Underling

Well, humans are basically just animals with a few more advanced mental capabilities (and manual dexterity and endurance abilities, too). Consequently, the fact that animals must be built differently in HS is a red flag to me. OTOH, if INT is processing speed and not analytical abilities, then plenty of animals should have INT scores as high or even higher than humans. But then skills based on analytical abilities shouldn't be based on INT. But then what characteristic should be used for analytical skills? A new characteristic? Yikes. Another thought...higher SPD allows more actions in a turn, which logically must require correspondingly faster mental processing (you can't perform three times as many actions in a turn as someone else without also being able to process information three times as quickly, right?), and SPD is based on DEX. That's actually another argument for basing PER (which involves faster mental processing if you're going to combine sensing and interpreting in one roll) on DEX. Doing so would also free up INT to be used for analytical abilities/skills. As I understand it, many think DEX is too powerful for its cost as is. I wonder if it would make sense to make PER based on DEX and then up the cost of DEX to 4 c.p. per point. Hmmmm.... Derek

That's basically it, yes: two rolls. One to sense the object (which has nothing to do with intelligence or speed of thought) and another to interpret the meaning of the sensation. Combining both into a single INT roll appears to be what HS does. I question the "realism" of such a tact, but it doesn't seem to bother most people here, I gather. No problem. It was noticing the kludgy need to buy up enhanced senses for animals to make up for their lower intelligence that got me thinking about it. That and noticing an odd correlation between species dexterity/agility and high perceptive abilities. First with GURPS, then with HS. Derek

Actually, I agree with all those descriptions, it just seems that you're dealing with what should be a series of perception chances first, followed by rolls to understand what the sounds mean. The problem becomes evident when you look at how skills based on INT work. You use INT rolls and skill rolls based on INT to determine if a character knows something. A character wants to know the top speed of a car he sees. The GM has him make a car knowledge roll. No processing speed involved there, but a character with a high INT has a higher roll and therefore a greater chance of knowing that particular piece of trivia. Success with skill rolls to determine the success of disguise, forgery, survival, etc.--all INT-based skills--depend far more on knowledge than any speed of processing information. If INT is intended to represent speed of thought, then almost all INT-based skills should really be based on something else that DOES represent memory and analysis. Yes? Looking at your superhero scenario above, what are the relative DEX values of each superhero? I'm not familiar enough with them to say for sure what they are myself, but doesn't Wolverine have the highest DEX and The Thing the lowest? Don't their DEX scores correlate rather nicely with their basic perceptive abilities? If so, then doesn't it sound logical to shift PER to be based on DEX and leave INT to represent the memory and analysis characteristic needed for all the skills that are dependent on memory and analysis? Oui? No? Derek

Hmm, I can see where you're coming from. I've just never thought of PER that way because the majority of uses of PER that I've noticed have been singular detections--either you do or you don't notice, not something that you eventually notice. Someone is sneaking up on a character, roll PER, and he hears a sound if he makes the roll, and fails to hear a sound if he doesn't. That sort of thing. Your description of PER sounds more like a range of focus, from highly focused to easily destracted. Someone who doesn't notice an alarm ringing because he's focused wouldn't necessarily have less INT than someone who does, don't you think? Do you give characters another PER roll when they stop concentrating on some task they're doing? And what about cases where characters of different INT are doing nothing at all to occupy their minds? The way you're describing PER, it sounds like the person with low INT would notice a sound just as easily as someone with high INT--because his brain isn't inundated with too much incoming information to process. Yet this isn't how PER is used in the game. Do you see where I'm coming from with that? Derek

Hmm, if this is the case, then what characteristic do you use to create a character who IS brilliant? And...isn't PER used for sight rolls? Derek

Re: Re: Re: Hey Underling! Yes, I realize how the HS rules define the meaning of INT...but if you look how it's actually used in the game, it's basically memory, understanding and analysis (remembering something or figuring something out), not so much how quickly you process information. Even PER doesn't really have much to do with how quickly you process information, at least not as it's actually used in the game--it's used to determine whether you happen to see/hear/smell something, not how long it takes you. Also, have you ever known anyone to create a brilliant scientist character who DIDN'T have high INT? Regardless of how INT may be officially defined, in game use I think it's used more for things that have more to do with memory and analysis. Derek

I'm not arguing that in HS PER is a form of INT, I'm arguing that perhaps it shouldn't be. Having been a scientist myself, I agree that scientists can be trained observers, but it's a case of using KNOWLEDGE to know what to look for when studying something within their area of expertise rather than being more perceptive than less intelligent people. (In game terms, I'd say it makes sense to have the scientist make a roll based on his scientific skill to notice something related to that science, and a normal PER roll--based on, perhaps, DEX--to notice things outside his direct field of knowledge.) I'm not making the claim that all animals are more perceptive than humans. My claim is that those animals that are highly dexterous and agile are also generally more perceptive. Animals with high body mass, armor, camouflage, poison sprays, spines or other deterrents don't need to waste energy by evolving high agility to survive their environments. They may still have some highly developed senses (often smell) to find food, but those can be considered enhanced senses. But animals without the various deterrents mentioned above (and their predators) often rely on their agility. That agility is almost always linked to perceptive abilities, since agility is meaningless as a defense without them. No, of course this isn't perfect--you're always going to find exceptions--but it seems a significantly better fit to me than using INT. Derek

Re: Re: Re: Re: Perception I'd say yes, the antelope does perceive the rabbit even if it ignores it. Just as a human can notice a person and choose to ignore him. We react to stop signs because we know what it means; similarly, an antelope ignores a rabbit because it knows what it means (i.e., no danger). This is a good point. I agree that an olympic athlete with high DEX and/or CON isn't likely to be more perceptive. But you're always going to be able to find exceptions to any game rule used. I just think that the relatively small category of olympic athletes (and other high DEX, high CON persons who have no correspondingly high need for high perception abilities) causing a bend in "reality" is less than the relatively large category of almost everything BUT humans. Note that it's just as easy to find fault with INT using your same argument, only applying it to smart people (which is a larger category than olympians, BTW). Another good point. However, you can say the same thing about intelligent people--they're no more likely to perceive something than someone who is as dumb as a bag of hammers. Well, it's a thought. I want to see peoples' reasoning for accepting or rejecting my DEX-PER connection, and I appreciate your giving it some serious thought. Derek

Re: Hey Underling! Weeeelllll, I think I understand what you're saying...but again, I think you're not distinguishing between perceiving something and analyzing something. Most of the skills you've listed involve much more analysis than perception--in other words, they involve knowledge and "figuring out" much more than especially sharp eyes or ears. Even skills that are expressly used for spotting something, such as Bugging, don't require a keen eye so much as knowing where to look for bugs. It's the analysis portion that's more important. (And if you don't have Bugging skill, you can use PER to find something that's hidden, right? Using PER in that situation is a case of having to rely on keen eyes to find something, rather than the knowledge of where to look. That's what animals would have to rely upon.) So...almost all the above skills are INT based, and you could base PER on DEX. It makes sense to me--after all, do the world's top-notch forgers, paramedics, mechanics, etc. have sharper senses than anyone else? No, it's their knowledge that tells them where to look and how to interpret what they find. There isn't the correlation between intelligence and perception that there is between dexterity and perception. Derek

Should INT really be how fast you think, rather than memory and analytical capabilities? There's no other characteristic to simulate that. Besides, isn't that how INT is actually used in the game--making INT rolls and skill rolls based on INT to reflect how much you know and how well you can figure something out? How fast you think, however, is probably best simulated by DEX, since DEX is the main characteristic for figuring SPD, and you can't be speedy if you can't think as fast as your SPD, right? Also, if INT is how fast you think, then someone with a 20 INT and 3 SPD should accomplish more INT-based actions than someone with a 10 INT and 6 SPD, and that doesn't make sense, does it? Of course, basing PER on DEX makes DEX too valuable. Others have complained that STR is too weak (right?). One way to reduce the value of DEX and increase the value of STR would be to make SPD based on 1+((DEX+STR)/5). Strength should influence speed? WTF? Well, the argument for this would be that body mass slows a person's speed and acceleration, and high strength counteracts the effects of body mass. Thus, for two people of equal body mass, the one with the higher strength can overcome the inertial effects of his own body mass faster and therefore move faster than the other person. This same logic could apply to inflicting damage with melee weapons and fists. SPD should influence damage based on simple physics: f=ma (force=mass*acceleration). If two people have the same STR and body mass but one moves faster, the one who moves faster would do more damage (not the same as Move By Attacks, but similar in principle). But now things are getting too mixed up! Well, since most abilities seem to overlap, perhaps all abilities should be based on the average of all characteristics. ;-) Derek

Re: Re: Perception See my above post. Humans don't notice things more than most animals do, they just usually understand the significance of them better (the INT roll after the PER roll, you might say). And while the definition of INT may be the ability to take in and process information quickly, I suspect that should be interpreted as taking in and processing ALREADY PERCEIVED information, since the actual game effect of Perception is no different from how animals perceive their environment. Animal senses are no less developed than human senses, even though they may be processed by smaller brains. Just giving most animals Enhanced Senses is a kludge, I believe, since the need for animals to have good senses is no different from the need for humans to have good senses (especially for the environment in which we evolved). There's MUCH less need for a workaround if PER is based on DEX. I agree the argument isn't as good for CON as it is for DEX...but I think it's still better than the argument for INT. Regarding your example, a handicapped person wouldn't necessarily have low CON, nor would a person who was tired, so I wouldn't use those as arguments against using CON for PER. I disagree. In most cases, especially when including animals, I think you'll find perceptive abilities to be directly proportional to dexterity, for without perception, dexterity is meaningless. GURPS too uses INT (IQ) for perception. I think that is inaccurate as well. The fact that they need to buy up animal senses is a red flag that something in the concept is off base. And while you're right about animal prey/threat images, that doesn't mean their perceptive abilities are lesser in any way...only that how they process the information provided by their senses is limited. An antelope will still perceive the rabbit before a human is likely to, but since the rabbit doesn't match the antelope's prey/threat images, it doesn't respond. Even many extremely unintelligent organisms (insects, fish, amphibians) can perceive motion and shapes very well (commensurate with their dexterity) even if they can only recognize a limited range of patterns (commensurate with their intelligence). As a figured characteristic would make sense, particularly if PER rolls are intended to be fairly averaged out among individuals with varying characteristics. (DEX+CON)/2 anyone? The real headache, it seems, is that DEX and CON are too valuable as it is. Derek

Perception may be processing of information, but many animals process that kind of information better than humans even though they may not have anywhere near the intelligence. Perception and dexterity evolve together in many respects, mainly because in the natural world dexterity without perception is mostly useless. Sure you can use Enhanced Senses and Disadvantages to get the standard cinematic/realistic effects of perception using INT, but doesn't it strike you that something's wrong if those advantages and disadvantages have to be applied MOST of the time to deal with animal perception, when they would only be needed rarely if the roll were based on something like DEX or CON? You could still use advantages and disadvantages for special circumstances, but they wouldn't needed nearly as often. Derek

Actually, GURPS has a perception roll first, THEN another IQ roll to understand the significance of the observation. But, again, IQ doesn't seem to fit for perception either! Derek

I'm curious why Perception is based on INT. I don't see the correlation. I mean, someone who is stupid doesn't seem to be less aware of his environment as someone who is brilliant. Actually, high intelligence is arguably a distraction from perceiving one's environment. Consider even the stereotypes of the oblivious genius professor vs. the dumb giant who can nevertheless smell "the blood of an Englishman." The problems with linking PER with INT becomes especially noticeable when it comes to animals, which often have great perception compared with more intelligent humans. Thus, I propose that PER be based on either CON or DEX. The argument for using CON is that a reduction in health directly corresponds with a reduction in perceptiveness; if you're sickly your body doesn't function very well, and a reduction in perception would logically coincide with a reduction of the body's physical state. Conversely, the healthier the organism, the better all its parts should function, including perception. The only problem here is that according to this logic, all other physical and mental characteristics should probably be reduced as well. Hmmm. Perhaps DEX would make a better base characteristic. The logic behind this is that animals that depend on DEX to survive tend to have terrific perception, whereas those that don't depend on DEX often have lesser perceptive abilities (compare a gazelle with a porcupine, for example). After all, all the DEX in the world does a critter no good if danger can't be perceived in time to actually use that dexterity. A third option might be to average CON and DEX to determine PER. This would give higher default PER to those who are agile and healthy, and lower default PER to those who are clumsy and sickly. Any thoughts? Derek

I think your comparison about the "break down" between H.S. and GURPS is about right. I prefer the elegance of H.S., I like the breadth of characteristics (particularly the SPD concept), and I appreciate the whole concept of building abilities based on the desired special effects. However, the games I run are never as powerful as a typical H.S. superhero adventure. Everything I run is below the level of James Bond, often down to little more than normal humans. If the players have super abilities, they're normal humans who usually have only a single super ability, and they're not all that powerful. An armed special ops soldier can still take them down. I often find that players enjoy this style of play because they can relate to their characters better while still having the sensation of being more capable than others. Occasionally, the games will even star themselves as characters. For these reasons, it's critical that the physics of the game world works right, all the way down to a doddering old lady whacking someone with her cane. If the players discover that the game mechanics allow them to jump significantly greater (or lesser) distances than they know they themselves can do, or take more (or less) damage than they know they can, they lose their trust in the game system and they lose their ability to suspend disbelief. For this reason, for the past decade I've been playing GURPS. I think GURPS does a great job with skill costs, skill defaults, damage types and injuries, but the characters often have almost the same characteristics, and there are too few characteristics. Also, strength increases are linear, not exponential, making it virtually impossible to create a character who is twice as strong as an average person (easy enough to find in the real world, and easy enough to create in H.S.). GURPS also lacks a certain elegance. For instance, damage for ranged weapons drops by half at a precise distance, rather than some less abrupt (and realistic) scale. Yet the overall "feel" for a GURPS campaign is one of high realism. The results of a sword strike are viscerally "real." This "realism" comes at a cost in determining battle results, though I'm convinced the rules could be made more streamlined without sacrificing reality. It seems to me that H.S. could have the best of both worlds by simply revisiting the basic rules and making them apply to normal humans first, then doing what's necessary to make them work for superheroes. Would it be all that difficult to do? I don't think so. Set basic jumping distances and then scale up as needed for super jumping. Cut the length of a turn to maybe half of its current length (does it really make sense that your average joe can only attack once per six seconds, even factoring in half a move?). Hmm, I wonder if that would be a simple fix? Cut the 1" = 2 yards to 1" = 1 yard. Cut the length of a turn to 6 seconds. Perhaps add some variation to unconsciousness times. Naturally, ranges calculated for real-world weapons would have to use the old scale...but I wonder if overall it would work? Would superpowers be messed up? Just musing here.... Derek