'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

[Guest Black Lotus]

Well, I've been contemplating the way Star Hero suggests typical robots and androids should be built, and I agree almost completely. However, I have a few points I want to go over concerning androids and robots. Not a real disagreement with the rules, mind you, but just some... topics for discussion and contemplation.

 

Let's look at Talents for a moment. A few Talents are conspicuously missing from the official recommended Talents for androids and robots which I believe warrant consideration. For example, take Ambidexterity. It stands to reason that any android ought to have Ambidexterity, as the phenomenon of dominant and recessive hands/ eyes/ legs is a purely biological one. Another example is Absolute Range Sense. Any android with human or superhuman levels of sense and intellect could calculate the distances between two points quite easily based on profile and perspective alone, I should think -- their superior orderly logic should allow them to extrapolate distances even with normal human sight alone.

 

I mention this because it's something to consider concerning robots and androids.

 

Another point I have to bring up is Everyrobot Skills. Deduction is a Star Hero Everyman Skill, but since most robots and androids are, like Commander Data from Star Trek, built to work very logically and not in abstract terms, Deduction should not be an Everyrobot skill. Neither should other abstract skills, such as Acting, Concelament, Stealth, Persuasion, and the like. And not every robot will be programmed with a Transport Familiarity. So, one thing the Robot Package Deal doesn't take into consideration is the fact that many Everyman skills will NOT apply ALL to robots (can be programed in, but should not be included in Everyrobot skills). Later, I will come up with an Everyrobot list for robots equal to the point value of the Hard SF Everyman list, which may offset the cost of the prohbitively expensive Android Package Deal.

 

(IS there a section on Everyrobot Skils? If so, I might have missed it.)

 

Finally, one quirk to consider is robots and Swimming. Unlike humans, who can float due to their lighter-than-water configurations, most androids and robots are quite dense and would sink straight to the bottom of a body of water. Of course, it WOULD be possible to construct an android which could float or propel themselves. Depends on the campaign.

 

Looking forward to input from Herophiles....

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

the handedness is an interesting point. Data seems to prefer one hand over the other, but that could be a fact of him being portrayed by a human. Do you think the program droids for handedness?

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

the handedness is an interesting point. Data seems to prefer one hand over the other' date=' but that could be a fact of him being portrayed by a human. Do you think the program droids for handedness?[/quote']

 

It would truly be illogical to deliberately program or build an unnecessary weakness into a robot or android, don't you think? There would need to be a practical reason for it, and beyond Ambidexterity behaving as a Distinctive Feature which biological humans could use to spot a possible android (i.e., "Pssst, Joe -- look, he's using both hands to write with interchangably. Think he's an android?"), I see no reason to purposely exclude Ambidexterity from an android's construction or programming.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

Speaking as someone who used to switch hands halfway across the page when writing - yes they do look at you funny. And do stupid things like insist you choose one hand.

 

On a side note - if your robots are all ambidextrous with absolute range sense then give it to them.

 

Star Hero is a guide book to creating SciFi games - change the stuff you need to change. I for one radically changed the various propulsion builds around.

[yamamura]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

Handness might be programmed in to emulate humans especially in a android designed to look and act human. But even then the robot might have an override if the right situation calls for it.

 

BL I think you bring up some good points what a robot needs and should have. The whole swimming thing makes me think of Nuku Nuku when she tries to swim for the first time and sinks:D Luckily her inventor created floatation devices to overcome this problem.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

It would truly be illogical to deliberately program or build an unnecessary weakness into a robot or android' date=' don't you think? There would need to be a practical reason for it, and beyond Ambidexterity behaving as a Distinctive Feature which biological humans could use to spot a possible android (i.e., "Pssst, Joe -- look, he's using both hands to write with interchangably. Think he's an android?"), I see no reason to purposely exclude Ambidexterity from an android's construction or programming.[/quote']

 

but humans are illogical, so we can't rule anything out

[gojira]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

A couple of thoughts. First, I don't own Star Hero, so take this with a grain of salt.

 

Depending on how androids are constructed, handedness might be reasonable. What if androids have artificial brains that are patterned after human brains? They might develop a preference for using one hand or the other. This is a "ghost in the shell" type question -- what is it that makes us human? I prefer to keep this answer ambiguous. Androids might have a hand preference, and no one is able to explain precisely why....

 

Likewise, everyman skills might be appropriate for an android. What if androids are programmed with brain tapes copied from real humans? What if androids are programmed by copying from a "master" android brain that was raised like a human, learning slowly? It all depends on how you decide androids work in your world.

 

Regarding range, robots might not be much better at this than humans, unless specifically designed with some sort of range finder (radar, sonar, etc). Binocular vision isn't that great. There isn't much distance between the eyes to calculate the distance of the sides of the triangle your eyes form to a target. There's a lot more involved in human distance estimation, a lot of it is judging the size of the target and the closeness to other reference objects.

 

So, I guess in summary I think your ideas are good. However, I think there's enough wiggle room for an individual GM to decide his 'droids are different if he wants to. Rather than absolutes, I think Ambidexterity and Absolute Distance (?) are neat powers a GM can give to 'droids if he feels they fit his campaign. Ditto with the everyman skills.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

Depending on how androids are constructed' date=' handedness might be reasonable. What if androids have artificial brains that are patterned after human brains? They might develop a preference for using one hand or the other. This is a "ghost in the shell" type question -- what is it that makes us human? I prefer to keep this answer ambiguous. Androids might have a hand preference, and no one is able to explain precisely why....[/quote']

 

Well, a breakdown of the current scientific explanation for "handedness" can be found here. It is, by and large, a side effect of having two cerebral hemispheres -- and therefore, "handedness" is most likely biological in nature. I absolutely agree that, if the android or robot's AI infrastructure is modelled closely after the mammalian brain, "handedness" could occur naturally. I don't believe that simply being sentient would necessarily cause "handedness," but I concede it certainly is possible. What I DO believe is that, if the AI is constructed and programmed after the fashion of, say, Commander Data -- a computing matrix -- the default assumption should be Ambidexterity. After all, most vehicles don't have "wheeledness" or "aileronness." On the other hand, androids and robots may develop handedness simply because objects such as guitars and notebooks are easier to use if one is right handed.

 

Likewise' date=' everyman skills might be appropriate for an android. What if androids are programmed with brain tapes copied from real humans? What if androids are programmed by copying from a "master" android brain that was raised like a human, learning slowly? It all depends on how you decide androids work in your world.[/quote']

 

That's an excellent point. I admit that, in considering Everyrobot Skills, I am working from a Commander Data sort of perspective. Deduction does not come easily to "orderly brain" androids in most SF, nor does Acting, or even Concealment. Certainly the androids in your campaign might be almost identical to humans, and even be raised as a human -- but if not, if they're like the typical sci-fi "off the assembly line, programmed, intelligence equal to but different from humans" sort, it bears considering that some Everyman Skills humans take for granted might not come easily to androids, or even other species (think Acting and Mr. Spock).

 

Regarding range' date=' robots might not be much better at this than humans, unless specifically designed with some sort of range finder (radar, sonar, etc). Binocular vision isn't that great. There isn't much distance between the eyes to calculate the distance of the sides of the triangle your eyes form to a target. [b']There's a lot more involved in human distance estimation, a lot of it is judging the size of the target and the closeness to other reference objects.[/b]

 

Ah, that's one thing almost any "orderly brain" robot of humanlike inteligence would excel at: analyzing visual data in the way you describe to determine range. It's not, in my opinion, abstract -- rangefinding is very mathematical and precise. In Boy Scouts (long ago, even for me at 22), you can learn basic rangefinding techniques, and I did. It seems to me that any robot would be able to master Absolute Range Sense quite well, but that's just my take.

 

So' date=' I guess in summary I think your ideas are good. However, I think there's enough wiggle room for an individual GM to decide his 'droids are different if he wants to. Rather than absolutes, I think Ambidexterity and Absolute Distance (?) are neat powers a GM can give to 'droids if he feels they fit his campaign. Ditto with the everyman skills.[/quote']

 

Oh, absolutely. I was just putting the ideas out there for people who may not have thought of them before (I saw an episode of Star Trek with Data in it the other day, ran to get Star Hero, and contemplated androids and robots in depth for several hours).

[Sean Waters]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

It would truly be illogical to deliberately program or build an unnecessary weakness into a robot or android' date=' don't you think? There would need to be a practical reason for it, and beyond Ambidexterity behaving as a Distinctive Feature which biological humans could use to spot a possible android (i.e., "Pssst, Joe -- look, he's using both hands to write with interchangably. Think he's an android?"), I see no reason to purposely exclude Ambidexterity from an android's construction or programming.[/quote']

 

It depends whether you want to integrate androids into society or use them purely as slave labour. In the second instance, make them efficient and unemeotional and inhuman in appearance. In the first you need to give them flaws and foibles or their superiority to humans will be grounds for resentment and paranoia.

 

Realistically it depends what the 'bot was designed for. The more human types - the ones that could be played as PCs are likely to have amany of the faults of humans programmed in to them.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

Realistically it depends what the 'bot was designed for. The more human types - the ones that could be played as PCs are likely to have amany of the faults of humans programmed in to them.

 

Why bother programming weaknesses into your design -- something we never do in modern times -- when you could simulate those faults through a special program or routine, or perhaps Acting skill, or even a Power, if the purpose is to trick humans into believing the android is like them? I know where you are coming from, and I can see where programming human weaknesses into an android MIGHT find merit... but I tend to assume that people do not program disadvantageous quirks into their designs unless it is truly necessary.

 

And of course, the type of robot will certainly dictate its particulars.

[yamamura]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

Deduction does not come easily to "orderly brain" androids in most SF, nor does Acting, or even Concealment.

 

I could still see concealment as an everyman skill. The AI knows it needs to hide and so starts a quick scan of the area to determine where it is best to hide given its side and shape. Once there it has an advantage over humans, cause it can shut down any function that might give it away as opposed to a human suddenly sneezing.

[Lethosos]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

I don't really have much to contribute, except that upon thinking about my personal race of andriods patterned biologically after natural humans (Techs,) I would have to say that time makes a huge difference in skillsets. It's entirely possible--given a positronic matrix, in this case--for a 1st generation SeaTech (built to breathe in water and survive great oceanic pressures for short periods of time,) to learn terrestial skills that weren't orignally coded in by the mother AI.

 

So build your EveryBot skill set as you see fit--I reccomend differing ones per builder, at the very base level. Again, YMMV in the course of your campaign.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

Why bother programming weaknesses into your design -- something we never do in modern times -- when you could simulate those faults through a special program or routine, or perhaps Acting skill, or even a Power, if the purpose is to trick humans into believing the android is like them? I know where you are coming from, and I can see where programming human weaknesses into an android MIGHT find merit... but I tend to assume that people do not program disadvantageous quirks into their designs unless it is truly necessary.

 

And of course, the type of robot will certainly dictate its particulars.

 

Good point: it is entirely possible an android could 'turn off' and foibles and flaws, but , as you say, the type will dictate the particulars. C3P0 has all kinds of interaction skills programmed into him but still comes over kinda dorky.

 

It also depends, I suppose, on how the postitronic brain is built and programmed. It may be that the conrolling personality and consciousness is not programmed in conventional terms - lines of code - but in a far more organic and evolutionary way. Intelligence and personality may not be something that you CAN programme: perhaps at a certain level of transistor density the thing starts programming itself. There's no reason it can't pck up bad habits, like handedness...

[Sean Waters]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

...but getting back to your original interesting points....

 

1. I think a number of talents could be programmed as standard, but it then becomes a game balance point - if bots gets free talents you need a balance or there will be a bias to the bots.

 

2. That balance could come in the form of NO everybot skills: everything they have to do needs to be programmed.

 

3. I think largely physical skills, like stealth, would be far easier to programme as standard then interaction skills like persuasion.

 

In conclusion I would have no problem removing Everybot skills and replacing them (with rough points equivalence) with talents.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

Why bother programming weaknesses into your design -- something we never do in modern times ...

 

What?

 

The entire concept of Planned Obsolenscence of the HyperConsumerist Market practically requires us to build flaws into our design so they terminate forcing the need to go get another one. Preprogrammed flaws, or intentionally unfixed flaws, allow for Upgrades.

 

That and people are stupid - planned or not design flaws get in. I point to Windows 2000 and yesterday's headlines...

[prestidigitator]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

Why bother programming weaknesses into your design -- something we never do in modern times -- when you could simulate those faults through a special program or routine, or perhaps Acting skill, or even a Power, if the purpose is to trick humans into believing the android is like them? I know where you are coming from, and I can see where programming human weaknesses into an android MIGHT find merit... but I tend to assume that people do not program disadvantageous quirks into their designs unless it is truly necessary.

 

And of course, the type of robot will certainly dictate its particulars.

There were definitely reasons for Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics to be incorporated into robots (in fact every positronic brain, whether used in a humanoid robot, a talking brain, or a robotic car), and yet those are definite and very powerful, "weaknesses."

 

In general I think you have to ask, "what are almost all robots capable in this universe?" For characters, Everyman Skills are not decided based upon what absolutely every person is capable of (because there are some that are physically or mentally handicapped and therefore lack some Everyman Skills), nor are they based upon what every starting character is capable of; they are based upon the capabilities of the majority of people in your entire setting. In many settings there will be non-humanoid robots as well as humanoid ones, and they will all be classified as, "robots." As an example, a robot built physically like Star Wars' R2-D2 may very well not have Absolute Range Sense because he has only one optical sensor (and it takes a reasonable difference in view angle to detect distances reliably, quickly, and well). If this robot were not an extremely exceptional case (it certainly isn't extremely exceptional in Star Wars, as there are many maintanence droids built like R2-D2), I would say Absolute Range Sense should not come for free.

[zornwil]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

Why bother programming weaknesses into your design -- something we never do in modern times -- when you could simulate those faults through a special program or routine, or perhaps Acting skill, or even a Power, if the purpose is to trick humans into believing the android is like them? I know where you are coming from, and I can see where programming human weaknesses into an android MIGHT find merit... but I tend to assume that people do not program disadvantageous quirks into their designs unless it is truly necessary.

 

And of course, the type of robot will certainly dictate its particulars.

Just a thought - we do have weaknesses programmed into things, though most often as a relic of human familiarity. The QWERTY keyboard was created to slow down typists in some respects, so that manual typewriters wouldn't have the keys all clogged up. It's been demonstrated that there are far superior, faster keyboards for typing, and in certain specialized applications those are in use, but the vast majority of people still use the QWERTY keyboard because "that's how it's always been done" and plus we're unwilling, as a society (or collection of societies, now) to retrain the population and retool our stuff.

 

Similarly, they could have made small cell phones years and years ago. The initial designs of cell phones was deliberately larger than required because the first user base was freaked out, basically, by holding something that didn't reach near the mouth. Now this has changed rapidly for a number of reasons.

 

But the point is, we often do have inefficiencies, though of course for good reasons.

 

Anyway, androids, if we mean human-semblance robots, could/would definitely have some ineffiiciences - after all, why have 2 legs instead of a base which is more steady and reliable?

 

But I agree, handedness would be unlikely as a programmed necessity, more likely it would be a trait demonstrated merely for human comfort and the AI could just as easily set that aside were it a weakness. As I recall, Data displayed some traits just for human familiarity but wasn't limited by them; I believe he was actually ambidextrous in that when it mattered he used both hands with equal facility, but the other limitation as you point out is that he was portrayed by a regular limited human.

 

To me the variety in sci-fi of human-like high-level AI machines is such that you can pretty much rationalize almost anything.

[zornwil]

Re: 'Bots 'n' 'Droids 'n' Star Hero

 

There were definitely reasons for Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics to be incorporated into robots (in fact every positronic brain, whether used in a humanoid robot, a talking brain, or a robotic car), and yet those are definite and very powerful, "weaknesses."

 

In general I think you have to ask, "what are almost all robots capable in this universe?" For characters, Everyman Skills are not decided based upon what absolutely every person is capable of (because there are some that are physically or mentally handicapped and therefore lack some Everyman Skills), nor are they based upon what every starting character is capable of; they are based upon the capabilities of the majority of people in your entire setting. In many settings there will be non-humanoid robots as well as humanoid ones, and they will all be classified as, "robots." As an example, a robot built physically like Star Wars' R2-D2 may very well not have Absolute Range Sense because he has only one optical sensor (and it takes a reasonable difference in view angle to detect distances reliably, quickly, and well). If this robot were not an extremely exceptional case (it certainly isn't extremely exceptional in Star Wars, as there are many maintanence droids built like R2-D2), I would say Absolute Range Sense should not come for free.

Another question is capacity and utility. A robot will "forget" (purge) knowledge that it doesn't need if it is running low on space, and in harder SF settings that would definitely be a concern at some point (I mean, after the 50th time you've said, "Robot, collect all data known on (x)!" it's going to eventually have to drop something!).

 

Similarly, if, say, Absolute Range isn't needed by default, which it isn't for all jobs, it won't be built-in to all robots and only put into those robots who need it. Similarly, some robots, let's say a robot that does nothing besides make coffee and deliver mail, could be the equivalent of a mentally retarded human.