Perception

[Underling]

I'm curious why Perception is based on INT. I don't see the correlation. I mean, someone who is stupid doesn't seem to be less aware of his environment as someone who is brilliant. Actually, high intelligence is arguably a distraction from perceiving one's environment. Consider even the stereotypes of the oblivious genius professor vs. the dumb giant who can nevertheless smell "the blood of an Englishman." The problems with linking PER with INT becomes especially noticeable when it comes to animals, which often have great perception compared with more intelligent humans.

Thus, I propose that PER be based on either CON or DEX. The argument for using CON is that a reduction in health directly corresponds with a reduction in perceptiveness; if you're sickly your body doesn't function very well, and a reduction in perception would logically coincide with a reduction of the body's physical state. Conversely, the healthier the organism, the better all its parts should function, including perception. The only problem here is that according to this logic, all other physical and mental characteristics should probably be reduced as well. Hmmm.

Perhaps DEX would make a better base characteristic. The logic behind this is that animals that depend on DEX to survive tend to have terrific perception, whereas those that don't depend on DEX often have lesser perceptive abilities (compare a gazelle with a porcupine, for example). After all, all the DEX in the world does a critter no good if danger can't be perceived in time to actually use that dexterity.

A third option might be to average CON and DEX to determine PER. This would give higher default PER to those who are agile and healthy, and lower default PER to those who are clumsy and sickly.

Any thoughts?

Derek

[Steve Long]

The Questions board isn't for design speculation or system discussion, so I've moved this question.

[bjbrown]

<P>Intelligence measures ability to process information, and perception rolls are often made for characters to notice something inobvious, which sounds like processing information to me.</P><P>Animals and creatures with low intelligence and good senses of course have this simulated with Enhanced Senses. The bumbling genius could be simulated with a Disadvantage.</P><P>Your argument for CON makes some amount of sense, but you're still going to have situations in which a high CON character should have low perception, and cases in which a low CON character should have high perception. While INT doesn't necessarily perfectly correlate with the level of perception desired, no stat will.</P><P>Based on the way that INT and PER are defined, I think they fit pretty well. Also, another reason not to base PER on a stat like CON or DEX is that those stats already have so many combat benefits, additional benefits don't need to be associated with them. (Especially DEX- it's already useful enough.) My thoughts fall into the not broken, don't fix category.</P>

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Underling
I'm curious why Perception is based on INT. I don't see the correlation. I mean, someone who is stupid doesn't seem to be less aware of his environment as someone who is brilliant. Actually, high intelligence is arguably a distraction from perceiving one's environment. Consider even the stereotypes of the oblivious genius professor vs. the dumb giant who can nevertheless smell "the blood of an Englishman." The problems with linking PER with INT becomes especially noticeable when it comes to animals, which often have great perception compared with more intelligent humans.

Thus, I propose that PER be based on either CON or DEX. The argument for using CON is that a reduction in health directly corresponds with a reduction in perceptiveness; if you're sickly your body doesn't function very well, and a reduction in perception would logically coincide with a reduction of the body's physical state. Conversely, the healthier the organism, the better all its parts should function, including perception. The only problem here is that according to this logic, all other physical and mental characteristics should probably be reduced as well. Hmmm.

Perhaps DEX would make a better base characteristic. The logic behind this is that animals that depend on DEX to survive tend to have terrific perception, whereas those that don't depend on DEX often have lesser perceptive abilities (compare a gazelle with a porcupine, for example). After all, all the DEX in the world does a critter no good if danger can't be perceived in time to actually use that dexterity.

A third option might be to average CON and DEX to determine PER. This would give higher default PER to those who are agile and healthy, and lower default PER to those who are clumsy and sickly.

Any thoughts?

Derek

I believe you can relate PER to INT in several ways - the most obvious to me is that if you are smarter you can process more and theoretically should be able to notice things faster/better than someone/thing with less intelligence. If you have an absent-minded professor or a sensitive-nosed giant, buy the PER rolls up or down. (FRED has INT as the ability to take in and process information quickly (p 23)).

Being healthy doesn't make you more perceptive than one who is sick or tired - I've been dead tired and still caught things faster than my friends (and the situation was reversed other times). Is a handicapped person (low CON and phys lims) less perceptive than a non-handicapped person? Actually, that depends on the handicap, but hope I made my point. It doesn't matter if the parts are healthy if the processor isn't there.

Relating it to DEX is a little odd to me - there doesn't seem to be any correlation between PER and reflexes except that one enables you to use the other more effectively. I would keep DEX out of it. I haven't looked at the Bestiary, but I know in another game animals are given bonuses to their sensory rolls to reflect their senses, so for them I'd buy extra PER rather than start out as a different default. Also, animals also have limitations on their perceptions - a lot of animals have prey images or threat images - if a creature or object isn't in their image file (so to speak), the animal doesn't react to it like you think they might. (Of course, the same has been postulated for human beings too).

Personally I'll stick with the standard system, mainly for the reasons above. However, you can use either (or even make another stat - Perception, used to reflect all of the things that have been mentioned). Give it modifiers for health/dex/etc (or make it a figured char - [INT/5+CON/5+DEX/5] or something similar).

Just a few thoughts

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by badger3k
I believe you can relate PER to INT in several ways - the most obvious to me is that if you are smarter you can process more and theoretically should be able to notice things faster/better than someone/thing with less intelligence. If you have an absent-minded professor or a sensitive-nosed giant, buy the PER rolls up or down. (FRED has INT as the ability to take in and process information quickly (p 23)).

Brilliant scientistsc may not have a high INT by Hero standards, if they work slowly and methodically. What we see as Intelligence in Hero isn't justhow smart", but comic book "smart" that knows the answer right now.


Originally posted by badger3k
Personally I'll stick with the standard system, mainly for the reasons above. However, you can use either (or even make another stat - Perception, used to reflect all of the things that have been mentioned). Give it modifiers for health/dex/etc (or make it a figured char - [INT/5+CON/5+DEX/5] or something similar).

Just a few thoughts

All good points. leaving aside all game vs reality logic, the last thing we need is to make Con or Dex MORE valuable!

[Lupus]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
All good points. leaving aside all game vs reality logic, the last thing we need is to make Con or Dex MORE valuable! Yeah. I say we stick with the 'bodily health' thing and tie perception to strength, instead.

:D

[Farkling]

I've always told people that PER is not "How smart you are" it is "how fast you think" ... thus Wolverine and the infamous Reed Richards can be built with the same level of INT...and we will put the Beast and Iron Man quite a ways behind them, as they are both very intelligent fellows, but they frequently mis things...now, is Spidey a high (INT) perception character, or is he riding on that nifty Danger Sense power?

optionally, following the CON argument, your house rule could base PER rolls on BODY....

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
Ioptionally, following the CON argument, your house rule could base PER rolls on BODY....

"The bigger they are, the better they see" :p

[Ben Seeman]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
"The bigger they are, the better they see" :p
Of course, cuz they have bigger eyes, right?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Ben Seeman
Of course, cuz they have bigger eyes, right?

Well, as long as there's a GOOD reason.

Hmmm...does that mean we have to get some PER modifiers into Growth and Shrinking? I think I'll house rule that you have to buy PER modifiers or the size of your eyes/ears/etc. doesn't change :)

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Well, as long as there's a GOOD reason.

Hmmm...does that mean we have to get some PER modifiers into Growth and Shrinking? I think I'll house rule that you have to buy PER modifiers or the size of your eyes/ears/etc. doesn't change :)

Great - now we get a giant man with little pig eyes, or a doll man with BIG bug eyes - you'd habe to lose perception as your eyes popped out of your head!

[Col. Orange]

Originally posted by badger3k
a doll with BIG bug eyes - you'd habe to lose perception as your eyes popped out of your head!

Great, shrinking turns you Manga.

[Col. Orange]

Don't know how FRED explains it but GURPS (waits for the hurled rocks... no, safe) bases it of Intelligence because a single roll is used both to detect an object and to understand it's significance.

[Farkling]

No...I absolutely REFUSE to let GURPS apply a good explanation to something in HERO!! There has to be another way!!

**frantically pulls gamebooks from the shelves**


Oh no....that's actually a decent idea...
<sigh>

:D


And for you people kicking dirt on my silly BODY idea...isn't BODY more than just physical toughness? Y'all keep arguing that over GURPs.... :)

But the mechanical problem with Growth and Shrinking....hmmm....when you're tiny you can't see as far, and when you're big you can see OVER so much...
Anyway...the size modifiers are relative modifiers...if you are 4 hexes in size, then you have an even PER roll against something 4 Hexes in size... :)

[Underling]

Originally posted by Col. Orange
Don't know how FRED explains it but GURPS (waits for the hurled rocks... no, safe) bases it of Intelligence because a single roll is used both to detect an object and to understand it's significance.

<G> Actually, GURPS has a perception roll first, THEN another IQ roll to understand the significance of the observation. But, again, IQ doesn't seem to fit for perception either!

Derek

[Underling]

Originally posted by bjbrown
<P>Intelligence measures ability to process information, and perception rolls are often made for characters to notice something inobvious, which sounds like processing information to me.</P><P>Animals and creatures with low intelligence and good senses of course have this simulated with Enhanced Senses. The bumbling genius could be simulated with a Disadvantage.</P><P>Your argument for CON makes some amount of sense, but you're still going to have situations in which a high CON character should have low perception, and cases in which a low CON character should have high perception. While INT doesn't necessarily perfectly correlate with the level of perception desired, no stat will.</P><P>Based on the way that INT and PER are defined, I think they fit pretty well. Also, another reason not to base PER on a stat like CON or DEX is that those stats already have so many combat benefits, additional benefits don't need to be associated with them. (Especially DEX- it's already useful enough.) My thoughts fall into the not broken, don't fix category.</P>

Perception may be processing of information, but many animals process that kind of information better than humans even though they may not have anywhere near the intelligence. Perception and dexterity evolve together in many respects, mainly because in the natural world dexterity without perception is mostly useless.

Sure you can use Enhanced Senses and Disadvantages to get the standard cinematic/realistic effects of perception using INT, but doesn't it strike you that something's wrong if those advantages and disadvantages have to be applied MOST of the time to deal with animal perception, when they would only be needed rarely if the roll were based on something like DEX or CON? You could still use advantages and disadvantages for special circumstances, but they wouldn't needed nearly as often.

Derek

[Underling]

Originally posted by badger3k
I believe you can relate PER to INT in several ways - the most obvious to me is that if you are smarter you can process more and theoretically should be able to notice things faster/better than someone/thing with less intelligence. If you have an absent-minded professor or a sensitive-nosed giant, buy the PER rolls up or down. (FRED has INT as the ability to take in and process information quickly (p 23)).

See my above post. Humans don't notice things more than most animals do, they just usually understand the significance of them better (the INT roll after the PER roll, you might say). And while the definition of INT may be the ability to take in and process information quickly, I suspect that should be interpreted as taking in and processing ALREADY PERCEIVED information, since the actual game effect of Perception is no different from how animals perceive their environment. Animal senses are no less developed than human senses, even though they may be processed by smaller brains. Just giving most animals Enhanced Senses is a kludge, I believe, since the need for animals to have good senses is no different from the need for humans to have good senses (especially for the environment in which we evolved). There's MUCH less need for a workaround if PER is based on DEX.


Being healthy doesn't make you more perceptive than one who is sick or tired - I've been dead tired and still caught things faster than my friends (and the situation was reversed other times). Is a handicapped person (low CON and phys lims) less perceptive than a non-handicapped person? Actually, that depends on the handicap, but hope I made my point. It doesn't matter if the parts are healthy if the processor isn't there.

I agree the argument isn't as good for CON as it is for DEX...but I think it's still better than the argument for INT. Regarding your example, a handicapped person wouldn't necessarily have low CON, nor would a person who was tired, so I wouldn't use those as arguments against using CON for PER.


Relating it to DEX is a little odd to me - there doesn't seem to be any correlation between PER and reflexes except that one enables you to use the other more effectively. I would keep DEX out of it.

I disagree. In most cases, especially when including animals, I think you'll find perceptive abilities to be directly proportional to dexterity, for without perception, dexterity is meaningless.


I haven't looked at the Bestiary, but I know in another game animals are given bonuses to their sensory rolls to reflect their senses, so for them I'd buy extra PER rather than start out as a different default. Also, animals also have limitations on their perceptions - a lot of animals have prey images or threat images - if a creature or object isn't in their image file (so to speak), the animal doesn't react to it like you think they might. (Of course, the same has been postulated for human beings too).

GURPS too uses INT (IQ) for perception. I think that is inaccurate as well. The fact that they need to buy up animal senses is a red flag that something in the concept is off base.

And while you're right about animal prey/threat images, that doesn't mean their perceptive abilities are lesser in any way...only that how they process the information provided by their senses is limited. An antelope will still perceive the rabbit before a human is likely to, but since the rabbit doesn't match the antelope's prey/threat images, it doesn't respond. Even many extremely unintelligent organisms (insects, fish, amphibians) can perceive motion and shapes very well (commensurate with their dexterity) even if they can only recognize a limited range of patterns (commensurate with their intelligence).


Personally I'll stick with the standard system, mainly for the reasons above. However, you can use either (or even make another stat - Perception, used to reflect all of the things that have been mentioned). Give it modifiers for health/dex/etc (or make it a figured char - [INT/5+CON/5+DEX/5] or something similar).


As a figured characteristic would make sense, particularly if PER rolls are intended to be fairly averaged out among individuals with varying characteristics. (DEX+CON)/2 anyone? The real headache, it seems, is that DEX and CON are too valuable as it is.

Derek

[Underling]

Originally posted by Farkling
I've always told people that PER is not "How smart you are" it is "how fast you think" ... thus Wolverine and the infamous Reed Richards can be built with the same level of INT...and we will put the Beast and Iron Man quite a ways behind them, as they are both very intelligent fellows, but they frequently mis things...now, is Spidey a high (INT) perception character, or is he riding on that nifty Danger Sense power?

optionally, following the CON argument, your house rule could base PER rolls on BODY....

Should INT really be how fast you think, rather than memory and analytical capabilities? There's no other characteristic to simulate that. Besides, isn't that how INT is actually used in the game--making INT rolls and skill rolls based on INT to reflect how much you know and how well you can figure something out?

How fast you think, however, is probably best simulated by DEX, since DEX is the main characteristic for figuring SPD, and you can't be speedy if you can't think as fast as your SPD, right? Also, if INT is how fast you think, then someone with a 20 INT and 3 SPD should accomplish more INT-based actions than someone with a 10 INT and 6 SPD, and that doesn't make sense, does it?

Of course, basing PER on DEX makes DEX too valuable. Others have complained that STR is too weak (right?). One way to reduce the value of DEX and increase the value of STR would be to make SPD based on 1+((DEX+STR)/5). Strength should influence speed? WTF? Well, the argument for this would be that body mass slows a person's speed and acceleration, and high strength counteracts the effects of body mass. Thus, for two people of equal body mass, the one with the higher strength can overcome the inertial effects of his own body mass faster and therefore move faster than the other person.

This same logic could apply to inflicting damage with melee weapons and fists. SPD should influence damage based on simple physics: f=ma (force=mass*acceleration). If two people have the same STR and body mass but one moves faster, the one who moves faster would do more damage (not the same as Move By Attacks, but similar in principle).

But now things are getting too mixed up! Well, since most abilities seem to overlap, perhaps all abilities should be based on the average of all characteristics. ;-)

Derek

[Farkling]

Ok...I've braced myself.
Let's take a look at which skills are solely analytical...

Analyze is based on observation...
Bugging is based on observation...
Computer Programming is analytical I imagine, unless used for hacking...though I know some code crunchers who would insist it is merely trial and error and observation.
Concealment is observational
Criminology is observation and analysis...
Cryptography is pattern analysis, stemming from observations
Deduction is NOT analysis...it's divine providence and beyond this comparison
Demolitions...analysis and/or observation
Disguise...analytical and observational...
Electronics...education and ability
Forensic Medicine...analysis and observation (CSI anyone)
Forgery...analyse subject, observe duplicate effectiveness...
Gambling...if you think this is NOT observational and analytical...play high stakes poker. :)
Inventor...many Inventors admit they simply thought of something nobody else did...comic book inventors are not so much analysts as tinkerers...
Lip Reading...observation and analytic
Mechanics...education and ability
Mimicry...observation and vaguely analytic
Navigation...oobservation and analysis...the Boy Scouts would vouch for mostly observational...
Paramedic...observation and education
Security Systems...observation, analysis, education (Sneakers)
Shadowing...observation and movement?
Survival...observation and education
Tactics...observation, education, analysis
Tracking...observation and analysis
Area Knowledges:: observation and memory of landmarks...locations...maps
Cultural Knowledges:: Observation of ritual and civilizations of a people
Knowledge Skills:: Ah...education, recall, memory.

Shucks...looks like most skills a PER based...
But imagine HERO with all thos stats and and a PER score instead of INT...that would get more bad press than the 3d6 die rolls, the tons of damage dice, and the new tag line from critics would be "they have 14 Stats, and NO IQ rating...the characters are all idiots!" or worse...we'd have 15 state...with a PER AND an INT score...

**Prepares to deflect thrown missiles**

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Underling
I disagree. In most cases, especially when including animals, I think you'll find perceptive abilities to be directly proportional to dexterity, for without perception, dexterity is meaningless.

And while you're right about animal prey/threat images, that doesn't mean their perceptive abilities are lesser in any way...only that how they process the information provided by their senses is limited. An antelope will still perceive the rabbit before a human is likely to, but since the rabbit doesn't match the antelope's prey/threat images, it doesn't respond. Even many extremely unintelligent organisms (insects, fish, amphibians) can perceive motion and shapes very well (commensurate with their dexterity) even if they can only recognize a limited range of patterns (commensurate with their intelligence).

As a figured characteristic would make sense, particularly if PER rolls are intended to be fairly averaged out among individuals with varying characteristics. (DEX+CON)/2 anyone? The real headache, it seems, is that DEX and CON are too valuable as it is.

Derek

Good points, but here's a few more:

1) If an animal lacks the image (and reasoning) to respond to something, is it perceiving it? An antelope can see the rabbit, but since it doesn't recognize it the rabbit is ignored. So in game terms, does it perceive the rabbit? I think if you exclude any kind of intelligence/reasoning capacity in the equation, then it's useless. Its like computers - GIGO. You can see the stop sign. You can react to it. But not if you don't recognize it and know what it means. Basing your perception solely on physical characteristics is too one sided for my taste.

2) Part of the problem seems to be that the standard is the human one. The game system is really designed around humans as a base, so anything with better senses need enhanced senses. If you have an olympic athlete (high CON and DEX), he would automatically be more perceptive (maybe as good as a wolf or owl, for example) than a medium characteristic detective. That's a little odd as well.

3) I also think some of the difference is our perception of the system (har har), its that when you say animals and high DEX, to me you seem to be implying reflexes more than agility or coordination (what I view DEX as). (Maybe not after thinking about it). Hmm - anyway, i'd still argue that DEX and PER are related, but not directly. Animals with a higher perceptive ability would survive more, the same way that animals with better reflexes and abilities (say, a monkeys ability to climb well or fast, etc). The ones that had both would have the best chance of survival. Have you ever met anybody with fast reflexes who couldn't notice a hand in front of his face until it hit him? Or better yet, look at all the people who can play video games and get max scores (or learn martial arts, perhaps), but don't notice their wives new hairstyle? Perception helps reflexes more than reflexes help perception (IMO). Survivors tend to have higher everything overall (generalization warning!)

4) That's about it for now, but I'd go with {[(INT/5) + (CON/10)]/1.5}, used as a straight bonus. I.E. - use figured PER + 9 = perception roll. Used that way, CON isn't a major part but has a minor effect. Although if I wrote up a disease now, I'd probably include a PER drain to the effect now.

[Lupus]

Originally posted by Farkling
Shucks...looks like most skills a PER based...
But imagine HERO with all thos stats and and a PER score instead of INT...that would get more bad press than the 3d6 die rolls, the tons of damage dice, and the new tag line from critics would be "they have 14 Stats, and NO IQ rating...the characters are all idiots!" or worse...we'd have 15 state...with a PER AND an INT score...

**Prepares to deflect thrown missiles**
Heh. Personally, I have no problem with systems that don't have a stat called 'intelligence.' IQ in the real world has enough problems, and having a stat called Intelligence often leads to misunderstandings about what stats actually mean. There being lots of different kinds of intelligence, and the stat Intelligence reflecting only some.

TORG, for instance, has no INT stat. They have Perception (analysis/interpretation) and Mind (logic/methodology) instead.

All that said, I'm still fine with leaving HERO as is. It doesn't matter that animals should have good perception scores. Just buy up their perception separately to intelligence. No system has to perfectly reflect all life on this and every other planet. It may be a kludge, but who cares? I'd rather build good characters than good cats. I hate cats.

So for the purposes of the system, and what the Int stat actually represents in the HERO system, PER based on INT is perfectly logical. So in my games, that's the way it'll remain.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
Ok...I've braced myself.
Let's take a look at which skills are solely analytical...

Deduction is NOT analysis...it's divine providence and beyond this comparison


One might also say it's noticing things that others miss, and interprets these minor observations. "I note you are recently married". "How did you know that?" Elementary - you tug at your wedding ring, as though you're not used to its presence."

[Pattern Ghost]

The reason that PER is based on INT is the simple fact that Perception is a form of intelligence. Animals don't have high INT, they hae Enhanced Senses.

The non-perceptive scientist is just a fictional sterotype. Most scientists are very perceptive individuals; they're trained observers, after all. If you want the Nutty Professor, then you buy a lower INT, buy up levels with SS, and you've got him.

The animal theory has several holes:

1. The general perceptiveness of animals is overrated.
2. Animals which do have better than human senses usually have one or two highly-developed senses, and are frequently deficient in others. That's modelled by Enhanced Senses, as already mentioned.
3. Basing the PER roll on physical attributes such as DEX and CON to fix the percieved problem modelling animals presumes that animals generally have better than human DEX and CON, which also isn't the case.

I think the system has it right. You could do something like dividing up INT into TECH (SS and technical-oriented skills), PER (PER rolls and skills) and WIT (quick-thinking skills), but do we need more stats? Probably not.

[Farkling]

I suppose you let your characters buy deduction, you softie! :p

Ahem. Hugh. I note the quote of a Sherlock Holmes type character...at the risk of causing strife...I shuld like to point out that Batman and company would NEVER allow Sherlock into the detective club. Holmes always had the answer and then worked to fill the blanks in...rather like looking in the back of your math book before solving the problems...the rest is just mechanical manipulation of the facts to a preselected end.

Sherlock had at least a 24- Deduction roll by my lights. He was a lousy detective. Of course, we could blame that on Moriarty somehow...I imagine... :)

eh, the only character in my game allowed to buy up his deduction roll is the ArchAngel...he has a pipeline ya see...

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
I suppose you let your characters buy deduction, you softie! :p

Buying it's not a problem. Now, what do we let them use it for :D It's 3 points - don't expect it to make your life 75 points easier!


Originally posted by Farkling
Ahem. Hugh. I note the quote of a Sherlock Holmes type character...at the risk of causing strife...I shuld like to point out that Batman and company would NEVER allow Sherlock into the detective club. Holmes always had the answer and then worked to fill the blanks in...rather like looking in the back of your math book before solving the problems...the rest is just mechanical manipulation of the facts to a preselected end.

Actually, in a recent BatBook ("Made of Wood" Part 3), Bats goes on record saying something like Detective Work is just following your hunches and determining which one is correct. Sounds like he's starting with Deduction to me.


Originally posted by Farkling
Sherlock had at least a 24- Deduction roll by my lights. He was a lousy detective. Of course, we could blame that on Moriarty somehow...I imagine... :)

I'm not much of a Holmes fan, so I'm not going to assess the specific character. I think the wedding ring is a Holmes line. One can interpret your observation as a weakness in the writer, however - he doesn't have the same keen observational skills, or detective skills, so he glosses over the methodology.


Originally posted by Farkling
eh, the only character in my game allowed to buy up his deduction roll is the ArchAngel...he has a pipeline ya see...

That goes WAY beynd a skill in my books. He should buy a Contact (a pretty expensive one, too!) No reason that can't be simulated as "super-deduction", I suppose.

[Farkling]

The court is still out on whether he actually IS an ArchAngel...the players need to decide in silent straw poll. (Conducted by EMail...aren't computers grand?) It IS a cyberpunk game with a Shadowrun twist...so perhaps they WILL vote him an actual ARchAngel...

The GM did let him put "so long as GOD wills" as a 1/4 limitation on his powers instead of the messy limitations he tried to shoehorn in various spots.
Michael has an Aid with a lack of control, defined as prayer...
He prays for most of his powers...originally he had incantations/gestures, but we've switched it to an extra time for startup limitation. (He can still pray when bound and gagged.) :)

I did jokingly tell him after one session that eventually he would come to his senses with an absolute knowledge of when and where he went mad and began to think he was an archangel. The player looked slightly horrified. Now I'm wondering about the Mind Control/Illusions combo necessary to actually make that happen...what a villanous plan...
It's all in how you look at it...

Mind Control to dictate - accept this illusion as truth...hmm..perhaps telepathy also to SEE the memories one is altering. Sadly enough the leader of the group could ALMOST do this...my...wouldn't that make the ArchAngel suspicious?

Gee....I'm a long way off topic now...aren't I?

[Underling]

Originally posted by Farkling
Ok...I've braced myself.
Let's take a look at which skills are solely analytical...

Analyze is based on observation...
Bugging is based on observation...
Computer Programming is analytical I imagine, unless used for hacking...though I know some code crunchers who would insist it is merely trial and error and observation.
Concealment is observational
Criminology is observation and analysis...
Cryptography is pattern analysis, stemming from observations
Deduction is NOT analysis...it's divine providence and beyond this comparison
Demolitions...analysis and/or observation
Disguise...analytical and observational...
Electronics...education and ability
Forensic Medicine...analysis and observation (CSI anyone)
Forgery...analyse subject, observe duplicate effectiveness...
Gambling...if you think this is NOT observational and analytical...play high stakes poker. :)
Inventor...many Inventors admit they simply thought of something nobody else did...comic book inventors are not so much analysts as tinkerers...
Lip Reading...observation and analytic
Mechanics...education and ability
Mimicry...observation and vaguely analytic
Navigation...oobservation and analysis...the Boy Scouts would vouch for mostly observational...
Paramedic...observation and education
Security Systems...observation, analysis, education (Sneakers)
Shadowing...observation and movement?
Survival...observation and education
Tactics...observation, education, analysis
Tracking...observation and analysis
Area Knowledges:: observation and memory of landmarks...locations...maps
Cultural Knowledges:: Observation of ritual and civilizations of a people
Knowledge Skills:: Ah...education, recall, memory.

Shucks...looks like most skills a PER based...
But imagine HERO with all thos stats and and a PER score instead of INT...that would get more bad press than the 3d6 die rolls, the tons of damage dice, and the new tag line from critics would be "they have 14 Stats, and NO IQ rating...the characters are all idiots!" or worse...we'd have 15 state...with a PER AND an INT score...

**Prepares to deflect thrown missiles**

:) Weeeelllll, I think I understand what you're saying...but again, I think you're not distinguishing between perceiving something and analyzing something. Most of the skills you've listed involve much more analysis than perception--in other words, they involve knowledge and "figuring out" much more than especially sharp eyes or ears.

Even skills that are expressly used for spotting something, such as Bugging, don't require a keen eye so much as knowing where to look for bugs. It's the analysis portion that's more important. (And if you don't have Bugging skill, you can use PER to find something that's hidden, right? Using PER in that situation is a case of having to rely on keen eyes to find something, rather than the knowledge of where to look. That's what animals would have to rely upon.)

So...almost all the above skills are INT based, and you could base PER on DEX. It makes sense to me--after all, do the world's top-notch forgers, paramedics, mechanics, etc. have sharper senses than anyone else? No, it's their knowledge that tells them where to look and how to interpret what they find. There isn't the correlation between intelligence and perception that there is between dexterity and perception.

Derek

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Underling
So...almost all the above skills are INT based, and you could base PER on DEX. It makes sense to me--after all, do the world's top-notch forgers, paramedics, mechanics, etc. have sharper senses than anyone else? No, it's their knowledge that tells them where to look and how to interpret what they find. There isn't the correlation between intelligence and perception that there is between dexterity and perception.

You;re confusing the issue. INT is not how trained you are. It is not your IQ. It is not how smart you are. In Hero, INT is how quickly you process information. We all SEE what's going on around us, but perception is more than seeing it - it's taking it in context, interpreting what we see and assessing the big picture quickly enough for it to matter.

A brilliant scientist need not have a 30 INT in Hero. He could have an 8. He's brilliant in his field, but he's a plodder. He doesn't walk in the door, look at the equation filling the blackboard and go "Your problem is on the middle of Board 1, 13th line - X should be Z". He methodically worked out the problem, and finds the answer no one else will because he IS brilliant. But he isn't fast.

[Farkling]

And for the record...everything on my list IS INT based according to FREd...

I was trying to show that PER isn't "seeing things", otherwise it would be a sight roll. Danger Sense takes a PER roll...one could rule it is more of an INT power.

A PER roll in Hero seems to be how much you notice with your senses, and well and quickly you can apply it to your current situation.

Hugh's plodder has an abysmal PER roll...well...noit abysmal...it's (11-), and his complementary roll could come from KS: Gigantic Multiple Board Equations...if two people have an equal INT roll with this skill, the one with the higher PER roll will find the error FIRST....but they will both find the error. If the plodder fails his PER roll, he will have to work it all out and make a new roll (Extra Time)...

[Stormraven]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
You;re confusing the issue. INT is not how trained you are. It is not your IQ. It is not how smart you are. In Hero, INT is how quickly you process information. We all SEE what's going on around us, but perception is more than seeing it - it's taking it in context, interpreting what we see and assessing the big picture quickly enough for it to matter.

There's the point I make to all my players. You are not rolling Perception to see or hear or smell - your senses (or the animal's senses) work, and if the stimulus can be sensed, it is.

You roll Perception to see if you recognise the significance of what you sensed.

A great example is Neo in The Matrix -- the training program. He noticed the woman in red, no doubt. But he missed the significance.

[Underling]

Originally posted by badger3k
Good points, but here's a few more:

1) If an animal lacks the image (and reasoning) to respond to something, is it perceiving it? An antelope can see the rabbit, but since it doesn't recognize it the rabbit is ignored. So in game terms, does it perceive the rabbit? I think if you exclude any kind of intelligence/reasoning capacity in the equation, then it's useless. Its like computers - GIGO. You can see the stop sign. You can react to it. But not if you don't recognize it and know what it means. Basing your perception solely on physical characteristics is too one sided for my taste.

I'd say yes, the antelope does perceive the rabbit even if it ignores it. Just as a human can notice a person and choose to ignore him. We react to stop signs because we know what it means; similarly, an antelope ignores a rabbit because it knows what it means (i.e., no danger).


2) Part of the problem seems to be that the standard is the human one. The game system is really designed around humans as a base, so anything with better senses need enhanced senses. If you have an olympic athlete (high CON and DEX), he would automatically be more perceptive (maybe as good as a wolf or owl, for example) than a medium characteristic detective. That's a little odd as well.

This is a good point. I agree that an olympic athlete with high DEX and/or CON isn't likely to be more perceptive. But you're always going to be able to find exceptions to any game rule used. I just think that the relatively small category of olympic athletes (and other high DEX, high CON persons who have no correspondingly high need for high perception abilities) causing a bend in "reality" is less than the relatively large category of almost everything BUT humans. Note that it's just as easy to find fault with INT using your same argument, only applying it to smart people (which is a larger category than olympians, BTW).


3) I also think some of the difference is our perception of the system (har har), its that when you say animals and high DEX, to me you seem to be implying reflexes more than agility or coordination (what I view DEX as). (Maybe not after thinking about it). Hmm - anyway, i'd still argue that DEX and PER are related, but not directly. Animals with a higher perceptive ability would survive more, the same way that animals with better reflexes and abilities (say, a monkeys ability to climb well or fast, etc). The ones that had both would have the best chance of survival. Have you ever met anybody with fast reflexes who couldn't notice a hand in front of his face until it hit him? Or better yet, look at all the people who can play video games and get max scores (or learn martial arts, perhaps), but don't notice their wives new hairstyle? Perception helps reflexes more than reflexes help perception (IMO). Survivors tend to have higher everything overall (generalization warning!)

Another good point. However, you can say the same thing about intelligent people--they're no more likely to perceive something than someone who is as dumb as a bag of hammers.


4) That's about it for now, but I'd go with {[(INT/5) + (CON/10)]/1.5}, used as a straight bonus. I.E. - use figured PER + 9 = perception roll. Used that way, CON isn't a major part but has a minor effect. Although if I wrote up a disease now, I'd probably include a PER drain to the effect now. [/B]

Well, it's a thought. I want to see peoples' reasoning for accepting or rejecting my DEX-PER connection, and I appreciate your giving it some serious thought.

Derek

[Underling]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
The reason that PER is based on INT is the simple fact that Perception is a form of intelligence. Animals don't have high INT, they hae Enhanced Senses.

I'm not arguing that in HS PER is a form of INT, I'm arguing that perhaps it shouldn't be.


The non-perceptive scientist is just a fictional sterotype. Most scientists are very perceptive individuals; they're trained observers, after all. If you want the Nutty Professor, then you buy a lower INT, buy up levels with SS, and you've got him.

Having been a scientist myself, I agree that scientists can be trained observers, but it's a case of using KNOWLEDGE to know what to look for when studying something within their area of expertise rather than being more perceptive than less intelligent people. (In game terms, I'd say it makes sense to have the scientist make a roll based on his scientific skill to notice something related to that science, and a normal PER roll--based on, perhaps, DEX--to notice things outside his direct field of knowledge.)


The animal theory has several holes:

1. The general perceptiveness of animals is overrated.
2. Animals which do have better than human senses usually have one or two highly-developed senses, and are frequently deficient in others. That's modelled by Enhanced Senses, as already mentioned.
3. Basing the PER roll on physical attributes such as DEX and CON to fix the percieved problem modelling animals presumes that animals generally have better than human DEX and CON, which also isn't the case.

I'm not making the claim that all animals are more perceptive than humans. My claim is that those animals that are highly dexterous and agile are also generally more perceptive. Animals with high body mass, armor, camouflage, poison sprays, spines or other deterrents don't need to waste energy by evolving high agility to survive their environments. They may still have some highly developed senses (often smell) to find food, but those can be considered enhanced senses. But animals without the various deterrents mentioned above (and their predators) often rely on their agility. That agility is almost always linked to perceptive abilities, since agility is meaningless as a defense without them.

No, of course this isn't perfect--you're always going to find exceptions--but it seems a significantly better fit to me than using INT.

Derek

[Underling]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
You;re confusing the issue. INT is not how trained you are. It is not your IQ. It is not how smart you are. In Hero, INT is how quickly you process information. We all SEE what's going on around us, but perception is more than seeing it - it's taking it in context, interpreting what we see and assessing the big picture quickly enough for it to matter.

A brilliant scientist need not have a 30 INT in Hero. He could have an 8. He's brilliant in his field, but he's a plodder. He doesn't walk in the door, look at the equation filling the blackboard and go "Your problem is on the middle of Board 1, 13th line - X should be Z". He methodically worked out the problem, and finds the answer no one else will because he IS brilliant. But he isn't fast.

Yes, I realize how the HS rules define the meaning of INT...but if you look how it's actually used in the game, it's basically memory, understanding and analysis (remembering something or figuring something out), not so much how quickly you process information. Even PER doesn't really have much to do with how quickly you process information, at least not as it's actually used in the game--it's used to determine whether you happen to see/hear/smell something, not how long it takes you. Also, have you ever known anyone to create a brilliant scientist character who DIDN'T have high INT? Regardless of how INT may be officially defined, in game use I think it's used more for things that have more to do with memory and analysis.

Derek

[Underling]

Originally posted by Farkling
And for the record...everything on my list IS INT based according to FREd...

I was trying to show that PER isn't "seeing things", otherwise it would be a sight roll. Danger Sense takes a PER roll...one could rule it is more of an INT power.

A PER roll in Hero seems to be how much you notice with your senses, and well and quickly you can apply it to your current situation.

Hugh's plodder has an abysmal PER roll...well...noit abysmal...it's (11-), and his complementary roll could come from KS: Gigantic Multiple Board Equations...if two people have an equal INT roll with this skill, the one with the higher PER roll will find the error FIRST....but they will both find the error. If the plodder fails his PER roll, he will have to work it all out and make a new roll (Extra Time)...

Hmm, if this is the case, then what characteristic do you use to create a character who IS brilliant? And...isn't PER used for sight rolls?

Derek

[Farkling]

Maybe it should be a PER stat instead of an INT stat?

Yes, it is for sight/sound/smell/touch...PER covers everything. And anyone who thinks high agility lends to PERceptual skills needs to live with my cat for a while.

But then we would make PER rolls to use our knowledge skills, a far more complicated thing to explain than using an INT roll for perception...silly game designers.

How do I make a brilliant character? How brilliant?
I usually buy piles of skills, and knowledges/sciences and overall skill levels. The "less than brilliant" scientist would be like Doc Brown from Back to the Future...he's not the most observant fellow until he sets his mind to it. A low INT and some INT skill levels or overall levels are good for this. He just doesn't do the Metagame thing of "I put my levels on PER"
Psych limits like "Inattentive" "Absent Minded" " or "Unperceptive" also complement this character type...as does a player who WANTS to play this type of character.
GM:: "Everyone roll a PER roll"
Doc:: "Not right now....I am involved in analyzing this"

You stated::
"it's basically memory, understanding and analysis (remembering something or figuring something out), not so much how quickly you process information. Even PER doesn't really have much to do with how quickly you process information, at least not as it's actually used in the game--it's used to determine whether you happen to see/hear/smell something, not how long it takes you"

I beg to differ...a PER roll IS processing information. The PER roll is to determine if you process it NOW or LATER. The PER roll is to see if you can notice and assess it RIGHT NOW under fire. Does your game not play like that? If you don't hear the bank alarm going off right away...you NEVER hear it going off? If you can't identify Mega-guy's Energy Bolt, you never can? Seems anti-genre to me.

[prestidigitator]

If you are so frustrated over this, just make Per a Bacground Skill (base 11-) instead of an Intellect skill. :)

[Underling]

Originally posted by Farkling
Maybe it should be a PER stat instead of an INT stat?

Yes, it is for sight/sound/smell/touch...PER covers everything. And anyone who thinks high agility lends to PERceptual skills needs to live with my cat for a while.

But then we would make PER rolls to use our knowledge skills, a far more complicated thing to explain than using an INT roll for perception...silly game designers.

How do I make a brilliant character? How brilliant?
I usually buy piles of skills, and knowledges/sciences and overall skill levels. The "less than brilliant" scientist would be like Doc Brown from Back to the Future...he's not the most observant fellow until he sets his mind to it. A low INT and some INT skill levels or overall levels are good for this. He just doesn't do the Metagame thing of "I put my levels on PER"
Psych limits like "Inattentive" "Absent Minded" " or "Unperceptive" also complement this character type...as does a player who WANTS to play this type of character.
GM:: "Everyone roll a PER roll"
Doc:: "Not right now....I am involved in analyzing this"

You stated::
"it's basically memory, understanding and analysis (remembering something or figuring something out), not so much how quickly you process information. Even PER doesn't really have much to do with how quickly you process information, at least not as it's actually used in the game--it's used to determine whether you happen to see/hear/smell something, not how long it takes you"

I beg to differ...a PER roll IS processing information. The PER roll is to determine if you process it NOW or LATER. The PER roll is to see if you can notice and assess it RIGHT NOW under fire. Does your game not play like that? If you don't hear the bank alarm going off right away...you NEVER hear it going off? If you can't identify Mega-guy's Energy Bolt, you never can? Seems anti-genre to me.

Hmm, I can see where you're coming from. I've just never thought of PER that way because the majority of uses of PER that I've noticed have been singular detections--either you do or you don't notice, not something that you eventually notice. Someone is sneaking up on a character, roll PER, and he hears a sound if he makes the roll, and fails to hear a sound if he doesn't. That sort of thing.

Your description of PER sounds more like a range of focus, from highly focused to easily destracted. Someone who doesn't notice an alarm ringing because he's focused wouldn't necessarily have less INT than someone who does, don't you think? Do you give characters another PER roll when they stop concentrating on some task they're doing? And what about cases where characters of different INT are doing nothing at all to occupy their minds? The way you're describing PER, it sounds like the person with low INT would notice a sound just as easily as someone with high INT--because his brain isn't inundated with too much incoming information to process. Yet this isn't how PER is used in the game.

Do you see where I'm coming from with that?

Derek

[Farkling]

Yes I do...I can picture where you're coming from...
But I still state that INT has nothing to do with smarts. It's interpretation and access and processing. The PER roll is to assess your surroundings, interpret them, and apply them AT SPEED. The Wits rating in White Wolf is an example. The supermart super observant character buys INT...the superobservant character buys INT, or buys PER levels. The supersmart character buys skills and skill levels. McGuyver does not have an ultrahigh PER roll...but he has TONS of complimentary skills. McGuyver typically has to stop and THINK about what to do. Extra Time on his PER roll, and a few science rolls.

HERO design flaw, bug, or feature?
Bah, who cares. Here's how I picture it going down::

I think that both the high and low character have a chance to hear the noise, but the question is interpretation....let's put this between...um....

Wolverine, the old style Iron Man, and Cyclops...
Wolverine has the highest INT ... mostly to drive his PERceptions and the "best at what I do" ... keep in mind, Wolvie has an 8- with stuff he doesn't do, and an 11- with a whole mess of Area knowledges...bought without the INT based roll (exceot Singapore :) )

Ole Shellhead has a mediocre PER roll, but a goodly amount of TScope and some funky PER powers...a radar set...motion sensors...whatever...some are likely frameworked, so why NOT buy up the specific roll? The PER roll interprets that data. Rhodes has a LOUSY roll in the comics...Stark is better...and Stark has the higher INT, to drive a portion of his skills, and he has Overall levels, and Armor systems levels...for skills, PER, or sciences...so he is distractable...because the levels are someplace else. Rhodes just has Combat levels...subtly contributing to his PER problems. And then there's Ben Grimm...

Cyclops has a decent PER roll...but less than everyone but Ben. He does however have TScope for his eyesight and those long range pinpoint Energy Bolts, so he can SEE a long way...it's hearing and taste and smell that generally don't register.

All five are sitting around playing cards. The backgound noise and the jet flying by and children exercising mutant powers on the basketball court in the distance.

GM has them make a PER roll.
Wolvie makes his (like we doubted it) by, oh 5. He hears an odd noise in the area and lays his cards down to turn and scan the area with all his senses (Extra Time, PER levels). Wolvie identifies the sound as ninjas crawling through the trees, armed with traditional weapons since he doesn't smell gun oil.

Shellhead notes the odd noise also, determing it is not a plane. He activates the radar in the armor. He's bored and they aren't playing for much by his terms. The next PER roll breaks even. The radar pcks up 30 moving objects in the forest. Tony does not know what they are...other than human.

Rhodes doesn't hear a strange noise...he made his PER roll, barely, he thinks it is the jet flying over. He observes Tony flipping on the radar unit and Wolvie looking into the trees...so he dons his helmet, and rockets into the air to get a good 360 scan of the area with radar and motion sensors...he can't SEE a thing. His PER roll is pretty good, by maybe 3. The ninja stealth won't work against the radar, so GM rules that Rhodes is aware of many humanoid objects in the forest. A very successful roll would have noted no guns. The plane registers as a normal aircraft.

Cyclops didn't notice anything out of the ordinary, he made his PER roll spot on...failed after accounting for range. It sounds like the kids playing tag in the forest again. Cyke looks up from his inside straight as Rhodes launches into the air. He glancs at Wolverine and looks into the trees. Not being able to spot anything (normal vision, cover, concealment)...Cyke turns his gazde to the sky and watches the plane, prepared to fire if it initiates action on Rhodes.

Ben (failed PER roll) is still asking who wants a card and complaining about the injustice of his hand when he looks up at Rhodes up in the air. He can't figure out what is going on. However, it's take Dr. Doom to hurt him, so he waits and makes a loud crack about whether or not the kid wants his card or not. Ben might not have noticed till they hit him...

So, we will just have to continue to disagree. :)

[Underling]

Originally posted by Farkling
Yes I do...I can picture where you're coming from...
But I still state that INT has nothing to do with smarts. It's interpretation and access and processing. The PER roll is to assess your surroundings, interpret them, and apply them AT SPEED. The Wits rating in White Wolf is an example. The supermart super observant character buys INT...the superobservant character buys INT, or buys PER levels. The supersmart character buys skills and skill levels. McGuyver does not have an ultrahigh PER roll...but he has TONS of complimentary skills. McGuyver typically has to stop and THINK about what to do. Extra Time on his PER roll, and a few science rolls.

HERO design flaw, bug, or feature?
Bah, who cares. Here's how I picture it going down::

I think that both the high and low character have a chance to hear the noise, but the question is interpretation....let's put this between...um....

Wolverine, the old style Iron Man, and Cyclops...
Wolverine has the highest INT ... mostly to drive his PERceptions and the "best at what I do" ... keep in mind, Wolvie has an 8- with stuff he doesn't do, and an 11- with a whole mess of Area knowledges...bought without the INT based roll (exceot Singapore :) )

Ole Shellhead has a mediocre PER roll, but a goodly amount of TScope and some funky PER powers...a radar set...motion sensors...whatever...some are likely frameworked, so why NOT buy up the specific roll? The PER roll interprets that data. Rhodes has a LOUSY roll in the comics...Stark is better...and Stark has the higher INT, to drive a portion of his skills, and he has Overall levels, and Armor systems levels...for skills, PER, or sciences...so he is distractable...because the levels are someplace else. Rhodes just has Combat levels...subtly contributing to his PER problems. And then there's Ben Grimm...

Cyclops has a decent PER roll...but less than everyone but Ben. He does however have TScope for his eyesight and those long range pinpoint Energy Bolts, so he can SEE a long way...it's hearing and taste and smell that generally don't register.

All five are sitting around playing cards. The backgound noise and the jet flying by and children exercising mutant powers on the basketball court in the distance.

GM has them make a PER roll.
Wolvie makes his (like we doubted it) by, oh 5. He hears an odd noise in the area and lays his cards down to turn and scan the area with all his senses (Extra Time, PER levels). Wolvie identifies the sound as ninjas crawling through the trees, armed with traditional weapons since he doesn't smell gun oil.

Shellhead notes the odd noise also, determing it is not a plane. He activates the radar in the armor. He's bored and they aren't playing for much by his terms. The next PER roll breaks even. The radar pcks up 30 moving objects in the forest. Tony does not know what they are...other than human.

Rhodes doesn't hear a strange noise...he made his PER roll, barely, he thinks it is the jet flying over. He observes Tony flipping on the radar unit and Wolvie looking into the trees...so he dons his helmet, and rockets into the air to get a good 360 scan of the area with radar and motion sensors...he can't SEE a thing. His PER roll is pretty good, by maybe 3. The ninja stealth won't work against the radar, so GM rules that Rhodes is aware of many humanoid objects in the forest. A very successful roll would have noted no guns. The plane registers as a normal aircraft.

Cyclops didn't notice anything out of the ordinary, he made his PER roll spot on...failed after accounting for range. It sounds like the kids playing tag in the forest again. Cyke looks up from his inside straight as Rhodes launches into the air. He glancs at Wolverine and looks into the trees. Not being able to spot anything (normal vision, cover, concealment)...Cyke turns his gazde to the sky and watches the plane, prepared to fire if it initiates action on Rhodes.

Ben (failed PER roll) is still asking who wants a card and complaining about the injustice of his hand when he looks up at Rhodes up in the air. He can't figure out what is going on. However, it's take Dr. Doom to hurt him, so he waits and makes a loud crack about whether or not the kid wants his card or not. Ben might not have noticed till they hit him...

So, we will just have to continue to disagree. :)

:) Actually, I agree with all those descriptions, it just seems that you're dealing with what should be a series of perception chances first, followed by rolls to understand what the sounds mean.

The problem becomes evident when you look at how skills based on INT work. You use INT rolls and skill rolls based on INT to determine if a character knows something. A character wants to know the top speed of a car he sees. The GM has him make a car knowledge roll. No processing speed involved there, but a character with a high INT has a higher roll and therefore a greater chance of knowing that particular piece of trivia.

Success with skill rolls to determine the success of disguise, forgery, survival, etc.--all INT-based skills--depend far more on knowledge than any speed of processing information. If INT is intended to represent speed of thought, then almost all INT-based skills should really be based on something else that DOES represent memory and analysis. Yes?

Looking at your superhero scenario above, what are the relative DEX values of each superhero? I'm not familiar enough with them to say for sure what they are myself, but doesn't Wolverine have the highest DEX and The Thing the lowest? Don't their DEX scores correlate rather nicely with their basic perceptive abilities?

If so, then doesn't it sound logical to shift PER to be based on DEX and leave INT to represent the memory and analysis characteristic needed for all the skills that are dependent on memory and analysis? Oui? No?

Derek

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Underling
:) Actually, I agree with all those descriptions, it just seems that you're dealing with what should be a series of perception chances first, followed by rolls to understand what the sounds mean.

Interesting discussion... I just want to ask what you mean by that - perception chances? Would you break down the perception roll into two? One to actually sense, one to determine if you know what you sense means in the right context? My way of thinking is that's all rolled up into the one roll. If you base senses on Dexterity you'd need another INT-roll to determine if you can use what you sense in a coherent manner. If you go with Perception as just senses, why not make a separate characteristic, like some games (gamma world comes to mind right off the bat)?



The problem becomes evident when you look at how skills based on INT work. You use INT rolls and skill rolls based on INT to determine if a character knows something. A character wants to know the top speed of a car he sees. The GM has him make a car knowledge roll. No processing speed involved there, but a character with a high INT has a higher roll and therefore a greater chance of knowing that particular piece of trivia.

Success with skill rolls to determine the success of disguise, forgery, survival, etc.--all INT-based skills--depend far more on knowledge than any speed of processing information. If INT is intended to represent speed of thought, then almost all INT-based skills should really be based on something else that DOES represent memory and analysis. Yes?

I agree with you to a point. INT is more than speed of thought - its the procesing as well. Its not just how fast the information can go from deep memory to surface awareness - its also whether or not the info is found in the first place, if it can be recalled in the right context (along wth other information that that piece of memory stores), and then used by the person. Generally, an INT-based skill roll is used for a short term problem. "I need that ASAP!" type knowledge. - using that for, disguise for example, the higher roll can simulate that the person with a "better processor" (if you will) can recall that this particular skin tone is right, or the gunmen wore this particular hat, tilted just so. The lower INT, lower-processor might also remember that information, but not in time or not in the right context (he may remember the hat wrong or something). Hopefully I explained it right - tired now, so am not sure.

Relating that to PER - again, its not just speed - its all the mental processes that go with the recognition. In the example, wolverine has many years experience, and with his enhanced senses, he can put together the "no gun oil" = no gun, whisper of silk, sweat that has no milk smell, whtever it is that says "Ninja!" to him. Without the mental portion its pretty meaningless. That supposes a one-roll perception now.

Another way of looking at it is to reverse it. What skills are DEX based? Acrobatics, Breakfall, Climbing, Contortionist, Combat Driving, Combat Piloting, Fast Draw, Lockpicking, Riding, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, and Teamwork (FRED p 30). Can you relate Climbing to PER - hmm - well, you need to be abe to see/feel where you are putting your hands and feet. But that can also be the knowledge of how and where to put your hands on feet. Also, the strength is needed in most cases.

Lockpicking needs a sensitive touch or hearing ability, but also the ability to know what that little click means. Fast draw? That's pure speed. To me all skills all require every characteristic to varying degrees (as someone posted a while back). They were placed in different categories in an effort to take the biggest or most obvious facet and relate it directly to a characteristic. IIRC, didn't climbing used to be based on STR?

If you want to look at it another way, Perception is really a skill reflecting a variety of factors - senses, memory, reasoning, reasoning speed - Once the stimulus is taken in and processed (or not), then you can have a reaction. If you want perception and reflexes linked together than that's more in the line of instinct - a set response to a set situation. About the most we as humans may have (and this has been debated) is the "fight or flight" reaction, and even in us its limited to adrenaline. We aren't ruled by our instincts (to explain my reasoning - Instinct = stimulus and response. The stimulus part is the outside source to senses to (response) inborn/possibly genetic 'programming' - once again a debated topic last time I checked). We've added the reasoning part into the equation - it sets a delay in our responses compared to other creatures. We are slower to react in most cases (I'd argue, although training can ameliorate this) than animals, but we can react to more stimuli in a larger variety of ways than most animals.

Whew, kinda longwinded. {edit:} My reasoning is that animals have a shorter "chain of thought" than people. Thus they can react faster (and if their predator/prey is set up the same way - need to react faster) than humans. Their senses are sharper than ours, since they rely on them far more than we do. Both situations set up the basis of your thoughts (I think) - that animals with higher perceptive abilities tend to have higher DEX. Human perception has the sentient-aspect - our mind can get in the way of our reactions, if you will - and I think basing PER on INT reflects this.



Looking at your superhero scenario above, what are the relative DEX values of each superhero? I'm not familiar enough with them to say for sure what they are myself, but doesn't Wolverine have the highest DEX and The Thing the lowest? Don't their DEX scores correlate rather nicely with their basic perceptive abilities?

Personally, Cyc should be second on the DEX list - he's superbly trained and in very good shape. In the past he's had to rely on way more than his optic blasts. Ben might have some disadvantages because of his size and shape, but he was a soldier and test pilot - he'd have a high DEX. Haven't read much FF in a long time, tho. Rhodes was in better shape, and I'd probably put him above Ben because of Grimms physical limitations. Stark definitely has the lowest DEX. Bad heart/pacemaker/transplant (I think by now), alcoholic, relies on his powered armor. Sorry Tony, I'd definitely put you down in the 10-12 range. Now others may disagree, and I don't know what the stats are in a marvel-approved game system are. Anybody know.



If so, then doesn't it sound logical to shift PER to be based on DEX and leave INT to represent the memory and analysis characteristic needed for all the skills that are dependent on memory and analysis? Oui? No?

Derek

edited - took out some minor points - rethought how to state it after thinking about it some more.

Oh yeah, almost fogot - I'm not sure how long you've been playing, but years ago, they used to have an Ego-based speed that could be used for mental powers. It was designed to reflect how fast a character could act and react mentally. I believe they used Ego simply because thats how the mental abilities worked - none of them had INT-based options, so in game terms, they used EGO.

Here's something to consider- the defnition at the front of the book - A PER roll is (p9) "a roll made to see if a character perceives something with one of his senses." p 226 has "Whenever something is obvious, the GM will tell the player about it ("You se a '67 Chevy in front of you"). But he may require characters to make Perception Rolls (PER Roll) to notice something inobvious, or to notice something while in a combat situation." Not very specific - you can use the definitions above for any argument. I'd point out the one that supports my contention (naturally) - that in combat you are still noticing a lot of things - people who have no conscious memory of events can often recall small details they never noticed years after the event. I've heard some cases like this - I think they were about criminal cases.

edited - had to restate since a discover magazine article I read (within the last year) had a study conducted (I believe it was a test, not just observation) that showed that people tend to 'remember' things they never see - if there is a gap in memory they might fill it in subconsciously). Anyway, it wasn't really relevant - sorry, it was a long day for me. :D

okay - here's the addition. It took me a while thinking about it to see where you are coming from - what you say makes more sense now. I still don't agree with it, but I can understand where you're coming from (I believe). That's about it - I had a few examples maybe, but I think I gave enough before. I'd just say that if you want to use PER as senses, I'd use a new stat. Linking it to other stats can end up being too complicated.

Sorry if that's a little long - tried to put out a few points to consider, edited for clarity (I hope), then reposted. Like I said, this one is interesting - certainly got me thinking. Hope any of this helps in some way.

[Pattern Ghost]

Originally posted by Underling
I'm not arguing that in HS PER is a form of INT, I'm arguing that perhaps it shouldn't be.


I'm not arguing that perception is a form of intelligence in Hero at all. I'm arguing that it's related to real world intelligence, so that's a probable reason that it was based on INT in the game.



Having been a scientist myself, I agree that scientists can be trained observers, but it's a case of using KNOWLEDGE to know what to look for when studying something within their area of expertise rather than being more perceptive than less intelligent people. (In game terms, I'd say it makes sense to have the scientist make a roll based on his scientific skill to notice something related to that science, and a normal PER roll--based on, perhaps, DEX--to notice things outside his direct field of knowledge.)


Real world dexterity and agility has about as much to do with perception as real world intelligence, though. The only reality-based relationship to Dexterity is in testing reaction times. Of course, you could argue that this is a closer relationship than with intelligence. Then again, game INT and game DEX are only abstractions. So, why bother changing the linkage of Perception? DEX already does a LOT for it's point value as it is. Bringing in real world equivalencies rarely works, and the game mechanics considerations point to INT to being better for purposes of linking. There's also a good argument for making PER its own stat. Maybe we could ditch COM and replace it with PER?




I'm not making the claim that all animals are more perceptive than humans. My claim is that those animals that are highly dexterous and agile are also generally more perceptive. Animals with high body mass, armor, camouflage, poison sprays, spines or other deterrents don't need to waste energy by evolving high agility to survive their environments. They may still have some highly developed senses (often smell) to find food, but those can be considered enhanced senses. But animals without the various deterrents mentioned above (and their predators) often rely on their agility. That agility is almost always linked to perceptive abilities, since agility is meaningless as a defense without them.


All of these animals -- both categories -- can be modelled by giving the animal a sub human intelligence and either overall PER roll bonus or bonuses to particular senses. Theres's no need to change the game mechanics. They only handle PER in a very superficial and abstract sense (which is all they need to), so why change them? I think that the majority of animals don't have a general PER bonus at all. By giving all animals a low INT score and buying up the most appropriate senses for that animal, I think that you get more interesting and somewhat more accurate animal models. For player character modelling, I don't see where it makes a difference.





No, of course this isn't perfect--you're always going to find exceptions--but it seems a significantly better fit to me than using INT.

Derek

Well, like I said, reaction times are one thing that's Dex-related and more reliant on PER. But perception is still a seperate thing, and DEX already does quite enough in the game for its point cost. Tweaking it by giving dex yet another bonus makes for more problems than it would solve IMO. Splitting if off from any statx makes more sense as a tweak.

[Underling]

Originally posted by badger3k
Interesting discussion... I just want to ask what you mean by that - perception chances? Would you break down the perception roll into two? One to actually sense, one to determine if you know what you sense means in the right context? My way of thinking is that's all rolled up into the one roll. If you base senses on Dexterity you'd need another INT-roll to determine if you can use what you sense in a coherent manner. If you go with Perception as just senses, why not make a separate characteristic, like some games (gamma world comes to mind right off the bat)?

That's basically it, yes: two rolls. One to sense the object (which has nothing to do with intelligence or speed of thought) and another to interpret the meaning of the sensation. Combining both into a single INT roll appears to be what HS does. I question the "realism" of such a tact, but it doesn't seem to bother most people here, I gather.


Sorry if that's a little long - tried to put out a few points to consider, edited for clarity (I hope), then reposted. Like I said, this one is interesting - certainly got me thinking. Hope any of this helps in some way.

:D No problem. It was noticing the kludgy need to buy up enhanced senses for animals to make up for their lower intelligence that got me thinking about it. That and noticing an odd correlation between species dexterity/agility and high perceptive abilities. First with GURPS, then with HS.

Derek

[Underling]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
By giving all animals a low INT score and buying up the most appropriate senses for that animal, I think that you get more interesting and somewhat more accurate animal models. For player character modelling, I don't see where it makes a difference.

Well, humans are basically just animals with a few more advanced mental capabilities (and manual dexterity and endurance abilities, too). Consequently, the fact that animals must be built differently in HS is a red flag to me.

OTOH, if INT is processing speed and not analytical abilities, then plenty of animals should have INT scores as high or even higher than humans. But then skills based on analytical abilities shouldn't be based on INT. But then what characteristic should be used for analytical skills? A new characteristic? Yikes.

Another thought...higher SPD allows more actions in a turn, which logically must require correspondingly faster mental processing (you can't perform three times as many actions in a turn as someone else without also being able to process information three times as quickly, right?), and SPD is based on DEX. That's actually another argument for basing PER (which involves faster mental processing if you're going to combine sensing and interpreting in one roll) on DEX. Doing so would also free up INT to be used for analytical abilities/skills. :)


Well, like I said, reaction times are one thing that's Dex-related and more reliant on PER. But perception is still a seperate thing, and DEX already does quite enough in the game for its point cost. Tweaking it by giving dex yet another bonus makes for more problems than it would solve IMO. Splitting if off from any statx makes more sense as a tweak.

As I understand it, many think DEX is too powerful for its cost as is. I wonder if it would make sense to make PER based on DEX and then up the cost of DEX to 4 c.p. per point. Hmmmm....

Derek

[zornwil]

Just a brief addition here - I think the issue implicitly cited with INT (and thus PER) is how contextual it is compared to other characteristics.

I can have a lot of INT when it comes to being an athlete, but low INT in other regards. When I'm skiing, I perceive and quickly analyze every little detail in front of me, not just the trees, but that very slight bump which at my speed is more dangerous than someone who is less nimble with this info would perceive. Otherwise, though, I'll walk right into a den of crackheads because I don't process that non-skiing info very quickly.

Of course that's an extreme example for simplicity's sake. The point being that as discussed prior, skills and skill levels are the way to go for the more specialized areas. And I would add (I don't think I'm repeating on this point, if I am, sorry) that characters with specialized skills should be allowed a degree of use with those as basically PER rolls in certain situations.

Let's say you're a great lawyer. Facing you in court as the adversarial lawyer is a guy with great INT, much superior to yours. But you are much more skilled with the practice of BEING a lawyer, of performing law. The PER rolls for the jury, what they react to, should run in your favor, not the guy with greater INT but no expertise, in my opinion.

In practice, I don't use PER rolls a whole lot. My super-INT characters are quick to ask for them (justifiably) but I don't get absorbed in them other than what I as GM think is appropriate for the character and the situation, of course taking into account their INT. If they have an angle with their request ("I'm looking for (x)"), fair enough, if it's within the character's mindset and INT. Otherwise I'm not going to give clues just because someone has a big PER roll - unless they have the appropriate skills to leverage with it.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by zornwil
I can have a lot of INT when it comes to being an athlete, but low INT in other regards. When I'm skiing, I perceive and quickly analyze every little detail in front of me, not just the trees, but that very slight bump which at my speed is more dangerous than someone who is less nimble with this info would perceive. Otherwise, though, I'll walk right into a den of crackheads because I don't process that non-skiing info very quickly.

Of course that's an extreme example for simplicity's sake. The point being that as discussed prior, skills and skill levels are the way to go for the more specialized areas. And I would add (I don't think I'm repeating on this point, if I am, sorry) that characters with specialized skills should be allowed a degree of use with those as basically PER rolls in certain situations.
This is totally on. "Perception" is rolled up into the effects of a heck of a lot of skills. Otherwise, you would have to roll Per along with other skills to do just about anything: "Roll your Per to see if you detect the flaws in that gem--it isn't just a PS: Appraiser skill." "Roll your Per to see if you grasp the situation on the battlefield--it isn't just a Tactics roll." "Roll your Per to see if you detect an opening in your opponent's defenses--it isn't just an attack roll." "Roll your Per to notice the meanings others might miss in the conversation--it isn't just a Conversation roll." "Roll your Per to notice the footprints--it isn't just a Tracking roll." etc.I play a D&D game where the DM has created a "Perception" ability score. It is utilized as much as every other score put together--with the result that everyone creates a character with a high Perception. Rediculous. Base things on skills as much if not more than Per. Let Per have its place: mostly for opposed rolls to Stealth and Concealment (when it is bettern than Concealment), and also where something is purely based on Senses--not connected to skills, etc.