Forums of the Megaverse®

macksting wrote:In essence, I feel some weapons are harder to use than others, and in fact some are so tricky that they should probably require a proficiency before you can even use them without embarrassing yourself; while some are sufficiently simple to use that, even if you don't use it skillfully, a natural aptitude should be visible from the start. How do others feel about this?

The fighter types are going to be familiar with a lot of weapons, but probably not all of them. In the majority of cases I would say a fighter can use a weapon without training. But then I actually fight against someone untrained with a weapon and I kicked his ass. So I've changed my mind on this. If you're not trained, you're just going to get your ass kicked by somebody who is.

I don't think natural aptitude is sufficient enough to matter. If you're a rockstar, then you probably get an O.C.C. covering you. Otherwise, you're just like all the others with Math: Basic, level 1.

macksting wrote:So you feel no amount of aptitude can assist a novice, regardless of the weapon?

Against a trained opponent, no.
Against an untrained opponent, maybe.

To show an amplitude for something, I use the "Special Human Traits & Abilities" table in Rifts Lone Star. This table is something that PB got right for a megaversal application.

The only change might be to switch the human mutant and human numbers of abilities from 0-1/1-2/2-3 to 1-0/2-1/3-2.

In some other game systems (not named here. no conversions implied.) some skills could more difficult to learn or cost more points to buy. Those games may offer advantages or feats to represent natural aptitudes for those specific types of skills.

The Palladium system has no generic advantages or feats available to all characters. Each advantage is pre-built into the OCC/PCC/RCC that you select. For example, some characters may start with the Sharpshooting W.P. or specialized bonuses to other skills.
But you knew that.

Uhhhh..where was I going with this? Oh yeah.
Percentage skills start at different levels to represent how difficult they are to learn.
A skill that starts at 40% is going to be easier to perform than one at 12%.
I'm not sure if there are rules for attempting a skill you have no training with.
But Weapons, Hand to Hand are different. Either you know how to do it or you don't, and there are penalties if you don't.

In real life I agree that some skills are more difficult to learn. I also think that some people may have a natural aptitude for certain things. Where that comes from, I don't know.
There are probably many factors at work, and its different with each situation.

I'm not sure how to reflect that in the game other than make up more rules and complicate it even more.

Aptitudes and Abilities

An aptitude is a natural talent, inclination, impulse or preference that gives an individual the potential to excel at certain activities or fields of study. A commonly measured aptitude is the intelligence quotient or IQ, a well-known indicator of academic aptitude or the potential to do well in school.

With recognition, encouragement, training and practice, any aptitude can be turned into ability. An ability -- a term that is interchangeable with skill -- indicates something a person is able to do well. One can develop an ability to do something without the natural aptitude for it, through hard work and adaptation.

https://access.bridges.com/usa/en_US/choices/pro/content/parent/highschool/carplan/aptitudes/feature.html

Natasha wrote:

macksting wrote:So you feel no amount of aptitude can assist a novice, regardless of the weapon?

Against a trained opponent, no.
Against an untrained opponent, maybe.

I tend to agree. Even with melee weapons. I did Kendo and Iaido seriously for a year and couldn't hold a candle to the experienced practitioners at the Detroit Kendo Tournament the year I went. Sure I could defeat people near my level of experience, but anyone that had been doing it for over three years or so could waste me every time. In short, I think training and practice count for most skill.

I believe that people that shoot well intuitively is because they understand how to shoot, or some of it's principles at least without being told. Training and practice can bring most people up to similar level I believe, as long as they truely give it full effort. I also believe that training and practice is much more important than natural ability for things like effective weapons usage, unless both people are unskilled.

Wushu Chain Whip.

Sorry I thought you were asking for weapons difficult to learn.

Natasha wrote:Wushu Chain Whip.

i found the chain whip easier to learn than the tonfa.
the problem here is we are not looking at the fact that some people will grasp some things more capably than others. for me the chain whip came easily however the tonfa and sai i found much more difficult to "master" (by this i mean use cofidently and competently).

I wouldn't say slightly trained people. But trained. Properly trained that is. After a year of Kendo, I could consistently defeat all the newbs, but the more experienced guys (the ones that had at least two mre years experience) could always defeat me. What I really want to say is I believe level of training and effort trumps natural ability in weapons usage. Now once you get people of equal training and learning, that's when the other variables such as hand and eye coordination come into play.

Now let me ask this, does anyone think that hand-eye coordination of most people can not be improved?

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Natasha wrote:Wushu Chain Whip.

i found the chain whip easier to learn than the tonfa.
the problem here is we are not looking at the fact that some people will grasp some things more capably than others. for me the chain whip came easily however the tonfa and sai i found much more difficult to "master" (by this i mean use cofidently and competently).

Wow, cool.
Anything with sections give me problems, seems. Even nunchakus.

Jerell wrote:Now let me ask this, does anyone think that hand-eye coordination of most people can not be improved?

Yes.
In Palladium that's manifested in choosing physical skills and then never again, of course, unless you take a physical skill later in life. (though I still maintain that P.P. is not hand-eye )

I agree that natural apptitude will manifest more with training. I have played in game systems designed to mimick this where they use atributes as a type of skill multiplier. The better the attribute, the better the multiplier to the skill and thus the higher the skill level.

However, I am not sure this is always the case. I have personally witnessed a novice, in an actual combat situation, beat down a skilled person. They were both armed with sticks. One a bat, the other a baton. You might say that the person with the bat got lucky (nat 20), but I don't think so. He was just in much better physical shape and frankly had a natural aptitude to beat the hell out of people with sticks. One of the Discovery type channels has a show that deals with this exact premise. They have a group of natural athletes, and they compete in combat competitions with people who have been trained in those specialties in some cases for their entire lives. The Athletes do not always win, infact sometimes they lose badly, but they do sometimes win.

On the matter of PP representing hand eye coordination, I think its self evident. Dexterity is commonly defined as the use of the hands to perform fine motor skills or feats of hand-eye coordination. Agility is the ability to move the body and includes things like balance, reaction, and reflexes. They are both covered by PP.

to qoute a book, exiles honer by murcadise lackey
"tallent can make you good, practics can make you a master" hearld albrice the weapons master