These are small, those are far away...

[Sean Waters]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

De gustibus non disputandum. If the rule doesn't work for you, or you don't like it, no amount of appeal to physics will change your mind, nor should it. Likewise if it does work for you or if you do like it.

 

Any similarity the game bears to actual physics, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.

 

ETA: I'm poking away at physics because that's where things like signal-to-noise ratio come in. Between two of you (Sean and Markdoc) you know more about how the eye and brain work together in searching, and I don't doubt physics, than ten of me -- and I think none of that really matters because we're talking about a game in which the pages about physics and eye-brain function are scattered upon the winds.

 

(ETA, continued) Sean, what are you considering an "object"? If on a Where's W* page each person is an object -- let's say a 1 square meter page where each person is 1cm by 1cm -- and W* shrinks to .5cm by .5cm, thus reducing his area by 1/4, there aren't suddenly four times the number of objects on the page. OTOH, if you were flying above a crowd, searching for the known hooligan Waldo Williams, and you were 10m high, and decided you needed to be 20m high, then yes, the number of people in your area would be quadrupled. But that's about the only way I can see it's relevant -- if you were standing at a fixed spot, looking into a crowd, and W.W. were 10m away, if he suddenly darted away to 20m, you're still looking at the same crowd in the same field of vision. (If you went from 20m to 10m, you run the risk of looking in the one-quarter of your previous search area in which he isn't.)

 

(cont.) I seem to recall having seen a large table of Perception modifiers of all kinds that takes into account things like clutter, distance, contrast, and so forth. I can't seem to find it in the 6E books though -- maybe it was in 5E FREd or 5ER?

 

 

Good advice, although I will say that I think a good rule set (and that includes Hero) does stand up to at least a cursory comparison with real-world physics: good rules should be intuitive, but I suppose that this discussion simply proves that what is one person's intuition does not necessecarily match another's.

 

As to your other point: yes - if you take a 'Where's Wally' page and shrink (or enlarge) it then the number of objects has not changed, and so the difficulty of spotting Wally has not changed - well, not by a great deal. I accept what Markdoc says about a blown up page making it easier to spot anomalies - but Hero does that anyway with size modifiers: big things are easier to see than small things.

 

That is the equivalent of moving the page closer or further away (so long as it remains within the comfortable focal limits of your eye and so on), but the amount of detail on the page does not change.

 

I like your point about looking for WW in a crowd, and you are right: a shift in your POV changes the area you are scanning and therefore the number of 'confusing objects', whereas if you are just looking for WW in a crowd, the crowd size does not change whether he is actually 30 metres away or 60. The size of the crowd that he is in IS a factor in how easy he is to spot though: if the whole crowd is only 30 metres in diameter, surrounded by open space, you can limit your search to that area. If the whole crowd is 60 metres in diameter, you have 4 times the area and 4 times the 'confusing objects' and the search is going to be harder.

 

The PER mods are at 6.2.12, and there are no suggested modifiers analogous to 'crowd size' or 'search area'.

[Markdoc]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Well' date=' yes, but that is what I started off saying: the point is that in four times the area, there is going to be four times the number of things to be scanned.[/quote']

 

Not at all. You keep making your opponent's point for them. Number of things to be checked is important. Area is irrelevant. A small area with many things is harder to check, than a large area with fewer things and no harder to check than a large area with the same number of things ... and this is assuming that the things actually require checking. Finding one particular leaf in a forest full of leaves is hard. Finding a giant alien spaceship in a forest full of leaves ... not so much.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

The PER mods are at 6.2.12' date=' and there are no suggested modifiers analogous to 'crowd size' or 'search area'.[/quote']

 

I think this falls under "environmental modifiers" by definition. Finding Wally in a crowd of people wearing red and white is going to be a lot harder than finding him standing alone, or for that matter in an equal size crowd wearing blue and yellow. That type of modifier is independent of range and size ... or for that matter area

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

(cont.) I seem to recall having seen a large table of Perception modifiers of all kinds that takes into account things like clutter' date=' distance, contrast, and so forth. I can't seem to find it in the 6E books though -- maybe it was in 5E FREd or 5ER?[/quote']

We have the tables on 6E2 12.

And of course there is the "number of Minds" modifier for Mind Scan (see below).

 

[...] big things are easier to see than small things.

 

That is the equivalent of moving the page closer or further away (so long as it remains within the comfortable focal limits of your eye and so on), but the amount of detail on the page does not change.

No, it's not exaclty what happens.

 

If you have a crowd of 100 pople and the one person you are looking for grows, he becomes easier to spot. Not because of his size, but because he is not very simialr to the other 99 people.

If you have the same crowd, the same person you are lookign for and all grow by the same ammount of size he did not become any easier to spot (asmunig things like vision angle stay the same).

 

I think this falls under "environmental modifiers" by definition. Finding Wally in a crowd of people wearing red and white is going to be a lot harder than finding him standing alone, or for that matter in an equal size crowd wearing blue and yellow. That type of modifier is independent of range and size ... or for that matter area

 

cheers, Mark

I still say: This is the Contrast modifier.

Or perhaps we can use the "number of minds" table from Mind Scan (6E1 261)?

[Sean Waters]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Not at all. You keep making your opponent's point for them. Number of things to be checked is important. Area is irrelevant. A small area with many things is harder to check, than a large area with fewer things and no harder to check than a large area with the same number of things ... and this is assuming that the things actually require checking. Finding one particular leaf in a forest full of leaves is hard. Finding a giant alien spaceship in a forest full of leaves ... not so much.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

I think this is just a matter of semantics; I'm perfectly happy that simply changing the size (and therefore the area) of the thing you are looking at makes relatively little difference - but this whole thread is about the interaction of range and area: when you double the range at which you are looking for something you quadruple the area and I am assuming that you quadruple the number of things in that space that you have to check, or near enough. Looking at the Night Sky or the Woman On the Beach example, that should be obvious: I am not talking about re-distributing the same number of stars or people over a different area, I am talking about considering a bigger (or smaller) area, which will change the number of things you are looking at that need to be checked. There is no suggested modifier for that (but see my response to Christopher below) and range in and of itself does not wholly address the point.

[Sean Waters]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

We have the tables on 6E2 12.

And of course there is the "number of Minds" modifier for Mind Scan (see below).

 

This is an excellent point: the number of objects is important - I am suggesting that the search area is a way of using a short hand for that - and indeed the table you refer to mentions not just the number of minds, but how that will relate to an area (or volume) equivalent. Of course Mind Scan uses that as an alternative to Range, rather than 'as well'. I think they are both relevant: spotting an individual at the Super Bowl using eyesight (let us assume that the individual in not making themselves obvious, and is not easily distinguishable from other individuals) will be harder if the SupeBowl is full to capacity than if there are only 100 people there - although range to target will still be a factor.

 

 

No' date=' it's not exaclty what happens.[/quote']

 

Well...not exactly. Markdoc makes the point that a big picture of a specific thing makes it easier to spot details than the same picture that is smaller, although I accept that the effect will be more pronounced where the thing in the original was difficult to make out because of size; I imagine there comes a point where further blowing up a picture makes matters worse rather than better.

[Lucius]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

If you have a crowd of 100 pople and the one person you are looking for grows' date=' he becomes easier to spot. [i']Not[/i] because of his size, but because he is not very simialr to the other 99 people.

If you have the same crowd, the same person you are lookign for and all grow by the same ammount of size he did not become any easier to spot (asmunig things like vision angle stay the same).

 

I thought Markdoc had presented scientific evidence that directly contradicts this contention.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

If I hide a palindromedary in a herd of backandforthrians and use Area Effect Growth

[Markdoc]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

I think this is just a matter of semantics; I'm perfectly happy that simply changing the size (and therefore the area) of the thing you are looking at makes relatively little difference - but this whole thread is about the interaction of range and area: when you double the range at which you are looking for something you quadruple the area

 

Understood - but that's largely irrelevant. Quadruple, halve, whatever. It really doesn't matter. I can scan my desk or the carpark in more or less exactly the same amount of time. Please, let's forget about area.

 

and I am assuming that you quadruple the number of things in that space that you have to check' date=' or near enough. Looking at the Night Sky or the Woman On the Beach example, that should be obvious: I am not talking about re-distributing the same number of stars or people over a different area, I am talking about considering a bigger (or smaller) area, which will change the number of things you are looking at that need to be checked. There is no suggested modifier for that (but see my response to Christopher below) and range in and of itself does not wholly address the point.[/quote']

 

I'd agree - but as you yourself note, in these examples area itself is irrelevant - what you are really talking about is number of things to search. You are right, that range does not in and of itself address the point: something for which I am very glad, because range has little or nothing to to do with it . It is, as noted a function of how many things you have to check and how hard the things are to differentiate from the thing you want to find: in short, environment, time, contrast.

 

Not area. Not range (except in asmuch as range does diminish your ability to see/distinguish smaller things).

 

And we already have modifiers for exactly these things. Adding something about range in there is not only not useful, but actively hindering. It decreases the correspondence of the game rules and reality, while at the same time adding useless complexity.

 

After all, what takes longer to search: 4 small rooms, or a single large one?

Hint: it's got nothing to do with the area of any of the rooms

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

I thought Markdoc had presented scientific evidence that directly contradicts this contention.

No, blowing up the images only makes it easier to spot details. He reduced the range modifier/size modifier. The number of objects stays the same, but you can make out more details in the objects thus they become less-similar/more unique.

[Lucius]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

No' date=' blowing up the images only makes it easier to spot details. He reduced the range modifier/size modifier. The number of objects stays the same, but you can make out more details in the objects thus they become less-similar/more unique.[/quote']

 

And this differs from the situation you presented in what way?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Hiding the palindromedary behind a backandforthtrian

[brionl]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Especially when you consider that at thsi distance' date=' you can't clearly make out it's color or size. Finding a star sized object among thousands star sized objects with same luminosity and no difference in the color that your eye can percieve - that is the literal needle in a haystack.[/quote']

 

I dunno about you guys, but I never have a hard time finding Mars, Jupiter or Venus. Maybe 10-15 seconds. If you just look along along the ecliptic, they're pretty obvious and much brighter than any of the actual stars that are in the vicinity. If it takes me longer than that to find them, it's probably because they aren't above the horizon. Usually it's the other way around, I look up and "Wow, that star sure is bright" checks location "Oh, must be [planet]".

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

I dunno about you guys' date=' but I never have a hard time finding Mars, Jupiter or Venus. Maybe 10-15 seconds. If you just look along along the ecliptic, they're pretty obvious and much brighter than any of the actual stars that are in the vicinity. If it takes me longer than that to find them, it's probably because they aren't above the horizon. Usually it's the other way around, I look up and "Wow, that star sure is bright" checks location "Oh, must be [planet']".

And how many years ago did you began watching stars, for job or hobby?

 

I don't even know what to look for, while you can identify it on thier lumnosity. Sounds like you have a very big circumstance bonus (you propably use your KS Complimentary).

[Markdoc]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

And how many years ago did you began watching stars, for job or hobby?

 

I don't even know what to look for, while you can identify it on thier lumnosity. Sounds like you have a very big circumstance bonus (you propably use your KS Complimentary).

 

Actually it's pretty easy: It's clear in Northern Europe right now - go outside and look at the sky. The bright thing in the sky that isn't the moon? It's Venus. The second brightest thing? It's Jupiter (might be too close to the horizon to see by now). You really only need to have them pointed out to you once, maybe twice, because they really are significantly brighter than the stars. There's a hell of a lot of stars up there, but they are so much dimmer, they don't really count. This is a good example of a contrast bonus. Although the area to to be scanned is unimaginably huge .... that's kind of irrelevant. Distance in this case is offset by a mofo-sized size bonus

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

I dunno about you guys' date=' but I never have a hard time finding Mars, Jupiter or Venus. Maybe 10-15 seconds. If you just look along along the ecliptic, they're pretty obvious and much brighter than any of the actual stars that are in the vicinity. If it takes me longer than that to find them, it's probably because they aren't above the horizon. Usually it's the other way around, I look up and "Wow, that star sure is bright" checks location "Oh, must be [planet']".

 

Well, yes, but you would have a job spotting my wife on a beach, because you do not know what you are looking for, other than my general description. You raise an interesting point though: what you are looking for might not be there. With stars you know why that is: not up yet. With the wife on the beach thing it might be because she has got tired of waiting and wandered off. I could spend a very long time looking but not seeing because there is nothing to see - yet I doubt I would be confident enough to take one look, decide she is not there and, oh, I don't know - phone her. More likely i would go ever the ground again several times.

 

This is the case with the search for the car keys: if at first you do not succeed, you do it again more slowly until you either find them or become convinced you are looking in the wrong place.

 

With the sniper example, or better, Markdoc's medical scans, again you are looking for something that might not be there. Spotting when it IS obvious is easy, but spotting when it is not obvious, or not present (you do not know which) is what slows you down. In that case, if you do not see anything obvious then you need to look again. Of course we generally only call for a PER roll when there is something to see, potentially, and, I suppose the only real factors are:

 

1. how obvious is it?

2. how long are we willing to keep looking if we do not spot it immediately?

 

'Obviousness', in Hero, is broken down to a number of factors, including range, size and contrast, although I suspect that 'contrast' is used in the TV control sense rather than any technical sense. Nor does it appear to be used in the sense of 'how many similar objects are there in the field of vision?'. There is not currently any clear modifier for that.

 

Human eyes hardly have to re-focus at all to look at something between 6 metres and infinity. There is no real difference between looking at the night sky and seeing objects light years away and looking at the inside of a Planetarium, or a 6 metre radius dome tent.

 

I imagine that is why Markdoc insists that both range and area are irrelevant, and he is right in theory, but not, I would suggest, in game. You need to know the range to know if the object size modifier offsets it, you need to know the area to know how much 'stuff' you have got to pick your item out of. Someone who knows where Mars 'should be' is looking at a much smaller area than someone who does not have that knowledge (as well, probably, as having better 'Mars recognition skills').

 

In the light of this, I think I am going to have to re-evaluate my initial assumptions and contentions. I still think that 'area' matters, but I have changed my mind about how it matters. It is NOT the area of the thing you are looking at that matters, it is the proportion of the area of your field of vision. Taking the 'wife on beach' thing, what I am looking at (from the top of the cliff) is a section of beach below me that is maybe 100 metres by 50. If I look as far as I can usefully see in either direction, the area I am covering in terms of my field of vision is maybe about 4 times that: that actual area is much more than that (I can probably usefully make out people at 1/2 KM in either direction, so that actual area is 10x), but stuff seems to get smaller at greater ranges.

 

Similarly, if I am looking at the night sky, nearly half of my field of vision is in play. If I know, to within a few minutes, which arc of the sky to look at, the proportion of my field of vision that I need to scan is much less, and I will succeed (assuming I can) more quickly on average.

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

In that case, if you do not see anything obvious then you need to look again. Of course we generally only call for a PER roll when there is something to see, potentially, and, I suppose the only real factors are:

 

1. how obvious is it?

2. how long are we willing to keep looking if we do not spot it immediately?

A lot of the perception Rolls made will be the "free" one, wich is a "Action that takes not time". And in the rare cases where you actualyl search for something, it's propably going to be concealment that you use after the first roll fails.

 

'Obviousness'' date=' in Hero, is broken down to a number of factors, including range, size and contrast, although I suspect that 'contrast' is used in the TV control sense rather than any technical sense. Nor does it appear to be used in the sense of 'how many similar objects are there in the field of vision?'. There is not currently any clear modifier for that.[/quote']

I would again direct to the Mind Scan Table. While it is true that Mind scan has no Range modifier, this is more thanks to the megascaling than because they have "replaced" the Range modifier with number of peoples.

Mind Scan has Megascale at +2 level (according to the Erata). Then it propably has some Limitations slapped on it like "not beyond first Range Zone" (wich would be 80.000 Kilometers).

 

Human eyes hardly have to re-focus at all to look at something between 6 metres and infinity. There is no real difference between looking at the night sky and seeing objects light years away and looking at the inside of a Planetarium' date=' or a 6 metre radius dome tent.[/quote']

Physically speaking, you are not looking at objects light years away. You are looking at light those objects emitted thousands of years ago.

 

Someone who knows where Mars 'should be' is looking at a much smaller area than someone who does not have that knowledge (as well' date=' probably, as having better 'Mars recognition skills').[/quote']

"Knowing where to look" for it is the special effect of making a good complimentary roll. Or having an "Routine job" Difficulty to start with (because you are regular stargazer). The Roll is still the same, you just have more to offset the "Number of Objects" penalty.

[brionl]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

And how many years ago did you began watching stars, for job or hobby?

 

I don't even know what to look for, while you can identify it on thier lumnosity. Sounds like you have a very big circumstance bonus (you propably use your KS Complimentary).

 

Not that big. The only information one needs is that all the visible planets are in the plane of the ecliptic (the path the Sun and the Moon take), and are really really bright. As Markdoc says, once they've been pointed out a couple of times, they are very obvious. If you can remember where the Sun rises and sets, you know where the plane is. Just scan along the sky from sunrise to sunset. If you can't see them, they're probably not up.

[Markdoc]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Human eyes hardly have to re-focus at all to look at something between 6 metres and infinity. There is no real difference between looking at the night sky and seeing objects light years away and looking at the inside of a Planetarium, or a 6 metre radius dome tent.

 

I imagine that is why Markdoc insists that both range and area are irrelevant, and he is right in theory, but not, I would suggest, in game. You need to know the range to know if the object size modifier offsets it, you need to know the area to know how much 'stuff' you have got to pick your item out of. Someone who knows where Mars 'should be' is looking at a much smaller area than someone who does not have that knowledge (as well, probably, as having better 'Mars recognition skills'

 

I should point out that I think area is irrelevant, but range is not: it does - as you point out below - affect your ability to identify what you are looking at. But we already have a modifer for that - and based on gaming, it seems to be about right (not perfect, of course, but about right)

 

In the light of this, I think I am going to have to re-evaluate my initial assumptions and contentions. I still think that 'area' matters, but I have changed my mind about how it matters. It is NOT the area of the thing you are looking at that matters, it is the proportion of the area of your field of vision. Taking the 'wife on beach' thing, what I am looking at (from the top of the cliff) is a section of beach below me that is maybe 100 metres by 50. If I look as far as I can usefully see in either direction, the area I am covering in terms of my field of vision is maybe about 4 times that: that actual area is much more than that (I can probably usefully make out people at 1/2 KM in either direction, so that actual area is 10x), but stuff seems to get smaller at greater ranges.

 

Similarly, if I am looking at the night sky, nearly half of my field of vision is in play. If I know, to within a few minutes, which arc of the sky to look at, the proportion of my field of vision that I need to scan is much less, and I will succeed (assuming I can) more quickly on average.

 

Right. It also depends on the object. Finding Mars might take some scanning - especially if you have no idea where precisely it should be - because there's a fair number of Mars-like objects up there, but finding the moon is going to take 1/2 a second, maybe a whole second, tops, even though you are scanning the exact same area.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Right. It also depends on the object. Finding Mars might take some scanning - especially if you have no idea where precisely it should be - because there's a fair number of Mars-like objects up there, but finding the moon is going to take 1/2 a second, maybe a whole second, tops, even though you are scanning the exact same area.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Quite right, but that is because The Moon is a unique object in our night sky, and there is nothing that you could confuse it with, and it is the largest thing up there at night, by a very large margin. Those factors mean that there are a lot of positive modifiers for the roll, which will outweigh any negative modifiers meaning, in game terms, it is so obvious that a roll is not needed.

 

Modifiers can also be seen as a way of measuring time. The higher the positive, the less time is needed, to the point where, when you decide to look for The Moon, it takes no time at all, or a half phase at most, assuming the skies are clear. It also , because it IS so obvious, takes the same amount of time to determine if The Moon is NOT up.

 

None of that means that the area (the arc of your visual field, anyway) is not relevant, it just means that the negative modifier attributable to that is far outweighed by the other modifiers.

 

We may never agree on this, but I remain convinced that area if a factor in how long it takes to spot something, but it has less impact than a lot of other factors. To work out if I am right, we need to think of situations where we are controlling all the factors except area, and see how our ability to perceive changes: we can not really do that though, because you always wind up changing something else too, at least in all the examples I can think of.

 

I come back to biology: you can only look at a bit of your visual field at once. If what you are looking for is obvious (The Moon at night, for example) then the human trick of doing a quick scan of the whole area and spotting the anomaly works fine. If the thing you are looking for is not obvious, and requires a moment of two of study, you have to stop, start, stop, start, and then area becomes more important, if only as a way of measuring in a reasonably intuitive way, how much 'confusion' there is to sort through.

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Quite right, but that is because The Moon is a unique object in our night sky, and there is nothing that you could confuse it with, and it is the largest thing up there at night, by a very large margin. Those factors mean that there are a lot of positive modifiers for the roll, which will outweigh any negative modifiers meaning, in game terms, it is so obvious that a roll is not needed.

 

Modifiers can also be seen as a way of measuring time. The higher the positive, the less time is needed, to the point where, when you decide to look for The Moon, it takes no time at all, or a half phase at most, assuming the skies are clear. It also , because it IS so obvious, takes the same amount of time to determine if The Moon is NOT up.

The moon is not more obvious than a single star or a single bird. But the fact that there is nothing similar out there, means it's easy to spot.

If the earth had 28 moons of the same size and general texture, finding moon #13 would be as difficulty as finding a specific star/planet in the sky.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

The moon is not more obvious than a single star or a single bird. But the fact that there is nothing similar out there' date=' means it's easy to spot.If the earth had 28 moons of the same size and general texture, finding moon #13 would be as difficulty as finding a specific star/planet in the sky.[/quote']I'm going to disagree. The moon is much more obvious than any single star. The size bonus versus range modifiers ends up at a much higher bonus than a star even if the star is millions of times bigger...

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

I'm going to disagree. The moon is much more obvious than any single star. The size bonus versus range modifiers ends up at a much higher bonus than a star even if the star is millions of times bigger...

That is true for a single moon.

But I eplicitly said that when you had 28 moons of same size and structure, finding Moon Nr. 13 (a specific moon, not any one of them) is difficulty.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Then why mention stars at all? 1 out of 30 moons is still easier than 1 out of a million stars IMO.

[Lucius]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Physically speaking' date=' you are not looking at objects light years away. You are looking at light those objects emitted thousands of years ago.[/quote']

 

By that logic, one should never take a range penalty to Sight because the ligth one is seeing has literally entered the eyball.

 

The moon is not more obvious than a single star or a single bird.

 

Not only is the moon, obvious, it is obvious that the moon is obvious. What is not obvious to me is why you would deny an obvious fact about an obvious object.

 

But the fact that there is nothing similar out there, means it's easy to spot.

 

Especially when you then agree with the statement that the moon is obvious by restating it in different words.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says hey, are we still chasing Sean Waters, or are we calling it off since he seems to be backing away from his silliness? Maybe Markdoc can help him find his wife by blowing up a photo of the beach...

[Clonus]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

The moon is not more obvious than a single star or a single bird. But the fact that there is nothing similar out there, means it's easy to spot.

If the earth had 28 moons of the same size and general texture, finding moon #13 would be as difficulty as finding a specific star/planet in the sky.

 

The moon is considerably more luminous than a single star. A bird might be more obvious seeing as how it moves.

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Could you at least try to read what I am writing, before saying "you are wrong"?

 

There is no inherent obviousness* in an object.

The situation, the sorrounding makes it obvious or inobvious*.

 

One Black Sheep stands out of the herd of only white sheeps.

One Black Sheep in a herd of Black Sheeps - is just one member of the herd.

 

When there would be only one Star in the sky, we would not have any more difficulty pointing out "The" Star than pionting out "The" Moon. When we had 28 moons with the same size, texture, limunisity, density, number of man in the moon and whatever else you come up with - it would not be easier to spot Moon Nr. 13 then it would be to find a specific star.

 

 

*Not the HERO System Rule terms.