Sorry for the delay Onno,
Part of the problem with any skill set, is definining what it can or can't
do, and how one goes about learning new information regarding that skill set.
About the only solution I have for that, is the invention rules.
Think about it. When a metallurgist is attempting to improve on a product, he
has to invent the new process almost from scratch in the sense that he doesn't
know what will or won't work, but that he has ideas. Once he tries those ideas
out, he determines what does or doesn't work, and refines that new knowledge
into something he can either write about, or teaches his students what it was
he learned. In some instances, the only thing he can pass on down to his
students are those things that didn't work, giving them a foundation to try to
build upon later.
Like wise, medical knowledge went through such a routine just to learn what
various organs do, or don't do. Once that became firmly "known" and taught as
a body of knowledge, experiments were required to broaden knowledge such as how
various organs interacted with others (biology and chemistry) along with some
massive funding for "projects" required to further expand the field.
In any event, I've often wondered what the difference between a TL 2
metalurgist and smith, versus a TL 3 or TL 4 version of the skill. Could for
instance, a TL 2 miner, smelt metals such as Titanium by having a skill 21 in
metallurgy and smithing? I suspect the answer is no.
Now don't think I hold this process to be true for all sciences and/or skills.
But I illustrated the reasoning why some of those skills, in order to be higher
grade skill levels, require research to reach those levels, as opposed to
someone saying "Hey, I just spent 4 character points on raising my programming
skill, I am now an expert in all things related to programming."
Before I forget? One of the other things I used as a house-rule for the group,
was that you can't bank your experience points until you have a gazillion
experience points, and then spend them all at once in a single skill.
Consequently, experience point expenditure must be on skills used during the
game run, and must also be spent such that no more than ONE experience point
may be spent on the skill per game run. The obvious exception to that rule was
for those crit successes or crit fail rolls that gave points on the spot.
Hal
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Onno Meyer
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:27 AM
To: The GURPSnet mailing list
Subject: Re: [gurps] OJT (was A starkly astounding AI in 3E)
Hal replied to me:
> One of the rules I "houseruled" very quickly was the OJT such that you
> can't get above "well trained" or in some cases "expert" with the skill. Day
> to day ordinary activities almost never bring you into circumstances in
> which you become a verifiable expert at your given skill.
Hello Hal,
that raises the question of "who teaches the teachers?"
Or perhaps "if you're Trained By A Master, can you surpass the
sensei?"
There must be a way to improve the state of the art beyond the
best manuals and the best available teachers. For the computer
operations example, you could argue that they can consult the
computer programmers, but that only shifts the problem. Who
trains a world-class scientist or engineer?
I assumed that this is represented by self-learning, without
books or teachers because there are none, and by necessity on
the job -- you can't train sensor ops by thinking about a
blank wall.
Regards,
Onno
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
