Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

By my lights' date=' all 5 human senses are discriminatory, perhaps the least discriminatory being touch, but even that is pretty impressive.[/quote']

I don't think so. With normal human sight or hearing, you can distinguish between two different people, not so with smell or touch.

[Maur]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

I don't think so. With normal human sight or hearing' date=' you can distinguish between two different people, not so with smell or touch.[/quote']

 

Tell that to a blind person who uses touch to figure out what you look like.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

I don't think so. With normal human sight or hearing' date=' you can distinguish between two different people, not so with smell or touch.[/quote']

 

What Maur said - and I'd argue that isn't because the blind person has bought 'discriminatory' I'd argue that it is because they have a relevant skill - the sense was always discriminatory, but may not have been fully utilised.

 

To take a counter argument, put down two ceramic plates, the only difference being that one is heated to 50 centigrade and the other to 102 centigrade. I bet you'd struggle to tell them apart with normal sight, but you'd have no problem with normal touch.

 

That was the point behind my post above that, even when enhanced to a massive degree, different senses still provide different information.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

Tell that to a blind person who uses touch to figure out what you look like.

Sure, if they take the time to feel all the details of a person's face, without hearing the voice, they may be able to identify people whose faces they've tactilely explored before. But this takes a lot more time than just looking at someone's face.

 

I doubt they could indentify someone by touching their elbow.

 

To take a counter argument' date=' put down two ceramic plates, the only difference being that one is heated to 50 centigrade and the other to 102 centigrade. I bet you'd struggle to tell them apart with normal sight, but you'd have no problem with normal touch.[/quote']

That's a counter-argument? That has nothing to do with Discriminatory. That just has to do with the basic sense. It doesn't take Discriminatory Touch to tell a hot thing from a boiling thing.

 

In short:

A non-discriminatory sense can tell a human from a frog.

A discriminatory sense can tell Bob the Human from Jim the Human (assuming the sensing person is human).

A discriminatory sense, plus a good amount of knowledge of frogs can tell Hoppy the Frog from Jumpy the Frog.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

Sure, if they take the time to feel all the details of a person's face, without hearing the voice, they may be able to identify people whose faces they've tactilely explored before. But this takes a lot more time than just looking at someone's face.

 

I doubt they could indentify someone by touching their elbow.

 

 

That's a counter-argument? That has nothing to do with Discriminatory. That just has to do with the basic sense. It doesn't take Discriminatory Touch to tell a hot thing from a boiling thing.

 

In short:

A non-discriminatory sense can tell a human from a frog.

A discriminatory sense can tell Bob the Human from Jim the Human (assuming the sensing person is human).

A discriminatory sense, plus a good amount of knowledge of frogs can tell Hoppy the Frog from Jumpy the Frog.

 

I can tell our cats apart by touch when they jump on me in the middle of the night. Does that make touch discriminatory?

 

As for smell I can tell the difference between my wife and each of my two sons by smell, and there are people who can tell the difference between, say, very similar perfumes by scent, or different wines.

 

Even our most underused senses are capable of providing a lot of information.

 

Here's the thing though. The basic template for a Hero character is 'Human' and you can't build 'sort of discriminatory' with Hero. Indeed you can't even assume that the basic form of 'sort of discriminatory' that is attributed to sight and hearing are limited forms of 'discriminatory' because if they were then you would not have to pay full points to make the senses fully discriminatory and you do.

 

If we need 'sort of discriminatory' in the system, then it should be there. If we don't, then it shouldn't.

 

Also I'm pretty sure you are wrong about whether a non-discriminatory sense can tell the difference between a human and a frog, or at least giving a misleading example. All a 'basic detect' can do is indicate presence and intensity.

 

If the detect was 'living things', it would detect that there were two living things and could detect that one was more living than another (or there was more living stuff at least). It couldn't tell the difference between a 6 stone human and a 6 stone dog. Both my senses of touch and smell most certainly can.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

Well said.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

Tell that to a blind person who uses touch to figure out what you look like.

 

This isn't a valid comparison IMO since it is well known that the loss of sight causes the remaining senses to become both more acute and more discerning.

 

What Maur said - and I'd argue that isn't because the blind person has bought 'discriminatory' I'd argue that it is because they have a relevant skill - the sense was always discriminatory, but may not have been fully utilised.

 

To take a counter argument, put down two ceramic plates, the only difference being that one is heated to 50 centigrade and the other to 102 centigrade. I bet you'd struggle to tell them apart with normal sight, but you'd have no problem with normal touch.

 

That was the point behind my post above that, even when enhanced to a massive degree, different senses still provide different information.

 

So Touch has: Discriminatory - RSR?

 

If Touch were fully Discriminatory, wouldn't it be possible to read a regular book (the print would feel different from blank paper) and also tell a US $1 bill from a US $5 bill?

[SteveZilla]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

Here's the thing though. The basic template for a Hero character is 'Human' and you can't build 'sort of discriminatory' with Hero.

 

Yes you can. IMO it's no different than choosing a lesser effect than what was paid for, like a Megascale that falls between two levels (you pay for the higher), or choosing a lesser area for your AoE power than what has been paid for. Hero System has no problem with the concept of choosing a lesser amount than what was paid for without having to resort to a Limitation.

 

Indeed you can't even assume that the basic form of 'sort of discriminatory' that is attributed to sight and hearing are limited forms of 'discriminatory' because if they were then you would not have to pay full points to make the senses fully discriminatory and you do.

 

This assumption has a countering precedent IMO -- Everyman Skills. To increase an Everyman Skill you have to buy the whole thing from scratch. Now, while the 5 senses could be thought of as "Everyman Senses", it could be argued "Well, to 'buy it up' you don't have to buy the whole sense over again, so it's not like Everyman Skills."

 

IMO that is either an argument:

1. for getting rid of the "special status" of Everyman Skills (the method I favor),

2. or that Senses, because they are powers instead of skills, use a different method of improvement (like buying more running over the "Everyman Movement" that all characters start with).

 

If we need 'sort of discriminatory' in the system' date=' then it should be there. If we don't, then it shouldn't.[/quote']

 

Well, we clearly need a 'Sort of Discriminatory' (How's Selective for a name?), so it should be put into 6th ed.

 

Also I'm pretty sure you are wrong about whether a non-discriminatory sense can tell the difference between a human and a frog, or at least giving a misleading example. All a 'basic detect' can do is indicate presence and intensity.

 

If the detect was 'living things', it would detect that there were two living things and could detect that one was more living than another (or there was more living stuff at least). It couldn't tell the difference between a 6 stone human and a 6 stone dog. Both my senses of touch and smell most certainly can.

 

Thus, clearly the basic senses are Selective.

 

Either we need a definitive writeup for each Normal Sense (and also for the Groups they fall into), or we're over-thinking this a tad too much and need to remember the "common & dramatic sense" Steve often mentions.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

If Touch were fully Discriminatory' date=' wouldn't it be possible to read a regular book (the print would feel different from blank paper) and also tell a US $1 bill from a US $5 bill?[/quote']

 

I'd put that kind of thing down to Analyze given that there are no real physical differences in a US Bill from a touch perspective (same size, same material, and since the ink is print not imprint not distinguishing bumps).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

.................

 

 

So Touch has: Discriminatory - RSR?

 

If Touch were fully Discriminatory, wouldn't it be possible to read a regular book (the print would feel different from blank paper) and also tell a US $1 bill from a US $5 bill?

 

 

Well all PERception is sort of RSR in that if it is harder to perceive somthing you get a penalty.

 

As for the $1 and $5 bill I don't know - in the UK all the different notes are different sizes so you could certainly do it here.

 

Don't forget that the fact that you might not be able to feel print may well mean that you need 'microscopic' on the sense as the actual difference in height you would be sensing would be miniscule. Given that people can read braille with their fingers, I'd say microscopic touch would certainly allow you to feel print on a page, and an appropriate skill would allow you to read it.

[Xotl]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

Having said that though - it's completely over complicating the issue, and muddying the waters.

 

We know how sight works, we know what it does, we know everyone starts with it.

We have Mechanics to build Senses from scratch should it be needed.

 

Just say Normal Sight has Discriminatory and save everyone the bloody headache.

 

Would you post a summary of this in the appropriate 6th ed thread? It is pretty silly: might as well try for a fix.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

I can tell our cats apart by touch when they jump on me in the middle of the night. Does that make touch discriminatory?

No. It just means you know your cats well. If someone jumped you from behind and blindfolded you and you briefly touched his face, you most likely wouldn't be able to pick him out of a police line-up by touch.

 

As for smell I can tell the difference between my wife and each of my two sons by smell, and there are people who can tell the difference between, say, very similar perfumes by scent, or different wines.

Likewise you wouldn't be able to pick out your assailant from a line-up by smell.

 

Even our most underused senses are capable of providing a lot of information.

Yes. "A lot of information" is not the same as "discriminatory".

 

Also I'm pretty sure you are wrong about whether a non-discriminatory sense can tell the difference between a human and a frog, or at least giving a misleading example.

How do you know? It seems you're suggesting that all normal human senses are discriminatory. So what non-discriminatory sense can't distinguish a human from a frog?

 

All a 'basic detect' can do is indicate presence and intensity.

 

If the detect was 'living things', it would detect that there were two living things and could detect that one was more living than another (or there was more living stuff at least). It couldn't tell the difference between a 6 stone human and a 6 stone dog. Both my senses of touch and smell most certainly can.

It depends on what detect you buy and how it's defined. There's no reason to assume that "intensity" is based on weight. It could just as easily be based on the presense of biological processes, which could easily distinguish between a dog and a human.

 

A basic detect need not be a "binary" thing. As you said, there's an "intensity" to the information provided. A detect animals sense might give an "intensity reading" of 10 for humans, but only 9 for dogs, maybe 6 for frogs, 2 for flies, and 1 for earthworms. Thus, it would differentiate between different species. If it isn't Discriminatory, it can't tell the difference between Jim and Bob, or between Spuds McHenzie and Lassie. This "intensity" could even be multi-dimensional (and still not discriminatory) like the pitch and volume of a sound; or the hue, satuation, and brightness of a color. And even such a multi-dimensional sense need not be disciminatory. Just being able to determine the volume and pitch of a sound doesn't give further information about the quality or timbre of the sound.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

I think Phil has the right of it.

 

Our sense of Touch in and of itself is pretty crude.

 

Sean's examples are all based on being complemented by Knowledge to be accurate; bringing us back to my earlier examples: if you don't know it doesn't matter what you perceive.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

I think Phil has the right of it.

 

Our sense of Touch in and of itself is pretty crude.

 

Sean's examples are all based on being complemented by Knowledge to be accurate; bringing us back to my earlier examples: if you don't know it doesn't matter what you perceive.

 

Indeed - and that means that the information is coming from the senses to do all sorts of interesting things - it just requires knowledge to apply it - the senses does not change. If I was ridiculously keen on cats I could probably learn to discern species by touch.

 

There is another aspect to this though. Back to normal sight. Normal sight detects light in the normal human range. If you add DISCRIMINATORY or ANYALYSE it does not change what is being detected, just what information is gained from it.

 

The ability that broadens the range of things you can detect with the senses is another detect based ont eh same sense (which is why we have UV and IR vision).

 

Similarly there is a lower range of human vision - when it gets too dark we can not see - if there is not enough light our vision does not work. The power that addresses that is increased PER levels. +4 PER levels and you can see in the dark. Similarly if something is far away or very small we add telescopic or microscopic.

 

I suspect when people talk about smell not being discriminatory, they have in mind a comparison between a human nose and, say, a dog's nose.

 

The trouble is that a dog's nose is not detecting what a human nose detects - it has a much broader chemical range and is far more sensitive - a dog's nose, in Hero terms, has an extra detect (akin to UV and IR for sight) to broaden the range, and extra PER levels to allow sensing of much smaller quantities of chemical scent.

 

If you add 5 points of extra detect and 4 levels of smell PER to a human sense of smell, you'd have a dog's sense of smell - no need for discriminatory at all.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

If you add 5 points of extra detect and 4 levels of smell PER to a human sense of smell' date=' you'd have a dog's sense of smell - no need for discriminatory at all.[/quote']

It isn't just sensitivity, it's the subtlety of the differences. +4 to sight lets you see with vey little light, but it doesn't improve visual accuity. Likewise with smell - you could detect very subtle or faint odors, but not necessarily be able to distingush them better.

 

Yes, the 5 points of additional Detect could be functionally the same as adding Discriminatory, depending on how it's defined. And coincidentally enough, it happens to cost exactly the same.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

This isn't a valid comparison IMO since it is well known that the loss of sight causes the remaining senses to become both more acute and more discerning.

 

 

 

That's actually a misnomer. Losing one sense has never magically caused other senses to improve in accuracy or level of discernment. Humans are visual-centric and do not general use their other senses, even hearing, to their full potential, unless trained to do so. People who lose their sight do not receive improved hearing, anymore than people who become deaf suddenly gain the ability to see sound waves, we’re not Daredevil. People who lose their sight often times seem to have better hearing because they are forced to rely on it, but the average person could become just as perceptive with hearing as a person who has been blind for years; all it would take is a little training. And it usually takes a lot of time for people who lose a sense to learn to compensate with the use of others. Many people who lose sight or hearing at an advanced age never learn to compensate and never receive the “improved” senses we perceive people who have lived their entire lives without those senses seem to have.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Normal Smell/Taste one sense?

 

It isn't just sensitivity, it's the subtlety of the differences. +4 to sight lets you see with vey little light, but it doesn't improve visual accuity. Likewise with smell - you could detect very subtle or faint odors, but not necessarily be able to distingush them better.

 

Yes, the 5 points of additional Detect could be functionally the same as adding Discriminatory, depending on how it's defined. And coincidentally enough, it happens to cost exactly the same.

 

I agree, but my point is that smell and touch can both manage a huge degree of discernment. I accept that human touch is possibly a blunter sense but I still do not see a need for the differentiation we have at present.

 

In fact it would be easier to understand if we set human senses as the standard for DISCRIMINATORY. If the character's senses are more primitive, they take away discriminatory, and if they are more advanced (I'm trying to think of words that don't trespass into other areas - hopefully you get the gist) then you add ANALYSE.

 

That's simple and easy to understand.