Making sense of Senses

[secretID]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

Normal Human Smelling is Ranged. Even though it's not Discriminatory' date=' it still gives quite a bit of information[/quote']

To me, this all just says that smell should be considered discriminatory by default, but probably not ranged. Hearing and smell are far closer in precision than they are in range, IMO.

[nexus]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

Dogs OTOH have Discriminatory Scent - they can discriminate between you and your neighbor by smell alone. And between two different dogs. Likewise they can tell by smell if a female dog is in heat or not.

"

 

Dogs' sense of smell is amazing. They can be trained to detect so much even medical conditions such as high and low blood sugar in humans. Even untrained some seem to at least know "something is wrong" with a sick person due to their scent being off.

 

An article on the use of dogs in medicine was partially what prompted this thread, the other having a character given Discriminatory for her all her normal senses. I've always been puzzled by the description in Fred of human senses being "partially discriminatory"

[Manic Typist]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

Sort of. There's a question of to what degree the impurities are part of "air." If the gas were composed entirely of the impurities/pollution/whatever' date=' then no air would be detected. As a practical matter, I'm sure I would give that info as a GM, but I think it highlights the difference between Detect Air and, say, Detect Gasses.[/quote']

 

I'm sorry, but I view this distinction as pedantic and unpersuasive, and a bad GM call. Using that logic, we must define air. 02 is not air, in fact air is much more than 02. "Air" is a mixture of gasses (with variable water vapor levels) of approximately 78% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, .93% argon, .038% carbon dioxide, and various other trace elements. If any of these is missing, then our Detect: Air will not be set off because it does not meet the definition of air. Applying Discriminatory or Analyze to this anal-retentive (curious how that word means what it does) version of Detect would result in extremely minute, trivial, and largely useless information.

 

Instead, I'd strongly suggest using common sense, dramatic sense, and "in the interest of having fun" of using the common parlance/understood meaning of "air" to be "whatever atmosphere I am currently exposed to."

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

To me' date=' this all just says that smell should be considered discriminatory by default, but probably not ranged. Hearing and smell are far closer in precision than they are in range, IMO.[/quote']

Well, yes, the "range" of smell is realistically more limited than the range of hearing, but when you come right down to it, *no* senses should really be Ranged at all. You only sense something when it makes contact with a sensory organ. You only see light when it enters your eyes. You don't "detect physical objects" by sight, you see the light that reflects off of them. Likewise a soundwave has to reach your ears before you can hear it, and a smell has to enter your nose before you can smell it.

 

But smell isn't discriminatory for humans, because we can't tell people apart by smell. Sure, we can distinguish by smell a person just out of the shower and a person who hasn't bathed in a month. But we can't distinguish between Freshly-showered Al and Freshly-showered Bob, nor between Unwashed Al and Unwashed Bob. At most, you could say Normal Human Smell is "partially discriminatory".

[ghost-angel]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

Mechanically - that's not what Ranged means.

 

Mechanically the Ranged Adder means you can Detect outside your Hex.

 

It doesn't really get into transceiver/receiver aspect that any and all senses work with - they're either a Passive Sense or an Active Sense Mechanically. But you still need "Ranged" to Detect outside your immediate vicinity.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

Yes, of course. I'm not arguing otherwise. For the sake of a RPG, senses have to be considered Ranged - we sense the stuff in the world around us and we're not really interested in the nitty-gritty mechanics of how the sensory organs work. But of course, when you smell something, you aren't "projecting your sense of smell into the next room where someone's making popcorn" - the chemicals of the popcorn smell are wafting through the air and eventually getting into your nose. Likewise with soundwaves and rays of light.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

And. . . .?

 

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing what your point is from a Mechanical sense of how to create and work with Senses.

 

Human Senses are Passive - they have to wait for the input to reach them. However how sensitive they are judges the Range at which an object can be before it trips out sensory input.

 

A dog has a greater Range to their Passive Smell than a human does. They can smell not only more minute senses, but ones coming from further away. That's all Range is with regards to Passive Senses.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

My point had nothing to do with Range. I was talking about what a "regular" sense or Detect gives you, as opposed to adding Discriminatory or Analyze. The only reason I mentioned Range was because someone seemed a bit confused between Ranged and Targeting. And then secretID said that he thought Smell shouldn't be ranged.

 

(And of course, even Active Senses need the input to reach them. A radar sends out a ping and waits for it to return. It senses stuff when the ping returns, not when the ping hits something.)

[Utech]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

I would never allow a simple Sense to give that arson investigator all of that information. For all of that I would require Criminology' date=' Professional Skills (e.g. firefighter or arson investigator), Science Skills, and possibly Deduction. If those Skills weren't available, they'd have to collect what evidence they could (probably requiring at least Criminology or the PS) and hope that they have enough for [i']others[/i] to make use of such Skills.

I didn't intend my quick example to be exhaustive. When I wrote that the arson investigator "quickly" discerns the source of the fire and so on and so forth, I was assuming that the arson investigator was built with appropriate Skills.

 

There would be nothing wrong, however, with building a super Arson Investigator Skill using Enhanced Senses (just as Shapeshift can be used to create a super Disguise Skill, Invisibility can be used to create a super Stealth Skill, etc.)

[secretID]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

I'm sorry' date=' but I view this distinction as…a bad GM call.[/quote']

As a practical matter' date=' I'm sure I would give that info as a GM[/quote']

I think you missed that.

 

Instead' date=' I'd strongly suggest using common sense, dramatic sense, and "in the interest of having fun" of using the common parlance/understood meaning of "air" to be "whatever atmosphere I am currently exposed to."[/quote']

I don’t consider air to mean “current atmosphere” in common parlance. That would make Detect Air completely useless (presumably) w/o Discrim and/or Analyze, because the sense could no longer find a breathable substance.

 

If someone built Detect Air with Analyze, I would suggest that he either drop the Analyze (if he really only cared about breathability) or make it Detect Atmosphere or Detect Gasses (if he wanted specific info about the atmosphere. Same thing with Detect Iron, etc.

 

It sounds like we would do pretty much the same thing, but I would point it out to the player beforehand, to make sure that he got what he wanted without overpaying. (Note: I’m not saying that in some kind of superior way – just noting that it happens to be an advantage.)

 

this anal-retentive (curious how that word means what it does) version

It’s a Freudian thing.

[secretID]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

Well, yes, the "range" of smell is realistically more limited than the range of hearing, but when you come right down to it, *no* senses should really be Ranged at all. You only sense something when it makes contact with a sensory organ. You only see light when it enters your eyes. You don't "detect physical objects" by sight, you see the light that reflects off of them. Likewise a soundwave has to reach your ears before you can hear it, and a smell has to enter your nose before you can smell it.

 

But smell isn't discriminatory for humans, because we can't tell people apart by smell. Sure, we can distinguish by smell a person just out of the shower and a person who hasn't bathed in a month. But we can't distinguish between Freshly-showered Al and Freshly-showered Bob, nor between Unwashed Al and Unwashed Bob. At most, you could say Normal Human Smell is "partially discriminatory".

First, I spoke hastily about ranged on smell. I don't really think that it shouldn't have Ranged, since obviously humans can smell some things at a short distance. I do think, though, that there's something funky with the different practical meanings of Ranged.

 

On your original, general point, I think you're working under important assumptions about what each sense is detecting, as a Detect. From your example, you seem to be assuming that smell is Detect Human, and non-discrim because we can't usually distinguish. But while we can't usually discriminate between people by smell, but we can discriminate between a skunk and a barbeque.

 

Wouldn't the Detect for each sense unfortunately be something like Detect Visible/Sound emitting/etc. objects? All of them would therefore be Discriminatory.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

First' date=' I spoke hastily about ranged on smell. I don't really think that it shouldn't have Ranged, since obviously humans can smell some things at a short distance. I do think, though, that there's something funky with the different practical meanings of Ranged.[/quote']

Agreed.

 

On your original, general point, I think you're working under important assumptions about what each sense is detecting, as a Detect. From your example, you seem to be assuming that smell is Detect Human,

Not at all.

 

and non-discrim because we can't usually distinguish. But while we can't usually discriminate between people by smell, but we can discriminate between a skunk and a barbeque.

 

Wouldn't the Detect for each sense unfortunately be something like Detect Visible/Sound emitting/etc. objects? All of them would therefore be Discriminatory.

My point is that that is not what Discriminatory means. Any sense, Discriminatory or not, can tell the difference between a skunk and a barbeque - they look, sound, smell, taste, and feel very different from each other. Discriminatory means that a sense can discriminate between things that are very similar, such as two people of the same general description.

[secretID]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

My point is that that is not what Discriminatory means. Any sense' date=' Discriminatory or not, can tell the difference between a skunk and a barbeque - they look, sound, smell, taste, and feel very different from each other. Discriminatory means that a sense can discriminate between things that are very similar, such as two people of the same general description.[/quote']

I'm confused. I thought your idea was to get to the meaning of certain sense ads by looking at the normal senses as Detects and building from there.

 

Ah - just checked, and you never talked about building them as Detects - I was just locked in that mode. But isn't that how you'd have to look at it?

 

IF you were doing it that way, you would have to define what is detected, hence what I said about Detect Smell-Emitting Object, etc.. If that's the Detect, it clearly has Discriminatory. If it's Detect Smell-Emitting Human, it does not.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

I have to admit to some confusion about the "partial" Discriminatory associated with normal (Everyman) Sight (Group). Particularly, what is the difference between that and the "full" Discriminatory you get when you buy the Adder (and what is then left for the Analyze Adder)?

 

But please don't quote or try to explain. Whenever I read the explanation it seems to make some sense. But the clarity that brings fades pretty quickly as soon as the words aren't in front of my eyes. I guess I'm just saying it's not a very satisfactory distinction to me, and I usually just settle for calling normal sight "fully" Discriminatory.

 

The other Senses I can deal with a lot more easily.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

I think you missed that.

 

Actually, I didn't, I promise. I read it twice, and thought about whether that was sufficient, and decided it wasn't. I don't think it's "as a practical matter." I think that's what it IS, already.

 

I don’t consider air to mean “current atmosphere” in common parlance. That would make Detect Air completely useless (presumably) w/o Discrim and/or Analyze, because the sense could no longer find a breathable substance.

That's fair. Still, it misses the point- going beyond "air" is unnecessary. A character with a fully upgraded Detect Air should just be able to, plain and simple, detect whether or not there is breathable air, in what quantities, freshness, and whether or not there are other things mixed in with it, even in minute qualities, etc.

 

If someone built Detect Air with Analyze, I would suggest that he either drop the Analyze (if he really only cared about breathability) or make it Detect Atmosphere or Detect Gasses (if he wanted specific info about the atmosphere. Same thing with Detect Iron, etc.

 

It sounds like we would do pretty much the same thing, but I would point it out to the player beforehand, to make sure that he got what he wanted without overpaying. (Note: I’m not saying that in some kind of superior way – just noting that it happens to be an advantage.)

 

I agree, except that Detect Gasses/Atmosphere should cost more than Detect Air in that case, since it's offering much more utility/information, and thus the issue wouldn't be overpaying but underpaying.

 

I agree that your build is likely superior now that I'm understanding you, but if the Detect Iron example is to hold true, then you should instead say Detect Mineralogical Substances or somesuch, since that would only tell you that there ARE impurities, but not what they are (like Detect Air, fully upgraded, should tell you that there are certain other things present in the air, but not WHAT. Just how much).

 

However, I tend to favor the players when it comes to adjudicating point costs.

 

 

It’s a Freudian thing.

 

Well said.

[i3ullseye]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

To add a bit more to this.... referring to an earlier post, no Smell is not ranged. Technically humans have no senses at all that are ranged. We only percieve those items which go out of their way to come into contact with us. Sight is light striking us, sounds hit our eardrums, and smells are exciting the sensors inside our nostrils.

 

Buying senses ranged would mean seeing the light hitting somewhere distant from you, and is really a bit like Clairsentience. But thats not how they are listed, and that always kind of bugged me. Having Mental Awareness at range means you detect a mental power at a distance, with no energy crossing the intervening space between you and the source of power. To me, that is range... but all the other ranges freely applied to the sense groups are actually a misnomer I think.

 

[ghost-angel]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

To add a bit more to this.... referring to an earlier post, no Smell is not ranged. Technically humans have no senses at all that are ranged. We only percieve those items which go out of their way to come into contact with us. Sight is light striking us, sounds hit our eardrums, and smells are exciting the sensors inside our nostrils.

 

Buying senses ranged would mean seeing the light hitting somewhere distant from you, and is really a bit like Clairsentience. But thats not how they are listed, and that always kind of bugged me. Having Mental Awareness at range means you detect a mental power at a distance, with no energy crossing the intervening space between you and the source of power. To me, that is range... but all the other ranges freely applied to the sense groups are actually a misnomer I think.

 

 

Incorrect, from a Mechanical sense only.

 

Ranged - Mechanically, only means "can detect beyond personal space."

 

It's a PITA - but we have to sometimes leave behind "real world" definitions of words and use the Mechanical Definitions - which means that "ranged" and "Ranged" are now two different words.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

To add a bit more to this.... referring to an earlier post' date=' no Smell is not ranged. Technically humans have no senses at all that are ranged. We only percieve those items which go out of their way to come into contact with us. Sight is light striking us, sounds hit our eardrums, and smells are exciting the sensors inside our nostrils.[/quote']

 

True, but irrelevant. Sight and hearing are ranged because we can use them to detect objects that are far away. Touch and taste are not ranged because we need to be in contact with the objects we are detecting. Smell is ranged, but has Limitations to reflect environmental conditions.

 

Or am I taking your comment too seriously?

[secretID]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

On the subject of range (not Ranged), I'm about to run into a question about radar, and I'm wondering about how its range compares to sight's. If someone were watching for movement at say a quarter mile, in broad daylight, with no distracting movement, I wouldn't require a PER roll to see a person moving. Should radar work about the same, but even at night? - again, just to pick up the movement.

 

This is part of the problem for me with the differing range of senses, PER rolls, and the PER range modifier. If something is obvious, then no roll is required, but if a roll is required, all modifiers apply, including range. For sight, because things can be obvious even at significant range, that means that something crosses the line from being obvious straight into exceedingly difficult to perceive, because the range modifier is so big. I adjust for that with sight simply by automatically adjusting the range modifier by two slots. I know I can apply whatever modifiers I want, but I hate working things that way, because I always feel like I'm basically determining the outcome before the dice are rolled.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

I'm confused. I thought your idea was to get to the meaning of certain sense ads by looking at the normal senses as Detects and building from there.

 

Ah - just checked, and you never talked about building them as Detects - I was just locked in that mode. But isn't that how you'd have to look at it?

No. I was just using real senses as examples of what is Discriminatory and what isn't.

 

IF you were doing it that way, you would have to define what is detected, hence what I said about Detect Smell-Emitting Object, etc.. If that's the Detect, it clearly has Discriminatory. If it's Detect Smell-Emitting Human, it does not.

No. It's just "detect smells". It's not discriminatory, because you can't discriminate between two different people by smell. You can't identify individuals.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

To add a bit more to this.... referring to an earlier post, no Smell is not ranged. Technically humans have no senses at all that are ranged. We only percieve those items which go out of their way to come into contact with us. Sight is light striking us, sounds hit our eardrums, and smells are exciting the sensors inside our nostrils.

.... but all the other ranges freely applied to the sense groups are actually a misnomer I think.

Exactly! In fact, even Touch is "ranged" in the same way. We can feel the heat given off by a fire without puting our hand directly in it. We can feel the heat of the sun from 93 million miles away. We can also feel coldness from nearby objects without direct contact. We can feel vibrations from objects at range. We can feel air currents given off by objects at range.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

Exactly! In fact' date=' even Touch is "ranged" in the same way. We can feel the heat given off by a fire without puting our hand directly in it. We can feel the heat of the sun from 93 million miles away. We can also feel coldness from nearby objects without direct contact. We can feel vibrations from objects at range. We can feel air currents given off by objects at range.[/quote']

 

Darn it! Now you're thinking too hard. Or something. Let's just call that Sight (infrared radiation, not conductive heat transfer) and Hearing (vibrations). Then someone without eyeballs isn't even completely blind, and likewise for deafness.

[secretID]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

No. It's just "detect smells". It's not discriminatory' date=' because you can't discriminate between two different people by smell. You can't identify individuals.[/quote']

If it's "detect smells," then it definitely is discriminatory, because you can discriminate between smells. Without the discriminatory, you could only detect the presence of a smell, but not what it was.

 

Your focus on discriminating between people is what led me to say that you seemed to be assuming that it's "detect smell of people." Why would discrimination between people be the threshold attribute of discriminatory?

[archermoo]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

If it's "detect smells," then it definitely is discriminatory, because you can discriminate between smells. Without the discriminatory, you could only detect the presence of a smell, but not what it was.

 

Your focus on discriminating between people is what led me to say that you seemed to be assuming that it's "detect smell of people." Why would discrimination between people be the threshold attribute of discriminatory?

 

You are confusing the dictionary definition of discriminate with the Hero sense adder Discriminatory. In Hero terms, Discriminatory gives you more intel than you would get from the sense without it. Analyze gets you even more. Exactly what that means is left to the Ref to determine on a case by case basis.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

....and actually, you CAN identify individuals by smell (and I'm talking your everyday nose, not equipment based enhancement).