Jeff: the Paladin material is in GK, pages 31-32. It's pretty specific -- what part is unclear?

By Robert Herneson (Rherneson) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 07:23 pm: Edit

I've really rolled this around in my head a lot and divorce it from the 'story' to boil down the game mechanics.

Taking what Steve said above as the guide I'm going to suggest that no additional cost needs to be paid and that the 'alternate rank' in the Klingon military structure be handled as a matter of Status.

Rank already confers a 3:1 benefit, fairly close to what Steve suggested. Plus, take what Steve said resulted in Kumerian was elevated in Marine Rank; "a free promotion bump to reflect his accumulated skills and abilities", "command ability", "a particularly brilliant victory".

Since most Klingon officers don't actively work their marine rank, the use of Status gives them a transparent rank, which in all effect is only Status to them. Additionally, if a Klingon Officer wants to increase his marine standing in excess of his 3:1 conferred ratio, consider, he really isn't getting any new authority. He already has greater authority conferred by his navel rank, instead he is now gaining respect and peer consideration from the marines. He is adding Status.

I suggest this strongly because of the above as well as the fact that it does not require any new rules or exceptions to rules.

RH

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Gary-

I just "threw out" the Holy warrior reference as a possible discussion item...not a critique of the Paladins in any specific context.

My main point was that if multiple "Ranks" were to be allowed in many different services, it could quickly become very confusing.

SVC clarified the point to my complete satisfaction.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 01:07 am: Edit

OK, so it sounds like we're all in agreement on the DSF/Marine thing?

It IS something that we needed to hash out, IMHO.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 10:13 am: Edit

Here's my decision. You get the two commissions for one price. You earn promotions in each one separately; if you want to get promoted in both, you have to do something in each career field to get that promotion. (GURPS rules provide what that something is, so just go with me.)

You don't really need any rule to account for the fact that "a navy admiral, who holds the rank of marine 2nd lieutenant, is probably about as smart regarding marine matters as the average marine major" since the admiral's OPERATIONS (SPACE) skill has a default to OPERATIONS (GROUND) with a -3 penalty.

By Robert Herneson (Rherneson) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 11:06 am: Edit

Ok, so Steve, please take a decision (yeah, I know you said it above, but say it now with your 'official' voice) at the exact amount of levels of marine Rank a character is compared to his Navel Rank. If what you want is the same as you said above, then the difference would be 4 GURPS levels.
I don't see a problem with no point cost because the higher Rank cost already covers any advantages the lower Rank confers.

Next, since there is no skill 'Operations', may I suggest that you use 'Strategy (Space/Navel)' & 'Strategy (Ground/Land)'. I also suggest that since the GURPS rules specify a -2 penalty for the most extreme differences (different nation or TL) that the penalty be a -2.
However, I also suggest that the Admiral's Leadership skill be at a -5 until, as you put it, the character does something in the marine field to lessen or remove that penalty (GM call). This -5 penalty is also from the GURPS rules, in Leadership.

RH

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 11:22 am: Edit

The skill "operations" is on GK82 and this rule, copied from other GURPS sources, declares the penalty for shifting from space to ground to be -3.

I suggest you check more carefully before declaring that there is such thing. Where do you think **I** got it? No way I would just make up a skill, and your assumption I did so is rather insulting.

By Robert Herneson (Rherneson) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 11:44 am: Edit

- No insult was intended Steve.

- You have said in the past (paraphrasing) you don't know GURPS well enough at most times to put rules in GURPS talk.

- I provided you with the best opinion to offer you help.

- GURPS Klingons hasn't got a table of Contents nor list Operation skill in the index. Because flag officers have junior officers to handle the details Operation covers, I felt, in my opinion, they simply rolled that in to their thinking of Strategy, not being aware you have made a rule not covered by GURPS.

- Finally, it is because of treatment and incidence like this that I removed myself from playtest and took many projects off my schedule. I respect that you have a lot of things to handle however I also respect that you are an intelligent man and should know that it would have taken far less of your time to have just written, "Thanks, however, the skill.....".

I'm sure that you have something besides my post that is irritating you today, so I don't have any reason to be insulted or annoyed by your public upbringing, but I do know you can do better, Steve. In the meantime, despite the opinions offered here, I am glad to see that you have a solution that works to your satisfaction.

RH

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 11:51 am: Edit

Robert: I rather thought the first sentence of the 11:06 am post was the insulting part. I was surprised at your approach. If you don't have GK then why are you commenting with such an authorative approach?

By Robert Herneson (Rherneson) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Loren, while you were posting, I was editing my reply, sorry about that.
The net (as I've noted before) is a very limited medium and tone and intent don't come through very well. In my head, the tone I had when I wrote the line you cited was friendly with the intent to help.
Clearly the voice in my head isn't the same as in anyone else’s, but that is something I hope everyone that uses the net should know. I mean, want an example, go back and read your post to me but put an angry 'voice' to it. I'm sure that's know how you wanted it read, but that requires something from me on my part, too.
As I said, in my post, I was offering opinion based on past events in intent to help. Sorry if the 'voice' was mininterpreted.

RH

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Robert: You are DEAD WRONG on two counts and need to reconsider your approach.

1. I was not insulting; you were. You made it worse by lecturing me in public about how to behave when you were in error in the first place. You need to keep your advice on behavior to those who need it, i.e., yourself.

2. The rule is not one we made up "not covered by gurps" but came from another gurps product. {Well duh, do you really think SJ is going to allow us to write new rules?} The fact that you are not aware of this rule doesn't give you the right to be insulting.

I don't know gurps well enough to put rules in gurpstalk which is why I QUOTED A PUBLISHED RULE, a rule you have once declared does not exist and have the second time declared we made up, and you were WRONG both times.

Indeed, you removed yourself from the playtest process because I don't react well when you call me an idiot. That's probably for the best, for both of us.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 02:00 pm: Edit

I, for one, am going to write this off to confusion and misunderstanding. I hold no ill will against Robert, but I do get miffed at being lectured when I'm not the one who is wrong.

In future, Robert, if you want to help, you need to start with the assumption that if I write it, and it's in gurpsrulespeak, that I copied it from somewhere, since as you have correctly stated, I couldn't write an actual rule to save my life.

I literally don't know (as you have correctly stated) if a -2 or +4 penalty is a lot or a little (and don't care, I have Robert Gilson from SJG to care for me).

If you don't recognize where it came from, you need to ask where it came from and not try to write a new rule until you actually know (from me) where the rule I posted came from or if I did indeed make it up.

Somebody might tell Robert where "operations" comes from (I have no idea, maybe WWII?) as he may want to reference that product in future before trying to help.

By Robert Herneson (Rherneson) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 02:30 pm: Edit

I agree, much of what causes people to come to loggerheads, myself and Steve included, is confusion and misunderstanding, like this.

No one comes here to see this and Steve and I can deal with any of the rest of this that needs discussed, in private when we both have time.

The net offers communication options as seldom before but at the present cost of some limits to the subtleties. It will get better.

Sorry to anyone made uncomfortable.

RH

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Gurps is a vast game, with zillions of books and bazillions of rules, some of which are repeated (with variations) in several books. Nobody knows every rule, and everyone must be aware that rules exist with which he is not familiar.

So far as I know, there is no rule in GPD/GK/GMPA that is not copied from GURPS. (Oh, there are character stats, equipment data, racial templates, career templates, etc., but not "rules".) If there ever is, it would of course be one approved by Steve Jackson and one that is canon to all other GURPS books.

So, if there is a skill in GK or GR or Gwhatever, then it's an official skill and is the preferred one to be used for anything in GPD.

I try hard to avoid using gurpsrulesspeak since I don't know what most of the terms mean and might use one by accident in an unintended way, and in staff memos I often use a sloppy version of what the rule should say as a means of allocating space for it and then mark it as something that the staff needs to write as an official rule.

In the case here, my "decision" was correct and official the first time. If you are a naval captain and you want to be promoted from Marine 2nd Lieutennt to Marine 1st Lieutenant then you're going to have to spend some time with the Marines and do some Marine things. My observation regarding operations (and the same applies to any other skill) is this....

In the case where one assumes that an Admiral know more about Marine things than his Marine rank and marine skills would imply, existing gurps rules are already quite adequate to account for this since tactics, operations, strategy, and all the other things which are "medium limited" such as Operations (Space) already have official gurps defaults to other "media". The example I quoted for Operations (which is that ops-space defaults to ops-marine with a -3 penalty) is quite correct but only one example of many skills that might be involved.

One might assume that a Marine general who has whatever skill covers "gunner, heavy disruptor artillery piece" would be able to work a disruptor on a starship (at whatever penalty gurps already provides, which amounts to...) as well as, say, a Naval officer several ranks below him.

Generals and Admirals have usually be in the the military for a couple of decades, have (at higher and higher ranks) worked within a broader scope of media or "jointness", and perhaps have even had opportunities to do something. [General, Captain Krank sends his compliments. He knows that you came from the artillery corps and wanted to advise you that one of the gunners for the port phasers is having a tooth filled today. The Captain thought perhaps it would amuse the general while he's hitching a ride on our cruiser to man that phaser for him during our target training run by the asteroid belt.]

The bottom line is that we don't need to invent anything because GURPS already has rules (such as the one I quoted) which account for the one fuzzy part of this equation.

By Matthew Pulido (Talison) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 03:17 pm: Edit

My guess is Operations is from WWII. It's not in Compendium I wich means it's fairly new.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 07:48 pm: Edit

Operations "is" from the book series WWII. It also defaults back to Strategy

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 08:12 pm: Edit

operations defaults to IQ, tactics, and strategy at minus six. the mediums (land, air, sea, space) default to each other at minus three. I'm not sure that's not backwards, but it is what it is and I just don't waste time arguing with what gurps says.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 09:44 pm: Edit

you have the WWII series ?
any chance modular components will be listed for making phaser and disruptor equiped tanks, etc.
in a future module of course

By F. Douglas Wall (Knarf) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 02:18 am: Edit

Dwight: There were a couple of those that appeared in GURPS Klingons, actually.

I don't think that Klingon naval or marine rank should necessarily "default" to the other. They are, for most intents and purposes, separate. However, a Klingon naval officer of sufficient rank, such as Kumerian, should already meet the requirements needed for the lower marine ranks skill-wise and so forth. All that would be needed would be the appropriate Seniority. In the case of an exceptional officer, such as Kumerian, that requirement can be put off to the side, to a degree.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 11:33 am: Edit

Kumerian was rather average. Unusual but not exceptional. He did well when he could spend a month planning a two-hour battle; not well at all on the fly.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 06:17 pm: Edit

But Kumerian is a Legendary Captain when appearing in scenarios, isn't he?

Or am I thinking of Korath.

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 06:39 pm: Edit

One can be legendary on the tactical level and not-so-good at the operational or strategic level.

See Hood, John Bell.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 06:48 pm: Edit

Kumerian is not a legendary captain.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit

Right...gotcha.

By F. Douglas Wall (Knarf) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 02:02 am: Edit

Whether or not he's Legendary, he is a notable personage and a perfect example of what we're talking about: A character with both a naval and marine career.

For the record, my only knowledge of Kumerian is from GPD and GK