GURPS Powers: Enhanced Senses

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by whswhs

.... Of course, the animals you're stalking probably have been senses of smell than yours; the human olfactory system is pretty basic.

That's part of my point. If perfectly human I blew the lid off even generic Discriminatory Smell, then what's it supposed to represent?

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

I'd keep range distinct from wind direction because it's two different things at play. You can be far away from something with the right breeze get a noseful and vice versa.

There's also the fact that topography matters to create "scent clusters" of currents vastly concentrating odors. As well as opposites fragmenting them to difficult to impossible to read properly even though you can detect "something" odd.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That's part of my point. If perfectly human I blew the lid off even generic Discriminatory Smell, then what's it supposed to represent?

Likely, and I'm not being rude - but you're conflating good rolls with ability. IF we're comparing real life to a game, that is.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

There's also the fact that topography matters to create "scent clusters" of currents vastly concentrating odors. As well as opposites fragmenting them to difficult to impossible to read properly even though you can detect "something" odd.

That's just a TDM given by the GM. No new rules needed for that.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Likely, and I'm not being rude - but you're conflating good rolls with ability. IF we're comparing real life to a game, that is.
That's just a TDM given by the GM. No new rules needed for that.

Perhaps my multiple example are being mistaken as of equal occurance and difficulty.
Smelling my cat from a couple hundred feet was due to a very rare confluence of events. But I wanted to know what would be the maximum bonus to Smell rolls that would allow that.
Second, playing tag with cats in the dark was average which the book R.A.W. wouldn't allow even for basic Discriminatory Smell. Assuming everything with DS including normal if uncommon humans have that Range Perk, seems to make it unecessary.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

I'd keep range distinct from wind direction because it's two different things at play. You can be far away from something with the right breeze get a noseful and vice versa.

Of course range and wind direction are two different influences on your Smell roll. But they both give bonuses/penalties, and the magnitudes of those are going to interact. And there are different range rules.

With -1/yard: "Normally I could smell his cigar at five yards away; but there was a favorable wind, so I could smell it at seven yards away."

With speed/range: "Normally I could smell his cigar at five yards away; but there was a favorable wind, so I could smell it at ten yards away."

(And that's for a modest +2. Going to +3 makes it eight yards versus fifteen yards.)

*****

The underlying problem with sensory abilities is that, on one hand, humans have abnormally acute vision (we are at the peak of the animals, along with raptors and cephalopods) and abnormally poor smell. But on the other hand, the GURPS rules treat human senses as the baseline for all animal senses. That's convenient for letting GMs make intuitive calls about how well you can perceive, but it makes a systematic treatment of animal senses harder.

So I went for a version where the average animal has (a new form of) Bad Sight and also has a small boost to smell. I defined the latter as using a better range progression, rather than as Acute Smell; perhaps it should have been done the other way. Or perhaps human smell should have been treated as using speed/range mods, and all animal smell (not just, say, canine smell or moth smell) as using long distance mods.

What I'd like to see, I think, is "Here are the base Per values for humans, rats, dogs, sharks, and a couple of other species. Here are their probabilities of noticing a stimulus of average intensity without favorable or unfavorable environmental conditions, at different ranges, using different options for range modifiers and different Acute Smell/Discriminatory Smell bonuses." Then we could look for a a configuration that gives reasonable statistically expected results.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Perhaps my multiple example are being mistaken as of equal occurance and difficulty.
Smelling my cat from a couple hundred feet was due to a very rare confluence of events. But I wanted to know what would be the maximum bonus to Smell rolls that would allow that.
Second, playing tag with cats in the dark was average which the book R.A.W. wouldn't allow even for basic Discriminatory Smell. Assuming everything with DS including normal if uncommon humans have that Range Perk, seems to make it unecessary.

Again, TDMs should come into play. You're not in combat so +4 at minimum.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Of course range and wind direction are two different influences on your Smell roll. But they both give bonuses/penalties, and the magnitudes of those are going to interact. And there are different range rules.

With -1/yard: "Normally I could smell his cigar at five yards away; but there was a favorable wind, so I could smell it at seven yards away."

With speed/range: "Normally I could smell his cigar at five yards away; but there was a favorable wind, so I could smell it at ten yards away."

(And that's for a modest +2. Going to +3 makes it eight yards versus fifteen yards.)

Yeah, that could be a potential issue. I think that a entire chart may be the way to go.

Originally Posted by whswhs

The underlying problem with sensory abilities is that, on one hand, humans have abnormally acute vision (we are at the peak of the animals, along with raptors and cephalopods) and abnormally poor smell. But on the other hand, the GURPS rules treat human senses as the baseline for all animal senses. That's convenient for letting GMs make intuitive calls about how well you can perceive, but it makes a systematic treatment of animal senses harder.

GURPS being baseline human is so the system doesn't get nuts, in my opinion. That said...

Originally Posted by whswhs

So I went for a version where the average animal has (a new form of) Bad Sight and also has a small boost to smell. I defined the latter as using a better range progression, rather than as Acute Smell; perhaps it should have been done the other way. Or perhaps human smell should have been treated as using speed/range mods, and all animal smell (not just, say, canine smell or moth smell) as using long distance mods.

The latter is probably what I would have reccomended. It's a feature of most animals and a perk for humans.

Originally Posted by whswhs

What I'd like to see, I think, is "Here are the base Per values for humans, rats, dogs, sharks, and a couple of other species. Here are their probabilities of noticing a stimulus of average intensity without favorable or unfavorable environmental conditions, at different ranges, using different options for range modifiers and different Acute Smell/Discriminatory Smell bonuses." Then we could look for a a configuration that gives reasonable statistically expected results.

That wouldn't be a bad approach, but I still think a Hearing range chart would be the way to go. You could have a baseline human column and then other beings. A handy look-up. I know the hearing table is weird looking, but once you get used to it, it's REALLY fast for game play and that's what you'd have to do in this situation as well.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Again, TDMs should come into play. You're not in combat so +4 at minimum.
..

Just because I'm not "in combat" does not mean I'm in a highly controlled environment allowing concentration and carefully prepared sensory detection.

Also, in what book does it say basic senses get that +4 for non combat use?

I accept and expect some major bonuses, but not in combat wasn't one as it was uncontrolled, outside, and caught me completely off guard. If being distracted and as obliviously unaware as I tend to be counts for +4, then literally every moment alive should.

It feels like all the responses I've gotten here have been drastically missing not only my questions, but intentions and very physical senses.
It will ALWAYS seem weird that to make real humans requires Exotic "inhuman" advantages and even a perk to make smell work past arm's length. And real animals like cats, dogs, etc. simply cannot be made without passing into the realm of silly fiction detecting prey from across the globe. I wanted middle ground between chain smoking near anosmiac human and Wolverine smelling Sabretooth from 10 miles away.

At least the book has great stuff for other senses.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

That wouldn't be a bad approach, but I still think a Hearing range chart would be the way to go. You could have a baseline human column and then other beings. A handy look-up. I know the hearing table is weird looking, but once you get used to it, it's REALLY fast for game play and that's what you'd have to do in this situation as well.

I think there are at least three difficulties with this:

* Sound falls off in intensity as the square of range, but molecular concentration as the cube of range, so you can't use the same chart.

* There is a simple physical unit for the intensity of sound, watts per square meter, and you can figure decibels from taking its logarithm; but there is no physical unit for the intensity of smell. Oh, you could use moles per liter, but different substances would have radically different intensities for the same concentration.

* There aren't nearly as many convenient experiential examples of smells of different strength, nor are there published objective ratings of the stimuli; you would have to handle things impressionistically.

I won't say it couldn't be done. But I've never found a published source that provides the base data.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

So I went for a version where the average animal has (a new form of) Bad Sight and also has a small boost to smell. I defined the latter as using a better range progression, rather than as Acute Smell; perhaps it should have been done the other way.

There aren't really any senses that are modeled well by giving -1/hex, and it implies that humans smell as well as animals within the same hex, which is most certainly not true. I'd probably just rewrite Discriminatory Smell so that it by default gives you an animal-level sense of smell.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I think there are at least three difficulties with this:

* Sound falls off in intensity as the square of range, but molecular concentration as the cube of range, so you can't use the same chart.

Given that it's a logarithmic chart, that just means you multiply range penalties by 1.5.

Originally Posted by whswhs

* There is a simple physical unit for the intensity of sound, watts per square meter, and you can figure decibels from taking its logarithm; but there is no physical unit for the intensity of smell. Oh, you could use moles per liter, but different substances would have radically different intensities for the same concentration.

Then use moles/liter (or more often, ppb) of a specific reference substance, and given other materials a bonus or penalty.

Incidentally, there's no reason for sound to have its own table anyway. The existing chart is very close to +1/5 dB and applying normal range modifiers.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Just because I'm not "in combat" does not mean I'm in a highly controlled environment allowing concentration and carefully prepared sensory detection.

Also, in what book does it say basic senses get that +4 for non combat use?

It's more like everyday use. Were you under some undo pressure at the time? If not, you likely get a TDM bonus.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

It feels like all the responses I've gotten here have been drastically missing not only my questions, but intentions and very physical senses.
It will ALWAYS seem weird that to make real humans requires Exotic "inhuman" advantages and even a perk to make smell work past arm's length. And real animals like cats, dogs, etc. simply cannot be made without passing into the realm of silly fiction detecting prey from across the globe. I wanted middle ground between chain smoking near anosmiac human and Wolverine smelling Sabretooth from 10 miles away.

I'm not sure what your point is because you keeping bringing up anecdotes about your own personal experiences I cannot grasp the context of that complete experience so I'm not sure how to answer except deciphering what you wrote as best I can. Perhaps stick to some pop culture references so I can better read into your question.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I think there are at least three difficulties with this:

* Sound falls off in intensity as the square of range, but molecular concentration as the cube of range, so you can't use the same chart.

* There is a simple physical unit for the intensity of sound, watts per square meter, and you can figure decibels from taking its logarithm; but there is no physical unit for the intensity of smell. Oh, you could use moles per liter, but different substances would have radically different intensities for the same concentration.

* There aren't nearly as many convenient experiential examples of smells of different strength, nor are there published objective ratings of the stimuli; you would have to handle things impressionistically.

I won't say it couldn't be done. But I've never found a published source that provides the base data.

It seems like you could probably cobble something together and then create a gaming abstraction, quite honestly. Perhaps an "average smell" and then work background from there.