ATR/ETS Question

[Rastur]

the leveled version of ETS with extra mental maneuvers is Compartmentalized Mind (No Mental Separation -20%) costing 40 points a level
in addition to ETS itself

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by Rastur

the leveled version of ETS with extra mental maneuvers is Compartmentalized Mind (No Mental Separation -20%) costing 40 points a level
in addition to ETS itself

Sure, but without taking that, we still have the problem of how seriously to take the text under ETS itself that says you have infinite time to think, and whether that includes things like doing mathematical calculations, writing sonnets, rolling Tactics, etc., or whether those require mental maneuvers you haven't paid for and therefore the description needs to be errata'd with a 'not really'. As a GM, I tend to fall on the 'it does what it says, period', side, and therefore have found myself at a loss as to why somebody should not get a nice modifier for certain tasks for subjective time spent on them.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

As a GM, I tend to fall on the 'it does what it says, period', side, and therefore have found myself at a loss as to why somebody should not get a nice modifier for certain tasks for subjective time spent on them.

I think one of the things that you might need/want to think about is that I strongly suspect that the way you should look at a lot of this stuff is "it does what the mechanics say; no more, no less."

I just got into this a bit (in a friendly way) with three related traits for grappling. I went by the text and description (as did my playtesters). In the end, Kromm pointed out that the thing that had primacy of place was really the game mechanics. In my case, cancelling penalties to DX vs. an actual bonus to DX vs a conditional bonus for certain types of attacks.

The verbiage wasn't the important part; the game mechanics were.

In this case, ETS means "you go first." The text description says that this means you're processing everything so fast that you can start whatever you're doing before everyone else.

For ATR, this one's a bit more odd, but it means "you get two maneuvers on your turn when everyone else gets one."

They could have taken a more Champions route, and said "with ATR 1, you get to take two half-second turns, one at your regular turn order, but another one as if you had Basic Speed/2." That seems OK, except it can probably cause other weirdness. I'm sure there's a reason they didn't do it that way.

One thing I do in my games (the last time, years ago, when I ran one) was I always made my players sit in order of descending basic speed from my left (highest) round the table. I'd made up a bunch of sets of Combat Cards on heavy cardstock, and I toyed with the idea of making people declare their actions (lay down cards) from slowest to fastest, but resolve them from fastest to slowest. That way, the quick reaction guys got to see what was going on, react to it, and their moves went first.

Never did it that way, but I always wanted to try it. I look at ETS as, in a way, the ultimate game-mechanical expression of that concept. They see what everyone else is going to do, and can commit to their own actions as a result a bit sooner. But they're not any faster than the next guy in terms of muscle response, punching velocity, etc.

i do see the issues with how the text goes; I'm not saying anyone's wrong to think a particular way. But the ads and disads tend to do what they say, meaning you're buying game-mechanical effects, and then rationalize how that effect might come about. It's like when people ask "what is IQ?" and Kromm says "it's the characteristic that represents your ability to make IQ rolls." :-)

[Gef]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I toyed with the idea of making people declare their actions (lay down cards) from slowest to fastest, but resolve them from fastest to slowest.

I had a GM who did that. It really worked well, in my opinion. I've never duplicated it, though, because I've always had a player or two with scant appreciation for the tactical aspect of gaming.

GEF

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I think one of the things that you might need/want to think about is that I strongly suspect that the way you should look at a lot of this stuff is "it does what the mechanics say; no more, no less."

I just got into this a bit (in a friendly way) with three related traits for grappling. I went by the text and description (as did my playtesters). In the end, Kromm pointed out that the thing that had primacy of place was really the game mechanics. In my case, cancelling penalties to DX vs. an actual bonus to DX vs a conditional bonus for certain types of attacks.

The verbiage wasn't the important part; the game mechanics were.

In this case, ETS means "you go first." The text description says that this means you're processing everything so fast that you can start whatever you're doing before everyone else.

For ATR, this one's a bit more odd, but it means "you get two maneuvers on your turn when everyone else gets one."

They could have taken a more Champions route, and said "with ATR 1, you get to take two half-second turns, one at your regular turn order, but another one as if you had Basic Speed/2." That seems OK, except it can probably cause other weirdness. I'm sure there's a reason they didn't do it that way.

One thing I do in my games (the last time, years ago, when I ran one) was I always made my players sit in order of descending basic speed from my left (highest) round the table. I'd made up a bunch of sets of Combat Cards on heavy cardstock, and I toyed with the idea of making people declare their actions (lay down cards) from slowest to fastest, but resolve them from fastest to slowest. That way, the quick reaction guys got to see what was going on, react to it, and their moves went first.

Never did it that way, but I always wanted to try it. I look at ETS as, in a way, the ultimate game-mechanical expression of that concept. They see what everyone else is going to do, and can commit to their own actions as a result a bit sooner. But they're not any faster than the next guy in terms of muscle response, punching velocity, etc.

i do see the issues with how the text goes; I'm not saying anyone's wrong to think a particular way. But the ads and disads tend to do what they say, meaning you're buying game-mechanical effects, and then rationalize how that effect might come about. It's like when people ask "what is IQ?" and Kromm says "it's the characteristic that represents your ability to make IQ rolls." :-)

Thing is, the text about the character having as much time to think as they wish is game mechanical. Even if no bonus for (subjective) time spent can be justified, it should definitely allow a character to make rolls against any skill (Poetry, Tactics, perception rolls, etc.) whose product can be produced purely mentally, without resort to notepads or what have you.... even if normally it would take hours of noodling in your chair to come up with the verse in iambic pentameter about how nasty your opponent's breath is.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

Sure, but without taking that, we still have the problem of how seriously to take the text under ETS itself that says you have infinite time to think, and whether that includes things like doing mathematical calculations, writing sonnets, rolling Tactics, etc., or whether those require mental maneuvers you haven't paid for and therefore the description needs to be errata'd with a 'not really'. As a GM, I tend to fall on the 'it does what it says, period', side, and therefore have found myself at a loss as to why somebody should not get a nice modifier for certain tasks for subjective time spent on them.

I think the key here is "subjective"; having indefinite mental time is less effective that mental+physical, since you're not free to consult reference works, or sleep on the idea, or to make coffee to clear your mind, or take time to scratch your distracting itches, etc. These and numerous other considerations are represented by the highly abstract time taken modifiers, so waiving them entirely or granting bonuses would be suspect.

Now, if an ETS-user *also* has Eidetic Memory to memorize the relevant reference works, Doesn't Sleep, full FP and ER reservoirs, you can plausibly be much more generous.