360 Vision [Powers]

[vicky_molokh]

Are you of the opinion that Basic should be erratum'ed or not? If not, what do you want?

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Not so. IF it were the case that the problem is confined to fluids only, then it is still perfectly open to discuss only that portion of the issue. However, the problem applies similarly to other manifestations of Diffuse.

The problem is that Powers seems to presume it can carve things out of the explicit or implicit descriptions in Basic, and charge more for them.

Regardless of whether one agrees with your arguments that is what Powers does in the specific cases you point to, I would argue that Powers quite clearly can do that, and it is proper for it to do so.

In fact, I'd argue that that is pretty central to the mission of Powers: in order to expand the scope of distinctions for which there are explicit rules, Powers needs to created priced distinctions for things for which, in the Basic Set, it was at least a reasonable inference that the way to model something was as a no-cost special feature of a defined trait.

This practice is illegitimate in terms of rule-making (and it kind of smacks of padding in terms of publishing).

How is it "illegitimate" for rules options or supplements to modify the rules to which they are supplemental?

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

My opinion is different. The only way you would ever think that is if you have to retroactively explain Panoptic 1. But as mentioned Panoptic 1, on its own terms provides nothing that 360 Vision does not already, because (a) as regards turning your head, humans already have 360 vision if they turn their heads;

Again, humans do not have the 360-degree vision advantage, nor the effects it models, if they turn their heads. Yes, if humans constantly turned their heads to the full extremes of the range of rotation of their necks, and their brains could integrate the results of that into a coherent picture of the world, that would justify giving humans the 360-degree vision advantage, so that a particular kind of head turning (that real humans cannot do), as well as extra eyes or widely spaced eyes, could justify 360-degree vision.

(b) the description in Basic is explicit that you don't need extra eyes.

Yes. That's not in dispute. Extra eyes are a special effect that provides one of the plausible physiological justifications for how you get light to your eyes from 360-degrees. Rapid head turning (with a brain that can integrate the input from that) and widely spaced eyes are other plausible physiological justifications. Panoptic 1 gives you the effect without any plausible physiological justification.

Furthermore, going by Powers p.163, the default position for 360 Vision is that it is 'not obvious'.

Whether or not your interpretation of the Basic Setis correct, its clear that the authors of Powers interpreted that there was a requirement in 360-degree vision for headturning or extra eyes or some other physiological justification that Panoptic 1 removed. Consequently, the passage on Powers p. 163 clearly does not apply, since one must interpret the intent of that passage in terms of the authors' manifest intent in Powers to apply a modifier to 360-degree vision of the type that nullifies that provision, even if one thinks that the intent was misguided because the authors misinterpreted the underlying provision in the Basic Set.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

,even if one thinks that the intent was misguided because the authors misinterpreted the underlying provision in the Basic Set.

Which nobody would ever do, given that Kromm Himself is one of them.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

Consequently, the passage on Powers p. 163 clearly does not apply, since one must interpret the intent of that passage in terms of the authors' manifest intent in Powers to apply a modifier to 360-degree vision of the type that nullifies that provision, even if one thinks that the intent was misguided because the authors misinterpreted the underlying provision in the Basic Set.

Oy... room... spinning... everything... going black *faint*

JK! IKWYM :)

[Kromm]

As pp. B74-75 points out, the game assumes that a human can see 180° while maintaining a bodily facing, and can add at most 30° to either side by turning his head or shifting slightly, for a net 240°. He has normal function in the first 180°, and penalized "side hex" function in the added 60°. Someone with 360° Vision has full function over his full 360°. With plain-vanilla 360° Vision, you have exactly two options for justifying this:

1. Your head can rotate 360° on its neck -- like a tank turret -- whilst you maintain a fixed forward facing.

2. You have eyes or equivalent sensors placed around your entire head.

Both of these are by default highly visible. Those arguing about advantages not being visible are missing the point that this is "in general," and that specific advantage assumptions always overrule general principles. Both are also by definition preventable -- you can restrain the neck or poke out the rear-facing eyes.

There are alternatives:

1. You can have eyestalks. These work a lot like rotating your head on its neck, but are more vulnerable, so you get Easy to Hit, -20%.

2. You can have huge, wide-angle eyes on the sides of your head instead of anything on the back. These work a lot like having sensors all around your head, but are more vulnerable, so you get Easy to Hit, -20%.

3. You can simply rely on uncanny light reflection or invisible eyes, or some other effect that nobody can see. This is functionally equivalent to No Signature, +20%, but is called Panoptic 1, +20%.

You can also go all the way to psychically knowing what's out there (Panoptic 2), but that's really a trait of a different order.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Are you of the opinion that Basic should be erratum'ed or not?

Don't bother trying. I disagree with this "erratum" and would block it.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Don't bother trying. I disagree with this "erratum" and would block it.

Just trying to figure out what was the intent.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

Regardless of whether one agrees with your arguments that is what Powers does in the specific cases you point to, I would argue that Powers quite clearly can do that, and it is proper for it to do so.

I would argue that while it CAN do that, for the purpose of certainty and stability it should not unless it's very necessary (which I don't see in this case.

If it does, it should be clear and say that it is over-ruling or clarifying something in the earlier book.

How is it "illegitimate" for rules options or supplements to modify the rules to which they are supplemental?

It depends on the character and quality of the 'modification'.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Don't bother trying. I disagree with this "erratum" and would block it.

LOL! Of course!