Making sense of Senses

[PhilFleischmann]

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?

Because that's the HERO System definition of the Discriminatory Adder.

 

A sense that tells you nothing more than the presense of a thing is not worth spending any points on.

 

If you wrapped a piece of wax paper around your head, your sight would no longer be discriminatory, because you wouldn't be able to indentify things and people precisely. But you'd still know more than just "presence or absence of light". You could still see colors and even though shapes would be vague and fuzzy, you'd be able to tell a car-shaped fuzzy shape from a chair-shaped fuzzy shape and a person-shaped fuzzy shape. And you could even tell if the fuzzy shape is moving.

[LoresLost]

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.

 

Hate to say but it depends on technical specifications of the radar. A radar is a long distance sense that is mainly active. (passive radio ranging is done using several techniques (one being triangulation) but is not truly radar).

 

In a game sense an aircraft control radar would a have mega-range but lacking details and depending on the support electronics may require system operation skill roll to get any thing meaningful out of it. If it is a 'power' then it should work like a short/medium range imaging radar(see PBS link below).

 

boring_stuff

Unless it is an imaging radar then it could crate an active system image like these: (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wartech/radar.html Link to imaging radar, which takes a little time to get an image with detail but with out color and no fine detail.)

 

A Radar traditionally sends an active pulse and then waits for the signal to bounce off any objects in the range of the beast. The time between pulses determines the range of the Radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar has all the details

 

/boring_stuff

[secretID]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

A sense that tells you nothing more than the presense of a thing is not worth spending any points on.

Detect Motion, Detect Noise, Detect Poisonous Gasses, Detect Smoke (I've paid for that one myself!), Detect Monsters, Detect Danger, Detect Evil...

 

If you wrapped a piece of wax paper around your head' date=' your sight would no longer be discriminatory, because you wouldn't be able to indentify things and people precisely. But you'd still know more than just "presence or absence of light".[/quote']

Right, but that's because sight is not Detect Light. If it were, Discriminatory wouldn't get you nearly enough. Sight is something far more clumsy, like "Detect Visible Things, Discriminatory."

[secretID]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

Because that's the HERO System definition of the Discriminatory Adder.

Sorry - missed this in my first response. That's not the Hero definition (unless it changed in the revised). "As Sense with Discriminatory can identify, distinguish, and analyze an object if the character makes a PER roll." It doesn't specify people, and I would find that a pretty strange way to define it.

[secretID]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

In a game sense an aircraft control radar would a have mega-range but lacking details and depending on the support electronics may require system operation skill roll to get any thing meaningful out of it. If it is a 'power' then it should work like a short/medium range imaging radar(see PBS link below).

So...that sound like about sight range, to you? I'm inclined to go that way, but laziness is a big factor.

[secretID]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

....and actually' date=' you CAN identify individuals by smell (and I'm talking your everyday nose, not equipment based enhancement).[/quote']

I can definitely tell a homeless guy from a hottie. So far, so good, anyway.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

Detect Motion' date=' Detect Noise, Detect Poisonous Gasses, Detect Smoke (I've paid for that one myself!), Detect Monsters, Detect Danger, Detect Evil...[/quote']

I was exaggerating a bit, but if your Detect Monsters can't tell an orc from a dragon, it's not worth half a character point.

 

Right, but that's because sight is not Detect Light. If it were, Discriminatory wouldn't get you nearly enough. Sight is something far more clumsy, like "Detect Visible Things, Discriminatory."

What's the difference? What do you think "visible" means?

 

Sorry - missed this in my first response. That's not the Hero definition (unless it changed in the revised). "As Sense with Discriminatory can identify' date=' distinguish, and analyze an object if the character makes a PER roll." It doesn't specify people, and I would find that a pretty strange way to define it.[/quote']

And a person is one example of an object. It's not just telling a person from a car from a pair of shoes; you can tell Jim from Joe, your car from my car, Reboks from Nikes.

 

I still claim smell (for humans) is not discriminatory, because even though you can tell a homeless guy from a hottie, you can't tell Homeless Harry from Homeless Henry, or Hottie Hannah from Hottie Helen.

[i3ullseye]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

I know it seems that we need to call some of these ranged, when they truly aren't in a pure physics sense.... but if we remove that range modifer form the base senses, the whole power set then completely replaces Clairsentience. And to me would be a lot cleaner overall. Now you pick WHAT you percieve... you then decide if it needs to come to you (no range) or if you can detect it without it being near you (ranged). Then get into the detail of discriminatory and analyze. This allows Mega Scale and other tricks to be applied here also.

 

Just what seems logical to me.

[archermoo]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

I was exaggerating a bit, but if your Detect Monsters can't tell an orc from a dragon, it's not worth half a character point.

 

Detect tells you if the thing you are detecting is there, and it's intensity. You would likely be able to tell a monster isn't an orc by the size (intensity), but then again it might be a large group of orcs in formation.

 

If you want to be able to tell what kind of monster it is, you need Discriminatory.

[secretID]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

I was exaggerating a bit' date=' but if your Detect Monsters can't tell an orc from a dragon, it's not worth half a character point.[/quote']

Maybe, maybe not, but lots of others are.

 

What's the difference? What do you think "visible" means?

I understand how vision works. As in the case of range, we're talking about game mechanics, not physics. Vision, in game terms, is not just Detect Light, with any amount of ads.

 

BTW, even as a physical/semantic matter, RL vision isn't just detecting light; it's detecting things that reflect light in different ways.

 

And a person is one example of an object.

Of course, but it's not the only example. Why do you keep giving it special status?

 

It's not just telling a person from a car from a pair of shoes; you can tell Jim from Joe' date=' your car from my car, Reboks from Nikes.[/quote']

The distinctions possible with vision are generally far more useful. (We can of course imagine game universes in which that's not the case.) Nonetheless, we can distinguish among all kinds of things by smell. So we can't easily distinguish between humans by scent. We can readily distinguish between types of food. With my eyes, I can't easily distinguish between chocolate mouse and whipped dog poop, but with my nose I can.

 

A more down-to-earth example: which sense do you use more often to determine whether leftovers are still good? The ability to tell spoiled food from fresh isn't discriminatory?

 

I still claim smell (for humans) is not discriminatory' date=' because even though you can tell a homeless guy from a hottie, you can't tell Homeless Harry from Homeless Henry, or Hottie Hannah from Hottie Helen.[/quote']

You're giving nothing from the rules to support that. The rules don't put the ability to distinguish between people into a special category. And I don't think they should.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

I know it seems that we need to call some of these ranged' date=' when they truly aren't in a pure physics sense.... but if we remove that range modifer form the base senses, the whole power set then completely replaces Clairsentience. And to me would be a lot cleaner overall. Now you pick WHAT you percieve... you then decide if it needs to come to you (no range) or if you can detect it without it being near you (ranged). Then get into the detail of discriminatory and analyze. This allows Mega Scale and other tricks to be applied here also.[/quote']

 

The Ranged Advantage as a substitute for Clairsentience, eh? Interesting. I guess I might add things like Indirect to it, but that's a neat idea. Worth consideration. Rep if I can.

[nexus]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

....and actually' date=' you CAN identify individuals by smell (and I'm talking your everyday nose, not equipment based enhancement).[/quote']

 

Humans can actually track by scent. It takes experience and most of us just don't use our sense of smell to that level but it can be done.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

The Ranged Advantage as a substitute for Clairsentience' date=' eh? Interesting. I guess I might add things like [i']Indirect[/i] to it, but that's a neat idea. Worth consideration. Rep if I can.

 

The problem I see is that of "Point of Perception". With all senses the Perception Point is still the person (or device) with the sense. Ranged means whether or not it needs to be in physical contact with something in order to sense it. So it would take a different kind of Ranged "Adder" (like Clairsentience) to make a sense (ranged or not) have a different perception point (and possibly also a different perception bearing/direction).

[SteveZilla]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

....and actually' date=' you CAN identify individuals by smell (and I'm talking your everyday nose, not equipment based enhancement).[/quote']

 

I was exaggerating a bit' date=' but if your Detect Monsters can't tell an orc from a dragon, it's not worth half a character point.[/quote']

 

"You smell a Wumpus."

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

I understand how vision works. As in the case of range, we're talking about game mechanics, not physics. Vision, in game terms, is not just Detect Light, with any amount of ads.

 

BTW, even as a physical/semantic matter, RL vision isn't just detecting light; it's detecting things that reflect light in different ways.

What's the difference? Detecting light vs. detecting things that reflect or emit light. You see light in the shape and colors of a toaster oven vs. you see a toaster oven.

 

Of course, but it's not the only example. Why do you keep giving it special status?

I'm not giving it any special status. It just happens to have a special status because people are the more important and interesting things you deal with in the game. The bad guys you fight against are usually characters, not inanimate objects.

 

 

Nonetheless, we can distinguish among all kinds of things by smell. So we can't easily distinguish between humans by scent. We can readily distinguish between types of food. With my eyes, I can't easily distinguish between chocolate mouse and whipped dog poop, but with my nose I can.

So what? That's still not what Discriminatory means in HERO System Game Rules. It just means that you have a sense of smell and it's useful.

 

A more down-to-earth example: which sense do you use more often to determine whether leftovers are still good? The ability to tell spoiled food from fresh isn't discriminatory?

Nope.

 

You're giving nothing from the rules to support that. The rules don't put the ability to distinguish between people into a special category. And I don't think they should.

Just read down a paragraph or two from the passage you quoted in post 54. It says specifically that of the normal human senses, Sight and Hearing are Discriminatory, and the rest aren't.

[secretID]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

What's the difference? Detecting light vs. detecting things that reflect or emit light. You see light in the shape and colors of a toaster oven vs. you see a toaster oven.

The difference is that you become aware of the toaster oven - you have detected it.

I'm not giving it any special status. It just happens to have a special status because people are the more important and interesting things you deal with in the game. The bad guys you fight against are usually characters' date=' not inanimate objects.[/quote']

I think the distinction between the gun pointed at you and the money being handed to you is generally more vital than the difference between Joe or Jim pointing that gun or offering that money. Ditto for the difference between a building on fire and one not on fire. Regardless, nothing says that the ability to distinguish between people (which you can do with touch, BTW) is the threshold of discriminatory.

So what? That's still not what Discriminatory means in HERO System Game Rules. It just means that you have a sense of smell and it's useful.

Then tell me what it means. Define it, in a way based on the rules, that supports your idea that it's all about the ability to distinguish among people.

Nope.

I'm overcome by the power of your rhetoric.

Just read down a paragraph or two from the passage you quoted in post 54. It says specifically that of the normal human senses' date=' Sight and Hearing are Discriminatory, and the rest aren't.[/quote']

I can't say anything about that other than it's a bad call. I say that by the definition given just before that, "the 5" normal senses are discrim. I'd say that sight and probably hearing are analyze, b/c not only can you distinguish among objects, you can distinguish within object classes to a great degree.

 

Otherwise, we're left saying, "This ability to distinguish among varied objects is discriminatory, but that is not, because the first one is more important." Can you state a meaningful definition of discrim that includes sight and hearing but not the others?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

The difference is that you become aware of the toaster oven - you have detected it.

And you haven't become aware of it if you only see the light reflected off of it? What are you talking about?

 

Regardless, nothing says that the ability to distinguish between people (which you can do with touch, BTW) is the threshold of discriminatory.

No, but it's one indication that the threshhold has been reached.

 

I'm overcome by the power of your rhetoric.

I'm bored by your obtuseness. You asked me a yes/no question, and I gave you an answer.

 

I can't say anything about that other than it's a bad call. I say that by the definition given just before that, "the 5" normal senses are discrim. I'd say that sight and probably hearing are analyze, b/c not only can you distinguish among objects, you can distinguish within object classes to a great degree.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that's the rule. Do you have anything from the rules to support your position? Or am I the only one required to have support from the rules?

 

Otherwise, we're left saying, "This ability to distinguish among varied objects is discriminatory, but that is not, because the first one is more important." Can you state a meaningful definition of discrim that includes sight and hearing but not the others?

I've done so several times now, as has the rulebook. If you choose not to read them, that's not my problem.

 

And just to be clear, there's nothing really wrong with your interpretation or using it in a game as long as you're consistant about it. It's not how the official rules are, but it's fine as a house rule. Senses are complicated. A simplified model of senses for a game introduces some problems because of the details that are omitted. So by all means, do whatever works for your games.

[secretID]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

And you haven't become aware of it if you only see the light reflected off of it? What are you talking about?

No - you become aware of both simultaneously, obviously. In that way, sight differs from some kind of light meter.

Do you have anything from the rules to support your position?

My position that smell should be considered discrim, contrary to the line about sight and hearing? Yes - the definition of discrim, which I quoted before, which talks about discriminating among objects, which smell clearly does.

Or am I the only one required to have support from the rules?

Apparently I am, since you haven't proposed any reason to make discrimination among humans the threshold.

I've done so several times now

I don't see that once - care to quote a few of the several times?

 

Man, it's gotten unpleasant lately in this portion of the boards. Did everyone get all riled up over 6e fights or something?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

No - you become aware of both simultaneously' date=' obviously. In that way, sight differs from some kind of light meter.[/quote']

If you're becoming aware of both simultaneously, then I ask once again, what's the difference? I don't know what point you're trying to make here.

 

My position that smell should be considered discrim, contrary to the line about sight and hearing? Yes - the definition of discrim, which I quoted before, which talks about discriminating among objects, which smell clearly does.

It also talks about "identifying" which smell does not do. All senses can discriminate in some manner. A simple Detect Taoster Ovens, with no adders will disciminate between toaster ovens and things which aren't toaster ovens. But that isn't what the *game term* Discriminatory (note the capital D) means.

 

Apparently I am, since you haven't proposed any reason to make discrimination among humans the threshold.

Nor have I proposed that it be the threshhold.

 

Man, it's gotten unpleasant lately in this portion of the boards. Did everyone get all riled up over 6e fights or something?

You're the one who started in with the sarcasm, with "I'm overcome by the power of your rhetoric. "

[i3ullseye]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

I would say the eyes are organs that do indeed detect light. But only light that reaches them. They can also determine when it is bright or dim to some degree.

 

The fact that you can distinguish color is discriminatory, not identifying individuals... you see the different wavelengths of light differently.

 

Analyze is making sense of this. Putting those color patterns into recognizable forms in the brain is analyzing.

 

Also... there is no depth perception in the eye. It is only that we can interpret the stimuli from 2 different points that our brain determines the range to the object. Same with hearing for that matter. We calculate based on triangulation and expected levels of input... so lower volumes and such or smaller objects... BOTH of which are very easy to trick or mis-percieve.

 

Now to be fair, sight as a whole is talking about both the eyes AND the brain capacity to analyze and interpet it, so what one eye can do is not the fair example of sight in game terms. I get that distinction.

 

But I still think it is more sensible (har har) to make the base sense not ranged, and use a ranged adder of sorts for clairsentience. Otherwise, I see the sun and feel it's light... I see the moon... what are the ranges on these powers/abilities again?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

The fact that you can distinguish color is discriminatory' date=' not identifying individuals... you see the different wavelengths of light differently.[/quote']

Yes, distinguishing color is discriminatory, but it's not Discriminatory.

 

Also... there is no depth perception in the eye.

Actually there is, because you have a sense of your focal depth. Cover one eye and look at something far away - things close up will be out of focus. Cover one eye and look at something up close - things far away will be out of focus. Even with only one eye, we have a very good amount of depth perception.

[secretID]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

You're the one who started in with the sarcasm' date=' with "I'm overcome by the power of your rhetoric."[/quote']

I heard a lot of snarkiness before that. Perhaps I was wrong. Regardless, there was nothing to be gained by escalating it, so I apologize.

 

If you're becoming aware of both simultaneously' date=' then I ask once again, what's the difference? I don't know what point you're trying to make here.[/quote']

This part of the exchange started because of your hypothetical about a plastic vision obstruction. I think it has some relevance to the question of smell, though.

 

I think a big part of the gap between us is that I think it’s very important to define the detect. I'm saying that in order to determine whether a detect has/needs Discrim or Analyze, you have to define the detect - i.e., "Detect [X]."

 

Let's say I want to protect my house/base and the people in it. I do that with a suite that includes a standard burglar alarm, some smoke detectors, and a carbon monoxide detector, all of which send the alarm to a bedside console. The console tells me which of the three problems exists.

 

I can write that up as three different senses - Detect Smoke, Detect CO, and Detect Entry. None of those needs Discrim, because each is just an on/off - e.g., the smoke is there or it isn't.

 

However, I can also write that up as one sense, Detect Danger (with appropriate lims). Now I need Discrim, because the system is not just telling me whether danger is present; it’s distinguishing between types of danger, and telling me which one is present.

 

You can look at sight as Detect Light or as Detect Visible Things, and probably in other ways. Detect Light would register the presence of light and, I guess, amount. Sight does that, but also much more, so Detect Light doesn’t capture it all.

 

Functionally, sight is a lot more than what occurs in the eye – the brain’s interpretation of the stimuli is a key component. If the only sense in sight is Detect Light, then it better have analyze at a minimum, and I think you have to attach a bunch of skills as well.

 

Since we’re talking about this just as a sense (and not a suite of skills), I think we can’t just define it as Detect Light, even with Analyze. Unfortunately, I can’t think of anything neater than “Detect Visible Things.” (I guess “Detect Light Generators and Reflectors” would work.)

 

Sight obviously has Discrim. I think it has Analyze as well, as I said, because it distinguishes within class (John vs. Joe, car vs. tree), and it even finds very specific info about very particular items (John got a haircut). But the defintion of Analyze is far vaguer.

 

We started talking about this because of your hypothetical about a plastic vision obstruction, but I think it helps us analyze smell. By the reasoning I started with, to decide whether smell has Discrim, we have to first decide the class of things that smell detects. As with sight, it’s a huge, messily defined class – whatever the accurate technical version of “Detect Smell Emitting Things.” (Since smell is based on particles coming off of degrading matter, this is almost as large a class as sight – the inability to smell something is more an issue of the sensor’s limitation than the smell-ability of the object.)

 

Which brings us to: Can smell “identify, distinguish, and analyze an object?”

 

Identify: “That’s dog poop;” “There’s a gas leak.”

 

Distinguish: “This is the chocolate mouse; that’s the whipped dog poop.”

 

Analyze (not the Analyze adder): “This milk is bad;” “I smell buring hair;” “You eat a lot of garlic.”

 

To get all of that without Discrim, you’d need a huge amount of non-Discrim detects: Detect Feces, Detect Gasoline, Detect Food-borne Bacteria…

 

It also talks about "identifying" which smell does not do.

It identifies all kinds of things. They may not be things that you care about so much, or that are usually as important to characters, but it certainly identifies things – myriad foods, certain gasses, death and decay…

 

All senses can discriminate in some manner. A simple Detect Taoster Ovens' date=' with no adders will disciminate between toaster ovens and things which aren't toaster ovens.[/quote']

Right, but without Discrim, it won’t discriminate between toaster ovens. Sight can do that in the case of toaster ovens - as can touch, interestingly. Hearing can’t, but it can discriminate between two different cars, e.g.. Smell can’t discriminate between toaster ovens, but it can discriminate between two different chicken recipes, which the others often can’t. This is the argument I presented at length above.

 

Nor have I proposed that it be the threshhold.

Then I’m a bit at a loss. Much of our exchange has been on that issue. You’ve repeatedly cited smell’s inability to distinguish among humans as the evidence that it’s not Discrim.. When I asked why you were giving that such importance, you said that the importance was inherent. If your don't contend that it's the threshold question, then we can stop addressing it.

 

You said that you have repeatedly stated a meaningful definition that includes sight and hearing, but not the others. I don’t see your statement of that anywhere. The definition stated in the rule all would include all of “the 5” senses. I would be more likely to say that sight and hearing are special b/c they have Analyze (and I would in fact say that).

[jaws]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

Just a little input on my part about detect / discriminatory / analyze:

 

In the end its all about utility and cost.

• Define what a sense(detect, whatever) can do, and what it can't.
  
• Compare to other senses in utility and cost
  
  • Is it more useful in general: Bump the cost.
    
  • Is it the same but for a different purpose: Make it cost the same.
    
  • Is it a specialized version of another sense: Base the cost on scope.
    

 

Sense modifiers are that. You could name them anything. Use the system to model your intentions. Don't use the rules to see what you can get out of them. (I'm not saying you do, so don't take offense)

 

Detect: Basic sense

Detect + Discriminatory: Advanced Sense

Detect + Discriminatory + Anlyze: Detailed or high resolution sense.

 

In an case compare and define.

GL

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

This part of the exchange started because of your hypothetical about a plastic vision obstruction. I think it has some relevance to the question of smell' date=' though.[/quote']

Yes, that was the whole point. We don't have a plastic vision obstruction in front of our eyes. But we do have the equivalent in front of our noses. Looking through frosted glass gives us about the same level of information as our sense of smell gives us. Without the obstruction, our vision is Discriminatory. With the obstruction, it's not.

 

I think a big part of the gap between us is that I think it’s very important to define the detect. I'm saying that in order to determine whether a detect has/needs Discrim or Analyze, you have to define the detect - i.e., "Detect [X]."

I agree in the case of senses that we build, but there's no need to do that with normal sight, hearing, etc., since we already know what those are and what they do.

 

Let's say I want to protect my house/base and the people in it. I do that with a suite that includes a standard burglar alarm, some smoke detectors, and a carbon monoxide detector, all of which send the alarm to a bedside console. The console tells me which of the three problems exists.

IMO, this is on the level of "building a spoon". I wouldn't even bother writing up ordinary smoke detectors and similar home devices. I don't think they're worth even 1 character point. You've got at least -2 in lims just from OAF, Immobile, and 1/5 the cost for being being part of a Base. The cost is negligible. I say, don't bother.

 

Detect Light would register the presence of light and, I guess, amount.

You're forgetting a third component that's also very important: Direction, and direction very precisely, so we see different amounts of light from different areas, and those areas can be very small, which allows us to see a tremendous amount of detail. It's that level of detail which gives us Discriminatory (and also Targeting). And there's a fourth component: Color, which also helps, but even if we saw only in black and white (or to be more presice, in grayscale) I'd still call it Discriminatory.

 

And we've got similar amounts of information for hearing. It's not just the presence of sound, and the amount (volume), but also pitch and timbre, and direction (not as presicely as sight, of course). And timbre is a very complex quality of sound, not quantifiable with a single number, like pitch or volume.

 

Functionally, sight is a lot more than what occurs in the eye – the brain’s interpretation of the stimuli is a key component. If the only sense in sight is Detect Light, then it better have analyze at a minimum, and I think you have to attach a bunch of skills as well.

OK. They may be skills, but they aren't Skills.

 

Sight obviously has Discrim. I think it has Analyze as well, as I said, because it distinguishes within class (John vs. Joe, car vs. tree), and it even finds very specific info about very particular items (John got a haircut). But the defintion of Analyze is far vaguer.

But that isn't what Analyze means. Granted it's vague, and has to be defined for each individual sense, but the book gives us the guidelines to start with:

 

Normal Human Sight and Hearing are Discriminatory, but they don't have Analyze.

Normal Human sense of Smell is not Discriminatory.

 

Unless you want to use your own sense rules (which is well within your right), you should make your rulings consistant with those statements. Those are the examples to start with to get an idea of what the adders mean.

 

By the reasoning I started with, to decide whether smell has Discrim, we have to first decide the class of things that smell detects.

Well, not really. All we have to do is read the rulebook where it says that smell is not Discriminatory.

 

We already know what smell detects, since it's one of our normal natural senses. We do have to figure out what Discriminatory (the HERO game term) means.

 

Which brings us to: Can smell “identify, distinguish, and analyze an object?”

 

Identify: “That’s dog poop;” “There’s a gas leak.”

I don't think that's what is meant by "identify". Identify, as I understand it, would be: "That's Fido's poop;" "That's Rover's poop." Dogs can do this - their sense of smell is Discriminatory - but humans can't.

 

To get all of that without Discrim, you’d need a huge amount of non-Discrim detects: Detect Feces, Detect Gasoline, Detect Food-borne Bacteria…

Or just the ordinary sense of smell, per the rules.

 

I would be more likely to say that sight and hearing are special b/c they have Analyze (and I would in fact say that).

It seems that what you're calling "Analyze" is what the book means by Discriminatory. And what you're calling "Discriminatory" is what the book calls an ordinary, non-Discriminatory sense.

 

jaws gives some good advice in the previous post: Compare to existing senses.

 

If the sense provides a similar level of detail as Sight or Hearing, it's Discriminatory.

If the sense provides a similar level of detail as Smell, then it's not Discriminatory.

If the sense provided an even greater level of detail than normal Sight or Hearing, it has Analyze.

If the sense provides significantly less detail than Smell, maybe don't bother building it or paying points for it (or buy it with a limitation).

[nexus]

Re: Making sense of Senses

 

Here's a question: If a character does get their Normal Senses fully Discriminatory (or Analytical) should they get the benefits of the sense based Talents (Absolute Range Sense, Perfect Pitch, etc) included (perhaps requiring a Perception roll)?