TL Tedium

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:02:03 GMT, David Johnston
<david DeleteThis @block.net> wrote:
>
>Mean but fair. There's always a penality for inadequate equipment.
>It's like picking a lock with a hatpin.

Sometimes, even with all the splended options
available, the hatpin might be all you required.

I take your point though.
would you also apply the penalty if the equipment
was superior, ie: a TL higher ?


thanks,
mik

mike wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:31:24 GMT, "Michael W.
> Ryder" <_mwryder RemoveThis @worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> <<#>>
>> And how easy would it be for you to use a black powder revolver, or a
>> matchlock pistol?
> At the same difficulty as it would if i were TL 3,
> 6 2 or 8 or any other.
>

The point was that some of the skill is knowing how to load the weapon,
clean and repair it, not just point and fire. A person familiar with a
TL7 pistol is going to have some problems using a matchlock pistol
beyond just figuring out it's ballistics. True, this person could
probably figure out how to load and prime it, and maybe figure out the
right length of the match but it is going to be much slower than someone
with skill in the pistols. I don't think the cost to gain skill in the
matchlock is right but there is no way to have partial skill points.


>> Without some "training" you are going to have
>> problems loading the weapons, especially if you don't want to jam the
>> barrel with an underpowered charge or blow up the gun with an overcharge
>> or chain fire in the case of a revolver.
> I would accept a higher malf rate due to
> inexperience, but if I can shoot well normally I’d
> expect to still hit the target relatively well.
> And with a higher tech weapon, admire it's
> improved accuracy.
>
> Perhaps the key here is 'first time', and maybe
> this should really be 'even though this is at my
> tech level, it's the first time I have seen one of
> these so I take an unfamiliarity penalty"
>
>> Or for another example, have you ever used a slide rule?
> Yes, very briefly.
>> Do you think you could figure one out without help?
> Some of it, but i would never have had the
> incentive to spend much time on it. I understand
> they are quite a tool.
>
>> I had one that had a large
>> number of different functions and the main multiplication function was
>> different from most other slide rules. I never got too far with it as
>> calculators were just becoming affordable, i.e. under $800.
>
> Would you say that an abucus was a low TL device?
>
> With the slide rule to electronic calculator,
> should we have treated this as a drop in TL?
>
>> I don't agree with the time it takes to learn any "simpler" device but
>> they had to make a generic rule to prevent the lawyering that would take
>> place if they tried to say that firearms take x time per TL difference
>> and machining takes y time, etc.
>>
>>> Either way it should not prevent them from using
>>> the higher TL without the understanding (point 1
>>> again).
>>>
>> I think this could be a problem if you took a TL 6 machinist and gave
>> him a TL7+ computer controlled milling machine. He may know what he
>> wants to do but programming the machine will be beyond his abilities.
>
> So you grant a TL 7 machinist a computer use skill
> automaticaly ? is that for the same point cost or
> slightly higher?
>

I don't think they have any real skill in computer programming and they
probably lose some of the skill of a TL 6 machinist so it ends up being
a wash. The TL 7 machinist is going to be better with his equipment
than trying to use old TL 6 or 7 equipment without all the fancy laser
measuring and other features he relies on.


> And, Chips with everything might not be a good
> idea...

It is for the technicians I used to be able to do my own car
repairs, now I have to take it to the dealer for things like brake
repairs because they are the only ones with the equipment to reset the
idiot lights. And forget about timing lights and all the rest.


> <<#>>
> thanks,
> Mik

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:00:46 +0000, mike
<mikespam DeleteThis @invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:02:03 GMT, David Johnston
><david DeleteThis @block.net> wrote:
>>
>>Mean but fair. There's always a penality for inadequate equipment.
>>It's like picking a lock with a hatpin.
>
>Sometimes, even with all the splended options
>available, the hatpin might be all you required.

And that situations is "It's a really easy lock" so you get a big
bonus to pick it.

>
>I take your point though.
>would you also apply the penalty if the equipment
>was superior, ie: a TL higher ?

Ordinarily a TL 7 physician faced with a TL 8 medical facility would
use the stuff he recognised and ignore the stuff he didn't. It
probably wouldn't be superior for his purposes unless he had a TL 8
assistant to help him but it wouldn't be worse.

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:16:48 GMT, David Johnston <david.TakeThisOut@block.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:00:46 +0000, mike
><mikespam.TakeThisOut@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:02:03 GMT, David Johnston
>><david.TakeThisOut@block.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Mean but fair. There's always a penality for inadequate equipment.
>>>It's like picking a lock with a hatpin.
>>
>>Sometimes, even with all the splended options
>>available, the hatpin might be all you required.
>
>And that situations is "It's a really easy lock" so you get a big
>bonus to pick it.
>
>>
>>I take your point though.
>>would you also apply the penalty if the equipment
>>was superior, ie: a TL higher ?
>
>Ordinarily a TL 7 physician faced with a TL 8 medical facility would
>use the stuff he recognised and ignore the stuff he didn't. It
>probably wouldn't be superior for his purposes unless he had a TL 8
>assistant to help him but it wouldn't be worse.

It isn't clear that he'd have access to half of the items that he'd
normally expect to have (and other items that have the same basic
function might be unfamiliar enough in form that he'd hesitate before
using them). Once he's bought off the skill, he would have
familiarized himself with the various implements and procedures to a
point where he could do as well with the TL 7 items as he used to be
able to with the TL 6 stuff.
--

Kyle Wilson
email: kylewilson.TakeThisOut@wilson.mv.com

mike <mikespam.DeleteThis@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

> Is [Skill: hammer throwing] TL 8 really different from [Skill:
> hammer throwing] TL 7 ?

No, which is why they're not separate skills in GURPS. The only skills
that must be learned separately for separate tech levels are those
listed as "Foo/TL".

--
\ "As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we |
`\ should be glad to serve others by any invention of ours; and |
_o__) this we should do freely and generously." —Benjamin Franklin |
Ben Finney

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 07:37:12 +1100, Ben Finney
<bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:

>mike <mikespam.TakeThisOut@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Is [Skill: hammer throwing] TL 8 really different from [Skill:
>> hammer throwing] TL 7 ?
>
>No, which is why they're not separate skills in GURPS. The only skills
>that must be learned separately for separate tech levels are those
>listed as “Foo/TL”.

Yeah, well i was meaning "Foo" when i put "hammer
throwing", perhaps i should've said.
Sorry for not being clear.

mike <mikespam RemoveThis @invariant.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

> Why should a character have to take a set of otherwise identical
> skills, in order to work without penalty in various enviroments?

This seems to be near the core of your misunderstanding. GURPS TL
doesn't represent "different environments"; it represents changes in
the underlying technology, and hence the techniques used to employ
that technology.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the difference between,
say, a TL7 medical skill and a TL8 medical skill is just a matter of
"doing it better" somehow. It's rather that the *entire field* is
different between tech levels, with enormous ramifications for the
technology, equipment, materials, and the very procedures used.

Technology doesn't just churn forward monotonically; it *surges* at
different times and in different fields, with massive broad innovation
at times and plateaus of stagnation at other times. GURPS abstracts
this into tech levels for the purposes of making a playable game that
still represents the astonishing fundamental differences in technology
within the same field at different levels.

If you want to play a game where technology isn't significantly
different in different times, feel free to ignore TL-based skill
differences; but don't imagine that you're somehow getting closer to
reality if you do that.

--
\ Rommel: "Don't move, or I'll turn the key on this can of Spam!" |
`\ —The Goon Show, _Rommel's Treasure_ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

On Dec 1, 5:13 pm, Charlton Wilbur <cwil....TakeThisOut@chromatico.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "m" == mike  <mikes....TakeThisOut@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>     m> I take your point though.  would you also apply the penalty if
>     m> the equipment was superior, ie: a TL higher ?
>
> How would someone accustomed to pencil and slide rule handle an Apple II
> the first time he or she saw it?  That's TL6 to TL7, and the equipment
> is superior.

What if, instead of a computer, it was a calculator?

Brandon

On Dec 1, 5:07 pm, "Michael W. Ryder" <_mwry....RemoveThis@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> mike wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:31:24 GMT, "Michael W.
> > Ryder" <_mwry....RemoveThis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > <<#>>
> >> And how easy would it be for you to use a black powder revolver, or a
> >> matchlock pistol?
> > At the same difficulty as it would if i were TL 3,
> > 6 2 or 8 or any other.
>
> The point was that some of the skill is knowing how to load the weapon,
> clean and repair it, not just point and fire.  A person familiar with a
> TL7 pistol is going to have some problems using a matchlock pistol
> beyond just figuring out it's ballistics.

What about the difference between using a 1873 Colt Peacemaker and a
1990 Colt Anaconda (chambered for .45 Colt)? The TL7 gun is arguably
the easier weapon to load and clean, but the guy from 1873 has a
bigger penalty to use it than the 1990 guy has to use the Peacemaker.

Btandon

mike <mikespam.RemoveThis@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

> On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 07:37:12 +1100, Ben Finney
> <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>
> >mike <mikespam.RemoveThis@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> >> Is [Skill: hammer throwing] TL 8 really different from [Skill:
> >> hammer throwing] TL 7 ?
> >
> >No, which is why they're not separate skills in GURPS. The only
> >skills that must be learned separately for separate tech levels are
> >those listed as "Foo/TL".
>
> Yeah, well i was meaning "Foo" when i put "hammer throwing", perhaps
> i should've said.

Which is a big part of my point: The difference between a skill listed
in the rules as "Foo" and a skill listed in the rules as "Foo/TL"
is that the former doesn't need a separate skill per TL, the latter
one does.

So, if you want to throw a hammer, you'll be using a specialisation of
"Thrown Weapon†" (probably "Thrown Weapon (Axe/Mace)") and you
*don't* specialise that by TL. If you pick up a hammer from a
different TL and attempt to throw it, the fact that it's from a
different TL doesn't impose a penalty on that skill.

If, on the other hand, you pick up a gun from a different TL and
attempt to do anything that is covered by the skill that's listed as
"Guns/TL†", then yes, you *are* penalised for the fact that not
only are you untrained in use of this gun, but you're insufficiently
familiar with the entire level of technology that produced the gun.
Since that matters for using guns, the skill specifies in its title
that each tech level of Guns use must use separate skills.

In short: For some skills, TL matters enough that the skills are
separated by TL. For other skills, it doesn't matter. The rules make
it clear which is which.

--
\ "We should strive to do things in [Gandhi's] spirit… not to use |
`\ violence in fighting for our cause, but by non-participation in |
_o__) what we believe is evil." —Albert Einstein |
Ben Finney

>>>>> "c" == copeab@yahoo com <copeab RemoveThis @yahoo.com> writes:

c> On Dec 1, 5:13 pm, Charlton Wilbur <cwil... RemoveThis @chromatico.net> wrote:

>> How would someone accustomed to pencil and slide rule handle an
>> Apple II the first time he or she saw it? That's TL6 to TL7, and
>> the equipment is superior.

c> What if, instead of a computer, it was a calculator?

Sure! Hand 'em an HP-35 (introduced 1972), and see how quickly they
figure it out.

For that matter, hand most people *today* an HP-35, and see how quickly
they figure it out.

Charlton


--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur RemoveThis @chromatico.net

On Dec 2, 11:58 am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil....RemoveThis@chromatico.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "c" == copeab@yahoo com <cop....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>     c> On Dec 1, 5:13 pm, Charlton Wilbur <cwil....RemoveThis@chromatico.net> wrote:
>
>     >> How would someone accustomed to pencil and slide rule handle an
>     >> Apple II the first time he or she saw it? That's TL6 to TL7, and
>     >> the equipment is superior.
>
>     c> What if, instead of a computer, it was a calculator?
>
> Sure!  Hand 'em an HP-35 (introduced 1972), and see how quickly they
> figure it out.


A simple four-function solar powered calculator, the kind that you can
buy in a grocery store check-out line for $1, would help someone at
TL6 perform mathematics greatly and requires minimal training.

I have a solar powered scientific calculator (non graphing) that a TL6
mathmetician should be able to understand how to use by only reading
the fold-out instructions.

Brandon

Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>> "c" == copeab@yahoo com <copeab.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> c> On Dec 1, 5:13 pm, Charlton Wilbur <cwil....TakeThisOut@chromatico.net> wrote:
>
> >> How would someone accustomed to pencil and slide rule handle an
> >> Apple II the first time he or she saw it? That's TL6 to TL7, and
> >> the equipment is superior.
>
> c> What if, instead of a computer, it was a calculator?
>
> Sure! Hand 'em an HP-35 (introduced 1972), and see how quickly they
> figure it out.

Actually the first pocket calculator was a big seller exactly because
the slide rule users recognized immediately that it gave them exactly
what they needed. I'm willing to believe a lot of subtleties would take
a while to learn, but the stuff that directly replaced slide rules,
they'd figure out fast.