Forums of the Megaverse®

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Curbludgeon wrote:Considering the illiteracy involved, I'd go with a color coded paper doll in the HMD. Green/Yellow/Orange/Red/Flashing Red, equally divided, is probably about as close of an approximation that doesn't snap verisimiltude in half with which I'd be comfortable.

Illiteracy is not discalculia.

In palladium it appears to be though.
They seem to be big on the cinematic versions and not the narrow scientific definitions.
I know, its hard to believe
But it appears that in Palladium if you can't read you cant read *anything* even numbers...

Let me know if you have a rule citation to support that notion.

I checked the book while 85% of the cs grunts are illiterate 70% do not know the alphabet.(so part of the illiterate can read the alphabet) Math does not require literacy so the rules do not support needing literacy to read numbers.
So rules do not support the claim that they do not know how to read numbers if they are not literate.


As I said it is possible that the armor tracks as MD as a understanding of MD weapons is part of the system.

Axelmania wrote:There is a glaring lack of literacy as a prerequisite for Basic Math. Are we thinking this skill represents people doing things entirely in their heads without the assistance of calculations or written equation?

Blue_Lion wrote:Ok axleman look up the meaning of impervious.
It means can not be harmed, so she said the where not harmed by all other weapons including rail guns, Particle beams, and explosives.
That seams to be the exact opposite of what you are claiming she was doing.
As she told people that those weapons can not damage vampires.

Reread page 39 of the original Vamprie Kingdoms to clear up your confusion. Erin was providing a list of vampire legends which she collected from locals. She then added a parenthesized ("I find this difficult to believe") after the 5th thing on her list from locals to draw doubt to it, even though it's 100% true and she should know that based on her high lore skills.

lather wrote:My apologies. It's in Wormwood where she tells about the plan to go to the Kingdom but ends up in Wormwood.
Page 30, when describing the wormspeaker.

Thanks for clarifying that. TWICE even... the 2nd in regards to the Towers

(left col)
"Underneath her tattered robes, her body was encircled by several python-sized worms that served as mega-damage body armor."
(right col)
"We would soon learn that everything on Wormwood, including its indigenous human populace, are mega-damage structures, which meant these encroaching towers were walking fortresses."

So this might be the first published instance of in-universe usage of the term, I'm thinking? Wormwood came out around 93/94 while SoT was 2000 and Madhaven was 2006.

eliakon wrote:Also, I would like to point out that "lore" does not mean "Knows everything about the subject with no possibility of misinformation
Lore means just that... lore.
It is not some OOTS "Read the sourcebook" skill.
And even with a 98% in something you can still roll a 99 or 100

That's just it though. The lore DOES exist (she is quoting the locals) and Mexican children all seem to know it better than a 13th level Scholar with 98% Demon + Monster Lore.

Killer Cyborg wrote:"I find it hard to believe" does NOT mean "I do not believe it."
A person can know that something is true, but still find that something hard to believe, and that's all that I thin Tarn was saying.

No, if Tarn wanted to say "I know this is true" she would say "I believe it" or similar. Tarn as a historian and writer would be well aware that words which do not literally state things can still imply them.

If Erin had written "I have a hard time believing Karl Prosek is a good person" would we think she is saying she believes Karl is a good person?

Reading the lore skill it is clear that why they know about creature common to where they are from, out side that they just have stories. So your statement does not hold up looking at the lore skill. If vampires are not common on the content she is from. She would indead be quoting stories and legends. Her lack of beliefe in what she knows does not indicate a lack of knowldge. She was gathering new lore to add to her impresive amount. Kind of how you increase you skill in lore. So no even thogh she did not believe it does not support yout wild theory that she intentially gave people misinformation. Just stating her persosnal belief.

Curbludgeon wrote:Discalculia is not innumeracy, which is AKA mathematical illiteracy.

THAT's the word I was looking for!
Thanks.

In that the Coalition Grunt does not receive Math: Basic, but does get Sensory Equipment, I struggle to think of a model by which to express approximate armor status that is more efficient than the above.

I'll just say something that I've said before, but that for some reason always seems to boggle the heck out of a lot of people:

Math: Basic allows people to count, but that doesn't mean that the only people who can count are people with that skill.

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:"I find it hard to believe" does NOT mean "I do not believe it."
A person can know that something is true, but still find that something hard to believe, and that's all that I thin Tarn was saying.

No, if Tarn wanted to say "I know this is true" she would say "I believe it" or similar.

Whoa!
NO.
When Tarn knows something, she states it as fact.
When she only believes something, she states it as a belief.
The early books are very solid on this.

Tarn as a historian and writer would be well aware that words which do not literally state things can still imply them.

And she'd be equally aware that they don't necessarily do so.
In this context, she's reporting the lore, and saying that she finds the lore hard to believe.
That doesn't mean that she doesn't believe the lore, nor that she's implying that the lore is false.

If Erin had written "I have a hard time believing Karl Prosek is a good person" would we think she is saying she believes Karl is a good person?

That depends on what the overall context is.
In general, it shows skepticism but a willingness to consider the option to some degree.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Curbludgeon wrote:Discalculia is not innumeracy, which is AKA mathematical illiteracy.

THAT's the word I was looking for!
Thanks.

In that the Coalition Grunt does not receive Math: Basic, but does get Sensory Equipment, I struggle to think of a model by which to express approximate armor status that is more efficient than the above.

I'll just say something that I've said before, but that for some reason always seems to boggle the heck out of a lot of people:

Math: Basic allows people to count, but that doesn't mean that the only people who can count are people with that skill.

And yet, only people with literacy can read...
You can count to ten, maybe even do simple basic addition and subtraction. So... maybe first or second grade math. Maybe.
But you can't do percents, or anything fancier with out math skill. Certainly not read a mathimatical readout.
Which sort of rules out a readout showing 100MDC and lowering down as you take hits...
Unless of course there is a rule somewhere that I overlooked that says that you can count to 100+ and do, and understand, addition and subtraction with out math skill...

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Curbludgeon wrote:Discalculia is not innumeracy, which is AKA mathematical illiteracy.

THAT's the word I was looking for!
Thanks.

In that the Coalition Grunt does not receive Math: Basic, but does get Sensory Equipment, I struggle to think of a model by which to express approximate armor status that is more efficient than the above.

I'll just say something that I've said before, but that for some reason always seems to boggle the heck out of a lot of people:

Math: Basic allows people to count, but that doesn't mean that the only people who can count are people with that skill.

And yet, only people with literacy can read...

I don't believe the books state that, but if they do, show me the quote.
From what I remember the last time I went 12 rounds on this issue:
Literacy allows you to read and write, but there are no rules anywhere that state that the Literacy skill is the only way to be able to read or write anything at all, ever, under any circumstances.

You can count to ten, maybe even do simple basic addition and subtraction. So... maybe first or second grade math. Maybe.

I'd say that without Basic Math, the kind of math you can do is dependent entirely on why you know any math at all.
If you work a cash register, and the boss beats you when the draw is off, and you've had this job for years, then it's perfectly reasonable for you to be able to add and subtract the kind of numbers you typically deal with quite well.
Subtraction and multiplication would be tougher, rarer, and again only in the context of your experience.
Basically, Mathematics (Basic) includes:
-Counting
-Addition
-Subtraction
-Multiplication,
-Division
-Fractions

Which technically leaves room for a person to technically know 5 out of 6 of those, and still not have that skill.
As a GM, I'd need reasonable explanation for why a character knows any of it at all, and the more stuff the player wanted their character to know, the better that explanation would have to be.
BUT in the context of keeping track of armor damage, the only thing that a character would need to know is Counting, and/or percentages (which isn't really covered by this skill).

IF as a GM I ruled that the canon on-board computer in armor that tracks damage would give characters a specific number to deal with, then pretty much any military class, or any class trained in armor use, would be able to read those numbers and get the gist.

Knowing "My armor is down to 50%" doesn't require a lot of math, even on the Basic Math level, and neither does "I only have 43 MDC out of 80 MDC.
We're really talking about the computer doing the math in that case, and the Grunt or whatever just getting the gist of the numbers.

But you can't do percents, or anything fancier with out math skill. Certainly not read a mathimatical readout.
Which sort of rules out a readout showing 100MDC and lowering down as you take hits...
Unless of course there is a rule somewhere that I overlooked that says that you can count to 100+ and do, and understand, addition and subtraction with out math skill...

There isn't a rule that specifies it, no. Just not a rule that rules it out.
And unless you want your game world to be one where a character cannot recognize any numbers at all, then they take the Math: Basic skill and instantly jump from complete non-understanding to knowing the entire list of stuff above, then the logical result is that--just like in the real world--characters slowly accumulate knowledge, and not only CAN learn parts of skills before they learn the entire skill, but also NECESSARILY do things that way.
Learning to Count is a necessary requirement for the Mathematics (Basic) skill, not a sufficient one.
Learning your ABCs and a few common words is a necessary requirement for Literacy, not a sufficient one.
And so forth.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
<Snip>

In that the Coalition Grunt does not receive Math: Basic, but does get Sensory Equipment, I struggle to think of a model by which to express approximate armor status that is more efficient than the above.

I'll just say something that I've said before, but that for some reason always seems to boggle the heck out of a lot of people:

Math: Basic allows people to count, but that doesn't mean that the only people who can count are people with that skill.

And yet, only people with literacy can read...

I don't believe the books state that, but if they do, show me the quote.
From what I remember the last time I went 12 rounds on this issue:
Literacy allows you to read and write, but there are no rules anywhere that state that the Literacy skill is the only way to be able to read or write anything at all, ever, under any circumstances.

Sure, you can house rule semi-literacy if you want sure.
But there is zero canon support for the claim that illiterate people can read. Which is why the CS has to provide machines to read for their people instead of just saying that "grunts can learn simple words and phrases associated with their jobs" or the like.
Oh, and for the record. When the book says "Cannot read" that is pretty cut and dried to me. That does not say "Can only read a little" or "Semi literate" it says "if you do not take this skill you can not read, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred credits."

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:You can count to ten, maybe even do simple basic addition and subtraction. So... maybe first or second grade math. Maybe.

I'd say that without Basic Math, the kind of math you can do is dependent entirely on why you know any math at all.
If you work a cash register, and the boss beats you when the draw is off, and you've had this job for years, then it's perfectly reasonable for you to be able to add and subtract the kind of numbers you typically deal with quite well.
Subtraction and multiplication would be tougher, rarer, and again only in the context of your experience.
Basically, Mathematics (Basic) includes:
-Counting
-Addition
-Subtraction
-Multiplication,
-Division
-Fractions

Which technically leaves room for a person to technically know 5 out of 6 of those, and still not have that skill.
As a GM, I'd need reasonable explanation for why a character knows any of it at all, and the more stuff the player wanted their character to know, the better that explanation would have to be.
BUT in the context of keeping track of armor damage, the only thing that a character would need to know is Counting, and/or percentages (which isn't really covered by this skill).

IF as a GM I ruled that the canon on-board computer in armor that tracks damage would give characters a specific number to deal with, then pretty much any military class, or any class trained in armor use, would be able to read those numbers and get the gist.

Knowing "My armor is down to 50%" doesn't require a lot of math, even on the Basic Math level, and neither does "I only have 43 MDC out of 80 MDC.
We're really talking about the computer doing the math in that case, and the Grunt or whatever just getting the gist of the numbers.

But you can't do percents, or anything fancier with out math skill. Certainly not read a mathimatical readout.
Which sort of rules out a readout showing 100MDC and lowering down as you take hits...
Unless of course there is a rule somewhere that I overlooked that says that you can count to 100+ and do, and understand, addition and subtraction with out math skill...

There isn't a rule that specifies it, no. Just not a rule that rules it out.
And unless you want your game world to be one where a character cannot recognize any numbers at all, then they take the Math: Basic skill and instantly jump from complete non-understanding to knowing the entire list of stuff above, then the logical result is that--just like in the real world--characters slowly accumulate knowledge, and not only CAN learn parts of skills before they learn the entire skill, but also NECESSARILY do things that way.
Learning to Count is a necessary requirement for the Mathematics (Basic) skill, not a sufficient one.
Learning your ABCs and a few common words is a necessary requirement for Literacy, not a sufficient one.
And so forth.

So your contention is that even though the skill states the skill provides a range of abilities... people actually have these abilities with out having the skill just 'because' and that even though there is no in game support for this, what so ever, that since it seems 'logical' that it must be true, even though it goes against the published material.
Even though the same logic would say that people can be semi-literate with out literacy and that thus you don't need the skill to read basic words and phrases...
or that you should be able to reload a pistol with out the skill since its 'obvious' (even though the rules say otherwise)

I'm gonna have to say "that's a nice house rule you have there" but its not even remotely something supported by cannon in the slightest.
Palladium has a habit of making things pretty black and white. This is why everyone in places like HU gets Math: Basic free... to avoid just this sort of issue.

As for how complex this is, go ask a second grader to explain what 43% of something is. I'll wait.
The claim that someone can have all the perks of a skill with out the skill is simply beyond absurd. And that is what this is pure and simple. A claim that even though a person does not have a skill, they should be allowed the use of that skill on the grounds that "well I want the skill, so that I can be a more efficient and better character, but I want to spend my skill slots on other things"

its not so much that they have the skill without the skill, as you claim, but they are in most cases functionally illiterate or functionally "different literate"

now granted the details of their education is frankly different enough that we would say that they ARE illiterate, and or have innumeracy.

but since they have read sensory equipment they HAVE to have some way of interpreting the information.
now it might be that they know numbers but they don't actually have the knowledge set to really make sense of it (fully)
heck they could have the equivalent of HATL gauges projected (or otherwise being given to them by the computer) that does have multiple levels of choose the output so 1 output has color gauges maybe even double gauges that summarize the information lets say at 100% the gauge says 100, but also has a green surrounding green indicator, when it starts registering damage, one of the 2 starts changing colors based on thresholds when it gets to certain thresholds the color changes.
or it says 100% at 80% it changes to s different color, and again at around 50% it changes and at 25% etc.
its also that they see the numbers and can "read them" but they don't know what they really mean. in a greater/more useful sense.

for instance when using the rangefinder they don't really understand how far 1000, 2000, and 4000ft are I mean they can pace them off, but the numbers something in context, but outside that specific context it doesn't make sense.

for instance they have the upgraded body armor that has 100MDC and they know that if the armor status says 100 that means everything is good don't worry about it, if it gets down to 80% upon return from the mission get it worked on, if its reading 50% be more careful and stay in cover, at 25% or less fall back or hide, unless your unit leaders tell you otherwise
in effect they can read the gauges but they still don't actually have the skills to relate that information to anything else.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:No, if Tarn wanted to say "I know this is true" she would say "I believe it" or similar.

Whoa!
NO.
When Tarn knows something, she states it as fact.
When she only believes something, she states it as a belief.
The early books are very solid on this.

So you say if Tarn is actually trying to convey beliefs, she will convey them as beliefs.

As in she will not merely say "I find it hard to belief" but rather "I believe it" if she believes something.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Tarn as a historian and writer would be well aware that words which do not literally state things can still imply them.

And she'd be equally aware that they don't necessarily do so.

Yes, she would be aware she could weasel out. "I never said you could use bombs to kill vampires, I only said it was hard to believe you couldn't!"

That makes her a scummy politician. She wrote misleading press about vampires, planting seeds of doubt about their rumored invulnerability, but worded it in a way to give herself plausible deniability if her words gave people undue confidence and got them killed.

Killer Cyborg wrote:In this context, she's reporting the lore, and saying that she finds the lore hard to believe.
That doesn't mean that she doesn't believe the lore, nor that she's implying that the lore is false.

Saying "I find it hard to believe" without affirming "but I believe it" is most definitely implying something is false.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

If Erin had written "I have a hard time believing Karl Prosek is a good person" would we think she is saying she believes Karl is a good person?

That depends on what the overall context is.
In general, it shows skepticism but a willingness to consider the option to some degree.

No, that statement in no way shows willingness to consider. That could easily be a snarky sarcastic politeness.

I think you're really being too optimistic about how this phrase is historically used. For example...

https://www.canalstreetchronicles.com/2 ... ean-payton

"Because Savage came with his own set of injury concerns, I find it hard to believe the Saints actually preferred him over Bridgewater at the onset of free agency."

The IFIHTB phrase often is simply expressing "I don't believe it" with an air of fraudulent neutrality.

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:No, if Tarn wanted to say "I know this is true" she would say "I believe it" or similar.

Whoa!
NO.
When Tarn knows something, she states it as fact.
When she only believes something, she states it as a belief.
The early books are very solid on this.

So you say if Tarn is actually trying to convey beliefs, she will convey them as beliefs.

As in she will not merely say "I find it hard to belief" but rather "I believe it" if she believes something.

Do you understand that those two phrases express different things...?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Tarn as a historian and writer would be well aware that words which do not literally state things can still imply them.

And she'd be equally aware that they don't necessarily do so.

Yes, she would be aware she could weasel out.

It's not weaseling out, man.
It's just how language works.
When somebody says, "that's hard to believe," it doesn't mean "This is untrue" or even "I believe this to be untrue."
It's not a commitment to anything, and it's not weaseling out.
It's simply expressing a reaction.
You're reading FAR too much into it, and the wrong things to boot.

Killer Cyborg wrote:In this context, she's reporting the lore, and saying that she finds the lore hard to believe.
That doesn't mean that she doesn't believe the lore, nor that she's implying that the lore is false.

Saying "I find it hard to believe" without affirming "but I believe it" is most definitely implying something is false.

Incorrect.
It simply means "I find it hard to believe."

I think you're really being too optimistic about how this phrase is historically used. For example...

https://www.canalstreetchronicles.com/2 ... ean-payton

"Because Savage came with his own set of injury concerns, I find it hard to believe the Saints actually preferred him over Bridgewater at the onset of free agency."

The IFIHTB phrase often is simply expressing "I don't believe it" with an air of fraudulent neutrality.

No, the phrase is simply expressing skepticism.
That's not the same as disbelief.
Skepticism involves some level of doubt.
Disbelief is a complete refusal or inability to belief.
Agnostics are skeptical about the existence of God.
Atheists are positive that there is no God.

"I find it hard to believe" is different from "I don't believe it."
The first is doubt, and the second is disbelief.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
<Snip>

In that the Coalition Grunt does not receive Math: Basic, but does get Sensory Equipment, I struggle to think of a model by which to express approximate armor status that is more efficient than the above.

I'll just say something that I've said before, but that for some reason always seems to boggle the heck out of a lot of people:

Math: Basic allows people to count, but that doesn't mean that the only people who can count are people with that skill.

And yet, only people with literacy can read...

I don't believe the books state that, but if they do, show me the quote.
From what I remember the last time I went 12 rounds on this issue:
Literacy allows you to read and write, but there are no rules anywhere that state that the Literacy skill is the only way to be able to read or write anything at all, ever, under any circumstances.

Sure, you can house rule semi-literacy if you want sure.
But there is zero canon support for the claim that illiterate people can read. Which is why the CS has to provide machines to read for their people instead of just saying that "grunts can learn simple words and phrases associated with their jobs" or the like.
Oh, and for the record. When the book says "Cannot read" that is pretty cut and dried to me. That does not say "Can only read a little" or "Semi literate" it says "if you do not take this skill you can not read, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred credits."

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:You can count to ten, maybe even do simple basic addition and subtraction. So... maybe first or second grade math. Maybe.

I'd say that without Basic Math, the kind of math you can do is dependent entirely on why you know any math at all.
If you work a cash register, and the boss beats you when the draw is off, and you've had this job for years, then it's perfectly reasonable for you to be able to add and subtract the kind of numbers you typically deal with quite well.
Subtraction and multiplication would be tougher, rarer, and again only in the context of your experience.
Basically, Mathematics (Basic) includes:
-Counting
-Addition
-Subtraction
-Multiplication,
-Division
-Fractions

Which technically leaves room for a person to technically know 5 out of 6 of those, and still not have that skill.
As a GM, I'd need reasonable explanation for why a character knows any of it at all, and the more stuff the player wanted their character to know, the better that explanation would have to be.
BUT in the context of keeping track of armor damage, the only thing that a character would need to know is Counting, and/or percentages (which isn't really covered by this skill).

IF as a GM I ruled that the canon on-board computer in armor that tracks damage would give characters a specific number to deal with, then pretty much any military class, or any class trained in armor use, would be able to read those numbers and get the gist.

Knowing "My armor is down to 50%" doesn't require a lot of math, even on the Basic Math level, and neither does "I only have 43 MDC out of 80 MDC.
We're really talking about the computer doing the math in that case, and the Grunt or whatever just getting the gist of the numbers.

But you can't do percents, or anything fancier with out math skill. Certainly not read a mathimatical readout.
Which sort of rules out a readout showing 100MDC and lowering down as you take hits...
Unless of course there is a rule somewhere that I overlooked that says that you can count to 100+ and do, and understand, addition and subtraction with out math skill...

There isn't a rule that specifies it, no. Just not a rule that rules it out.
And unless you want your game world to be one where a character cannot recognize any numbers at all, then they take the Math: Basic skill and instantly jump from complete non-understanding to knowing the entire list of stuff above, then the logical result is that--just like in the real world--characters slowly accumulate knowledge, and not only CAN learn parts of skills before they learn the entire skill, but also NECESSARILY do things that way.
Learning to Count is a necessary requirement for the Mathematics (Basic) skill, not a sufficient one.
Learning your ABCs and a few common words is a necessary requirement for Literacy, not a sufficient one.
And so forth.

So your contention is that even though the skill states the skill provides a range of abilities... people actually have these abilities with out having the skill just 'because' and that even though there is no in game support for this, what so ever, that since it seems 'logical' that it must be true, even though it goes against the published material.

Close, but no cigar.
My contention is that just because a skill provides something, that does not mean that the skill is the only way to obtain that something.
Boxing, for example, provides +1 attack per melee, but that does not mean that Boxing is the ONLY way to get +1 attack per melee.
First Aid provides knowledge on how to bandage wounds, but that does not mean that the First Aid skill is the ONLY way to learn how to bandage wounds.
The Animal Husbandry skill provides knowledge on the feeding of animals, but that does not mean that the Animal Husbandry skill is the ONLY way that anybody can know how to feed an animal.
Are you with me so far...?

And instead of saying stuff like "there is no in game support for this," ask for my support if you can't figure it out.
I'm generally happy to clue people in as to my sources and logic.
In this case, flip over to RUE 323 and read the skill Appraise Goods. Notice that it includes the ability to know "how much he can get by pawning the item, as well as what he can sell it for wholesale."
Note that Mathematics: Basic is NOT a prerequisite for this skill.

In your view, apparently this means that the authors expect a character who cannot at all add, subtract, or even COUNT, to be able to appraise goods for their resale value.
Does that really make sense to you?

There are countless skills like this, skills that necessarily involve some degree of addition, subtraction, or counting, but that don't require Mathematics: Basic as a requirement.
Barter, a skill specifically for haggling about numbers, DOES NOT REQUIRE Mathematics: Basic.
Neither does Cryptography, Intelligence (which expects you to assess the number of enemies), Gambling, Computer Operation, Computer Programming, Carpentry, Land Navigation, and so forth.

The books never once say that Skills are the ONLY way for a character to know how to do things.
The books never once say that if a skill provides an ability or knowledge, that everybody without that skill necessarily lacks that ability.
The books DO repeatedly and consistently indicate that knowledges and abilities that skills provide can be known without the skills.

The books support my view.
They do NOT support the view that everybody who lacks Mathematics: Basic cannot count, or that everybody without the Animal Husbandry skill lacks the ability to feed an animal.

Even though the same logic would say that people can be semi-literate with out literacy and that thus you don't need the skill to read basic words and phrases...

Most definitely.
People who are only partially literate would necessarily exist in the game universe, from both a simulationist and a rules-based perspective.

or that you should be able to reload a pistol with out the skill since its 'obvious' (even though the rules say otherwise)

Ah, but in this case, the rules DO say otherwise, so no, characters cannot reload a pistol.
It's a stupid rule, but it IS a rule.
IF you can find any rules saying that nobody who lacks Mathematics: Basic can count to ten, then by all means let me know. Until then, it doesn't go against the rules for somebody who lacks the skill to be able to do that (though not everybody can, of course).

A claim that even though a person does not have a skill, they should be allowed the use of that skill

That's a strawman.
The actual claim is that even though a person does not have a skill, they might still be allowed to do some things that the skill provides.
A character without Boxing or HTH Combat can still try to punch.
A character without Identify Plants & Fruit can still possibly know a banana from an apple.
A character without the Barter skill can still potentially attempt to haggle.
A person without the Herding Cattle skill can still potentially feed a cow some hay.
A person without the Roping skill can still potentially tie some kind of knot.
A person without the Cook skill can still select a meal.
A person without the Houskeeping skill can still have some level of knowledge of soap.
A person without the Wardrobe & Grooming skill can still have some level of knowledge of clothing, perfume, etc.
And yes, a person without the Literacy skill can still have some level of knowledge of reading and/or writing.
A person without Mathematics: Basic can still have some ability to count, add, subtract, etc.
If not, then the game simply wouldn't be playable.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:No, if Tarn wanted to say "I know this is true" she would say "I believe it" or similar.

Whoa!
NO.
When Tarn knows something, she states it as fact.
When she only believes something, she states it as a belief.
The early books are very solid on this.

So you say if Tarn is actually trying to convey beliefs, she will convey them as beliefs.

As in she will not merely say "I find it hard to belief" but rather "I believe it" if she believes something.

Do you understand that those two phrases express different things...?

This goes back to your earlier claim:

"I find it hard to believe" does NOT mean "I do not believe it."
A person can know that something is true,
but still find that something hard to believe,
and that's all that I thin Tarn was saying.

Tarn did not in any way express "I know this something is true"

Therefore, without that, while "hard to believe" does not literally express "I know it is false", it DOES imply "I think it is false".

I believe Siembieda realized this and this is why he removed that parenthesis in the revised edition.

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:No, if Tarn wanted to say "I know this is true" she would say "I believe it" or similar.

Whoa!
NO.
When Tarn knows something, she states it as fact.
When she only believes something, she states it as a belief.
The early books are very solid on this.

So you say if Tarn is actually trying to convey beliefs, she will convey them as beliefs.

As in she will not merely say "I find it hard to belief" but rather "I believe it" if she believes something.

Do you understand that those two phrases express different things...?

This goes back to your earlier claim:

"I find it hard to believe" does NOT mean "I do not believe it."
A person can know that something is true,
but still find that something hard to believe,
and that's all that I thin Tarn was saying.

Tarn did not in any way express "I know this something is true"

Therefore, without that, while "hard to believe" does not literally express "I know it is false", it DOES imply "I think it is false".

I believe Siembieda realized this and this is why he removed that parenthesis in the revised edition.

I find it hard to believe is a statement of belief.

You can find something hard to believe even if it is true.

Simply she stated an opion about something as an opion. Stating an opion about something as an opion is not a delberate attempt to mislead people.


If your couch is wet and I say I believe John spilt his drink even if untrue as long it is what I believe it is not a delberate attempt to diseave.


A statement of beliefe is a statement of opion not fact.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:So your contention is that even though the skill states the skill provides a range of abilities... people actually have these abilities with out having the skill just 'because' and that even though there is no in game support for this, what so ever, that since it seems 'logical' that it must be true, even though it goes against the published material.

Close, but no cigar.
My contention is that just because a skill provides something, that does not mean that the skill is the only way to obtain that something.
Boxing, for example, provides +1 attack per melee, but that does not mean that Boxing is the ONLY way to get +1 attack per melee.
First Aid provides knowledge on how to bandage wounds, but that does not mean that the First Aid skill is the ONLY way to learn how to bandage wounds.
The Animal Husbandry skill provides knowledge on the feeding of animals, but that does not mean that the Animal Husbandry skill is the ONLY way that anybody can know how to feed an animal.
Are you with me so far...?

Nope, because your comparing apples to oranges
No, seriously your already flawed.
Your claim that "well there are multiple sources of X means that one source of X is not the only one" does not hold up for something that is listed as the sole source of Y"

Killer Cyborg wrote:And instead of saying stuff like "there is no in game support for this," ask for my support if you can't figure it out.

I was not asking a question.
I was stating a fact.
Just like you do not seem to feel that you need to ask peoples permission before making your opinions known as the One True Way.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm generally happy to clue people in as to my sources and logic.
In this case, flip over to RUE 323 and read the skill Appraise Goods. Notice that it includes the ability to know "how much he can get by pawning the item, as well as what he can sell it for wholesale."
Note that Mathematics: Basic is NOT a prerequisite for this skill.

Which is nice.
That doesn't mean that it provides the ability to do fractions though
And it would be a lot better example if we knew, for a fact, that historically people who were almost totally inumerate were still capable of performing commercial transactions.
but nice try.

Killer Cyborg wrote:In your view, apparently this means that the authors expect a character who cannot at all add, subtract, or even COUNT, to be able to appraise goods for their resale value.
Does that really make sense to you?

To bad that is not what I said is it.
*Flag on the play, strawman*
What I said is that you have a limited ability to add, subtract and count.
Limited, not none.
YOUR the one who is trying to push the "none" angle so as to justify your house rule. Not me.

Killer Cyborg wrote:There are countless skills like this, skills that necessarily involve some degree of addition, subtraction, or counting, but that don't require Mathematics: Basic as a requirement.
Barter, a skill specifically for haggling about numbers, DOES NOT REQUIRE Mathematics: Basic.
Neither does Cryptography, Intelligence (which expects you to assess the number of enemies), Gambling, Computer Operation, Computer Programming, Carpentry, Land Navigation, and so forth.

Most of which can be performed with simple math but do not require the free use of multiplication, division and fractions.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The books never once say that Skills are the ONLY way for a character to know how to do things.

Got it. Your stance is then that you don't really need skills anyway and can just do what you like regardless.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The books never once say that if a skill provides an ability or knowledge, that everybody without that skill necessarily lacks that ability.

Oddly they do say that exact thing for literacy
But you are half right. You can always attempt your default roll.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The books DO repeatedly and consistently indicate that knowledges and abilities that skills provide can be known without the skills.

Facinating claim.
Source?
And I mean actual source not "well if we interpret this through the right lens then it could mean this if we want it to"
But an actual out right statement of this. Because this reeks of yet another house rule/fanon that is being passed off as "well its an obvious rule"

Killer Cyborg wrote:The books support my view.

No, your creative interpretation of the books, supports your view.

Killer Cyborg wrote:They do NOT support the view that everybody who lacks Mathematics: Basic cannot count, or that everybody without the Animal Husbandry skill lacks the ability to feed an animal.

Again, to bad that is not what I claimed is it?
For someone who claims to be so big on logic you seem to be enamored with fallacies.
Strawman
Misrepresentation
Cherry Picking
Confirmation Bias
The list goes on and on...

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Even though the same logic would say that people can be semi-literate with out literacy and that thus you don't need the skill to read basic words and phrases...

Most definitely.
People who are only partially literate would necessarily exist in the game universe, from both a simulationist and a rules-based perspective.

Except that the rules explicitly say otherwise.
Which sort of shoots down your claim that your stance of 'semi competant' is actually rule based...

Killer Cyborg wrote:

or that you should be able to reload a pistol with out the skill since its 'obvious' (even though the rules say otherwise)

Ah, but in this case, the rules DO say otherwise, so no, characters cannot reload a pistol.
It's a stupid rule, but it IS a rule.
IF you can find any rules saying that nobody who lacks Mathematics: Basic can count to ten, then by all means let me know. Until then, it doesn't go against the rules for somebody who lacks the skill to be able to do that (though not everybody can, of course).

And again your misrepresenting me.
When you can actually argue rationally and not make up things as you go along I will be happy to continue.
But seeing as how your support for this argument so far has been to consitantly to change what I have said, and then shoot down what I NEVER SAID as evidence that your right...
Well I prefer logic not a fallacy fest thank you.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

A claim that even though a person does not have a skill, they should be allowed the use of that skill

That's a strawman.
The actual claim is that even though a person does not have a skill, they might still be allowed to do some things that the skill provides.
A character without Boxing or HTH Combat can still try to punch.
A character without Identify Plants & Fruit can still possibly know a banana from an apple.
A character without the Barter skill can still potentially attempt to haggle.
A person without the Herding Cattle skill can still potentially feed a cow some hay.
A person without the Roping skill can still potentially tie some kind of knot.
A person without the Cook skill can still select a meal.
A person without the Houskeeping skill can still have some level of knowledge of soap.
A person without the Wardrobe & Grooming skill can still have some level of knowledge of clothing, perfume, etc.
And yes, a person without the Literacy skill can still have some level of knowledge of reading and/or writing.
A person without Mathematics: Basic can still have some ability to count, add, subtract, etc.
If not, then the game simply wouldn't be playable.

Which is where your example breaks down
'some ability to count' is different than "can do all the math in basic except one form" which is specifically what you were saying is perfectly legal.
Your stance was that full addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and fractions are just fine (hint, fractions ARE a form of multiplication/division which means that if you can do fractions then you have just been granted literally the entire basic math skill)...
That is a LOT different than 'tell the difference between an apple and a banana"

And as a side note I find it HILLARIOUS that your getting huffy about me and not being rigorously logical...
when you are flat out lying, strawmaning, cherry picking and more all the way through this post.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:So your contention is that even though the skill states the skill provides a range of abilities... people actually have these abilities with out having the skill just 'because' and that even though there is no in game support for this, what so ever, that since it seems 'logical' that it must be true, even though it goes against the published material.

Close, but no cigar.
My contention is that just because a skill provides something, that does not mean that the skill is the only way to obtain that something.
Boxing, for example, provides +1 attack per melee, but that does not mean that Boxing is the ONLY way to get +1 attack per melee.
First Aid provides knowledge on how to bandage wounds, but that does not mean that the First Aid skill is the ONLY way to learn how to bandage wounds.
The Animal Husbandry skill provides knowledge on the feeding of animals, but that does not mean that the Animal Husbandry skill is the ONLY way that anybody can know how to feed an animal.
Are you with me so far...?

Nope, because your comparing apples to oranges
No, seriously your already flawed.
Your claim that "well there are multiple sources of X means that one source of X is not the only one" does not hold up for something that is listed as the sole source of Y"

What exactly in this case is "listed as the sole source of Y?"
Don't just make a claim--support it, and explain it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:And instead of saying stuff like "there is no in game support for this," ask for my support if you can't figure it out.

I was not asking a question.

Correct, which is exactly why I (in the underlined part above), suggest that you start asking questions in the future, instead of making unsupported claims.
Was the phrasing unclear?

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm generally happy to clue people in as to my sources and logic.
In this case, flip over to RUE 323 and read the skill Appraise Goods. Notice that it includes the ability to know "how much he can get by pawning the item, as well as what he can sell it for wholesale."
Note that Mathematics: Basic is NOT a prerequisite for this skill.

Which is nice.
That doesn't mean that it provides the ability to do fractions though

Not sure why you're focused on fractions here.
I don't believe that I hinged anything on fractions specifically.

Killer Cyborg wrote:In your view, apparently this means that the authors expect a character who cannot at all add, subtract, or even COUNT, to be able to appraise goods for their resale value.
Does that really make sense to you?

To bad that is not what I said is it.
*Flag on the play, strawman*
What I said is that you have a limited ability to add, subtract and count.
Limited, not none.
YOUR the one who is trying to push the "none" angle so as to justify your house rule. Not me.

So.... why are you arguing with me, if both of our stances are that people without the Mathematics: Basic skill can perform limited math....?

Killer Cyborg wrote:There are countless skills like this, skills that necessarily involve some degree of addition, subtraction, or counting, but that don't require Mathematics: Basic as a requirement.
Barter, a skill specifically for haggling about numbers, DOES NOT REQUIRE Mathematics: Basic.
Neither does Cryptography, Intelligence (which expects you to assess the number of enemies), Gambling, Computer Operation, Computer Programming, Carpentry, Land Navigation, and so forth.

Most of which can be performed with simple math but do not require the free use of multiplication, division and fractions.

And...?

Killer Cyborg wrote:The books never once say that Skills are the ONLY way for a character to know how to do things.

Got it. Your stance is then that you don't really need skills anyway and can just do what you like regardless.

Not at all.
I've stated my stance previously, and I even bolded it.
I'll restate it again, in case you missed it somehow:
just because a skill provides something, that does not mean that the skill is the only way to obtain that something

Killer Cyborg wrote:The books never once say that if a skill provides an ability or knowledge, that everybody without that skill necessarily lacks that ability.

Oddly they do say that exact thing for literacy

Quote the passage that you're talking about, don't just make vague claims.

But you are half right. You can always attempt your default roll.

If you agree to that, I have no idea what you're trying to argue against, or why.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The books DO repeatedly and consistently indicate that knowledges and abilities that skills provide can be known without the skills.

Facinating claim.
Source?
And I mean actual source not "well if we interpret this through the right lens then it could mean this if we want it to"
But an actual out right statement of this. Because this reeks of yet another house rule/fanon that is being passed off as "well its an obvious rule"

Well, for one thing there's the ability to default roll for skills. If a person without Mathematics: Basic can make a default roll to perform addition or subtraction, for instance, that right there shows that a person need not have the skill in order to perform the abilities of addition or subtraction, or to have some degree of knowledge of those things.
Then there's the previous example I gave with Boxing providing +1 attack per melee, but the Boxing skill is NOT the sole way to obtain +1 attack per melee. (Do you need me to list some of the other ways that a character can obtain +1 attack per melee?)
Then there's Sense of Balance, which is provided by Gymnastics and Acrobatics. The proof that neither one of these skills is the sole means to obtain that ability is that both skills provide it. Aerobic Athletics also provides Sense of Balance, in fact, and I'm pretty certain that there are other things out there in the Megaverse that also do. If you like, and it would help this conversation, I can look some up for you.
Then there's the Climbing skill, which is not the sole way for characters to be able to climb. There's also the 2nd level spell (RUE 200), which "enables the enchanted individual to climb," for example. And there are any number of monsters and animals (like the Beast Dragon, CB1 109-110) who have a Natural Ability to Climb/Scale Walls. And there are various super powers and other means as well by which people can climb.
Swimming and Prowling are much the same as Climbing--They're abilities that are provided not only by the Skills with those names, but also by magic, natural ability, super power, and so forth. If you like, I can easily find some of the many examples for you.
The spell Eyes of the Wolf (RUE 214) provides the abilities of Identify Plants & Fruits, Identify Tracks, Track, and Recognize Poison, which are abilities that are also provided by skills... but not exclusively provided by skills, as the spell proves.
Then there's the spell "Eyes of Thoth," RUE 208, which "enables the character to read and understand ALL written languages.
Similarly, the spell Tongues, RUE 211, "enables the character to perfectly understand and speak all spoken languages."
I can go on, if you really need me to, but I really feel like this should suffice to demonstrate that knowledges and abilities that skills provide can be known without the skills.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The books support my view.
They do NOT support the view that everybody who lacks Mathematics: Basic cannot count, or that everybody without the Animal Husbandry skill lacks the ability to feed an animal.

Again, to bad that is not what I claimed is it?

If not, then by all means feel free at any time to restate what exactly your claim is.
A clear thesis statement is everybody's friend.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

or that you should be able to reload a pistol with out the skill since its 'obvious' (even though the rules say otherwise)

Ah, but in this case, the rules DO say otherwise, so no, characters cannot reload a pistol.
It's a stupid rule, but it IS a rule.
IF you can find any rules saying that nobody who lacks Mathematics: Basic can count to ten, then by all means let me know. Until then, it doesn't go against the rules for somebody who lacks the skill to be able to do that (though not everybody can, of course).

And again you're misrepresenting me.

How so...?
What IS your actual position, and why do you feel that it conflicts with my position?
If I've mistaken it, by all means feel free to clear things up.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

A claim that even though a person does not have a skill, they should be allowed the use of that skill

That's a strawman.
The actual claim is that even though a person does not have a skill, they might still be allowed to do some things that the skill provides.
A character without Boxing or HTH Combat can still try to punch.
A character without Identify Plants & Fruit can still possibly know a banana from an apple.
A character without the Barter skill can still potentially attempt to haggle.
A person without the Herding Cattle skill can still potentially feed a cow some hay.
A person without the Roping skill can still potentially tie some kind of knot.
A person without the Cook skill can still select a meal.
A person without the Houskeeping skill can still have some level of knowledge of soap.
A person without the Wardrobe & Grooming skill can still have some level of knowledge of clothing, perfume, etc.
And yes, a person without the Literacy skill can still have some level of knowledge of reading and/or writing.
A person without Mathematics: Basic can still have some ability to count, add, subtract, etc.
If not, then the game simply wouldn't be playable.

Which is where your example breaks down
'some ability to count' is different than "can do all the math in basic except one form" which is specifically what you were saying is perfectly legal.[/quote]

Well, no, it's not.
What I said was:
Basically, Mathematics (Basic) includes:
-Counting
-Addition
-Subtraction
-Multiplication,
-Division
-Fractions

Which technically leaves room for a person to technically know 5 out of 6 of those, and still not have that skill.
As a GM, I'd need reasonable explanation for why a character knows any of it at all, and the more stuff the player wanted their character to know, the better that explanation would have to be.
BUT in the context of keeping track of armor damage, the only thing that a character would need to know is Counting, and/or percentages (which isn't really covered by this skill).

There's a difference between something being "technically legal" and being "perfectly legal."
(just as there's a difference between "technically know" and "perfectly know.")
If something were perfectly legal, then I as a GM wouldn't need a reasonable explanation to start, and I wouldn't require increasingly strong explanations the more the player wanted to get to the technical limit.
Does that clarify things for you?

Blue_Lion wrote:I find it hard to believe is a statement of belief.

You can find something hard to believe even if it is true.

Simply she stated an opion about something as an opion.

Stating an opion about something as an opion is not a delberate attempt to mislead people.

Stating an opinion which is not your opinion is dishonest. That's my point. Someone with 98% Demon Lore seems like they ought to know the basics of vampires. If she had the opinion it was true, she intentionally ommitted that.

This is like saying "Villagers told me some wild dogs have rabies and can infect humans with their bite. I find that hard to believe" when you are a skilled medical doctor who studies diseases and bites all the time.

Without affirming support for the villagers' belief, all she has done is cast it in doubt by that statement.

Blue_Lion wrote:If your couch is wet and I say I believe John spilt his drink even if untrue as long it is what I believe it is not a delberate attempt to diseave.

A statement of beliefe is a statement of opion not fact.

As a 98% demon lore specialist and historian, Tarn should know the facts about vampires. It is clearly her opinion that the villagers are correct.

By saying she finds it hard to believe the TRUTH (without CALLING it the truth) her statement would lead people to doubt the truth.

The only saving grace for Erin Tarn would be if we assume she was legitimately ignorant of vampires because Demon Lore did not include Monster Lore.

While that's easy to assume in present day since the introduction of "Vampire Lore" in Nightbane which "Vampire Kingdoms Revised" copied, it was not possible to assume that in the past because the skill did not exist when World Books 1-4 were published. The best example being that Undead Slayers had only Demon Lore and Fairy Lore and no separate Vampire Lore.

Prior to Nightbane and its influence on Rifts, lore regarding vampires would fall under demon lore because vampires are demons.

If they where not common in the area she is originally from then she would only know the stories about them and not the facts. (that is what it says in the skill.) You are doing allot of mental gymnastics to try and justify her being behaving in a way that is inconsistent with her alignment.

Blue_Lion wrote:You are doing allot of mental gymnastics to try and justify her being behaving in a way that is inconsistent with her alignment.

Seconded.

Seriously Axel, if Tarn had said "I find this terrain difficult to navigate," would you spend this much time and effort arguing that she was expressing a belief that the terrain was impossible to navigate?
Or that she was lying?
Or whatever the heck you're going on about here?

You're picking a pretty random sentence, and trying to make a mountain out of what is very clearly a molehill.
There's GOTTA be more interesting stuff to talk about that requires less mental gymnastics on your part.

Blue_Lion wrote:If they where not common in the area she is originally from then she would only know the stories about them and not the facts. (that is what it says in the skill.)

RUEp324 mentions "the myths and legends of vampires"

The "continent where the characters lives/originates" is North America. Mexico is part of North America.

So Tarn would know "the creatures' known powers, habits, appearances, weaknesses, strengths, powers, abilities" (QUALITY)

These ARE known (the villagers know of them) so Tarn would know them too. She knew them and then she scoffed at them as probably poppycock in her letter. The question is WHY.

Interesting bit about being able to take the skill multiple times to cover knowledge of different continents. Hadn't noticed that change until now. England is a continent into itself, apparently, not part of Europe I don't believe the original Lore: Demon and Monster had that sort of restriction.

While I agree with implementing it, since it wasn't part of the original RMB, it can't be used to interpret Tarn's capabilities in "generation 1" in regard to the original VK and Africa. The parenthesized snub of Vampires' invulnerability was taken out in the RUE era (VKrevised) so RUE-era definitions of Demon/Monster Lore don't matter, especially since even that was called into question with Lore: Vampire being spun out.

Blue_Lion wrote:You are doing allot of mental gymnastics to try and justify her being behaving in a way that is inconsistent with her alignment.

We only know what her alignment was in Rifts Africa, after having gone through her Wormwood/England adventure. We do not know what her alignment was when she wrote the note in Vampire Kingdoms.

Also pray tell: what exactly about misleading people about vampires would violate her alignment? What specific sentence?

Killer Cyborg wrote:if Tarn had said "I find this terrain difficult to navigate," would you spend this much time and effort arguing that she was expressing a belief that the terrain was impossible to navigate?

Your example is not equivalent. The sentence:

Vampires are impervious .. (I find this difficult to believe)

So the equivalent example would be:

The terrain is navigable (I find this difficult to believe)

Or the counter-expressions:

The vampires can't be harmed
The terrain can't be navigated

Tarn expressed "difficult to believe" in relation to an absolute. Saying you find it hard to believe terrain can be navigated is very different from expressing your own personal difficulty with navigating it. Compare:

I have difficulty believing it's possible to do a one-arm pushup
I have difficulty doing a one-arm pushup

Very different kinds of things to say. Your substituting Tarn's "believe" verb with "navigate" is misleading. It's like:

I find it difficult to outrun vampires.
I find it difficult to believe vampires can be outrun.

The first is an expression of individual capacity, the second is an expression of overall possibility for any party.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You're picking a pretty random sentence, and trying to make a mountain out of what is very clearly a molehill.
There's GOTTA be more interesting stuff to talk about that requires less mental gymnastics on your part.

This is not a "random" sentence. Tarn listed a bunch of lore that villagers told her and specifically put a disclaimer in parenthesis next to only one of them, expressing doubts about it. A parenthesis which conspicuously disappeared in the revised edition a decade later.

If she was not trying to mislead potential vampire victims who might eventually read that letter, then she may have had some other motive.

It occurs to me that a lot of her letters are to Plato, which she may not have intended for others to read.

So, another motive, rather than malicious intent towards humans, could be to "play dumb" to Plato. Tarn might know full well that vampires are impervious to normal weapons, but feign ignorance of this when blogging to Plato so that he will get an ego boost by correcting/informing her.

Of course... if it turns out that Plato did pass on this letter into "Traversing" or similar for public consumption, without putting in a disclaimer that "yes, vampires will shrug off normal tech weapons, use wooden wooden sticks, not laser guns" then I would be comfortabl shifting the blame to him for public endangerment.

Axelmania wrote:Your example is not equivalent.

Axelmania wrote:This is not a "random" sentence.

I'm going to agree to disagree on these claims.

re the vampire invulnerabilities and such, she states as fact what the locals say the strengths and weaknesses of vampires, and then mentions that she finds the near invulnerability of vampires to most forms of damage hard to believe, its not that she is lying about it, just commenting that she is somewhat skeptical that these are the only ways to actually hurt a vampire.

I don't actually object to that, it actually makes sense, and If I heard that something like a vampire or were was invulnerable to most modern weapons like they are I would be rather skeptical as well. that doesn't mean I wouldn't stock up on some of the known counters, just to be safe, but if it was my "main char" who used a shemarrian railgun, just because I am going into vampire regions doesn't mean I am going to replace all my standard railgun rounds with wood/silver ones, but that I will keep my 220 round backpack loaded with "standard rounds" and then load a couple 12 round clips with wood, and or silver rounds, and if something seems to be shrugging off the standard rounds, load up the special rounds and see if they work better.

Axelmania, I agree with the others on this one. You're grasping at straws.

Wow,

This thread went of in left field....

When a character does not have an appropriate skill for a task, simple or complex, a GM can have the character utilize a D20 roll (with appropriate modifiers) against the most appropriate attribute for that task.

For example, walking across a beam is easy for someone with the acrobatics or gymnastics skill...but someone with out the skill can roll against their P.P.

With regard to Literacy, reading a sign like a stop sign (with contextual cues that include RED, OCTAGON, and 4-LETTER WORD) would be a relatively easy challenge for I.Q., reading a short sentence without literacy might be pretty challenging, and reading a page of text nearly impossible without a literacy skill (and, of course, by "reading" I mean understanding...the player may not get even 2 out of 4 words correct, but the get enough to get the jist of the issue).

I don't have language: spanish, but, using my I.Q. or M.A., I might be able to stumble through a question to ask or tell someone where the Bano is. In fact, this is a great opportunity for ROLE PLAYING.

Skills are almost never straight rolls...using a mining skill to find a vein of ore is probably easier than using mining to refine ore...but you can do both with the same skill...you might be able to find ore with geology, too...or with I.Q. and Perception.


With regard to the use of skills, it is pretty absurd to assume that having a 98% in a skill means that you will accomplish EVERYTHING possible with that skill 98% of the time.

A 98% carpenter might be able to create a box 98% of the time, but that doesn't mean that they have a 98% chance of building a sturdy, water-tight barrel on every attempt. You have the ability of the craftsman, the complexity/difficult nature of the task, tools, and the amount of time to complete the task.

With Lore: Demons and Monsters 98%, I might be able to determine that a Baalrog is a demon. I might be able to determine that they are associated with Hades. I might be able to determine that they are associated with fire. I might know strengths and weakenesses and relative seniority in the Hades hierarchy..

But all of these things are different tasks with different levels of complexity...

A mechanical engineer that works for John Deere and has a 98% in mechanical engineering and a mechanical engineer that works at Boeing that also has a 98% in mechanical engineering will find the mechanical engineering tasks associated with the design and construction of airplanes vs. combines difficult or easy based on their specific abilities and familiarities.

In heroes unlimited a PHD in mechanical engineering starts out with only a 60% in the mechanical engineering stat, with a noted 30% penalty to 'unfamiliar mechanics'... There are also separate skills for aircraft, automotive, robots, weapons... So I think a mechanical engineer who's skill is at 98% being about 68% proficient at tractors when he normally works on planes is pretty reasonable. Even a tractor guy at 98% is gonna be 68% understanding whats going on under the cowl of a plane. Electrical engineering a separate matter of course. Separate rolls for diagnosis and the actual repair work.

I do love the fact that if you do happen to get your character up to a 98% in mechanical engineering, based on the penalties listed under hardware, there is AAALMOST a chance that your grand master aircraft engineer can 'duplicate a magic item'. 98% penalty lol. You roll the coveted '01', but with the 98% penalty your adjusted roll is 99%, just over the 98% skill cap.

I have been told there is a guy in Nevada that can do this,

But I find it hard to believe that a football kicker can throw a football downfield and can then kick a second football and hit the first one while it is in flight.

If his name is Nigel Gruff, I'm bettin he can. He's "wirey"

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm going to agree to disagree on these claims.

Mack wrote:Axelmania, I agree with the others on this one. You're grasping at straws.

Good debate operates on explanation of reason like a republic, not a wild democracy without need to justify stance. In rebuttal to Cyborg's insistence that I have chosen a "random" sentence, to defend my stance it is not random, I will provide a more thorough representation of the 2 texts to show how it stands out.

I agree with shadrak's observance that this has gone into left field and out of respect for that will no longer debate this in this thread. I agree that this has moved away from discussing the appropriateness of Borg MDC, ever since Eagle then eliakon insisted on MDC being an out-of-universe term and KC correctly rebutting that Tarn used it, lather saying Tarn used in VK, leading to my discussing what she DID say in VK because I couldn't find that.

I've begun a new thread if you wish to continue there: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=156221

Now, getting back to the titled topic, I would like to bring up a point related to the high MDC of borgs, and that is the consideration of Naruni Force Fields.

The normal force field series can be worn alone, or built into body armor or power armor. There is another series twice as powerful which can be built into robots or into cyborgs.

I think it's fair to say that most cyborg models have more MDC than most power armor models, even going by raw MDC of their main body and not taking into account their generous additional armor options. It doesn't seem like a problem, since even though your average suit of Power Armor tends to have larger dimensions than your average cyborg, it is a hollow shell compared to a solid MDC being.

But the strength of a force field doesn't depend on that. You'd think it would depend on the size of the force field generator, or the weight. So why would power armor be incapable of carrying a force field generator that a cyborg is capable of?

Despite the righteously high MDC of cyborgs, they tend to have lower strength and lower MD punches compared to most power armor. This is particularly the case with "edgy, almost a robot" PA like the Ulti-Max or Glitter Boy.

I believe the PA/borg/bot uses assume the fields will be tied to nuclear generators instead of E-Clips, so does this imply that the nuclear batteries which power cyborgs are more akin to robots than to power armor?

Could it be that borg nuclear batteries last longer (decades, like robots, not years like PA) and it is the longevity of nuclear battery which determines which strength of forcefield it could support?

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm going to agree to disagree on these claims.

Mack wrote:Axelmania, I agree with the others on this one. You're grasping at straws.

Good debate operates on explanation of reason like a republic, not a wild democracy without need to justify stance. In rebuttal to Cyborg's insistence that I have chosen a "random" sentence, to defend my stance it is not random, I will provide a more thorough representation of the 2 texts to show how it stands out.

I agree with shadrak's observance that this has gone into left field and out of respect for that will no longer debate this in this thread. I agree that this has moved away from discussing the appropriateness of Borg MDC, ever since Eagle then eliakon insisted on MDC being an out-of-universe term and KC correctly rebutting that Tarn used it, lather saying Tarn used in VK, leading to my discussing what she DID say in VK because I couldn't find that.

I've begun a new thread if you wish to continue there: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=156221

Now, getting back to the titled topic, I would like to bring up a point related to the high MDC of borgs, and that is the consideration of Naruni Force Fields.

The normal force field series can be worn alone, or built into body armor or power armor. There is another series twice as powerful which can be built into robots or into cyborgs.

I think it's fair to say that most cyborg models have more MDC than most power armor models, even going by raw MDC of their main body and not taking into account their generous additional armor options. It doesn't seem like a problem, since even though your average suit of Power Armor tends to have larger dimensions than your average cyborg, it is a hollow shell compared to a solid MDC being.

But the strength of a force field doesn't depend on that. You'd think it would depend on the size of the force field generator, or the weight. So why would power armor be incapable of carrying a force field generator that a cyborg is capable of?

Despite the righteously high MDC of cyborgs, they tend to have lower strength and lower MD punches compared to most power armor. This is particularly the case with "edgy, almost a robot" PA like the Ulti-Max or Glitter Boy.

I believe the PA/borg/bot uses assume the fields will be tied to nuclear generators instead of E-Clips, so does this imply that the nuclear batteries which power cyborgs are more akin to robots than to power armor?

Could it be that borg nuclear batteries last longer (decades, like robots, not years like PA) and it is the longevity of nuclear battery which determines which strength of forcefield it could support?

I would say its due to a couple factors, (assumptions) that I am not sure how realistic they are but here is goes.

in body armor the force field such as naruni ones obviously unless the operator is carrying a backpack or satchel mounted reactor they are going to have to use eclips to run the force field generators. while this is not impossible, it does constitute a certain burden that "normal" characters are unlikely to do on a regular basis.

another aspect has to do with the physical size of the force field generator system and the layout of the components that make it up. now I am speculating on this part, but it doesn't actually say either way.

my suggestion is that the cyborg/robot versions are actually doubled up versions of the standard force fields, IE the standard force field has a set of components that project and shape the shield, well the cyborg and robot versions have 2 sets of these components that are spaced a little bit apart, and the reason they can't (aren't) offered for body armor, and power armor has to do with them either projecting radiation that is toxic to most life forms (but don't matter as much to cyborgs and robot vehicles) or there is not enough room to physically mount them with the required spacing in most body and power armor due to the requirements to fit an organic body in there as well.
with something like a cyborg, because the vast majority of the "body" is machinery its more feasible to move some components around as needed to make room for these aftermarket parts (lol) I'm not saying this is the actual case, but it works for my head canon.

guardiandashi wrote:unless the operator is carrying a backpack or satchel mounted reactor

I can get one affordably with a railgun (55kRUE271) but since the pack alone is 80lbs (this is if you ditch the gun/belt) it would be pretty troublesome to lug around for your average human.

That's why you strap a jetpack to the back of the pack to fly you around. Those things can carry around 2000-pound cyborgs so it should have no trouble carrying around mere 960lbs of twelve nuclear power packs glued together with a human strapped to them, powering 2160 MDC worth of Naruni goodness around the lot.

I can't believe I've been ignoring a conversation on the shortcomings of Erin Tarn, one of my favorite topics on this board. I thought this was about borgs and MDC. That said, KC and I have gone back and forth so much on Erin Tarn's worth that I don't see much in the way of new points to make, though I hadn't before considered some of her vampire ignorance vs skills as an inconsistency.

The skill vs actual knowledge/ability is an interesting issue. I generally try to err on the side of making the game more fun/interesting. If the GM is keeping track of character damage without telling the players what the status of their armor is, I think that would be less fun. Knowing the status of your own character is a key part of making tactical decisions. Therefore, I'd say that any character, regardless of math/literacy will know the integrity status of his/her high tech armor.

On the flipside, Erin Tarn wears a Millennium Tree Leaf (because OF COURSE the tree recognized her inerrant awesomeness on her first visit, and no-one in the extremely dangerous areas she's been to since that visit has laid a finger on her because she's totes amaze-cray and has a pet Cyber-Knight). If she has no high-tech indicator of her leafy suit's integrity, how does she know how much toughness it has left?

Simple inspection? That works for me.

I would argue that the REAL reason full conversion cyborg MDC is so high is because when Rifts came out there were minimal opportunities to repair cyborgs...this is in addition to my justification that Cyborgs have higher density and that the MDC is counting more of the structure than just the armored skin.

When RMB came out, a power armor pilot could fight, get their armor shot up, turn it in for a new one, and be back out to fight again the next gaming session...

That's not the case with a cyborg...the cyborg character would need to be repaired or rebuilt, not simply replaced.

shadrak wrote:I would argue that the REAL reason full conversion cyborg MDC is so high is because when Rifts came out there were minimal opportunities to repair cyborgs...this is in addition to my justification that Cyborgs have higher density and that the MDC is counting more of the structure than just the armored skin.

When RMB came out, a power armor pilot could fight, get their armor shot up, turn it in for a new one, and be back out to fight again the next gaming session...

That's not the case with a cyborg...the cyborg character would need to be repaired or rebuilt, not simply replaced.

Really you think a head hunter with PA could just turn it in and get a new one when his is damaged. That would only have been true if you where playing CS military campaign. Every one else had no such option. Most PA using charters did not have spare suits just sitting around to change into they needed to have their PA repaired.

shadrak wrote:I would argue that the REAL reason full conversion cyborg MDC is so high is because when Rifts came out there were minimal opportunities to repair cyborgs...this is in addition to my justification that Cyborgs have higher density and that the MDC is counting more of the structure than just the armored skin.

We didn't get the pricing for repairs until Sourcebook 1, and I think we're still waiting for actual rules on how repairs are effected over time w/ skill rolls and materials. Even the update for Operator OCC in RUE doesn't totally cover all the specifics.

shadrak wrote:When RMB came out, a power armor pilot could fight, get their armor shot up, turn it in for a new one, and be back out to fight again the next gaming session...

That's not the case with a cyborg...the cyborg character would need to be repaired or rebuilt, not simply replaced.

Only if they're fighting naked. Borg body armor has more MDC than normal body armor, and the heavy borg armor had more PC than all of the main book power armor aside from the glitter boy. At 420 MDC it had more MDC than all the humanoid robots. The only thing with more I can recall is the Behemoth Explorer.

Buying a set of borg body armor would also be a lot cheaper than buying a new suit of power armor.