| From: | shadowrn@*********.com (Ice Heart) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [OT] Standard Vs Metric |
| Date: | Thu Apr 25 13:15:01 2002 |
[SNIP measurment debate]
><Red Leader>
>
>Stay on topic... stay on topic.
>
></Red Leader>
>
>You get the idea ;)
This tangent developed because of the millimeter vs. caliber statement
someone made a few days ago. Which evolved from a discussion of what size
ammunition the M-16 uses. I was certain the M-16 used the NATO round, which
I thought was 7.62? All that aside, we got there because someone asked
about damage codes and how they would translate to caliber ratings. May
answer to that is: they don't, and they shouldn't. Unless you really want
your game sessions to sound like a bunch of people in a sandbag enclosed
farmhouse in Montana. Because your players will bone up on various firearm
trivia and turn that Firearms B/R skill into your worst nightmare. Trust
me. I have developed a love/hate relationship with the demolotions skill
for this exact reason. A little Chemistry, a little Physics, and some Demo
skills, and Seattle became one big active blasting zone in my last game.
*shudder* The SR firearms damage system is pretty abstract, and balances
factors like bullet size, barrel length, propellent load, and balistic
properties into a simple number-letter combo. If you make -any- part of
that damage system more complex, you have to make the whole system more
complex. Armor, melee damage, explosive damage, and Damage Resistance all
have to be reworked. They are too abstract. Among the reasons for this is
the simple fact that the game was not written to cater to just the gun
enthusiasts. Just as the game was not written only for us geeks, and so the
Matrix/Decking thing is exceedingly simplified from anything like real
hacking. Think how a surgeon would feel reading through the bioware rules
or the damage recovery system. Okay, end of that. Starting to rant.
On a completely OT and unrelated note... :P
All measurement systems are arbitrary! So are numbering systems and
mathematics and everything else that measurement systems are based on. The
meter is based on our arbitrary decision to agree on the behavior of light,
measurments of elapsed time, and numerical representation of distance.
Metric is "better" only because the conversions are easy. That's it.
Therein lies its supposed superiority as a system of units. Those of us
using Imperial measurements do so because we have a better intuitive grasp
of them (than we do metric). This tends to start about the same time as
other cognitive developement like vocabulary. Our parents and their friends
used a given set of units in their conversations. When, at the age of 4,
you as how far to garndma's, and you are told "500 miles", it sticks. By
the time you are 12, you have a very clear mental picture of 500 miles. At
that point, drawing the same mental image in kilometers gets difficult; more
difficult with each passing year. You want someone to blame for the units
of measurement you are using? Blame your parents. :) Any of you who
think naturally in metric, ask yourself how early in life you learned it,
and how easy metric would be if it was your second set of units rather than
your first.
Bottom line...all measurements are arbitrary and only function because they
are conventions. Try inventing a system of units with your friends, and
using the system daily. Getting someone outside that circle to think in
terms of "whatsits" and "thingies" will be pretty tough, even if you
have
very nice intuitive unit conversion...say base 10 (a handy arbitrary method
of counting based on the number of fingers you have). :)
Korishinzo
--spent the last 4 kerplunks banging my forehead against this 23 gazzle
monitor with about 50 thrixes of force because of this whole thread ;>
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
