New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

[ghost-angel]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

You wrote an entirely new 716 word power so a character can do the same thing CSI's Gil Grissom accomplishes with a sterile Q-Tip and a test tube?

 

You mean the Criminology Skill?

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

You mean the Criminology Skill?

Sure. Isn't that what a DNA test of hair or skin cells entails - Removing a cell for analysis elsewhere?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

So they can be placed somewhere else to be analyzed separately by someone else.

 

That's the SFX, being able to carry small things without damaging them.

 

PSL's to the appropriate skill to offset penalties that woud arise from the damage the material would normally take (potentially including penalties for passage of time), UBO, which can only counteract effects from the time the character took the sample to the time he parts with it for analysis.

 

If it's important in your game, it will presumably be worth the points.

 

Give us the effect and we'll help you reason the mechanics. This does not need a whole new system.

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

******************************

You have two characters. One is an Arcturian and another is Flagian. They are identical in all respects except for the following. They both have super perception (I'm removing those penalties from the equation).

 

Arcturian Arms (Human Structure but Advanced Nerve Development: 10 STR, 50 DEX

Flavian Arms (Two 50mm Strands with thousands of monofiliment phalanges): 10 STR, 50 DEX

 

Flavians can change DNA strands by manipulating them with their phalanges. It is one of their prized marketable skills.

 

Now if we use DEX as the method of handling Manipulation, Arcturians have the same chance of manipulating DNA as the Flavians.

 

With the method I've proposed, there is an actual mechanical difference in the ability to manipulate objects.

******************************

I haven't seen anyone show me an actual build to show the difference in manipulation between the two characters.

 

If it is so easy and obvious to build with the current system (which is the impression I'm getting from some of you) then show me.

 

At least give me the opportunity to respond in kind to your suggestions like you have mine. If you don't want to subject yourself to that, then please stop with the constant, "This isn't needed..." and so forth. Fine, gotcha, I understand, you don't need it in any campaign you'll ever run. It is needed for mine.

 

I've shown above why using DEX as a base for manipulation won't work to differentiate the two characters, and Hugh even agreed. Move on.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

PSL's to the appropriate skill to offset penalties that woud arise from the damage the material would normally take...

And exactly how do you determine, "the damage the material would normally take"?

 

Give us the effect and we'll help you reason the mechanics. This does not need a whole new system.

I have, being able to move small objects from location A to location B. The Effect, just like moving any normal sized object would be a Grab and Hold. There's your effect.

 

So, how does the current system handle moving individual Cells, DNA, and microscopic objects with just your limbs? An actual build would help.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

You have two characters. One is an Arcturian and another is Flagian. They are identical in all respects except for the following. They both have super perception (I'm removing those penalties from the equation).

 

Arcturian Arms (Human Structure but Advanced Nerve Development: 10 STR, 50 DEX

Flavian Arms (Two 50mm Strands with thousands of monofiliment phalanges): 10 STR, 50 DEX

 

Flavians can change DNA strands by manipulating them with their phalanges. It is one of their prized marketable skills.

 

Now if we use DEX as the method of handling Manipulation, Arcturians have the same chance of manipulating DNA as the Flavians.

 

With the method I've proposed, there is an actual mechanical difference in the ability to manipulate objects.

******************************

I haven't seen anyone show me an actual build to show the difference in manipulation between the two characters.

 

If it is so easy and obvious to build with the current system (which is the impression I'm getting from some of you) then show me.

*************************************************

I've shown above why using DEX as a base for manipulation won't work to differentiate the two characters, and Hugh even agreed. Move on.

 

Ummm...actually, I did not agree that this forms any basis for needing a system which provides some base roll for a person to move an individual strand of DNA. And, under your system, Horton the Ham-Handed can make a Manipulation Roll at -8 to Manipulate something 1/4096 his size and succeed on a 3. He probably needs either a 3 or a 5 to turn the page on a book, though. If you want to test your system, figure out a dozen typical examples of manipulation, from things that should be very easy to things that should be very difficult, and show us how they would work under your system. Then show that the examples which should be easy for anyone can be accomplished easily by a character who spent no points on this ability, how things a normal person should generally be able to accomplish with some risk of failure are successful a reasonable percentage of the time, based on their relative difficulty, and how some things a normal person would find near-impossible require bonuses, but can still be accomplished at a rational cost assuming you want characters in your game to be able to accomplish these near-impossible feats. This will, by the way, likely poke some holes in your system and show you where it might need to be reworked.

 

One example could be "changing a person's DNA one strand at a time". Seems to me it would take a long time to change enough DNA in a creature to have any effect, though...

 

"Strand 4,897...after a week of work, one fingernail is starting to change colour".

 

Yup. Until the Flavians, by utilizing the ability to Reason from Effect, purchase a Transform ability to convert their special effect of manipulating DNA with their phalanges into Hero System mechanics.

 

Which does not tell us what happens when one moves a strand of DNA. Transform does. And it doesn't require a whole new system of mechanics to accomplish that goal.

 

Note that your system, at best, tells us the character CAN move a single strand of DNA. He probably paid a fortune for the ability to do so at 5 points per +1 to the roll. Of course, he can now also juggle eggs and chainsaws, assemble or disassemble microcircuitry with his bare hands and turn the tumblers in a lock with no special tools, as well a dozens or hundreds of other applications that DEX would have worked fine for.

 

And we STILL don't know the EFFECT if he changes the DNA, which to me is what makes this ability valuable. A Transform can define that quite easily without reams of cumbersome modifiers.

 

And exactly how do you determine' date=' "the damage the material would normally take"?[/quote']

 

Now' date=' if this were a significant feature of my game, as it seems it will be in yours, I would stat out some examples from the source material, and translate their bonuses or penalties into game terms to help get my players on common ground. But I don't need a full-blown mechanic separate from all that has come before in order to implement this in my games.[/quote']

 

How do YOU determine the damage the material would normally take (ie the effects of moving that single cell WITHOUT a high manipulation stat; the effect of a successful or failed roll) under your system? ANSWER: GM judgment. The difference is that the rest of us didn't need to add a couple of pages of new mechanics to apply our judgment.

 

I have, being able to move small objects from location A to location B. The Effect, just like moving any normal sized object would be a Grab and Hold. There's your effect.

 

So, how does the current system handle moving individual Cells, DNA, and microscopic objects with just your limbs? An actual build would help.

 

Tell us the EFFECT of moving those individual cells, DNA and microscopic objects with your limbs and we can assist you in statting out the effect. I have already suggested that the build for the EFFECT of changing a creature's DNA is to Transform the creature, and that the EFFECT of transporting microscopic cell and DNA samples without damaging them is to remove the penalties which would apply if you lacked the ability to move them without damaging them, and provided approaches for constructing either ability.

 

You're not seeing these solutions because you DON'T WANT to see these as solutions. Instead, you want a complex system with a new mechanic and a huge array of modifiers that (and this, to me, is the real kicker) STILL doesn't provide the EFFECT - the MECHANICAL RESULT - the IN GAME BENEFIT - of being able to do these things. The RESULT - the BENEFIT - is transforming the target, or reducing the penalties that would normally arise from damaging the microscopic particles. The ability to manipulate DNA and carry microscopic particles in your phalanges is the SPECIAL EFFECTS, not the RESULT or BENEFIT.

 

Step outside your love for your convoluted new mechanic and stop defending it. Instead, provide us with an example of how it would be used to change the DNA of a scrawny bookworm so that he becomes the King of the Beach. Or select an actual example of this DNA manipulation from a Jack Chalker Well World novel - I've never read the blasted things so I'm not in a position to select an example of an actual USE of this ability from the source material. Presumably, you are aware of what you want characters to be able to accomplish using your new mechanic. This will help us understand what you are trying to accomplish. Without that understanding, we can't reasonably evaluate how the existing system might address it, or how well your new mechanic might succeed or fail in accomplishing it.

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

Ummm...actually' date=' I did not agree that this forms any basis for needing a system which provides some base roll for a person to move an individual strand of DNA...[/quote']

Please don't twist my words. I never claimed any such thing. My example was to show that there was not difference in manipulation ability when using DEX as the basis of the manipulation roll.

 

And you agreed to this fact since based on your response, both characters would have the same chance to manipulate the same tiny object.

 

Now as to point about automatic success on a roll of 3, is that a standard rule, or an optional one that must be implemented by the GM?

 

The answer really doesn't matter that much since I wouldn't be using such a rule anyway, at least not for the Well World Campaign (Sci-Fi Realism instead of Champions Realism). I'd use an extrapolated rule where any tasks that has a cumulative penalty of -10 or more is considered an impossible task and automatically fails unless the character has some applicable skill/bonus to reduce the penalty below -10.

 

One example could be "changing a person's DNA one strand at a time". Seems to me it would take a long time to change enough DNA in a creature to have any effect' date=' though...[/quote']

Again, misconstruing the example given. The point of the example is to give the scale of how tiny, not to change the DNA into something else. So you might as well stop now with your train of thought. Pointless.

 

Note that your system' date=' at best, tells us the character CAN move a single strand of DNA. He probably paid a fortune for the ability to do so at 5 points per +1 to the roll. Of course, he can now also juggle eggs and chainsaws, assemble or disassemble microcircuitry with his bare hands and turn the tumblers in a lock with no special tools, as well a dozens or hundreds of other applications that DEX would have worked fine for.[/quote']

True, Since there weren't any Limitations applied to the General Manipulation Roll. However, if the SFX would suggest such Limitations, then they should be applied as normal. Reasoning from SFX and all. Unfortunately, you continue to misconstrue the purpose of the example. Now that I've clarified that.

 

And we STILL don't know the EFFECT if he changes the DNA' date=' which to me is what makes this ability valuable. A Transform can define that quite easily without reams of cumbersome modifiers.[/quote']

And I already clarified what the intent of the example was. Hugh, if you are going to continue to ignore what my point is, you won't get very far.

 

It doesn't matter whether the object is DNA, a Strand Of Hair, A Piece Of Dust, A Virus; Pick one, the effect is moving the object (pick one) from location A to location B.

 

Am I speaking another language here. Am I so stupid as to not be able to get across such simple idea.

 

How do YOU determine the damage the material would normally take (ie the effects of moving that single cell WITHOUT a high manipulation stat; the effect of a successful or failed roll) under your system? ANSWER: GM judgment. The difference is that the rest of us didn't need to add a couple of pages of new mechanics to apply our judgment.

Thank you! Precisely, you don't have a method. It might be consistent from time to the next or it might not.

 

Yes, you are absolutely correct, I probably will come up with a system to determine the damage based on size difference... oh wait... I've already done that with the Size Stat. Actually, only a single page for that particular guideline.

 

Tell us the EFFECT of moving those individual cells' date=' DNA and microscopic objects with your limbs and we can assist you in statting out the effect.[/quote']

Okay Hugh, I'm going to ask you one more time using a different example.

 

What is the effect of the following:

Human SFX.

Human picks up rock and moves it five feet from it's location and sets it down.

 

What is the effect?

 

If you can't answer this question, I'll just stop responding to you posts since it will be obvious you don't want to have a serious discussion about the concept.

 

...Step outside your love for your convoluted new mechanic and stop defending it...

Careful Hugh, you are close to going too far. You are letting your emotions get the better of you. I'm not insulting you nor anyone else here. If people don't want to help, then they don't have to post, including you. Just because I don't agree with your idea or anyone's else's doesn't mean I'll just stand here take personal comments that have no bearing on what I am trying to do.

 

If everyone thinks I'm a nut case, fine, that is their opinion, but if they start taking personal snipes verbally or in a post, I will react as needed.

 

Or select an actual example of this DNA manipulation from a Jack Chalker Well World novel - I've never read the blasted things so I'm not in a position to select an example of an actual USE of this ability from the source material. Presumably' date=' you are aware of what you want characters to be able to accomplish using your new mechanic. This will help us understand what you are trying to accomplish. Without that understanding, we can't reasonably evaluate how the existing system might address it, or how well your new mechanic might succeed or fail in accomplishing it.[/quote']

Fair enough.

 

I'll go read the novels again and see if I can find a "suitable" example for your analysis.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

Please don't twist my words. I never claimed any such thing. My example was to show that there was not difference in manipulation ability when using DEX as the basis of the manipulation roll.

 

And you agreed to this fact since based on your response, both characters would have the same chance to manipulate the same tiny object.

 

Indeed they would. Now, under my system, a character with a 50 DEX, and the accompanying manual dexterity and hand/eye co-ordination, would have a superior chance than a character with a 5 DEX. Under your proposed system, their chances would be equal. Let us assume that the object in question is a strand of hair - something a baseline human is, in fact, able to manipulate - to have a more workable example.

 

Under your modified system (based on DEX), the 50 DEX character would have a much better chance, as well he should. As such, I find "based on DEX" preferable.

 

How do we differentiate between 2 50 DEX characters? One might take skill levels with Manipulation, while the other might not. Just as one might take skill levels with Acrobatics, with firing a bow or with any of the myriad other abilities. As manipulation would be a subset of DEX skills (including, for example, Sleight of Hand and Lockpicking, as well as picking up a strand of hair) and +1 with all DEX skills would be a 5 point skill level, I would make this a 3 point skill level. Of course, one could use limited skill levels and/or penalty skill levels to reduce both the breadth and its cost of the levels.

 

Now as to point about automatic success on a roll of 3' date=' is that a standard rule, or an optional one that must be implemented by the GM?[/quote']

 

I believe it is standard, with the caveat that some tasks are simply impossible. But then, if you can buy levels to make it "possible", then it really isn't "impossible", is it?

 

The answer really doesn't matter that much since I wouldn't be using such a rule anyway' date=' at least not for the Well World Campaign (Sci-Fi Realism instead of Champions Realism). I'd use an extrapolated rule where any tasks that has a cumulative penalty of -10 or more is considered an impossible task and automatically fails unless the character has some applicable skill/bonus to reduce the penalty below -10.[/quote']

 

I think a rule that needing a roll of "x" low number to have any chance of success would be reasonable. If you need to roll less than a 1, it simply cannot be done without a modifier bringing the theoretically required roll to at least "1".

 

[Although, as a point of order, the ability to manipulate DNA using one's bare hands strikes me as closer to Superhero realism than to Hard Sci Fi realism. Closer to Fantasy realism too - is this Sci Fi or Science Fantasy?]

 

Again' date=' misconstruing the example given. The point of the example is to give the scale of how tiny, not to change the DNA into something else. So you might as well stop now with your train of thought. Pointless.[/quote']

 

I would describe being able to manipulate individual DNA strands with no idea of any effect of such manipulation as "pointless" as well. By the way, you originally told us that:

 

Flavians can change DNA strands by manipulating them with their phalanges. It is one of their prized marketable skills.

 

That lead me to believe the example had something to do with the ability to change DNA strands by manipulating them with their phalanges. I'm not sure that was such an "out there" conclusion.

 

And I already clarified what the intent of the example was. Hugh' date=' if you are going to continue to ignore what my point is, you won't get very far. [/quote']

 

You do realize that your clarification of the intent is just above this diatribe in the same post, right? I didn't post my comments while you were posting these ones, did I?

 

It doesn't matter whether the object is DNA' date=' a Strand Of Hair, A Piece Of Dust, A Virus; Pick one, the effect is moving the object (pick one) from location A to location B.[/quote']

 

And what is the effect of having done so? To be useful, I would suggest a mechanic must meet these criteria:

 

- the task whose resolution it governs must be one which has a possibility of failure

 

- the task whose resolution it governs must be one which has a possibility of success

 

- the task whose resolution it governs must have a meaningful results within the context of the game

 

In my game, I need no rules for manipulation of a broom to sweep the floor. It has no meaningful prospect of failure, and no meaningful effect on the game. If my game were centered around the sport of curling, I would need some broom-related rules.

 

Am I speaking another language here. Am I so stupid as to not be able to get across such simple idea.

 

I don't even know where to begin to answer that. Perhaps you might post the question in a separate thread as a poll so more than my comments can weigh in.

 

Okay Hugh, I'm going to ask you one more time using a different example.

 

What is the effect of the following:

Human SFX.

Human picks up rock and moves it five feet from it's location and sets it down.

 

What is the effect?

 

If you can't answer this question, I'll just stop responding to you posts since it will be obvious you don't want to have a serious discussion about the concept.

 

The rock is 5 feet away from where it started.

 

Now allow me to pose a question back. What meaningful game effect did moving the rock have?

 

If it simply moved a smallish-size rock 5 feet from where it was before, a task that anyone could accomplish and for which time was not of the essence, it is adequate to simply say "you moved the rock".

 

If it moved the rock to a location where it blocks a portal, we have the STR system to determine whether you can heft it, and the SPD and movement system to determine whether you can move it quickly enough.

 

Simply put, while there is, in real life, the small chance you will accidentally drop the rock, I see no compelling need to add a subsystem to measure the possibility you will drop the rock, because it is both so unlikely and so meaningless as to be meaningless. If you want to create a separate system for whether you will drop the rock, when in your 5 foot journey, what it will fall upon ("Ouch! My toe!), which face of the rock will impact, how it might bounce, whether it might roll, when it might stop, and how many microorganisms it may roll over in the process, feel free. But such a system creates results solely for the sake off creating results and, in my opinion, adds no real merit for its huge addition of complexity. Thus, I consider it a waste of time.

 

Just as I have yet to see any real use for a separate mechanic for manipulation, such as you propose. Does anyone else out there see this as an essential addition to the game?

 

Fair enough.

 

I'll go read the novels again and see if I can find a "suitable" example for your analysis.

 

I look forward to it!

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

Careful Hugh, you are close to going too far. You are letting your emotions get the better of you. I'm not insulting you nor anyone else here. If people don't want to help, then they don't have to post, including you. Just because I don't agree with your idea or anyone's else's doesn't mean I'll just stand here take personal comments that have no bearing on what I am trying to do.

 

If everyone thinks I'm a nut case, fine, that is their opinion, but if they start taking personal snipes verbally or in a post, I will react as needed.

 

Naaw; Hugh didn't make a personal attack. I almost have, several times, but my better judgement got a hold of me each time.

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

Sure. Isn't that what a DNA test of hair or skin cells entails - Removing a cell for analysis elsewhere?

To be more precise, such skills require "tools" for such manipulation for Humans. I've never heard of a Human reaching out with his hand (by itself) to take samples (DNA/Biopsy/etc, they normally use tweezers for hair) to move them somewhere.

 

Manipulation wouldn't have this restriction since the characters Limbs would allow for the same task without any such tools.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

Naaw; Hugh didn't make a personal attack. I almost have' date=' several times, but my better judgement got a hold of me each time.[/quote']

Thank you. I do appreciate your restraint.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

...How do we differentiate between 2 50 DEX characters? One might take skill levels with Manipulation' date=' while the other might not. Just as one might take skill levels with Acrobatics, with firing a bow or with any of the myriad other abilities. As manipulation would be a subset of DEX skills (including, for example, Sleight of Hand and Lockpicking, as well as picking up a strand of hair) and +1 with all DEX skills would be a 5 point skill level, I would make this a 3 point skill level. Of course, one could use limited skill levels and/or penalty skill levels to reduce both the breadth and its cost of the levels.[/quote']

You keep focusing on the penalties/bonuses for objects that can be manipulated by default. I'm focusing on how to define where the boundaries of being able to manipulate and not being able to manipulate.

 

Yes, a Human can manipulate, with penalties, a Human Hair. As far as I know, it is very difficult for a Human to tie a half inch long strand of hair into a knot.

 

I'm sure you're perfectly happy with allowing increased DEX to improve the chances of doing that without any failure. You might even allow a KS: Knot Tying to be a complimentary skill for doing it. Or you might even say, "It has no effect so of course he does it without failure." That's all good and great.

 

That method isn't good enough for what I am trying to do. It is as simple as that. I want to differentiate those abilities.

 

I don't see any reason to allow any Human character with normal Limbs (physical structure wise), to be able to grab an individual cell regardless of DEX score.

 

You and I don't agree on this, and we will never agree on this point (as far as I can tell). But I'm okay with that, I don't need to have you agree with it in order to work with you to fine tune the mechanic in mind. You have the power to grant or deny that help based on whatever criteria you decide. So there is nothing I can do to change that.

 

I believe it is standard, with the caveat that some tasks are simply impossible. But then, if you can buy levels to make it "possible", then it really isn't "impossible", is it?

 

I think a rule that needing a roll of "x" low number to have any chance of success would be reasonable. If you need to roll less than a 1, it simply cannot be done without a modifier bringing the theoretically required roll to at least "1".

Every character regardless of skill level or stat level will always have things that are impossible tasks. Defining where those boundaries are, at any specific time or task, is just one thing that this mechanic can help with. I use the -10 Penalty to define this at this point time, if it is too narrow or broad I may need to define a different measure for the campaign, but that is what I'm going with now.

 

Sounds like you might use a similar rule.

 

[Although' date= as a point of order, the ability to manipulate DNA using one's bare hands strikes me as closer to Superhero realism than to Hard Sci Fi realism. Closer to Fantasy realism too - is this Sci Fi or Science Fantasy?]

I classify it as Sci-Fi (as I've already mentioned in this thread), but the Science Level in some of the Hexes in the Well World are classified as Magic since there may be no obvious science at work for the ability in question. However, the Science that exists is very well defined within each Hex.

 

Quick Synopsis (Well World: Hex Environments)

Each Hex has defined "Environments":

Low Tech Hex: Only muscle power or rudimentary tech works. Pulleys, Basic Steam Power, Water Power, Wind Power, and simple chemical reactions are examples of workable tech.

Medium Tech Hex: Combustion Engines, Rifles, and complex chemical reactions are examples of workable tech.

High Tech Hex: Lasers, Nuclear Power, Super-Computers, and super complex chemical reactions are examples of workable tech. The sky is the limit with a few enforced restrictions to contain entities on the Well World.

 

Magic Hexes: Magic is possible within these Hexes. Altering reality with one's mind, knowing the future, and ethereal existence are examples of magic within these Hexes.

 

...That lead me to believe the example had something to do with the ability to change DNA strands by manipulating them with their phalanges. I'm not sure that was such an "out there" conclusion...

 

You do realize that your clarification of the intent is just above this diatribe in the same post, right? I didn't post my comments while you were posting these ones, did I?

And I clarified that misunderstanding in this post.

I guess you missed that one.

 

So you are mistaken. It happens.

 

And what is the effect of having done so? To be useful, I would suggest a mechanic must meet these criteria:

 

- the task whose resolution it governs must be one which has a possibility of failure

 

- the task whose resolution it governs must be one which has a possibility of success

 

- the task whose resolution it governs must have a meaningful results within the context of the game

 

In my game, I need no rules for manipulation of a broom to sweep the floor. It has no meaningful prospect of failure, and no meaningful effect on the game. If my game were centered around the sport of curling, I would need some broom-related rules.

Pretty close to how the Perception Rules work, and also the basis of design for this mechanic.

 

Where you and I differ obviously, is where line is drawn on the third one. I foresee plenty of in game effects based on Manipulation. You don't. Again, I'm fine with this. You apparently are not.

 

The rock is 5 feet away from where it started.

 

Now allow me to pose a question back. What meaningful game effect did moving the rock have?

Simple, whatever will be game relevant at the time.

 

Maybe the rock triggers the release hatch from trap of death.

Maybe the rock is radioactive and moving it allows the character to survive it's deadly rays.

Maybe the moving of the rock signifies the understanding of character's knowledge of the culture and now will be freed by that culture and not sentenced to death.

 

In all these cases, the inability to manipulate the object in such a simple fashion has great ramifications in game.

 

Maybe you've never done anything like this in your campaigns, but I could see these type of situations (type means in this context: not a simple rock specifically, but an object) happening quite frequently.

 

Does this answer your question?

 

Simply put' date=' while there is, in real life, the small chance you will accidentally drop the rock,...[/quote']

Again, you are focusing on the success/failure of an object that can be manipulated.

 

This certainly has a whole other set of situations where placing an object just at the right angle or position would have a in game effect (notice that time constraints don't have to exist but often are).

 

What I'm focusing on is those situations where the character can/can't manipulate the object due to objects size/shape/etc and can have a in game impact.

 

I see no compelling need to add a subsystem to measure the possibility you will drop the rock' date='[/quote']

And I'm not asking you to.

 

Just as I have yet to see any real use for a separate mechanic for manipulation' date=' such as you propose. Does anyone else out there see this as an essential addition to the game?[/quote']

And I'm not going to try to convince you.

 

You have to decide whether you will choose to help me with the mechanic, or continue to go on and try to convince me that I there isn't any real use for the separate mechanic.

 

Your choice, not mine.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

To be more precise, such skills require "tools" for such manipulation for Humans. I've never heard of a Human reaching out with his hand (by itself) to take samples (DNA/Biopsy/etc, they normally use tweezers for hair) to move them somewhere.

 

Manipulation wouldn't have this restriction since the characters Limbs would allow for the same task without any such tools.

 

I believe crime scene investigators use such tools not because their fingers could not manipulate the samples, but because their fingers have oils, etc. which could contaminate the sample. Do you also need a "contamination" mechanic now?

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

I believe crime scene investigators use such tools not because their fingers could not manipulate the samples' date=' but because their fingers have oils, etc. which could contaminate the sample. Do you also need a "contamination" mechanic now?[/quote']

Okay, the Human hair and possibly other things could be collected by the hands.

 

The point is, many skills that involve DEX usually expects (DNA) and usually requires tools (Biopsy, Lockpicking, Climbing Smooth Vertical Surfaces).

 

Those that would require tools normally, wouldn't require tools if the limbs had the proper manipulatory ability. Such as extracting specific cells from the body for testing.

 

That was the point.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

You keep focusing on the penalties/bonuses for objects that can be manipulated by default. I'm focusing on how to define where the boundaries of being able to manipulate and not being able to manipulate.

 

No it doesn't. Your system consists of a 3d6 roll, followed by a series of bonuses and penalties, and an ability to buy up the roll. It does not allow the purchase of a discrete ability to reach down on so minute a level as to manipulate a strand of DNA, a virus or an individual cell. It is based on the premise that the penalties for such manipulation are so large as to render the task normally impossible, but also on the premise that those penalties can be reduced on a fairly granular basis, such that a character whose manipulation skills are so great that he may tie a human hair in a knot has, perhaps, offset enough penalties to have a chance of grasping an individual cell, or even a strand of DNA. You have not defined any boundaries whatsoever.

 

Yes' date=' a Human can manipulate, with penalties, a Human Hair. As far as I know, it is very difficult for a Human to tie a half inch long strand of hair into a knot.[/quote']

 

Agreed - possible but unlikely. I anticipate a higher DEX character would have superior likelihood of success, and a character with small, slender fingers (or finger-like appendages) would purchase levels that apply to such tasks. In this way, both a higher DEX character and an equal DEX character with manipulation bonuses would be more likely to succeed, and two characters with equally small, slender fingers (or finger-like appendages) would differ in their likelihood of success based on their DEX.

 

I'm sure you're perfectly happy with allowing increased DEX to improve the chances of doing that without any failure. You might even allow a KS: Knot Tying to be a complimentary skill for doing it. Or you might even say' date=' "It has no effect so of course he does it without failure." That's all good and great.[/quote']

 

More likely, I would say "What is the point of this knot tying exercise? Come back when you actually want to play a game!" and not bother determining whether it succeeds or fails. Yes, someone could try and fail, or try and succeed, but unless it has a game effect, it's hardly worth agonizing over a fair means of adjudicating their success.

 

To descend into crudeness, most characters need to excrete waste now and then. I do not need to role play this out, nor do I have a compelling need for a section of the rules, a supplementary book, or even a Digital Hero article (nay, not even a Message Board thread) on "Crap Hero - How Do Your Characters Use The Bathroom". It adds nothing to the game.

 

I don't see any reason to allow any Human character with normal Limbs (physical structure wise)' date=' to be able to grab an individual cell regardless of DEX score.[/quote']

 

Then he cannot. He can't see individual cells anyway, so what difference does it make? The simple fact that you classify this as an ability not possessed by a standard character says, to me, that you need a POWER, not a MECHANIC, in this regard. Mechanics can be used by all, or virtually all, characters. But only those with special abilities can reach into someone's DNA and rearrange it. The effect of such rearranging needs to be determined. Once that effect is known, it becomes practical to design the ability which permits it to be manipulated. Whatever the SFX may be - micro-phalanges, microsurgery or mystic transfiguration, and anything in between or lying outside!

 

I don't need to have you agree with it in order to work with you to fine tune the mechanic in mind. You have the power to grant or deny that help based on whatever criteria you decide. So there is nothing I can do to change that.

 

There is nothing to fine tune. The gross basics don't work. If it makes you happy, apply a penalty of -60 to manipulate DNA with your bare hands, and allow all characters to buy PSL's to offset the "manipulate DNA with your bare hands" penalty for 1 point each. I'll stick to a Transform power at no range for the same 60 points and spare myself the anguish of a standalone mechanic that is neither desirable (subjective: another way is better) nor necessary (objective: it can be done another way).

 

Every character regardless of skill level or stat level will always have things that are impossible tasks. Defining where those boundaries are' date=' at any specific time or task, is just one thing that this mechanic can help with. I use the -10 Penalty to define this at this point time, if it is too narrow or broad I may need to define a different measure for the campaign, but that is what I'm going with now.[/quote']

 

A -10 penalty strikes me as inappropriately arbitrary. If the penalty is -10, and the character has a 21- skill roll, he has a pretty good chance of success. Going from 12- (success most of the time) to 11-: impossible isn't the approach I would take. I would prefer to base impossibility on the fact that the roll is impossible, so the task is impossible.

 

Sounds like you might use a similar rule.

 

I generally use common sense rulings on the fly. I don't need a special rule to tell me whether or not a character can just reach down and manipulate DNA. He can't. It flies in the face of all logic. If I want a character to be able to do that, it's a special power, not an application of skill levels, penalty skill levels or some new mechanic to govern who may, or may not, manipulate DNA.

 

I classify it as Sci-Fi (as I've already mentioned in this thread)' date=' but the Science Level in some of the Hexes in the Well World are classified as Magic since there may be no obvious science at work for the ability in question. However, the Science that exists is very well defined within each Hex.[/quote']

 

Synopsis snipped. Science Fantasy. Hey, at least it's in good company.

 

Where you and I differ obviously' date=' is where line is drawn on the third one. I foresee plenty of in game effects based on Manipulation. You don't. Again, I'm fine with this. You apparently are not.[/quote']

 

You promised me examples. I'm not seeing them... I need those concrete examples to assess how your system will work in practice. Until I see how it works in practice, I can't see the holes, so I can't help you fix or fine tune them.

 

In all these cases' date=' the inability to manipulate the object in such a simple fashion has great ramifications in game.[/quote']

 

Hence physical limitations like "no manipulation". "Roll to see if you can move a rock" generally strikes me as counterproductive, but maybe your games have a greater need to roll dice than mine do.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

The point is, many skills that involve DEX usually expects (DNA) and usually requires tools (Biopsy, Lockpicking, Climbing Smooth Vertical Surfaces).

 

Those that would require tools normally, wouldn't require tools if the limbs had the proper manipulatory ability. Such as extracting specific cells from the body for testing.

You have still not explained why this could not be better and much more simply accomplished with Microscopic adders on the Enhanced Senses of Touch and/or Vision. That is, after all, how real-world geneticists view DNA strands or other cells they are studying and experimenting on: with electron microscopes and miniaturized waldoes.

 

A cell (or a large number of them, for that matter) can be easily taken from a subject with a common scalpel. Since every cell in a creature's body includes its DNA, it is irrelevant where on the body the cell was taken from; nor do you seem to have any reason why it might be necessary to remove a particular cell and not the ones to the left or right of that particular one. Do you actually have such a reason?

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

You have still not explained why this could not be better and much more simply accomplished with Microscopic adders on the Enhanced Senses of Touch and/or Vision.

 

No, no -- wait. You're on to what he wants, right here, his 'New Mechanic'. Microscopic (x100,000,000 or whatever) on Sight (to see it) and Touch (to do it) -- and without the Focus limitation, the being can do it 'by hand'. Everything else is 'how small do you have to get to necessarily do the job?' That, of course, is a research problem for the GM.

 

Almost all the bonuses and penalties are relatively OK -- but again, all -- and I mean all -- of them are essentially 'GM determined', not just the ones marked as GM determined. Can I conceive of a situation where 'Slippery' or 'Smooth' textures are going to grant a bonus instead of a penalty? Sure can. Spiny/Prickly? Sure can. (YOU try to pick up a 3mm ball bearing -- as compared to a 3mm burr. Or try to drop a 3mm burr, as compared to a 3mm ball bearing.) Which means again, all of these are GM dependent -- not what Mssr. Mullins is looking for. Mssr. Mullins is looking for a codex of modifiers that's clear and reliable. Not gonna happen, honestly, but I guess maybe he GMs differently. (Well, no 'maybe' about it, really.)

 

The only bit we're having a problem with, in the end, is the need/use of a base 'Manipulation' roll of any sort. Which, 'beggin' yer pardon, Lord', I think you still haven't proven the usefulness of. Unless, of course, your Manipulation skill is going to replace all the other DEX skills that rely on hand-eye coordination and manual dexterity -- Climbing, Combat Driving, Combat Piloting, Fast Draw, Lockpicking, and Sleight of Hand -- or at least, that's what I'm seeing. There's plenty of INT skills that rely fairly heavily on one's steady hand -- Mechanics and Electronics spring swiftly to mind. Should we eliminate these as well?

 

No, the game doesn't cover (much) how to describe picking up either a 40-lb rock or a 0.006 oz. grain of sand and moving either of them -- except to say that if you want to THROW it, you get OCV penalties of -2 for nonaerodynamic, and a -2 for unbalanced. Technically, you could throw a grain of sand (HOW many extra STR is that?!?) at bullet speeds, even if you're playing just a kid -- but the GM is liable to overrule you on that, y'know. Gives a great idea for someone's SFX for a 'Bullseye' character.

 

Why not keep them as is, have '+/-X' as suggested situational-dependent bonuses/penalties, and suggest a 3- or 5-point skill level 'with skills/actions dependent on manual dexterity'? Because otherwise, you have failed -- continually failed -- to commend the usefulness of the 'mechanic', having continually failed to answer the actual question of 'Why is this not covered by the skills, Powers, advantages and disadvantages already in existence within the game design?'

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

I can accomplish everything Chris Mullins is ostensibly trying to do with his "Manipulate" mechanic using Enhanced Vision (Microscopic 100,000X or 1,000,000X) and matching Enhanced Touch and using the current Fifth Edition rules.

[casualplayer]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

This actually sounds more like Flavians buying Microscopic on their Touch Sense Group.

 

I still like the OP, viewed as Manipulation being an Everyman Skill that can be bought up to an 11> or a 9+DEX/5>. Could have been an interesting addition to UltSkill.

 

Cripes! Quoting myself? Has it really come to this?

 

I said this clear back in post #34. Still stand by it. Manipulation, as an Everyman Skill that you can upgrade, could make a nice complimentary skill for all the Skills that people have mentioned that Manipulation infringes upon.

 

What's with all the vitriol? schir1964's ideas are freely offered and freely considered, accepted or declined. Constructive criticism left the building long ago and I don't understand why.

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

You have still not explained...

From my original post:

 

"This construct adds a guideline on how one may add detail where manipulation is concerned. Those who are happy with the system with regard to manipulation need not apply."

 

And as I said before, I'm not going to try to convince anyone to use this mechanic or that this mechanic is needed.

 

If you want to help and have serious discussion, fine, but otherwise I'll just stop reading your posts.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

No' date=' no -- wait...[/quote']

From my original post:

 

"This construct adds a guideline on how one may add detail where manipulation is concerned. Those who are happy with the system with regard to manipulation need not apply."

 

And as I said before, I'm not going to try to convince anyone to use this mechanic or that this mechanic is needed.

 

If you want to help and have serious discussion, fine, but otherwise I'll just stop reading your posts.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

Cripes! Quoting myself? Has it really come to this?

 

I said this clear back in post #34. Still stand by it. Manipulation, as an Everyman Skill that you can upgrade, could make a nice complimentary skill for all the Skills that people have mentioned that Manipulation infringes upon.

My apologies. I missed this suggestion. Probably due to all the posts I was trying to get through. I'm glad you brought it back up.

 

What you are suggesting is very similar to what Mike W was touching on. Not sure he'll even return to continue the discussion considering what has happened since.

 

I actually have no problem with this in theory.

There is a minor difference in basic definition from what you are proposing and what I have proposed.

 

Applying Microscopic to Touch allows one to differentiate things with touch, which doesn't just mean with the limbs that manipulate things. It automatically includes all touch, even the scalp. This would need a limitation applied to the actual touch for manipulation only.

 

Seems very clunky and not what the Touch Sense was designed for since Touch doesn't directly imply a manipulation increase, but a sensitivity to gathering information via touch. To be sure, it has an indirect effect on manipulation but isn't the definition for manipulation in and of itself. So I view this method as being different enough that another Skill (whether it be an Everyman or not) is needed.

 

Obviously, It seems only a couple of people see a practical use for this concept. The rest seem to post with the intent to force me to convince them of the need for the mechanic. Unfortunately for them, I'm never going to do that.

 

BTW: I was going to add a section for explaining the need for increased senses when dealing with small objects. Unfortunately, I never got enough help to even get to that point.

 

What's with all the vitriol? schir1964's ideas are freely offered and freely considered' date=' accepted or declined. Constructive criticism left the building long ago and I don't understand why.[/quote']

No worries. I expect it anytime I offer anything new these days. It didn't used to be that way and I'm not sure what has changed.

 

What amazes me is that I took Hugh's advice and included a disclaimer in the original post in order to keep this kind of back and forth posting to minimum. Didn't seem to help at all.

 

Anyway, I'll respond to Hugh's post when I have more time. He may not agree with most of my ideas, but he at least remains civil most of time when discussing things. Actually, I need to rep him for that.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

Almost all the bonuses and penalties are relatively OK -- but again' date=' all -- and I mean [i']all[/i] -- of them are essentially 'GM determined', not just the ones marked as GM determined. Can I conceive of a situation where 'Slippery' or 'Smooth' textures are going to grant a bonus instead of a penalty? Sure can. Spiny/Prickly? Sure can. (YOU try to pick up a 3mm ball bearing -- as compared to a 3mm burr. Or try to drop a 3mm burr, as compared to a 3mm ball bearing.) Which means again, all of these are GM dependent -- not what Mssr. Mullins is looking for. Mssr. Mullins is looking for a codex of modifiers that's clear and reliable. Not gonna happen, honestly, but I guess maybe he GMs differently. (Well, no 'maybe' about it, really.)

I'm repping you just for this paragraph.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

Applying Microscopic to Touch allows one to differentiate things with touch, which doesn't just mean with the limbs that manipulate things. It automatically includes all touch, even the scalp. This would need a limitation applied to the actual touch for manipulation only.

 

Seems very clunky and not what the Touch Sense was designed for since Touch doesn't directly imply a manipulation increase, but a sensitivity to gathering information via touch. To be sure, it has an indirect effect on manipulation but isn't the definition for manipulation in and of itself. So I view this method as being different enough that another Skill (whether it be an Everyman or not) is needed.

 

How do you go from "the suggested construct is not what I'm looking for" directly to "we need a new Skill"? And by the way, a Skill is very different from a completely separate Mechanic, at least in my opinion.

 

I think this could be made to work as a campaign-specific use of Microscopic Touch. However, I also see other options, none of which imply a Manipulation Skill, such as:

 

- Microscopic as an adder to a non-sense ability, in this case being STR to allow that STR to pick up microscopic items.

 

- Transdimensional applied to STR to allow your STR to be "used against" the Microverse. [if EDM allows you to enter the microverse, it stands to reason that TD allows you to affect the microverse without actually moving there]

 

- A new advantage, "MicroScale", which mimics MegaScale, but goes the other way. Start with +1/4 to allow 1/1,000 scale, and add another +1/4 for each step further down the "Microscopic" sense adder. A further -1/4 would be required to make this Scalable.

 

Note that this follows my heirarchy of:

 

- can we use an existing ability? (ie the Microscopic sense adder; transdimensional)

 

- can we modify an existing ability? (ie apply Microscopic to non-sense abilities [as opposed to nonsense abilities, which we create all the time with no rules changes ])

 

- can we base the new ability on an existing ability? (micro-scale based on macro-scale)

 

- only if these all fail is there a reason to consider a brand-new mechanic.

 

The greatest designer is he that need not design a new mechanic. [apologies to Stephen R. Donaldson]

 

BTW: I was going to add a section for explaining the need for increased senses when dealing with small objects. Unfortunately' date=' I never got enough help to even get to that point.[/quote']

 

Note how nicely this would dovetail with MicroScale!

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Manipulation (Campaign Rules)

 

How do you go from "the suggested construct is not what I'm looking for" directly to "we need a new Skill"? And by the way' date=' a Skill is very different from a completely separate Mechanic, at least in my opinion.[/quote']

Considering that you find this information a surprise I won't bother to reply to prior post.

 

You should go back and read the posts between myself and Mike W. You will find there where I clarified that my new mechanic is in essence simply a skill.

 

Obviously you must have missed those posts. I'll give you time to do that. Probably won't change anything, but one never knows.

 

As for the Well World examples, don't hold your breath Hugh. (8^D)

 

I'm currently reading another book series and there are at least 6 Well World Novels, all of which I no longer have. I'll have to go purchase them again. So it might be a bit before I can get an actual quote from any of the books. I might have to get them from a used book store or library since the last time I looked, I didn't see any of the Well World books in the book store.

 

- Christopher Mullins