[Basic] Skill of the week: Navigation

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

For memorizing a map? Yeah. Navigation skill level is essentially irrelevant.

Seeing as how Navigation (Land) and Cartography default between each other, I don't think that holds up.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Icelander

But what would be a fair base time to study a map before you could roll an unmodified check to memorize it?

Unmodified?

For an Action campaign:
20-IQ* hours, minimum 1, to 'memorize' the 'zoomed out' version. So a city map, you'ld have a good awareness of major roads and intersections, where important landmarks are in relations to these, etc. You might not have side streets or smaller traffic arteries well memorized.

I'd give the Character a temporary usage of Geography (Region) as though they had it at IQ. Every time they failed a roll using this temporary skill I'd apply a penalty of -1 until it had been reduced to their standard default† (I'd also apply a -1 per day that they have the skill and do not spend at least 30-IQ+E/PM in minutes per day studying a map).

For a more 'gritty realistic' campaign:]
40-IQ hours, no more than 4 hours per day, all other facets identical to above.

Taking less time would apply a penalty equal to regular "Taking Less Time" penalty.

I treat Geography as Area Knowledge for a skill uses of of this nature (knowing where things are, roads, landmarks, routes), but not for 'current events' (high traffic areas, road work, etc) or knowing where people are.

If they have both skills covering the same region at IQ (or higher), I give them a +2 automatically to either roll as a Compliment.



* And I'd allow for these skills to stand in if they were higher than IQ: Area Knowledge, Cartography, Geography, Navigation. Eidetic/Photographic Memory applies it's bonus to reduce the time required.

I would not allow Professional Skill (Intelligence Officer) or Tactics to stand in, however I would allow these skills to be rolled to plan routes that give tactical bonuses to operations when the routes are used. Things like + to Per for spotting ambushes (having already mapped out likely spots), to Navigation to implement emergency "Plan Z" reroutes, to Driving to deal with known road hazards, etc. Likely I'd just have the bonus already applied to any penalties I hand out during play, so the while the Players know they are getting a bonus for previous skill use, they don't have to remember it.

† I presume that the default to Geography (Region) is at the "Country" level and apply a further -5 penalty to every step of 'zoomed' in from there.

For example if an operator knows Geography (France) at IQ, Geography (Île-de-France) is -5 to that, and Geography (Paris) -10.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Agreed and an important benefit of Area Knowledge over Navigation.

If the operator already has Area Know or Geography specialized in this region I'd give them a bonus instead.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Eidetic Memory is a 5 point Advantage that really doesn't do much other than replace slightly inconvenient storage media.

I give out bonuses for E/P Memory like candy. It's so under used.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

Seeing as how Navigation (Land) and Cartography default between each other, I don't think that holds up.

Neither skill have anything to do with memorization.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Neither skill have anything to do with memorization.

It's a lot easier to memorize the relevant details from a book, lecture or map when you thoroughly understand the subject than when you are trying to take a picture with your eyes of something you don't understand.

Compare remembering the important detail from a lecture in your native language about a familiar subject with learning a lecture in an unfamilar language by heart. It's an issue of data compression. Knowing the subject allows you to know what parts can be safely glossed over or derived from the vital stuff you did memorize exactly, i.e. allows you to compress the information without losing anything that matters. Lacking that knowledge forces you to store the data like a photograph, with no compression at all, as you can't distinguish between important parts and irrelevant detail.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

† I presume that the default to Geography (Region) is at the "Country" level and apply a further -5 penalty to every step of 'zoomed' in from there.

For example if an operator knows Geography (France) at IQ, Geography (Île-de-France) is -5 to that, and Geography (Paris) -10.

In most case, I would give a lesser penalty for area that are focus points:
ie
"if an operator knows Geography (France) at IQ, Geography (Île-de-France) is -10 to that, and Geography (Paris) -5."

Both maps and basic geography courses will focus on either the country or the big cities.

Another exemple : I have never been to the US.
I have a basic knowledge of US geography, both from school and cultural osmosis.
I can locate both the state and the city of New-York on the US map.
I could probably drawn a very basic shape map of NY city from memory, and even put a few landmark on it (Manhattan, Long Iland, the Hudson, Central Park, ...)
On the other hand, while I know Albany exist and is the state capital, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever where to put it on the map.
Well, I had no idea, I just checked.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Neither skill have anything to do with memorization.

I don't think it's controversial to say that someone practised in a field of study will find it easier to memorise a new set of facts related to that field than a novice would. This would apply to a musician learning a new piece by rote, a chess master memorising positions of pieces on a board, a historian learning the timeline of an unfamiliar era, or a gamer learning a new rules set.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

In most case, I would give a lesser penalty for area that are focus points:
ie
"if an operator knows Geography (France) at IQ, Geography (Île-de-France) is -10 to that, and Geography (Paris) -5."

My pint is that knowing the general geography of France means you have a reasonable chance of knowing the general geography of Île-de-France (a region of France) and a "maybe if you're lucky" chance at knowing the geography of Paris.

However, if one knew the geography of Île-de-France, they'd have a reasonable chance of knowing the general geography of both France and Paris, -5 to either speciality.

Both maps and basic geography courses will focus on either the country or the big cities.

Another exemple : I have never been to the US.
I have a basic knowledge of US geography, both from school and cultural osmosis.
I can locate both the state and the city of New-York on the US map.
I could probably drawn a very basic shape map of NY city from memory, and even put a few landmark on it (Manhattan, Long Iland, the Hudson, Central Park, ...)

I'd suggest that you have Dabbler in the geography of New York. Probably even each separate speciality (US, New York State, and New York City).

And you're far more conversant on the geography of New York than I am, a resident of the USA. Granted I could do the same for places in the us that I've studied but never been. Likewise with cities in other countries that I've studied but have never been (frex for a game I used a map of Dusseldorf, so I got to know the shape and layout of Dusseldorf. I can still remember it even 10 years later).

On the other hand, while I know Albany exist and is the state capital, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever where to put it on the map.

It definitely goes somewhere in New York.

I think it does anyway. It should by logical conclusion, but then logic sometimes doesn't apply to cities and states.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It's a lot easier to memorize the relevant details from a book, lecture or map when you thoroughly understand the subject than when you are trying to take a picture with your eyes of something you don't understand.

Compare remembering the important detail from a lecture in your native language about a familiar subject with learning a lecture in an unfamilar language by heart. It's an issue of data compression. Knowing the subject allows you to know what parts can be safely glossed over or derived from the vital stuff you did memorize exactly, i.e. allows you to compress the information without losing anything that matters. Lacking that knowledge forces you to store the data like a photograph, with no compression at all, as you can't distinguish between important parts and irrelevant detail.

The relevancy of the skill to memorization is choosing which details are important, and which are not. That's independent of the memorization itself.

Memory isn't very well handled in GURPs. It should be harder to memorize complex, complicated things, and easier to remember simple things. It's harder to memorize more things, and easier to memorize fewer.

I also have problems with navigation: it's possible to navigate somewhere with verbal or written directions, but no map. "from the starting point, go 100 miles on a 30 degree bearing from Grid North, to reach rally point A. From A, travel 30 miles on a 90 degree bearing to rally point B. From rally point B...", etc. Doesn't require a map, but it does require a method to determine your position and bearing, which are far more important than having a map.

Memorizing an entire map is difficult. Picking out relevant landmarks and memorizing them? Much easier.

I don't believe that most Special Operators study maps of their AO for weeks to memorize them, to replace having a map. I believe they use Cartography to intepret the map and determine the relevant landmarks, and then they memorize those. They patrol and collect intelligence to train their Area Knowledge skill for the AO. They determine a main route, and also alternate routes(as well as alternate rally points, etc). And they have GPS, which provides much greater aid to navigation than a map, in my opinion.

When I make a road trip over thousands of miles, I don't memorize everything. I pick out the route, and I pick out the important points where I need to make decisions on directions.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

The relevancy of the skill to memorization is choosing which details are important, and which are not. That's independent of the memorization itself.

Memory isn't very well handled in GURPs. It should be harder to memorize complex, complicated things, and easier to remember simple things. It's harder to memorize more things, and easier to memorize fewer.

I also have problems with navigation: it's possible to navigate somewhere with verbal or written directions, but no map. "from the starting point, go 100 miles on a 30 degree bearing from Grid North, to reach rally point A. From A, travel 30 miles on a 90 degree bearing to rally point B. From rally point B...", etc. Doesn't require a map, but it does require a method to determine your position and bearing, which are far more important than having a map.

I'd call this navigating from a mental map, which even with days of preparation will usually be no more precise than a very primitive low-tech one (which are often -5), but people with very high IQ and Eidetic or Photographic Memory are exactly the people who can memorize all the relevant parts of an actual detailed map well enough to enable them to navigate without referencing it (because they are driving a motorcycle, for example).

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Memorizing an entire map is difficult. Picking out relevant landmarks and memorizing them? Much easier.

As a gameable abstraction, a successful roll against IQ or IQ-based skill that applies that succeeds by 10+ doesn't seem unreasonable as a measure of when a character has successfully memorized all the landmarks that are relevant to what he needs to navigate.

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

I don't believe that most Special Operators study maps of their AO for weeks to memorize them, to replace having a map. I believe they use Cartography to intepret the map and determine the relevant landmarks, and then they memorize those. They patrol and collect intelligence to train their Area Knowledge skill for the AO. They determine a main route, and also alternate routes(as well as alternate rally points, etc). And they have GPS, which provides much greater aid to navigation than a map, in my opinion.

As far as I know, even Boy Scouts and ordinary soldiers study the areas they are going to be operating in to make orienteering in case the GPS doesn't work easier. For actual special operations, judging from historical ones, it's absolutely realistic for the operators to learn every single detail that might became relevant by heart, including weeks of practice in a mock-up of the operating area (e.g. Son Tay).

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

When I make a road trip over thousands of miles, I don't memorize everything. I pick out the route, and I pick out the important points where I need to make decisions on directions.

Well, we're not doing life and death stuff, so we spend minutes memorizing the map, not days or weeks. Still, even from just a couple of minutes of going over the route, I've found that when something unexpected happens*, knowing the route from a couple of minutes of study can actually make it possible to know that you're supposed to turn toward town X rather than town Y when the route you had planned is closed.

I can only imagine that multiplying the Time Spent by an order or two of magnitude would increase the benefit from having studied things beforehand.

*Like a police road-block directing me to another highway or damage to a bridge blocking the intended route.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

I don't believe that most Special Operators study maps of their AO for weeks to memorize them, to replace having a map. I believe they use Cartography to intepret the map and determine the relevant landmarks, and then they memorize those. They patrol and collect intelligence to train their Area Knowledge skill for the AO. They determine a main route, and also alternate routes(as well as alternate rally points, etc). And they have GPS, which provides much greater aid to navigation than a map, in my opinion.

GPS without a map means you have no idea what the ground will be like outside of line of sight (and if you are travelling overland this is a vital piece of data you do not have). It means that you know exactly where you are, on a map you do not have. It means that you can start making a map (which is what you're doing when you note where you were, where you are, and try to work out where you want to be). Unless it's an area with no decent landmarks, I'd prefer the map, thanks (and this is arguably the difference between 'land' and 'sea' navigation).