Dauntless

Re: Ghost in the Shell resources? BTW, I already have all the Transhuman Space books, which are excellent excellent books for thinking about how technology can impact society. I do wish the setting was a bit more precarious or chaotic. I don't think it pushed as close to the singularity envelope as I would have liked. But then again, that's why I'm looking for more brainstorming material. I've already decided in my world though that there won't be consciousness downloadings. So the whole mystery of the "Ghost in the Shell" is what piques my interest.

Re: Ghost in the Shell resources? Thanks for all the suggestions. When I finally snag some freetime, I'll check em all out.

Re: Cyberpunk Hero? Speaking of game discussion, how exactly would you handle characters that could: 1) Essentially upgrade themselves all the time? I.e. downloadable skills, new nano-inserts, muscle implants, new shells or cyberframes, etc. 2) Be essentially immortal (if you buy into downloadable consciousness)? For problem 1, do you simply make the character pay for these changes/upgrades with money, and disregard CP's? But what if the character can change "on the fly"? For example with adaptable swarm AI nanites? Do you just give him a Nanite Variable Power Pool, with appropriate restrictions (most likely a time limitation, charge limitation, and possibly a requirement or skill knowledge roll)? For problem 2, this seems much trickier to handle. I suppose you could have some weird form of Duplication. How would anyone handle this?

Re: Cyberpunk Hero? I wonder why everyone has something against Transhuman? Is it because it doesn't lack the name recognition? Is it because it feels too associated with SJ Games Transhuman? Is it because it sounds too fancy-pants for a RPG? While I admit that Cyberpunk has an immediate name-recognition, I think it'd still be good to have something else evocative of the flavor, but isn't tied down to the standard tropes which cyberpunk is defined by. Of course, this is all up to Steve, but me personally, I think it'd be cool to have something other than the blatantly obvious Cyber Hero as the books moniker. I actually like Ghost-Angel's suggestion of Future Shock...though Future Shock Hero doesn't exactly roll off the tongue I still think Transhuman Hero sounds catchy, but even Posthuman Hero or Extropian Hero sounds nifty to me. Cyber Hero will of course do the job, but it just sounds so......mundane and uninspired.

Re: Cyberpunk Hero? Well, Cyberpunk isn't even really the first sub-genre to explore the ideas of what post-humans would be like. In fact, the first recorded usage of the term "transhuman" or "transumanare" (italian) was in Dante Alighieri's "Divine Inferno". I think Cyberpunk relates to a niche set, it is in effect a subset of Transhumanism. So I think it's just not a good idea to use the term since it already hedges in the possibilities. While it probably has a bigger mindshare in many people, it also comes with it a set of preconceived ideas about what "Cyberpunk" means depending on who you talk to. Talk to older foggies like me, and we think William Gibson or Walter Scott Williams. Talk to younger folks, and they might thing Greg Egan (whom I'd call post-human) or something like Ghost in the Shell (which I also would firmly call Transhumanism as it hardly has any of the "punk" element). The term Transhuman, being newer, wouldn't have all the preconceived baggage surrounding it. Me personally, I'd use the word Extropy (the opposite of entropy). It has a catchy ring and it basically is the philosophical side of Transhumanism. The only downside is that it connotes a utopian mindset. On the plus side, people won't relate it to Transhuman from SJ Games. Sticking with using the term Cyberpunk to define the kinds of issues of technologies, social issues and possibilities of the near future is kind of like calling all comic book superhero genre settings, "4 Color Comic Hero". It doesn't do justice to the modern storytelling of "Iron Age" comic book storytelling. But that's just me. I mean I hate it when people say TO-MAH-TO (it's TO-MAY-TO dang it!!)

I did a quick search for ghost in the shell on the forums here, but didn't see anything that stood out. Anyone know of any GITS resources? Not just web-related, but stuff beyond the actual episodes? I'm actually not so much interested in doing a conversion as I am in getting material for brainstorming a similar kind of world. So any resources that feels like GITS would also be appreciated.

Re: Cyberpunk Hero? Begin nitpicking.... First off, I think Cyberhero, while being more of a household name, is inferior to calling it Transhuman hero or if you want to get esoteric Extropian Hero. Yeah yeah, I know, it'll sound too much like Transhuman from SJ Games, but so what? It fits the bill better. Transhuman encompasses all technologies that will extend the capabilities of humans. Cyberpunk, which has its roots in the 80's has a much different feel and flavor. Cyberpunk deals almost entirely in mechanical/electronic augmentation, with perhaps the rare "juicer/roider" augmentation. Moreover, we can't neglect the "punk" part of the term. Being born in the 80's, cyberpunk deals with the idea of meganational corps eventually ousting the need for Governments. While some may argue that having contractors in the Government has borne this out, if anything, quite the opposite has happened. Transhumanism on the other hand deals with the question, "What does it mean to be human?" when you've got things like AI, androids, uplifted animals, and augmented humans who virtually cease to look like humans. It's an exploration of social issues. It's a case of technological progressives vs. Luddites. In exceeding the limitations of humanity, do we become something less than human? What happens to those humans unfortunate enough to not have access to any enhancements? Instead of dealing with super national megacorps, it deals with technology-haves vs. technology-have nots. So I say we leave Cyberpunk behind as a niche field of science fiction that has evolved into Extropian transhumanism. Extropy has no leanings. It could be a dystopia or a utopia (unlike Cyberpunk, which by default is a mild dystopia). It could be peaceful or warlike. It could be run by government sponsorship or corporations. In essence, it is a broad idea that isn't as constrictive as the term cyberpunk. ...end nitpicking

Re: Marvel's Best Martial Artists 1. Shang-chi- Shang isn't just physically awesome, his technique is supposedly perfect. Moreover, he has some supranatural powers, like when he was able to tell that he was being mind scanned by Jean Grey 2. Stick- As Daredevil's original mentor he kicked DD's butt several times. Being a ghost probably helps. I don't think I ever remember DD beating him. Plus he can "mystically" see, so who knows what other ESP powers he has. I'd actually consider him a tie with Shang 3. Iron Fist- His mystical fist probably gives him the most wallop of any non-super-powered MA. 4. Taskmaster- He can copy anyone's moves perfectly, though he can't replicate any mystical powers like the Iron Fist or Shang Chi's abilities. 5. Stone- Another mentor of DD. He beat the bejeezus out of a group of the Hand once or twice. 6. Ogun- He beat Wolverine IIRC...and without any supernatural prowess 7. Captain America- Lots and lots of experience and training 8. Daredevil- When you've got Stick and Stone as senseis, it's hard not to be good. 9. Sabretooth- He can take on Wolverine without Adamantium claws or skeleton and still beat him. 10. Nick Fury- Like Cap, he's got loads and loads of experience...even more actually since he never went through a deep freeze in the Atlantic Ocean.

Re: Religion Hero?? Actually, I think a historic based religious based RPG would be a cool idea. Problem is, no one would want to play it. It will incense or at least alienate many Christians because it would make them question many theological issues they take for granted. Imagine this for a roleplaying exercise. God, commands your forces (the Israelites) to massacre all the Sihonites. Every last man, woman, child, old man and oxen. Why? Because Yahweh told you to do it. Would you be able to do it (and yes, this isn't just a modern day way of thinking....conscience has been with man since the dawn of our consciousness). And yes, Yahweh did order on several occasions the massacre of several peoples (look at Numbers or Samuel). Roleplaying exercise #2. The year is 325AD and the Synod at Nicea has convened, declaring Arianism, or the belief that Jesus is not of the same divine nature as God as heretical. You are ordered to sniff out any Arians and force them to denounce their belief...or to perish. Roleplaying exercise #3. You meet a man who rescues you from certain death. While tending to your wounds, you notice in his belongings the scripture, The Gospel of Thomas...a known Gnostic teaching declared heretical. The man saved your life...what do you do? Roleplaying exercise #4. Your king orders you and your men to attack his enemy in another province and to kill all of them, including the priest who has been agitating the other lord to move against your own lord. Where does your allegiance lie...to your lord and liege, or to your faith? And these are but a few of the hundreds of scenarios I could think of. I didn't even touch anything about the Crusades or the Reformation which is ripe for ideas. How about any of the wars fought during this time period, like the English Civil War? But it will not only make irate those who will not appreciate putting Christianity under a new light, it will also fail to attract those who aren't biased towards religion one way or the other. Most people are very wary of anything smelling of religion, because they are afraid of the hard sell. I personally would like to see not just Christian themes covered, but anything with a religious overtone ala Battlestar Galactica. Religion is a very sticky topic though right now and there's definitely a Cold War being waged in this country over religious themes. So a game about religious themes and history could either be really hot, or it could blow up. I personally feel that we need to expose people to many religious themes so that they are exposed to more than just one dogmatic viewpoint (or none at all) precisely because of this Cold War that's going on. But like I said, it's a super-sensitive issue right now...so either way, you'd have to be careful

Re: Living Steel? Ah yes, Living Steel, Dragonstar Rising, and Phoenix Command (never even saw Rhand Morningstar). That really brings back some fond memories. I honestly found the Phoenix Command rules system to be as easy or easier than the Hero system. Yes, there were a lot of table look-ups, but they were all conveniently there for you. And as someone else said, those rules systems genuinely made you fear for your character's life. That alone made for some of the most intense roleplaying I've ever had the joy of playing. I used to use Phoenix Command for a homegrown Vietnam War campaign, and let me tell you, I don't think I ever saw more true player driven roleplaying in all my years of RP'ing. And all because the players knew how deadly combat was. Living Steel itself was an awesome background, especially Dragonstar Rising (which was essentially the prequel). Although lots of the quotes were humorous, I actually remember the heroic ones better: "What good is my life if I do not use it to defend what I believe in?"-Palin Soddak, Silver Sword "What disturbs me most is this...How could the Seven Worlds have survived so long, in the face of such odds, if their society did not have Merit?" - Gralen Hawklandm Chairman of the Imperial Commission on the Seven Worlds "A good Targa might last twelve missions. A great Targa will last one or two." - Draco "When I first saw a Dragonstar, I thought it was the end. Later, I learned that only a Tactical Strike team had landed. Our officers tried to downplay the raid, but the casualties and the damage did not even concern me. I was overwhelmed by the courage of my enemy." - Selleas Carleton, Imperial Starmarine "Victory is not the goal of battle. The spirit released in the course of struggle is all that matters." - Dragoncrest, 4th Tier To my 15yr old mind, this was the epitome of heroism. A noble group of humanity fighting the good fight in the name of freedom against the Empire of humanity. The whole political structure of the game was also quite interesting, what with your Subcons (sub contractors), Starcaste forces (like Trident), outlaw holdings like Neemis Enterprises, neutral parties like RQ medical services (the ones that saved the Seven Worlds firces in Dragonstar Rising that would live to fight another day in Living Steel), the alien nemesis of the Spectrals and of course, the Seven Worlds members and their supporting Alpha teams. The addition of the noble though war obsessed Dragoncrests was also very interesting in the Dragonstar Rising game. Of course, some of the concepts almost seem quaint by todays standards. This was written in the hay day of the Cyberpunk genre when we all feared the take over of mega national corps (Starcaste) and the fear of the mindless brainwashed police state commies (Spectrals) was still rampant. It also capitalized on the fear of an Apocalyptic setting in a world gone mad which the Cold War had still stoked (you younguns...ie those younger than 20...should be thankful you don't remember the Cold War and that your greatest fear is terrorism because back in the day, it was global annihilation). Nevertheless, it still makes for an interesting game background with very good potential for roleplaying. I personally found the Dragonstar Rising setting more interesting than the Living Steel one because it was essentially a three way struggle to fight for the defense of the Seven Worlds. Living Steel was essentially a post-Apocalypse setting that still had high technology and the main objective was to try to secure a little order in the world in order to start the foundation for a new resistance.

Re: God of the Machines It's good to see that others know about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem Poor Hilbert, Godel's theorem really dashed his hopes. And Godel's theorem also had some severe consequences in computer science as well. A Turing Machine for example can not solve everything, it can only solve certain problems (for which I'd have to go into Formal Languages and Automata Theory to get into). But any computing machine today is Turing-complete...meaning it can solve any problem a Turing machine can. But Turing Machines do have some interesting implications and limitations. The most famous is probably the "Halting paradox/problem". A Turing Machine can not tell from it's own mappings (algorithms) whether from any given input, that input will cause the mappings to stop. Indeed, humans can't always tell either. Turing Halting problem, and Godel's Incompleteness theory are related to each other actually. What does this mean? In simple terms, it means we can't prove everything. A machine would have to rely upon non-rational means to come up with a solution. One possible thought I've had on this is if computers had a Quantum Brain, if they could tap into a quantum "Transcendental Realm". Think for a moment if the Copenhagen (Bohr's) interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is incomplete, and we rely instead on either Bohm's Holographic Universe, Everett's Many World's, or Goswami's Monistic Idealism interpretations. What would this imply if machines could somehow consciously access this? I personally think that physicists who are holding on to local hidden reality are trying to salvage a deterministically run universe (God does not play dice with the universe mentality). After Bell's Inequality Theorem, and Alain Aspect's experiment which proved it, it pretty much put a nail in the coffin of assuming local reality. But what does that mean? It means we all might just be "brains in a jar" plugged into a system, except that there is no "brain in a jar" that exists separate from the system. If machines were cognizant of this, what would their idea of religion be? If reality is truly transcendental and not objectively and locally defined, then it must be subjective and non-local. What then would God be? In Matrix-esque terms, would God be the mainframe that provided all the probability-wave functions that are collapsed by us sentient observers? Would machines then think that God was not a separately existing entity, but a unitarian essence that connected all of reality (akin to Star War's Force, but residing in non-living entities too)?

Re: God of the Machines I agree that machines would probably be an intelligent design advocate. However, I think they would see it in the truest sense of intelligent design, and not necessarily the workings of an omnipotent being. Here's some other things you should consider: 1) Freewill or determinism? Will machines think they have choice, or is everything predestined? 2) Objectivity or subjectivity? Do they think that there is an objective external truth, or are they themselves the ultimate ground of being (not necessaily solipsists however). What creates reality....a distinct and separate god, or their own perceptions and consciousness? 3) Active or Passive? Is there someone in control, or have things just been set in motion and allowed to proceed? 4) Compassion or Fear? Is morality based on the fear of punishment for not behaving according to some Prophet, or is it based on the compassion of sympathy and mercy; the ability to relate to the suffering of others? 5) Why do they need religion? If science can provide for physical needs, and secular humanism can provide for morality, would they even need religion? If there are many humans that can be atheists, why not machines? What would religion provide them that non-belief can not? Security? Sense of meaning or purpose? 6) Authoritarian or Independent? Is there an organized hierarchical clergy to the religion, or is it self-motivated and directed, or at least communal in its organization (for example, gnostic churches had no clergy and everyone was expected to give sermons...including women). 7) Direct or Indirect? Are the teachings considered gospel literal truth, infallible and sacrosanct? Or are the scriptures/sayings considered parables, pointers to the truth and dynamic?

Re: God of the Machines Don't exclude the idea that machines may follow a human prophet, whether a historical one such as Jesus, Siddartha Gautama, Rumi, or what have you...or even a future human prophet. That could account for your Humanist vs. non-humanist civil war. Through the use of the mind there will always be uncertainty, so it follows that there will always be some level of ignorance. As you said, this causes dukha, and indeed causes one to exist in Samsara (the illusory world of suffering). How differently would a machine think compared to a human? Where would emotions come from? Western psychology doesn't really address why we have emotions, rather what causes emotional reactions to be illicited and the physiological reaction of emotions that can affect behavior. But what really is an emotion? Is it simply a chemical reaction that affects our brain? If so, would there be a machine analogue to this? This is an important question to answer, because emotions play a crucial role in our acceptance of belief systems. Me personally, a machine would necessarily be quite a bit more intelligent than the average human. They would also be able to examine the state of their own mind much more effectively than humans can (by examining the contents of their registers for example). However, this is where things get somewhat tricky. Let's assume they have quantum brains. Then the very act of trying to observe the state of the brain affects the state of the brain. It's Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in play. Moreover, we're treated to a strange philosophical problem. The very thing you are looking for (the mind) is the thing that is looking. Or as a famous neuroscientist once wondered to himself, "what would happen if I had to perform brain surgery on myself?". The very thing he would be working on is what is working. So would machines have an advantage over humans in this capacity? Would machines have less of a subconscious or unconscious component than humans have? I posit that yes they would...but they still would not be perfectly aware of the origins and contents of their own consciousness. And this in turn has ramifications for whether the religion they accept is subjective or objective. Most human religions are objective in that they posit an external objective truth. The foundation of truth exists whether or not humans exist. Subjective religions on the other hand would agree with Protagoras statement that "Man is the measure of all things". Reality exists only because we sentient beings are here to experience it. The more one is aware of one's own consciousness, the more likely you are to be inclined to a subjective interpretation. Hence, I think machines would be more inclined to a subjective religion. Of course trying to think like a machine would be very difficult. I consider myself a hobbyist student of many religions. And if there's one thing I've discovered that all religions have in common, its this: 1) The world we think is real isn't what we think it is. It is but a shadow (or testing ground) of a more transcendental realm. 2) Not only is the reality we perceive not the "real stuff", it's not what's important either. It in fact leads us astray from what we really should be learning. Will machines come to these same conclusions? I think they would.

Re: God of the Machines Let me throw in my two cents about the Mathematical exploration of reality. An Austrian-American mathematician by the name of Kurt Godel proved that any finite formal logical system must contain its own incompleteness. Here's an excerpt from Time magazine about Godel's amazing proof. From http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/godel03.html "All formal systems — at least ones that are powerful enough to be of interest — turn out to be incomplete because they are able to express statements that say of themselves that they are unprovable. And that, in a nutshell, is what is meant when it is said that Gödel in 1931 demonstrated the "incompleteness of mathematics." It's not really math itself that is incomplete, but any formal system that attempts to capture all the truths of mathematics in its finite set of axioms and rules. To you that may not come as a shock, but to mathematicians in the 1930s, it upended their entire world view, and math has never been the same since." What does that mean and what implications does that hold? It means that there are some true statements that can not be proved (the keyword here is for a FINITE logical system). And since scientific theory is a formal logical system ( logical system need not be numerical, it simply needs to be a symbolic system that follows a set of rules) this implies that we will never discover a Theory of Everything. AI attempting to find God by discovering a Theory of Everything will be doomed to failure, for either the formal statements are infinite, or if they are finite, will contain truths that are unprovable. Some physicists will point out that Godel only proved that Formal Statements are incomplete, but that scientific theory is not entirely Formal Logic. However, if this is true, then we can not use mathematics or logic to prove the theory. I personally think this is just scientists attempting to salvage the fact that they can't discover everything through science. So I'd scratch the "gather all knowledge possible" off the list as well as the Machine Prophet that discovers such a list. But think about the implications of this. This means that ultimately we can't know everything. There will always be an unprovable statement. This in turn opens the door to belief. But what would a vastly intellectual machine believe? Irrationality exists because we can not gather all knowledge and we can't know everything. So belief systems will ultimately evolve out of this because belief systems ARE irrational (by definition, belief means without ration or logic). I think another angle to look at for machine religion is why they need it in the first place. Why do humans need religions? 1) to explain the unknown But as I've just uncovered, scientifically, we'll never know (or at least prove) everything. And yet we can still operate without total understanding 2) to provide comfort from fear Would machines need comfort from fear? Would they be afraid of death? 3) to overcome suffering Humans grieve over lost ones, we feel lost and alone. Religions fill in this gap. But would machines grieve? Would they feel lost and alone? Buddhism is based almost solely on this factor, that life is suffering, and that there's a way to end it 4) To give purpose Religions often give us a higher purpose in life to attain to (often after death). What would a machine's purpose in life be? This was a big factor around the Matrix in that machines all had a purpose or destiny to fulfill. Existence for existence sake without higher meaning seems pointless...as Albert Camus said, "if there is no God, why not kill yourself now?" Humans have essentially two ways of looking at religion. They can look for God externally, or they can look for it internally. I think machines would probably do the same. But if machines are not swayed by emotions or survival instincts, I think they would first look within. Afterall, the root of knowledge is being certain about the veracity of your knowledge.

Re: God of the Machines This is an interesting topic. Firstly, we have to ask ourselves how differently the machines think than we do. That question in itself begs what intelligence truly is. Intelligence implies creativity and "leaps of logic". Purely algorithmic problem solving based on heuristics does not imply human-like intelligence. It would not be able to solve certain problems which had a discontinuous nature. One quantum physicist said that intelligence had a quantum like component in that it was discontinuous through its leaps of logic (via creativity). Also computers that we have today are deterministic, and Richard Feynman proved that deterministic computers can not solve problems that have a non-local component. Trick is, according to quantum mechanics, quantum objects can have non-local correlations. And according to some researchers, our own brain operates at some levels with quantum mechanistic processes (for example the microtubles in the neuron cyto skeletal structure). So our brain may very likely use organic quantum computational abilities. Secondly, we have to ask ourselves how machines would deal with the unknown. Dealing with the unknown is another aspect that intelligence tries to work with and around. Humans deal with the unknown through heuristics (a best guess, or a solution which solves a sub-problem or a related problem) or by appealing to our more primal nature like emotions. We also deal with the unknown by attempting to correlate the thing we don't understand with what we do (whether or not there is any basis to this connection). Finally, why would machines need religion? Religion is an attempt to understand what reality really is. It is a combination of metaphysics (what is reality) and epistemology (how do we know what we know). Humans find solace in religion because it explains to us the great unknown....death. It also helps us ease our fears of the unknown as well as give us moral guidance. Would machines be afraid of death? Especially if they can download their consciousness to another body? Would machines need a supernatural explanation to provide guidance to their ethical conduct? Would they need supernatural or non-rational arguments to help them make sense of the universe? Or could they live with a sense of doubt and uncertainty? Me personally, I think a machine would be very interested in Buddhism. Buddhism does not believe in an anthropomorphic divine creator, it also denies the idea of a permanent self. It also teaches that what we think of as reality is not really what it is. In other words, instead of seeing the world in materialist objectivist form, it sees the interconnectedness of everything (objectivism says that there exist separate independently existing things, it's opposite). In effect, Buddhism states that there is only one thing...a universal consciousness from which stem all conceptions that we have falsely come to believe are real physical things. This is in tune with some interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (especially Monistic Idealism). To a Buddhist, the brain does not create the mind, but rather the mind creates the brain. In Buddhism, not only do our senses (skhandas) deceive us, so does our mind. One must use the mind to surpass the mind. It also doesn't require you to die to experence the truth, as ultimate peace and knowledge can be gained in the here and now. Think for a second of what Plato said; "God is thought thinking of itself". Or as Richard Feynman said; "I wonder. I wonder why. I wonder why I wonder". I think machines would be fascinated with this concept. If machines had quantum brains (and personally, I feel that this is the only way true sapience can be achieved), perhaps they can be consciously aware of the unreality (the quantum wave function nature) of all reality. As one quantum physicist put it, "God creates the quantum wave functions, but sentient beings pop them" (by popping a QWF, you go from a probability equation to an actual physical manifestation). Our brains may simply tap the QWF well so to speak.

Re: Pseudo-Victorian Cavalry Regiment I've always thought the periods between the Napoleonic War up through the turn of the 20th century were the most interesting. Just one thing though, I don't think England was ever too fond of lancers. I can't think off the top of my head any famous English lancer units. They preferred either light cavalry like Hussars or Chasseurs, or Heavy Cavalry(Cuirassiers) like the Guard Units (House Guard and Life Guard), or Dragoon-like regiments like the Scots Greys. It was the Polish Uhlans who first really introduced the concept of lances in Cavalry units. But yeah, the uniforms are awesome from that time period. I've often toyed with the idea of doing a Crimean War, Franco-Prussian war, Boer War or Boxer Rebellion campaign. Of course the trick would be finding people interested in playing stuff like that.

Re: Monofilament Blade If one is intent on creating a monomolecular style blade (or rather, basically a sword that can cut through anything), why not do it like this. I'd make it a penetrating and armor piercing hand killing attack, probably 2d6. If you really want to make it deadly, then make it a AVLD 1d6HKA that does BODY, with the defense being a force field or strong magnetic field. If you make the sword whiplike, then give it the Indirect advantage as well. As for an explanation for how it works? Well, you're going to have to apply rubber science to make it work. And besides, why would you want a rationale for it anyways unless you want a suspension of disbelief? But if you insist, here's some ideas. Perhaps the blade can be reinforced by energy, such that the material bonds in the blade are strengthened. If the blade is metallic, it can use magnetic fields to achieve this, so it might theoretically be stronger than a carbon nanotube arrangement. Some sort of gravitic amplifier could make the blade heavier which would increase the kinetic energy behind the blade. I'd envision it as a wire with a ball at the end (so you can imagine where the blade is). When the sword isn't in use, you can retract the filament into the handle. If the sword is whiplike, you'll have to have some sort of visible aura around the whip, otherwise you'll likely wind up slicing yourself in half with your own invisible whip!! Another option is a hacksaw like kind of sword, where you have a conventional metal rod which holds the monomolecular filament between the ends. This would also solve the problem of needing to increase the apparent mass of the sword, but it does present the problem of having the conventional blade getting in the way. Of course, the blade can't be whiplike in this fashion. Honestly, if such a thing were possible, I think this version would make the most sense.

Re: Monofilament Blade Sure, if it floats someone's boat to have stuff like that, more power to you. That's why there's often an unwritten and unspoken social contract. This social contract basically determines the level of realism and drama that your campaign will have. If everyone agrees with this unspoken contract, then the games will be all the more enjoyable. However, I said what I said for those who may think that monofilament/molecular blades are realistic or plausible (at least in a near term technological sense). I remember when I was younger I didn't really question the technology or magic in games since I thought what was written was plausible. But if I was playing in a realistic or gritty campaign, I didn't want fluff stuff in my game. I also tend to disagree with the idea that games are purely about fun. Games can be educational too (and yes, education can be fun). The best campaign I ever played was a Phoenix Command campaign set in the Vietnam War. Not only did I teach the players a lot of the history and culture of Vietnam, the atmosphere was rife with real life (player, not character) decision making. I had the players genuinely scared of combat and not wondering whether what they were doing was right or wrong. The bottomline is that gamers should be exposed to all types of play styles. From the purely fantastic, escapist styles of games, to the realistic, gritty and educational types of gaming.

Re: Monofilament Blade I pretty much agree 100% with Agemegos. The idea of a monomolecular wire/sword has always seemed a bit preposterous to me, even in Space Opera terms. As Agemegos pointed out, a monomolecular object would be incredibly weak. This is the same logic that a bullet a molecule in size would be able to penetrate any armor...think about that for a second. If this were true, air should be able to penetrate your armor a molecule at a time. Kinetic energy = .5mass*velocity squared. If your mass is virtually zero, your kinetic energy is virtually zero, and you need that kinetic energy to pry apart the bonds of the molecules of whatever it is you want to cut. What everyone is thinking about when they think monomolecular blades can cut through anything is Pressure = Force/area. Since the area is virtually zero, they think that as the limit of the area approaches zero, the pressure approaches infinity. But they forget that the Force is also approaching zero because of the near masslessness. I also agree with Agemegos that technological items (as well as magic in fantasy settings) must be thought through in terms of its ramifications. As the saying goes, "inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". even if you say that this is high technology and akin to magic, and therefore is inscrutable to logic, common sense, or our current understanding of reality, you have to think about how this technology can impact everything else. A monomolecular sword just breaks down too many things for me, and is beyond my suspension of disbelief.

Re: Finally figured out what I hate about Star Wars in RPGs I apologize for the thread hijacking but.... I don't think damage should be complementary to the hit roll, I think it should be dependant on it (and theoretically, you could do it vice versa...how much damage you inflicted tells you how well and where you hit). If you think of the to-hit resolution and damage determination as complementary events, they are in effect independent from each other or rather, they simultaneously effect one another. However, damage should be a result of how squarely you hit something, where you hit something, and the inherent ability of the weapon to change the state of the object. In other words, damage is a function of how well you hit, and the inverse is true as well too (how well you hit is a function of how much damage you did). As long as you know one, you can determine the other since the inherent damage of the weapon is a constant. Therefore a lightsaber is really no different from any other weapon in how damage is determined. It just seems like lightsabers have only 3 outcomes because the inherent capability of the lightsaber to change the state of an object is extreme. But a graze is a graze, whether its getting nicked by a cannonball or by a .22 (course, a nick in the eyeball could still be pretty damn painful, which is why location is important too).

Re: Finally figured out what I hate about Star Wars in RPGs I have to agree that there aren't only 3 possibilities. I haven't seen Sith yet, but in Phantom Menace, Dooku scars Obi-Wan on the legs and arm before a last second block from Anakin saves Obi-Wan from the Coup de Grace. However, this does highlight one of the things I'm grappling with in my own game design. I've always felt that damage should be based on two factors, the lethality of the weapon and how well you hit. A Lightsaber is obviously an extremely lethal weapon, but if you just get grazed by it, so what? I've always hated the fact that it's possible in most game systems to just barely hit and then do the maximum amount of damage possible, or conversely, to roll extremely well to hit (but not quite a critical hit) and then roll almost all 1's for damage. Other than implementing some funky house rules, I don't think there's an elegant way to do this in the regular Hero rules though.

Re: Player vs. Character I believe that the root of this problem is that unlike the real world or even the dramatic world, players in a game precisely know the abilities and limitations of what they can do. Think about it, do you know how much energy you have (END) when you're running? I don't know about you, but there's been many times I've gotten a second wind or just pushed myself past the pain and discovered that my tiredness was really just a mental one and not a physical one. Or let's say you get wounded. Do you really know that that cut to your arm only took off 20% of your BODY? Let's say you are chasing a crook across the rooftop. You come across a gap. Now in the game world, the average GM will give you the distance, and you can reliably predict if you can jump it or not. But how would you honestly know what the distance is? And even if the gap is only 10 feet, and you've been able to jump 12 before, what makes you think you can jump 10 feet safely this time? Because of this exact and intimate knowledge of a character's abilities and limitations, players do things which go against what dramatic characters or real life people would do. The Hero game system is at its heart not a Simulationist design, but a gamist design. It tries to calculate all the angles in order to maximize the potential of the character. However, this isn't very realistic. A truly simulationist game design would indeed have a detailed and non-arbitrary rules system to resolve actions, but it would not allow 100% information retrieval for the players or for that matter even the characters themselves. The best way to reduce some of this is to do what programmers do....Information Hiding. Encapsulate as much data as needed and hide it from the end user since they shouldn't be mucking around with it anyways. Instead of giving the players quantifiable numbers for their stats and powers, giving them qualifiers instead. For example, use adjectives to describe their characteristics or power levels. Instead of telling a character that they just took 8 BODY and 35 STUN, tell them that that last hit was excruciating, and hurt about as bad as that time they had a rib puncture their lung. In the absence of absolute information, the players will have to rely on instinct and pay close attention to what's going on. Moreover, they will have to start using their heads a lot more since they won't even know how much damage they are doing to their targets. Instead of playing a numbers game, they will instead start playing a personality and choosing what they want to do based on partial information. Afterall, that's what we do in the real world and what dramatic characters do as well.

Re: Hardened Defenses question I had assumed that if an attack was Indirect and AP, and you were attacking an opponent behind a Force Wall, then the attack totally ignores the Force Wall, AND the defender only gets 1/2 his non-FW defenses against the attack. The Indirect bypasses the FW, and the AP affects any other defenses. Okay, I get the picture now though. If a character is hit by an AP and Penetrating attack and the defender only has one level of Hardened defenses, he chooses which of the advantages to cancel out. If the defender had two levels of Hardened defenses, then he can cancel out both advantages.

Let's say I have an EB with the advantages Armor Piercing and Penetration. I hit an opponent who has Hardened defenses. How does the damage get applied? Does the Hardened defenses cancel both the Armor Piercing and the Penetration advantages? Does it only cancel one, and if so, which one? Instead of choosing Armor Piercing and Penetration, it might have been Indirect and Armor Piercing. Basically my question deals with how one level of Hardened defenses deals with an offense with multiple advantages.

Re: Aikido as a Damage Shield/ Abortable Attacks? First off, let me say that this is just commentary on relating the power conception with Aikido as a martial art/way of life. True aikido is supposed to be non-violent. To harm your opponent is to harm yourself. When you hear talk of a martial art like Aikido using an opponents own force against him, that's not quite true. Aikido is not about so much about the redirection of force as the redirection of intention. If one throws a punch at a master Shihan, he doesn't redirect the blow back, rather he 'absorbs' the blow so that it harms neither person. Aikido is the ultimate expression of non-violence. Morihei Ueshiba (the founder of Aikido or O-sensei) developed on the principles ai nuke (mutual preservation as opposed to ai uchi, or mutual destruction) and Katsujinken (the sword that saves life as opposed to Satsujinken, the sword that takes life). Perhaps using Tai Chi or Bagua might be better basis as the foundation of this mystic master if you wish him to do damage. In Tai Chi it is said, "When pulled push, when pushed pull". There is no philosophical reservation in Tai Chi to harm an opponent if necessary. But since he's supposed to be a pacifist, I don't think this would be the right approach either. Perhaps a better way to model this might be a form of intangibility only versus physical attacks that requires a skill activation roll. This way, no one can harm him, and he's not harming anyone else either. However, using this method, you can't trap, throw, or disarm anyone either. Perhaps an entanglement damage shield could be used to simulate traps and throws. I'd also suggest linking a Transfer STR to Entangle to represent that the more you struggle, the more immobilized you become (Aborption might work too) . I'd also look at some mental powers too. When you read about opponents who've encountered master martial artists, one of the things they often mention is a sort of unbearable heaviness as if it was almost impossible for them to attack. Almost as if they were frozen in trying to attack, because it was like trying to attack the universe. Morihei Ueshiba, if only half of the 'powers' attributed to him are real would have made him a superhero. What powers did he display? 1. Damage Resistance- Sadaharu Oh, Japan's Babe Ruth once swung a baseball bat at a bokken (a wooden sword) that Ueshiba held upright with his hand. Ueshiba was in his 70's, and Sadaharu was in his prime. When Sadaharu said he hit the bokken, it felt like he hit a 200 yr old oak tree. He said he didn't even make it vibrate. 2. Missle Reflection/Teleportation- Ueshiba once made a bet that he could dodge a bullet. Before witnesses, one second he was at the end of a firing range, and the next he was behind the shooter tapping his shoulder. Other instances students said that one minute Ueshiba would be in one place, and a split second later, would be somewhere else. 3. Danger Sense- He couldn't be surprised. Like Inspector Clouseau telling Kato to ambush him at any time, Ueshiba ordered his Uchi Desshi (live in students) to do the same. They tried ambushing him in his sleep, or while he was eating, but they never surprised him. 4. Precognition- Ueshiba said that when he fought in Manchuria in the early 1900's, he could actually see bullets as rays of lights. He was therefore able to dodge bullets by simply avoiding touching the lights 5. Mind Control/Presence Attack- Some masters tried to test Ueshiba's skill, and they said they found it impossible to even attempt to strike him. They just stood there transfixed, unable to even bring themselves to try to hit him.