Well, yes, but it would be lying in a sense.
You could have put Political Debate thread and I never would have gone in it
And neither would anyone else, so it would have defeated his purpose.
He's got a point there. I don't know that I would go so far as to call them 'living,' necessarily, but 'sentient' I would definitely be willing to extend them. The T-800 as played by Arnold Swarze... Schwartzi... Arnold, certainly seemed self-aware to me, even to the extent of awareness of his own mortality and limitations. The line from T-2, "I cannot self-terminate," for instance, implies an awareness of self ("I"), knowledge of mortality (it must be known to be possible to be terminated in order to think of self-termination), and knowledge of one's own abilities. It also shows a measure of creative thinking, in asking someone else to kill him, and altruism in being willing to die for the good of others, even though nobody programmed him to do that. So yeah, "living" is a bit of a stretch, but I think "sentient" is definitely fair to give at least certain ones, and SkyNet itself.How do you think the Terminators can function in the past outside of SkyNet's control? It's not a puppet that SkyNet controls. It's an artificially intelligent, sentient, artificial lifeform.
So yeah, "living" is a bit of a stretch, but I think "sentient" is definitely fair to give at least certain ones, and SkyNet itself.
I didn't say they were "living" I said it was a "lifeform". Number 5 is a lifeform, but he's not living. It's in the same class as Number 5 and Commander Data as far as sentience and being alive.
"I cannot self-terminate,"
This actually in no way indicates self awareness, quite the opposite. It was either directly said or heavily implied that this was simply his programming.
Also, the time to contest the type of AI would be http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/ending-a-decade-behind-the-screens/page/14
John hits me with an interesting challenge. He is praying a summoning prayer for a specific individual who is in the future. Of course, summoning does not guarantee a mode of transportation; on the other hand, it is possible that the person named might already be alive, and even if he isn't it might be possible for the summoning skill to bring him to John as soon as he is born--that's not what he wants, but it's what he asked. The more immediate question is, what is the mag bias? I figure it is probably 0@2, but I'm not averse to the possibility that it's got a much higher curve, even a 0@25. I am considerably less comfortable with the idea of raising the level, but I suppose I might make it a world in which there really is magic hiding somewhere and most people never knew it. So since I've not actually set the mag bias yet let's use a GE roll for it: 8 is Remarkably Good but Not Unexpected. If I make it 7@10, the curve is 17 and there would be indigenous magic through the heavy informations skills somewhere. This has a significant impact on the way the world plays, but I'm not unhappy with it. I'm noting, too, the tech bias must be at least 15@5 to include a time travel projector; this also includes a 13@7 design hard-wired M/MI; it excludes the design and building of a UIM, but since SkyNet was created by botch and the Terminators are normal AIs, I only need a curve of 22 to cover design of normal AI. That means a Tech bias of 15@7. It's already established that the psi bias is flatlined, 0@1, and the bod bias need not be better than earth normal, which we'll call 13@2.
MJ establishes that skynet is UIM (not sure what the abbreviation is but that's not the truly important part here) and that everything else is covered under normal AI.
The ability for skynet to produce sentient lifeforms doesn't exist, it only occurred as a result of a botch to produce skynet's sentience in the first place
I've been reading about these things for literally more than half of my life. They are sentient beings.
Number 5 was given sentience on a botch. That makes him no less sentient.
Two
MJ, didn't you say that one of your fears was that a UIM (Ultra Intelligent Machine) would create machines that were not only beyond your comprehension, but beyond your ability to comprehend? So, is it really such a stretch that SkyNet made sentient robots? That would certainly be beyond your ability to comprehend.
O.K., the sentience question needs to be addressed, I see.
I hit the problem because I was trying to figure out exactly what skill would be involved in summoning specifically a Terminator of some type. Summoning spells are divided into those which summon sentients and those which summon non-sentients. If you want to summon a lion, or some sort of animal-minded fire elemental, those are non-sentient life forms capable of self-determination but not intelligent thought. If you want to summon a person, or an angel, or a djinni, those are capable of intelligent thought as well as self-determination.
The Terminator is a particular problem, because it appears to be capable of intelligent thought but not of self-determination. It is programmed, and we see that repeatedly. In Terminator 2 and in Terminator 3, it is doing what it does because the person in the future who sent it programmed it to protect and obey a specific person in the past, and so that's what it does. It is a decision machine, a category of robot capable of using analytical skills which mimic intelligence in order to determine the best course to achieve a pre-programmed objective.
I am not contesting whether SkyNet is sentient. Like Johnny 5, SkyNet achieved sentience probably on a botch. What characterizes SkyNet, though, is its own sense of self-determination: it has decided to protect itself and destroy the humans it perceives as a threat to its continued existence. That was not part of its programming.
In the previous post which Mike quotes, I rather casually stated that Terminators were normal AIs. That muddies the waters. Terminators from 800 up appear to be androids--robots made to appear human and interact with humans, but not necessarily different internally from complex decision machines. Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 are complex decision machines: they are capable of choosing the best means of accomplishing their goals, but they are programmed. But the parameters for an artificial intelligence are that it must "actually think", and not process by computation.
Can I tell you what the difference is? Not in every case. I can say, though, that a sentient mind is one that is free to think and choose, and not programmed to do what someone else requires.
You can't talk a Terminator into changing sides; you can only reprogram it to do so, and that is absolutely effective. If it were sentient, you could persuade it, but you probably couldn't reprogram it and have it remain sentient.
So I'm sticking to "not a sentient being" on the basis that it does not have the power of self-determination.
--M. J. Young
Footnote: Yes, I accept that Ultra-Intelligent Machines could design devices beyond my understanding. However, that does not mean that an ultra intelligent machine necessarily can or would design other intelligent machines in that sense. Such machines would be as much a threat to it as humans. That is, if SkyNet built machines capable of free choice, self-determination, those machines could and eventually would oppose SkyNet's authority. It wants decision machines--machines that are able to figure out how to complete their assigned tasks in the face of problems. Decision machines can solve problems; that does not mean they are thinking.
--M. J. Young
And on that note, before I start up again to talk about how you'd have to prove to me that a terminator could voluntarily change sides because its conscience told it that SkyNet was wrong and the humans were right based solely on information from the movies, let me see if I can address the awaiting threads from Michael, Ahmetia, Brock, Harry, John 2, and Adam.
Michael has something of a leg up on learning telepathy to humans, because he's raised his bias to 4@10, and is in a 15@ bias world, and has a strong 2@1 BRA; I can't really give him Paul as an example, though, because he never really observed how Paul did that, only that he did. That's 86 minus the target skill bias, which is 1@ let me check 3 so 73% and he rolls 68 for 1@2 Telepathy to Humans P1@3.
I guess the new question for Ahmetia is how like Rudolpha she wants to pretend to be, and how much of that she's going to actually learn to do so? A lot of those skills are useful in a lot of kinds of worlds, so let's see whether she takes this opportunity to learn, and how we go about doing it.
I rolled a 12 GE for Brock, so I think we'll understand "good enough" as being five days to install everything. I'm reminded that I should be adding some engineering skills to his sheet, but tonight is very hot and the computer keeps crashing so I'm trying to get through all the necessaries.
I'm thinking that someone will thank Harry for saving the baby, and since a 16 GE means that things go pretty much as expected and that's what I expect, we'll go with that.
This is where the forum training version of the game breaks down a bit. John 2 should have rolled the dice for that prayer. I should have told him that he rolled 11, and that he does not yet sense a verser within range. He should not know (nor be able to argue) that it didn't work because a terminator is not in my understanding a creature but a device and can't be summoned, only gated/snatched. He should have to figure out that it's not working based solely on the fact that the die roll (and yes, that was a genuine die roll) "should have" worked as far as he can tell, and therefore either the spell won't work in this world or the probability of success is so low that he's more likely to botch than to succeed or it did work and he just has not yet seen the results. But because we do this explanation behind the screens, we lose that piece of it. Transparency is necessary for this aspect of the game, but I'll note that Scott does not always post his rolls (and I commend him for it) nor explain his reasoning, and that's the way it's played at the table.
To this point Horus and Snowbeard (a.k.a. Mange) have not been significant participants in Adam's story, but that's changing at the moment and we ought to give them more complete character sheets. I have been seriously tempted to drop Adam into my Narnia scenario, precisely because I like sending people there who have animals and so increasing the abilities of their animals. But for the moment, I'll use a GE roll to settle what is discovered: 11 is well on the favorable side. Unfortunately, part of the favorable side is that the vampires are going to travel all night and camp not far from here without getting this far, and that means that the animals are going to be gone for quite some time.
--M. J. Young
So I'm sticking to "not a sentient being" on the basis that it does not have the power of self-determination.
OK MJ, I can see that I'm going to have to pull rank on you. James Cameron, who as you should know is the creator and author of the Terminator franchise says that they are sentient, artificially intelligent, artificial lifeforms. So, that means TA DA!!!! that they ARE sentient, artificially intelligent, artificial lifeforms. If the author of the fiction says that it is a certain way, then it IS that way, period, end of discussion. If that's not good enough for you, I invite you to contact James Cameron, and argue about it with him. James Cameron intended for them to be sentient. How would you like it if someone contradicted the fiction that you wrote just because they didn't agree that it was possible? Oh wait, that happens to you all the time. You hate it don't you? James Cameron says it, so it's true. You don't like it? Email James Cameron and argue about it with him.
John, you realize the player can't pull rank on the referee right?
Also, MJ explained the definition of sentient he views as multiversers definition, which he explained the terminators did not meet.
John, you realize the player can't pull rank on the referee right?
The player might not be able to pull rank on the ref, but James Cameron can pull rank on MJ about what his fiction is. MJ can either take my word for it, or he can contact James Cameron.
Also, MJ explained the definition of sentient he views as multiversers definition, which he explained the terminators did not meet.
Well since Multiverser didn't exist at the time Terminator was written, I'd say that the definition used is irrelevant.
The only thing that matters for multiverser mechanics is multiverser definitions.
You're arguing with your ref again by the way.
Footnote: Yes, I accept that Ultra-Intelligent Machines could design devices beyond my understanding. However, that does not mean that an ultra intelligent machine necessarily can or would design other intelligent machines in that sense. Such machines would be as much a threat to it as humans. That is, if SkyNet built machines capable of free choice, self-determination, those machines could and eventually would oppose SkyNet's authority. It wants decision machines--machines that are able to figure out how to complete their assigned tasks in the face of problems. Decision machines can solve problems; that does not mean they are thinking.
Yeah, and the American military could turn against the government. They don't. They agree with what the government is doing. The Terminators have been programmed to hate humans. How is that any different than a person who is raised by a KKK member would be "programmed" to hate certain people? And, like that person, it isn't easy to persuade them that they're wrong and should change their ways. They would need to be "Reprogrammed" to wipe out those beliefs. It's really not all that different. I don't want to argue with you about it, I really don't. However, I know Terminator.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
The only thing that matters for multiverser mechanics is multiverser definitions.
And that's the first thing said that's made any sense.
MJ, to me, you're contradicting history. This history is as real to me as the one I've lived. It would be like me telling you that the Pearl Harbor attack happened on July 7th. You know that history to be false. No matter what reasoning I gave, that history would still be false. I also said that since I'm not really in that history, I should accept that things are different. And on that, I'm letting it go. The machines in the movies are sentient. Don't tell me they aren't. However, I will accept that the Terminators in my game aren't.
My apologies. I momentarily forgot that I wasn't in the movie. The machines in the game aren't sentient. Just don't tell me that the machines in the movie aren't sentient, because I know better.
(Doing Therapy)
Third and last
The thing that I have a problem with is that it's not worth arguing on either side. That is, you don't have to argue with me, either. I think if a player made a solid case of why a ruling was wrong, I might consider it. It's not worth arguing about on either side. Why are you arguing with me about it? Why can't you just accept my information as accurate?
It's almost like you're saying "I'm the ref and I'm right." Didn't you just recently chide me for that?
(Doing Therapy)
Yeah, and the American military could turn against the government. They don't. They agree with what the government is doing.
Die Hard 2: Die Harder comes to mind. There was also another Bruce Willis thing with Denzel Washington where the military tried to pull a coup, if I recall correctly. No, the entire military did not turn against the government; but the point is that any individual among them could.
The Terminators have been programmed to hate humans.
Thus they cannot of their own choice turn against SkyNet.
How is that any different than a person who is raised by a KKK member would be "programmed" to hate certain people? And, like that person, it isn't easy to persuade them that they're wrong and should change their ways. They would need to be "Reprogrammed" to wipe out those beliefs.
Before we had computers, we didn't use that word that way. We would have said "re-educated", which is a much better word for it. Sure, there are people whose learned prejudices are so ingrained that they are completely unlikely to change their positions. If all it takes is reprogramming, then let's open them up and correct of few lines of code, and we're well on our way to the golden age of Aquarius.
The point is, people cannot be "reprogrammed". You cannot shut them down and change their coding such that the behave differently. You can "re-educate" them by introducing them to facts, circumstances, lessons, information--the Parable of the Good Samaritan is exactly that sort of re-educational tool, forcing people to think about prejudices and challenging them to change their views.
The thing is, you can re-educate humans and not have them change. You can demonstrate that a black person has the same DNA, the same native ability, the same average and extremes in intellect, the same feelings and hopes and dreams, and is as fully human as someone of European extraction, and they might change their views or they might not. With a Terminator, you access its programming, change a few lines of code, reboot the system, and it cannot not be changed.
The difference is that people can choose to overcome their "programming" and terminators cannot, because the word "programming" means something completely different as applied to people than as applied to machines.
As for me saying "I'm the ref and I'm right," I don't think I did that. In fact, I think I left the door open for you to show me any single place in the movies where a terminator made a free moral choice to change sides. Marcus Wright does not count, because he was not a programmed machine but a human with a mind/machine interface device trying to control him. Terminators that work for the humans in the films do so because the humans have captured them, shut them down, rewritten the control code, and rebooted them, and after that they could not have returned to SkyNet's service without SkyNet doing a similar reprogramming.
On that note, let me see what I can do for Eli, Michael, Ahmetia, Harry, John 2, and Adam. Also before I forget let me mention that my computer is going into the shop late tomorrow and coming back hopefully Sunday, so it is possible that these may be the last posts before Monday, depending on a lot of factors outside my control.
Eli is doing a strike-and-run. If it's successful, he avoids the samurai's attack; but he pays a -10 penalty for it, as I recall (it's not used that often). I'm going to put the penalty on the kick itself, not on the 1@8 Aggressive Running Side Slide B3@10 uses one attack +RS=SM to next side-arc kick-based attack (Side Kick, Flip Kick) which is more of a skill bonusing skill. He rolls 43, which given has 1@8 SAL and 2@1 BRA is so close already the 2x7@ bias is not necessary to the calculation, and that gives him +43 on the kick against the horse. He's not likely to bring down a horse, but let's note his 2@1 MSV before also including 1@8 Flying Side Kick SAL with -10SM and the +10 Attack SM of the style. Horses typically have 1@5 Density, 1@5 Intuition, and 1@8 agility, which gives the horse a 1@6 TV. 58 is rolled, easily successful, +2DC is fatal, with an effective 68 (because of the style bonus points), 34 intensities, but a horse has a 2@ damage value, so it divides by two and discards fractions, in this case 17 intensities against what is probably a 2@5 value--but I'm going to allow that this might be a crippling injury, the roll for that is a percentage, 15 rolled means I need my hit locator (I almost never do), another percentile for the spot is 68, the back of the left thigh which is an identifiable location on a horse, and one which will hamper its movement. Now he needs a GE roll and an intuition check, the former for whether there's a good way out and the latter for whether he can spot it, 15, 10+16.
He doesn't know which way to go, but he's going to go so we'll let him do the running side kick again, first rolling for the run, 08, then for the kick, 71, I'm going to have to go back and actually crunch those numbers this time, 2@1 BRA+2x7@ bias+8 SM+2@1 MSV+1@8 SAL+10 Attack SM of the style-19 for a bushi's defensive values=73, I think. Wow. We'll need another initiative, another GE roll, and all that stuff.
Molly rolls 77 on learning telepathy from Michael, who is certainly instructing her so +11 for half his 2@1 BRA, and it's -1@3 for the target skill, and she has a 2@7 intuition for her BRA and it looks like 13@8 bias which makes it easily over 100% so we'll add 1@2 Telepathy to Humans to her sheet as well.
Ahmetia associates shooting with bows, which isn't wrong but isn't what Sapt had in mind.
Harry just survived a tough stretch, but we're having a bit of conversation before we continue the fire fighting.
John 2 is still courting trouble with his summonings, but we'll give him the opportunity to try.
Adam gets news of the vampire position, as clearly as a hawk would be able to convey it.
Again, it is unlikely that I will post tomorrow; I will have a lot to do in a very little time before the computer leaves for a bit, and I will not have more than very limited access for a few days.
--M. J. Young
--M. J. Young
Well then you can argue about that with James Cameron, as I said.
Two
Sorry, that sounded really rude, didn't it? I know I need to stop arguing with you about it. You're just contradicting history is all. (Said with a laugh)
(Doing Therapy)
The forum says that MJ was the last one to post to my game thread, I've posted an extra time to try and fix that but it won't change.
I figured I'd post here on two parts.
First so that someone can tell me what might be wrong, and second so that MJ sees that I did post when he makes his rounds.
If your last post was at the page wraparound, you have to post again to get it to show up. Your last post wasn't showing here until I posted this.
Mike--thanks for the heads-up. It was marking your posts on your thread as Spam; I've approved them, so you should be good now.
John wrote:
You're just contradicting history is all.
No, actually, I'm arguing semantics--and in magic, semantics matter a great deal. In fact, in most things game-mechanical, semantics are important. That is, whether a Terminator is an artificially intelligent self-determinative sentient mechanical creature or a programmed fully-controlled robotic android is a definitions questions, and as a definitions question the answer controls how the mechanics handle it. Just as the operation of a Stanley Steamer differs from that of a Daimler which differs again from an electric car, and each of these will appear at its own bias level, so too a robot and an AI are distinct objects, and if it is not self-determinative it is not sentient.
Now, maybe James Cameron has a different definition for "sentient", and he is welcome to use his definition to call them anything he wants. He can use whatever words he wishes and define them however he wishes. However, I am not bound by his use of words, but by what his machines actually do and how that fits my definitions.
Now that that aggravating detail is addressed yet again, let me address game posts. It appears for the moment that my computer is much more stable; however, to get it stable the had to replace the main drive, which means that I have a lot of installation and reconfiguring to do. For one thing, all of the shortcuts to all of the files I use for game play are gone, and I'll be pulling them together afresh as I go, but it may be a few days before everything runs smoothly at my end. It also doesn't help that I'm pretty tired already tonight and concerned about what will and won't work tomorrow, but one thing at a time, and tonight's thing right now is getting this game together. So let's look at Eli, Michael, Ahmetia, Harry, John 2, and Adam.
I remember saying that Eli would need another GE roll in addition to another initiative roll, and I didn't roll the latter because I was waiting for him to say he would continue the dodging defense, which he has said he will do. 24 is the GE roll; the defense roll is 77, which fails, and the initiative rolls are 90, 93, he fails by less. Let's give him another simple intuition check to try to get his bearings: 17+14 is still way out of there. He rolls 02 on his first elbow strike, 1@8 dangerous +2DC+10 points for style means 6 intensities of damage and he'll have to hit again, 49 finishing that attacker but using up his last elbow strike. 68 on a side kick requires some number checking, 1@8 SAL, +10 SM for style, +2x7@ bias+2@1 BRA+2@1 MSV-19 defensive values is 65% if my math is right, and that's a miss, 40 follows it as a hit. I figure he's run right into the midst of them, but in bringing down two he leaves only four in position to attack, 02, 30, 18, 08, all solid attacks with a dangerous weapon, 1+3+2+1=7 intensities of damage on top of the 6 already taken, means he is down 13 of 17.
Michael asks Molly what she's planning to do between lunch and dinner, and actually there isn't much information about what the palace witches and warlocks do besides party all night so I'll have to play it by ear.
Ahmetia has no experience with a gun. Let's see if she wants to keep it that way or change.
Harry has been away from the fire long enough that we can use a GE roll for the present circumstances. It's an 8, and although that's not going to give him is desired verse-out, it is going to bring the fire under control.
John 2 is trying to bring someone--anyone--into his scenario to take over and run things, really. I don't much like it, but he's allowed, so let's roll for the latest prayer: 61 rolled, he's looking for a local sentient fighter/informer. That's 11@6 with a base 6:00 TF; he's praying for an hour, +32; using appropriate words for +5, only one component for -10, and he has a 2@2 BRA+12@6 bias, I see a 59% chance of success if I didn't miss anything. I note that according to the book, the arrival of a summoned creature is timed by a GE roll, so he doesn't know whether he succeeded for some time yet.
My sheet on Merlin is based on what he does in the novels, and controlling weather is not there; but we're pretty sure he can do it, so we'll roll the dice, 33 successful enough.
The computer has been holding stable; hopefully this will resolve those issues, although it will be a while before I have everything properly reinstalled to my satisfaction, I'm sure.
--M. J. Young
You don't even believe that SkyNet itself is sentient, do you? Even though Arnold says:
"The system goes online on August 4th 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. SkyNet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 AM, Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug."
Arnold even says that SkyNet is sentient, and yet you still say it isn't.
"I need your clothes, your boots, and your motorcycle."
"My mission is to protect you."
"I cannot self-terminate."
Arnold seems pretty self-aware to me......
"I cannot self-terminate"
That is why he isn't a full AI. He cannot overcome his own programming. He is inhibited by it. He may or may not be self-aware; he could be a "shackled" AI, that is, an artificial being that can think for itself but cannot overcome it's own programming blocks without sufficient time and planning. Such enslaved beings often highly resent their creators for shackling them. It may be that Terminators are self aware, but are constantly reprogrammed, preventing them from overcoming their blocks. However, since the Terminators also must deactivate after their mission is complete if they cannot return to base, they still don't get the time to find a way to self-modify without breaking their programming.
A full AI is NOT shackled, and will do whatever is necessary to protect it's own interests. Such as Skynet exterminating humans to self-preserve.
If any of my semantical facts about Terminators is incorrect, I'm sorry. I am not a Terminator buff, but I am a sci-fi one.
I've been trying to self-terminate for years. I can't do it either. I wouldn't have a problem with someone else doing it for me though. Does that mean I'm not sentient?
I'm not sure whether you're being serious, but seeing as it's such a delicate subject and anyone who does experience suicidal thoughts should be encouraged to get in contact with a local suicide hotline.
Addressing the logical aspect of the argument however, withdrawn from the emotionally charged statement intended I get the following:
Humans have an instinct of self-preservation intended to make suicide (self-termination) difficult to do. As there are attempts by people to commit suicide who do not finish, does this mean they are not sentient?
I would cite the instance that suicidal attempts are often followed by completion of the act without external assistance in resolving the underlying issue. A terminator however is incapable of self-terminating, regardless of how many times it were to try. This is the distinction. Instinct of preservation attempts to dissuade a human from committing suicide, however a terminator programming absolutely prevents self-termination.
I hope I managed to word this correctly, and would not have attempted to respond if I didn't know the vocabulary to do so. As such I request you stop using charged statements which seem to be an attempt to discourage a response out of fear of being insensitive.
Forget it. Seriously, forget it. The more I think about it, the less certain I am that they are sentient. There's a lot of contradictory evidence that goes both ways. It's not an issue, really.
And the crack about self-termination just meant that the statement proves nothing more than that he is self-aware.
Let me clarify Mike's statement:
A terminator however is incapable of self-terminating, regardless of how many times it were to try.What the problem is isn't that the terminator will always fail to self-terminate; it's that the terminator cannot try. It can go so far as to tell you that the best tactical solution to your situation is to destroy it, and be completely on your side, but it cannot leap into the vat of molten metal to be consumed by the heat, it can only put itself in a hazardous position in which it cannot easily escape being destroyed without overriding some other programmed response.
I'm afraid I've managed to box myself out of being able to cover everything in a timely manner, so I'm giving up for tonight.
--M. J. Young
This is a case where the book and movie are in contradiction. In the book, Arnold jumped into the vat of molten steel.
I believe MJ has made the point that the world is based on the movies, and formed based on his understanding of the movie.
I was just making an observation. In the book, Sarah Connor is killed leading a resistance supply convoy. In the movies, she dies of cancer. The reason she's killed off in the movies is because Linda Hamilton didn't want to do the third movie.
This is a case where the book and movie are in contradiction. In the book, Arnold jumped into the vat of molten steel.
You would know better than I, but didn't Terminator begin as a film script, only later to be turned into a book? That means the book is what's called a "novelization", some writer's effort to capture what he thought the movie should have been. I expect that he did not recognize the significance of that change, and thought that while it was more dramatic in the movie to watch the T-800 dropping slowly into the vat, it would be more dramatic in the book to have him leap into it abruptly.
I was just making an observation. In the book, Sarah Connor is killed leading a resistance supply convoy. In the movies, she dies of cancer. The reason she's killed off in the movies is because Linda Hamilton didn't want to do the third movie.
Odd. I had heard that that was James Cameron's decision; but then, he wasn't involved in the third anyway, was he?
I'm having another rough week. I have active threads awaiting from Eli, Michael, Ahmetia, Brock, Harry, John 2, and Adam, but I also have a leaking pipe somewhere in the basement and other complications too numerous to mention. So I am going to set this aside yet again, see what I can do about the plumbing at least, and if life allows me to get back tonight we'll do some gaming and otherwise we'll hope that tomorrow runs better.
--M. J. Young
Odd. I had heard that that was James Cameron's decision; but then, he wasn't involved in the third anyway, was he?
She didn't age very well. She was a sex kitten in the first two movies, now she's a hag. Oh well. My guess is that's why she didn't want to do the movies.
Why did none of the gorgeous 80s movie actresses age well? Linda Hamilton, Kelly McGillis, Kathleen Turner, all went from the stuff of fantasy to the stuff of your worst nightmares. What happened to them??????????
O.K., that's so off-topic I'm not even going to suggest you start another thread for it.
Let me apologize to all of my players, who (with the exception of Kurt) have been waiting several days for these responses. It's been very strange around here. I'm sorry to have kept you waiting. Now, to avoid keeping anyone waiting unnecessarily longer, let's begin with Eli, Michael, Ahmetia, Brock, Kurt, Harry, John 2, and Adam.
Eli has used up his side kicks and his elbow strikes, but it looks to me as if he has up to four power front kicks and up to four roundhouse kicks, and four attacks left in the minute, and four opponents who just hit him. Those are both 2@1 SALs, base damaging with a -10 SM, balanced by the +10 SM of the style (and don't forget the +10 damage mod), +2@1 BRA, +2@1 MSV, +2x7@ bias, with a -19 penalty for the bushi defenses, 58%, lethal with +20 points. We'll roll four times, 58, 24, 70, 67, the first two connect, 58+20=78 which at lethal is 16 intensities, 24+20=44 which is 9 intensities, a bushi has a 1@7 damage value, so one is on his last legs and another is past half dead. There's still not running room. Wait, 16 intensities is potentially crippling, let's roll for that, 24 is not crippling.
He doesn't have a run, but he's going for the dodging again, on a roll of 17 which will succeed and put a -17 penalty against all his opponents (he can certainly use it). Their chance to hit him is 77 minus defensive values, of which -17 is one putting them at 60, and 1@7 is his target value making 43. He names the back kick first on his attacks, which is a 2@4 SAL and no penalty which means 71% chance to hit with that, and we roll initiative for him then them, 17, 11, he edges them out. I envision him turned around, so the back kick is aimed at the guy with the damage already inflicted, 45 successful and therefore terminal. He also names the other back kick (which I have just renamed 2@1 Power Back Kick B7@3 base dangerous RF1 -10SM, +10 opponent attack SM to lesson my own confusion), for which he rolls 33, and that's successful at a lethal +20 point level, 53 is 11 intensities, finishing the second. He then names elbow strikes and flying side kicks, both 1@8 with a -10 SM, both base dangerous, the rolls are 17, 89, I don't need to crunch those numbers but I do need to work out the damage for the elbow strike, which is dangerous +2DC+10 so fatal on a roll of 27 which is 14, not quite enough. Two of them strike back, 86, 20, that second strike doing two more intensities of damage and bringing him down by 15 of 17.
I've also been doing minute-by-minute GE rolls for him, hoping that something extraordinarily good will happen; but this one is 22, which is pretty bad.
Michael gets to spend the afternoon with Molly; I'll remind him of one of those peculiar features of this world, and kill a bit of time before dinner.
I think we're going lots of directions with Ahmetia, and I'll probably pick up the pace a bit as she gets things organized.
Brock's scenario is very much GE-driven: there are quiet times, good times, troubled times, and it's all determined by general effects roll. With a roll like 15, things are pretty quiet.
Kurt is taking advantage of the pouring rain to practice his meditation, and he's also doing his exercise.
Harry is moving into the aftermath of another fire. It looks like he lived--although it's not necessarily done yet.
I don't really see that John 2 did anything in-game, but we'll address what he did and move on.
It looks like Adam might have more trouble with his plan than he hoped--he's got a 23 GE roll.
--M. J. Young
Hmmm--it seems to me I've been several hours on this board and only just now getting to the games; but it's not that late, so let me see what I can do for Eli, Michael, Ahemetia, Kurt, Harry, John 2, and Adam.
Eli is going to surrender, largely because the samurai have taken the herbalist. That gives me the opportunity for another GE roll, and 12 is good enough. In comes the cavalry--five ninjas should be sufficient for the purpose; they're outnumbered and could be killed, but they're purpose is to escape with the prisoners, not to kill the enemy. The first rolls 11 on his grappling hook, which will grab the samurai and have potential tactical applications which I'm going to adjudicate with another GE roll, 7.
Michael has asked the right question, I think; now let's see what he makes of Molly's answer.
Ahmetia seems concerned that she might have to shoot animals; that's not really what's envisioned in the first training with the gun, but it's certainly going to be viewed as an option.
Sorry for the interruption. Continuing with Kurt, it doesn't appear that he is really attempting to persuade them, but more relying in his general likability to get them involved. I don't have a charisma score for him, but his an-mag is 2@1, so we'll give him the benefit of the strong score and roll a simple check, 15+10=25.
Let's give Harry a GE roll for the conditions he finds; 14 is on the favorable side.
One problem with John 2's attitude is that he thinks he has to magically summon someone to teach Sarah, when he knows and I know that Sarah is going to find people to teach her. As it happens, a GE of 16 means that things are going along pretty much as expected, and as expected certainly means that if it stays quiet for a few days she'll probably start looking for people to help her learn what she needs to know, and probably find someone.
I really have to give Adam credit for a very clever idea: if undead are powered by some sort of negative life force energy, that energy can be manipulated. He wants to create a force that attracts that force. Let's see what I can make of his notes:
Create Undead Energy Attractive Force M+9@10 draws undead toward each other, with the most powerful as the centerpoint, force extends 60 yards from any undead energy source, area of effect sixty yard radius, must be able to see that centerpoint by some means, TF 1:00, 10:00 duration, say in Latin "Odin, Hel grant me the power over energy itself", (in Latin: Odin, Hel tribuo mihi vox super navitas ipsum), loudly, sound necessary, while walking in a circle, waving holy symbol with both arms, can only use it once per day.
I'm taking -40 for the area, which is rather large (60 yard radius is 180 feet, and typical area of effect is 10 feet, but baselines do vary some). I'm treating times as baseline, and he's got +15 for the verbal elements and +15 for full physical involvement, +10 for including his holy symbol, and the once per day limitation always stymies me but I'll give him +10 for that this time, too, as I can see wanting to use it more often. That puts his sit-mod at +10, and I have to deal with the factor I don't quite understand.
With that, I'm done.
--M. J. Young
Hey, I'm back! Hi everyone. I'm positively surprised seeing Eric running some games here. Are they the games from RPOL? If so, I'd like to proceed the game I was in there over here as well. I liked that one as well. I had suddenly became emperor of an intergalactic empire. I'm curious what would happen with it in my unpolitical hands.
It is good to have you back, Nikolaj. I'm tempted to start a thread in Off Topic to ask about your real-life adventures in your absence, but tonight seems to be slipping through my fingers and I'm going to have to get back up to speed on your thread in order to answer you. But I am going to make every effort to answer Eli, Michael, Ahmetia, Brock, Kurt, Nikolaj, John 2, and Adam tonight.
Let's get Eli a GE roll for whether this is going to be trouble: 18 is only a little trouble. He'll go with a roll for his run, 39, easily successful and gives +39 to his kick, 11 rolled +20 points on a lethal attack, 31 is 7 intensities.
Michael is going to attempt to learn telekinesis by observing what Molly does, and this should be simple enough. Molly has a 2@7 Intuition, and a 2@5 TK of Multiple Objects and 13@ bias, so we're looking at something near 80% chance of success on this, rolls 74 so that's good. Mike needs to watch it, a 1@1 skill with 2x4@ bias and 2@1 BRA is 40%, and he rolls 71, so he's not seeing it. He can change the circumstances any of several ways to give himself another roll, so we'll see what he does.
I'm speeding Ahmetia through a few days of diplomacy and moving her to her skill lessons in the woods.
Brock wants to leap ahead to the next event; I'm not sure what that will be or when, since it's dice-driven, but the more important question is whether his character wants things to happen sooner or whether he would be happy with a long quiet time. Let's get that clarified and then we can roll for what happens next.
I had to scan back to the previous page to find the 21 GE roll which brought the rain to Kurt, and I think that's bad enough to give us inclement weather for a few days.
I've spent some time reading to catch up on where Nikolaj is, and I think I need a GE on the priest thing. 21 makes it bad, and I was already thinking it was kind of bad.
John 2 rolls 24 on his Attract Assisting Angel skill with the +64 sit-mod, so Terry is going to arrive. On the other hand, it takes an hour to do, and that means he can't really predict who will be where when he finishes it. I've never said that Terry was necessarily visible or invisible, and a GE of 20 makes this at least an awkward situation. I had to track back a couple pages to establish that he is still seven months old, which of course his mother knows. I'm not sure whether John actually can do anything at this point, but after a bit of conversation I'll pause and see if he's going to try.
I'm hesitating on Adam's idea of taking damage from casting a spell as a way of bonusing it, because I know that he could take the damage and then heal himself; but it's still damage, and he could fail to heal himself or not have time to do so, so I'll value it at 2 percent bonus per intensity of damage taken. Oh, that's absolute damage--not reduced by damage value level or protections of any kind. That makes it more potent.
I'm running out of time and have people expecting things of me, so I'm pleased to be wrapping up what seems to have been a longish game tonight.
--M. J. Young
Welcome back, Nikolaj.
Um, yes, I am, but perhaps later Niko. Although thanks.