Eidetic Memory, campaign implications

[lensman]

I allow this talent in my camapign. I have used it in many ways with characters.

EM: 1 Charge, recoverable, Only Visual memory
Simulates an Artist's "eye" that can capture a scene .

EM: Only Auditory memory
For Oral Historians

EM: Only to recognize Voice memory / Face memory
Classic, "I know that Face / Voice from somewhere"

EM: Only for Chess memory
Simulates Chess Masters board mempry

That said, as a GM how do I apply the knowledge in a long term campaign
Fred pg. 64, Eidetic Memory, third senrence:

This dooesn't mean he remembers everything which happens perfectly, or that he doesn't forget facts over time.

Fourth sentence

But any information he memorizes he will remember exactly, down to the smallest detail.

For 5 pts. before limits, if any, the character gets exact minute details.

Is the burden on the player to take notes, make a copy of them hand them to me the GM I approve or modify them and then we keep them for use later.
Or is the burden on the GM and the player just sits back and causually pings the GM saying "I remeber that..tell me what happened."

If you have a best practice, share it with me.

[JmOz]

Essentialy I say screw it, it is helpful in a recap sort of way (Tell the General EXACTLY what I heard him saying to the hooker, Now sir can I have those missile placements or do we need to have a little talk with you wife?), but otherwise uselss. I also tend to recap things I said before when needed by the players (I assume the characters are better that the players are at remembering some details)

[Killer Shrike]

The players should take enough notes, and then if necessary read them back to the GM for further clarification.

When a player whose character has EM says something to the effect of "can I make an INT check to see if I remember that", a good response is "if you yourself have some notes on it, then your character remembers it, otherwise too bad".

[zornwil]

I think the GM has to keep the details down and be able to repeat them. However, that doesn't mean he can't be "creative" beyond the essentials. If a player with EM asks me about something that happened that he could have retained and I don't have enough details, I quickly type them while I make them up, aside from the important info already in my head.

I think the problem with relying on the player to write it all down is that through no deliberate or conscious fault of their own, the results may be unfairly advantageous. This way I can just take the blame and credit on myself. If the player remembers something that I disagree with for whatever reason (not that I can recall any specific instance), the other players are pretty reliable in helping out.

Related, during a game I'm GMing, I try to type what is going on to the best of my ability. I'll admit once in a while it's slowed things down though I don't think too much or too often. It does help me to write up the games later and it does help for reference throughout, especially as there tend to be a lot of different threads going on.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
The players should take enough notes, and then if necessary read them back to the GM for further clarification.

When a player whose character has EM says something to the effect of "can I make an INT check to see if I remember that", a good response is "if you yourself have some notes on it, then your character remembers it, otherwise too bad".

The only problem I have with this is that the character may be way more perceptive and intelligent - or simply more diligent - than the player, and the player is being penalized for not keeping notes when those notes shouldn't be necessary in a role-playing sense, at least for anything that would have been salient to the character.

I bet this works out in your games anyway, though, as I would suspect that if a player asks "can I make an INT check..." and it's something that you as GM knows the character would have remembered because it was very important (e.g., the knife was sticking up out of the victim at the murder scene as opposed to sideways) and the character has EM and decent INT, then I'd imagine you wouldn't just say "too bad". At least I'm guessing based on your posts. Of course if what the player is grasping at isn't important enough for the GM to know OR is something that the character wouldn't have necessarily thought to look into, then your approach is fine - but also sort of irrelevant unless you want to retcon the story (which of course many of us GMs have done during a story).

[Killer Shrike]

Basically, if a player wants to take EM, I tell them up front that its on them to make use of it. If they dont want to put in the necessary effort, they can opt not to spend the points. EM is too time consuming and demanding on my time otherwise. I certainly dont have EM in real life, and its not really fair of the player to expect me to recall every niggling detail on the off chance they might ask about it later.

If a player asks a question referencing thing that they do remember, then of course Im more lenient.

If the player says something to the extent of "Last tuesday when we were investigating the corpse of the culprit, Sgt Jennings mentioned a detail about the knife -- what was it again?" they will get much more info from me, as opposed to a player saying something to the effect of "What was the thing with that corpse that the cop mentioned the other day?"

I figure the players get out of it what they put into it. Im not a Random Question Desk, Im the GM. If the players cant be bothered to jot down something or remember it, then it obviously wasnt too important to them.

[Kristopher]

There are things that might not seem important at the time, but turn out to be important later. That's a large part of the *point* of Eidetic Memory in an RPG. You can't fault the players for not being as good at some things as their characters, or for not being procognitive. And if they are precognitive, why do they need to *pretend* to be superpowered?

[lensman]

JmOz
I think what you advocate is that EM should be treated as a neat party game. Read a list of names, address', etc. and then let fellows at the party consult the original and ask devious questions like, "What is Lady Margret's address, in reverse?"
Too which the PC answers, "I tell him the answer."

And leave questions like"Yes, the body of Lady Margret was stabbed, but what direction was the body facing?" to the people who actually wrote down, "body faces N by NW".
And explain that thre character simply did not think it important to remember the facing.
Although that could get into a sticky wicket as players submit a list of things they pay attention to
How long or detailed that lost might be is a whole different challenge.

Killer Shrike
A difficulty I see is that Players all take notes or just a few and the ones that do have the same result as a PC with EM. Essentially duplicating the power for zero cost. Or the PC with EM keeps notes, but not as good notes as the PC Barbarian thief Kinfg and the PC playing the BTK role plays well his knowledge, through notes, leaving the EM PC frustrated that despite his attempts to play a role that is unlike himself he can not accomplish the task.
This situation being akin to a stuttering 13 year old adolscent playing the sauve and eloquent Bard.

zornwil
myself, I suck at tpynig, especially at short notice. I try and have everything I need done in advance or just jot down what I have to flesh out before the next game.
Aoblem I am trying to avoid is that, I do have all the information. I have hard enough time keeping track of what NPC's know what and when they said what, where let alone why they said it and to whom.
In the cacophony of a game, in hindsight weeks down the line if a player asks me to tell him what happened in detail I am at a loss or because I know everything may reveal something that in fact was never said or conveyedc.
EM is a powerful non-combat effect and I want a proprtional effect to the points.

The whole note taking process is a function wholly outside of role-playing. I quess it falls under a meta-game effect.
I run a game, fantasy hero in this case, and I expect that events and interactions in the campaign will be noted by the players, both for role-playing and for deliration on the plot and events. I should not have to keep notes for them.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
...I certainly dont have EM in real life, and its not really fair of the player to expect me to recall every niggling detail on the off chance they might ask about it later.


Pardon snippage...

I don't see EM that way, though, you as GM do not have to "recall every niggling detail," rather you merely have to remember that which will come into play for plot and you can make stuff up for flavor. And if the player wants to drive themselves crazy with red herrings and crazy details, I'd give it to them since it costs me nothing to make up after the fact, but I've never had that really happen.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Kristopher
There are things that might not seem important at the time, but turn out to be important later. That's a large part of the *point* of Eidetic Memory in an RPG. You can't fault the players for not being as good at some things as their characters, or for not being procognitive. And if they are precognitive, why do they need to *pretend* to be superpowered?

If a player wants to play a character with EM, then they want to be detail oriented. They want thier character to be knowledgeable and johnny-on-the-spot with continuity questions. Fine and well, but they have to put some work into it. Its thier character, and its up to them to make use of thier own character abilities. If a player is incapable of such, then they are incapable of playing that sort of character and shouldnt take EM.

Unlike thier character in the game, the player has the luxury of time to write down details and info and reference them later.


I dont see EM as an excuse to burden the GM further. I dont think any 5 point power/talent/perk should impose a requirement on the GM to take exacting notes, hone thier own memory, or otherwise inconvenience themselves.

By comparison, if a player takes KS: Nuclear Physics (+1) for 5 pts, dont expect me to run out and become an expert on Nuclear Physics so that I can adjudicate the characters use of the skill or instruct the player on the intricasies of that field of study. If the player wants to play out thier advanced knowledge of that subject its up to them to put in the necessary legwork and get smart on it.

In my own cynical way, I mostly see it as a flavor ability good for schtick and as an in-game excuse for an anal-retentive or note-obsessed player to display his pedantry. YMMV

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
If a player wants to play a character with EM, then they want to be detail oriented. They want thier character to be knowledgeable and johnny-on-the-spot with continuity questions. Fine and well, but they have to put some work into it. Its thier character, and its up to them to make use of thier own character abilities. If a player is incapable of such, then they are incapable of playing that sort of character and shouldnt take EM.

Unlike thier character in the game, the player has the luxury of time to write down details and info and reference them later.


I dont see EM as an excuse to burden the GM further. I dont think any 5 point power/talent/perk should impose a requirement on the GM to take exacting notes, hone thier own memory, or otherwise inconvenience themselves.

By comparison, if a player takes KS: Nuclear Physics (+1) for 5 pts, dont expect me to run out and become an expert on Nuclear Physics so that I can adjudicate the characters use of the power or instruct the player on the intricasies of that field of study. If the player wants to play out thier advanced knowledge of that subject its up to them to put in the necessary legwork and get smart on it.

In my own cynical way, I mostly see it as a flavor ability good for schtick and as an in-game excuse for an anal-retentive or note-obsessed player to display his pedantry. YMMV

Well, to be fair, please note I stated pretty clearly there's no reason that EM makes it so a GM has to make exacting notes or hone their memory or otherwise inconvenience themselves. It's an issue of "Well, you recall that the name of the guy you suspect is Joseph Jebediah." - even if I have to make up the name on the spot. And if I forget later and I make it up again and say "His name is Jolly Roger," because neither the player nor I remember - so what??? More often, it's really, "You know he's lying because at the scene of the crime you noticed the victim was wearing white underpants." and it's a plot point that as GM you have to know or make up anyway to move the plot along.

By comparison, I find it sufficient to say re nuclear physics, "Yes you have the adequate skill to disarm the nuclear bomb" or "You have the adequate skill to understand that these guys don't know what they're talking about." Neither the player nor I have to become nuclear experts.

[lensman]

Killer Shrike
I think I will adopt your take. The more specific the question the more dialed in the answer.

Generally this also might help with how to handle Deduction as well.

I refer to the skill, Deduction as "the PC cheater skill"
players just sit back and ask, "What can I deduce from the scene?"

Kristopher
I am for giving Players bang for character concep. I am looking for that part of the EM that brings out participation in a playrer not turtle behavior; wherein the player jumps in at a moment of group frustration over figuring out something and asks, "Tell me everything I remember."

zornwil
There has to be a happy middle, where I don't dress up a plot milestone and feed it the the EM player wrapped in herring.

[Killer Shrike]

Zorn -> Your way is fine too; I prefer a more involved style of play; everything in game is in-character. If you want your character to spout off at the mouth about something you either need to be knowledgable enough to pull it off or good at "making it sound good".

I dont like the "proxy" style of gaming where a major layer of seperation is present between the in-game and the play of the game.

Frex, when players say "My character tells him 'blah blah blah'" it drives me up the wall. "In character please". Similarly when a player says "I shoot him with my 3d6 RKA AP attack", I grimace. I want to hear, "I focus on that annoying dimple in his chin and let loose with my Flurry of Force Flachettes!" or something to that affect.

It sounds like you prefer a more meta-gamed environment. Thats kewl, just not for me. :)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
Zorn -> Your way is fine too; I prefer a more involved style of play; everything in game is in-character. If you want your character to spout off at the mouth about something you either need to be knowledgable enough to pull it off or good at "making it sound good".

I dont like the "proxy" style of gaming where a major layer of seperation is present between the in-game and the play of the game.

Frex, when players say "My character tells him 'blah blah blah'" it drives me up the wall. "In character please". Similarly when a player says "I shoot him with my 3d6 RKA AP attack", I grimace. I want to hear, "I focus on that annoying dimple in his chin and let loose with my Flurry of Force Flachettes!" or something to that affect.

It sounds like you prefer a more meta-gamed environment. Thats kewl, just not for me. :)

It just depends. I prefer in-character for personality stuff and role playing what you know and the character knows, and I prefer, to use your term, "proxy" style when it's some skill or some little detail that is "too involved" (requires a lot of knowledge not accessible to players easily, is a repetitive mechanical element (no argument with you but I don't want to hear the "Flurry of Force Flachettes" more than a couple times), or is redundant, such as repeating something you just said to another character).

To your point, I think a major layer of separation is essential when it comes to those things the vast majority of we as humans just can't do - like Eidetic Memory or Nuclear Physics. But if you can do it without that, more power to you.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by lensman
Killer Shrike
I think I will adopt your take. The more specific the question the more dialed in the answer.

Generally this also might help with how to handle Deduction as well.

I refer to the skill, Deduction as "the PC cheater skill"
players just sit back and ask, "What can I deduce from the scene?"

Kristopher
I am for giving Players bang for character concep. I am looking for that part of the EM that brings out participation in a playrer not turtle behavior; wherein the player jumps in at a moment of group frustration over figuring out something and asks, "Tell me everything I remember."

zornwil
There has to be a happy middle, where I don't dress up a plot milestone and feed it the the EM player wrapped in herring.

Well, for Deduction if someone says "what do I deduce", I take one of two routes - if it's bloody obvious then I don't worry and give some info but otherwise I generally ask, "what kinds of things do you do, are you searching the body/area first, or talking to people or...?" Then I can base what their deductions are on the path they choose, even if they can't really explain it beyond generality.

Some of this of course is back to that old dilemma - what if I'm an idiot and I want to play a genius? I try to allow for that, am okay with it, but for some gaming groups/preferences that does not work.

I don't know what you mean "There has to be a happy middle", I didn't say to do what you did, I don't think, or at least I didn't mean to. Or maybe I did in that event the player asks a million questions and wants to know all sorts of trivai, okay, but to me a character who really does that is the type of character asking specifically for a bunch of red herrings. If the character picks one and as discussed elsewhere and over many years, their answer to the riddle is better than you can always go with that. Anyway I'm not quite sure what you meant so if you like explain. If someone says "Tell me everything I remember", I would say, "Like in what area or what are you trying to find?" because I wouldn't know how to answer that. But if they say, "What color was the carpet? How many fibers were dyed impeoperly? Where di the fibers all point? Were any of the fibers pointed southwesterly?" I'll gladly answer each question if the character would have spent a bunch of time looking at those factors.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
By comparison, if a player takes KS: Nuclear Physics (+1) for 5 pts, dont expect me to run out and become an expert on Nuclear Physics so that I can adjudicate the characters use of the skill or instruct the player on the intricasies of that field of study. If the player wants to play out thier advanced knowledge of that subject its up to them to put in the necessary legwork and get smart on it.

That seems like a double-standard, to be honest. Don't ask the players to do what you don't want them to ask you to do.

A character with, say, 13- in SS: Nuclear Physics has a level of understanding that few are likely to have, player or GM. You can't expect the player to run out and get a graduate degree in physics just because he wants to play a character with that level of understanding in physics, any more than they can expect you to become an astronaut before running a Star Hero game.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Kristopher
That seems like a double-standard, to be honest. Don't ask the players to do what you don't want them to ask you to do.

A character with, say, 13- in SS: Nuclear Physics has a level of understanding that few are likely to have, player or GM. You can't expect the player to run out and get a graduate degree in physics just because he wants to play a character with that level of understanding in physics, any more than they can expect you to become an astronaut before running a Star Hero game. Its not a double standard, its a single standard. They are the player. If they want to play thier character as being knowledgeable then its up to them to provide the knowledge.

Im not saying they need to become experts in a subject; they just need to pick up enough buzzwords and basic concepts to make it sound good in passing. Its a rpg; even the best run game is rubber science mechanically. It just needs to sound plausible as conversation fillers, it doesnt need to be accurate or scientifically exact. It just needs to be semi-plausible.

To take your example, its perfectly reasonable for the players to expect the GM to be cognizant of the elements of a good space sci-fi game before running Star HERO. Expecting the GM to be an astronaut is clearly a strawman, but its certainly within the player's rights to expect the GM to be familiar with the Star HERO genre book. That has noting to do with a player taking a 5 pt ability for thier character and then expecting the GM to go to a lot of extra trouble just so they can be lazy and put zero effort into thier own character. The GM already has enough work to do.

[lensman]

Originally posted by zornwil
I don't know what you mean "There has to be a happy middle", I didn't say to do what you did, I don't think, or at least I didn't mean to. ..
Anyway I'm not quite sure what you meant so if you like explain.
If someone says "Tell me everything I remember", I would say, "Like in what area or what are you trying to find?" because I wouldn't know how to answer that. But if they say, "What color was the carpet? How many fibers were dyed impeoperly? Where di the fibers all point? Were any of the fibers pointed southwesterly?" I'll gladly answer each question if the character would have spent a bunch of time looking at those factors.

Sorry, not enough context.
On one side of EM
Player axis,Time: none, Effort: none. Expectations: player asks questions propmted by questions post event and expects that the information will be recorded by other players as his characters lips move but the GM speaks.
GM axis, Time: moderate, Effort: Depends on organization

Far end of the EM spectrum
Player axis, Time: Long, consuming, Effort: involved
Assuming time is equally shared, this player sacrifices time for data collection from role playing. He needs to set "tags" covering enough bases so that later he can ask the GM enough general questions to get specific answers

Did not mean to put words in your mouth, so to speak.

[Kristopher]

Shrike:
As I said before, sometimes the player with EM or whatever is going to have to go back and ask you for some details he missed the first time around, because there are no precognitives in the real world. Sometimes, the player will miss some important details in real time because he's busy, let's see, ROLE-PLAYING his interation with one of the NPCs and didn't get a chance to jot something down. Do you really want your gaming sessions to go like this:

"Sorry, guys, wait a sec while I write this stuff down."

Scribble-scribble-scribble-five-minutes-later...

"OK, got it all, go ahead with the the moving death-scene of Waterdragon's mentor!"

Do you really want the sessions to devolve into Secretary: the Memo-Taking?

You MUST be able to meet the players halfway. If that's not possible with your players, maybe it's time to find some new players. If that's not possible with you...

And one more thing...I don't use strawmen, and it is a double standard to ask anything out of the players that you wouldn't ask of yourself. If you can't deal with what it takes to be a GM, let someone else run who can deal with it.

[lensman]

Killer Shrike
It appears you, like me, are looking to have enough knowledge or "buzzwords" thrown in to suspend disbelief or "fourth-walling"

HERO system rewards this by allowing positive modifiers to skills for such activity.
Thus "I use my Nuclear Physics 13- to determine the yeild of this facilty."
is not as well rewarded as
"This reactor is a Soviet model breeder reactor, modified with cavitating spin tubes. Allowing for a poor mix ratio and given these reactors use rods, clear molded with cesium, and the damage, the output should be Y."

By way of this example in gross, There is a limit to players attempting roles outside of their experience, but at least try.

Not that any side needs defending I just agree with this one

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Kristopher
Shrike:
As I said before, sometimes the player with EM or whatever is going to have to go back and ask you for some details he missed the first time around, because there are no precognitives in the real world. Sometimes, the player will miss some important details in real time because he's busy, let's see, ROLE-PLAYING his interation with one of the NPCs and didn't get a chance to jot something down. Do you really want your gaming sessions to go like this:

"Sorry, guys, wait a sec while I write this stuff down."

Scribble-scribble-scribble-five-minutes-later...

"OK, got it all, go ahead with the the moving death-scene of Waterdragon's mentor!"

Do you really want the sessions to devolve into Secretary: the Memo-Taking?

You MUST be able to meet the players halfway. If that's not possible with your players, maybe it's time to find some new players. If that's not possible with you...

And one more thing...I don't use strawmen, and it is a double standard to ask anything out of the players that you wouldn't ask of yourself. If you can't deal with what it takes to be a GM, let someone else run who can deal with it.

Hey, kewl. Personal attacks. "You dont agree with me! You must be a bad GM!" :rolleyes:

You apparantly dont read posts in thier entirety. Reference above where I discuss meeting players half way. If a player has made an effort to keep track of what is going on, and asks specific questions, then they will get reciprocal info from me.

I dont care if the player wants to jot down his notes now or do it later after the game, or anything in between. If the player is incapable of taking good notes or doing whatever is necessary for them to make use of an ability they opted for, then c'est la vie. If they cant hack it, they shouldnt take the ability.

Im not sure how you've migrated into questioning either my players or myself. I havent voiced any complaints about my current crop of players. This is not a problem in my group.

But to clarify it for you, yes if a player is more trouble than they are worth its "goodbye" time. If a player isnt good enough or is a hassle to deal with then I dont want or need them in my group. My views on this have been discussed on these boards before. I dont want players, I want good players that are also a good fit for the current group and campaign. I believe good players make for good games and dont hesitate to cut loose a player that isnt making the grade or who is irritating me. I play for fun, and if someone consistently detracts from that they're gone.

As far as your Astronaut example, it is a non-sensical example. To use a comparison for purposes of making a point you have to show sameness on all sides. Me putting the balance of a character's abilities on the player of that character is not similar to a player expecting a GM to go into space in order to run a Star HERO game. Its a non sequitir. Your point is illogical and does not follow.

Me expecting a player to put in some effort to either research a subject or some effort to employ adequate memory aids is the same as a player expecting me to put in some effort researching the needs of a campaign of a certain genre or to put in enough effort to read a published source book explicitly for that genre.


This has all been pleasant conversation until now, but if you continue to drift into making personal attacks Ill simply add you to my ignore list. I dont get involved in flame wars or arguments ad infinitim; they are a waste of time. Similarly, I dont deal with argumentative people. If you cant be tolerant of the idea that there are many ways to do things, all equally correct or circumstantially viable, then there is no point in talking with you. If you dont agree with me, then just agree to disagree and we'll all move on. You do it your way, and Ill do it mine. Thanx!

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by lensman
Killer Shrike
It appears you, like me, are looking to have enough knowledge or "buzzwords" thrown in to suspend disbelief or "fourth-walling"

HERO system rewards this by allowing positive modifiers to skills for such activity.
Thus "I use my Nuclear Physics 13- to determine the yeild of this facilty."
is not as well rewarded as
"This reactor is a Soviet model breeder reactor, modified with cavitating spin tubes. Allowing for a poor mix ratio and given these reactors use rods, clear molded with cesium, and the damage, the output should be Y."

By way of this example in gross, There is a limit to players attempting roles outside of their experience, but at least try.

Not that any side needs defending I just agree with this one

That is my approach as well. Well said ;)

[Fur Face]

FWIW, from some of the descriptions given, I think people are using EM for more than it should be intended. EM for people usually doesn't fall into a "Mr. Data from ST:TNG", where he always recall everything he has experienced. (Although there has been some arguments in the past about human minds always recording, we just bury it too deep).

As far as I know it, EM works this way, as suggested in the rules: I don't remember all details all the time, but when I say "I'm committing this memory" then its done. I suppose it really doesn't matter who keeps notes, but I would be more inlclined to place it on the player. I mean, its only a 5pt power, it shouldn't ruin your game the same way the deduction skill shouldn't either. Personally, I try to make it more of a roleplaying issue, then remind players what details their characters would remember. Otherwise it could be much more time consuming, and if you are depending on the players remembering something intregal to a later plot you wish to develop, you could be unpleasantly surprised.

IMHO, of course! :)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by lensman
Sorry, not enough context.
On one side of EM
Player axis,Time: none, Effort: none. Expectations: player asks questions propmted by questions post event and expects that the information will be recorded by other players as his characters lips move but the GM speaks.
GM axis, Time: moderate, Effort: Depends on organization

Far end of the EM spectrum
Player axis, Time: Long, consuming, Effort: involved
Assuming time is equally shared, this player sacrifices time for data collection from role playing. He needs to set "tags" covering enough bases so that later he can ask the GM enough general questions to get specific answers

Did not mean to put words in your mouth, so to speak.

That's okay, just wanted to be clear. I don't disagree that the player should cover his bases to ask reasonable questions. I think as you saw from my other notes, I just don't see it as a lot of work on either side unless the player is being unreasonable.

[Talon]

While the EM description does say you have to memorize stuff for it to stick, the fact that EM is also used to represent video cameras and the like makes it quite easy for players to (intentionally or not) turn the Talent into "I remember everything I witness...like a video camera!".

[Arthur]

Sanity check!

People - this is just a game. As GM, you do the best you can with what you have. If Mr. Total Recall wants details, help him to the best of your ability within reasonable limits and get on with the game. If the player wants, he can keep his own notes. I'm not gonna work on the game like it's a master's thesis.

EM should give a bonus to some skill rolls. Up to +2 for things like Research or many KS's. +1 for most other INT-based skills.

[Kristopher]

Let's see...

The players should take enough notes, and then if necessary read them back to the GM for further clarification.

When a player whose character has EM says something to the effect of "can I make an INT check to see if I remember that", a good response is "if you yourself have some notes on it, then your character remembers it, otherwise too bad".

and

I figure the players get out of it what they put into it. Im not a Random Question Desk, Im the GM. If the players cant be bothered to jot down something or remember it, then it obviously wasnt too important to them.

and

In my own cynical way, I mostly see it as a flavor ability good for schtick and as an in-game excuse for an anal-retentive or note-obsessed player to display his pedantry. YMMV

Yeah, that's really meeting the players halfway.

As for the astronaut example...here's what you originally said that inspired that one:

By comparison, if a player takes KS: Nuclear Physics (+1) for 5 pts, dont expect me to run out and become an expert on Nuclear Physics so that I can adjudicate the characters use of the skill or instruct the player on the intricasies of that field of study. If the player wants to play out thier advanced knowledge of that subject its up to them to put in the necessary legwork and get smart on it.

Now, that sounds to me like you expect the player to run out and become an expert on any skill he wants his character to have. It also sounds like you expect the player to chronicle the game in minute detail if the character has Eidetic Memory, and to be precognitive in knowing what information will be important later.

Yeah, it's easier to just dismiss the other side with comments like "non sequitor" and "strawman," but you can't just use them as "magic words."

[Killer Shrike]

Again, read all posts and in thier entirety.

If a player asks a question referencing thing that they do remember, then of course Im more lenient.

If the player says something to the extent of "Last tuesday when we were investigating the corpse of the culprit, Sgt Jennings mentioned a detail about the knife -- what was it again?" they will get much more info from me, as opposed to a player saying something to the effect of "What was the thing with that corpse that the cop mentioned the other day?"

Im not saying they need to become experts in a subject; they just need to pick up enough buzzwords and basic concepts to make it sound good in passing. Its a rpg; even the best run game is rubber science mechanically. It just needs to sound plausible as conversation fillers, it doesnt need to be accurate or scientifically exact. It just needs to be semi-plausible.

As far as your Astronaut example, it is a non-sensical example. To use a comparison for purposes of making a point you have to show sameness on all sides. Me putting the balance of a character's abilities on the player of that character is not similar to a player expecting a GM to go into space in order to run a Star HERO game. Its a non sequitir. Your point is illogical and does not follow.

Me expecting a player to put in some effort to either research a subject or some effort to employ adequate memory aids is the same as a player expecting me to put in some effort researching the needs of a campaign of a certain genre or to put in enough effort to read a published source book explicitly for that genre.

Im not sure what exactly your beef is, but it seems to me like you are just being disagreeable and trying to pick a fight. You can save your [sarcasm] and accusations for someone else. Sorry we couldnt engage in a more meaningful discussion, and welcome to my Ignore list.

[Kristopher]

Someone doesn't agree with the Shrike, so step one is to try a few "magic words" to make them shut up, and when that doesn't work, step two is the ignore list.

Lovely.

Too bad he sounds like multiple rotten GMs I've come across.

Sameness on all sides indeed. Talk about hypocrisy.

Shrike should just come clean, admit that he doesn't like the EM Talent, and house-rule it out of his games entirely.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Kristopher
Someone doesn't agree with the Shrike, so step one is to try a few "magic words" to make them shut up, and when that doesn't work, step two is the ignore list.

Lovely.

Too bad he sounds like multiple rotten GMs I've come across.

Sameness on all sides indeed. Talk about hypocrisy.

Shrike should just come clean, admit that he doesn't like the EM Talent, and house-rule it out of his games entirely.

I dunno, I haven't seen that much trouble with Shrike and have certainly disagreed. I'm not saying it's all you but by the same token you did start coming on a little strong - then neither of you seemed willing to back off or throw any leveity in. I think somehow you guys just rubbed each other the wrong way after a bad turn.

[MisterD]

I had a character in GURPS.
High INT and Max Edetic Memory and high technical, electrical and mechanical skills. In other words he knows his stuff.

In the game My character had to get sdome more power out of the engines.

He had my character get 20% more power but killed the small aliens that were in an empty conduit cleaning it out.

And my character designed the system!!!!!!!

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by zornwil
I dunno, I haven't seen that much trouble with Shrike and have certainly disagreed. I'm not saying it's all you but by the same token you did start coming on a little strong - then neither of you seemed willing to back off or throw any leveity in. I think somehow you guys just rubbed each other the wrong way after a bad turn. I dont know what I wrote to incite such vehemence from Kristopher. I dont see this subject as anything to get worked up over, being a Poll response and further not a very important aspect of the game, but for some reason he busts out with what I interpreted to be a personal attack, and with "heat" or "tone" in his responses. {shrugs}

Whatever. I just dont care to get involved in running arguments on message boards. They very rarely ever get resolved, and waste a lot of time and typing. Im a very live and let live kind of guy. I run my game my way, and am not put out by other people running thier games thier way. Thats what the HERO System in particular is all about -- even the Lead Developer rarely comes out and says 'DO IT THIS WAY'; the strongest he normally gets is a '{shrug} I wouldnt allow it, but its your game, so do it that way if you want'.

I dont care if someone disagrees with me. Doesnt bother me in the slightest. Im extremely tolerant of other people doing thier thing however they want to do it. I just refuse to waste time on people who try to push thier way of doing things onto others, and people that get agitated/worked up over inconsequentials. Ill discuss points and counterpoints as long as its productive/interesting, but as soon as someone gets aggro or obnoxious, Im thru wasting time on them -- why sink to thier level? The beauty of the Ignore function is that I can just filter that sort of person right out and not waste time dealing with them.

Its the same reason I prefer Magic Online to Magic frex; if a player starts being a twit, its a moments work to ban them and drop out of the game so that I can move on and find a more congenial opponent. I play games for fun, not to fraternize with socially maladjusted grognards who have passionate beliefs about a bundle of arbitrary rules that they are anxious to argue about.

So, basically people like yourself who are friendly and conversational can disagree all day long in a civil fashion without bothering me in the slightest; we can all agreeably disagree. But people that are impolite, rude, confrontational, etc.....why bother? Its vastly preferrable to my mind to just filter them out in much the same way I would hit Mute to nullify an annoying commercial.

[Kristopher]

Personally, I think Shrike is demonstrating a peculiar online form of cowardice and lack of consideration. Insulting someone is a lot easier when you can ignore their responses. An online forum isn't a TV or radio show, it's a conversation, and whether it's face to face or not, there's no room for that lack of consideration in a conversation. And when it's a friendly conversation, which this was, you don't lightly toss around accusations that other people are using strawmen, or that their arguements are non sequitur.

What's really ironic is that he does all this, and then goes on to call others "socially maladjusted grognards."

I'm not upset about the rules, I'm upset about the way he'd apparently rather belittle and insult players who want to use a particular Talent, rather than just admit that he doesn't like it and house-rule it out of his games.

I find it odd and frustrating, because other than on this thread, his opinions seem at least well thought-out and well founded, even if I don't always agree with them.

[Farkling]

Huh. t just seems like Shrike has run across an abuser of EM...and the rest of you haven't.

I don't play games with the poeple who demand that kind of dedicated knowledge and note-taking. It isn't fun But I buzz better than ANYONE I game with. Being a long term GM AND a voracious reader can give you a great ability to plausibly explain damn near anything.

The GM running our current Exalted game lets me run on a lot. Sometimes the gullible people decide I'm lying, and sometimes the GM adopts my interpretation of the universe cause he likes it better. It'd be horrible if I had eidetic memory too. I have enough trouble rmemebering what my character MIGHT have read...if I had to keep a list? Ewwww. :D

The persons who want to use EM as a catch-all "I remember everything the GM said a month ago" skill should be charged for the power accordingly. Tack on a disadvantage or two, and give them an appropriately limited Retrocognition power...or a cheap Self Only Telepathy to replay the memory in its entirety. The limitations on the Retrocog (or the abused EM) may cause them to re-visit the "crime scene" in orfer to jog their memory. And if they don't have notes, the information is more skewed towards MY interpretation of it.

I think the old version stated that the character needed to make an INT roll to recall a specific fact. And every eidetic I've met needs a little time to perform parlor tricks. If the character wants to recall Bob Kalizonskie's phone number after reading the New York Phone Directory, he needs to "mentally" flip the pages and look it up...or maybe just zone out for a moment. This is why users don't get good skill rolls...

It's your HERO game....outlaw the talent, rewrite it, play it down and force PC's to buy a POWERED version of it.

:p Shoot the horse and bury the hatchets. :cool:

[lensman]

Couple of thoughts.

STOP poisioning my thread.

If you have issues with posts and its writer, get off my thread and send them email or PM.

I expect authors to go back and edit posts and delete everything that is off topic.
That or I contact thre moderator and see if I can have him remove selected posts.
Then I will edit the above out as well

Nowe...
Fur Face
Let us consider. I might make the PC roll a PER roll and then INT roll post facto to remember. Or at tthe timetime. Either way someone would have to keep track of each instance of success, so that after a instance is memorized I dod not have the pC roll each time, thus stopping the game for mechanics, something I am desperate to reduce.

Geoff Speare
Excellant point. Now I have to consider, what is the capacity of the PC. Does this talent come with infinite storage space, unlike a camera, which limits to a 8 hour tape on EP.

Arthur
Thanks for the reminder and much like the Cosmic Encounter Sanity EDict, I stop, and reflect.

Now my Job as GM is to hash all this out , outside of the game for bestpractice. I am slowly evolving that from all these relevant posts.

Your idea is great. I think though that I will have the PC's buy as a Power as talent thing
Levels like ovwerall or INt based to reflect the added utility wired in from EM

MisterD
Hopefully I will have PCs that will be as creative .

[Mentor]

Originally posted by Kristopher
That seems like a double-standard, to be honest. Don't ask the players to do what you don't want them to ask you to do.

A character with, say, 13- in SS: Nuclear Physics has a level of understanding that few are likely to have, player or GM. You can't expect the player to run out and get a graduate degree in physics just because he wants to play a character with that level of understanding in physics, any more than they can expect you to become an astronaut before running a Star Hero game. Agreed Likewise, the GM can't teach a PhD in Nuclear Physics. I voted for the imperfect result. Give the PC the important details and supplement with necessary info. Don't hose the players but don't stop the game either.

[Mentor]

Originally posted by Arthur
Sanity check!

People - this is just a game. As GM, you do the best you can with what you have. If Mr. Total Recall wants details, help him to the best of your ability within reasonable limits and get on with the game. If the player wants, he can keep his own notes. I'm not gonna work on the game like it's a master's thesis.

EM should give a bonus to some skill rolls. Up to +2 for things like Research or many KS's. +1 for most other INT-based skills. Thank you.