Items as allies?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

If the car doesn't have a brain, it doesn't need a DX score. DX requires some form of intelligence to capitalize on.

That's not what Kromm said when I asked him, a few years ago (linked upthread). At least that's not what I understood Kromm to have said; I don't really understand his response.

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

They're both enhancements on Enhanced Move. Handling costs +5% per +1, SR costs +5% per +2. (The former is in Characters; the latter is from THS: Changing Times.)

What about vehicles that lack Enhanced Move? Perk? Feature?

[PK]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

That's not what Kromm said when I asked him, a few years ago (linked upthread). At least that's not what I understood Kromm to have said; I don't really understand his response.

That's because Kromm's response was to defer to David Pulver, as vehicles were David's area of expertise. In fact, I've spoken with David about this exact issue in the past, and his response was essentially that nonsentient objects have no direct use for DX. It's indirectly useful (e.g., for determining Basic Move), but really, there's no reason a vehicle can't buy its DX and Basic Speed down to 0 and just buy up Move.

That said, since DX is generally considered a physical attribute, the GM may certainly wish to assign a DX score to a vehicle (etc.) just on the off chance that a spirit possesses it or it otherwise somehow acquires the means to start operating itself. There's no rule that says the GM has to give a brainless object DX 0, especially if he's designing an Ally. I certainly don't... but I'm the first to admit that it's incredibly nonoptimal.

What about vehicles that lack Enhanced Move? Perk? Feature?

This isn't something I've probed David on specifically, but as I understand it, the intent is that all of the special rules governing vehicular movement only kick in when you're exceeding your Accel (see High-Speed Movement, p. B466). In other words, if your car has Move 4/50 and you're only driving 3 or 4 yps, you don't have to make control rolls -- at that speed, you can't wreck. (Just like you don't have to make "control rolls" to walk down the sidewalk at your normal Move, even on a rainy day.)

So, a vehicle with no Enhanced Move would have Accel = Top Speed, and thus wouldn't need a Handling or SR modifier. (The only significant exception I can see is for Dodge rolls, but that can be gotten around by adding Enhanced Dodge to the vehicle.)

[Ejidoth]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

This isn't something I've probed David on specifically, but as I understand it, the intent is that all of the special rules governing vehicular movement only kick in when you're exceeding your Accel (see High-Speed Movement, p. B466). In other words, if your car has Move 4/50 and you're only driving 3 or 4 yps, you don't have to make control rolls -- at that speed, you can't wreck. (Just like you don't have to make "control rolls" to walk down the sidewalk at your normal Move, even on a rainy day.)

So, a vehicle with no Enhanced Move would have Accel = Top Speed, and thus wouldn't need a Handling or SR modifier. (The only significant exception I can see is for Dodge rolls, but that can be gotten around by adding Enhanced Dodge to the vehicle.)

Huh. Glad to hear that; I almost said something to this effect yesterday, but then got caught up in the 'uh-oh... but then vehicle dodge doesn't work...' conundrum.

I think possibly when I started thinking about it I made it too complex for myself:

Aside from the weirdness of not having Hnd to apply to dodge rolls for instant-acceleration vehicles, which I'm still not quite sure how to address...

I'm not convinced vehicle dodge rules even really make sense for especially slow vehicles (specifically, those with a maximum speed less than or equal to their length or so, which may tend to crop up more often with vehicles that lack Enhanced Move); they're often not moving fast enough that minor maneuvering tricks can get them out of the way of attacks, and they usually can't do the tricky stuff like duck or twist or dive out of the way like humans can.

Any thoughts on how you would model that? Is there a good 'really ineffectual at dodging' disad that you could apply for vehicles (where DX doesn't come into the equation) or even just really slow-moving characters?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

That's because Kromm's response was to defer to David Pulver,

I emailed David Pulver at the time, and never received a response. All I have to go on is Kromm's response, which has always confused me, and seems to contradict yours. Sorry if I am being a pain about this, but I really don't get it. Your response makes sense to me, FWIW.

Originally Posted by Ejidoth

I'm not convinced vehicle dodge rules even really make sense for especially slow vehicles (specifically, those with a maximum speed less than or equal to their length or so, which may tend to crop up more often with vehicles that lack Enhanced Move); they're often not moving fast enough that minor maneuvering tricks can get them out of the way of attacks, and they usually can't do the tricky stuff like duck or twist or dive out of the way like humans can.

Kromm has said that age of sail warships get dodge rolls.

[Ejidoth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Kromm has said that age of sail warships get dodge rolls.

There's got to be some sort of lower bound, though. Inanimate objects don't get dodge rolls, even if they're intelligent enough to be aware they're under attack. At some point, dodging has to get harder, and eventually impossible.

Doesn't it?

On that note, vehicles can't (I think...) dodge and drop, or dodge and retreat, as hilarious as it is to imagine a sailing warship ducking under the water for a minute to dodge a cannonball. Should vehicles-as-characters (say, ones smart enough, with their own DX and IQ and stuff, to do their own dodging without needing a pilot) have some disad to account for this limited mobility?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ejidoth

There's got to be some sort of lower bound, though. Inanimate objects don't get dodge rolls, even if they're intelligent enough to be aware they're under attack. At some point, dodging has to get harder, and eventually impossible.

Doesn't it?

If Move (or possibly Speed) is 0 presumably.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

It's appropriate that you mention No Legs (Portable). Look at THS: Changing Times -- you'll see that every cybershell with NL(P) has ST 0. A wearable interface has ST 0. A mainframe, despite being bulky enough to support a load, has ST 0. This is because mass = HP in GURPS, not ST.

LIS, I did not think the idea would survive contact with official consideration ;) I think it still has some merit worth exploring, as much as the curious idea of giving immobile objects a positive DX. Possibly the ST for such things could be regarded as 'NA' (in the same way that we have used that term to apply to the IQ of inanimates), and reserve the concept of ST=HP for the occasion of the item gaining mobility.

First, has that ever really come up in a game? :)

But more importantly, it's not really the case. For example, the amount you can lift isn't necessarily your "load-bearing capacity". If we were to electroshock you into rigidity and shove your body underneath a weighty structure, the amount you'd be able to support as a column would be a function of your HP and DR. A ST 10, HP 10, DR 0 human would be able to support far less as a column than a ST 0, HP 10, DR 3 machine.

The idea has not come up... just tossing it out off-the-cuff. The paralyzed man argument does seem to knock the pins from under it.