Jump to content

Toolkiting Perception


Nolgroth

Recommended Posts

Greetings Herophiles,

 

I have been thinking of removing Perception as a sort of "meta" characteristic and replacing it with trainable skills. Aside from the obvious changes to Sense Groups and Enhanced Perception, what obvious roadblocks am I missing? Flash and Darkness would be affected, but I am not quite sure by how much. Having a character state called Blinded (or Deafened etc.) would still apply the appropriate penalties to the relevant skills and OCV/DCV values.

 

The other thought that I had, instead of such a drastic change, is to make Perception a flat 11- roll instead of based on Intelligence. 

 

The reason I am looking at this is that, though Intelligence allows for the processing of information, that doesn't necessarily reflect a perceptive individual. I've known people who are vastly more intelligent than me that couldn't see a 3-headed Tyrannosaurus Rex until it bit them. Training in how and what to look for might be an Observation skill (or a power called Trained Observer), while a general state of alertness might be defined by a skill of the same name. We already have a Criminology skill that reflects how to look at a crime scene.

 

As with most of my queries, I have an idea but am soliciting opinions on why it would or would not work. Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think disconnecting it from INT is not very earth shattering. I don't see a need for any othe rmajor changes since you can already "train" it simply by buying levels with a sense, a sense group or all senses. Observing something can happen without the necessary knowledge or intelligence to connect the dots, which is why Tactics, Deduction, Forensics and related PS and KS skills exist. Defense Maneuver and Combat Sense can augment those in combat situations.

 

Aside from the disconnect from INT to handle those who are smart but not observant or observant but not smart, what do you see as a problem in the current rules? Do the costs of the enhanced senses seem low or high? Is it something other than that?

 

- E

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is anything "wrong" with the current rules, per se. Mostly a matter of aesthetics. Hero has been too dogmatically adhered to for far too long. I like to challenge dogma and slaughter sacred cows for dinner. So I bring forth these little things to see if there is a logic or brilliance to them or if we adhere to them simply for tradition's sake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thought that I had, instead of such a drastic change, is to make Perception a flat 11- roll instead of based on Intelligence. 

 

The reason I am looking at this is that, though Intelligence allows for the processing of information, that doesn't necessarily reflect a perceptive individual. I've known people who are vastly more intelligent than me that couldn't see a 3-headed Tyrannosaurus Rex until it bit them. Training in how and what to look for might be an Observation skill (or a power called Trained Observer), while a general state of alertness might be defined by a skill of the same name. We already have a Criminology skill that reflects how to look at a crime scene.

With those "intelligent but poor perceptors" you are propably ignoring distractions.

Being in a train of thought can be as distracting as being in a conversation (see 6E2 for the hearing penalties). Do not forget that emotions can also be quite distracting. "Love makes blind", as the old saying goes. As well as being tired, hungry or thristy - smart people are often very poor at keeping care of thier body (I know from experience).

 

Thanks to my intelligence I am able to see patterns that others seem to fail at noticing time and again, wheter due to lower intelligence or distraction/being occupied emotionally.

I often drive with the Public Transportation. I noticed that busdrivers will only stop at stations when they see somebody standing there or somebody used the door trigger to mark thier intetion to leave.

In turn trains hold on every station. The doors will only open if a user triggered the button and the driver unlocked the doors. But at some station/situations the drivers force open all doors (heat and a underground station; common places to switch lines).

I have this wierd crossing on my way home. Basically two normal crossroads that somehow fused into a single crossing with a single ample system. As a result along some axis, it takes really long for pedestrians to get green.

 

All three have in common that they use a simple touch-button to detect user intent and a highlegthed text to confirm being triggered. Yet so many people are there hitting the button again and again when the text is already glowing in vain hope for speed it up, when I could clearly tell them why the ample can not yet switch to green/why the door can not yet open. It actually becomes frustrating quickly.

And the wierdest part is that many of those people get pissed off when I explain it. They seem to think I want to brag with my knowledge, when in reality I want to lessen my knowledge advantage by distributing the knowledge. People can be utterly confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. I think you need to reduce the cost of INT if you decouple PER rolls from it, since INT would do less for a character after said decoupling and, thus, should cost less in the 'you get what you pay for' model of Hero System.  The trouble with this is that INT is already 1CP per 1pt of INT ... resulting in a character creation/maintenance PITA if you reduce INT cost below 1CP per 1pt of INT.
  2. Analyze, Bugging, Concealment, Forgery and Shadowing are all INT-based and all entail not only the ability to do something (e.g. analyze something, place bugs, etc.), but also the ability to spot/detect something (e.g. find a bug, locate a concealed item, spot a forgery, spot someone shadowing/tailing you).   The implication of these being INT-based and PER being INT-based is that they are inextricably connected.  If you decouple PER from INT, then you will need to decouple the detection portions of these skills from INT, too, in order to maintain consistency with your assertion that "Intelligence allows for the processing of information, [but] that doesn't necessarily reflect a perceptive individual."

Because of both of these things, toolkitting PER seems pretty burdensome -- largely because Hero System's design absolutely ties INT and PER together in so many places that you would have to address -- unless you were ok with introducing inconsistency into your game AND not giving characters what they actually paid for when they bought INT.  (Note that players tend not to like inconsistencies in rules ... or removal of functionality with no accompanying cost adjustment.)

 

I think a smarter and much easier approach would be to identify those times in your game when INT does not correspond to a higher PER (which, in theory, would not exactly be common) ... and buy INT for those characters with a limitation that prevents it from applying to/increasing PER and/or observation-based skill components (like those listed above for Analyze, Bugging, Concealment, etc.) that are based on INT.  It's probably worth -1/4 ... perhaps -1/2 if the applicable character(s) had a fair number of the INT-based skills that have observation/location/detection components to them.  An example of this would be a CIA agent with all of the previously-listed skills that have observation/location/detection components.  (Note that such an agent would be incredibly rare considering that agencies select for those sorts of skills and that agent's skills would be lowered if his/her INT were bought with the limitation described herein.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With those "intelligent but poor perceptors" you are propably ignoring distractions.

Being in a train of thought can be as distracting as being in a conversation (see 6E2 for the hearing penalties). Do not forget that emotions can also be quite distracting. "Love makes blind", as the old saying goes. As well as being tired, hungry or thristy - smart people are often very poor at keeping care of thier body (I know from experience).

 

Thanks to my intelligence I am able to see patterns that others seem to fail at noticing time and again, wheter due to lower intelligence or distraction/being occupied emotionally.

I often drive with the Public Transportation. I noticed that busdrivers will only stop at stations when they see somebody standing there or somebody used the door trigger to mark thier intetion to leave.

In turn trains hold on every station. The doors will only open if a user triggered the button and the driver unlocked the doors. But at some station/situations the drivers force open all doors (heat and a underground station; common places to switch lines).

I have this wierd crossing on my way home. Basically two normal crossroads that somehow fused into a single crossing with a single ample system. As a result along some axis, it takes really long for pedestrians to get green.

 

All three have in common that they use a simple touch-button to detect user intent and a highlegthed text to confirm being triggered. Yet so many people are there hitting the button again and again when the text is already glowing in vain hope for speed it up, when I could clearly tell them why the ample can not yet switch to green/why the door can not yet open. It actually becomes frustrating quickly.

And the wierdest part is that many of those people get pissed off when I explain it. They seem to think I want to brag with my knowledge, when in reality I want to lessen my knowledge advantage by distributing the knowledge. People can be utterly confusing.

 

What this sounds like to me is more of an assumption of certain familiarity with your environment coupled with a City Knowledge skill. A person from another time or place that did not have the assumed knowledge of modern appliances and expectations might still be able to figure that out, but it would require the ability to observe details and the time to allow the Cause/Effect to click in. You've essentially made my point that Perception is more than just being able to determine the distinct parts of an experience, but how to correlate those together. That takes knowledge and training, which implies Skill as opposed to raw talent.

 

Put another way, anybody in the 21st Century probably knows the distinctive "click-clack" sound that results from chambering a pump action shotgun. Either from media or personal experience, we know that means somebody just loaded a little cylinder of death into a larger tube. Would a caveman have that knowledge? No. He would hear the sound but could not correlate that to anything meaningful. Once he observed what happened afterwards, he would understand that something loud and frightening just happened, but would not necessarily know how to engage that device should he have the opportunity to pick it up. More training, even simple training, would be required for him to string together the sequence of Load the Ammunition, Chamber the Ammunition, Point, Activate the Trigger to Discharge the Shotgun. He does not have the same assumed knowledge that we do so his initial contact with the noise from a shotgun would mean absolutely nothing.

 

Now I will admit that is far and away a really off the wall example, but I think it illustrates that context means everything in terms of actively using perceived stimulus in a meaningful way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  1. I think you need to reduce the cost of INT if you decouple PER rolls from it, since INT would do less for a character after said decoupling and, thus, should cost less in the 'you get what you pay for' model of Hero System.  The trouble with this is that INT is already 1CP per 1pt of INT ... resulting in a character creation/maintenance PITA if you reduce INT cost below 1CP per 1pt of INT.
  2. Analyze, Bugging, Concealment, Forgery and Shadowing are all INT-based and all entail not only the ability to do something (e.g. analyze something, place bugs, etc.), but also the ability to spot/detect something (e.g. find a bug, locate a concealed item, spot a forgery, spot someone shadowing/tailing you).   The implication of these being INT-based and PER being INT-based is that they are inextricably connected.  If you decouple PER from INT, then you will need to decouple the detection portions of these skills from INT, too, in order to maintain consistency with your assertion that "Intelligence allows for the processing of information, [but] that doesn't necessarily reflect a perceptive individual."

Because of both of these things, toolkitting PER seems pretty burdensome -- largely because Hero System's design absolutely ties INT and PER together in so many places that you would have to address -- unless you were ok with introducing inconsistency into your game AND not giving characters what they actually paid for when they bought INT.  (Note that players tend not to like inconsistencies in rules ... or removal of functionality with no accompanying cost adjustment.)

 

  1. Why? Some things are just assumed to be a part of the campaign. Do I have to start charging for Everyman skills because there is too much utility in giving them away for free? 
  2. The thing about this whole section again proves my point. Every single one of your examples demonstrates how training coupled with Intelligence creates the perfect synergy for Perception to mean something. Again, somebody not trained to spot a tail will probably not notice some of the tell tale signs. Somebody that has no idea how to spot a forgery would not pick up that the paint used in the forgery was anachronistic. I have no problems with, indeed I eagerly support, the idea that trained and directed Intelligence (skills) is the important part here. I would NOT need to decouple the detection portion of those skills because that is exactly why I think a generic Perception might be a problem. Your argument is built upon the assumption that one thing must lead to the other but that assertion is not necessarily true.

As to the last part I quoted, this is again, a hypothetical exercise. If I were to ever implement such a rule, it would be clearly stated from the beginning of a campaign what the changes were and my intention behind changing a fundamental aspect of the rules system. 

 

I understand, or at least I think I understand, why Perception exists. It is an abstraction for the purpose of simplification. For most campaigns, it is simpler to just use a singular, abstracted entity to represent the ability to perceive stimuli and collate that perception into actionable meaning. Most people are happy to work with that generic entity because breaking it down into distinctive patterns seems like a lot of work. For some campaigns (Four Color Champions for example), I would agree. For others (a Gritty Dark Champions Crime Procedural), I think that a more distinctive breakdown would be preferable. 

 

By the way, thank you all for responding. This has so far been a pretty fun topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this sounds like to me is more of an assumption of certain familiarity with your environment coupled with a City Knowledge skill. A person from another time or place that did not have the assumed knowledge of modern appliances and expectations might still be able to figure that out, but it would require the ability to observe details and the time to allow the Cause/Effect to click in. You've essentially made my point that Perception is more than just being able to determine the distinct parts of an experience, but how to correlate those together. That takes knowledge and training, which implies Skill as opposed to raw talent.

 

Put another way, anybody in the 21st Century probably knows the distinctive "click-clack" sound that results from chambering a pump action shotgun. Either from media or personal experience, we know that means somebody just loaded a little cylinder of death into a larger tube. Would a caveman have that knowledge? No. He would hear the sound but could not correlate that to anything meaningful. Once he observed what happened afterwards, he would understand that something loud and frightening just happened, but would not necessarily know how to engage that device should he have the opportunity to pick it up. More training, even simple training, would be required for him to string together the sequence of Load the Ammunition, Chamber the Ammunition, Point, Activate the Trigger to Discharge the Shotgun. He does not have the same assumed knowledge that we do so his initial contact with the noise from a shotgun would mean absolutely nothing.

 

Now I will admit that is far and away a really off the wall example, but I think it illustrates that context means everything in terms of actively using perceived stimulus in a meaningful way.

Those other people I that I meet waiting at the Ample/Door - about 90% do not get the mechanic. My city is not so overrun with Tourists, that 90% of all people there are tourists.

The trains are literally older then me, with the oldest being over 40. Even after a recent retrofit, those door mechanics have not changed one bit.

The amples are like this for at least 5 years, propably longer.

By pure propabilty I would have to meet people who understand the devices as well as I more then 10% of the time. Interestingly younger children are more likely to "get" that.

 

Regarding the Caveman & Shootgun:

I do not think I could identify the sound of a Shootgun being loaded. Much less identify a weapon by it's sound. All my experience with Weapon Sounds is from Shooters.

Personally I would think that caveman would be faster at learning to use the Shootgun then me. Firearms are in the end not that differently from a thrown spear or bow. They can be kept ready a lot longer (as long as the Gunpoweder stays viable) and you do not need a target when readying it.

Note that there is a "unfamiliarity" penalty for Skills. Easily enough adapted to Perception as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  1. Why? Some things are just assumed to be a part of the campaign. Do I have to start charging for Everyman skills because there is too much utility in giving them away for free? 

1. If the Utility changed, so should the price. Substracting every perception related utility from INT easily halves the times it is used.

 

Maybe some cross-referencing from other systems helps here:

All Systems that have a Atribute derived base value + Skill point invensement system = total value, asume that someone with a high score is able to "pick up" things in that area quickly/intuit it better, even if he has no training.

Shadowrun in particular does that.

For most other systems I know, Perception is a seperate skill to begin with. But for hero the differnce between a Skill and a Atribute is mostly the pricing anyway.

 

APG II 6-8 two variants of Perception:

Perception as seperate Charactersitic

Perception as skill.

I think charactersitic might be closer to what you want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why? Some things are just assumed to be a part of the campaign. Do I have to start charging for Everyman skills because there is too much utility in giving them away for free? 

Why? Because of what Christopher just said ... as well as to avoid turning off prospective players.

If you think your potential players won't have a problem with this, then by all means treat them the same way marketers of sugar-free products treat their customers -- i.e. typically charging more than normal rates while giving less for it (since sugar substitutes are usually cheaper than real sugar).  By the way, I say 'charging more than normal rates' for two reasons in this comparison: a] you're giving less per 1pt of INT than is standard by the rules and b] you're basically suggesting the creation of a bunch of skills around perceiving things ... which will cost more than if they weren't needed.

 

Note:
​As a player, I would take issue with a GM halving the number of times INT was used without halving its cost -- and then, on top of that, expecting me to have a number of specific 3pt skills that typically aren't needed... just to observe things in a game world in which the character interacts.  Reason?  If I can't observe something ... interaction becomes a problem ... and if I can't interact, then what's the point of playing a tabletop RPG?  Oh, but I can interact if I sink a pile of points into observation-based skills ... points that would be more fun if spent on the ability to do something during the interaction rather than on observation skills that merely allow me to observe something to facilitate an interaction...

 

 

The thing about this whole section again proves my point. Every single one of your examples demonstrates how training coupled with Intelligence creates the perfect synergy for Perception to mean something. Again, somebody not trained to spot a tail will probably not notice some of the tell tale signs. Somebody that has no idea how to spot a forgery would not pick up that the paint used in the forgery was anachronistic. I have no problems with, indeed I eagerly support, the idea that trained and directed Intelligence (skills) is the important part here. I would NOT need to decouple the detection portion of those skills because that is exactly why I think a generic Perception might be a problem. Your argument is built upon the assumption that one thing must lead to the other but that assertion is not necessarily true.

To create the synergy between training and perception of which you speak, why wouldn't you just use Analyze, Bugging, Concealment, Shadowing, and other similar skills (perhaps specific to your game?) with detection/observation components ... in complimentary fashion?

 

i.e. The untrained observer notices something is amiss but not precisely what is amiss ... while the trained observer has more detail due to a complimentary roll on top of the base PER roll. 

 

 

Put succinctly, I just don't see a need for a toolkitted solution in search of a problem.  You can already apply limitations to INT for those rare cases where increased INT shouldn't have a direct correlation to increased PER ... and you can use complimentary skill rolls to tie skill-based training to Intelligence-based PER.  From my perspective, going beyond these things seems to serve little game-related purpose other than to siphon points out of other areas of the character sheet while adding unrequired complexity -- neither of which players tend to find fun, especially given how fundamental observation is to the resulting ability to interact with the observed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Caveman & Shootgun:

I do not think I could identify the sound of a Shootgun being loaded. Much less identify a weapon by it's sound. All my experience with Weapon Sounds is from Shooters.

Personally I would think that caveman would be faster at learning to use the Shootgun then me. Firearms are in the end not that differently from a thrown spear or bow. They can be kept ready a lot longer (as long as the Gunpoweder stays viable) and you do not need a target when readying it.

Almost anyone who has seen a modern action movie will be able to identify a shotgun chambering a round. It is a distinctive sound that you may not even realize you know.

 

As someone who has used firearms, bows and attempted to use a spear / javelin... they are all VERY different animals. Other than the hand eye coordination and the fact that they all need to lead a moving target by some amount they might as well be not related at all. 

 

Other minor quibbles: Caveman (assuming you mean either Neanderthal or early Cro-Magnon people) did not use bows. The early Pleistocene is speculated to be an originating point for bows, but it's hard to tell since wood does not hold up well. There are a couple surviving bows from 5-6k years ago. Before that it was spear chuckers, spears, and probably some darts. And for all of this, it does depend on which articles you believe because as with anything that far back in history, speculation abounds.

 

- E

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utility is relative to the campaign. If everybody within the same campaign is subject to the exact same rules then there is no disparity in cost to utility. I personally believe that there is not going to be much cross-pollination of characters between campaigns so I can comfortably set rules for one campaign without those rules affecting another. 

 

@Surrealone: You sort of hit what I was thinking about as I was waking up this afternoon. All of the training allows you to implement action based on perceived stimulus but there would still be raw input. In my above example, the caveman would still hear the shotgun chambering sound, even without the context to know what to do. That still just drives a further wedge between Perception and Intelligence in my mind as, RAW, Perception implies some sort of subconscious analysis (Intelligence) of the incoming stimuli. I am proposing that you will still receive the stimulus but not necessarily be able to process it without further training. 

 

I am now convinced that Perception, while perfectly fine as an abstraction, is still broken. Doesn't mean I'm going to abandon it or the Hero system but I can proceed now, knowing why it bothers me so much. It isn't "toolkitting in search of a problem." It is a problem that is in need of a solution. I have a solution, but I think that would be such a fundamental change that I might as well look at using a different system instead. For the time being, going forward with the knowledge of why something bothers me will be sufficient.

 

Note:
​As a player, I would take issue with a GM halving the number of times INT was used without halving its cost -- and then, on top of that, expecting me to have a number of specific 3pt skills that typically aren't needed... just to observe things in a game world in which the character interacts.  Reason?  If I can't observe something ... interaction becomes a problem ... and if I can't interact, then what's the point of playing a tabletop RPG?  Oh, but I can interact if I sink a pile of points into observation-based skills ... points that would be more fun if spent on the ability to do something during the interaction rather than on observation skills that merely allow me to observe something to facilitate an interaction...

 

 

This speaks more to a dogmatic approach and general mistrust that the GM could effectively and enjoyably alter the basic assumptions about a game mechanic than any real problem with changing said mechanic. As a GM, I would take issue with a player not wanting or be willing to experiment with a game system. Different and opposing views obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Surrealone: You sort of hit what I was thinking about as I was waking up this afternoon. All of the training allows you to implement action based on perceived stimulus but there would still be raw input. In my above example, the caveman would still hear the shotgun chambering sound, even without the context to know what to do. That still just drives a further wedge between Perception and Intelligence in my mind as, RAW, Perception implies some sort of subconscious analysis (Intelligence) of the incoming stimuli. I am proposing that you will still receive the stimulus but not necessarily be able to process it without further training. 

 

I am now convinced that Perception, while perfectly fine as an abstraction, is still broken. Doesn't mean I'm going to abandon it or the Hero system but I can proceed now, knowing why it bothers me so much. It isn't "toolkitting in search of a problem." It is a problem that is in need of a solution. I have a solution, but I think that would be such a fundamental change that I might as well look at using a different system instead. For the time being, going forward with the knowledge of why something bothers me will be sufficient.

I'm not sure that it's broken.  Rather, I think PER is intentionally made easy/cheap because the game designers understood/understand that you can't effectively interact with what you can't perceive ... and a tabletop RPG is fundamentally about interactions that result in group story-telling, not about perceiving things with which you can only have limited interactions (due to costs being too high to perceive things with which you must interact).

 

Beyond the implicit link between INT and PER, as evidence of the aforementioned I also submit the sentiment that has been shared regarding Enhanced Senses getting a bit unwieldy and a bit too costly somewhere between 3rd Edition and 5th Edition.

  • e,g, Spatial Awareness was never cheap, but originally it was so raw/unrefined that precisely what you could/couldn't sense with it was kind of up to the GM.  Then came Ranged, Discriminatory, Analyze, and other such adders that could be lumped onto it.  Sure this allowed for more flexibility when building, but it took points away from other areas of the character sheet without really adding much to the game when you consider that a good GM would have (and still could -- but is much less likely to with the new adders in place) rule to allow Ranged, Discriminatory, Analytical use of the very same ability (without points paid for such things) if it makes logical sense to do so based on the SFX of the power and/of skills of the character.
  • i.e. Comparing 5th Edition to 4th Edition to 3rd Edition, a lot of the added (and expensive) 'flexibility' regarding Enhanced Senses really just sucked points out of the game ... points that would normally be used to interact but are now, instead, used to perceive (in order to enable interaction -- with the reduced pool of points that result from the added expenses to perceive) ... without the GM having to make calls he would have made in the past.

 

This one really seems to come down to design philosophy, I think.  You seem to want more granular approaches to Perception.  If you toolkit that in a way that costs more, then you deliberately reduce your characters' abilities to interact by making it cost more to perceive.  To use a rough analogy, most players don't want to pay for binoculars that allow them to watch your story unfold at the expense of vehicles, powers, and other such tools that let them interact with the story.  If you have a group of brand new players, well, they won't know the difference -- but experienced players will -- and they probably won't like a philosophy that makes it cost more to perceive and results in their ability to do less with what they perceive.

 

If you go to a cost-neutral perspective with the toolkit -- i.e. balance it all out so that you don't trade interaction/effectiveness for the ability to perception -- you're going to have something complex enough that it may well be treated a lot like Long Term Endurance ... i.e. largely handwaved or ignored due to annoyance/complexity.

 

That sort of leaves you stuck wanting more ... with a system that's not flawed, but rather designed to make Perception easy and relatively cheap (stacked 5e and later Enhanced Sense adders excepted) in order to encourage effective interaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sort of leaves you stuck wanting more ... with a system that's not flawed, but rather designed to make Perception easy and relatively cheap (stacked 5e and later Enhanced Sense adders excepted) in order to encourage effective interaction.

 

I will disagree with you that Hero is not flawed. It has lots of flaws. It also happens to be one of my top three gaming systems so I will take it with it's flaws. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will disagree with you that Hero is not flawed. It has lots of flaws. It also happens to be one of my top three gaming systems so I will take it with it's flaws. :)

I think you read what I wrote outside/beyond the context of this discussion (Perception within Hero System) ... while my comment was absolutely limited to this discussion.  For clarity: I was not indicating that Hero System is flawless; rather, I was indicating that the Hero System design which makes Perception easy and relatively cheap is, in my opinion, a good design choice ... not a flaw.

 

There is no human-made system that is perfect/flawless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you read what I wrote outside/beyond the context of this discussion (Perception within Hero System) ... while my comment was absolutely limited to this discussion.  For clarity: I was not indicating that Hero System is flawless; rather, I was indicating that the Hero System design which makes Perception easy and relatively cheap is, in my opinion, a good design choice ... not a flaw.

 

There is no human-made system that is perfect/flawless.

 

Naw, just trying to be light-hearted. I still think Perception is flawed but I am not sure that there is an easier/better way to deal with it. So abstraction it is. Besides, I have another project that has garnered my attention so this little exercise has played out its usefulness. Thanks for being a good sport and joining in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...