Playability of LAIs (as player characters)?

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

It would still have Low-Empathy, so it's reactions would be clearly simulated and out of sync with what's going on. It might try to cheer you up, and say something Elvis but only if you tell it that you are feeling down first.

Maybe it could subscribe to a affect interpretation service or cheat by monitoring your biometrics. "Hey there lil' hound dog, don't cry, the King is here. Let me make you a fried peanut butter sandwich to make it all better like my mama used to do."

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I had a player once ask me, for reasons I still fail to grok, if he could "play a gun". I offered him an LAI, but that was still too much volition for him. I still don't have a clue what he actually wanted.

Oh, now I understand why Clancy brought up a mention of a guy playing a magical sword.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Maybe it could subscribe to a affect interpretation service or cheat by monitoring your biometrics. "Hey there lil' hound dog, don't cry, the King is here. Let me make you a fried peanut butter sandwich to make it all better like my mama used to do."

Hyperspecialisation: One Person Out Of Six Billion.

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I had a player once ask me, for reasons I still fail to grok, if he could "play a gun". I offered him an LAI, but that was still too much volition for him. I still don't have a clue what he actually wanted.

Some people seem to confuse "Playing a freakish non-personality playing piece with arbitrary motivations and responses" with "Exploring the limits of persona and experience", or something. A bit pointless if you ask me, but you do run into that thinking.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

It would still have Low-Empathy, so it's reactions would be clearly simulated and out of sync with what's going on. It might try to cheer you up, and say something Elvis but only if you tell it that you are feeling down first.

Accurately roleplaying a severely limited mind which is roleplaying a human being very badly strikes me as functionally indistinguishable from just roleplaying a human being very badly. But I guess others' mileage may vary.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Hyperspecialisation: One Person Out Of Six Billion.

Comes up more than once per campaign. Hyperspecialisation perk request rejected.

[Phil Masters]

Note, by the way, that LAIs also get Hidebound and Staid, so playing an interesting character is somewhat counter-indicated by definition.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

Comes up more than once per campaign. Hyperspecialisation perk request rejected.

Okay, at this point I guess I'll just furrow some eyebrows at the fact that Hyperspecialisation is (by that reading, which is most likely the intended one) a very metagame category (i.e. based on how the campaign is played, not on the breadth of the [sub]skill). We need something to represent a level of narrowness between an Optional Specialisation and a metagame Hyperspecialisation. I suppose a Technique can represent a single person, but it kinda discourages buying it until you have [2] or more in a skill.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

Accurately roleplaying a severely limited mind which is roleplaying a human being very badly strikes me as functionally indistinguishable from just roleplaying a human being very badly. But I guess others' mileage may vary.

Are you familiar with GlaDOS from the PORTAL computer game? She's adversarial, but remains engaging for play purposes despite being a single-minded program literally following a script to simulate human vocal responses.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Are you familiar with GlaDOS from the PORTAL computer game? She's adversarial, but remains engaging for play purposes despite being a single-minded program literally following a script to simulate human vocal responses.

Um, GlaDOS is either a heavily edited Ghost or a Shadow.

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Okay, at this point I guess I'll just furrow some eyebrows at the fact that Hyperspecialisation is (by that reading, which is most likely the intended one) a very metagame category (i.e. based on how the campaign is played, not on the breadth of the [sub]skill).

It's mostly a game mechanic to represent the reality of academic specialisations. One can be the world's leading authority on the medieval pipe-rolls in the archives of Durham Cathedral. It's a very respected thing to be in some circles. It's nice to have a way of flagging it in a pretty highly simulationist game like GURPS. But it's not terribly useful to PCs. Usually.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

We need something to represent a level of narrowness between an Optional Specialisation and a metagame Hyperspecialisation.

Why? Optional specialisation (one specific person) looks fine to me, for pretty well any skill I can imagine applying it to.

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Are you familiar with GlaDOS from the PORTAL computer game? She's adversarial, but remains engaging for play purposes despite being a single-minded program literally following a script to simulate human vocal responses.

And people can convince themselves that ELIZA is a real person. They're still not terribly interesting as potential PCs.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

Why? Optional specialisation (one specific person) looks fine to me, for pretty well any skill I can imagine applying it to.

It's an extremely narrow area of specialisation, gained in exchange for reducing the skill by one level. You're effectively paying 1-4 points (likely closer to four, assuming you actually want the skill) for a +1 against one target.

Compare that to Weapon Bond, which is +1 to skill rolls for one point, as long as you're using the same weapon (without a -1 counterbalancing it). Or to how broad Techniques are (e.g. Arm Lock, Kicking, Feint). Or the canonical optional specialisation of Oil for Artist (Painting) (B170), Botany and Zoology for Biology (B180), making or [/i]breaking[/i] codes for Cryptology (B186), or a whole type of animals for Veterinary (B228).

Come to think of it, I think I now kinda like the idea of pricing single-person skills as Weapon Bonds / Techniques, i.e. 1pt per level (Master Bond?). Seems close enough to other precedents of similar width.