Pyramid #3/37: Tech and Toys II

[seasong]

Originally Posted by Snoman314

Well I can understand that.
I have to say that reading about your article in this thread is what convinced me to buy this issue. Do you have any plans to put out what you've come up with for software at some point in the future? I'd be very interested to see it.

Plans is a strong word ;-). I've been noodling around on it, though.

The main problem I have: software design is comparable to vehicle design in the real world in terms of complexity, but is far, far less interesting from a gaming standpoint.

I suspect that what would really be useful is a catalog of gameable software; options for how software Complexity increases with TL, size of dataset, and number of simultaneous users; and revisiting the Invention rules, applied specifically to software. But I don't have that yet, because I've been wrestling with a gameable design system which may or may not be any good :-\

So, noodling.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by seasong

Plans is a strong word ;-). I've been noodling around on it, though.

The main problem I have: software design is comparable to vehicle design in the real world in terms of complexity, but is far, far less interesting from a gaming standpoint.

I suspect that what would really be useful is a catalog of gameable software; options for how software Complexity increases with TL, size of dataset, and number of simultaneous users; and revisiting the Invention rules, applied specifically to software. But I don't have that yet, because I've been wrestling with a gameable design system which may or may not be any good :-\

So, noodling.

I actually think quite a few of those things are rather important. When I began designing the software packages for my sci-fi soldiers, I quickly ran into the problem that nothing listed the program size. I had to guess. Are they supposed to be negligible as far as TL 10 computers are concerned? Am I to just make it up?

I'd actually really appreciate an in-depth discussion of software.

[Snoman314]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

I'd actually really appreciate an in-depth discussion of software.

As would I.

[seasong]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

I actually think quite a few of those things are rather important. When I began designing the software packages for my sci-fi soldiers, I quickly ran into the problem that nothing listed the program size. I had to guess. Are they supposed to be negligible as far as TL 10 computers are concerned? Am I to just make it up?

Hm. I have no official answer, but if you look at data storage trends over the last century:

1. The percentage of the storage space taken up by the software itself has slowly dropped. I suspect it's been at a 3/4 power law, just because so many horizontal density problems work out to some variant of that law, but regardless, the trend (as a percentage) has been downward. (Win98 required around 11% of hard drives available at the time; Win7 requires closer to 7%, even though it is literally ten times bigger than Win98.)

2. Data storage, on the other hand, has exploded to fill every available nook and cranny, every time we even think of inventing a new and more powerful storage technology. There has literally never been a time in computing history when filling a hard drive was difficult for, say, census takers.

3. Exceptions are programs that are themselves data; AI, "dumb" expert systems, weather simulations, and similar.

So, for my personal campaigns, by TL10, the storage requirements of a program are negligible, and the data is the important part. For (3), above, the best answer seems to be "one program = one computer's worth of storage."

[Huyderman]

As a software developer and computer geek, I love the added realism and details in "Thinking Machines". A while back I became painfully aware how "cinematic" the existing computer rules was while writing an adventure about awakened AIs, and the numbers didn't make sense. I've already started writing up a new list of "standard models" for my campaign.

Originally Posted by seasong

The main problem I have: software design is comparable to vehicle design in the real world in terms of complexity, but is far, far less interesting from a gaming standpoint.

I suspect that what would really be useful is a catalog of gameable software; options for how software Complexity increases with TL, size of dataset, and number of simultaneous users; and revisiting the Invention rules, applied specifically to software. But I don't have that yet, because I've been wrestling with a gameable design system which may or may not be any good :-\

The question is, how compatible is the T&T2 computer rules with the existing software rules?

At a glance, the "standard-sized" computers have roughly the same complexity. However, the range of complexities at a given TL is narrower, meaning smaller computers can generally run more complex software than the standard rules, while you need larger computers for the higher complexities ones.

Not surprisingly, the software rules from High-Tech/Ultra-Tech seems incompatible. You'd need a Macroframe with the dedicated option to run a fine-quality Easy Skill program (complexity 6) at TL8.75, or a Workstation Server Farm for fine-quality programs for higher difficulty skills (complexity 7).

However, the rudimentary software guidelines in Basic also seem incompatible; it assumes basic software for a skill increases +2 complexity per TL. In "Thinking Machines" +1 TL is only +1.25 complexity increase in computers, meaning you'll need larger and larger computers for basic skill use, which can't be right.

Surprisingly, the cinematic netrunning rules from "Console Cowboys and Cyberspace Kung Fu" in Pyramid#21, actually seems to work pretty well with "Thinking Machines". The complexities seem somewhat off, although they were this also under RAW, but they are generally complexity 3-4, with a few 2's and one 5, which fits well with the complexities of of late TL8 to TL9 computers in the revised rules. Although you'd probably want to design new decks, etc.

I'll be likely to be using these rules in a game where computers play a large part, so I'll probably be using the netrunning rules as well. Luckily, as mentioned above, they seem to work together reasonably well, although I'd have to run the numbers. It's problematic they don't work with existing rules and guidelines for skill programs, which arguably the most common type of software in most campaigns.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Huyderman

[ . . . ]

Awaiting Computer Rules Compendium . . .

This is really the sad thing about unexpected (for GMs, not for SJG) new rules supplements: making sure the new rules don't break stuff already in play.

[seasong]

Originally Posted by Huyderman

The question is, how compatible is the T&T2 computer rules with the existing software rules?

Basic Set software gives a Complexity of (TLx2)-12. Converting this to Thinking Machines would use TL-4 instead.

Not surprisingly, the software rules from High-Tech/Ultra-Tech seems incompatible.

High-quality software is more complex to program, but is usually - if anything! - less resource intensive (which would translate to a lower computer Complexity required to run it).

It's like giving fine-quality weapons a x2 weight modifier.

If you want a quick-and-dirty method for conversion, ignore the Complexity values for superior software except when calculating price.

[Tzeentch]

-- This was a great issue, and I liked the computer article a lot (albeit I wish that it was a bit more explicit that its not compatible with the UT/HT rules). Lots of crunchy bits that I like!

-- I don't really get the Complexity rules given the explanations of what each level entails though. If the human brain is a Complexity 9 process what does that entail exactly? Obviously the organic brain itself seems to work just fine running IQ8-15 people without any particular problems, but the article doesn't get into decoupling IQ from Complexity. It seems from the article that it would be easier using actual brains for sapient intelligences - which doesn't make a lot of sense if you can cut out the biochemical middleman. This is explained somewhat in this thread, but not the article.

-- As it uses a different scale for Complexity it's also hard (read: almost impossible) to square with the software in the existing books. As the GURPS software rules pretty much suck I hope you have a follow-on article planned (I wish you luck, a generic set of detailed software rules was tried before and it was a horrible mess) :)

[seasong]

Originally Posted by Tzeentch

(albeit I wish that it was a bit more explicit that its not compatible with the UT/HT rules)

Understandably. I'm still learning clarity :-).

If the human brain is a Complexity 9 process what does that entail exactly?

A real-time molecule-by-molecule simulation of the human brain, including quantum effects within molecules, would require a Complexity 9 computer.

If you only need an electrochemical model of the brain (where neurons are represented with a simplified, probabilistic model similar to modern neural simulations), you only need a Complexity 7 computer to achieve a real-time simulation of the human brain.

-- As it uses a different scale for Complexity it's also hard (read: almost impossible) to square with the software in the existing books. As the GURPS software rules pretty much suck I hope you have a follow-on article planned (I wish you luck, a generic set of detailed software rules was tried before and it was a horrible mess) :)

I am working on something more complete, yes.

Out of curiousity, could you point me at the horrible mess? I can't seem to find it in my library.

[Tzeentch]

-- It was something I looked at when Ultra-Tech for 4e was being written. It had lots of modifiers and stuff to allow TL1/TL2 computational machines (e.g. Antikythera mechanism) and program options. It sucked, because the complexity of the software rules was incongruous with the rest of the book (and this was when Ultra-Tech had design sequences).

-- Hm interesting note, first draft of Software Tools had Complexity based on the quality of the tool and the TL of the skill, not difficulty.

-- Anyways, shoot me an email and I can see what I can share from those dark days.