Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Karma
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
blakkie
@hahnsoo

That sounds like a good suggestion. Not that i think it is going to be anything other than a self regulating 'problem', but that sounds pretty easy to implement.
booklord
QUOTE
I personally think the best way to house rule the supposed problem of attributes being weighted higher than skills is to simply limit the net hits available by the skill being used (if any... there are several tests that don't use skills at all), as suggested by one of the folks earlier (can't remember who at the moment). This way, skill is valuable (you can't achieve extraordinary success without high skill), but attributes are valuable as well (a raw talent with a single skill point can still do a task pretty consistently). A similar mechanic already exists for Magic (net hits are limited by the spell's Force), so it's analogous to that. Best of all, you don't radically change the original dice mechanic.


Doesn't this system fall apart when you consider skills like Dodge and Perception? I don't think a blanket rule works here. Some skills should be limited by their skill level while others should not.
hahnsoo
QUOTE (booklord)
Doesn't this system fall apart when you consider skills like Dodge and Perception? I don't think a blanket rule works here. Some skills should be limited by their skill level while others should not.

Thus, the second part of my post, which you really can't ignore:
QUOTE
I think in my group, we are going to make it optional for the GM to impose that limitation. Call it an "Expertise Skill test", which simply means that the net hits are limited by the base skill, and use that for any technically limited tasks.
Cain
QUOTE
I'm going to come out and say that I completely disagree with that. I can be trained in programing and still not know say...c++. Theres a lot of programers out there that are very intelligent, that program in VB6 (though just cause of that one might question their intelligence wink.gif ). If you sit that extreamly intelligent and trained individual down infront of a C++ program, he's going to look at you funny and tell you he doesn't know how that stuff works.

You know, here's a funny thing... I was just talking to a programmer friend of mine. He told me that he pretty much learned C++ by sitting around and playing with a compiler. I think he also used the equivalent of a "C++ for Dummies" book to help him through the rough spots. I also know quite a few web designers who learned HTML by sitting around and playing with it... come to think of it, of all the people I know at Microsoft, I think I only know one who actually had formal training in computer programming. (And if you're wondering how many people I know at Microsoft, take a look at my location.)

QUOTE
-5 to his dice pool? I bet thats what you're asking about now. Why -5? Natural Learning ability gets you only so far. To me its what allows him to even make the test. Effectively he gets the bonus die i gave him due to his familiarity, and his 1 in computers. His Logic stat is locked up trying to figure out things he's never seen before and isn't just there to help him overpower the system.

That's fine if that's how you want to run a house system; but that isn't reflected in either the rules or reality. I've seen people "figure out" things by playing around with them-- it's pretty common. Heck, let's take an informal poll: of everyone here who knows HTML, how many of you took a formal class in it?

One thing natural ability does for you is this-- you figure things out much faster. I've seen this in martial arts, in computer programing, math skills, sports, acting... the list goes on and on. Sure, you can *train* yourself to match them, maybe even exceed them-- but they'll always have the edge, especially if they train just as hard.

Besides which, where are you going to draw the line? At skill 2? 3? what if he's got Computer 5, but no Security Systems knowledge skill? Are you going to toss in more and more arbitrary penalties?

In just about every case I can think of, you're always "locking up" your full attribute and skill into a test. The only time you wouldn't be, would be when you're withholding some dice, for some reason. His Logic stat should be just as useful a skill 1 at skill 6, simply because he doesn't magically become more ligical as his skill increases.
blakkie
I was programming in an OO manner before hardly a whisper of it escaped Bell labs. I just didn't know it. Then i taught myself Smalltalk, which felt extremely natural. Then C++ wandered by and it was like i knew it all my life. Programming was always like that to me. From the first time i picked up the Coco Color Basic book, it was always like i had been programming before i was.

So i guess that is why having the Attribute as part of, or solely comprising a dice pool really doesn't strike me as a particularly bad abstraction.
kigmatzomat
I think nerfing the low skill character is bad since you're eliminating "Right Skill, Right Time" karma awards. Any skill that isn't common is by definition UNcommon and is going to be at a low level. My character lived by the "right skill" karma since every time we got boned for not being able to do something I went out and became at least minimally proficient in it. We had to walk out of Aztlan b/c someone blew up all the ground vehicles and we couldn't fly the chopper. I learned chopper and several other pilot skills; a year later it saved our bacon when the same thing happened in Germany. I couldn't fly well but I could fly.

The example programmer who only knows VB and can't code C++? He's got skill 1 and specialized in VB (+2 dice). I'm a crappy programmer but I can read virtually every programming language out there. Give me a decent IDE & compiler and I can write crude but functional code. I have low skill (no elegance or finesse) but I can make something that works, no matter how slowly or convoluted the end result might be.

B/R type tasks (which includes most computer jobs) should all be extended tasks. Hacking into a system, I'll point out, consists of extended tests. Active skills are things you succeed or fail. Knowledge skills are equally all or nothing.

Failure should be it's own penalty. If they miss shooting the guy, he gets away. That's probably bad. If they don't know if you add acid+water or water+acid they will learn the hard way. Stop making the tasks more difficult and simply enforce the consequences of the task's failure.
mintcar
I wouldnīt give huge negative modifiers like Shadow Prophet, but if the game still has difficulties (and it does right? higher threshold and dice pool modifiers) I will adjust them as I see fit. Thatīs part of the rules. Now Iīm not suggesting "arbitrary" "nerfing" of low skill values. Neither am I suggesting that you could not learn or adapt very quickly if you are naturally proficient. However, if you got 1 or 2 in a skill and the task clearly craves detailed understanding, I will set the difficulty higher than if you had more skill. Likewise, if you have a low attribute and the task cleary craves physical or mental prowess, you would also be less likely to succeed than you would if you had a higher attribute value. I donīt even know if I will ever enforce this, but I could without a doubt do it if it felt right. As I think Sabosect said: who cares if you got the difficulty right if it makes sense? All Im saying is that difficulties are set by the GM. If you think skills should be more important, that is your chance of making them so.
Adarael
Mechanically, rules-wise, all roleplaying aside for a moment...

The shadowrun 4 system will encourage players and will in fact reward them for keeping attributes higher than skills. Having played L5R 1st edition a great deal - a game where attributes cost more than skills, but the rolling system was attribute+skill - very rarely did I see players opt to raise their skills rather than attributes. They would tend to do so only if they couldn't afford it, or if they couldn't rationalize being as low-skill as their sheets said.

The benefits of spending 20 karma to raise your agility to 4, thus adding a die to the wide spectrum of agility skills, versus paying 16 karma to raise two of the skills tagged to agility to 4 is just too great for most players to ignore.

QUOTE
We had to walk out of Aztlan b/c someone blew up all the ground vehicles and we couldn't fly the chopper. I learned chopper and several other pilot skills; a year later it saved our bacon when the same thing happened in Germany. I couldn't fly well but I could fly.


This is precisely what I regard as right-skill, right-time. When everything you have is riding on someone having something obscure. And incidentally, I bought rotorcraft for exactly the same reason, and it saved my ass exactly the same way.

Well, not exactly the same. The first time we deliberately had ourselves deported rather than walk across the pacific ocean.
shimrod
Just a thing : why a experience system different from the creation system ? Why karma costs seem to be different than the character creation ?

Rotbart van Dainig
Perhaps SJG hat a secret patent on the solution. wobble.gif
Autarkis
It also depends on the training time of skills vs. attributes. An attribute can be cheaper to raise than a skill, but if the time it to raise an attribute is a month per point while the time to raise a skill is a week per point, that would seem to level the playing field.

I have played in games where there were attribute and skills that were rolled together and skills linked to the same attribute. Even though it was about the same or just a little more expensive to raise an attribute, the training time steered people towards raising their skill.

QUOTE
New Specialization (tack on a +2 for the Specialization, only ONE specialization is allowed for any skill, and new specializations "overwrite" the old ones, but only at GM's discretion) - 2 Karma
(Special Note: Raising a Skill above 6 costs double the usual amount of Karma, and can only be done if you have Aptitude in that skill)
Improving an Active Skill by 1 - (New Rating) x 2 Karma
Improving an Active Skill Group by 1 - (New Rating) x 5 Karma
Improving an Attribute by 1 - (New Rating) x 3 Karma
Improving a Knowledge/Language skill by 1 - (New Rating) Karma


So even though it is X3 to raise an attribute and X2 to raise a Skill (or X5 for a Skill Group), if it takes 10 times longer to raise the attribute, players will raise their skills first.
blakkie
In game training time? Is this in the rules?
Ellery
Most programmers pick up at least a couple of levels in the "programming language skill group". If you only ever program in one language, you may not get exposed to programming concepts in other languages, and you won't have much luck with code that relies heavily on those concepts. For example, switching from Fortran 77, which has no pointers, to C, where everything and its dog is a pointer, can be a difficult experience. Switching from C, where you say exactly what happens, to Prolog, where you don't really directly specify anything that happens, can also be a difficult experience.

Raw talent doesn't help much if one doesn't have the experience to know what to do--it just aids in picking it up faster. The differential costs of linked skills in SR3 reflected that. But it also made learning rules more complicated.
blakkie
QUOTE (Ellery)
Most programmers pick up at least a couple of levels in the "programming language skill group". If you only ever program in one language, you may not get exposed to programming concepts in other languages, and you won't have much luck with code that relies heavily on those concepts. For example, switching from Fortran 77, which has no pointers, to C, where everything and its dog is a pointer, can be a difficult experience. Switching from C, where you say exactly what happens, to Prolog, where you don't really directly specify anything that happens, can also be a difficult experience.

Raw talent doesn't help much if one doesn't have the experience to know what to do--it just aids in picking it up faster. The differential costs of linked skills in SR3 reflected that. But it also made learning rules more complicated.

From personal experience i can say had no noticable difficulty moving between those senarios. None.

So actually, yes raw talent can be the world of difference. Not just learning, but in execution.

Now try to think of an Attribute as including basic knowledge about how to use the raw talent in a very wide set of senarios, as in all Skills linked to the Attribute. For example there is physical strength, and then there is the ability to move your body and best use that strength to accomplish a task. The Attribute Strength would include both of those, not just the former.
Ellery
You're saying that you learned to program in an environment without any pointers, and you were as good as someone who had been trained in building linked lists and trees and stuff, without any instruction, immediately upon switching?

I find that hard to believe.

The OOP stuff I can believe because there were lots of people programming in an OOP-like style (usually not counting virtual functions and multiple inheritance, however) before OO became popular.
blakkie
QUOTE (Ellery @ Aug 27 2005, 03:12 PM)
You're saying that you learned to program in an environment without any pointers, and you were as good as someone who had been trained in building linked lists and trees and stuff, without any instruction, immediately upon switching?

I find that hard to believe.

Within a few hours of picking up a C book and reading it to myself being as compitent as many computer/electronics majors with a [passing] semester of C programming class? Sure. *shrug* I found pointers, to pointers, to pointers, to functions extremely easy, in no small part because i already wanted them. Maybe i cheated a bit by also having taught myself 6809 assembly/ML a few years before that?

Of course you find this hard to believe. What allowed me to do it is a certain flexibility in thought that you are incapable of or choose not to use. It allows me to very quickly switch paradynes.

On the other hand you appear to be the very personification of the metaphor H.P. Lovecraft based his concept of horror on. The [scientific] view of the world that when faced with a reality different than what it accepts is driven into total madness trying to consolidate the two.
Sharaloth
Just for the personal attack on someone else, I call bullshit.

A programming prodigy you may be, but I've taken a few semesters of C programming, and your few hours of reading a book to yourself would not have brought you up to the level I was on after that. A couple months? Sure, I dig that. Even one month of hard study and learning would have topped anything I could do, but a few hours? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
blakkie
QUOTE (Sharaloth @ Aug 27 2005, 04:40 PM)
Just for the personal attack on
someone else, I call bullshit.


It isn't so much a personal attack. It is an observation on a limitation. If you dig a number of months back you can see me say right up front "i'm going to do this" and then Ellery -still- bites for several posts (and i suspect would still be posting if i had the time or inclination) because of said blind spot.

QUOTE
A programming prodigy you may be, but I've taken a few semesters of C programming, and you're few hours of reading a book to yourself would not have brought you up to the level I was on after that. A couple months? Sure, I dig that. Even one month of hard study and learning would have topped anything I could do, but a few hours? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Did i say multiple semesters? Did i say everyone? Nope, and nope.
Sharaloth
You said one semester, I was referring to a single semester of this learning (but I took multiple semesters, which has no bearing on how good I was at this after one). Did you say everyone? No, you said 'many', but unless you were referring to the low acheivers who barely pass the class due to whatever measures such people take, then you were putting yourself about on par with my abilities at the end of a single semester of C programming after you only spent a few hours with a book. Therefore I called bullshit.

I wouldn't have said anything if you hadn't used the personal attack (and I really don't care what history you have with Ellery and the inanities that fly between you two, lively and vicious debate is good and fine, but don't start calling other people stupid {or mentally inflexible, or a lovecraftian scientist, or whatever}. It just annoys me when people do that undeservedly. Ellery may indeed be mentally inflexible, or he might be able to bend his thoughts into mobius strips at will, I don't know that and you don't know that. But he's got a position and you've got a position, and you're making grandiose statements about yourself while insulting someone else, so you will get called on it every now and then.). But now that I've said it, I still don't necessarily support either of the points of view here.
nezumi
Another important thing to keep in mind, there is a difference between reading code and writing code.

Presume you're hacking into a computer to figure out the secretly encoded 'latch' to unlock something. You read through the hololisp code, muddle it out and there you go! An intelligent person should be able to do that with some work and luck.

Now assume you've found out in advance that the login for a program has a buffer overflow error, and you need to hack the system by putting in assembly code directly into the buffer, but you've never programmed or read assembly before and you have no examples to go off of! In this case, being just as good with your 1 skill in programming makes absolutely no sense. You simply don't have the skill and have nothing to draw on.

Most of the examples given so far are learning how to use a different language, oftentimes on the fly. That may be part of programming in a language, but not all of our tests will be so kind.
SL James
QUOTE (blakkie @ Aug 27 2005, 04:02 PM)
Of course you find this hard to believe. What allowed me to do it is a certain flexibility in thought that you are incapable of or choose not to use. It allows me to very quickly switch paradynes.

You mean paradigms?

I bet your code just looks lovely.
Cain
Nezumi-- maybe not, but you *might* be able to. That's essentially why you have to make the test-- it's not a guarantee.

I can see penalizing someone for having a skill of 0-- but then again, that's covered under defaulting. With skill of 1, under an abstract system, that means equivalent proficiency in all programming languages-- it might be equally basic, but that's how it works under the abstraction that is a gaming system.

That fact that you've got fewer dice to use seems to be penalty enough. I mean, clearly Logic 6 and Skill 6 trumps Logic 6 and skill 1! The fact that you've got less dice than an equally-talented person with greater skill should be enough of a disadvantage, particularily under a multiple-success system.
Ellery
QUOTE
Maybe i cheated a bit by also having taught myself 6809 assembly/ML a few years before that?
Unless you only used registers, I'd say so. Almost everything is effectively a pointer in assembly language, even more so than in C.

(In fact, this is why I think intro CS courses should be in either assembly language or a lisp variant--one puts one face to face with the hardware fundamentals upon which all languages build, while the other contains essentially all computer programming paradigms.)

As to the malleability of a scientific world view, I'll point out that rigid, inflexible thinkers typically do poorly in science, since reality isn't kind enough to shape itself according to most people's initial ideas and wishes.

I'm not sure whether various qualities of mine are relevant here. It's not like I can stop you from assuming whatever you want, so it'd be rather foolish to try.

Since you referred to it, the reason I tend to avoid posting to you is because it's hard to tell when you're going to say something useful, and when you're going to degenerate into sarcasm, irrelevancy, and/or personal attacks. I guess I misjudged this time.

QUOTE (Sharaloth)
unless you were referring to the low acheivers who barely pass the class due to whatever measures such people take

There are depressingly many such people, unfortunately. It's nice if you're after an A, since they drag the curve down. It's annoying to try to teach them, however. Still, I wouldn't characterize them as "many", so your criticism makes sense to me.
Cheops
Swordfish Mustardball
fistandantilus4.0
karma nazi
biggrin.gif
"No karma for you!"
nezumi
QUOTE (Cain)
Nezumi-- maybe not, but you *might* be able to. That's essentially why you have to make the test-- it's not a guarantee.

So you're suggesting that, without reference materials or sample code, a man who can program in one language can program in a totally different one he's never even seen?

Not to be rude, but do you have any programming experience?

In SR3 I'd allow it, but that's what TNs of 25+ are for.

Of course, if the character has access to the intraweb (all hail google) or sample code, it becomes a bit more feasible. TN of 6-10 depending on complexity and time constraints. But the truth is, in that case it's either search for information tests (what should this piece of code look like?) or teaching yourself (how is this language similar to one I already know?), NOT a programming test (or at least, not primarily a programming test). Programming skill would work more like a comlementary skill with the information search skill being more dominant.
hobgoblin
never mind...
blakkie
QUOTE (Ellery @ Aug 27 2005, 06:37 PM)
QUOTE
Maybe i cheated a bit by also having taught myself 6809 assembly/ML a few years before that?
Unless you only used registers, I'd say so. Almost everything is effectively a pointer in assembly language, even more so than in C.

So i guess for me the comparison would be going ColorBasic to Assembly, and yah that was pretty natural too. I don't recall really reading much in the way of a programming tutorial, just how to plug in the compiler cartrige, and getting the text feed into the assembler. Assembly, at least at that time, was pretty straight forward even though the 6809 had a lot of addressing modes like, direct, indirect, offset from register, register offset from register too i think.

In some ways i think Assembly is more of a jump than to C, for example having ML code execute that didn't appear in the Assembly code at all by JMPing into the middle of a multip-byte operation. That was fun.

By far the biggest jump i personally found was the concept of being able to readily crash the machine with code, and it was more just a wierd sensation than anything.

QUOTE
As to the malleability of a scientific world view, I'll point out that rigid, inflexible thinkers typically do poorly in science, since reality isn't kind enough to shape itself according to most people's initial ideas and wishes.


Yes and no. I'm not talking about ability for abstract thought. It is something that can thwart other potential someone has, yes. But all many of people seem to muddle on by compensating with other abilities. wink.gif

Perhaps you should take this up with Mr. Lovecraft? smile.gif

QUOTE
I'm not sure whether various qualities of mine are relevant here.  It's not like I can stop you from assuming whatever you want, so it'd be rather foolish to try.

Since you referred to it, the reason I tend to avoid posting to you is because it's hard to tell when you're going to say something useful, and when you're going to degenerate into sarcasm, irrelevancy, and/or personal attacks.  I guess I misjudged this time.


I'm blunt. Often to a fault. It wasn't ment as an attack. *shrug* I brought it up because it is relavent, in multiple ways.

Exactly what you were getting hung up on i'm not sure. Whether it is the same name, or just instict to have your mindset in SR3. The flexibility i'm talking about is to leave the SR3 behind and change my view to that of the SR4 frame and fully embrace that new frame. I see it as more attitude than intellect. As such it is a general use technique, barring pathelogic things such some symptoms you see on the autism spectrum, someone can theoretically learn. As such it is also an example of how in SR4 you could increase the Logic (or Intuition i suppose) Attribute.

In short an "Attribute" in SR3 isn't what it is in SR4, it is something different. Oddly it is likely a better model of RealLife™.
blakkie
QUOTE (nezumi @ Aug 28 2005, 08:38 AM)
QUOTE (Cain @ Aug 27 2005, 07:14 PM)
Nezumi-- maybe not, but you *might* be able to.  That's essentially why you have to make the test-- it's not a guarantee.

So you're suggesting that, without reference materials or sample code, a man who can program in one language can program in a totally different one he's never even seen? <snipped some other drivel>

So you are suggesting that the "Hololisp" programming environment would come without a online reference manual and examples?
blakkie
@Sharaloth

In the future you might want to take a second moment to think before you ride in and call bullshit on something i did not say. Whatever your motivation.
Sharaloth
I called bullshit on something you did say. Now you're backpedalling and trying to salvage what's left of your pride because your statement was wholly unsupportable. That's okay, I have no problems with your pride or your stated bluntness. However, if you're going to try chastising me for not thinking before I act you should probably do the same thing yourself, and refrain from making bullshit statements.

I did think. You did not. Accept it and get over it.
blakkie
QUOTE (Sharaloth)
I called bullshit on something you did say.

You were talking about multiple semesters and including everyone. Which is most definately not what i said....which i guess brings us to this 'backpedaling' you speak of.
Hell Hound
Some sort of advantage for skills over attributes is something I know for certain I will houserule when I finally get ahold of SR4. I do not believe that someone with no great natural talent for a skill but extensive training and years of experience should be equally matched or bested by a novice who does show a natural talent for the skill.

Blakkie suggested that the attribute was an abstract representation.
QUOTE

... including basic knowledge about how to use the raw talent in a very wide set of senarios, as in all Skills linked to the Attribute...
I personally disagree. If you assume the attribute represents both raw talent and the ability to use it then this implies that anyone with a 'natural talent' (high linked attribute) for, say, programming must also be equally gifted in linguistics, cryptography, biotech, electronics, demolitions, ... or anything and everthing else that might be linked to the same attribute. It also implies that anyone with the right attribute high enough will be perfectly suited to programming.

I am most certainly not a genius but I am capable of writing computer code, not great code but it works. On the other hand I know people that are much smarter than I am who have learned the basics of programming, but are always lost when trying to read computer code. By SR4 rules, these people with their high attribute and low skill should be equal to or better than me with my average attribute and average skill. In reality it's the other way around.

If natural aptitude for skills lies anywhere in the SR4 system it should be represented in the skill itself not the attribute. The natural prodigy should be the character who pours all their karma into the skills they want to master rather than the character who started the game with the maximum rating for their attribute. Thus I believe that a character using the low skill + high attribute combination should not be as capable as someone with high skill + low attribute.

Clyde
I think I know why the SR4 design team never bothered consulting dumpshockers extensively: we have now conclusively proven that everything any ever does or says is demonstrably wrong! grinbig.gif
mintcar
What would Dumpshock be without itīs selfproclaimed geniuses? I see everything is as it should be. Iīm just missing a few familiar names and this could be a real good show. smile.gif
Sharaloth
QUOTE (blakkie @ Aug 28 2005, 11:12 AM)
You were talking about multiple semesters and including everyone. Which is most definately not what i said....which i guess brings us to this 'backpedaling' you speak of.

See above, Re:
QUOTE (Sharaloth @ Aug 27 2005)
You said one semester, I was referring to a single semester of this learning (but I took multiple semesters, which has no bearing on how good I was at this after one). Did you say everyone? No, you said 'many', but unless you were referring to the low acheivers who barely pass the class due to whatever measures such people take, then you were putting yourself about on par with my abilities at the end of a single semester of C programming after you only spent a few hours with a book. Therefore I called bullshit.

Already dealt with. Do not try to deny what you said. Accept this for what it is, and keep your self-aggrandizement to a reasonable level in the future.
blakkie
QUOTE (Sharaloth @ Aug 28 2005, 10:25 AM)
Already dealt with.

...very poorly.

QUOTE
....then you were putting yourself about on par with my abilities at the end of a single semester of C programming...


So is that what this is about, YOUR ego? Not mine. So was it your perception of my afront to Ellery, or just your drive to swing your dick, that lead you to post? But not to worry, as Ellery has judged i guess i cheated. smile.gif

QUOTE
Do not try to deny what you said.


Deny? I'm not denying at all. Where is this denial you speak of?

QUOTE
Accept this for what it is, and keep your self-aggrandizement to a reasonable level in the future.


What it is: Someone that has a good idea of what their strengths are and the sources of the strengths, and is comfortable enough with said strengths (and weaknesses) to talk about them openly. Then using it as a personal experience example.

I'm not the best programmer i ever met or worked with. Definately not the "smartest" person i ever met, not the many aspects of that are very well comparible. Even if you only included these boards. If fact if i thought that raw talent with a bare minimum of training overcoming moderate training of someone that had general abilities that were poorly suited is somehow exceedingly rare it wouldn't make for a very good example, would it?
hobgoblin
QUOTE (mintcar)
What would Dumpshock be without itīs selfproclaimed geniuses? I see everything is as it should be. Iīm just missing a few familiar names and this could be a real good show. smile.gif

hmm, like who?
Sharaloth
Blakkie, I'm dignifying your last attempt to salvage yourself by replying for two reasons: the first is a personal attack on me when personal attacks are the reason I called you on your original BS statement in the first place, the second is that I am a prideful man myself, and often cannot help but respond to attitudes such as yours with ridicule and a generous helping of smack-upside-the-head.

Now, since you're obviously incapable of admitting your own failing I'll address the personal attack alone, and not the rest of the laughable post.

QUOTE
So is that what this is about, YOUR ego? Not mine. So was it your perception of my afront to Ellery, or just your drive to swing your dick, that lead you to post? But not to worry, as Ellery has judged i guess i cheated. smile.gif


This malicious twisting of my statement would be fair, if it weren't the results of a desperate grab for anything to undermine my position. If you'll re-read the statments and think logically and rationally (I know, not something you're inclined to do at the moment, but bear with me) you'll inevitably come to the following series of facts:
1) You stated that you had the eqivalent of 1 passing semester of C programming after a few hours of reading a book.
2) I called you on that BS statement due to an attack you made on Ellery, citing my own experience and knowledge of a true semester of C programming.
3) With the caveat that you could indeed be referring to the people who barely pass the class by the skin of their teeth and don't really learn anything, I surmised you were claiming to put yourself on my level after a single semester of C programming.

Now here's where you're going to have to use that logic and reasoning I was talking about.
If you are to be on my level, and have a passing level of competence, I must have passed the first semester of C programming
If we are disregarding only the lowest possible passing grades, my grade cannot have been among them
If we are disregarding lowest grades, and I am making the argument that you couldn't have acheived the same knowledge as someone with a passing grade in C programming we are not referring to a stellar grade, but one of the lower levels of fair grades
Therefore, if you were to be on my level, I would have to be in the lower strata of passing grades

If saying that I'm not too good at programming is 'swinging my dick', then the definition of that phrase has changed since I learned it. Greatly.

I'm not swinging it, Blakkie, so why don't you try not being one?
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (mintcar)
What would Dumpshock be without itīs selfproclaimed geniuses? I see everything is as it should be. Iīm just missing a few familiar names and this could be a real good show. smile.gif

Sorry, I'm staying out of this one cyber.gif

~J, self-proclaimed genius extraordinaire wink.gif
blakkie
QUOTE (Hell Hound)
Blakkie suggested that the attribute was an abstract representation.
QUOTE

... including basic knowledge about how to use the raw talent in a very wide set of senarios, as in all Skills linked to the Attribute...
I personally disagree. If you assume the attribute represents both raw talent and the ability to use it then this implies that anyone with a 'natural talent' (high linked attribute) for, say, programming must also be equally gifted in linguistics, cryptography, biotech, electronics, demolitions, ... or anything and everthing else that might be linked to the same attribute. It also implies that anyone with the right attribute high enough will be perfectly suited to programming.

I am most certainly not a genius but I am capable of writing computer code, not great code but it works. On the other hand I know people that are much smarter than I am who have learned the basics of programming, but are always lost when trying to read computer code. By SR4 rules, these people with their high attribute and low skill should be equal to or better than me with my average attribute and average skill. In reality it's the other way around.

If natural aptitude for skills lies anywhere in the SR4 system it should be represented in the skill itself not the attribute. The natural prodigy should be the character who pours all their karma into the skills they want to master rather than the character who started the game with the maximum rating for their attribute. Thus I believe that a character using the low skill + high attribute combination should not be as capable as someone with high skill + low attribute.

I think could be looking more along the Skill Groups level there. But yes, you'll have problems when stuffing all the raw base abilities of a person into 8 catagories (or less). Then trying to game balance them. The use of Body in SR3 is a great example of that. Such is the nature of approximation. *shrug*

Same with stuffing all the specialized knowledge and techniques people have into a relatively small set of Skills.

Incidentally how did you handle two characters in SR3 facing off that had equal Skill but one had a higher Attribute? Sure the Attribute came into play elsewhere in the game. But they were given no factoring on the specific opposed Skill test.

Attribute mattered some when learning the skill, but there raising SKill from 1 to 2 was the same whether you had an Attribute 2 or 10.
Kagetenshi
Body was not that important. Intelligence and Quickness were both significantly more powerful in SR3.

~J
blakkie
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Body was not that important. Intelligence and Quickness were both significantly more powerful in SR3.

~J

I think we can leave the 16 Body SR3 Troll discussion on the sidelines today. I think that me failing to cower behind false modesty and say i "have a friend" that took very naturally to something has lead to enough mess for now. wink.gif

I should have been more explicit. What i was specifically thinking about was the use of Body as the linked Attribute for Parachuting, which pretty much felt like an arbritrary decision for the purpose of giving Body something to be linked to.
Kagetenshi
C'mon, you know the burly guys with the strong immune systems were always the best with parachutes wink.gif

Point.

~J
mintcar
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE (mintcar @ Aug 28 2005, 11:17 AM)
What would Dumpshock be without itīs selfproclaimed geniuses? I see everything is as it should be. Iīm just missing a few familiar names and this could be a real good show.  smile.gif

Sorry, I'm staying out of this one cyber.gif

~J, self-proclaimed genius extraordinaire wink.gif

This is my favourite post of the week. smile.gif
WorkOver
ok, I have been lurking here for about a year, and this is my first post, so here goes, noobie hash post inc!


Why do you people bother even buying SR4? This thread degenerated into a flame fest over a rule, not yet read, and 10 posts about house rules.

the rule is what it is. Att + skill = pool. The sheer amount of karma it takes to raise anything would point to the fact that atts are impoirtant because it would take around 5 sessions to raise a skill group, one crummy point.

So what, the system allows for natural talent, why do you even need a house rule here?

I mean, playing and having fun is the point, playing 5 sessions to raise one thing on your sheet, one stinking time doesn't sound like fun.

Having a house rule nerf your stats that you bought within the confines of the rules sounds even less fun.

I have a 226 karma troll, I played for anbout 6 years. He is a phyiscal adept, is a grade 8 intiate.

He has a cooking skill of 8, and is specialized in cajun cooking. His cooking skill is higher than his unarmed combat skill, and his thrown objects skill.

The old system allowed for karma to be wasted building skills that made you a person.

With this new system, I saw in a previous thread that with that same 226 karma, I will maybe have a magic of 8. Powers seem to be cheaper, but jesus, the system is hella harsh on karma.

No way I could play this toon for so long if a GM with a chip on his shoulder told me that I am stuck with my crappy stats because he wants to award 3 karma in a session requiring me to play 15 sessions to raise a skill group a point, because he feels that my skill limits how much of my attribute I can use.

Why even conscider buying rules just to house rule them. Why not play SR3, or better yet, save your money and design your own game?
Aku
well, if you've been reading DS for a year, you should know that, as a general rule, we're the digital equivalant of the two old guys from "grumpy old men" we just love to disagree with others most of thew time, no matter how much we really love them....
blakkie
QUOTE (Sharaloth @ Aug 28 2005, 11:53 AM)
Blakkie, I'm dignifying your last attempt to salvage yourself by replying for two reasons:

You certainly think highly of your posts if you feel they impart some sort of dignity? wink.gif

QUOTE
QUOTE
So is that what this is about, YOUR ego? Not mine. So was it your perception of my afront to Ellery, or just your drive to swing your dick, that lead you to post? But not to worry, as Ellery has judged i guess i cheated. smile.gif


This malicious twisting of my statement <snip>


You mean that you including you own personal experience, and a assessment of it, in your post doesn't mean that it completely ego driven? Well gooolee-gee Gomer. wobble.gif

QUOTE
If you'll re-read the statments and think logically and rationally... <snip>


Setting aside that grade has only a partial correlation to underlying ability, you could save a lot of text if you'd just cough up a letter/number. Was it a "B+", "C-", "D+"? Because if i was to hang a grade on it, i'd say ya within a few hours i could have written a "C" level, on the curve, final project for an 1 semester C introduction course. Maybe better, depending on how demanding the prof is for whatever his style preferences were. If you want to split hairs and say that isn't equal or greater than "many", then fine. Insert your choice of word there.

QUOTE
If saying that I'm not too good at programming is 'swinging my dick', then the definition of that phrase has changed since I learned it. Greatly.


Well some people just have more dick to swing i guess, sorry you come up short. wink.gif

QUOTE (out of order)
the first is a personal attack on me when personal attacks are the reason I called you on your original BS statement in the first place, the second is that I am a prideful man myself, and often cannot help but respond to attitudes such as yours with ridicule and a generous helping of smack-upside-the-head.


AIR BALL!!!!
Kagetenshi
The Slayer at work.

~J
blakkie
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Aug 28 2005, 03:53 PM)
The Slayer at work.

~J

hush you nyahnyah.gif

P.S. I'm sure he's a nice enough guy, and likely even means well. He just, you know, kicked the wrong dog.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012