Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

[ghost-angel]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

The original question, which was answered some time ago really, which I appreciate, was "whats the dividing line between TF and Systems Operations on a high technology, multi-person crewed vehicle."

 

I purposefully used the space ship as an example because it put peoples heads in the "right space."

 

I want my players to really be thinking of sailing ships as the "high technology" of the world. For that reason I am applying the skills to the sailing ship exactly as one would naturally think to apply them to a space ship today. I personally think that thats more then justified in that the technology at the height of the tall ship era was really very complex, arguably at least as complex as running the USS Enterprise seems to be on Star Trek, maybe more so.

 

That make more sense?

 

While I see what you're looking at, and while large ships were definitely the height of technology... it was in a different regards.

 

The operation of multiple mast ships, having crewed one, is not that different from single mast ships, though square sails are a PITA and an experience I never ever want again. The biggest difference is in the number of people needed, and the knowledge of those above over the average grub pulling the lines about which sails need to be trimmed how much.

 

The "High Tech" aspect of most large ships was not in how they moved or operated but in the materials and design used to build them. Though certainly new ideas of how to coordinate multiple sails and masts in the rigging were brought forth, it wouldn't completely baffle someone to go from a two mast to a three mast ship.

 

System Operations is most appropriate when there's a machine of some kind (any kind: mechanical, magical, or electronic) between the Person and the Results. You are Operating a Something that does the Work for you.

 

If you're doing the work it's going to be a more hands on skill (Transport Familiarity, Professional Skill, or a specific Other Skill - Navigation in the case of ships).

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

System Operations is most appropriate when there's a machine of some kind (any kind: mechanical, magical, or electronic) between the Person and the Results. You are Operating a Something that does the Work for you.

 

Not entirely just for the point of argument... I'd point out that levers, pullies and wheels are all machines that are doing the work for you.

 

To me, the salient point seems to be the complexity of the system as it appears to the end user. And I'm having trouble seeing a complex set of pullies and ropes that has to be maintained and used in the right manner as less complex then pushing some buttons and twisting some knobs.

 

We may just have to agree to disagree.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

If the ship had a series of levers, pulleys and wheels that you pulled to adjust the lines and sails then I'd say that was a SysOp situation. But they don't.

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

If the ship had a series of levers' date=' pulleys and wheels that you pulled to adjust the lines and sails then I'd say that was a SysOp situation. But they don't.[/quote']

 

Uh.....

 

Rigging -- *massive* pully system. You don't pull the sheets directly with man power. You wouldn't have enough.

Capstan, Helm -- wheels.

 

Hell even a little two person racing boat has at least one capstan (and a lever you can put into it to "crank" it).

 

I'm sure if I went down to the USS Constitution again and went head to toe over it I could find some levers too...

 

cite: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/blockmaking.aspx?keywords=machinery

Pulley blocks or 'blocks' in a ship’s rigging may appear insignificant. However, the machinery invented to build them at Portsmouth dockyard played a major role in manufacturing history. In 1805, the same year that Nelson won his famous battle at Trafalgar on the HMS Victory, the first large suite of single-purpose machines was developed to create the pulleys needed for such ships

 

 

So, that mean we are now violently in agreement? 8)

[ghost-angel]

You're still affecting the lines directly, at least I was.

 

SysOp to me says you're operating a machine that pulls the lines. Pulleys just make pulling all those lines easier.

 

Look at it this way ... you need to trim the sales X Amount:

 

PS: a sailor grabs the lines and pulls (with pulley assistance because that's a lot of line) until he roughly figures out where that X Amount is.

 

SysOp: You adjust a lever or dial that then moves machinery for you until it has adjusted the sails X Amount. You take a sip of a pina colada.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

They aren't operating a system; they're using a tool. Pulley! One of the basics. I'm with GA (and stand by my original assessment). You CAN do it this way. I would not, because it ain't really "a system." It's a bunch of sailors pulling on a bunch of rigging. Driving a car isn't sysops either, and the modern vehicle has all kinds of niffo bells & whistles.

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

So really, your making an argument based solely on the construction of the interface.

 

What if you wrap a string around that knob and pull it to turn the knob? is it no longer sysops?? Or, if we want to get a more realistiic, though still silly, what if i tie the string to stress gauge that acts as input to a space ship control panel?

 

Sorry but to me all this rings of *exactly* the kind of "modern-tech egotism"I was talking about. Because the interface is unfamiliar to you, you assume its unsophisticated.

 

You don't necessarily pull on "the rope" in a sophisticated pulley system by the way, you pull on *a* rope. That rope may in fact be adjusting the distance between two pulleys that effects that way *another* rope distributes the distance/load equation. Pulley systems are very much the equivalent of gear boxes.

 

I think this argument actually ended about two messages back with the statement "If the ship had a series of levers, pulleys and wheels that you pulled to adjust the lines and sails then I'd say that was a SysOp situation."

 

Now we're just into systems education

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

... okay.

 

Here's what I heard: "It's got pulleys and it's the height of tech! I'm going to call it sysops!"

 

Here's what I said: "It isn't, but okay."

 

Then I heard you say: "Yes it is!"

 

What am I missing?

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Just to belabor the point....

 

Here is an example of a direct-cranked computer.

 

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/babbage.aspx?page=2

 

Does this not count as sysops because there is an operator inputing force to make it work?

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Uh huh.

 

GA is (currently) insisting its not a system cause it doesn't have independent power. (This is after he had to retreat on the point of pulleys, gears and levers doing work for people.)

 

I'm pointing out that independent power is not a defining characteristic of a system in any definition I am aware of.

 

That, and the fact that the interface is unfamiliar, seem to be the only two arguments I've heard and to me neither wash. A pulley system is called a pulley system because... its a system. Thats English. And the interface point IMHO is simply 20th c. hubris.

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

They aren't operating a system; they're using a tool. Pulley!

 

Or using a tool... radio...

 

Or using a tool... photon blaster

 

Point taken?

 

A pulley system is a pulley system because the definition of a system is

" A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole."

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/system)

 

This discussion has been useful to me though as I'm now finally clear on the diff between familiarity and Sys Ops.

 

Driving the car is familiarity. Tuning the car is sysops. That is because you are operating on the system, changing its internal operation.

 

And sailors working rigging *definitely* operate on the system. They change the tensions and lengths of the various lines to deal with various situations.

 

The only problem with this definition is... a lot of things people normally assume are SysOps *arent*. Like working a radio or firing the photon blaster. *shrug*

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

And using a blaster is WF: Blaster.

And using a radio... well, it's a radio. Not exactly sysops.

 

So I'm content to disagree and say "Nope, it isn't anything that I would file under 'Systems Operations.' Said another way, I see that you have a point, but it's lost on me.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

So really, your making an argument based solely on the construction of the interface.

 

What if you wrap a string around that knob and pull it to turn the knob? is it no longer sysops?? Or, if we want to get a more realistiic, though still silly, what if i tie the string to stress gauge that acts as input to a space ship control panel?

 

Sorry but to me all this rings of *exactly* the kind of "modern-tech egotism"I was talking about. Because the interface is unfamiliar to you, you assume its unsophisticated.

 

You don't necessarily pull on "the rope" in a sophisticated pulley system by the way, you pull on *a* rope. That rope may in fact be adjusting the distance between two pulleys that effects that way *another* rope distributes the distance/load equation. Pulley systems are very much the equivalent of gear boxes.

 

I think this argument actually ended about two messages back with the statement "If the ship had a series of levers, pulleys and wheels that you pulled to adjust the lines and sails then I'd say that was a SysOp situation."

 

Now we're just into systems education

Which is why I was suggesting SysOps as a Sailing Master skill. Individual tars manning the ropes are just PS positions, but knowing precisely how to set all the different units, what has to be moved in conjunction with what, relative to the position & heading of the ship and the wind direction and strength.... the conductor of the orchestra, so to speak, that's a place I could see using SysOps.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Which is why I was suggesting SysOps as a Sailing Master skill. Individual tars manning the ropes are just PS positions' date=' but knowing precisely how to set all the different units, what has to be moved in conjunction with what, relative to the position & heading of the ship and the wind direction and strength.... the conductor of the orchestra, so to speak, that's a place I could see using SysOps.[/quote']

 

Which I toyed with and alluded too, but didn't commit too. Valid point. Don't really know if I'd go with it, but a valid point none the less.

[jtelson]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

So really, your making an argument based solely on the construction of the interface.

 

What if you wrap a string around that knob and pull it to turn the knob? is it no longer sysops?? Or, if we want to get a more realistiic, though still silly, what if i tie the string to stress gauge that acts as input to a space ship control panel?

 

Sorry but to me all this rings of *exactly* the kind of "modern-tech egotism"I was talking about. Because the interface is unfamiliar to you, you assume its unsophisticated.

 

You don't necessarily pull on "the rope" in a sophisticated pulley system by the way, you pull on *a* rope. That rope may in fact be adjusting the distance between two pulleys that effects that way *another* rope distributes the distance/load equation. Pulley systems are very much the equivalent of gear boxes.

 

I think this argument actually ended about two messages back with the statement "If the ship had a series of levers, pulleys and wheels that you pulled to adjust the lines and sails then I'd say that was a SysOp situation."

 

Now we're just into systems education

 

Since SyS Ops is defined as operating Sensing and Communications Devices, I'm a little confused where the pullies come in; Even the expanded list from Star Hero (Well out of genre) doesn't include anything about operating the ship, the only use that could be justified is maybe weapon operations (Which should probably be WFs), but as many have said you can use it however you'd like.

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Which is why I was suggesting SysOps as a Sailing Master skill.

 

Well having *finally* come around to a clear definition in my mind of SysOps. I see where you could well be right.

 

I guess it depends how much your sailor is just grunt labor pulling where hes told by the Sailing Master. If this was true on tall ships (I honestly don't know) then I 100% concede that as correct 8)

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Since SyS Ops is defined as operating Sensing and Communications Devices' date=' .[/quote']

 

Your a little behind. Reference up the to the XML from Hero Designer, which is a compiled list from all the canonical books, at least as well as Dan can keep up with them.

[Catseye]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Btw... thanks all.

 

This has been a really valuable mental exercise for me, at least.

[jtelson]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Your a little behind. Reference up the to the XML from Hero Designer' date=' which is a compiled list from all the canonical books, at least as well as Dan can keep up with them.[/quote']

 

Still nothing about ship operations with the exception of maybe weapon systems as my original post says.

[gojira]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

Just to belabor the point....

 

Here is an example of a direct-cranked computer.

 

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/babbage.aspx?page=2

 

Does this not count as sysops because there is an operator inputing force to make it work?

 

Obviously you can do as you like in your own games. However that's a great example. Yes, the Difference Engine is not SysOp. It's probably Mechanics. Even if the thing had a water wheel or a donkey to drive it, it would still be Mechanics.

 

In the same way, a power winch on a boat is Mechanics or Electrical Systems to fix/diagnos (flipping a switch requires no skill, if someone points out which switch to flip, and says when. Likewise, just turning the crank on a Difference Engine requires no skill either, if it's already been set-up and is ready to go.) Anything with a direct linkage, including direct hydraulic linkage, is probably some sort of PS or Mechanics or other skill. However, taken altogether, all of the simple electrical gear on a boat might constitute a "system" and require one SysOp roll to run. Fixing it, would be a variety of Mechanical and Electrical skills, some scrounging rolls, and a lot of asking for help over the ship's radio.

 

 

When you get into motors with compensation, or servos, now the electronics is driving the system, not the operator, and you're more definitely into SysOp skill. (To run, not to fix.) And when dealing with more esoteric things like sensing equipment, which may involve no moving parts, you are almost certainly into SysOp. OTOH, an astrolabe is just a tool used in ancient and modern sea navigation. Using it is not SysOp.

 

Obviously, this will still involve interpretation by the GM. But when you ask for broad opinions, well, everyone is entitled to express their own.

[jtelson]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

After giving it some thought you might also stretch operating the pumps when the ship is taking on water to Sys Ops (Life Support). There's still nothing about Helm, Propulsion or Navigation in the skill or implied by the skill.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

If I was trying to expand the use of SysOps in my setting as representative of operating cutting edge tech that requires separate skills to operate properly, I'd still consider more advanced navigational tools to require a SysOps roll as complimentary to navigation rather than simply giving a "good tool" bonus to navigation, because using these implements was a precise skill, and dead reckoning navigation was a best guesstimate/garbage in garbage out proposition, tricky to begin with.

[jtelson]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

If I was trying to expand the use of SysOps in my setting as representative of operating cutting edge tech that requires separate skills to operate properly' date=' I'd still consider more advanced navigational tools to require a SysOps roll as complimentary to navigation rather than simply giving a "good tool" bonus to navigation, because using these implements was a precise skill, and dead reckoning navigation was a best guesstimate/garbage in garbage out proposition, tricky to begin with.[/quote']

 

And that would be your call, but it's a call that's outside the normal usage of the Sys Op skill even in a Space Campaign and one that you'd want players to be aware of before character creation. Navigation is generally the skill for using Navigation equipment (Where are we? Where are we heading?) vs Sensor equipment (What's around us?); I suppose those lines that the crew throw out to determine water depth could use Sys Ops.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Opinion: Systems Operation v. Transport Familiarity

 

I pulled out the Ultimate Skill to see if Steve had any thoughts on SysOp outside a modern setting.

 

Flat out says "Not appropriate for the Fantasy Genre."

 

The skill is intended for modern technological societies, starting with any society moving into Information Age technologies and up.

 

Pulling a line to move Pulleys around is not the same as telling a machine to do the same.

 

SysOp is "how to operate a machine" not "how to operate technology"

 

As for my thoughts on the OPs attitude towards our conversation: whatever.