerator at the same time. It's not actually cool in the way your saying it is"

(I'll note that if you think basic maths is cool to roll even if it does nothing, fair enough, it is cool for you. Have fun! I'm only arguing against thinking its cool because 'using' it supposedly results in counting shots and such).

Same goes for rolling basic maths. Getting the shot count comes from the GM putting his foot down on a pedal, rather than from you putting your foot down on the 'basic maths' pedal.

If it's cool when the GM puts his foot down on the accelerator, its incorrect to associate that coolness with the basic math skill roll use.

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:05 am**

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:useless skills....huuummmm

how about 'RPG Design'?

What are you talking about? That gives a +1 to PE. There's nothing useless about that.

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:20 pm**

ZorValachan wrote:
Dog_O_War wrote:
ZorValachan wrote:Just do my very first example:

CS civilian and NGR operative. How is that trivial?

For one, it's not basic math, but advanced math - any conversion is infact advanced math because it's algebra.
How it is algebra: Standard time resets the count every 12 hours; that is, every time you count to 12 you start over.
Military time does this every 24 hours instead.
it turns to algebra like so: 1am to 12pm = X. X = +0. 1pm to 12am = Y. Y = +12. This is the conversion from standard to the 24 hour clock.
Germany = G. G = +1 hour from 0.
Coalition = CS. CS = -6 hours from 0.

Just because you turned it into an equation doesn't make it algebra.
I never said they would mistake it for 9:00AM. But I have seen MANY people think 21:00 is either 8:00PM or 10:00PM, because they are not used to the concept of military time. That puts stress on them and they mess up on their BASIC math.
Adding or subracting that 12 is addition or subtraction. You don't need algebra. You chose to make it an equation. But it doesn't have to be.

Then there was a 7 hour difference.
It's the same as if you took 1+1=2 and decided 1+1=X therefore it is algebra, which is also incorrect. You can do this part with addition or subtraction and not algebra.

Um, yeah. Sure bud - I'm confident that a Mathematician will agree with you that any time 12 = 24 or 9 = 21, there is no algebra involved :roll:

ZorValachan wrote:
Dog_O_War wrote:For two, it's the easiest conversion on the planet, and the only way to forget it is through sheer incompetence. Though it is algebra, it is easy algebra to the point that most people don't realise that it is algebra (because we already have the entire equation).

That's inconsiderate of all the millions of people who actually cannot do this. Millions? Yes. Quite simply In my travels around the world very few people could remember what time it was where I lived. When we would make times to meet online or for my trips, they gave me their time and I converted, because they often made mistakes.
Again, by this reasoning ALL addition and subtraction is algebra to you.

So the people you know can't add or subtract.
Great - I'm not sure of your point here :-?

Also, I stated that the conversion of standard to military time is the algebra. Please read my post more thoroughly.
And finally, you're stating that millions (we'll say 100mil) can't perform basic math.
That sounds about right, given that the world is 6-7 billion; that's 6-7 thousand million, and out of that around 1.4% can't perform basic math. Personally I'd put the figures a little higher than this, but hey, yours are good too.

ZorValachan wrote:
Dog_O_War wrote: This is all irrelivant information, as 21:00 hours is impossible to mistake for 9am in Germany. The only thing that becomes a factor is timezones, and that has nothing to do with math, and everything to do with general world knowledge.

Wrong. world knowledge would tell you 'hmmm they are 7 hours ahead of us' Basic math allows you to subract 7 from their time to get your time.

"World Knowledge" is still not basic math. It tells you part of the equation, but not everyone knows "world knowledge".
Infact most people aren't even aware of the little timezone differences from region to region.
For instance, despite Newfoundland being dead-centre at -4 hours (from 0), the Island of Newfoundland is only at -3.5.
Or that Saskatchewan runs at -6, except that during during daylight savings they're only at -5.

Basic Math didn't tell you any of that - another skill did.

ZorValachan wrote:
Dog_O_War wrote:
This is a mis-use of the skill (which I mentioned in the first post I made in the thread - people simply do not know how to use the skill).
Knowing a timezone has nothing to do with a conversion from standard to military time.

I never said that either. But it does afftect when people from 2 different time zones are discussing plans.

Yeah; you were the one mis-using the skill.

ZorValachan wrote:There were 2 parts. A conversion 'chain'. One of the parts was military to standard time. The other was time zone.
neither needed algebra.

Any time an unknown factor can equal a number, it is algebra.

ZorValachan wrote:21-12 = 9 is not algebra just because you want to write it in the equation 1am to 12pm = X. X = +0. 1pm to 12am = Y. Y = +12.

Is that 12 am or pm?

ZorValachan wrote:and while 9-7 IS easy, there are MANY people who simply get confused when words such as PM or time zone are used. It becomes stressful to them.
Add that to the climax of a plot hinging on getting information to the right person and it is a valid use of a Basic math roll.

I'm sure you will now take this and make up some new equations say its advanced math and that your point is made.

I don't need a new equation; the ones I used to begin with are correct.
You're being hard-headed - pm and am require consideration when converting standard to military. That they are already letters in a numbers equation should've been a big red-flag that algebra is involved.

ZorValachan wrote:Just because you can do it with advanced math, doesn't mean you can't do it with basic math.

Think about that for a minute.

ZorValachan wrote:For all those people who don't have the advanced math skill, you wouldn't let them convert military time ro standard?

Since they know both systems (a 24 hour clock and a 12 hour clock), and this conversion is the easiest on the planet, I'd let it slide. It'd still be governed under advanced math, but the skill already has enough uses that forcing a roll on something trivial (like this) isn't something I'd require.
I'm already about cutting the trivial rolls out (unless a guy really wanted to just roll dice).

ZorValachan wrote:So either you make all your CS grunts take advanced math or they can't tell both their officer and family what time their next leave begins or you go down another path and say 'this is another reason why PB system is broke'

Strawman.
I'd neither say nor enforce either of these.

ZorValachan wrote:I've read too many of your threads. Squirm and twist telling everyone else they are wrong and you are right and when confronted with evidence to the contrary you fall back on PB's system is broke.

If you've actually read any of "my" threads, you'll also note that I don't put up with direct attacks on any poster, especially myself.

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:35 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
I'm a bad example. I can tell at a glance the difference between 12 people and 13-15 people because I have a very good memory for visuals (though at a distance my eyesight might get in the way).

I'm not sure what memory has to do with it, unless you're saying that you've memorized what 12 people shooting at you looks like vs. 13 people shooting at you.
Or unless you're talking about taking a quick glance, then remembering what you saw and counting by memory, which isn't the same as counting the enemy as you glance.

It is though.
You have to memorise (how ever trivial) each person you've already counted when looking at them.
That you're not looking at them anymore simply means that you have one less aid to help you count their numbers.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Being shot at is a situation I've never been in; we've got laws and police protection where I'm from.

And I guess they never shoot at you?

Not since that one time.....

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Also, FIREBALL! Your example is applying real-life to a games' rules-system.

Yes, it is.

And "fireball" isn't really an argument.

It is though. You cannot apply real-life logic to in-game situations, just as you cannot apply in-game logic to real-life situations.

Otherwise we'd have alot of cops and criminals taking up boxing in order to shoot faster :lol:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:Show me where I said they could forget to count.
Give a direct quote.

Or quit making stuff up.

I didn't make stuff up.

And yet you can't show me where I said anything about forgetting how to count.
Almost as if I never said it.

Is my quote-function broken? I posted the quote twice now.
As-is, Prysus seems to have the words for my point of view that I didn't.

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:31 pm**

Noon wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Noon wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:No idea what you're trying to say here.

That the GM might decide to link something cool to basic math use, doesn't make basic math cool.

Remember me saying that no skills are cool, only situations?

Yes, it's what I initially refuted right after you first said it

You disagreed with it; that's not the same as refuting it.

I'm inclined to say that skill use tends to influence what latter situations occur. Cool sounding skills will influence cooler situations to occur.

So if we called "Basic Math" something like "Lowdown Mathnizzle," then cooler situations would arise?
Interesting theory.

If your arguement is to just repeat that no skills are cool, then that's the end - you made a statement, I refuted it, you repeated it, I'm off to get a beer.

lol
All you're doing is stating and restating your own opinion, an unsupported opinion that doesn't even make any sense.
So yeah, go have that beer.

Or, if you want to support your opinions, let's see some of those "cool skills" you think exist.

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:38 pm**

Prysus wrote: In your example of counting CS troops it's not counting, but adding 1+1+1+1+1=5, thereby addition and NOT counting.

a) What do you think that counting IS? You start at zero, then keep adding +1 until you run out of things to count.
b) I really don't know where you're coming from here, unless you're picturing people spread out and counting over time. Like "okay, there's one guy." then a bit later, "Second one behind me..." and later, "one more on the roof; that makes three."
But that wasn't the scenario I've described.

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:40 pm**

Noon wrote:If it's cool when the GM puts his foot down on the accelerator, its incorrect to associate that coolness with the basic math skill roll use.

And other skills are different how...?

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:50 pm**

Dog_O_War wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm not sure what memory has to do with it, unless you're saying that you've memorized what 12 people shooting at you looks like vs. 13 people shooting at you.
Or unless you're talking about taking a quick glance, then remembering what you saw and counting by memory, which isn't the same as counting the enemy as you glance.

It is though.
You have to memorise (how ever trivial) each person you've already counted when looking at them.
That you're not looking at them anymore simply means that you have one less aid to help you count their numbers.

You can only look at one person at a time? :-?

Killer Cyborg wrote:And "fireball" isn't really an argument.

It is though. You cannot apply real-life logic to in-game situations, just as you cannot apply in-game logic to real-life situations.

Except when you can.

Otherwise we'd have alot of cops and criminals taking up boxing in order to shoot faster

Yeah, and .38 revolvers would have 6 shots.
No, wait... that's an in-game situation that is the same out-of-game. And vice versa.
Hm.
Scientists tend to learn Advanced Mathematics, in-game and out-of-game.
Wounds can cause bleeding, in-game and out-of-game.
A good punch can knock somebody out, in-game and out-of-game.
In melee combat, you can attempt to parry incoming attacks, in-game and out-of-game
A mile is 5280 feet, in-game and out-of-game.

Huh.
I guess that maybe the fact that the game and reality do not always reflect one another doesn't mean that they never reflect one another, or that they never should.

It's almost as if the game were a simulation of reality, albeit one that is imperfect here or there, and one that includes fantastic hypotheticals such as magic and psionics.

Killer Cyborg wrote:And yet you can't show me where I said anything about forgetting how to count.
Almost as if I never said it.

Is my quote-function broken? I posted the quote twice now.

Apparently it IS broken, because I haven't seen it.
Give it another try.

As-is, Prysus seems to have the words for my point of view that I didn't.

Well, he mostly seems to agree with me.
I addressed the other part in another post.

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:34 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Dog_O_War wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm not sure what memory has to do with it, unless you're saying that you've memorized what 12 people shooting at you looks like vs. 13 people shooting at you.
Or unless you're talking about taking a quick glance, then remembering what you saw and counting by memory, which isn't the same as counting the enemy as you glance.

It is though.
You have to memorise (how ever trivial) each person you've already counted when looking at them.
That you're not looking at them anymore simply means that you have one less aid to help you count their numbers.

You can only look at one person at a time?

No, I mean that it's easy to remember something you're looking at while performing another mental process.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:And "fireball" isn't really an argument.

It is though. You cannot apply real-life logic to in-game situations, just as you cannot apply in-game logic to real-life situations.

Except when you can.

FIREBALL!

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Otherwise we'd have alot of cops and criminals taking up boxing in order to shoot faster

Yeah, and .38 revolvers would have 6 shots.
No, wait... that's an in-game situation that is the same out-of-game. And vice versa.
Hm.

Except for when they have 8 shots, right?

Killer Cyborg wrote:Scientists tend to learn Advanced Mathematics, in-game and out-of-game.
Wounds can cause bleeding, in-game and out-of-game.
A good punch can knock somebody out, in-game and out-of-game.
In melee combat, you can attempt to parry incoming attacks, in-game and out-of-game
A mile is 5280 feet, in-game and out-of-game.

SDC?
Dodging bullets?
Combat Cyborgs?
Magic?

As well, your examples don't mesh with reality, but instead only create a facsimile of it. A scientist (or anyone for that matter) with advanced math doesn't neccessarily know all the aspects of it, though they may know one area thoroughly.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Huh.
I guess that maybe the fact that the game and reality do not always reflect one another doesn't mean that they never reflect one another, or that they never should.

Verisimilitude is not reality though; it represents in-game reality where I could go and learn magic, or recieve brain implants that made me run faster, lift more, see further, etc...
Where as reality does not offer such things. It's the little differences like that that factor into the whole.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
As-is, Prysus seems to have the words for my point of view that I didn't.

Well, he mostly seems to agree with me.
I addressed the other part in another post.

That's fine. Besides your musings on how a person could possibly forget how to count in a stressful situation (as indicated by "not as accurately"), I don't see any fault in your arguement. Though you're apparently sticky on counting troops - I say it's redundant to enforce such a roll.
That is the topic of the thread - useless skills. He (Prysus) has even stated that he can't recall a single time he's had a player roll the skill; maybe because he too sees the things you're making players roll for as trivial and redundant.

That has been my point from the beginning - why bother with a percentage that you're never going to roll? Why not have the skill be automatic instead of allowing GMs to enforce nit-picky uses on a simple skill? I too see that the skill should be included, but it should be the "general athletics" of the science department; all bonuses and nothing to roll.

Posted: **Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:58 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:You disagreed with it; that's not the same as refuting it.

No.

So if we called "Basic Math" something like "Lowdown Mathnizzle," then cooler situations would arise?
Interesting theory.

It's getting better, but it shows how dull it is that it takes random phrasings to do anything about it.

If your arguement is to just repeat that no skills are cool, then that's the end - you made a statement, I refuted it, you repeated it, I'm off to get a beer.

lol
All you're doing is stating and restating your own opinion, an unsupported opinion that doesn't even make any sense.

Well, yeah. I'm not about to invent your questions for you, and since you ask no questions and just repeat your initial arguement, I just repeat mine. I noticed this pattern and went for a beer instead :arrow:

Or, if you want to support your opinions, let's see some of those "cool skills" you think exist.

Remember I said

Well, I thought that was the point. If were going to get subjective, lets get subjective about something cool...rather than basic maths.

Unless Kevin thinks basic maths is kewl - in which case, oh, one of the cool things about Rifts is supposed to be basic math...I didn't realise that before.

Maybe Kevin thinks basic maths is cool, even though I don't. And that's why he'd keep it. That means I don't exactly match his idea of cool, if that is the case.

For myself, I think prowl and streetwise are cool skills. The images they invoke are quite cool. Perhaps I've had like minded GM's, but I think they've found these skills cool too, and because of that the following situations they made after the rolls were cooler. Skill use is like throwing ideas to the GM - cool ideas tend to get used and make cooler situations. Dull ideas tend to be ignored or make duller situations.

Really I don't get the idea that no skills are cool. It's like saying you think a movie is cool, but a considerable segment of the movie is not cool. Skills are a considerable segment of rifts the game, or so I'd measure. I'm presuming you think Rifts is cool? Or do you only find the imagined situations of the game world cool, in a completely detached way from the book?

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:11 am**

Dog_O_War wrote:You can only look at one person at a time?

No, I mean that it's easy to remember something you're looking at while performing another mental process.[/quote]

Why do you have to remember something that you're looking at?

FIREBALL!

Gooble-gobble.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Yeah, and .38 revolvers would have 6 shots.
No, wait... that's an in-game situation that is the same out-of-game. And vice versa.
Hm.

Except for when they have 8 shots, right?

In-game and out-of-game, yes.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Scientists tend to learn Advanced Mathematics, in-game and out-of-game.
Wounds can cause bleeding, in-game and out-of-game.
A good punch can knock somebody out, in-game and out-of-game.
In melee combat, you can attempt to parry incoming attacks, in-game and out-of-game
A mile is 5280 feet, in-game and out-of-game.

SDC?

Represents the real-world physical damage capacity.
Imperfectly, but nothing is perfect.

More importantly, the point is not that everything in-game is also out-of-game, but rather that the fact that something is in-game does not mean that it is NOT out-of-game.

Dodging bullets?

Done all the time in the real world, same way it's done in the game.
Somebody starts shooting at you, you start moving out of the way (if you're lucky).

Combat Cyborgs?
Magic?

Hypothetical situations.

As well, your examples don't mesh with reality, but instead only create a facsimile of it. A scientist (or anyone for that matter) with advanced math doesn't neccessarily know all the aspects of it, though they may know one area thoroughly.

Yup.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Huh.
I guess that maybe the fact that the game and reality do not always reflect one another doesn't mean that they never reflect one another, or that they never should.

Verisimilitude is not reality though; it represents in-game reality where I could go and learn magic, or recieve brain implants that made me run faster, lift more, see further, etc...
Where as reality does not offer such things. It's the little differences like that that factor into the whole.

None of which means that the game shouldn't strive to represent reality as closely as possible while still maintaining playability.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Besides your musings on how a person could possibly forget how to count in a stressful situation (as indicated by "not as accurately"),

When I said, "quit making things up." I guess I should have also said, "and quit repeating stuff you've already made up."

I don't see any fault in your arguement. Though you're apparently sticky on counting troops - I say it's redundant to enforce such a roll.
That is the topic of the thread - useless skills. He (Prysus) has even stated that he can't recall a single time he's had a player roll the skill; maybe because he too sees the things you're making players roll for as trivial and redundant.

That sort of thing doesn't come up in the game often.
This does not mean that there shouldn't be rules for it.

That has been my point from the beginning - why bother with a percentage that you're never going to roll? Why not have the skill be automatic instead of allowing GMs to enforce nit-picky uses on a simple skill?

Because then anybody and everybody with basic math is a walking calculator who is incapable of making mistakes. A 9th grader is equal in ability to the best computer in the world when it comes to counting and basic math.
And that simply isn't realistic; the game loses verisimilitude.

I too see that the skill should be included, but it should be the "general athletics" of the science department; all bonuses and nothing to roll.

Why?
What's the big frickin' deal about having a percentage chance for the skill even if you never really use it?
Or especially if you never use it?
Just looking at that percentage number bugs you THAT much?

Or are you hinging your entire view here on the notion that if a crappy GM can abuse something, then that something should be scrapped?
Because if so, then everything should be scrapped, because everything can be abused.

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:32 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:Why?
What's the big frickin' deal about having a percentage chance for the skill even if you never really use it?
Or especially if you never use it?
Just looking at that percentage number bugs you THAT much?

Or are you hinging your entire view here on the notion that if a crappy GM can abuse something, then that something should be scrapped?
Because if so, then everything should be scrapped, because everything can be abused.

The point is that there is redundacy there; why? That's all I'm asking. Why include something that a person never uses, like laser communications? That I and other posters view basic math the same way is just one skill that we're adding as an example. That I never use it and that you only use it rarely (and for something most of us would call trivial or redundant I might add) says something about the skill.

The problem isn't that it bugs us to look at it, but that we don't know why it's included.

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:03 pm**

Well I'm glad it is there for every time our Operator uses it.

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:58 pm**

Dog_O_War wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:Why?
What's the big frickin' deal about having a percentage chance for the skill even if you never really use it?
Or especially if you never use it?
Just looking at that percentage number bugs you THAT much?

Or are you hinging your entire view here on the notion that if a crappy GM can abuse something, then that something should be scrapped?
Because if so, then everything should be scrapped, because everything can be abused.

The point is that there is redundacy there; why? That's all I'm asking. Why include something that a person never uses, like laser communications? That I and other posters view basic math the same way is just one skill that we're adding as an example. That I never use it and that you only use it rarely (and for something most of us would call trivial or redundant I might add) says something about the skill.

Which is better:
-Having rules for a rarely used skill?
-Not having rules for a rarely used skill?

I have to go with option A. One the rare occasion that I use the skill, I like to have rules for it instead of just fudging something.

The problem isn't that it bugs us to look at it, but that we don't know why it's included.

Because it is sometimes used.
If it wasn't there, then there'd be people complaining that there aren't any rules to cover certain situations.
A cost/benefit analysis of the rule shows that it might have a pretty low benefit, but an even lower cost.
So it's worth doing.

Also, like any other skill, you could build a campaign where it's used constantly, if you felt like it.
Then the cost remains the same (virtually none), but the benefit rises tremendously.

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:59 pm**

Natasha wrote:Well I'm glad it is there for every time our Operator uses it.

For example?

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:17 am**

I know this was a while back, but I just noticed it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:As for Laser Communications, the only reason that's a space-waster is because AFAIK there aren't any laser communication devices in Rifts.

You don't think anyone uses Fiber Optics on Rifts Earth?

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:24 am**

Rogue_Scientist wrote:
Jesterzzn wrote:I know this was a while back, but I just noticed it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:As for Laser Communications, the only reason that's a space-waster is because AFAIK there aren't any laser communication devices in Rifts.

You don't think anyone uses Fiber Optics on Rifts Earth?

I think what he means is that it doesn't come up very often in a campaign.

If he'd meant that, then he'd have aknowledged the point I was making about Basic Math; that skill rarely comes up in a campaign. Hell I've never used it or seen it used in the 8 years I've been playing Rifts and HU, and we've got people here admitting that they cannot recall a single time the skill was used in 20+ years of gaming.

He means that laser-communications is basically never used in Rifts, and is clearly too unheroic to bother being used in an HU game (where it's far more relevant and appropriate).

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:00 am**

Jesterzzn wrote:I know this was a while back, but I just noticed it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:As for Laser Communications, the only reason that's a space-waster is because AFAIK there aren't any laser communication devices in Rifts.

You don't think anyone uses Fiber Optics on Rifts Earth?

Pretty much.

I don't remember ever seeing any statted out anywhere.

They seem to use radios for most communication purposes in Rifts, for some reason.
Have they ever even mentioned telephones in any of the books anywhere?

It's just one of the many vacuums in the game-world that could have and should have been covered in one of the many, many books put out over the past x years or so since the game came out.

As far as I can tell, Laser Systems is a skill with no official use within the game.
When do you use that skill? Whenever dealing with systems that have never been statted out or even mentioned in any of the books.

At least, not to the best of my knowledge.
Somebody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, and I'll retract the statement.

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:59 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:They seem to use radios for most communication purposes in Rifts, for some reason.
Have they ever even mentioned telephones in any of the books anywhere?

It's just one of the many vacuums in the game-world that could have and should have been covered in one of the many, many books put out over the past x years or so since the game came out.

As far as I can tell, Laser Systems is as kill with no official use within the game.
When do you use that skill? Whenever dealing with systems that have never been statted out or even mentioned in any of the books.

At least, not to the best of my knowledge.
Somebody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, and I'll retract the statement.

Unless something better comes along (or Palladium specifies otherwise), I'm sure they use fiber to link everything within the cities and military outposts.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:12 am**

Laser comms could pretty easily be used all over Chi-town or any place with decent tech; hell if it has computers, it probably has laser comms such as IrDA. Longer range terrestrial applications (such as free space optical devices) will have problems in snow and fog, etc, but it has a number of advantages going for it, including high data rates and it's pretty easy to set up if you have the skill to do so. Today's geeks usually get started by modding their old laser tag guns and sensors to create laser comms systems.

It can be used for comms between spaceships and satellite clusters, too - laser comms are especially efficient in the vacuum of space.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:19 pm**

Rogue_Scientist wrote:
Jesterzzn wrote:I know this was a while back, but I just noticed it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:As for Laser Communications, the only reason that's a space-waster is because AFAIK there aren't any laser communication devices in Rifts.

You don't think anyone uses Fiber Optics on Rifts Earth?

I think what he means is that it doesn't come up very often in a campaign. Even if you think Chi-Town is laced with a Fiber Optic internet or something, there's still not a whole hell of a lot of reason for a character to take it. Probably to the point where it doesn't even need to be a skill. Is there a "Waste Management" skill? No. You just assume somebody handles the trash somehow. *shrug*

Well, what about when your characters need to hack into or disrupt the network?

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 6:22 pm**

Well, what about when your characters need to hack into or disrupt the network?

You'd do the same thing you do when there isn't a skill for it.

And because there isn't really any attibrute test* or such like, what that is is you fudge/make up something.

Also it's just not that fun to think about whether waste management would actually make you any better at using a toilet seat in a fight. I'd say no - actually what might not be fun is the idea that I have to argue or bicker or just deal with a players excitement oozing away and a look of boredom if I just say no. Same goes for basic maths and counting enemy shots - I don't really think it could do that, but having to argue with a player over it is a real turn off - and having to run under the assumption just seems silly, which is a turn off.

* If there is one somewhere, that's cool - then that's what you'd use instead of having laser systems or basic math hovering around like vestigial organs.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 6:51 pm**

The only point of a skills system is to determine what a character may or may not be able to do. Maths, language, driving, etc. Many times we don't roll against them, but we still have them. If we don't, then we can't do them. You need a computer hacker to know you need a laser comms expert. You need to be able to speak a language to speak a language (usually). You need to be able to do basic maths to basic maths.

As opposed to a system that - for instance - has you merely rolling under an attribute number that's marginally related to a skill you've never had a drop of training in.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:44 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Jesterzzn wrote:I know this was a while back, but I just noticed it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:As for Laser Communications, the only reason that's a space-waster is because AFAIK there aren't any laser communication devices in Rifts.

You don't think anyone uses Fiber Optics on Rifts Earth?

Pretty much.

I don't remember ever seeing any statted out anywhere.

They seem to use radios for most communication purposes in Rifts, for some reason.
Have they ever even mentioned telephones in any of the books anywhere?

It's just one of the many vacuums in the game-world that could have and should have been covered in one of the many, many books put out over the past x years or so since the game came out.

As far as I can tell, Laser Systems is a skill with no official use within the game.
When do you use that skill? Whenever dealing with systems that have never been statted out or even mentioned in any of the books.

At least, not to the best of my knowledge.
Somebody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, and I'll retract the statement.

The Merc Ops books introduces two high powered laser communication systems from Wilks. Need the laser comm skill to use those. There's also cell phones in the book as well.

Merc Town also introduces a city telephone exchange that builds and maintains the city wide telephone and cell phone systems, and I think a internet based system. I believe it mentioned being just less modern than the CS system.

Forums of the Megaverse®

Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?

Re: Laser Systems & Other Useless Skills?