TL Tedium

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:55:19 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
<_mwryder.DeleteThis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

<<#>>
>Unfortunately I missed the fact that Armoury is a TL skill but Pistol is
>not. I can see a problem with someone repairing a pistol from a
>different TL if parts and manuals are not available, but the same can be
>said about repairing a current Russian pistol if you can't find the
>parts or a manual in English. I am not sure if I would allow a TL 8
>gunfighter to operate a TL 4 (?) matchlock pistol without any penalty
>though, just like the TL 4 soldier would probably have a hard time using
>a TL 8 pistol. It should only take a couple of hours of practice to get
>rid of the penalty though.

It seems that you have the same thoughts as me on this: an
unfamilliarity penalty, but not a whole new skill is
justified ?

>>> The other problem is thinking that a higher TL is just an improved
>>> version of the lower. In some fields this is true, but as most people
>>> can only learn so much a lot of the older knowledge is never learned. A
>>> modern doctor would have a hard time finding reliable drugs in the
>>> 1600's.
>>
>> This is a point many have made, and yes, in the main I’d
>> possibly/probably agree. But they might also possess vital
>> knowledge that would conflict with local diagnosis and
>> treatment -and be right-. that's where i think the benefit
>> of their TL being higher could be.
>>
>Or they could diagnose something like AIDS for a person with some
>disease that has been eliminated long before the doctor's text books
>were written. They are going to run into diseases and injuries that
>were not known when they were training. And they could try to save
>someone with a treatment that will not work in that time. For example a
>surgeon could try to save a person's leg instead of amputating and have
>the patient die of shock or gangrene because the drugs and supplies the
>doctor unconsciously counted on are not there.

Wouldn't that only be the result of a failed roll(s)?
You've a good point about the unconsciously counted on
resorces, habbit does trip people up a lot.

>>> A lot of herbal remedies may be available that duplicate the
>>> drugs he is familiar with but he doesn't know about them or how to use
>>> them.
I'd have this as a skill that the local TL teach, that is
unrequired at the characters home TL.

>>>His knowledge of medicine is going to make it easier to find this
>>> information than someone without his training but he is not going to be
>>> as effective for a time. This is where the penalty comes into play. He
>>> isn't prevented from aiding people, he just won't always be as good as
>>> he was in old clinic until he has gone through a type of internship in
>>> the new surroundings.

Worth re-learning the skill or skills at the new TL?
Character points.
Or just adapting to the change? Time dependent penalty.

thanks,
mike

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:26:48 GMT, David Johnston
<david.TakeThisOut@block.net> wrote:

>>mike <mikespam.TakeThisOut@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>This 'discard' of the previous TL, it looks like you see it
>>as the baby has learnt to walk and will forget how to crawl.
>>I see it more like the deep foundations of an important
>>building, every brick is required.
>
>Yeah, but it isn't true. Expertise in VCR repair is not a necessary
>prerequisite for equal expertise in DVD player repair. Blacksmiths do
>not know how to flintknap at all well. A gunsmith could make a sword,
>but he couldn't do it as well as he makes guns, particularly not if he
>was limited to TL 3 tools and materials. A modern driver is going to
>find that Model Ts pose unexpected challenges.

Just to clear this point a little, as it looks like some
have the wrong impression: It's not unfamilliarity penalties
i'm bothered by, I would possibly apply them in your example
above VCR DVD repair.
And also, I've been convinced (from this thread) that they
should be applied with a character using a non-native TL.
But these are temporary.
What i haven't been convinced with is the requirement to
specialise for each TL, If it's realy that different it
should be a totaly unrelated skill. If it isn't so different
it shouldn't cost cp. The simple fact that they default to
each other means they are related skills.

It's obviously my interpretation of technology that is the
problem here. To me it's something that builds upon itself
over time, the facts don't change, but our understanding
may.

thanks,
mik

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:24:22 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
<bcd RemoveThis @pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:

>On 2008-12-18, mike <mikespam RemoveThis @invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I was thinking of the higher TL making a lower TL device
>> (such as a gun) using its better knowledge (like ballistics
>> & explosives) and materials (for a stronger, lighter and
>> more durable gun) to end up with an item that simply cannot
>> be made at the lower TL, but should be recognised and could
>> be used at that lower level.
>
>It is certainly possible for a TL8 gunsmith to make a superior TL8
>revolver that can be used without penalty by TL5 shooters. This would
>just be a variation of item quality in that he builds in up to +3 to
>offset TL penalties.
>
>But he does need to consciously do this and put in the extra effort
>necessary to customize the gun to fit TL5 shooters as well as TL8
>ones. This isn't necessarily easy.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand that.
Why not just make a TL5 gun at a quality TL5 cannot reach?
I think i must be misreading you.

>> You seem to have : New TL <> Old TL
>> Which doesn't make sense to me.
>> I have : New TL = Old TL +1
>
>If this were the case then reciprocating piston steam engines would
>still be a mainstay of our industry, muzzle-loaded smoothbore rifles
>would still be at the basis of our infantry and leeches would still be
>at the very foundation of modern medicine. We would have super-
>efficient miniaturized steam engines, fantastically powerful and
>accurate smoothbores and leeches that could cure cancer - all of which
>might be nice I suppose.

Funny, not the way i interpret TL = Old TL +1.
Obviously i don't see it the way you describe above, since
It is supposed to match our world.
So, why is it not so? Because we built on the prior
technology. We still do use piston engines but now we use
petrol. To form the gas to drive them from this liquid gives
us a boost water/steam will never match.
But the legacy is there.
Why not muzzle load? Because now we have combined the
propellant and round (seems sensible) in one case, and it
would be somewhat harder to do so
Rounds that spin were discovered to be more stable easier to
aim so goodbye smoothbore, again built in/on the older tech.
Most of the properties of the leeches were mythical as was
most of that 'medicine' and was replaced with things known
to actually work.

>We would have super-
>efficient miniaturized steam engines,

If we hadn't had access to Oil, i guess the steam engine
could've been pushed further.
Intuition suggests that it could never compete though.

>fantastically powerful and accurate smoothbores and
>leeches that could cure cancer - all of which
>might be nice I suppose.
>This is not the case however. Instead we use entirely different
>technologies and find the above ones to be largely alien.

For one very good reason. Your variant above is against the
laws of physics, that's not a problem in a game context,
granted.
But all you have done above is keep things the same.
It's not a TL increase.
That is not TL = Old TL +1. Since that would build on the
tech existing with the newer knowledge (the +1).

Now, New TL <> Old TL, which is what i think you see it as,
has little to no relationship with the lower TLs.
Yet this implies that if a race has a power that gives them
the equivalent of TL3 automatically (as a natural ability),
that they could go to TL4 without ever touching any lower
level. I don't see if i could ever permit that. (As GM).

Or even worse, that no TL is related to any other, and so
jumps between them (skipping TLs) would be possible.

thanks,
mike

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:16:32 +1100, Ben Finney
<bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:

>mike <mikespam RemoveThis @invariant.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>> (please note, i borrow the Gurps book in brief bursts.)
>
>In that case, the best advice I can offer is: Please become thoroughly
>familiar with the rules as written (*not* just from summaries in
>online forums) before deciding how well they do what they claim to do.

Noted. Thank you for your help.
Still battling this TL concept.
I'm quite happy that you've justified some form of penalty
due to the uniqueness of the situation, just not convinced
that it should cost character points to adjust to it.

>Especially, postpone any plans for *changing* the rules until you
>understand them as they *are*.

Well... the original suggestion was only submitted as a way
to help explain my viewpoint.
Was at the middle of the thread.
Just putting forwards what made sense to me, and why, and
going through the answers was helpfull.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:17:08 +0000, mike
<mikespam.TakeThisOut@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:26:48 GMT, David Johnston
><david.TakeThisOut@block.net> wrote:
>
>>>mike <mikespam.TakeThisOut@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>This 'discard' of the previous TL, it looks like you see it
>>>as the baby has learnt to walk and will forget how to crawl.
>>>I see it more like the deep foundations of an important
>>>building, every brick is required.
>>
>>Yeah, but it isn't true. Expertise in VCR repair is not a necessary
>>prerequisite for equal expertise in DVD player repair. Blacksmiths do
>>not know how to flintknap at all well. A gunsmith could make a sword,
>>but he couldn't do it as well as he makes guns, particularly not if he
>>was limited to TL 3 tools and materials. A modern driver is going to
>>find that Model Ts pose unexpected challenges.
>
>Just to clear this point a little, as it looks like some
>have the wrong impression: It's not unfamilliarity penalties
>i'm bothered by, I would possibly apply them in your example
>above VCR DVD repair.
>And also, I've been convinced (from this thread) that they
>should be applied with a character using a non-native TL.
>But these are temporary.
>What i haven't been convinced with is the requirement to
>specialise for each TL, If it's realy that different it
>should be a totaly unrelated skill.

But they are related skills.

If it isn't so different
>it shouldn't cost cp.

But they would require training to learn. Physician and Surgery are
related skills but surgeons still need specific training in surgery to
be good at it.

On 2008-12-25, mike <mikespam.TakeThisOut@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:24:22 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
><bcd.TakeThisOut@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-18, mike <mikespam.TakeThisOut@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>It is certainly possible for a TL8 gunsmith to make a superior TL8
>>revolver that can be used without penalty by TL5 shooters. This would
>>just be a variation of item quality in that he builds in up to +3 to
>>offset TL penalties.
>>
>>But he does need to consciously do this and put in the extra effort
>>necessary to customize the gun to fit TL5 shooters as well as TL8
>>ones. This isn't necessarily easy.
>
> I'm sorry, I just don't understand that.
> Why not just make a TL5 gun at a quality TL5 cannot reach?
> I think i must be misreading you.

Making high-quality items is more difficult than making average items,
which is what I am saying above. This is reflected in their price and,
presumably, in a suitable difficulty modifier when crafting them.

>>If this were the case then reciprocating piston steam engines would
>>still be a mainstay of our industry, muzzle-loaded smoothbore rifles
>>would still be at the basis of our infantry and leeches would still be
>>at the very foundation of modern medicine. We would have super-
>>efficient miniaturized steam engines, fantastically powerful and
>>accurate smoothbores and leeches that could cure cancer - all of which
>>might be nice I suppose.
>
> Funny, not the way i interpret TL = Old TL +1.
> Obviously i don't see it the way you describe above, since
> It is supposed to match our world.
> So, why is it not so? Because we built on the prior
> technology. We still do use piston engines but now we use
> petrol. To form the gas to drive them from this liquid gives
> us a boost water/steam will never match.
> But the legacy is there.

Legacy, sure. Equivalence, no. Building a combustion engine and
building a steam engine are two very different types of project and
being trained in one does not give equivalent expertise in the other.
TL8 schools and universities typically do not teach steam engine
production, repair or maintenance beyond the most basic concepts.

> Why not muzzle load? Because now we have combined the
> propellant and round (seems sensible) in one case, and it
> would be somewhat harder to do so
> Rounds that spin were discovered to be more stable easier to
> aim so goodbye smoothbore, again built in/on the older tech.
> Most of the properties of the leeches were mythical as was
> most of that 'medicine' and was replaced with things known
> to actually work.

You have explained why it is that our tech is very different from the
techs of previous eras - but done nothing to explain why or how they
are the same, which is basically the position you have taken.

>>We would have super-
>>efficient miniaturized steam engines,
>
> If we hadn't had access to Oil, i guess the steam engine
> could've been pushed further.

We still use massive quantities of coal, we're just not shoving it
into steam engines anymore because they were a stupid sort of design.
An entirely different type of design, the steam turbine, has replaced
them.

>>fantastically powerful and accurate smoothbores and
>>leeches that could cure cancer - all of which
>>might be nice I suppose.
>>This is not the case however. Instead we use entirely different
>>technologies and find the above ones to be largely alien.
>
> For one very good reason. Your variant above is against the
> laws of physics, that's not a problem in a game context,
> granted.
> But all you have done above is keep things the same.
> It's not a TL increase.
> That is not TL = Old TL +1. Since that would build on the
> tech existing with the newer knowledge (the +1).

A steam engine that could power the LHC, a smoothbore gun that could
fire accurately out to 3km or a leech that could cure cancer most
definately /would/ warrant a different TL than the ones we know from
history. They would have changed over time much as cars, trains and
airplanes have through the TLs of real history.

> Now, New TL <> Old TL, which is what i think you see it as,
> has little to no relationship with the lower TLs.

There is a relationship between the TLs, as represented by the rules
for defaulting skills between them. A modern engineer will have heard
of steam engines and be familiar with the basic concepts and so would
be able to build one - although it might not be very efficient - given
a fair bit of time to work out the various details.

> Yet this implies that if a race has a power that gives them
> the equivalent of TL3 automatically (as a natural ability),
> that they could go to TL4 without ever touching any lower
> level. I don't see if i could ever permit that. (As GM).

I am not sure what you are saying here. If you are picturing a race
that somehow has TL3 but lacks TL0-TL2 then you will need to decide
what happens to technological advances that stay unchanged through the
TLs. Open flame, for example, would be available at a very early TL -
would this technology be available to your "TL3 only" race?

> Or even worse, that no TL is related to any other, and so
> jumps between them (skipping TLs) would be possible.

They are not jumps so much as they are transitions. Other than that I
am not sure what you are trying to say. Uplift scenarios are certainly
an interesting sort of campaign setting, how uplift happens exactly is
left as an exercise for the GM I suppose.

Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.TakeThisOut@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> On 2008-12-25, mike <mikespam RemoveThis @invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:24:22 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
>> <bcd RemoveThis @pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-12-18, mike <mikespam RemoveThis @invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>> It is certainly possible for a TL8 gunsmith to make a superior TL8
>>> revolver that can be used without penalty by TL5 shooters. This would
>>> just be a variation of item quality in that he builds in up to +3 to
>>> offset TL penalties.
>>>
>>> But he does need to consciously do this and put in the extra effort
>>> necessary to customize the gun to fit TL5 shooters as well as TL8
>>> ones. This isn't necessarily easy.
>> I'm sorry, I just don't understand that.
>> Why not just make a TL5 gun at a quality TL5 cannot reach?
>> I think i must be misreading you.
>
> Making high-quality items is more difficult than making average items,
> which is what I am saying above. This is reflected in their price and,
> presumably, in a suitable difficulty modifier when crafting them.
>

I don't think there is any difference between a 1860's Colt revolver and
a replica made today other than the quality of the materials and
finish. They both work identically. I think a big problem with making
something like pistols TL dependent is that after only a couple of tech
levels the design quit changing. I don't think there has been any real
changes in pistols since Browning in TL5 (?). I can see making
Pistols/Matchlock and Wheelock a different skill from Pistols/Revolvers
and Automatics, but not a different skill for all pistols at TL4, TL5, etc.


>>> If this were the case then reciprocating piston steam engines would
>>> still be a mainstay of our industry, muzzle-loaded smoothbore rifles
>>> would still be at the basis of our infantry and leeches would still be
>>> at the very foundation of modern medicine. We would have super-
>>> efficient miniaturized steam engines, fantastically powerful and
>>> accurate smoothbores and leeches that could cure cancer - all of which
>>> might be nice I suppose.
>> Funny, not the way i interpret TL = Old TL +1.
>> Obviously i don't see it the way you describe above, since
>> It is supposed to match our world.
>> So, why is it not so? Because we built on the prior
>> technology. We still do use piston engines but now we use
>> petrol. To form the gas to drive them from this liquid gives
>> us a boost water/steam will never match.
>> But the legacy is there.
>
> Legacy, sure. Equivalence, no. Building a combustion engine and
> building a steam engine are two very different types of project and
> being trained in one does not give equivalent expertise in the other.
> TL8 schools and universities typically do not teach steam engine
> production, repair or maintenance beyond the most basic concepts.
>
>> Why not muzzle load? Because now we have combined the
>> propellant and round (seems sensible) in one case, and it
>> would be somewhat harder to do so
>> Rounds that spin were discovered to be more stable easier to
>> aim so goodbye smoothbore, again built in/on the older tech.
>> Most of the properties of the leeches were mythical as was
>> most of that 'medicine' and was replaced with things known
>> to actually work.
>
> You have explained why it is that our tech is very different from the
> techs of previous eras - but done nothing to explain why or how they
> are the same, which is basically the position you have taken.
>
>>> We would have super-
>>> efficient miniaturized steam engines,
>> If we hadn't had access to Oil, i guess the steam engine
>> could've been pushed further.
>
> We still use massive quantities of coal, we're just not shoving it
> into steam engines anymore because they were a stupid sort of design.
> An entirely different type of design, the steam turbine, has replaced
> them.
>

I don't think the design was the problem, but making the turbines at
earlier tech levels. Just because a civilization can design a product
does not mean they can make it.

>>> fantastically powerful and accurate smoothbores and
>>> leeches that could cure cancer - all of which
>>> might be nice I suppose.
>>> This is not the case however. Instead we use entirely different
>>> technologies and find the above ones to be largely alien.
>> For one very good reason. Your variant above is against the
>> laws of physics, that's not a problem in a game context,
>> granted.
>> But all you have done above is keep things the same.
>> It's not a TL increase.
>> That is not TL = Old TL +1. Since that would build on the
>> tech existing with the newer knowledge (the +1).
>
> A steam engine that could power the LHC, a smoothbore gun that could
> fire accurately out to 3km or a leech that could cure cancer most
> definately /would/ warrant a different TL than the ones we know from
> history. They would have changed over time much as cars, trains and
> airplanes have through the TLs of real history.
>
The German 88 of WWII was a smooth bore for the last couple of feet of
the bore as removing the rifling marks on the shell made them more
aerodynamic. A lot of modern rifles have used a slightly oval bore
instead of rifling for the same reason.

>> Now, New TL <> Old TL, which is what i think you see it as,
>> has little to no relationship with the lower TLs.
>
> There is a relationship between the TLs, as represented by the rules
> for defaulting skills between them. A modern engineer will have heard
> of steam engines and be familiar with the basic concepts and so would
> be able to build one - although it might not be very efficient - given
> a fair bit of time to work out the various details.
>
>> Yet this implies that if a race has a power that gives them
>> the equivalent of TL3 automatically (as a natural ability),
>> that they could go to TL4 without ever touching any lower
>> level. I don't see if i could ever permit that. (As GM).
>
> I am not sure what you are saying here. If you are picturing a race
> that somehow has TL3 but lacks TL0-TL2 then you will need to decide
> what happens to technological advances that stay unchanged through the
> TLs. Open flame, for example, would be available at a very early TL -
> would this technology be available to your "TL3 only" race?
>
>> Or even worse, that no TL is related to any other, and so
>> jumps between them (skipping TLs) would be possible.
>
> They are not jumps so much as they are transitions. Other than that I
> am not sure what you are trying to say. Uplift scenarios are certainly
> an interesting sort of campaign setting, how uplift happens exactly is
> left as an exercise for the GM I suppose.
>
> Cheers,
> Bent D

On 2008-12-28, Michael W. Ryder <_mwryder RemoveThis @worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Bent C Dalager wrote:
>> On 2008-12-25, mike <mikespam RemoveThis @invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I don't think there is any difference between a 1860's Colt revolver and
> a replica made today other than the quality of the materials and
> finish. They both work identically.

Well, a replica is by its nature not very different from the
original. Making accurate replicas is an acquired skill and the TL8
user may be unfamiliar with the proper manner in which to operate it.

Of course, there is nothing to stop a history buff from learning
Guns/TL5 by using modern replicas of era weapons. I suspect this may
even be somewhat common.

> I think a big problem with making
> something like pistols TL dependent is that after only a couple of tech
> levels the design quit changing. I don't think there has been any real
> changes in pistols since Browning in TL5 (?).

There is a fair bit of difference between modern automatics and TL5
revolvers. The difference between modern revolvers and TL5 revolvers
is presumably smaller.

> I can see making
> Pistols/Matchlock and Wheelock a different skill from Pistols/Revolvers
> and Automatics, but not a different skill for all pistols at TL4, TL5, etc.

GURPS just lumps them all into Guns (Pistol) and leaves the TL
designations to sort out the rest. It's because of the TL designation
that a modern shooter will find a matchlock fiddly.

>> We still use massive quantities of coal, we're just not shoving it
>> into steam engines anymore because they were a stupid sort of design.
>> An entirely different type of design, the steam turbine, has replaced
>> them.
>>
>
> I don't think the design was the problem, but making the turbines at
> earlier tech levels. Just because a civilization can design a product
> does not mean they can make it.

They may have had vague ideas about rotary rather than reciprocal
motion but without the materials technology to even build a prototype
it is unreasonable to think they had any actual steam turbine designs
ready. This came gradually as steel, bearings and other material
technology improved. The net effect was to push steam engines into the
history books and out of training curriculums. Hence, modern engineers
and technicians have penalties when working with them unless specially
trained to do so.

>> A steam engine that could power the LHC, a smoothbore gun that could
>> fire accurately out to 3km or a leech that could cure cancer most
>> definately /would/ warrant a different TL than the ones we know from
>> history. They would have changed over time much as cars, trains and
>> airplanes have through the TLs of real history.
>>
> The German 88 of WWII was a smooth bore for the last couple of feet of
> the bore as removing the rifling marks on the shell made them more
> aerodynamic.

This still makes them rifled guns though. Fin-stabilized artillery
came about in a later TL as far as I am aware.

> A lot of modern rifles have used a slightly oval bore
> instead of rifling for the same reason.

Perhaps this is the modern-day descendant of TL4-5 smoothbores. I
don't know how the projetiles are stabilized in these weapons so can't
really tell.

Interestingly, GURPS has a separate skill for smoothbore long arms:
Guns (musket).

Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd RemoveThis @pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> On 2008-12-28, Michael W. Ryder <_mwryder RemoveThis @worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Bent C Dalager wrote:
>>> On 2008-12-25, mike <mikespam RemoveThis @invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> I don't think there is any difference between a 1860's Colt revolver and
>> a replica made today other than the quality of the materials and
>> finish. They both work identically.
>
> Well, a replica is by its nature not very different from the
> original. Making accurate replicas is an acquired skill and the TL8
> user may be unfamiliar with the proper manner in which to operate it.
>
> Of course, there is nothing to stop a history buff from learning
> Guns/TL5 by using modern replicas of era weapons. I suspect this may
> even be somewhat common.
>

As one of those who has used TL5 and TL7/8 pistols I can say that the
differences are insignificant. The cap and ball pistols required a
slightly different loading method and were slower to load but the
operation was identical. I did not need hundreds of hours to learn to
load the cap and ball pistols or to figure out how to clean and maintain
them.


>> I think a big problem with making
>> something like pistols TL dependent is that after only a couple of tech
>> levels the design quit changing. I don't think there has been any real
>> changes in pistols since Browning in TL5 (?).
>
> There is a fair bit of difference between modern automatics and TL5
> revolvers. The difference between modern revolvers and TL5 revolvers
> is presumably smaller.
>
What is the difference? you load them, you point them at your target,
and then you pull the trigger. This brings me back to an earlier
question, why is GURPS Lite still showing pistols and other firearms
with no TL considerations while the hard cover books do? Did SJ Games
decide that firearms shouldn't be TL based after it was too late, or
haven't they decided to update Lite since the first version?


>> I can see making
>> Pistols/Matchlock and Wheelock a different skill from Pistols/Revolvers
>> and Automatics, but not a different skill for all pistols at TL4, TL5, etc.
>
> GURPS just lumps them all into Guns (Pistol) and leaves the TL
> designations to sort out the rest. It's because of the TL designation
> that a modern shooter will find a matchlock fiddly.
>

My point is that there is a lot of difference between a firearm using a
match or flint to ignite the main charge and one using a percussion cap
or primer. Making them different skills is fine, but not saying that
because a pistol such as the Colt .45 was designed in TL5 it is totally
different than a Glock .45 designed in TL7. I don't think anyone would
say that a person who learns to shoot with the Glock should have a -2
penalty to use the Colt. Do you?


>>> We still use massive quantities of coal, we're just not shoving it
>>> into steam engines anymore because they were a stupid sort of design.
>>> An entirely different type of design, the steam turbine, has replaced
>>> them.
>>>
>> I don't think the design was the problem, but making the turbines at
>> earlier tech levels. Just because a civilization can design a product
>> does not mean they can make it.
>
> They may have had vague ideas about rotary rather than reciprocal
> motion but without the materials technology to even build a prototype
> it is unreasonable to think they had any actual steam turbine designs
> ready. This came gradually as steel, bearings and other material
> technology improved. The net effect was to push steam engines into the
> history books and out of training curriculums. Hence, modern engineers
> and technicians have penalties when working with them unless specially
> trained to do so.
>

Steam engines are still used. Reciprocating engines such as Diesels are
not as efficient at larger sizes. If you look at the power plant on a
modern ship or submarine you will see that they are steam, especially
the nuclear powered ones. An engineer from the Titanic would see more
similarities with his engines and the ones on the George Bush than
differences.

>>> A steam engine that could power the LHC, a smoothbore gun that could
>>> fire accurately out to 3km or a leech that could cure cancer most
>>> definately /would/ warrant a different TL than the ones we know from
>>> history. They would have changed over time much as cars, trains and
>>> airplanes have through the TLs of real history.
>>>
>> The German 88 of WWII was a smooth bore for the last couple of feet of
>> the bore as removing the rifling marks on the shell made them more
>> aerodynamic.
>
> This still makes them rifled guns though. Fin-stabilized artillery
> came about in a later TL as far as I am aware.
>
>> A lot of modern rifles have used a slightly oval bore
>> instead of rifling for the same reason.
>
> Perhaps this is the modern-day descendant of TL4-5 smoothbores. I
> don't know how the projetiles are stabilized in these weapons so can't
> really tell.
>
Instead of the cut grooves in rifling they use the oval bore that twists
like the rifling. Both impart spin on the projectile but the non-rifled
version creates less drag.

> Interestingly, GURPS has a separate skill for smoothbore long arms:
> Guns (musket).
>
> Cheers,
> Bent D

On 2008-12-29, Michael W. Ryder <_mwryder.TakeThisOut@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Bent C Dalager wrote:
>>
>> There is a fair bit of difference between modern automatics and TL5
>> revolvers. The difference between modern revolvers and TL5 revolvers
>> is presumably smaller.
>>
> What is the difference? you load them, you point them at your target,
> and then you pull the trigger.

GURPS also assumes that you are maintaing your own weapon, you use
Guns skill to make minor repairs, etc. A TL5 shooter may have
difficulty grasping the mechanism, leading to inferior maintenance and
therefore also performance.

> This brings me back to an earlier
> question, why is GURPS Lite still showing pistols and other firearms
> with no TL considerations while the hard cover books do? Did SJ Games
> decide that firearms shouldn't be TL based after it was too late, or
> haven't they decided to update Lite since the first version?

I do not know.

>> GURPS just lumps them all into Guns (Pistol) and leaves the TL
>> designations to sort out the rest. It's because of the TL designation
>> that a modern shooter will find a matchlock fiddly.
>>
>
> My point is that there is a lot of difference between a firearm using a
> match or flint to ignite the main charge and one using a percussion cap
> or primer. Making them different skills is fine, but not saying that
> because a pistol such as the Colt .45 was designed in TL5 it is totally
> different than a Glock .45 designed in TL7. I don't think anyone would
> say that a person who learns to shoot with the Glock should have a -2
> penalty to use the Colt. Do you?

I say what I said previously: the TL rules are very general and it is
likely trivial to find sample points at which they do not accurately
reflect reality. They may be too harsh on revolvers and too light on
heavily gizmo'd laser pistols. The description of the Guns skill tries
to address this by strongly emphasizing the need for unfamiliarity
modifiers when picking up an unfamiliar weapon that matches your
skill.

>> They may have had vague ideas about rotary rather than reciprocal
>> motion but without the materials technology to even build a prototype
>> it is unreasonable to think they had any actual steam turbine designs
>> ready. This came gradually as steel, bearings and other material
>> technology improved. The net effect was to push steam engines into the
>> history books and out of training curriculums. Hence, modern engineers
>> and technicians have penalties when working with them unless specially
>> trained to do so.
>>
>
> Steam engines are still used. Reciprocating engines such as Diesels are
> not as efficient at larger sizes.

Reciprocating steam engines aren't efficient at any size. They lose
far too much energy on breaking and accellerating the pistons.

> If you look at the power plant on a
> modern ship or submarine you will see that they are steam, especially
> the nuclear powered ones. An engineer from the Titanic would see more
> similarities with his engines and the ones on the George Bush than
> differences.

What you are talking about are steam turbines, not steam engines.
Steam turbines are very efficient.

The only similarity between a steam engine and a steam turbine is that
hot water is involved - and there's much more to steam turbine design
than just putting in a steam pipe. (And the Titanic designer would
probably even get that wrong - his tolerances would be likely to be
way off for the requirements of a nuke plant.)

Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.TakeThisOut@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> On 2008-12-29, Michael W. Ryder <_mwryder RemoveThis @worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Bent C Dalager wrote:
>>> There is a fair bit of difference between modern automatics and TL5
>>> revolvers. The difference between modern revolvers and TL5 revolvers
>>> is presumably smaller.
>>>
>> What is the difference? you load them, you point them at your target,
>> and then you pull the trigger.
>
> GURPS also assumes that you are maintaing your own weapon, you use
> Guns skill to make minor repairs, etc. A TL5 shooter may have
> difficulty grasping the mechanism, leading to inferior maintenance and
> therefore also performance.
>

Cleaning a TL5 gun is no different than cleaning a TL8 gun. I think a
real problem is that technology does not move forward in huge leaps most
of the time. In the case of firearms there were the original touch hole
design using a hot wire followed by matchlocks, flintlocks, and finally
percussion based designs. A lot of those changes occurred in in TL4 and
TL5. Since then there has been no real changes in how they work. Much
the same as swords haven't really changed since the moving from bronze
to iron. Steel allowed better quality and different designs unavailable
to earlier smiths but the basic usage did not change.


>> This brings me back to an earlier
>> question, why is GURPS Lite still showing pistols and other firearms
>> with no TL considerations while the hard cover books do? Did SJ Games
>> decide that firearms shouldn't be TL based after it was too late, or
>> haven't they decided to update Lite since the first version?
>
> I do not know.
>
>>> GURPS just lumps them all into Guns (Pistol) and leaves the TL
>>> designations to sort out the rest. It's because of the TL designation
>>> that a modern shooter will find a matchlock fiddly.
>>>
>> My point is that there is a lot of difference between a firearm using a
>> match or flint to ignite the main charge and one using a percussion cap
>> or primer. Making them different skills is fine, but not saying that
>> because a pistol such as the Colt .45 was designed in TL5 it is totally
>> different than a Glock .45 designed in TL7. I don't think anyone would
>> say that a person who learns to shoot with the Glock should have a -2
>> penalty to use the Colt. Do you?
>
> I say what I said previously: the TL rules are very general and it is
> likely trivial to find sample points at which they do not accurately
> reflect reality. They may be too harsh on revolvers and too light on
> heavily gizmo'd laser pistols. The description of the Guns skill tries
> to address this by strongly emphasizing the need for unfamiliarity
> modifiers when picking up an unfamiliar weapon that matches your
> skill.
>
This could just as easily be done with the pistols and rifle skills.
The basic usage does not change between using an M16 or a Winchester
lever action. There are differences that will take a couple of minutes
to work through but not enough that a user would suffer a -2 penalty for
the rest of their life to use one after learning the other.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:25:22 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
<bcd RemoveThis @pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:

>> This brings me back to an earlier
>> question, why is GURPS Lite still showing pistols and other firearms
>> with no TL considerations while the hard cover books do? Did SJ Games
>> decide that firearms shouldn't be TL based after it was too late, or
>> haven't they decided to update Lite since the first version?
>
>I do not know.

It's a complication that doesn't make much difference in play. Why
bother with it in Lite?

David Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:25:22 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
> <bcd DeleteThis @pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>>> This brings me back to an earlier
>>> question, why is GURPS Lite still showing pistols and other firearms
>>> with no TL considerations while the hard cover books do? Did SJ Games
>>> decide that firearms shouldn't be TL based after it was too late, or
>>> haven't they decided to update Lite since the first version?
>> I do not know.
>
> It's a complication that doesn't make much difference in play. Why
> bother with it in Lite?

Yet a bunch of other skills are marked as TL based. I thought that Lite
was supposed to be the base rules with some things removed but no
changes to the actual rules or skills. I can see this creating no end
of confusion if a GM tries to run a game at a Con using the Lite rules
and one of the players starts complaining that it is different in the
book, or vice-versa.