Re: Alien Thinking

Seems like a season for Aliens.  I went throug hsome of this with my
Tonk.
I think one problem with tryign to figure out alien psychology is it is
still framed within the understanding of terrestrial beasts.  I think
you
covered them ajors - great note with the Kafer there.  I like that.

One option is to also mandate tactics with rules which overlap into
psychology.  I was thinking of a particularly guilful species which
responds
to threats by baiting it.  Much like a mother bird defending her young. 
Not
sure how you'd model this but you basicly end up with a race that never
fights head on

Eli
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Crimmins" <johncrim@voicenet.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:54 PM
Subject: Alien Thinking

> I've been thinking about aliens today.  And why not?	Beats thinking
> about reality, after all....
>
> Specifically, I've been thinking about alien psychology, at least to
the
> degree that it relates to game play.
>
> To simplify matters to an appalling (but gameable) degree, there are
> three basic responses when a human being feels threatened:
>    Flight -- running away from the threat,
>    Fight -- attacking the threat,
>    or Freeze -- holding still and hoping that the threat won't notice
you.
>
> The rules assume Freeze as the default human response (which
> seems reasonable enough), and the Suppression system models that
> quite well.  What's more, it's quite easy to "tweak" the system a
little
> to allow for a greater range of response, such as:
>      Timidity -- Units recieve *two* Suppression markers when they
> come under fire, rather than one.
>      Boldness -- Units may automatically remove one Suppression
> marker when they are activated.
>      Caution -- Units automatically go "In Position" when they recieve
a
> Supression marker, and must come out of position (as per the rules)
> before they can move.
>
> I've been thinking about the other two responses, though, and how
> best to model them without mutilating the system too badly.  I've got
> some preliminary ideas, so I thought that I'd throw them out there
> and let the list at large tear them to bits.
>
> For Flight, which appears to be the default Herbivore response, you
> could do the following:
>      When a unit is activated, it must immediately make one
> confidence check for every Suppression marker that it has.  For each
> failed test, the unit must spend an action to make a Combat Move
> away from any and all visible attackers.  If the tests are passed, the
> unit may act normally.  (I have this particular system in mind for my
> Grey aliens, who would be making that confidence test at a
> considerable penalty.)
>
> For Fight, on the other hand....  The problem here is that, when
facing
> modern (or future!) firearms, the Fight response is likely to get you
> killed.  Nevertheless, it's still appropriate, and can be a nasty
thing to
> face under the right circumstances (The
> Niven/Barnes/Pournelle "Grendels" are a fine example.)  Here's one
> way to play it, assuming an intelligent foe:
>      A unit with two or more Suppression markers must immediately
> make a confidence check when it is activated.  If this check is
passed,
> the unit may attempt to remove the markers as normal (probably at a
> bonus, since we're assuming an aagressive species).  If the check is
> *failed*, however, the unit must immediately charge the nearest
> enemy unit, with a movement bounus of +d8" for this movement
> only.  (With sufficiently nasty aliens, give this charge a "Terror"
effect
> and you'll give them a slightly better chance of surviving.)
>
> And of course, on top of all that, there are some completely alien
> responses to consider.
>
> You've got the Remorseless Killing Machine option, which ignores
> Suppression entirely, and has plenty of fictional precedents.  More
> interestingly, you've got GDW's "Kafers", who react to stress by
> boosting their intelligence.
>
> (Easy enough to do with SGII: Kafer units start as Greens, but for
> every Suppression marker they receive their quality level improves by
> a step.)
>
> Are there any other obvious options that I'm missing here?
>
>
> --
> John Crimmins
> johncrim@voicenet.com
> http://www.voicenet.com/~johncrim
>
>