TL Tedium

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:35:55 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
<bcd DeleteThis @pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:

>On 2008-12-07, mike <mikespam DeleteThis @invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> All above assumes the character is using TL equipment lower
>> than they are used to. 'less smart tools'.
>> No rolls at your own TL, and you can use higher TL without
>> rolls as if it were your TL.
>
>You seem to focus on the use of high-tech tools. The tech level rules
>concern themselves with working in high-tech /fields/ more than with
>the tools used. Tools give bonuses/maluses of their own regardless of
>tech level. If a given TL8 brand of pistol is +4 to use because of
>item quality then a TL5 shooter will still be seeing a net bonus of +1
>after the TL malus.

I see.
I automatically think of a higher technology as being more
helpfull and versatile than its lower ancestor.
I guess that must be my definition of higher tech

>If your suggestion were to be adopted then this would mean that a 17th
>century gunsmith could repair TL9 laser pistols with no penalty. This
>seems unreasonable.

Err, no, it would not enable that. They could make/mend a
17th century gun without penalty. If they undestood more
about the 'new' equipment they were using (the Inteligence
rolls) they could make one faster than they ever thought
possible, for example. And perhaps end up with a more
accurate one. So they'd be happy, but compared with what
could be made at level 9 it wouldn't be an impressive gun.

If they new more about the science at TL9 and the
possiblities, i might be convinced to let them have a shot
at it. But most likely all i'd do is upgrade their native
TL.
And I'd have assumed the skill was (very) different for
energy weapons anyway!

>Cheers,
> Bent D
thanks,
mike

On 2008-12-08, mike <mikespam RemoveThis @invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I see.
> I automatically think of a higher technology as being more
> helpfull and versatile than its lower ancestor.

This isn't really the case. A higher tech level makes it /possible/ to
make tools that are more helpful and versatile than lower tech levels
(and GURPS reflects this) but it doesn't make it mandatory or
automatic to do so.

> I guess that must be my definition of higher tech

You seem to think of "higher tech level" mostly as "better stuff"
which isn't how GURPS defines tech levels. The goodness of stuff is
handled by different rules (item quality).

>>If your suggestion were to be adopted then this would mean that a 17th
>>century gunsmith could repair TL9 laser pistols with no penalty. This
>>seems unreasonable.
>
> Err, no, it would not enable that.

It would in GURPS, which is what we are discussing.

> They could make/mend a
> 17th century gun without penalty. If they undestood more
> about the 'new' equipment they were using (the Inteligence
> rolls)

That an Armourer works in a higher TL than his own doesn't mean that
he is using high-TL tools for low-TL tasks (e.g. a 17th century
armourer using laser cutters to create black powder weapons) but that
he is trying to create high-TL gadgets with whatever tools are at his
disposal (e.g. a 17th century armourer trying to make laser pistols
whether with hammer and anvil or with industrial robots).

> And I'd have assumed the skill was (very) different for
> energy weapons anyway!

It is not. The basic skill to create laser pistols is the same as the
one to create revolvers: Armoury (Small Arms). Except that one is
Armoury/TL5 (Small Arms) and the other is Armoury/TL9 (Small Arms). Of
course, the latter can also be used to fashion TL9 revolvers - and if
laser pistols had existed at TL5 the former could have been used to
build TL5 laser pistols.

GURPS tech level rules state that the TL5 armourer is not allowed to
try to build laser pistols even if he knows of them because trying to
get to grips with a tech 4 levels above his own is just too much. He
would need to train in the TL9 skill from scratch.

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

Tobias Heidelmann <tobias.heidelmann RemoveThis @alice-dsl.net> writes:

> Ben Finney schrieb:
> > This is contrary to my own view. I'm very much of the school of
> > thought that any success gives the character *at least* what they
> > were trying to do. It's quite unfair to have a success roll come
> > out as "success" yet interpret it as "not quite there".
> >
> this depends on the situation. It might be argued that there could
> be a penalty involved that the PCs should be unaware of. Thus they
> tell the GM their margin of success and he tells them what has
> happened.

Okay, so that's not a "success" as I described (nor as the Basic Set
describes it), since the GM is applying hidden modifiers. The
effective skill, as defined on p. B171 and p. B44, takes *all*
modifiers on the task into account.

It seems we agree, then, that a success at the *effective skill* (even
if that value is hidden from the players) should constitute
"character succeeds completely at the described task". Success by 0
achieves just the minimum that was attempted, and any positive margin
of success provides *more* than the minimum. "Partial success" is
reserved for margin of *failure*. Yes?

--
\ "In general my children refuse to eat anything that hasn't |
`\ danced on television." —Erma Bombeck |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

Ben Finney schrieb:
> Tobias Heidelmann <tobias.heidelmann.DeleteThis@alice-dsl.net> writes:
>
>> Ben Finney schrieb:
>>> This is contrary to my own view. I'm very much of the school of
>>> thought that any success gives the character *at least* what they
>>> were trying to do. It's quite unfair to have a success roll come
>>> out as "success" yet interpret it as "not quite there".
>>>
>> this depends on the situation. It might be argued that there could
>> be a penalty involved that the PCs should be unaware of. Thus they
>> tell the GM their margin of success and he tells them what has
>> happened.
>
> Okay, so that's not a "success" as I described (nor as the Basic Set
> describes it), since the GM is applying hidden modifiers. The
> effective skill, as defined on p. B171 and p. B44, takes *all*
> modifiers on the task into account.
>
> It seems we agree, then, that a success at the *effective skill* (even
> if that value is hidden from the players) should constitute
> "character succeeds completely at the described task". Success by 0
> achieves just the minimum that was attempted, and any positive margin
> of success provides *more* than the minimum. "Partial success" is
> reserved for margin of *failure*. Yes?
>
In general, yes. However, depending on situation, a complete success may
be impossible. The GM has a right to rule that the device is beyond
complete repair or reserve a complete repair for a critical success.
Then a success results in a faulty device at best. Thus the characters
do not succeed completely at the attempted taskt (which is a full repair).

Sorry, have been distracted a bit.
I meant to reply earlier.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:05:27 +0100, Tobias Heidelmann
<tobias.heidelmann.TakeThisOut@alice-dsl.net> wrote:

>>>
>>> You habve to take into account what a "failure" means. In case of the
>>> secretary a failed roll just means more mistakes.
mike >>
>> Ah. This might have just answered my last postings question.
>> In the games (Gurps) i played, if the secretary failed the
>> roll, the document would have been useless.
>> Another attempt would be required.

>I guess this might be open to interpretation. In our group we assume
>that this is not logical. If i write a letter on my keyboard (or a
>posting to a newsgroup) the worst that can happen is a very bad posting
>with more than my usual share of mistakes or a bad structure. I simply
>cannot attempt to write a posting and fail utterly (although maybe some
>here might disagree ) A critical failure might mean that i knocked
>over my coke and spilled it all on my keyboard thus damaging it.

I see. Having spoken to my old GM, it appears that he likes
the Success/failure style and has adopted it (always) in
preference. (No matter what game system.)
Obviously if you have a missed roll meaning a grade of
'poor work' and visa versa, suggestions like IQ rolls mean
very little. Sorry about that

As a would be Gm, i think I'll opt for the skill roll to
affect quality. It makes more sense.
And back to TL.
I think it better for a temporary penalty for unfamiliar
tools, but not a subskill per TL.
The understanding of that technology would be a science (IQ)
skill.
While using the tools of the tech, it's not a requirement to
understand how it operates, for example: my peers at work
don't care if the computer runs via electrons in silicon, or
an Imp called Unix that uses magic.
So i will just stick to unfamiliar = penalty

I will also have the tool's TL influence what you can
achieve, and i think that cutting the time taken is
reasonable.
But i guess that it should be kept flexible, it depends on
the TL tools and the task attempted.

thanks,
Mik

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 23:46:34 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
<bcd.DeleteThis@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:

>On 2008-12-08, mike <mikespam.DeleteThis@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I automatically think of a higher technology as being more
>> helpful and versatile than its lower ancestor.
>
>This isn't really the case. A higher tech level makes it /possible/ to
>make tools that are more helpful and versatile than lower tech levels
>(and GURPS reflects this) but it doesn't make it mandatory or
>automatic to do so.

True. Yet i would have thought that it would become
inevitable that easy to use items would be more popular.
It would be a selling point, if nothing else.

>> I guess that must be my definition of higher tech
>
>You seem to think of "higher tech level" mostly as "better stuff"
>which isn't how GURPS defines tech levels. The goodness of stuff is
>handled by different rules (item quality).

Is a TL superior to the previous TL?
I'd have thought 'yes', but in human nature you wouldn't
think of it in that way while within one, you'd regard it as
normal, and the prior one as a step in the right direction.
The tech available today should be able to make anything
that was manufactured in past TLs, and a better version.

>>>If your suggestion were to be adopted then this would mean that a 17th
>>>century gunsmith could repair TL9 laser pistols with no penalty. This
>>>seems unreasonable.
>>
>> Err, no, it would not enable that.
>
>It would in GURPS, which is what we are discussing.

Unless the tools can do the TL9 repair almost solo, I’d
forbid it.
It would never occur to me as a player to try it, and I’d
expect it to be vetoed.
And i still can't see why you think it would.

>> They could make/mend a
>> 17th century gun without penalty. If they understood more
>> about the 'new' equipment they were using (the Intelligence
>> rolls)
Change this to "If they understood more about the 'new'
equipment they were using (a critical success, and/or got
over the unfamiliar penalty).

>That an Armourer works in a higher TL than his own doesn't mean that
>he is using high-TL tools for low-TL tasks (e.g. a 17th century
>armourer using laser cutters to create black powder weapons) but that
>he is trying to create high-TL gadgets with whatever tools are at his
>disposal (e.g. a 17th century armourer trying to make laser pistols
>whether with hammer and anvil or with industrial robots).

Not a chance, not even a roll.
They have no understanding on which to build upon. zip.
Unless energy weapons can be made in some form at their TL,
they haven't a clue how energy weapons work.
But they might be able to reverse-engineer one.
(Personally, i view this as not possessing the necessary
knowledge to comprehend it.)

>> And I'd have assumed the skill was (very) different for
>> energy weapons anyway!
>
>It is not. The basic skill to create laser pistols is the same as the
>one to create revolvers: Armoury (Small Arms). Except that one is
>Armoury/TL5 (Small Arms) and the other is Armoury/TL9 (Small Arms). Of
>course, the latter can also be used to fashion TL9 revolvers - and if
>laser pistols had existed at TL5 the former could have been used to
>build TL5 laser pistols.

Ah, but if i have actually learned anything here it is in
fact another skill?
It was purchased with cp, and an Armoury/TL5, is therefore
not the same skill as Armoury/TL9 despite the name being
shared.
It's clear that it was intended to be a separate discipline.

I'm also puzzled by the example of TL9 revolvers, If the
revolvers came into existence at TL5, then the construction
of one at TL9 would simply be a revolver of high quality.
(Thus worth a bonus of some form.) The TL just indicates the
earliest it could be made, or when it was conceived.
Even though TL5 laser pistols never were made, it might be
possible to design a form that could be.
(This would depend on the limits imposed from L5 equipment,
and possibly knowledge holes too).

>GURPS tech level rules state that the TL5 armourer is not allowed to
>try to build laser pistols even if he knows of them because trying to
>get to grips with a tech 4 levels above his own is just too much. He
>would need to train in the TL9 skill from scratch.

I wouldn’t have called it by the same name, it simply won’t
overlap.
At least I cannot see how it possibly could.

>Cheers,
> Bent D

Thanks,
mike

On 2008-12-13, mike <mikespam.RemoveThis@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> And back to TL.
> I think it better for a temporary penalty for unfamiliar
> tools, but not a subskill per TL.
> The understanding of that technology would be a science (IQ)
> skill.
> While using the tools of the tech, it's not a requirement to
> understand how it operates, for example: my peers at work
> don't care if the computer runs via electrons in silicon, or
> an Imp called Unix that uses magic.
> So i will just stick to unfamiliar = penalty

This is basically how GURPS TL rules work.

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

On 2008-12-13, mike <mikespam.DeleteThis@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 23:46:34 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
><bcd.DeleteThis@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-08, mike <mikespam.DeleteThis@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> I automatically think of a higher technology as being more
>>> helpful and versatile than its lower ancestor.
>>
>>This isn't really the case. A higher tech level makes it /possible/ to
>>make tools that are more helpful and versatile than lower tech levels
>>(and GURPS reflects this) but it doesn't make it mandatory or
>>automatic to do so.
>
> True. Yet i would have thought that it would become
> inevitable that easy to use items would be more popular.

Easy to use items will also tend to be more expensive though if for no
other reason than the forces of the free market.

> It would be a selling point, if nothing else.

Indeed. This would tend to raise the price the market will bear for
your superior product.

>>> I guess that must be my definition of higher tech
>>
>>You seem to think of "higher tech level" mostly as "better stuff"
>>which isn't how GURPS defines tech levels. The goodness of stuff is
>>handled by different rules (item quality).
>
> Is a TL superior to the previous TL?

Yes. More to the point, however, it is different.

> I'd have thought 'yes', but in human nature you wouldn't
> think of it in that way while within one, you'd regard it as
> normal, and the prior one as a step in the right direction.
> The tech available today should be able to make anything
> that was manufactured in past TLs, and a better version.

Able to, yes of course. If you make a better version, however, it is
no longer an item from the previous TL because the previous TL wasn't
capable of producing such a good version.

The penalties for dealing in previous TLs are pretty small so even
non-professionals can do a good job with those.

>>>>If your suggestion were to be adopted then this would mean that a 17th
>>>>century gunsmith could repair TL9 laser pistols with no penalty. This
>>>>seems unreasonable.
>>>
>>> Err, no, it would not enable that.
>>
>>It would in GURPS, which is what we are discussing.
>
> Unless the tools can do the TL9 repair almost solo, I’d
> forbid it.
> It would never occur to me as a player to try it, and I’d
> expect it to be vetoed.
> And i still can't see why you think it would.

It was a direct outcome of the rules that you proposed. My example was
chosen to showcase their unreasonable nature, which appears to have
been a success.

>>That an Armourer works in a higher TL than his own doesn't mean that
>>he is using high-TL tools for low-TL tasks (e.g. a 17th century
>>armourer using laser cutters to create black powder weapons) but that
>>he is trying to create high-TL gadgets with whatever tools are at his
>>disposal (e.g. a 17th century armourer trying to make laser pistols
>>whether with hammer and anvil or with industrial robots).
>
> Not a chance, not even a roll.

Which is exactly what the GURPS TL rules tell us, unless changed as
you proposed.

>>It is not. The basic skill to create laser pistols is the same as the
>>one to create revolvers: Armoury (Small Arms). Except that one is
>>Armoury/TL5 (Small Arms) and the other is Armoury/TL9 (Small Arms). Of
>>course, the latter can also be used to fashion TL9 revolvers - and if
>>laser pistols had existed at TL5 the former could have been used to
>>build TL5 laser pistols.
>
> Ah, but if i have actually learned anything here it is in
> fact another skill?
> It was purchased with cp, and an Armoury/TL5, is therefore
> not the same skill as Armoury/TL9 despite the name being
> shared.
> It's clear that it was intended to be a separate discipline.

Exactly. This particular field is very different in TL5 and TL9 so the
two are entirely different skills.

> I'm also puzzled by the example of TL9 revolvers, If the
> revolvers came into existence at TL5, then the construction
> of one at TL9 would simply be a revolver of high quality.

With new alloys, new propellants, probably packed with electronics and
high-tech aiming aids etc.

> (Thus worth a bonus of some form.)

The TL9 version is probably superior in many ways, yes.

>>GURPS tech level rules state that the TL5 armourer is not allowed to
>>try to build laser pistols even if he knows of them because trying to
>>get to grips with a tech 4 levels above his own is just too much. He
>>would need to train in the TL9 skill from scratch.
>
> I wouldn’t have called it by the same name, it simply won’t
> overlap.
> At least I cannot see how it possibly could.

When Armoury/TL9 and Armoury/TL5 are the same basic skill this does
have the effect that a TL9 armourer (small arms) will be allowed to
try to fashion TL5 revolvers, albeit at a penalty (-7).

If they had been different skills altogether this connection would be
more difficult to establish and it does seem to be a reasonable one.

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

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

> On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 23:46:34 +-0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
> <bcd.TakeThisOut@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
> >You seem to think of "higher tech level" mostly as "better stuff"
> >which isn't how GURPS defines tech levels. The goodness of stuff is
> >handled by different rules (item quality).
>
> Is a TL superior to the previous TL?

Superior for what purpose? Advances in technology (represented in
GURPS by TL) can make a culture more productive; bot *only* for those
who have learned the skills necessary to design, manufacture, and/or
use that technology.

The technological skills are *different*, they do not include a
working knowledge of any obsolete technology +IBQ- otherwise it wouldn't
need to be obsolete.

And +IBw-obsolete technology+IB0- is pretty much what is represented in
GURPS by any TL lower than current TL.

> The tech available today should be able to make anything that was
> manufactured in past TLs, and a better version.

Why? This seems to be a major sticking point for you. Technologies
simply become *obsolete*, far more often than they carry forward and
remain useful in later ages.

Obsolete technologies are noted as historical interest, but are
certainly not taught as standard to the average person learning a
technological skill. They are *separate skills* dealing with very
different concepts, and more importantly different *practices*.

> I'm also puzzled by the example of TL9 revolvers, If the revolvers
> came into existence at TL5, then the construction of one at TL9
> would simply be a revolver of high quality.

No, absolutely not. The whole point of a different TL is that *things
are done differently*: design concepts, materials, manufacturing
processes, and most importantly the practices and procedures that go
along with all those.

For the society, the lure of new technology is that, once everything
is in place to allow a field to advance to a new TL, that field
becomes significantly more productive; but that's precisely because
*everything is being done differently* to the way it used to be. Hence
all the skills are different for that technology.

If you want +IBw-better quality+IB0-, use the quality rules for equipment,
and don't change the TL. Technological progress is *not* about +IBw-same
stuff, only better+IB0-. It's about +IBw-different ways of doing everything
so we can be more productive+IB0-.

--
+AFw- +IBw-Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?+IB0- +IBw-I think so, |
`+AFw- Brain, but there's still a bug stuck in here from last time.+IB0- |
_o__) +IBQ-_Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney

>>>>> "BD" == Bent C Dalager <bcd.TakeThisOut@pvv.ntnu.no> writes:

BD> This seems to be a problem that doesn't exist in the first
BD> place. Someone with Guns/TL5 can still use a TL8 gun at a -3
BD> penalty, which as penalties go just isn't a whole lot.

....and that's only for *default* use, which can be remedied as soon as
the player spends a point.

Charlton


--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur.TakeThisOut@chromatico.net

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:27:29 +1100, Ben Finney
<bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:

>mike <mikespam RemoveThis @invariant.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Is a TL superior to the previous TL?
>
>Superior for what purpose? Advances in technology (represented in
>GURPS by TL) can make a culture more productive; but *only* for those
>who have learned the skills necessary to design, manufacture, and/or
>use that technology.

I don't follow, it's not a case of 'what purpose' but a case
of TL5 trumps TL4. L5 Might be a different way of thinking,
of working, but it might not. Either it is a better
technology or it isn't, and if it's the latter it will be
eventually discarded, and shouldn't be classed as a TL but
the evolution of the technology that happens all the time.
(For ex: I wouldn't call betamax and vhs differences in TL.)

>The technological skills are *different*, they do not include a
>working knowledge of any obsolete technology — otherwise it wouldn't
>need to be obsolete.
>
>And "obsolete technology" is pretty much what is represented in
>GURPS by any TL lower than current TL.

I cannot agree with you on that, it's way too broad.
And the higher TL depends on the prior TL's .
Where you say the tech skills are different, i would agree
that they are, but would describe it as 'Expanded', the
higher level works with the knowledge and tools that the
lower ones provided- How can it be otherwise?

>> The tech available today should be able to make anything that was
>> manufactured in past TLs, and a better version.
>
>Why? This seems to be a major sticking point for you. Technologies
>simply become *obsolete*, far more often than they carry forward and
>remain useful in later ages.

If it cannot, it shouldn't be classed as an advancement in
technology, and a TL that is higher is supposed to be an
advanced tech form. Even if the item/method/process is
obsolete it should still be possible to duplicate in a
higher TL. (Although i can't instantly see why one would
need to, i suppose it could be required in a game though.)

>Obsolete technologies are noted as historical interest, but are
>certainly not taught as standard to the average person learning a
>technological skill. They are *separate skills* dealing with very
>different concepts, and more importantly different *practices*.

There are a lot of obsolete products, granted, but when does
it become an obsolete technology?
They die out only if a modified version proves more
successful, useful or wider in scope.

>> I'm also puzzled by the example of TL9 revolvers, If the revolvers
>> came into existence at TL5, then the construction of one at TL9
>> would simply be a revolver of high quality.
>
>No, absolutely not. The whole point of a different TL is that *things
>are done differently*: design concepts, materials, manufacturing
>processes, and most importantly the practices and procedures that go
>along with all those.
The end product would still be a revolver? The TL5
character would identify with it, be able to use/comprehend
it?

>For the society, the lure of new technology is that, once everything
>is in place to allow a field to advance to a new TL, that field
>becomes significantly more productive; but that's precisely because
>*everything is being done differently* to the way it used to be. Hence
>all the skills are different for that technology.

That's usually a slow and planned change people work
towards, or an abrupt snap as the older method is
superseded.
But i don't see this as a total paradigm change.
If such a thing was possible it should be permissible to
jump from TL2 to say L5, because it's just a different way
to work.
And that must be wrong. < stress: 'must' >

>If you want "better quality", use the quality rules for equipment,
>and don't change the TL. Technological progress is *not* about "same
>stuff, only better". It's about "different ways of doing everything
>so we can be more productive".

I see TLs provide in Gurps new abilities at higher levels, i
call that better quality. In medicine i would quite like it
if a whole new replacement body could be made to replace my
characters rather 'battered' one. (But I would be surprised
if i couldn't get an aspirin.)
In travel I’d like it if my character could instantly
teleport from any local to another. (But would still expect
roads and spacecraft to exist.)
Really a deepening of abilities/new 'powers', that's what i
see a Gurps TL representing.

Thanks,
mike

mike wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:27:29 +1100, Ben Finney
> <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>
>> mike <mikespam.DeleteThis@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Is a TL superior to the previous TL?
>> Superior for what purpose? Advances in technology (represented in
>> GURPS by TL) can make a culture more productive; but *only* for those
>> who have learned the skills necessary to design, manufacture, and/or
>> use that technology.
>
> I don't follow, it's not a case of 'what purpose' but a case
> of TL5 trumps TL4. L5 Might be a different way of thinking,
> of working, but it might not. Either it is a better
> technology or it isn't, and if it's the latter it will be
> eventually discarded, and shouldn't be classed as a TL but
> the evolution of the technology that happens all the time.
> (For ex: I wouldn't call betamax and vhs differences in TL.)
>
>> The technological skills are *different*, they do not include a
>> working knowledge of any obsolete technology — otherwise it wouldn't
>> need to be obsolete.
>>
>> And "obsolete technology" is pretty much what is represented in
>> GURPS by any TL lower than current TL.
>
> I cannot agree with you on that, it's way too broad.
> And the higher TL depends on the prior TL's .
> Where you say the tech skills are different, i would agree
> that they are, but would describe it as 'Expanded', the
> higher level works with the knowledge and tools that the
> lower ones provided- How can it be otherwise?
>
>>> The tech available today should be able to make anything that was
>>> manufactured in past TLs, and a better version.
>> Why? This seems to be a major sticking point for you. Technologies
>> simply become *obsolete*, far more often than they carry forward and
>> remain useful in later ages.
>
> If it cannot, it shouldn't be classed as an advancement in
> technology, and a TL that is higher is supposed to be an
> advanced tech form. Even if the item/method/process is
> obsolete it should still be possible to duplicate in a
> higher TL. (Although i can't instantly see why one would
> need to, i suppose it could be required in a game though.)
>
>> Obsolete technologies are noted as historical interest, but are
>> certainly not taught as standard to the average person learning a
>> technological skill. They are *separate skills* dealing with very
>> different concepts, and more importantly different *practices*.
>
> There are a lot of obsolete products, granted, but when does
> it become an obsolete technology?
> They die out only if a modified version proves more
> successful, useful or wider in scope.
>
>>> I'm also puzzled by the example of TL9 revolvers, If the revolvers
>>> came into existence at TL5, then the construction of one at TL9
>>> would simply be a revolver of high quality.
>> No, absolutely not. The whole point of a different TL is that *things
>> are done differently*: design concepts, materials, manufacturing
>> processes, and most importantly the practices and procedures that go
>> along with all those.
> The end product would still be a revolver? The TL5
> character would identify with it, be able to use/comprehend
> it?
>
>> For the society, the lure of new technology is that, once everything
>> is in place to allow a field to advance to a new TL, that field
>> becomes significantly more productive; but that's precisely because
>> *everything is being done differently* to the way it used to be. Hence
>> all the skills are different for that technology.
>
> That's usually a slow and planned change people work
> towards, or an abrupt snap as the older method is
> superseded.
> But i don't see this as a total paradigm change.
> If such a thing was possible it should be permissible to
> jump from TL2 to say L5, because it's just a different way
> to work.
> And that must be wrong. < stress: 'must' >
>
>> If you want "better quality", use the quality rules for equipment,
>> and don't change the TL. Technological progress is *not* about "same
>> stuff, only better". It's about "different ways of doing everything
>> so we can be more productive".
>
> I see TLs provide in Gurps new abilities at higher levels, i
> call that better quality. In medicine i would quite like it
> if a whole new replacement body could be made to replace my
> characters rather 'battered' one. (But I would be surprised
> if i couldn't get an aspirin.)
> In travel I’d like it if my character could instantly
> teleport from any local to another. (But would still expect
> roads and spacecraft to exist.)
> Really a deepening of abilities/new 'powers', that's what i
> see a Gurps TL representing.
>
> Thanks,
> mike

I think there are two problems you are confronting. The first is that
GURPS treats all items made between two dates as the same tech level.
While this makes it simpler for the GM and players it is not necessarily
reality. Like your example of revolvers. They were first successful in
the mid 1800's but the design hasn't changed in the tech level changes
since then. One way around this would be to replace the pistol-TL skill
with pistol revolver, pistol semi-automatic, etc. skills. It wouldn't
be any more realistic to most people as most people can use a revolver
or semi-automatic of their time equally well but would get rid of your
problem with a TL5 gunslinger not being able to use a TL8 Anaconda.
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. 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. 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.

On 2008-12-15, Michael W. Ryder <_mwryder DeleteThis @worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> (...) It wouldn't
> be any more realistic to most people as most people can use a revolver
> or semi-automatic of their time equally well but would get rid of your
> problem with a TL5 gunslinger not being able to use a TL8 Anaconda.

This seems to be a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.
Someone with Guns/TL5 can still use a TL8 gun at a -3 penalty, which
as penalties go just isn't a whole lot.

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