Expert Combat Programs

[Scalding]

My players have discovered the Wafer Jack, and want to know what all expert programs they can get for it. The descriptions for wafer jack and expert programs both insist that only skills that rely on Intelligence or Education could be programmed. That's fine, and I'd be happy with that.

However, in multiple places, the rulebook references devices running Intelligence and an Expert combat skill that is Dexterity only. A simple example is Erik's Custom Gun, on page 102, and another is the Combat Drone on page 95, which it says could have an Intellect and a combat Expert program, though that would make it illegal in many worlds.

My player's characters tend to be of the brainy sort, so they'd much prefer to get an Int bonus to their combat rolls. They also seem to be deficient in combat skills, and would jump at the chance to slot a +1 or +2 mod.

Perhaps these DEX-based skills can only benefit a computer intelligence? I'm still not sure how Erik's Custom Gun works, though.

Alternatively, perhaps DEX-skills can be slotted? It seems somewhat odd, but for fire control it certainly makes sense. What about Animals (Riding), Art (Dance), Drive, and so on? I'm not seeing anything where a chip in your head couldn't provide an advantage.

I could even see where SOC-based skill programs would benefit, as the program gives the character hints about how to handle social situations.

So maybe only STR and END -based skill programs wouldn't work? Slotting a chip won't make you stronger, though it might remind you to use the crowbar.

 

[Rick]

I think you can have expert skill programs other than just Intelligence and Education, however the use would be slightly different. Erik's gun has an Intellect program running as well as gun combat, which means it could fire independantly (at 0 Dex) or add a modifier if the users skill was higher than the program. The way I read it is that you can use Int and Edu skills even if you don't have the skill yourself as it's reference material and a 'how to' manual in one! Other (non Edu or Int) expert skill programs will only add a slight bonus if you already possess the skill (it gives you information on tactics or tricks to use?) and its a fairly easy roll. I think the key phrase in the description of the expert skill program is that "only Int or Edu checks may be made" not 'only Int or Edu skills may be programmed'.

Oh, and before you ask, I don't think you can run an Intellect program on a waferjack - you are the Intellect program for that, lol!

 

[BFalcon]

I could even see where SOC-based skill programs would benefit, as the program gives the character hints about how to handle social situations.

I think any skill can be slotted, but only the INT and EDU aspects would be accessible - the protocol information you just described would be an INT or EDU roll, so would be possible. The actual implementation of the SOC skill would be reliant on your own SOC skills, so might not have a bonus. If I were generous, I'd allow an EDU or INT roll to allow the character to function at level 0 in that skill for that roll (ie forget the penalty for being unskilled) or let the effect of such a roll act like the Jack of All Trades skill for that SOC roll only.

END and STR - the advantage of such skills would be negligible - a melee (martial art/fencing) chip would allow you to know the theory, so might allow you to learn a martial art without a trainer, but you'd not get any physical benefit until your training caught up. You'd also know what everything was called (better to get the language chip though). A Gun Combat skillchip would allow you to know how to strip down, service, clean and reassemble all the weapons, as well as knowing everything you'd get to know about it by watching videos, but not how to actually shoot accurately with it.

Basically, think of a skillchip as a specialist wiki or DVD collection and you'd be about there - you would know all the theory of the subject, but none of the practical applications, nor would your muscles be trained for anything physical to do with it.

Personally, I regard skillchips as being useful for specialist knowledge, training and little more... if a skill is worth having, it's worth training for it... if it's a knowledge area you're likely to never want outside of this system, such as "Regina trading slang" then you can probably go ahead and chip it.

 

[rust]

What about Animals (Riding), Art (Dance), Drive, and so on? I'm not seeing anything where a chip in your head couldn't provide an advantage.

It could perhaps work, although only slowly, in all cases where the
character does not have to develop and train his body for a specific
activity.

For example, with the help of the chip the character could probably
make the right steps of a specific dance, but it would probably be
much like using a written manual or following a verbal instruction,
and would therefore result in something similar to slow motion in-
stead of the movement of an experienced dancer.

Things would be worse in cases where specific muscles have to be
developed and trained for an activity. For example, fancy swordfigh-
ting without the necessary physical training would almost certainly
result in a broken wrist, and I do not even want to think of an at-
tempt at acrobatics or martial arts without the proper training.

 

[BP]

Surprised more folks haven't asked about this

The funny thing is - the widest publicized use of 'expert programs' in the real world is for training (and actual) surgery (and that's not using direct cranial plug-ins)! [Expert programs are more prevalent in many other disciplines - notably they designed the chips that support your reading this - but, even the medical use is not all that well known.]

Note: the RAW only applies to wafer jacks, IIRC. I.e. automation (robots) don't have this restriction (and cybernetics I would expect).

The rationale is solid - 'artificial knowledge' doesn't provide actual physical experience ala reflexes and individual, personalized, 'feel'. However, the task mechanic is an abstraction that doesn't deal well with this level of detail.

Having the 'knowledge' of an Expert Gunman should provide some advantage - at least you 'know' technically how to fire, how to adjust for atmo, etc. - and their knowledge of what feels right to them. Like a golf pro in your head, except his pointers are instantly just 'there'. However, one won't have trained the fine motor skills and reflexes and a wafer jack doesn't control nerves - so expertly suturing an artery in field conditions or making that tricky snap shot during combat should be rather less practical. Of course, if there is plenty of time for either, then that situation changes a bit. For the later, the timing DMs work well.

Being one reason for these programs is augments to character skills, I setup a mechanic to support it - and use this for non-wafer programs as well. A gun could provide physical feedback (shock :twisted: ) to help Dex. A computer could monitor an operation and provide instant audio, visual and or physical feedback as well (ala real life).

My crude solution:

• Expert programs can provide sohonts (non-cybernetic) upto 1 level of added skill, or 2 levels if time penalty is used for Dex based checks. So level-0 skills (i.e. no real experience) are available to non-skilled individuals. Level 1 only if they already have skill-0 or take extra time.

[As to Social Standing - as Soc is defined in the RAW, a computer program is unlikely to effect that. However, as per another recent thread, if you use Soc as social ability (ala the other characteristics), then sure. I use it for robots as well.]

 

[Rick]

The main rulebook already has a mechanism in place to cover the use of an expert skill program for non-EDU and INT skill sets. It also has a mechanism in place for untrained skill use. At most, I'd allow each level of a non-EDU or INT expert skill to negate a -1 DM for untrained skill use - so a level 3 program would completely negate the -3 DM for not having the skill (but keep the task restrictions -2/-4/-6 DM tasks). Anything more than this and the wafer jack might be entirely too powerful, imho.

Page 92-93 of the main rulebook has the rules in the shaded box - saying that an expert skill program would be 'completely useless' for non-EDU or INT skill checks might be a bit harsh, but giving them skill levels in them may be too generous as well.

 

[BP]

At first glance, the RAW 'difficulty limits' make sense. However, as the difficulty DMs already apply and 'expert' programs are already penalized (levels) and prefer level-x = level-x, ignored the 'difficulty limits' as over-analyzed rule mechanics. Level-0 represents 'little experience' (p 5, IIRC) ... so I allow the -3 to be taken away by 'expert knowledge', though I've toyed with the -2, -1 in places or changing difficulty. Also toyed with limiting expert skill levels in general. In the end, for playability, decided on the compromise above with the timing issue encouraging roleplay choices.

I don't worry about 'being too generous' - what works for PCs can work for NPCs and tech comes with its own set of potential 'challenges' when used. :twisted:

 

[rust]

...and tech comes with its own set of potential 'challenges' when used. :twisted:

Which reminds me of a case where people with chips embedded
in their brains landed on a planet where orbital solar power plants
used microwaves to transmit the energy to the planet's surface ...

 

[BP]

Ouch... 'feel the burn'

 

[Rick]

At first glance, the RAW 'difficulty limits' make sense. However, as the difficulty DMs already apply and 'expert' programs are already penalized (levels) and prefer level-x = level-x, ignored the 'difficulty limits' as over-analyzed rule mechanics. Level-0 represents 'little experience' (p 5, IIRC) ... so I allow the -3 to be taken away by 'expert knowledge', though I've toyed with the -2, -1 in places or changing difficulty. Also toyed with limiting expert skill levels in general. In the end, for playability, decided on the compromise above with the timing issue encouraging roleplay choices.

I don't worry about 'being too generous' - what works for PCs can work for NPCs and tech comes with its own set of potential 'challenges' when used. :twisted:

Agreed on the difficulty limits - they are fiddly to remember and implement; and seeing as we're only talking about a tiny difference between the 2 systems yours is probably simpler to remember!

 

[BP]

Yeah - still crude, but at least simple!

MgT was the first rule set change for me in over 20 years. With a tendency (okay, its a full-blown affliction) to over-analyze, I really got inspired and into making house rules for all kinds of things*. Realizing this, I made a rule to stop myself.

When my rules cannot practically be comprehensive enough to satisfy me - they should at least be simple.

[*Even 'expanded' combat down to 1/6th second range - a fair fit for human reaction speeds. Added lots of options and covered nuances left out in the RAW. Then realized that 1/6th second might not work for aliens, fauna, robots and augmented/cybernetic humans and that I was adding nothing to the roleplay that couldn't be supported without all the mechanics. Now I've moved to a more freeform style that's a lot simpler (though am getting carried away with injury 'mechanics')!]

 

[BFalcon]

Yeah - still crude, but at least simple!

Always, the best rules are often the more simple...

MgT was the first rule set change for me in over 20 years. With a tendency (okay, its a full-blown affliction) to over-analyze, I really got inspired and into making house rules for all kinds of things*. Realizing this, I made a rule to stop myself.

Try "compulsion"