Re: Is temperature tolerance really that expensive?
 

It seems weird and difficult only insofar as what it's modeling is difficult. Other than needing to know which heat attacks aren't hot enough, what's hard about it?

Modeling it as a finite DR when that's not really how it works is weird, though.

Re: Is temperature tolerance really that expensive?
 

Why does it need "only up to temperature X"? GURPS doesn't consider either lightning or lasers to be heat or fire attacks.

Re: Is temperature tolerance really that expensive?
 

Because fluorine "combustion" is a completely different reaction from oxygen combustion, and affects different molecules. What prevents us from spontaneously combusting in the equally reactive oxygen here? Easy: all the stuff that spontaneously combusts in oxygen are already long gone and we aren't made of it. Likewise, stuff that spontaneously combusts in fluorine are not available to fluorine-breathers. They aren't all the same molecules. This is explained in GURPS Space.

And again, that's assuming I don't want a superhero or magical entity that's resistant to heat but not to fire. GURPS should be a generic system, I should be allowed to make them. A game system that only allows mundane humans with no magical powers is not generic. And that the advantages aren't hilariously broken and overpowered.


The metaphysics don't matter if I decide it's magic or superpowers. What matters is that the system is generic enough to let me make a magical creature.

Perhaps you aren't aware of what I am arguing against: the claim that Temperature Tolerance should automatically give free total immunity to fire. Not just to fire-based damage. To all effects of fire in general.

As a GM, if a player tried to use TT as a cheap/cheat "immune to all fire effects and attacks" by claiming that fire and temperature are the same phenomenon, I would just laugh at them.



Because fire requires oxygen, obviously. Most planets are not covered in oxygen. I will not repeat this again.

Re: Is temperature tolerance really that expensive?
 

Lasers are most certainly heat attacks (lightning often is not). Ignoring that, it's possible to have a tolerance range that doesn't cover all types of flame, as ordinary flame ranges from about 2,000F for your campfire to about 6,000F for an oxy-acetylene torch.

Re: Is temperature tolerance really that expensive?
 

Anyway, I am concerned about modelling anaerobic aliens in anaerobic atmospheres, not aerobic humans on Earth. Specifically, aliens from planets much colder or much hotter than Earth. Langy's modified TT from the other thread is a great system for expanding temperature range, but if an alien can survive in a narrow tenperature range much hotter or much colder than 35-90 F, that chart gets wonky. 6 T.Levels on Langy's chart changes from 55 degrees F in the middle range to hundreds or thousands of degrees at the high or low end, without paying more for that range. I can see the argument for this kind of thing at the upper end -- if you live in 1000 degree heat, a change of 55 degrees is going to seem much smaller than it would to a human living in 60 degree heat. But I can't justify giving a native temperature range centered in the low end of that chart, as a feature.

However, the math to "convert" the chart to center on some other 55 degree range would be a ton of work.

Re: Is temperature tolerance really that expensive?
 

Um... no. Fluorine is a stronger oxidizing agent than oxygen, and can under certain conditions rip oxygen atoms off of molecules so the fluorine can fit in, but it's still basically the same type of reaction.
Anything that spontaneously combusts in oxygen will spontaneously combust in fluorine, along with a lot of things that don't spontaneously combust in oxygen.
Fire does not require oxygen. It just requires two substances that, when mixed together, generate a self-sustaining reaction.

Re: Is temperature tolerance really that expensive?
 

In that case, Anthony, you need to take it up with the authors of both GURPS Space and Wikipedia. I trust them more than you.

Re: Is temperature tolerance really that expensive?
 

They aren't quite as different as that. Fluorine is an electron acceptor, and combining with an electron acceptor is "oxidation" in the chemical sense. A lot of the same substances will combine with both. To the degree that there is a difference, I think it's more that fluorine combines readily with things that oxygen can't touch, or reacts with slowly. I won't say that there aren't any substances that burn in oxygen but ignore fluorine, but I'd want to see a citation.

Note also that spontaneous combustion is also a function of concentration. I believe that a fairly modest increase in the partial pressure of oxygen would result in spontaneous combustion of a lot of organic substances.

For a lifeform whose metabolism uses helium II as a solvent, any temperature above 2.1768 K is going to be lethal. If you figure its native temperature is 1.5 K, as opposed to 300 K for humans, its comfort zone ought to be 0.15 k wide, or from 1.425 to 1.575 K. Given it a width of 30 K would be meaningless on the downward side and implausible on the upward side.

Bill Stoddard

Re: Is temperature tolerance really that expensive?
 

Have you got a citation for fluorine combustion being that different? I'll review GURPS Space when I can, but I find that pretty dubious. What actual substances are stable in a fluorine atmosphere and spontaneously combust in oxygen?

Yes, they're not the same reactions. One of the reactants is fluorine, and the products are necessarily different. But it's a strong and indiscriminate oxidizer, isn't it?

I mean, if you were talking about an ammonia atmosphere, that'd be another story entirely. But fluorine?
You're seriously saying it's a genericness problem if the game's default behavior is that the guy whose idea of room temperature is that of the solar corona doesn't get burned when poked with a torch?

If you want them to be mystically sensitive to fire because it's fire despite being colder than the (silica) ice cubes in their drink, use the same Disadvantages as you do for other supernatural special vulnerabilities.
No, it doesn't. Defining fire as exclusively about oxygen is silly. Fire in other oxidizing atmospheres is not exactly the same, but calling it not fire doesn't make any sense.
I do agree that a massive systemic bias toward human shirtsleeve climates as normal is unfortunate.

Re: Is temperature tolerance really that expensive?
 

It might help if you linked the wikipedia article you're working from.

(Wikipedia is sometimes unclear or wrong.)