Need ideas for Science!

[garrowolf]

I am working on the science rules and I wanted to see if anyone has any ideas.

Here is the system I have so far:

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Science Check[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Basic: Basic scientific concepts[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Easy (10) – The Earth is round. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Moderate (15) – The Earth goes around the Sun. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Difficult (25) – Evolution is a fact. [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Trained: High school Science[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Easy (15) – Knowledge of some basic science facts[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Moderate (20) – Knowledge of a process [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Difficult (30) - Knowledge of an unusual reaction [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Proficient: College level science (Lab Techs)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Easy (20) - Use lab tests to identify common substances [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Moderate (25) – Use lab tests to identify uncommon substances[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Difficult (35) - Use lab tests to identify rare substances[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Focused: Masters Degree in related Science fields. Choose your field. (Researchers) Increase Intelligence + 1. +1 minimum Tech Points[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Easy (25) – Collect data to expand your field[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Moderate (30) – Understand a new consequence of your data[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Difficult (40) – Reevaluate the theory behind your data[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Expert: PHd degrees in Science. (Research Directors), Increase Intelligence + 1. +1 minimum Tech Points[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Easy (30) - Theorize a possible outcome from a theory[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Moderate (35) – Create a new theory and design a device based on that theory[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Difficult (45) - Create a new theory and cause an existing device to behave in a new way based on it. [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Mastery: You are on the leading edge of your field. Increase Intelligence + 1. +1 minimum Tech Points[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Easy (35) – Meaningfully theorize about a higher tech level [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Moderate (40) – Figure out the theory behind found technology of a higher tech level. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Difficult (50) – Create a theory for technology of the next tech level[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Understanding Check [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] You are faced with a new situation, life form, or stellar phenomena. You must have the right feats in order to understand what you are seeing and make any kind of predictions about it. You would need to understand something in order to alter it in some way. If you don't have the correct feats then at best you can make a guess and the difficulties to alter it, the errors involved, and the possible consequences are much greater. An error in understanding can lead to the same issues. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] If the player figures it out without requiring the check then give them a Tech Point. They can still roll to make sure of the level of detail that the character understands. If the player understands something then this will negate any failure or error for this roll. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] You may not re-roll an understanding check until you have new information. However you may describe your information to someone else and they can make a new understanding check. [/FONT]


[TABLE="width: 100%"] [TR] [TD="width: 50%"] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]An expected situation 10[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]An unexpected situation 20/error 1[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]An extremely unexpected or rare situation 30/error 2[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]A situation that your understanding of science tells you is not possible 40/error 4[/FONT]
[/TD] [TD="width: 50%"] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Incorrect data or insufficient information +5/error +2[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Per Tech Point -5/error -1 (minimum error 1)[/FONT]
[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Error Effects[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Attempt – You think that you are on the right track. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Failure – You don't know the answer.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Complication – You think that some of your data is inaccurate[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Botch – You know the answer but you are wrong. [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Alter Check [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] You are trying to alter something that you (hopefully) understand. You must have the correct tools in order to alter something. You can try and scrounge up the correct ingredients if you don't have things set up already to alter something. Your ability to alter something (besides just destroy it) is very limited by the tech level of your understanding. [/FONT]


[TABLE="width: 100%"] [TR] [TD="width: 50%"] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This is done everyday - 15/error 1[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Uncommon – 20/error 2[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Rarely Done – 30/error 3[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]First Time for Everything 40/error 4[/FONT]
[/TD] [TD="width: 50%"] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Better then normal tools -5/error -1[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Not the right tools +5/error +1[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Extremely complex systems +10[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Per Tech Point -5/error -1 (minimum error 1)[/FONT]


[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Error Effects[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Attempt – You are working on it but you really need more information to make this work[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Failure – You don't know how to alter this[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Complication – You have altered it in an unexpected way[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Botch – You have broken it or made it do something bad[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Chemistry Check [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Create Acids and Bases[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] You can mix an Acid or a Base with the right chemicals. The Acid damages are listed under the Resistance Check. The Bases listed here will neutralize that strength acid. This is generalized. On a failure you waste the batch. On a botch you spill the batch on yourself doing spray damage to yourself (see Resistance Checks)[/FONT]




[TABLE="width: 370"] [TR] [TD="width: 113"] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Strength of Acid[/FONT]
[/TD] [TD="width: 79"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Craft Acid DC[/FONT]​

[/TD] [TD="width: 86"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Craft Base DC[/FONT]​

[/TD] [TD="width: 60"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Time[/FONT]​

[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 113"] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Mild[/FONT]
[/TD] [TD="width: 79"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]15/1[/FONT]​

[/TD] [TD="width: 86"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]10/1[/FONT]​

[/TD] [TD="width: 60"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]1 min[/FONT]​

[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 113"] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Moderate[/FONT]
[/TD] [TD="width: 79"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]20/2[/FONT]​

[/TD] [TD="width: 86"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]15/1[/FONT]​

[/TD] [TD="width: 60"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]5 min[/FONT]​

[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 113"] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Strong[/FONT]
[/TD] [TD="width: 79"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]25/3[/FONT]​

[/TD] [TD="width: 86"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]20/2[/FONT]​

[/TD] [TD="width: 60"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]30 min[/FONT]​

[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 113"] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Extreme[/FONT]
[/TD] [TD="width: 79"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]30/4[/FONT]​

[/TD] [TD="width: 86"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]25/2[/FONT]​

[/TD] [TD="width: 60"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]1 hr[/FONT]​

[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]



[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Create Poison[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] You can create a poison or distill a poison from a venom, herb, or chemical. On a failure you loose the batch. On a botch you do the damage to yourself. See Resistance Check for details. [/FONT]


[TABLE="width: 300"] [TR] [TD="width: 112"] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Strength of Poison[/FONT]
[/TD] [TD="width: 80"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Craft DC[/FONT]​

[/TD] [TD="width: 84"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Time[/FONT]​

[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 112"] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Minor [/FONT]
[/TD] [TD="width: 80"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]20/1[/FONT]​

[/TD] [TD="width: 84"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]1 hr[/FONT]​

[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 112"] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Severe[/FONT]
[/TD] [TD="width: 80"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]25/2[/FONT]​

[/TD] [TD="width: 84"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]2 hr[/FONT]​

[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 112"] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Deadly[/FONT]
[/TD] [TD="width: 80"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]30/3[/FONT]​

[/TD] [TD="width: 84"]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]4 hr[/FONT]​

[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

 

[Morrus]

Why do the numbers associated with difficult/easy etc change?

 

[GMMichael]

Idea: trim the fat.

Maybe I'm an outlier, but I don't want to spend five minutes making rolls on why my chemistry experiment failed, and checking to see if I have the feats to be able to re-evaluate my theory.

I want my character to be in the lab, hand-wave the rolls, when the young, female intern comes in and softly puts a hand on my shoulder when I realize we're alone. Then I hear her switchblade go "snikt," and after rolling an initiative contest, I have moments to decide if I want to toss a flask in her face or try to jump away from the blade and hit the fire alarm.

 

[Tonguez]

Your Basic facts are a bit off. eg Evolution is a fact isn't difficult science knowledge unless you are an American, to the rest of us thats not a hard fact

a difficult basic fact might be something like um if I wear rubbers boots will I get electrocuted?

I also agree with DMMike, I want a quick fun system to tell me that I can identify that the seismic anomalies have the pattern of giant footsteps or allow me to quickly whip up an incendiary gel, identify the virus or juryrigged a laser cutter

 

[garrowolf]

Well the system is available for a universal system so it depends on how much the GM wants to get into. If you are running a Star Trek game then focus on the details. If you are running a campaign with little focus on science then don't worry as much. I approve of skipping a system when you don't need it but I don't approve of never having it there if you do want it.

The skill system is based on a combination of a ratings and skill rank system. Instead of assigning skill points you have an upgrade per level that will raise one skill rank. Each skill rank starting from trained gives you a +4. The mechanical assumption is actually a +5 based on increases in attributes and level bonus.

The difficulties are based on what would be easy, moderate, or a difficult roll for someone with that skill rank.

 

[QuaziquestGM]

Real Life Science teacher here.

The "Evolution Bit" on the basic is way off.

also, this part is problematic (almost to the point of stupidity)

Expert: PHd degrees in Science. (Research Directors), Increase Intelligence + 1. +1 minimum Tech Points
Easy (30) - Theorize a possible outcome from a theory
Moderate (35) – Create a new theory and design a device based on that theory
Difficult (45) - Create a new theory and cause an existing device to behave in a new way based on it.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?454877-Need-ideas-for-Science!#ixzz3co2V0A60

It is the last part that is stupid (high level stupidity, but still stupid).
No amount of theory creation will change the way an existing device works. Reality doesn't change. Our theoretical models of how reality works may change, but reality doesn't care if or how we understand it.

A match works like a match works, and changing your theory of why a match works doesn't change how/if a match works.

If your old theory was that striking the match releases a tiny trapped fire element(al)....
If your new theory is that striking the match produces enough heat through friction to light the sulfur....

Either way, striking a match produces the same result.

Changing the theory about how an existing device works does not change the "behavior"(function and characteristics) of the device. It only changes our interpretation of the how/why of the behavior.

Now, you can find a new USE for an old device based on a newer theory that allows you to better understand its behavior, and most new theories are tested using "old data" from existing devices that couldn't be explained before. ... actually, this is how new theories usually arise: we need a "why" for observed behavior of an existing device that the current theory cannot account for.

 

[Morrus]

Real Life Science teacher here.

The "Evolution Bit" on the basic is way off.

also, this part is problematic (almost to the point of stupidity)

Expert: PHd degrees in Science. (Research Directors), Increase Intelligence + 1. +1 minimum Tech Points
Easy (30) - Theorize a possible outcome from a theory
Moderate (35) – Create a new theory and design a device based on that theory
Difficult (45) - Create a new theory and cause an existing device to behave in a new way based on it.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?454877-Need-ideas-for-Science!#ixzz3co2V0A60

It is the last part that is stupid (high level stupidity, but still stupid).
No amount of theory creation will change the way an existing device works. Reality doesn't change. Our theoretical models of how reality works may change, but reality doesn't care if or how we understand it.

A match works like a match works, and changing your theory of why a match works doesn't change how/if a match works.

If your old theory was that striking the match releases a tiny trapped fire element(al)....
If your new theory is that striking the match produces enough heat though friction to light the sulfur....

Either way, striking a match produces the same result.

Changing the theory about how an existing device works does not change the "behavior"(function and characteristics) of the device. It only changes our interpretation of the how/why of the behavior.

Now, you can find a new USE for an old device based on a newer theory that allows you to better understand its behavior, and most new theories are tested using "old data" from existing devices that couldn't be explained before. ... actually, this is how new theories usually arise: we need a "why" for observed behavior of an existing device that the current theory cannot account for.

He clearly means the latter - a new use for an old device. Spock modifying a phaser into a bomb or a tricorder into an emergency beacon. The phrasing is probably what threw you off.

 

[QuaziquestGM]

Which is why we use editing discussion to make meanings clear.

also

Maxim 24. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a big gun.

And I think we can adapt Maxim 44 : "If it will blow a hole in the ground, it will double as an entrenching tool." to cover "Anything that attracts attention can double as an Emergency Beacon/distraction/diversion/bait..."

Edit:
But now that I think about it, I think your interpretation of what he meant is incorrect.

Neither setting a phasor to overload or turning on the beacon setting on a tricorder (neither actually require modification, they already have settings for that. He did need to modify the tricorder using "stone knives and bear skins" to sort and read the high speed data dump from the Guardian of forever.....) require any modificaiton... and even if it did, modding those devices requires no new theory. Converting a cannon in to a bomb just involves ignoring the manual's caution against putting oddly shaped rocks in the barrel.

On the other hand, transporting a subject onto a ship moving at warp speed by "treating space as the thing that is moving" is modifying an existing device using a new theory of operation.

But that still doesn't make transporters using the established operating modes from still "behaving" the same as they did before. (ion storms and magnetic ores not withstanding.)

 

[garrowolf]

[MENTION=22559]QuaziquestGM[/MENTION] Okay so what would be a better way of phrasing it? The main point is for PCs to be able to run science officers in a high tech settings.

 

[QuaziquestGM]

What exactly do you want him to be able to do?

"Modulate the EM emissions of the phasors at random to find a setting the haven't adapted to..." would be a new application of existing well understood theory.

"Teleport to a ship moving at warp ... by treating space as the thing that is moving" would be a new application based on a novel interpretation of existing theory.

"IT'S ALIVE! My Creature is ALIVE!" would be new technology based on a new medical theory.

Are you going for Spock/Scottie or a steampunk/pulp mad scientist, or "Doctor Who" "Living plastic" stuff?