Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Justin Elliott <justin.elliott@********.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:20:24 +1300
>->It wasn't a case of plotting against one another, it was a case of mistaken
>->identity in the middle of a fire-fight.
>->


This brings up a point I have been wondering about. How common is wounding
by friendly fire in your games? It's just that with all those Sams etc out
there with wired reflexes I think that this kinda thing would be fairly
common.

For example, a Sam with Wired Reflexes 2 is in a combat situation in a
warehouse , a figure runs out from between two packing crates. At this
point his reflexes take over, he aims and shoots with out even thinking,
realising to late that his target is the party's mage.

In this situation I give the Sam a perception roll making the target higher
the faster the reflexes. Failure means the Sam fires as normal, sucess can
mean various things depending on how well they suceed, ranging from
shooting wide at the last moment to not firing at all.

This has made my group very carefull around their wired friends, and has
bought around some interesting role play situations as innocents have been
shot or shot at.

Anyway, Do you think I am being too tough? If not how do you lot play these
sort of situations.

Justin
Message no. 2
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 21:10:58 -0700
:For example, a Sam with Wired Reflexes 2 is in a combat situation in a
:warehouse , a figure runs out from between two packing crates. At this
:point his reflexes take over, he aims and shoots with out even thinking,
:realising to late that his target is the party's mage.
:
:In this situation I give the Sam a perception roll making the target
higher
:the faster the reflexes. Failure means the Sam fires as normal, sucess
can
:mean various things depending on how well they suceed, ranging from
:shooting wide at the last moment to not firing at all.

The rules in Cybertechnology are about that, except you also get a
willpower roll to not fire; we have played cop stops where the sami made
his will roll, but not perception, and thus gave himself away with a
"flinch" or "near draw".
This system has some problems: what does "fires as normal" mean? My
samauri often used a multi-mode gun with a UB grenade launcher in high
threat enviroments (like your warehouse example); should he fire SA, a
burst, or a grenade? Or, if the target is close, should he drop the gun
and ready his sword, as he would if the target were a spirit or likely to
melle / pass close by?
Point being, most peoeple's characters DON'T make "reflexive"
attacks-, they are not even always armed (most sams can quickdraw rather
well). A wired mage could not "instictively" cast a spell, as spells are,
by definition, intentional. So what's an "instictive" attack for him?

:This has made my group very carefull around their wired friends, and has
:bought around some interesting role play situations as innocents have
been
:shot or shot at.

If it's intersting role play, do you give the samurai extra karma for
voluntarily simulating wires by blasting his (uncatious) friends? Iv'e
seen it done, and its not alwys considered "good roleplay".

:Anyway, Do you think I am being too tough? If not how do you lot play
these
:sort of situations.


The dice based rules in CT are pretty easy for a good sam to beat-
yours are tougher, yes. However, I'd prefer as a player to do it
voluntarily, just as a shaman should role-play his relationship with his
totem.
Maybe if you constantly "choke down" your reflexes, you should get
ulcers and other minor ailments, form the constant strain of being ready
to fight your own instincts.

Mongoose
Message no. 3
From: Justin Elliott <justin.elliott@********.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:14:38 +1300
> Point being, most peoeple's characters DON'T make "reflexive"
>attacks-, they are not even always armed (most sams can quickdraw rather
>well). A wired mage could not "instictively" cast a spell, as spells are,
>by definition, intentional. So what's an "instictive" attack for him?

Surely the point here is that a mage can't instinctively cast a spell as
spells take a lot more time to cast than squeezing a trigger, so your wired
Mage above has got no problems. Likewise if a character is not armed then
there is no problems, as in normal circumstances in the time it takes to
draw a target can be id'd.

>:This has made my group very carefull around their wired friends, and has
>:bought around some interesting role play situations as innocents have
>been
>:shot or shot at.
>
> If it's intersting role play, do you give the samurai extra karma for
>voluntarily simulating wires by blasting his (uncatious) friends? Iv'e
>seen it done, and its not alwys considered "good roleplay".

Personly I don't think that it is a voluntary responce. As I see it the
wired reflexes work quicker than normal human responces. So in the time it
takes a Sams brain to register movment, begin targeting, id the target, and
fire if needed, his/her wired reflexes have taken over targeted and fired
before his/her mantal process has caught up with the action. I think that
this could only happen in a combat situation.

As all this is outside of a players control isn't it the job of the GM to
simulate it? I don't expect my players to decide when the wires over ride
their own reactions, and wouldn't think they could be unbias in their
choices, no matter how hard they tried.


Justin
Message no. 4
From: Micheal Feeney <Starrngr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:30:48 EDT
In a message dated 98-10-20 01:08:07 EDT, you write:

<< Personly I don't think that it is a voluntary responce. As I see it the
wired reflexes work quicker than normal human responces. So in the time it
takes a Sams brain to register movment, begin targeting, id the target, and
fire if needed, his/her wired reflexes have taken over targeted and fired
before his/her mantal process has caught up with the action. I think that
this could only happen in a combat situation. >>

Up until now, Ive stayed out of this one. However, I feel compelled to point
out something that everyone has overlooked.

Wired reflexes are just that... REFLEXES. The final command and control
functions remain IN THE BRAIN, not the wires. Granted, the Sam may see
something move in the shadows, but unless he is paranoid, HE IS NOT GOING TO
FIRE. Why? Because his BRAIN hasnt decided that this is a threat that needs
eliminating.

The way I see it, Wired reflexes are wired reflexes. The decision to react
one way or another is still made by the concious mind. Lets take this example
here. The Sam sees the figure move. His brain processes it, and makes a fire
/no fire decision. If the Sam decided to fire, the wired reflexes pick up
that signal and take over for the meat, making the sam move faster and more
accuratly.

The only sort of autonomus control wired reflexes would have involve tactile
sensations, those which are processes by the hindbrain. Things like "Hand is
in pain, remove from heat!!!" The processing of Sight, Sounds, Taste and
smell happen in the cognative centers of the brain, the forebrain and the
cerebreal cortex. This is not the area where wired reflexes are.

This also applies to the infamous sneaking up on WR chareters thread. It
simply would not happen. Sure, say you did so, the sam's reflexes would
probobly turn him to face the threat, etc, and drop him into a ready stance,
but it would not have the programming or athority to initate an attack. Of
course, with good roleplayers, someone who defined their samuri as sensative
to that sort of thing would infact play it out and decide to attack the person
at first until they recognized who it was.
Message no. 5
From: Rook <rook@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:10:29 -0700
> << Personly I don't think that it is a voluntary responce. As I see it the
> wired reflexes work quicker than normal human responces. So in the time it
> takes a Sams brain to register movment, begin targeting, id the target, and

> Wired reflexes are just that... REFLEXES. The final command and control
> functions remain IN THE BRAIN, not the wires. Granted, the Sam may see

> The way I see it, Wired reflexes are wired reflexes. The decision to react
> one way or another is still made by the concious mind. Lets take this example
> here. The Sam sees the figure move. His brain processes it, and makes a fire
> /no fire decision. If the Sam decided to fire, the wired reflexes pick up
> that signal and take over for the meat, making the sam move faster and more
> accuratly.

The human brain is absurdly fast. It can register things thousands of
times faster than the body can catch up. Step into a room and your mind
might take a mere nano second to register the hostiles after your eyes
send the data to it. At least on the subconcious 'instinctive' level.
But it will take up to 1-3 seconds to get your body to pull out your gun
and shoot. Wired reflexes make the body able to be a little closer to
the speed of the mind; but they are still sadly behind and will stay
thay there until they allow you to move the body as fast as electricity
moves. Which is lightspeed.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG TownHall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 6
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:33:42 +1000
Rook writes:
> The human brain is absurdly fast. It can register things
> thousands of
> times faster than the body can catch up. Step into a room and your mind
> might take a mere nano second to register the hostiles after your eyes
> send the data to it. At least on the subconcious 'instinctive' level.
> But it will take up to 1-3 seconds to get your body to pull out your gun
> and shoot. Wired reflexes make the body able to be a little closer to
> the speed of the mind; but they are still sadly behind and will stay
> thay there until they allow you to move the body as fast as electricity
> moves. Which is lightspeed.

The speed of light is not the same as the speed of electricity. Here's why:

1) Light moves slower in different mediums. The speed of light in, say,
copper is significantly slower than in vacuum.

2) Electrons don't move at lightspeed anyway. They move near to that speed,
but not at it.

3) Electrons don't move in a straight line. Even with a current, they'll
bounce around, which slows down the speed of the electronic signal.

IIRC, the speed used for how fast electronic signals propagate is about
1/2c, but it's a statistical average that varies between different
conductors.

And, as another point, the speed that sensation reaches the brain, and the
brain responds, is a LOT slower than that of electricity. The transfer of
signal from neuron to neuron is electrical, yes, but the process of
retransmitting the signal to the next neuron is chemical, and chemical
reactions take time.

Finally: most of the processing is done at a subconcious level, anyway.
Conscious processing is significantly slower. You might spot three human
shapes in the corridor in about half a second, but it'll be another half a
second before you start eliminating them as friendly or not. Speeding up the
mechanical parts of the processes to the point where the gun can be brought
out and aimed in the time it takes for the mind to decide wether or not to
shoot would be quite adequate. The next step would be to speed up the
operation of the brain itself.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 7
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:21:43 -0400
On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Justin Elliott wrote:

->>->It wasn't a case of plotting against one another, it was a case of mistaken
->>->identity in the middle of a fire-fight.
->
->This brings up a point I have been wondering about. How common is wounding
->by friendly fire in your games? It's just that with all those Sams etc out
->there with wired reflexes I think that this kinda thing would be fairly
->common.
<snip>
->
->Anyway, Do you think I am being too tough? If not how do you lot play these
->sort of situations.

I don't have a lot of sams in my group (damn near everyone plays a
mage, aspected mage, or physad), so I try not to penalize my one player
who dislikes magic enough to play a mundane. If it were more commonplace,
I'd probably start 'inflicting' penalties such as yours.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 8
From: Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:47:42 -0400
Quoting Robert Watkins (robert.watkins@******.COM):
> And, as another point, the speed that sensation reaches the brain, and the
> brain responds, is a LOT slower than that of electricity. The transfer of
> signal from neuron to neuron is electrical, yes, but the process of
> retransmitting the signal to the next neuron is chemical, and chemical
> reactions take time.

Hauling out the old human-factors engineering textbook again, I
find...

"People need about 200 ms to perceive and use information to alter
their responses. This is about the minimum reaction time for processing
visual responses."

"Schmidt makes a distinction between two types of movements: fast
movements and slow movements. Fast movements take 200 ms or less, such as=

kicking a ball or striking an emergency stop button on a machine. We seem
to plan such movements in advacne and then 'let them fly'. Little or no
conscious control seems to be possible for a short period of time when the
movement is executed - even when we sense that something has changed and
the movement is now inappropriate. An example is a batter who swings at
an obviously bad pitch. On the other hand, slow responses, those taking
longer than about 200 ms to execute, provide ample opportunities for
conscious control guided by various forms of sensory feedback. For example,
threading a needle." [Sanders & McCormick, _Human Factors Engineering and
Design_]

Hope that helps. Basically, the best thing wired reflexes could do
would be speed the transmission of perceptual signals to the brain.
Speeding the return commands would be good, too. Increasing the speed of
PROCESSING the signals in the brain is probably beyond the scope of wired
reflexes, and is the reason that reaction depends on intelligence.
Anyway, this has always made me think that the game effects of
wired might, if we could actually build the stuff, be somewhat different.=

Rather than increasing 'blind reflexes', you might get the opposite -
increased feedback, which doesn't allow you to move 'faster', per se,
in terms of speed of body movement, but does allow you to CORRECT your
action in response to changing events more than a normal person could.
Instead of working with pre-programmed patterns of movement for something l=
ike,
say, fencing (for example), a person with wired could actually stay in
constant control (maybe), correcting their aim, reacting to their opponent's
moves, etc. I don't think it'd let you attack multiple times (your body
still takes the same ammount of time to execute the attack), but it'd make
your attacks more precise.

--Sean

--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc=
4
Message no. 9
From: Shaun Gilroy <shaung@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:15:36 -0400
At 08:47 AM 10/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
[snip desc. fast/slow actions from text book; see original mail]
>say, fencing (for example), a person with wired could actually stay in
>constant control (maybe), correcting their aim, reacting to their=
opponent's
>moves, etc. I don't think it'd let you attack multiple times (your body
>still takes the same ammount of time to execute the attack), but it'd make
>your attacks more precise.

Unless, of course the you train for firing a gun, making a punch, or
slashing w/ a rapier enough to make it classify as a 'fast action.'

Isn't that how martial arts works? You practice a move so many times that
it becomes a pre-programmed response to combat? Would not Firearms and
usage of edged weapons be learned in a similar fashion (point, bang; point
bang)? As far as I see it, there isn't a lot of thought going on in a
gunfight; you see opponents where you expect them to be and shoot.

That's how one variety of "friendly fire" happens --your team mate ends up
where you thought an enemy should be and you shoot before IDing your target.

Then its only a matter of how quickly your body can respond to the brain's
command: "pull the trigger!" or "slash; dodge; parry!".

>
> --Sean
>

(>)noysh the spoonë bard
-> jack of all trades, master of none. <-
Message no. 10
From: WANKA SELF <self67@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:41:01 PDT
J,
If you check out the rules under smart link, you'll find that they state
the weapon would not fire unless the target has benn identified, AND
that the target will be hit. Meaning, that if the to hit roll is failed,
the gun will not fire. It even gives an example of firing an automatic
weapon into a crowd of innocents and only striking the specific targets.
The use of wired reflexes, allows Sams, and others that have them, to
do, this same thing before most others. It is a common misconception
that those with boosted reflexes are hairpin triggers. This however
would be true, IF the character didn't have a smartlink or smart weapon.

WANKA

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 11
From: Steve Eley <sfeley@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:06:58 -0400
Micheal Feeney wrote:
>
> Wired reflexes are just that... REFLEXES. The final command and control
> functions remain IN THE BRAIN, not the wires. Granted, the Sam may see
> something move in the shadows, but unless he is paranoid, HE IS NOT GOING TO
> FIRE. Why? Because his BRAIN hasnt decided that this is a threat that needs
> eliminating.

Incorrect. Reflexes can be trained to perform some very complex actions.
(Or are we forgetting yet another piece of SR gear, the Reflex Recorder?)
>8-> I'd think a street sam with Wired would often be in the sorts of situations
where a quick-draw reflex was desirable; the natural jumpiness of Wired Reflexes would
probably cause him to develop that reflex without noticing how dangerous he was becoming.


> The way I see it, Wired reflexes are wired reflexes. The decision to react
> one way or another is still made by the concious mind.

From the Webster's (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary) definition of "reflex,"
since I don't have a medical dictionary handy:

"2 a : an automatic and often inborn response to a stimulus that involves
a nerve impulse passing inward from a receptor to a nerve center and
thence outward to an effector (as a muscle or gland) without reaching the
level of consciousness"

Note that consciousness is *NOT* involved.


> This also applies to the infamous sneaking up on WR chareters thread. It
> simply would not happen. Sure, say you did so, the sam's reflexes would
> probobly turn him to face the threat, etc, and drop him into a ready stance,
> but it would not have the programming or athority to initate an attack.

I don't agree. I've seen trained martial artists (usually in aikido)
who've thrown good friends of theirs who snuck up behind them, without
knowing what they were doing (or to whom) until the friend was on the
ground. This was a pretty complex maneuver, but it wasn't performed
consciously. It had been trained to the level of reflex.


Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfeley@***.net
Message no. 12
From: Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:07:31 -0400
Quoting WANKA SELF (self67@*******.COM):
> If you check out the rules under smart link, you'll find that they state
> the weapon would not fire unless the target has benn identified, AND
> that the target will be hit. Meaning, that if the to hit roll is failed,
> the gun will not fire. It even gives an example of firing an automatic
> weapon into a crowd of innocents and only striking the specific targets.

I buy the 'can be hit' part, but not the 'has been identified'
part. Let's say we're in a dark warehouse, and I'm feeling paranoid. I
see motion, classify it as enemy action, point the gun, squeeze the trigger.
It turns out I was /wrong/, and it was actually my friend, but there was
no way for the smartlink to know I'd incorrectly identified the target....
unless you're using an integrated BattleTac system with friend/foe
identification, for instance. A tactical computer would help there, too.

--Sean

--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4
Message no. 13
From: Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:10:39 -0400
Quoting Shaun Gilroy (shaung@**********.NET):
> Unless, of course the you train for firing a gun, making a punch, or
> slashing w/ a rapier enough to make it classify as a 'fast action.'
>
> Isn't that how martial arts works? You practice a move so many times that
> it becomes a pre-programmed response to combat? Would not Firearms and
> usage of edged weapons be learned in a similar fashion (point, bang; point
> bang)? As far as I see it, there isn't a lot of thought going on in a
> gunfight; you see opponents where you expect them to be and shoot.
>

Right - all of those things are 'fast' actions. However, if your
sensory feedback were accelerated, some of them would become 'slow' actions
(they now take more time to complete than it does for you to get feedback,
so it's possible to correct in midstream). Of course, you still have to be
able to make sense of the feedback, so skill is very important - otherwise,
you might not REALIZE you're doing it wrong, even though you have all of
the information necessary to come to that conclusion.

--Sean

--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4
Message no. 14
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 19:38:34 +0200
According to WANKA SELF, at 7:41 on 20 Oct 98, the word on the street was...

> J,
> If you check out the rules under smart link, you'll find that they state
> the weapon would not fire unless the target has benn identified, AND
> that the target will be hit.

Erm... could you tell us where you found this? I just checked my SR3 book
to make sure it wasn't in there (you never know what they changed for 3rd
edition), and I couldn't find it anywhere. I also couldn't find it on a
quick browse through Fields of Fire or Cybertechnology...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
A grizzle scene on my electron beam told a story about human rights.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 15
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:50:00 EDT
In a message dated 10/20/1998 10:09:07 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
sfeley@***.NET writes:

> Micheal Feeney wrote:
> >
> > Wired reflexes are just that... REFLEXES. The final command and control
> > functions remain IN THE BRAIN, not the wires. Granted, the Sam may see
> > something move in the shadows, but unless he is paranoid, HE IS NOT GOING
> TO
> > FIRE. Why? Because his BRAIN hasnt decided that this is a threat that
> needs
> > eliminating.
>
> Incorrect. Reflexes can be trained to perform some very complex actions.
> (Or are we forgetting yet another piece of SR gear, the Reflex Recorder?)
> >8-> I'd think a street sam with Wired would often be in the sorts of
> situations where a quick-draw reflex was desirable; the natural jumpiness of
> Wired Reflexes would probably cause him to develop that reflex without
> noticing how dangerous he was becoming.

Steve, Michael, you guys are *both* correct.

> > The way I see it, Wired reflexes are wired reflexes. The decision to
> react
> > one way or another is still made by the concious mind.
>
> From the Webster's (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary) definition of "reflex,"
> since I don't have a medical dictionary handy:
>
> "2 a : an automatic and often inborn response to a stimulus that involves
> a nerve impulse passing inward from a receptor to a nerve center and
> thence outward to an effector (as a muscle or gland) without reaching the
> level of consciousness"
>
> Note that consciousness is *NOT* involved.

Too bad Steve that you didn't have one, let alone a Physical Therapists guide
running loose. Reflexes are both instinctual and learned in nature, depending
on the reflex action that is being trigger. It is something that the
individual can have the best, and worst, of in all situations.

perhaps something that should have been considered was a better usage of the
language to describe "Wired Reflexes"? Wired Responses is, IMO, a far better
description for the effect that is being desired by most parties/individuals
who are involved in them or their usage. "Reflex Recorders" are, after
considering and looking at the differences in a few things, based around the
concept of "learned response mechanisms". That helps to explain how they
function in game mechanics terminology, especially with regards that "Reflex
Recorders" don't seem to work well with regards to "knowledge skills" (and
we've extended this to include Language skills, though the concept of dialect
has entered our minds here). "Reflex Triggers" as described/detailed in the
Cybertechnologies text are also there to further explain what I am trying to
say. They are inhibiting the "Response Time" of the individual, so as to not
cause an overt response action on their part.

IMO, it basically comes down to something that FASA put into the game for a
"coolness" effect, but couldn't detail enough in order to keep the more
intuitive / educated player truly happy. Please note, this is not a complaint
on my part, it is merely an observation.

-K (who normally stays out of this topic, but can't stand it when people
simply refuse to yield to other possibilities ;)
Message no. 16
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:32:10 -0700
:Surely the point here is that a mage can't instinctively cast a spell as
:spells take a lot more time to cast than squeezing a trigger, so your
wired
:Mage above has got no problems. Likewise if a character is not armed then
:there is no problems, as in normal circumstances in the time it takes to
:draw a target can be id'd.

Casting a spell takes exactly as long as using a FA weapon or melee.
Both of those are errors you'd expect "wired instincts" to make.

:As all this is outside of a players control isn't it the job of the GM to
:simulate it? I don't expect my players to decide when the wires over ride
:their own reactions, and wouldn't think they could be unbias in their
:choices, no matter how hard they tried.

Accidents happen in combat situations because you DON'T know who you
are shooting at, or you miss your shot. Iv'e seen NON wired chatracters
shoot friends, because they only got 1 succes on a perception test, which
only tells you "somebody is there". If that's all the character (and
player) knows, the choice is up to them, and the situation is realistic.
Now, if wires added to (all combat related) perception test TN's, they
would cause that effect often, as the PLAYER would have less info to base
decisions on. [It would also make wires nearly useless, or at least make
sense mods much more popular]. Telling the player the full info, and then
having the roll a modified perception test, makes little sense.
These mistakes naturally happens a bit more with wired characters, or
anybody with high intiative, becuase if they don't get a good perception
test, they must either shoot, or delay until they find out what the target
is. If the targets a friend, cool. If the targets a bad guy whose gun
they haven't noticed, that's bad; most times, they will shoot. "Freezing
up" is a common instinct, so a player choosing to hold an action is
perfectly fine, IMO. You can't respond to something you don't notice or
have any warning of...

Mongoose
Message no. 17
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 15:13:37 -0700
: The human brain is absurdly fast. It can register things
thousands of
:times faster than the body can catch up. Step into a room and your mind
:might take a mere nano second to register the hostiles after your eyes
:send the data to it. At least on the subconcious 'instinctive' level.

Untrue. Measures of brainspeed processing say its slower than that,
even for simple tasks. 1/30 of a second seems about the fastest the brain
can do anything. In some ways, this is easy to test yourself; get a
program that flashes a word (or even one letter) on your screen for
fractions of a second. See how short that time can get before you have no
idea what it was. Using an animated GIF is one easy way to do this- thier
frames can be timed in 1/100's of a second. Make sure a friend (or random
progrma) choses the word / gif, so you don't fool yourself!

:But it will take up to 1-3 seconds to get your body to pull out your gun
:and shoot. Wired reflexes make the body able to be a little closer to
:the speed of the mind; but they are still sadly behind and will stay
:thay there until they allow you to move the body as fast as electricity
:moves. Which is lightspeed.


Electricity is much slower than lightspeed; otherwise, we would not
need particle accelerators to get electrons up to fractions of lightspeed.
Neural signals are slower still, as they involve the movement of molecules
across cell membranes.

Mongoose
Message no. 18
From: Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:34:12 -0400
Quoting Mongoose (evamarie@**********.net):
> Untrue. Measures of brainspeed processing say its slower than that,
> even for simple tasks. 1/30 of a second seems about the fastest the brain
> can do anything. In some ways, this is easy to test yourself; get a
> program that flashes a word (or even one letter) on your screen for
> fractions of a second. See how short that time can get before you have no
> idea what it was. Using an animated GIF is one easy way to do this- thier
> frames can be timed in 1/100's of a second. Make sure a friend (or random
> progrma) choses the word / gif, so you don't fool yourself!

I agree with your premise, but I'm not sure your example actually
demostrates the thing you were talking about. (Sorry, my research methods
class is ramping up and I have experimental validity on my mind). You're
talking about perceptual speed, which isn't really the same as the 'speed
of thought', which seemed to be what the other person was speaking about.
There's lots of physiology I know nothing about that affects how long you
have to see something before it registers on your eye, and much of it has
nothing to do with the brain.

--Sean

(I can't decide whether to apply to that psych PhD program or not. On the one
hand, it'd be several more years of school. On the other...this stuff is just
so NEAT.)

--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4
Message no. 19
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Wired reflexes and friendly fire.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 15:07:00 -0700
>The speed of light is not the same as the speed of electricity. Here's why:

>2) Electrons don't move at lightspeed anyway. They move near to that speed,
>but not at it.

Actually, there are two types of "speed" involved: electric potential and
electron drift velocity.

When you turn on a light, it turns on almost instantly because the electric
field potential in the current propagates at an order of magnitude
equivalent to the speed of light in a conductor. On the other hand, the
electron drift velocity, which is the speed of the actual electrons in the
circuit, is quite slow, about 20 centimeters per second or so.

So, the actual electrons in the light switch flow in the current at
relatively slow speed, and thus may take several minutes to reach the light
bulb. But the current in the lightbulb itself has also started to flow, due
to propagation of the electric field.

If you think of the ocean, and realize that the wave velocity is separate
from the velocity of the water molecules, that should serve as an aid in
conceptualization. The waves move the water and cause energy to fall upon
the beach, but the actual water molecules themselves take some time to
churn around from place to place.

>3) Electrons don't move in a straight line. Even with a current, they'll
>bounce around, which slows down the speed of the electronic signal.

True, this is why the drift velocity is much lower even in a conductor.
It's actually a Maxwell-Boltzman distribution in velocity space.

>Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Wired reflexes and friendly fire., you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.