Paying to recharge E-clips? You poor players...

[Damian Magecraft]

I completely agree with you to what you just said, as that is just immature on the players part.

But in the healing spring, i didnt see anything about how the players "knew" OOC info that they exploited to make a business venture. So what i am saying is to punish the players for making the best of the situation and some clever ideas without 'cheating' (OOC info) they are within thier right to reap some reward. But if the gm finds that it could be to much, well it is His mistake and not the players, but he can also remedy it by reducing how effective it is instead of using some hand wave gesture tactic to take it away. Also the odd time i have overstepped as a gm, (which would be a house rule that was a little to loose), i just talk to the players and say hey, you guys mind if i sinch this up a bit as i am not liking it quit so open and i would rather not have to also use the rule against you guys. Everytime so far they have had no problems with that.

So i agree with you that cheating is bad and ruins the game, but if they didnt 'cheat' they shouldnt be punished for being clever. To many GMs i have played with that ONLY respect the combat brute, and even then they play favorites.

Unfortunately too often a GM will punish the players for his mistakes, rather than simply chalk something up to his just not realizing how much someone could exploit something if they were clever enough. Far easier to fault the players and take it out on them than see the fault in himself. End result is a lot of unhappy people as the players rightfully feel abused and punished for having done nothing wrong on their part.

But is it a GM mistake if the players agree to play the game in a certain tone and then given the first opportunity break the agreement? The only Mistake the GM made in that situation was trusting his players to not abuse a situation. But really is that a mistake? Is it wrong to believe that players will keep their word and not try to break the game?
And should the Players be upset if a GM is placed in that situation and he responds by patching the break with an in game fix?

[Pepsi Jedi]

I completely agree with you to what you just said, as that is just immature on the players part.

But in the healing spring, i didnt see anything about how the players "knew" OOC info that they exploited to make a business venture. So what i am saying is to punish the players for making the best of the situation and some clever ideas without 'cheating' (OOC info) they are within thier right to reap some reward. But if the gm finds that it could be to much, well it is His mistake and not the players, but he can also remedy it by reducing how effective it is instead of using some hand wave gesture tactic to take it away. Also the odd time i have overstepped as a gm, (which would be a house rule that was a little to loose), i just talk to the players and say hey, you guys mind if i sinch this up a bit as i am not liking it quit so open and i would rather not have to also use the rule against you guys. Everytime so far they have had no problems with that.

So i agree with you that cheating is bad and ruins the game, but if they didnt 'cheat' they shouldnt be punished for being clever. To many GMs i have played with that ONLY respect the combat brute, and even then they play favorites.

Unfortunately too often a GM will punish the players for his mistakes, rather than simply chalk something up to his just not realizing how much someone could exploit something if they were clever enough. Far easier to fault the players and take it out on them than see the fault in himself. End result is a lot of unhappy people as the players rightfully feel abused and punished for having done nothing wrong on their part.

But if you're "Exploiting" Something you're purposefully taking advantage of the situation, and you're back to breaking that social contract. I.E. To come together and play a game to have fun and not screw each other over in the process. As soon as one side (( either one)) Starts seeing how far they can exploit something, they're out of line.

Do some people have fun exploiting other people's mistakes or the like? Yeah.

There's plenty of words for that sort of person. None of which I'd want ascribed to me.

[FreelancerMar]

One could have always had the Healing water source dry up. Water sources dry up all the time in real life without artifical causes. Water sources can also go bad and become contaminated in real life without artifical causes too.

However A GM that has a vital piece of hard earned Equipment turn up missing or stolen each and every time the PC turns their back on it would definately loose me as a player or more than likely find themselves ejected from the group by the "Other" Players by passive means such as no longer being invited to game night.

[Damian Magecraft]

I completely agree with you to what you just said, as that is just immature on the players part.

But in the healing spring, i didnt see anything about how the players "knew" OOC info that they exploited to make a business venture. So what i am saying is to punish the players for making the best of the situation and some clever ideas without 'cheating' (OOC info) they are within thier right to reap some reward. But if the gm finds that it could be to much, well it is His mistake and not the players, but he can also remedy it by reducing how effective it is instead of using some hand wave gesture tactic to take it away. Also the odd time i have overstepped as a gm, (which would be a house rule that was a little to loose), i just talk to the players and say hey, you guys mind if i sinch this up a bit as i am not liking it quit so open and i would rather not have to also use the rule against you guys. Everytime so far they have had no problems with that.

So i agree with you that cheating is bad and ruins the game, but if they didnt 'cheat' they shouldnt be punished for being clever. To many GMs i have played with that ONLY respect the combat brute, and even then they play favorites.

Unfortunately too often a GM will punish the players for his mistakes, rather than simply chalk something up to his just not realizing how much someone could exploit something if they were clever enough. Far easier to fault the players and take it out on them than see the fault in himself. End result is a lot of unhappy people as the players rightfully feel abused and punished for having done nothing wrong on their part.

This point just hit me and I have to ask...
Why is it the GMs fault that the players use an exploit?
Do the players have an inability to tell right from wrong?

[Damian Magecraft]

One could have always had the Healing water source dry up. Water sources dry up all the time in real life without artifical causes. Water sources can also go bad and become contaminated in real life without artifical causes too.

However A GM that has a vital piece of hard earned Equipment turn up missing or stolen each and every time the PC turns their back on it would definately loose me as a player or more than likely find themselves ejected from the group by the "Other" Players by passive means such as no longer being invited to game night.

yes a gm who arbitrarily takes things away from the players every single chance he gets does deserve to have his GM license revoked.
However we are not debating that there are bad gms out there...
But weather or not a GM deserves the appellation for correcting an abuse preformed by the players.

[Nether]

@Damian nd Pepsi

The thing is didn't we just all agree how bad it is to play with OOC info?

So you are saying that you expect players to play with that kind of knowledge and be me mind readers of the gm incase they do something he doesn't approve of?

The players mae the best of a situation and should be rewarded for it with xp and credits, how much depends on what the gm can afford for his game.as I've said and now others is its a simple mater of balancing that reward to as little our as much as you want.

How you the gm want things to go is rarely how the players see it, so you might be imagining slights that are not there.

Now what Pepsi said about a player knowing how a gm reacts and using oog info to counter that than ya it is cheating but turning an in game situation fairly to your benoit

[Nether]

mobile phone posting, i tell ya

Just saying the situation seems like the players would be prosecuted as gm has OOC game expectations of the players.

[Pepsi Jedi]

@Damian nd Pepsi

The thing is didn't we just all agree how bad it is to play with OOC info?

So you are saying that you expect players to play with that kind of knowledge and be me mind readers of the gm incase they do something he doesn't approve of?

The players mae the best of a situation and should be rewarded for it with xp and credits, how much depends on what the gm can afford for his game.as I've said and now others is its a simple mater of balancing that reward to as little our as much as you want.

How you the gm want things to go is rarely how the players see it, so you might be imagining slights that are not there.

Now what Pepsi said about a player knowing how a gm reacts and using oog info to counter that than ya it is cheating but turning an in game situation fairly to your benoit

Um... *Tilts head and tries to figure out your post*

I was saying if you know out of character, information that your CHARACTER doesn't know, that you should role play, not knowing it. I.E. yes, if you see stats for a fire dragon on your GM's notebook your char doesn't 'prepare to fight a fire dragon'. If you see he's got an assassin about to hit you once you get to town, you don't all the sudden go on high alert just before you enter town, (( unless you do that every time, assassin or not))

I'm not saying you have to read the GM's mind. I'm just sayin' don't cheat and use out of character knowledge to 'Exploit" or "outsmart" your GM, as you're just cheating at a game that isn't "won".

[Razzinold]

"I remember one time that after a fight he intentionally didn't leave us anytime to loot (because the GM knew we would loot every time) he had a convenient back up unit close by (even though we were pretty isolated). I knew he wasn't going to make us fight them, just enough to move us along so we couldn't loot, so I told every person in the group to not waste time checking their belts, packs, etc. for supplies just to quickly grab the rifle and sidearm from every dead person and run. Sure the ones in the rifles weren't full, but the sidearms were, so we just scored 4-6 more eclips and the same amount of half spent ones, plus the weapons."

Out of character you know that the GM purposefully wasn't giving you time to loot, and he had a unit close by to move you along, and you also knew he didn't want to play out the fight, so using that Out of character knowledge, (( both that he didn't want you to loot, had someone there to force the issue but didn't really want to use them)) You schemed to change your character's behavior to take advantage of the Out Of Character knowledge. In short, you knew as a player what was coming and cheated to make sure your CHARACTER got stuff you wanted them to get.

How is it using out of game knowledge when the back up squad was standing right in front of me ? So I didn't scheme anything, I saw another squad that was 10 times our size so we grabbed what we could and bolted. Am I to assume that you would have stood your ground and fought your 3 against their like 30 ? That's just the GM being a dick to try and hurry the game along, he wanted us gone from the area so had them drop out of the sky on us.

They were trying to kill us, we killed them first and took their stuff, "to the victor goes the spoils".

If it was just black and white, sure, but you posted that you KNEW the GM was trying to prevent that, and you used that OOC knowledge to get what you wanted.

honestly not sure where you're going with this one, a group of people opened fire on us, how is that us using outside knowledge that they were trying to kill us ?

I don't know too many players who would kill a bunch on enemies and then say "hey lets just walk away and leave all these bodies here with their armour, weapons and assorted gear for someone else to have. If we take their stuff that would be stealing and that's wrong". (but I guess killing them wasn't?) IMO that is not very good survival instincts for Rifts Earth especially when some of the equipment is supposed to be rare (well depending on the GM I guess).

That's dependant on alot of things. Alignment. Moral codes. Laws. Chance of the enemies friends lighting you up when you're seen next (( I love CS gear as much as the next guy but it's a walking target and death warrant if you use it.))

other than a cyber knight (iirc it's against their code to loot ?) or principled alignment maybe (but we weren't stealing from a store it was more of a case of survival), or it being CS gear I don't see any other viable reason to leave it. Come on laws ? We just killed them but we're going to worry if it's against the law to take their gear ? As for friends recognizing the gear ? I'm sure in their infinite wisdom that NG decided to make and sell more than 1 laser rifle.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about knowing the GM is tired of your looting and you knowing out of character, he's trying to stop it so you cheat to get it anyway.
"I knew he was going to move us along and not give us a chance to loot after the fight, so I paused mid fight to loot, knowing after I looted we could finish the fight and I'd still get my lootz!" type thing.

I still don't see this as cheating, I didn't know mid fight we won't have a chance to loot, I knew after the fight that he wasn't giving us a chance to loot. Grabbing (and using) some grenades of a guy mid fight isn't cheating. He had grenades and I didn't so I took them and used them

Just to be clear it's fine for the GM to have guns explode in our hands with no warning just because we took it off a dead guy or have a group of slavers magically (possibly literally I suppose ) track us and that's not considered abuse. But when a player outsmarts a GM that's considered being whiny and manipulative ?

If you, as a player, know the GM is setting things up in a certain way to not allow you to just rob everyone blind. Trying to limit your resources to add that to the game, and you use that knowledge, as a PLAYER, to change your CHARACTER's actions to 'out smart the GM'. Then yes you're being manipulative and 'cheating'. It's just a game. One we all agree to play. I have 50+ Rifts books but when I play, I agree to play only the knowledge my character has at his disposal.

If I happen to see a note on the GM's notebook with stats for fire dragons.. I don't have my character automatically buy flame retardant clothing, if he wouldn't already get it. If I know my GM just got Lemuria, and my char is in Texas, I don't cough and ask if I can Just so happen, to pick up a scuba tank in town.... And that's pretty much what you're saying you're doing. You knew where the gm was going, so you blocked him and got what you wanted anyway.

I don't read the GM's notes, or even sit near the GM, it's not cheating when he makes an obvious in game play to railroad the players and you as the players try and side step it. Looting off dead bodies is not the same as trying to predict the GM's campaign and prepare for it in advance.

That seems to be a little one sided in favour of GMs. They can act with impunity but if we outsmart them we should be punished instead of rewarded ?

But you're not outsmarting them. lol You're "Reading ahead in the book". You're taking the game, looking ahead in the adventure, seeing how things are going to go, and planning for them in advance. It's like picking up a mystery novel and reading the last chapter, then going to the beginning of thhe book. Have you "Figured out the mystery?" through your own smarts? or have you just read it and know what happens?

How can I look ahead in the adventure ? I can't read his mind I have no idea what he has planned unless he tells us what he has planned or drops hints. If he drops hints we're heading into vampire country than obviously we pick up appropriate gear, but you would appear to consider that cheating.

I've seen many posts on here of that mindset, the GMs don't reward creative play, they are "out to get" their players.

Some are. The people I play with don't, but conversely, you're admitting to basicly looking at the adventure before hand and planning for the happenings in the adventure. 1) you knew he was trying to limit resources, so you plotted a way around that, and 2) You knew his 'Hammer" in that situation was a back up unit, you knew he didin't want to use, so it was no threat to you.

*Shrugs* It's real easy to "outsmart" your GM when you already know what's going to happen.

I don't mind things being limited if it's logical, but when a GM throws everything under the sun at you, but tries to limit you to a laser pistol, once again that's a little one sided.

Man I'm glad we had the GM we did, he could admit when he screwed up and not act like a spoiled brat and punish us in ways that don't even make sense when he did.

Is your action, of knowing what he was going to do, previous, and plotting against him, the act of a spoiled brat? I'm not accusing you. I'm asking you. How would you define that? It's not clever. You didn't outsmart anyone. How would you define what you said you did?

your entire point seems to be hung up on one point, prior knowledge of what the gm was doing. I did not know we wasn't going to allow us to loot until he actually tried to stop us. So if you want to be technical the GM was using OOC knowledge because as a GM he knew we always looted the dead and purposefully put something in place to prevent it when it wasn't logical to do so. To answer your question yes I would consider someone a cheater if they snuck a look at the gm's notes before the session started and purposefully took skills or weapons to counter it.

He left me a loophole in that game and I exploited it, any smart player would.

You just admitted to finding a 'Loophole' in a game with your friends, and admitted to purposefully exploiting it. That's pretty telling. Why are you exploiting loopholes with your GM? You're all (( Assuming)) Friends. Why the need to search out loopholes and then exploit them in the friendly game. Are you going to "win"?

Yes we are all friends and yes I exploited it, you are also conveniently leaving the part out how I didn't keep any of the equipment other than a pistol, rifle and some eclips. So it's not like it changed the outcome of his planned game, it was more of a "roleplaying" moment for effect/story. It's not like I kept the guns, or sold them for money, I gave them to the freedom fighters and they were never seen again.

He learned from his mistake and moved on.

And here, you point out it was a mistake, and above you pointed out you exploited it. Yet you're calling others spoiled brats if they don't let you do such things?

If the GM tells the players that they are in a room full of money and says it's unguarded and untraceable and then later cries foul when they take it and regrets not having guards in place then that was a mistake they made by having it there in the first place. So yes a GM would be spoiled if after you took the money, some gang just happens to show up and steal it all back when nobody even knew you took it in the first place.

He never gave us magic healing water bottling plant facilities, we earned those weapons by killing their previous owners. As for the guns I took from the armoury it wasn't played with OOC knowledge, my character knew he was quitting and didn't want to leave empty handed, simple as that. As for me being clever or not, well that's your opinion.

That's the thing. It's not clever to have your character act, based on what you know out of character. In my book that's just flat out cheating.

once again, never cheated. He tried to railroad, so I grabbed what I could and left. I never new in advance that there was a back up squad until it was right in front of us.

By no means was our GM as push over or a Monty Haul style GM, he was fair. I remember during one fight a player said he dropped his empty rifle, pulled his pistol and kept firing. After the fight we left, we ended up in another fight and the player said he pulls out his rifle and the GM said to him "you never said that you picked it up after the fight so you left your rifle behind". The player was pissed but the rest of us sided with the GM. You were shooting, dropped it, kept moving and shooting, got on the vehicle and we drove away, no where in that sequence did you mention you went back for the gun.
He made a mistake and paid a fair price. Same should go for a GM, you get outsmarted by your players you smile and move on you don't throw a tantrum. I find too many people are too pro player/anti-gm or they're too pro GM/anti-player. I think everyone would have more fun if they didn't take the gaming too serious/personal. It's supposed to be fun with your friends, not a us against them situation.

It is supposed to be fun, and I guess that's my overall point. You're posting about outsmarting your GM. You didn't though. You knew what he was trying to do and blocked him using that OOC information. Your saying if you "out smart him" he should just smile and move on, but it's 'Wrong' for him to outsmart you an do it back?

You as a player have admitted to using that OOC information, finding a loop hole your gm had and exploiting it.

But some how it's wrong for your GM to use OOC information of your chars and thheir actions, find that loop hole and exploit it to teach YOU a lesson?


You're describing a very confrontational game where you're 'competing' the GM vs the players and the players vs the GM. That's not a healthy game, for JUST THAT REASON. Players will seek out loop holes, manipulate, and exploit them, which WILL cause the GM to retaliate against the players.

The GM does play the antagonists in the game but it's an RPG. You can't "WIN THE GAME" so there's no point in cheating. You're just cheating yourself in the end.

Once again, the only person "guilty" of using outside knowledge was the GM so yes I was clever and did outsmart him when he tried to railroad us and I don't really care if you agree with me or not.

[Damian Magecraft]

mobile phone posting, i tell ya

Just saying the situation seems like the players would be prosecuted as gm has OOC game expectations of the players.

There is a social contract that the players and GM enter into when they sit down to play. They agree to a certain tone and balance to the game. If during play the GM introduces something to the game that has the potential to break that tone or balance if used in a specific manner that the GM failed to anticipate but the players spot then the players have an obligation to not use it in that manner. Is that OOC knowledge? Possibly; but if they do choose to break the game then they need to expect the GM to attempt to correct the issue or be forced to shut down the game.
If the game gets shut down then bad feelings result...
The GM feels the players broke the game.
The players will blame the GM and the other players (typically because the idea to use the exploit is the idea of only one player who talked the others into it.)

[flatline]

]There is a social contract that the players and GM enter into when they sit down to play. They agree to a certain tone and balance to the game. If during play the GM introduces something to the game that has the potential to break that tone or balance if used in a specific manner that the GM failed to anticipate but the players spot then the players have an obligation to not use it in that manner. Is that OOC knowledge? Possibly; but if they do choose to break the game then they need to expect the GM to attempt to correct the issue or be forced to shut down the game.
If the game gets shut down then bad feelings result...
The GM feels the players broke the game.
The players will blame the GM and the other players (typically because the idea to use the exploit is the idea of only one player who talked the others into it.)

I guess I'm missing something. At any point the GM can prevent something by coming up with an in-game reason for blocking something or simply ruling that whatever is being proposed won't be allowed. And then the game moves on. Where is the contention?

How can the players force the GM's hand?

--flatline

[Damian Magecraft]

]There is a social contract that the players and GM enter into when they sit down to play. They agree to a certain tone and balance to the game. If during play the GM introduces something to the game that has the potential to break that tone or balance if used in a specific manner that the GM failed to anticipate but the players spot then the players have an obligation to not use it in that manner. Is that OOC knowledge? Possibly; but if they do choose to break the game then they need to expect the GM to attempt to correct the issue or be forced to shut down the game.
If the game gets shut down then bad feelings result...
The GM feels the players broke the game.
The players will blame the GM and the other players (typically because the idea to use the exploit is the idea of only one player who talked the others into it.)

I guess I'm missing something. At any point the GM can prevent something by coming up with an in-game reason for blocking something or simply ruling that whatever is being proposed won't be allowed. And then the game moves on. Where is the contention?

How can the players force the GM's hand?

--flatline

Through social blackmail by way of the ultimatum:
"we get to do this or we will trash your reputation as a GM"
Experienced GMs Know to respond back with the counter ultimatum:
"try it and your reputation as players goes down the toilet as well"
Inexperienced GMs fail to understand that the GM network is stronger than the Player network (or that often it is an empty threat) and cave to the blackmail.

[Pepsi Jedi]

"I remember one time that after a fight he intentionally didn't leave us anytime to loot (because the GM knew we would loot every time) he had a convenient back up unit close by (even though we were pretty isolated). I knew he wasn't going to make us fight them, just enough to move us along so we couldn't loot, so I told every person in the group to not waste time checking their belts, packs, etc. for supplies just to quickly grab the rifle and sidearm from every dead person and run. Sure the ones in the rifles weren't full, but the sidearms were, so we just scored 4-6 more eclips and the same amount of half spent ones, plus the weapons."

Out of character you know that the GM purposefully wasn't giving you time to loot, and he had a unit close by to move you along, and you also knew he didn't want to play out the fight, so using that Out of character knowledge, (( both that he didn't want you to loot, had someone there to force the issue but didn't really want to use them)) You schemed to change your character's behavior to take advantage of the Out Of Character knowledge. In short, you knew as a player what was coming and cheated to make sure your CHARACTER got stuff you wanted them to get.

How is it using out of game knowledge when the back up squad was standing right in front of me ? So I didn't scheme anything, I saw another squad that was 10 times our size so we grabbed what we could and bolted. Am I to assume that you would have stood your ground and fought your 3 against their like 30 ? That's just the GM being a dick to try and hurry the game along, he wanted us gone from the area so had them drop out of the sky on us.

They were trying to kill us, we killed them first and took their stuff, "to the victor goes the spoils".

If it was just black and white, sure, but you posted that you KNEW the GM was trying to prevent that, and you used that OOC knowledge to get what you wanted.

honestly not sure where you're going with this one, a group of people opened fire on us, how is that us using outside knowledge that they were trying to kill us ?

I don't know too many players who would kill a bunch on enemies and then say "hey lets just walk away and leave all these bodies here with their armour, weapons and assorted gear for someone else to have. If we take their stuff that would be stealing and that's wrong". (but I guess killing them wasn't?) IMO that is not very good survival instincts for Rifts Earth especially when some of the equipment is supposed to be rare (well depending on the GM I guess).

That's dependant on alot of things. Alignment. Moral codes. Laws. Chance of the enemies friends lighting you up when you're seen next (( I love CS gear as much as the next guy but it's a walking target and death warrant if you use it.))

other than a cyber knight (iirc it's against their code to loot ?) or principled alignment maybe (but we weren't stealing from a store it was more of a case of survival), or it being CS gear I don't see any other viable reason to leave it. Come on laws ? We just killed them but we're going to worry if it's against the law to take their gear ? As for friends recognizing the gear ? I'm sure in their infinite wisdom that NG decided to make and sell more than 1 laser rifle.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about knowing the GM is tired of your looting and you knowing out of character, he's trying to stop it so you cheat to get it anyway.
"I knew he was going to move us along and not give us a chance to loot after the fight, so I paused mid fight to loot, knowing after I looted we could finish the fight and I'd still get my lootz!" type thing.

I still don't see this as cheating, I didn't know mid fight we won't have a chance to loot, I knew after the fight that he wasn't giving us a chance to loot. Grabbing (and using) some grenades of a guy mid fight isn't cheating. He had grenades and I didn't so I took them and used them

Just to be clear it's fine for the GM to have guns explode in our hands with no warning just because we took it off a dead guy or have a group of slavers magically (possibly literally I suppose ) track us and that's not considered abuse. But when a player outsmarts a GM that's considered being whiny and manipulative ?

If you, as a player, know the GM is setting things up in a certain way to not allow you to just rob everyone blind. Trying to limit your resources to add that to the game, and you use that knowledge, as a PLAYER, to change your CHARACTER's actions to 'out smart the GM'. Then yes you're being manipulative and 'cheating'. It's just a game. One we all agree to play. I have 50+ Rifts books but when I play, I agree to play only the knowledge my character has at his disposal.

If I happen to see a note on the GM's notebook with stats for fire dragons.. I don't have my character automatically buy flame retardant clothing, if he wouldn't already get it. If I know my GM just got Lemuria, and my char is in Texas, I don't cough and ask if I can Just so happen, to pick up a scuba tank in town.... And that's pretty much what you're saying you're doing. You knew where the gm was going, so you blocked him and got what you wanted anyway.

I don't read the GM's notes, or even sit near the GM, it's not cheating when he makes an obvious in game play to railroad the players and you as the players try and side step it. Looting off dead bodies is not the same as trying to predict the GM's campaign and prepare for it in advance.

That seems to be a little one sided in favour of GMs. They can act with impunity but if we outsmart them we should be punished instead of rewarded ?

But you're not outsmarting them. lol You're "Reading ahead in the book". You're taking the game, looking ahead in the adventure, seeing how things are going to go, and planning for them in advance. It's like picking up a mystery novel and reading the last chapter, then going to the beginning of thhe book. Have you "Figured out the mystery?" through your own smarts? or have you just read it and know what happens?

How can I look ahead in the adventure ? I can't read his mind I have no idea what he has planned unless he tells us what he has planned or drops hints. If he drops hints we're heading into vampire country than obviously we pick up appropriate gear, but you would appear to consider that cheating.

I've seen many posts on here of that mindset, the GMs don't reward creative play, they are "out to get" their players.

Some are. The people I play with don't, but conversely, you're admitting to basicly looking at the adventure before hand and planning for the happenings in the adventure. 1) you knew he was trying to limit resources, so you plotted a way around that, and 2) You knew his 'Hammer" in that situation was a back up unit, you knew he didin't want to use, so it was no threat to you.

*Shrugs* It's real easy to "outsmart" your GM when you already know what's going to happen.

I don't mind things being limited if it's logical, but when a GM throws everything under the sun at you, but tries to limit you to a laser pistol, once again that's a little one sided.

Man I'm glad we had the GM we did, he could admit when he screwed up and not act like a spoiled brat and punish us in ways that don't even make sense when he did.

Is your action, of knowing what he was going to do, previous, and plotting against him, the act of a spoiled brat? I'm not accusing you. I'm asking you. How would you define that? It's not clever. You didn't outsmart anyone. How would you define what you said you did?

your entire point seems to be hung up on one point, prior knowledge of what the gm was doing. I did not know we wasn't going to allow us to loot until he actually tried to stop us. So if you want to be technical the GM was using OOC knowledge because as a GM he knew we always looted the dead and purposefully put something in place to prevent it when it wasn't logical to do so. To answer your question yes I would consider someone a cheater if they snuck a look at the gm's notes before the session started and purposefully took skills or weapons to counter it.

He left me a loophole in that game and I exploited it, any smart player would.

You just admitted to finding a 'Loophole' in a game with your friends, and admitted to purposefully exploiting it. That's pretty telling. Why are you exploiting loopholes with your GM? You're all (( Assuming)) Friends. Why the need to search out loopholes and then exploit them in the friendly game. Are you going to "win"?

Yes we are all friends and yes I exploited it, you are also conveniently leaving the part out how I didn't keep any of the equipment other than a pistol, rifle and some eclips. So it's not like it changed the outcome of his planned game, it was more of a "roleplaying" moment for effect/story. It's not like I kept the guns, or sold them for money, I gave them to the freedom fighters and they were never seen again.

He learned from his mistake and moved on.

And here, you point out it was a mistake, and above you pointed out you exploited it. Yet you're calling others spoiled brats if they don't let you do such things?

If the GM tells the players that they are in a room full of money and says it's unguarded and untraceable and then later cries foul when they take it and regrets not having guards in place then that was a mistake they made by having it there in the first place. So yes a GM would be spoiled if after you took the money, some gang just happens to show up and steal it all back when nobody even knew you took it in the first place.

He never gave us magic healing water bottling plant facilities, we earned those weapons by killing their previous owners. As for the guns I took from the armoury it wasn't played with OOC knowledge, my character knew he was quitting and didn't want to leave empty handed, simple as that. As for me being clever or not, well that's your opinion.

That's the thing. It's not clever to have your character act, based on what you know out of character. In my book that's just flat out cheating.

once again, never cheated. He tried to railroad, so I grabbed what I could and left. I never new in advance that there was a back up squad until it was right in front of us.

By no means was our GM as push over or a Monty Haul style GM, he was fair. I remember during one fight a player said he dropped his empty rifle, pulled his pistol and kept firing. After the fight we left, we ended up in another fight and the player said he pulls out his rifle and the GM said to him "you never said that you picked it up after the fight so you left your rifle behind". The player was pissed but the rest of us sided with the GM. You were shooting, dropped it, kept moving and shooting, got on the vehicle and we drove away, no where in that sequence did you mention you went back for the gun.
He made a mistake and paid a fair price. Same should go for a GM, you get outsmarted by your players you smile and move on you don't throw a tantrum. I find too many people are too pro player/anti-gm or they're too pro GM/anti-player. I think everyone would have more fun if they didn't take the gaming too serious/personal. It's supposed to be fun with your friends, not a us against them situation.

It is supposed to be fun, and I guess that's my overall point. You're posting about outsmarting your GM. You didn't though. You knew what he was trying to do and blocked him using that OOC information. Your saying if you "out smart him" he should just smile and move on, but it's 'Wrong' for him to outsmart you an do it back?

You as a player have admitted to using that OOC information, finding a loop hole your gm had and exploiting it.

But some how it's wrong for your GM to use OOC information of your chars and thheir actions, find that loop hole and exploit it to teach YOU a lesson?


You're describing a very confrontational game where you're 'competing' the GM vs the players and the players vs the GM. That's not a healthy game, for JUST THAT REASON. Players will seek out loop holes, manipulate, and exploit them, which WILL cause the GM to retaliate against the players.

The GM does play the antagonists in the game but it's an RPG. You can't "WIN THE GAME" so there's no point in cheating. You're just cheating yourself in the end.

Once again, the only person "guilty" of using outside knowledge was the GM so yes I was clever and did outsmart him when he tried to railroad us and I don't really care if you agree with me or not.

Your First statement in this thread shows you WERE Using OOC information and did cheat, so all your others are sort of invalidated by it. You stated he intentionally didn't leave you any time to loot, and had convenient back up unit close by, Then ______ YOU KNEW HE WASN"T GOING TO MAKE US FIGHT THEM, JUST ENOUGH TO MOVE US ALONG SO WE COULDN"T LOOT____ SO..... (( inresponce to what you knew OOC)) You told every person in the group not to wast time checking belts back etc, just to look the rifle nad side arms for your "score.

You knew ooc information: That he wasn't going to make you fight them.

SO....

Using that information you formulated a plan, to do, what you knew, the GM didn't want to happen, and ordered other players to do so as well. (( Looting in that instance))

So yeah man... You used OOC information and cheated. *Shrugs* If you don't see it, I can't really spot light it more, but you did use the OOC information and cheated in the game. If you and your group is cool with that. Fine. You didn't 'outsmart him' you used what you knew of the session to cheat.

My group would spank a player that tried to pull that crap. We'd let the person know that using OOC information to base your characters actions wasn't cool. And if he contiued to do it, either in the same game or later games, we'd stop inviting him to play.

[Pepsi Jedi]

]There is a social contract that the players and GM enter into when they sit down to play. They agree to a certain tone and balance to the game. If during play the GM introduces something to the game that has the potential to break that tone or balance if used in a specific manner that the GM failed to anticipate but the players spot then the players have an obligation to not use it in that manner. Is that OOC knowledge? Possibly; but if they do choose to break the game then they need to expect the GM to attempt to correct the issue or be forced to shut down the game.
If the game gets shut down then bad feelings result...
The GM feels the players broke the game.
The players will blame the GM and the other players (typically because the idea to use the exploit is the idea of only one player who talked the others into it.)

I guess I'm missing something. At any point the GM can prevent something by coming up with an in-game reason for blocking something or simply ruling that whatever is being proposed won't be allowed. And then the game moves on. Where is the contention?

How can the players force the GM's hand?

--flatline

They can either use peer pressure or, failing that. Not invite the guy to play any more. Gaming groups aren't really a dime a dozen these days. Being exiled from a game is a pretty heavy thing.

[Nightmask]

So when will this get back to discussing charging to recharge E-clips rather than a general discussion as to whether or not a GM is in the wrong for enacting punitive damages on a player's character for exploiting something he himself made available?

[flatline]

What's a good ballpark guess of the energy capacity of an E-clip?

I think someone mentioned that 1 E-clip is roughly equivalent to 1000 car batteries, but my google-fu is failing me when I try to find the number of joules or amp-hours in a typical car battery.

--flatline

[Nightmask]

What's a good ballpark guess of the energy capacity of an E-clip?

I think someone mentioned that 1 E-clip is roughly equivalent to 1000 car batteries, but my google-fu is failing me when I try to find the number of joules or amp-hours in a typical car battery.

--flatline

If you look back through the forum there are threads discussing the energy capacity of the E-clip, attempting to correct for the widely confusing book stats on them (you'd think an e-clip would run a computer and monitor for a lot longer than the time listed, considering it can run a power armor for a lot longer than the far less energy demanding computer).

[Killer Cyborg]

I think someone mentioned that 1 E-clip is roughly equivalent to 1000 car batteries

As per the Energy Absorption power in CB1 and CB1r, iirc.

[Damian Magecraft]

I think someone mentioned that 1 E-clip is roughly equivalent to 1000 car batteries

As per the Energy Absorption power in CB1 and CB1r, iirc.

couldn't one pay for an e-clip charger to be built into a GAWS jeep?

I don't see why not but it would be expensive.
Cost of the charger plus the cost of adaption parts plus the cost of installation. so say 25% over the cost of the charger itself...
Plus I would not allow it to be available at character creation.
This should be something the characters work to obtain.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I think someone mentioned that 1 E-clip is roughly equivalent to 1000 car batteries

As per the Energy Absorption power in CB1 and CB1r, iirc.

couldn't one pay for an e-clip charger to be built into a GAWS jeep?

You can just buy an e-clip charger straight up if you have the money.

The implication is that it's NOT just "here plug it into the nuclear battery on my ____."

If it was, the charger wouldn't be almost a million bucks.

[Damian Magecraft]

I think someone mentioned that 1 E-clip is roughly equivalent to 1000 car batteries

As per the Energy Absorption power in CB1 and CB1r, iirc.

couldn't one pay for an e-clip charger to be built into a GAWS jeep?

I don't see why not but it would be expensive.
Cost of the charger plus the cost of adaption parts plus the cost of installation. so say 25% over the cost of the charger itself...
Plus I would not allow it to be available at character creation.
This should be something the characters work to obtain.

Well if they come with a vehical of choose and they chose a GAWS Jeep I would let them get one special feature on it.

I guess it would depend on the tone of the game you are after...

[Nether]

I think someone mentioned that 1 E-clip is roughly equivalent to 1000 car batteries

As per the Energy Absorption power in CB1 and CB1r, iirc.

couldn't one pay for an e-clip charger to be built into a GAWS jeep?

I don't see why not but it would be expensive.
Cost of the charger plus the cost of adaption parts plus the cost of installation. so say 25% over the cost of the charger itself...
Plus I would not allow it to be available at character creation.
This should be something the characters work to obtain.

Well if they come with a vehical of choose and they chose a GAWS Jeep I would let them get one special feature on it.

Anyone in the group that has the skill and another that has any vehicle / PA with a nuke supply i have no problems letting them hook it up. It is like buying a battery charger today and they arent that bad.

I guess if you play in a gritty setting then you should be nickel and diming your group for everything and keeping resources low, but i normally play in high adventure so it isnt a problem.

Between nuke supply vehicles, character with skills and fallen enemies with clips ext it never seems to be a problem for me in any game setting though.

[flatline]

I think someone mentioned that 1 E-clip is roughly equivalent to 1000 car batteries

As per the Energy Absorption power in CB1 and CB1r, iirc.

couldn't one pay for an e-clip charger to be built into a GAWS jeep?

You can just buy an e-clip charger straight up if you have the money.

The implication is that it's NOT just "here plug it into the nuclear battery on my ____."

If it was, the charger wouldn't be almost a million bucks.

The reason the charger is so expensive is because it comes with its own nuclear power source.

The electronics that govern the charging algorithm are probably built into the E-clip itself. Even if they're not, they couldn't possibly account for more than 5% of the charger cost (even that is generous I think).

--flatline

[Damian Magecraft]

I think someone mentioned that 1 E-clip is roughly equivalent to 1000 car batteries

As per the Energy Absorption power in CB1 and CB1r, iirc.

couldn't one pay for an e-clip charger to be built into a GAWS jeep?

You can just buy an e-clip charger straight up if you have the money.

The implication is that it's NOT just "here plug it into the nuclear battery on my ____."

If it was, the charger wouldn't be almost a million bucks.

I dunno... anything capable of charging a device with one giga-joule... it could in theory require very expensive parts...
But then the charger being made available for purchase by players is not something I agree with... (but thats my personal opinion and may be coloring my views).

[Nightmask]

The reason the charger is so expensive is because it comes with its own nuclear power source.

The electronics that govern the charging algorithm are probably built into the E-clip itself. Even if they're not, they couldn't possibly account for more than 5% of the charger cost (even that is generous I think).

--flatline

I wouldn't think the charging regulation circuitry would be in the E-clip itself, at best it might have protection from dead short explosive e-clip events. Chargers shouldn't be so expensive though, except of course if you're putting in an expensive nuclear supply but might as well have it built into something that already comes with a nuclear supply to save you the trouble of dedicating an entire nuclear power supply to just charging e-clips.

[Blue_Lion]

I seam to rember them saying the power of a E-clip was equal to 1 gigawat of power. From one of the core books, on TDY for now will check when i get home.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I think people are mistakenly thinking that tinkering with a nuclear power supply the size of a hockey puck, is like hooking a car radio up to the battery. I'm no electrical engineer but I suspect what ever hyper technology that can miniaturize the nuclear power supplys down to the size of a hockey puck are a bit more advanced than "oh anything with a power source can be tinkered with to recharge my eclips forever for free" type thing.

You're not ductaping on a side mirror or changing a tire guys. This is high science, hypertech sorts of stuff. You misalign something by like 2 microns and BOOOM you're a crispy memory or something.

[flatline]

I seam to rember them saying the power of a E-clip was equal to 1 gigawat of power. From one of the core books, on TDY for now will check when i get home.

A gigawatt is a measure of power. If we know how long it can provide that amount of power, then we could calculate the amount of energy contained.

For instance, if it can provide 1 gigawatt for 1 nanosecond, then the E-clip can contain 1 joule of energy (less than a birthday candle).

If it can provide 1 gigawatt for a whole second, then it contains a giga-joule of energy (that about what a large modern nuclear reactor generates in 1 second).

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

The reason the charger is so expensive is because it comes with its own nuclear power source.

That would account for some of the high price, but we have no real way of knowing how much of the price.

The electronics that govern the charging algorithm are probably built into the E-clip itself. Even if they're not, they couldn't possibly account for more than 5% of the charger cost (even that is generous I think).
--flatline

Making assumptions about futuristic sci-fi technology based on what we know of modern technology is like a Roman Centurion making assumptions about Metal Storm based on what they know about the Scorpio.

[flatline]

The reason the charger is so expensive is because it comes with its own nuclear power source.

That would account for some of the high price, but we have no real way of knowing how much of the price.

If we assume the regulation circuitry isn't part of the E-clip, then the regulation circuitry would be similar to the circuitry that must be present in every weapon that pulls power from the E-clip and since that circuitry doesn't account for the full cost of such a weapon, we can safely assume that that the cost of an energy rifle would be an upper bound on how expensive said circuitry could be. If the regulation circuitry is actually part of the E-clip, then the components in the charger would be even less costly.

So subtract the cost of an energy rifle and what you have left is the cost of the nuclear power source and any remaining incidentals.

The electronics that govern the charging algorithm are probably built into the E-clip itself. Even if they're not, they couldn't possibly account for more than 5% of the charger cost (even that is generous I think).
--flatline

Making assumptions about futuristic sci-fi technology based on what we know of modern technology is like a Roman Centurion making assumptions about Metal Storm based on what they know about the Scorpio.

You can't call it science fiction if you take the science out. What you're describing is a futuristic fantasy setting.

--flatline

[Damian Magecraft]

The reason the charger is so expensive is because it comes with its own nuclear power source.

That would account for some of the high price, but we have no real way of knowing how much of the price.

If we assume the regulation circuitry isn't part of the E-clip, then the regulation circuitry would be similar to the circuitry that must be present in every weapon that pulls power from the E-clip and since that circuitry doesn't account for the full cost of such a weapon, we can safely assume that that the cost of an energy rifle would be an upper bound on how expensive said circuitry could be. If the regulation circuitry is actually part of the E-clip, then the components in the charger would be even less costly.

So subtract the cost of an energy rifle and what you have left is the cost of the nuclear power source and any remaining incidentals.

The electronics that govern the charging algorithm are probably built into the E-clip itself. Even if they're not, they couldn't possibly account for more than 5% of the charger cost (even that is generous I think).
--flatline

Making assumptions about futuristic sci-fi technology based on what we know of modern technology is like a Roman Centurion making assumptions about Metal Storm based on what they know about the Scorpio.

You can't call it science fiction if you take the science out. What you're describing is a futuristic fantasy setting.

--flatline

last time I checked Rifts has magic and mythological creatures I dont think we can safely call it science fiction.
Plus I know many science fiction writers that would argue with you on that point.
what you are arguing is in fact Hard science fiction vs soft science fiction.

[Warmaster40k]

To address the naif spring thing Id allow it. But first id figure out the cost of establishing the plant. Materials and wages, the hireing of employees to operate it. The logistics of making sure their bottles make it to the plant, then when they try to move their product buyers start looking for the where a bouts of the plant. Soon they would be dealing with different factions in the blackmarket looking fir a cut, now they picked up notice from the coalition. Id make holding it a nightmare but if they can confraternity they've earned it.

[Pepsi Jedi]

To address the naif spring thing Id allow it. But first id figure out the cost of establishing the plant. Materials and wages, the hireing of employees to operate it. The logistics of making sure their bottles make it to the plant, then when they try to move their product buyers start looking for the where a bouts of the plant. Soon they would be dealing with different factions in the blackmarket looking fir a cut, now they picked up notice from the coalition. Id make holding it a nightmare but if they can confraternity they've earned it.

The guy in question had trillions and trillions of dollars (40 trillion? Sounds right)) and a 1 million man secret merc ground army and another 1 million secret space army and the leader of this merry band had (( I'm not making it up)) Stats better than Thor, across the board. Every stat was better than Thor and if memory serves Zeus too.

I don't think a lot of real world thought/logistics went into it.

[Blue_Lion]

I seam to rember them saying the power of a E-clip was equal to 1 gigawat of power. From one of the core books, on TDY for now will check when i get home.

A gigawatt is a measure of power. If we know how long it can provide that amount of power, then we could calculate the amount of energy contained.

For instance, if it can provide 1 gigawatt for 1 nanosecond, then the E-clip can contain 1 joule of energy (less than a birthday candle).

If it can provide 1 gigawatt for a whole second, then it contains a giga-joule of energy (that about what a large modern nuclear reactor generates in 1 second).

--flatline

Well if you go by the amount of time it takes a nuclear reactor to recharge it, 1 hour. Whitch the game desiners may have been thinking most people are use to dealing with power as billed by killowat hour, they might only think of it as a killowat not power by time. Rember game desiners are not always experts in fields there games cover. Also MDC damage is supose to be faily major tech resorce so a verry small ammount of time to sustain the power may not be reasonable.

[flatline]

last time I checked Rifts has magic and mythological creatures I dont think we can safely call it science fiction.
Plus I know many science fiction writers that would argue with you on that point.
what you are arguing is in fact Hard science fiction vs soft science fiction.

What KC is proposing is fantasy, just with a "high tech" veneer where "technology" is a black box surrounded by technobabble, indistinguishable from magic except we pretend it's not magic.

--flatline

[Damian Magecraft]

last time I checked Rifts has magic and mythological creatures I dont think we can safely call it science fiction.
Plus I know many science fiction writers that would argue with you on that point.
what you are arguing is in fact Hard science fiction vs soft science fiction.

What KC is proposing is fantasy, just with a "high tech" veneer where "technology" is a black box surrounded by technobabble, indistinguishable from magic except we pretend it's not magic.

--flatline

Not really...
hard science fiction has to go into the detail on how the and why the tech of the future works.
In soft science fiction the tech just works; there is no explanation for how or why it just does.
In Hard S/F the science is central to the story in Soft S/F its just part of the setting.
It looks to me that KC is trying to not place an over emphasis on the science.

[flatline]

last time I checked Rifts has magic and mythological creatures I dont think we can safely call it science fiction.
Plus I know many science fiction writers that would argue with you on that point.
what you are arguing is in fact Hard science fiction vs soft science fiction.

What KC is proposing is fantasy, just with a "high tech" veneer where "technology" is a black box surrounded by technobabble, indistinguishable from magic except we pretend it's not magic.

--flatline

Not really...
hard science fiction has to go into the detail on how the and why the tech of the future works.
In soft science fiction the tech just works; there is no explanation for how or why it just does.
In Hard S/F the science is central to the story in Soft S/F its just part of the setting.
It looks to me that KC is trying to not place an over emphasis on the science.

According to wikipedia:soft science fiction:
"""The term first appeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s and indicated SF based not on engineering or the "hard" sciences (for example, physics, astronomy, or chemistry) but on the "soft" sciences, and especially the social sciences (anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and so on). Another sense is SF that is more concerned with character, society, or other speculative ideas and themes that are not centrally tied to scientific or engineering speculations."""

In soft science fiction the science might not be the focus, but it is not flagrantly disregarded as KC is proposing.

--flatline

[Damian Magecraft]

last time I checked Rifts has magic and mythological creatures I dont think we can safely call it science fiction.
Plus I know many science fiction writers that would argue with you on that point.
what you are arguing is in fact Hard science fiction vs soft science fiction.

What KC is proposing is fantasy, just with a "high tech" veneer where "technology" is a black box surrounded by technobabble, indistinguishable from magic except we pretend it's not magic.

--flatline

Not really...
hard science fiction has to go into the detail on how the and why the tech of the future works.
In soft science fiction the tech just works; there is no explanation for how or why it just does.
In Hard S/F the science is central to the story in Soft S/F its just part of the setting.
It looks to me that KC is trying to not place an over emphasis on the science.

According to wikipedia:soft science fiction:
"""The term first appeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s and indicated SF based not on engineering or the "hard" sciences (for example, physics, astronomy, or chemistry) but on the "soft" sciences, and especially the social sciences (anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and so on). Another sense is SF that is more concerned with character, society, or other speculative ideas and themes that are not centrally tied to scientific or engineering speculations."""

In soft science fiction the science might not be the focus, but it is not flagrantly disregarded as KC is proposing.

--flatline

And that is an example of why Wikipedia should never be used as your only source... That is a half definition by a Hard S/F proponent. Soft S/F also covers those stories that ignore the tech entirely. Prime Example: JD Robb's in Death series takes place in the future has flying cars, regular space travel, and many other tech advances that it never bothers to explain... but instead just gives us a nice little murder mystery to solve. (and yes it is classified as S/F.)

[Killer Cyborg]

The reason the charger is so expensive is because it comes with its own nuclear power source.

That would account for some of the high price, but we have no real way of knowing how much of the price.

If we assume the regulation circuitry isn't part of the E-clip, then the regulation circuitry would be similar to the circuitry that must be present in every weapon that pulls power from the E-clip and since that circuitry doesn't account for the full cost of such a weapon, we can safely assume that that the cost of an energy rifle would be an upper bound on how expensive said circuitry could be. If the regulation circuitry is actually part of the E-clip, then the components in the charger would be even less costly.

So subtract the cost of an energy rifle and what you have left is the cost of the nuclear power source and any remaining incidentals.

Way too many assumptions.

Making assumptions about futuristic sci-fi technology based on what we know of modern technology is like a Roman Centurion making assumptions about Metal Storm based on what they know about the Scorpio.

You can't call it science fiction if you take the science out. What you're describing is a futuristic fantasy setting.

--flatline

1. science fiction
n.
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

2. I'm not taking the science out. There is no science IN. There is no description of how E-Clips work, nor any indication of what kind of technology they use, except that they store electricity.
Any guesses at how e-clips might work or be recharged are only that- guesses.
Not science.
And guesses at how exactly any of it works from a modern perspective have about as much chance of correctness as that Roman's guesses about Metal Storm.

[Nether]

I think people are mistakenly thinking that tinkering with a nuclear power supply the size of a hockey puck, is like hooking a car radio up to the battery. I'm no electrical engineer but I suspect what ever hyper technology that can miniaturize the nuclear power supplys down to the size of a hockey puck are a bit more advanced than "oh anything with a power source can be tinkered with to recharge my eclips forever for free" type thing.

You're not ductaping on a side mirror or changing a tire guys. This is high science, hypertech sorts of stuff. You misalign something by like 2 microns and BOOOM you're a crispy memory or something.

Considering how many combat vechiles / PA / robots ext use nuke supplies, i dont think they are half as "dangerous" as your suggesting, otherwise the game would have rules about destroyed vehicle/pa ext cause a mini nuclear meltdown ext.

These things are used everywhere and in even the lightest of PA the Samas which only weighs 350lbs?

There is also 4 skills that allow making use of that energy. You arent engineering a nuclear supply and creating it, your just transfering some of it's power from the vehicles power train to your gun.

These power supplies have to be fairly safe considering how they are used in Rifts with no mentiion of mini meltdowns ext.

I see it more akin to tapping into the power from a power cable, you need the skills not to electrocute yourself but chances are unless you do some crazy or dumb things it will have safeties in place to stop you from causing mini melts. Your more likely to damage the electrical system on the vehicle if you failed then do anything to the nuke supply.

All conjecture but this is how it logically looks to me.

[Nether]

And guesses at how exactly any of it works from a modern perspective have about as much chance of correctness as that Roman's guesses about Metal Storm.

Well Rifts takes place in the equivalent year 2389 to us, so approx 300 year diff from what we know now.

To compare it to the Roman empire is a much greater difference. Its end was approx 500 ish AD, so really the comparison is more akin to 2000 years difference vs 300.

300 years from now i think we could make speculative guesses about the science there with "some" accuracy, especially considering how the book techs further alot of the techs we have today or are at least theorized to how they might work.

in general, isn't Rifts more lilke a scifi space opera than core scifi?

[Damian Magecraft]

And guesses at how exactly any of it works from a modern perspective have about as much chance of correctness as that Roman's guesses about Metal Storm.

Well Rifts takes place in the equivalent year 2389 to us, so approx 300 year diff from what we know now.

To compare it to the Roman empire is a much greater difference. Its end was approx 500 ish AD, so really the comparison is more akin to 2000 years difference vs 300.

300 years from now i think we could make speculative guesses about the science there with "some" accuracy, especially considering how the book techs further alot of the techs we have today or are at least theorized to how they might work.

in general, isn't Rifts more lilke a scifi space opera than core scifi?

actually if you look at the past 300 years and the logarithmic jump in technology from then to now; no we cannot ...

[flatline]

The reason the charger is so expensive is because it comes with its own nuclear power source.

That would account for some of the high price, but we have no real way of knowing how much of the price.

If we assume the regulation circuitry isn't part of the E-clip, then the regulation circuitry would be similar to the circuitry that must be present in every weapon that pulls power from the E-clip and since that circuitry doesn't account for the full cost of such a weapon, we can safely assume that that the cost of an energy rifle would be an upper bound on how expensive said circuitry could be. If the regulation circuitry is actually part of the E-clip, then the components in the charger would be even less costly.

So subtract the cost of an energy rifle and what you have left is the cost of the nuclear power source and any remaining incidentals.

Way too many assumptions.

I'm only making one assumption. Let me spell it out.

Either (1) the same regulation circuit is used for both charging and discharging (this is the case if it's built into the E-clip) or (2) if different circuits are used for charging and discharging, they cost about the same to construct.

Why do I feel this is a safe assumption? Because once you get into serious power management, power regulation circuitry looks pretty much the same no matter which direction you're going. You're either using a charge pump to raise the voltage from one side to the other or you're using a switching power supply to lower the voltage from one side to the other. Since the charge pump and the switching power supply use roughly the same components (relay or bank of transisters, capacitor, inductor, and some low power control components), the cost of the circuit doesn't really matter which way you're going. Most serious power regulators circuits can go both ways because it's significantly cheaper than two specialized circuits and takes half the space.

So, given that one assumption, we can deduce the following.

If the regulation circuitry is part of the laser rifle, then it can't cost more that the total cost of producing the rifle.
If it's part of the E-clip, then it can't cost more than the total cost of producing the E-clip.

Since the laser rifle costs more than the E-clip, we know WITH CERTAINTY, that the regulation circuitry costs less than the laser rifle without knowing whether or not it is built into the E-clip or the rifle.

So, at what point did my one assumption cross the threshold for "too many assumptions"?

--flatline

[Damian Magecraft]

The reason the charger is so expensive is because it comes with its own nuclear power source.

That would account for some of the high price, but we have no real way of knowing how much of the price.

If we assume the regulation circuitry isn't part of the E-clip, then the regulation circuitry would be similar to the circuitry that must be present in every weapon that pulls power from the E-clip and since that circuitry doesn't account for the full cost of such a weapon, we can safely assume that that the cost of an energy rifle would be an upper bound on how expensive said circuitry could be. If the regulation circuitry is actually part of the E-clip, then the components in the charger would be even less costly.

So subtract the cost of an energy rifle and what you have left is the cost of the nuclear power source and any remaining incidentals.

Way too many assumptions.

I'm only making one assumption. Let me spell it out.

Either (1) the same regulation circuit is used for both charging and discharging (this is the case if it's built into the E-clip) or (2) if different circuits are used for charging and discharging, they cost about the same to construct.

Why do I feel this is a safe assumption? Because once you get into serious power management, power regulation circuitry looks pretty much the same no matter which direction you're going. You're either using a charge pump to raise the voltage from one side to the other or you're using a switching power supply to lower the voltage from one side to the other. Since the charge pump and the switching power supply use roughly the same components (relay or bank of transisters, capacitor, inductor, and some low power control components), the cost of the circuit doesn't really matter which way you're going. Most serious power regulators circuits can go both ways because it's significantly cheaper than two specialized circuits and takes half the space.

So, given that one assumption, we can deduce the following.

If the regulation circuitry is part of the laser rifle, then it can't cost more that the total cost of producing the rifle.
If it's part of the E-clip, then it can't cost more than the total cost of producing the E-clip.

Since the laser rifle costs more than the E-clip, we know WITH CERTAINTY, that the regulation circuitry costs less than the laser rifle without knowing whether or not it is built into the E-clip or the rifle.

So, at what point did my one assumption cross the threshold for "too many assumptions"?

--flatline

did you miss the assumption that the tech is similar to current tech?
That is a rather large assumption.

[Nether]

And guesses at how exactly any of it works from a modern perspective have about as much chance of correctness as that Roman's guesses about Metal Storm.

Well Rifts takes place in the equivalent year 2389 to us, so approx 300 year diff from what we know now.

To compare it to the Roman empire is a much greater difference. Its end was approx 500 ish AD, so really the comparison is more akin to 2000 years difference vs 300.

300 years from now i think we could make speculative guesses about the science there with "some" accuracy, especially considering how the book techs further alot of the techs we have today or are at least theorized to how they might work.

in general, isn't Rifts more lilke a scifi space opera than core scifi?

actually if you look at the past 300 years and the logarithmic jump in technology from then to now; no we cannot ...

Stop and think about this for a second,

The Roman Empire started around 500 BC, and last leg of death was around 500 AD. That is 1000 years. In that 1000 years the technology never really progressed where if they saw something at any point in that era they would have a fairly good idea what the principles of it are. Go even further and take a Roman Blacksmith from 500 BC and he would still have a good idea of weapons and armor up till early firearms and gunpowder.

Within the last few hundred years we have gone thru some major changes which many theorize technology will slow down in the area of rapid change.

Regardless, the fact that we know what a nuclear reactor is now and its fundamentals obviously shows that the super tech in 300 years which is still using tech principles that we know right now logically suggests that we can most definately make reasonable theories about how it has changed ext.

eClips still function similar form to a battery or capacitor or some hybrid.
Obviously Flatline knows all about this area and he is talking about a technology that is still present in a form today.

So why do you think we would not have any clue?
We are not neanderthals talking about rocket science of how vastly hotter plasma of the sun is to a campfire.
Neanderthal wouldnt even realize it was possible compared to a campfire or torch flame.
But a swordsmith from 500 BC would understand the revolutionary technique of folding steel and how a katana is made if you told him the basic principles of it.

[flatline]

did you miss the assumption that the tech is similar to current tech?
That is a rather large assumption.

Really? You don't charge an energy storage device by pushing energy into it?

What, exactly, is your complaint?

--flatline

[flatline]

eClips still function similar form to a battery or capacitor or some hybrid.
Obviously Flatline knows all about this area and he is talking about a technology that is still present in a form today.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I am very familiar with this topic. I studied Electrical Engineering in college and keep up with battery technology and circuit design as a hobby (closely related to my flashlight hobby). But this is basic theory that anyone should be able to grasp so I'm baffled why there is so much resistance to it.

I don't think anyone would argue that you inflate a tire in Rifts any different than you do today even though we don't know anything about the composition of the tire, or the desired tire pressure, or the optimal gas inside the tire, or how fast you can pump air in without damaging the tire.

Every electrical energy storage device from the almost 400-year-old Leyden jar to the modern electric fly wheels, ultra capacitors, and rechargeable chemistries we use today HAS BEEN CHARGED THE EXACT SAME WAY varying only in the details (input voltage, safe input currents, optimal charging temps, etc).

Yet for some reason it's unreasonable to assume that E-clips would be charged in a similar fashion? It boggles the mind...

--flatline

[Pepsi Jedi]

eClips still function similar form to a battery or capacitor or some hybrid.
Obviously Flatline knows all about this area and he is talking about a technology that is still present in a form today.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I am very familiar with this topic. I studied Electrical Engineering in college and keep up with battery technology and circuit design as a hobby (closely related to my flashlight hobby). But this is basic theory that anyone should be able to grasp so I'm baffled why there is so much resistance to it.

I don't think anyone would argue that you inflate a tire in Rifts any different than you do today even though we don't know anything about the composition of the tire, or the desired tire pressure, or the optimal gas inside the tire, or how fast you can pump air in without damaging the tire.

Every electrical energy storage device from the almost 400-year-old Leyden jar to the modern electric fly wheels, ultra capacitors, and rechargeable chemistries we use today HAS BEEN CHARGED THE EXACT SAME WAY varying only in the details (input voltage, safe input currents, optimal charging temps, etc).

Yet for some reason it's unreasonable to assume that E-clips would be charged in a similar fashion? It boggles the mind...

--flatline

The fact that one laser blast from a 1D4 MD pistol has more damage capacity than the main gun on a current battle tank should tip you off that the technology in rifts isn't 100% based on current technological principal.

There's a little more to it than cranking a hand crank to build up an electric charge or something.

[Blue_Lion]

[quote="flatline
1. science fiction
n.
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

2. I'm not taking the science out. There is no science IN. There is no description of how E-Clips work, nor any indication of what kind of technology they use, except that they store electricity.
Any guesses at how e-clips might work or be recharged are only that- guesses.
Not science.
And guesses at how exactly any of it works from a modern perspective have about as much chance of correctness as that Roman's guesses about Metal Storm.

Wait I could have sworn that they where recharged by attaching a device to take the power output from a nuclear device to recharge them in about an hour. Now they did not provide the blue prints of a device but it seems that it is the output which is measured in a Giga watt so most likely electrically charged.
Now it could be something else but if it is an output from Nuclear reactor measured in a Giga watt then it is most likely stored electricity.
Might be a guess but an educated guess; also remember some stats are left out so they don't get outdated. If you look at the computer stats from the old main book they are lower than smart phones.

So what we do know is that a device attached to a nuclear reactor recharges the e-clip, with the reactors output.

[flatline]

eClips still function similar form to a battery or capacitor or some hybrid.
Obviously Flatline knows all about this area and he is talking about a technology that is still present in a form today.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I am very familiar with this topic. I studied Electrical Engineering in college and keep up with battery technology and circuit design as a hobby (closely related to my flashlight hobby). But this is basic theory that anyone should be able to grasp so I'm baffled why there is so much resistance to it.

I don't think anyone would argue that you inflate a tire in Rifts any different than you do today even though we don't know anything about the composition of the tire, or the desired tire pressure, or the optimal gas inside the tire, or how fast you can pump air in without damaging the tire.

Every electrical energy storage device from the almost 400-year-old Leyden jar to the modern electric fly wheels, ultra capacitors, and rechargeable chemistries we use today HAS BEEN CHARGED THE EXACT SAME WAY varying only in the details (input voltage, safe input currents, optimal charging temps, etc).

Yet for some reason it's unreasonable to assume that E-clips would be charged in a similar fashion? It boggles the mind...

--flatline

The fact that one laser blast from a 1D4 MD pistol has more damage capacity than the main gun on a current battle tank should tip you off that the technology in rifts isn't 100% based on current technological principal.

There's a little more to it than cranking a hand crank to build up an electric charge or something.

Yeah, and a howitzer packs a bigger punch than a .22, yet all the principles are exactly the same. The only difference is a matter of scale.

What argument can you make that E-clips are governed by different principles than what we have today?

--flatline