Also, apparently what feels like full speaking speed still sounds slow. Strange how that works.
WHY ARE YOU LISTENING TO THIS BAD MAN?
Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io
Weird Bug Ladies are the nicest kind, I think
22 minutes ago
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Blagcast: Why I chose to blagcast.
Because, let's face it, I'm writing crap, and it's better to spend three minutes and eighteen seconds getting my crap out than an hour and a half to get out the same crap.
Unfortunately, this one I was talking quietly into, as my roommates are sleeping.
Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Yatta!
I did it! I passed my qualifier exams for grad school!
On the second of three possible tries, too, which is normal.
For those of you that don't know how the grad school system, for chemistry at least, works; once you're accepted you take placement exams. These are five ACS exams covering the five main areas of chemistry (Analytical, Biochemistry, Inorganic, Organic, and Physical). These are mostly just to see what areas you're strong and weak in.
I was strong in Analytical, average in Physical and Inorganic, and weak in Organic and Biochemistry that go through. To "qualify" you have to score a combined 150 with your top three exam scores (each exam is 100 points). I had a 109 combined score (Analytical 67; Inorganic 23; Physical 20) the first go around, so I did not qualify. But that was okay. I took those exams when I first entered grad school last Fall, and basically I was given two semesters to prepare to take them again.
They were given this week. We started with Physical and Organic on Monday, yesterday. I don't know my exact score, but I'm told I pulled both up noticeably, but not enough to get 150 with. Today was Inorganic. And it was enough to put me over 150--bringing me up to 176 total, actually. So between Physical and Inorganic, I managed to score 67 more points than I did the first time. Which certainly implies I've learned plenty in my two semesters.
Given, most of that came from the Inorganic Chemistry class I took this past semester, taught by my mentor. But I did learn stuff in the Advanced Organic Chemistry class! Which was taught mostly from a P-Chem point of view, and that's the only reason I passed it....
But hey, either way, I did it, I passed this semester with a 3.8 GPA, and passed my qualifiers without having to wait until the third time to freak out and waste a bunch of time studying for them.
Of course, now I have to prepare for my prospectus....
On the second of three possible tries, too, which is normal.
For those of you that don't know how the grad school system, for chemistry at least, works; once you're accepted you take placement exams. These are five ACS exams covering the five main areas of chemistry (Analytical, Biochemistry, Inorganic, Organic, and Physical). These are mostly just to see what areas you're strong and weak in.
I was strong in Analytical, average in Physical and Inorganic, and weak in Organic and Biochemistry that go through. To "qualify" you have to score a combined 150 with your top three exam scores (each exam is 100 points). I had a 109 combined score (Analytical 67; Inorganic 23; Physical 20) the first go around, so I did not qualify. But that was okay. I took those exams when I first entered grad school last Fall, and basically I was given two semesters to prepare to take them again.
They were given this week. We started with Physical and Organic on Monday, yesterday. I don't know my exact score, but I'm told I pulled both up noticeably, but not enough to get 150 with. Today was Inorganic. And it was enough to put me over 150--bringing me up to 176 total, actually. So between Physical and Inorganic, I managed to score 67 more points than I did the first time. Which certainly implies I've learned plenty in my two semesters.
Given, most of that came from the Inorganic Chemistry class I took this past semester, taught by my mentor. But I did learn stuff in the Advanced Organic Chemistry class! Which was taught mostly from a P-Chem point of view, and that's the only reason I passed it....
But hey, either way, I did it, I passed this semester with a 3.8 GPA, and passed my qualifiers without having to wait until the third time to freak out and waste a bunch of time studying for them.
Of course, now I have to prepare for my prospectus....
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Travelling Through the Desert
I'm out to help my mother find my sister's place out in the deserts of West Texas,. I'll likely be back at the beginning of the next week.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
On the Inversion of Knowledge Skills in RPGs, and How Failure Can Be Better Than Success
I've got a couple things on my mind that could benefit any game, so here we go.
One of my favorite aspects of some systems (Burning Wheel, for one) is the inversion of how knowledge skills work. In most mainstream games, a knowledge skill is called for, and based on the result, the GM explains what you know. This seems sensible enough, but I always liked it the other way around. An example follows:
GM: So you enter Wild Space in your space freighter?
Player: Yeah. One second. I'm going to make a Galactic Lore check. I've heard that the Black Sun control this area of space, and I think I can use my contacts in them to give us some help.
GM: Roll it.
Player: 27. So, yeah. what's going on?
GM: Black Sun are in this area of space. You know one of their main haunts is a formerly abandoned space station within a field of asteroids nearby.
Player: Awesome, we're going there.
Easy as that. The player, who has the knowledge skills, can throw down the dice and declare that something exists in your setting. The difficulty of the check is easy enough. How likely is it that this thing could be true? The more likely, the less difficult the check.
Player authorship in this situations fixes one of my problems with knowledge skills in general. When the GM just tells the PC what they know, they don't really do anything impressive. It's just a roll to get more exposition from the GM, adding another step as the character relays the information to the others.
So, one thing down. The second thing I want to talk about is how boring failure is. Failure in most games is just not managing to do something. However, in some games (Burning Wheel, again, guess what I've been reading?), success and failure are redefined. Success is succeeding without complications. Failure is either failing, or succeeding with complications.
Let me give you an example. Let's say that last example went just like it did, but the guy rolled a 13 instead. Sadly, that's a failure. The GM likes the idea of the Black Sun having a presence in this area of space, however, and so tells the player exactly what he did before. However, the GM marks down that the Black Sun are allied with a nemesis of the PCs, and going to the space station is going to be trouble for all of the characters.
Basically, when a character fails a roll, don't just let them sit there feebly. Introduce complications and twists. It makes things more interesting by far, and the players get troublesome new plot points and what they wanted in the first place. Win-win.
Good eve, ladies and gents.
One of my favorite aspects of some systems (Burning Wheel, for one) is the inversion of how knowledge skills work. In most mainstream games, a knowledge skill is called for, and based on the result, the GM explains what you know. This seems sensible enough, but I always liked it the other way around. An example follows:
GM: So you enter Wild Space in your space freighter?
Player: Yeah. One second. I'm going to make a Galactic Lore check. I've heard that the Black Sun control this area of space, and I think I can use my contacts in them to give us some help.
GM: Roll it.
Player: 27. So, yeah. what's going on?
GM: Black Sun are in this area of space. You know one of their main haunts is a formerly abandoned space station within a field of asteroids nearby.
Player: Awesome, we're going there.
Easy as that. The player, who has the knowledge skills, can throw down the dice and declare that something exists in your setting. The difficulty of the check is easy enough. How likely is it that this thing could be true? The more likely, the less difficult the check.
Player authorship in this situations fixes one of my problems with knowledge skills in general. When the GM just tells the PC what they know, they don't really do anything impressive. It's just a roll to get more exposition from the GM, adding another step as the character relays the information to the others.
So, one thing down. The second thing I want to talk about is how boring failure is. Failure in most games is just not managing to do something. However, in some games (Burning Wheel, again, guess what I've been reading?), success and failure are redefined. Success is succeeding without complications. Failure is either failing, or succeeding with complications.
Let me give you an example. Let's say that last example went just like it did, but the guy rolled a 13 instead. Sadly, that's a failure. The GM likes the idea of the Black Sun having a presence in this area of space, however, and so tells the player exactly what he did before. However, the GM marks down that the Black Sun are allied with a nemesis of the PCs, and going to the space station is going to be trouble for all of the characters.
Basically, when a character fails a roll, don't just let them sit there feebly. Introduce complications and twists. It makes things more interesting by far, and the players get troublesome new plot points and what they wanted in the first place. Win-win.
Good eve, ladies and gents.
Shouting Out to Ghosts and Memories
Are there actually people out there? Being introduced in this manner seems to suggest that, despite the fact that I find it doubtful that anyone would be interested in our ramblings.
In any case, yes. Hello. I am Bryan. Everything that Andre has told you is correct, and might actually be understating things to a significant degree. I am the best person in this group, and also the strongest and the most handsome.
I suppose I will be bringing my own personal view of things, which mainly means that I will ramble about things that have happened hundreds or thousands of years ago as if they were interesting and relevant (did you know that knowing that the wheels on Assyrian chariots could be six feet tall or even taller is extremely useful in the 21st century?).
I might also be bringing about my own personal compilation of house-rules and other madness in the vein of tabletop role-playing games, of which I am a regular player. As I am never satisfied, my hack-jobs of mechanics are both common and irritating to those who have been forced to deal with me in the complete throes of its madness.
Also, Andre, I totally want one of those big A's. Get on that.
Good day, brethren and sistren who may or may not exist.
In any case, yes. Hello. I am Bryan. Everything that Andre has told you is correct, and might actually be understating things to a significant degree. I am the best person in this group, and also the strongest and the most handsome.
I suppose I will be bringing my own personal view of things, which mainly means that I will ramble about things that have happened hundreds or thousands of years ago as if they were interesting and relevant (did you know that knowing that the wheels on Assyrian chariots could be six feet tall or even taller is extremely useful in the 21st century?).
I might also be bringing about my own personal compilation of house-rules and other madness in the vein of tabletop role-playing games, of which I am a regular player. As I am never satisfied, my hack-jobs of mechanics are both common and irritating to those who have been forced to deal with me in the complete throes of its madness.
Also, Andre, I totally want one of those big A's. Get on that.
Good day, brethren and sistren who may or may not exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
