Topic: Foraging/Survival Subskills

[Mungo]

Hi,

As discussed in the "4d Minor Issues" thread, for Survival/Subskills there is no comprehensive list of different environments for which youhave to learn it. After some thought here my proposal:

- Arctic
- Desert
- Forest/Jungle

The rest of possible environments is either comparable to one of those 3 (e.g. glaciers to arctic), much less demanding than one of the mentioned or a geological feature and not an environment (e.g. mountains or plains - they do not so much define the survival methods than whether they are in a desert or overgrown by Jungle -> surviving in them is part of the environment related Survival skill).

What do you think? Are these too few?

And should they be developed per planet/fauna and flora type/...? (I would say no, as this is HARP SF and not SM).

BR
Juergen

[Thos]

I personally think that those work well. Of course in every GM's universe there will likely be originals that they will throw in as well.

I wonder, in an environment like the surface of Earth's moon, could one even forage there? Perhaps some sort of survival skill could be developed for such environments though. Just a thought.

[Mungo]

I wonder, in an environment like the surface of Earth's moon, could one even forage there? Perhaps some sort of survival skill could be developed for such environments though. Just a thought.

Hi,
That raises quite some intersting points with regards to species. For example the Krakur have most likely quite some dangerous underwater environments (Survival: Algae Forest?), and Survival (Desert) should be off limits to them. While those bad reptiles most likely get a bonus there.

So Survival: Moon should be definitely included so that it is ready when Nicholas introduces some vacuum breathing (hm, you can't breath what is not there, but you get the idea) and silizium eating species.

BR
Juergen

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

In terms of environments, just because an environment is not as extreme as the arctic or the desert does not mean that it is trivial to survive in it. Likewise just because an environment shares the same name as a geological feature does not make it less of an environment.

So expanding the human list and separating things out a bit:
Arctic/Tundra
Desert
Forest
Hill(y)/Mountain(ou)s
Jungle
Plains/Steppes
Sea/Ocean
Swamp/Marsh

then we have at least one Aquatic for amphibious/aquatic species and gene-engineered humans. Subterranean for underground dwellers?

Then we have the really hostile environments such as airless worlds, deep space, hellworlds, iceworlds, gas giants.

I suspect there is a requirement here that Foraging is only possible (available/usable as a skill)  in certain environments where one's species can live without technology (breathe the air, drink the liquids, eat the food); Survival might even be limited in availability if your character must be cocooned in an environment suit.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[Mungo]

Hi,

In terms of environments, just because an environment is not as extreme as the arctic or the desert does not mean that it is trivial to survive in it. Likewise just because an environment shares the same name as a geological feature does not make it less of an environment.

For me the question is, why is it difficult to survive in an environment? And different answers should lead to different skills, but same answers to the same skill. E.g. mountains are not a difficult environment because they are mountains, they are difficult because you have to climb (which is a different skill) and because of features that are covered by other environments as well (i.e. because they are hot and dry and there is no vegetation -> see desert, because they are a glacier -> see arctic, and so on). My experience is only the Alps, which are definitely not the most dangerous mountains out there, but according to my survival training they only differ in weather conditions and steepness from the rest of Austria/Switzerland/France. And weather conditions alone should in my opinion in a system designed for simplicity not be enough to justify a new skill.

So expanding the human list and separating things out a bit:
Arctic/Tundra
Desert
Forest
Hill(y)/Mountain(ou)s
Jungle
Plains/Steppes
Sea/Ocean
Swamp/Marsh

Arctic/Tundra - yes
Desert - yes
Forest - to survive in a forest is actually quite simple (at least the ones I know about) when you have some basic understanding of Survival. So for me that's the simpler version of Jungle -> I would combine it with Jungle
Plains/Steppes - I thought about that, but they are basically a desert with a bit more water -> I would put them under desert. But I agree that they might justify their own subskill.
Sea/Ocean - I don't think this is a human environment. Either your technology works or you drown -> covered by Engineering skills.
Swamp/Marsh - I see this as a part of Jungle, as it has just less vegetation but humidity is quite similar.

So for humans I really see only 3-4 kinds of specialization, which supports the goal of simplicity in HARP SF.

then we have at least one Aquatic for amphibious/aquatic species and gene-engineered humans. Subterranean for underground dwellers?

Then we have the really hostile environments such as airless worlds, deep space, hellworlds, iceworlds, gas giants.

I suspect there is a requirement here that Foraging is only possible (available/usable as a skill)  in certain environments where one's species can live without technology (breathe the air, drink the liquids, eat the food); Survival might even be limited in availability if your character must be cocooned in an environment suit.
Best wishes,
Nicholas

Yes, I completely missed the non-human species. So definitely

Subterranean
Space (covers also thos airless moons and so on)
Gas (gas giants)
Ocean

The rest I would put to SysOp discretion.

One more comment: I see Survival as having the right behaviour. and finding water. It does not in my opinion cover identification of the edible plants, as this is Biology, or?

BR
Juergen

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

So expanding the human list and separating things out a bit:
Arctic/Tundra
Desert
Forest
Hill(y)/Mountain(ou)s
Jungle
Plains/Steppes
Sea/Ocean
Swamp/Marsh

Arctic/Tundra - yes
Desert - yes
Forest - to survive in a forest is actually quite simple (at least the ones I know about) when you have some basic understanding of Survival. So for me that's the simpler version of Jungle

but you have to have some. A Northern European cool/temperate forest is a different experience to a warm/hot rainforest/jungle, so I would not combine with jungle.

Plains/Steppes - I thought about that, but they are basically a desert with a bit more water -> I would put them under desert. But I agree that they might justify their own subskill.

The PreColumbian North American plains don't really strike me as a desert with extra water. Likewise I'd not believe that the Serengeti can be equated to a desert.

Sea/Ocean - I don't think this is a human environment. Either your technology works or you drown -> covered by Engineering skills.

There are sea gypsies who even now are born, live and die on their boats. There are Pacific Islanders who are at the mercy of the sea. I'll grant you it's not a normal human environment but it gets included for our aliens and suitably gene-engineered humans.

Swamp/Marsh - I see this as a part of Jungle, as it has just less vegetation but humidity is quite similar.

I could possibly see these flip into Forest and Jungle, and concede on mountains.

then we have at least one Aquatic for amphibious/aquatic species and gene-engineered humans. Subterranean for underground dwellers?

Then we have the really hostile environments such as airless worlds, deep space, hellworlds, iceworlds, gas giants.

Yes, I completely missed the non-human species. So definitely

Subterranean
Space (covers also thos airless moons and so on)
Gas (gas giants)
Ocean
[/quote]

Hellworlds (i.e. places like Venus) and true iceworlds (I don't mean Hoth, I mean Titan or colder) could conceivably support very unEarthly life, so I'd say they are just as legitimate entries as Space and Gas.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[allenrmaher]

The PreColumbian North American plains don't really strike me as a desert with extra water. Likewise I'd not believe that the Serengeti can be equated to a desert.

There are some of them preserved in natural state near here... they do border on dessert conditions in so far as lack of water and the occasional sand dune (SW Saskatchewan is a pretty nifty place).  Places like Moose Jaw average less than 10cm of total precipitation per anum... and there are much drier parts of the plains (there is a sand due dessert here).  Mind  you there are also wet areas bordering on the Canadian shield or fed by the glacial run off from the rockies. (Where Southern Saskatchewan gets most of it's water)  Without the run off from the mountains much of the plains would be Arizona dry.



The allusion to a desert with  extra watter certainly works well for the hard core prairie.  I live in the wet area... we have more than 6 cloudy/rainy days a year.  Some parts of the province are not so lucky.  Prior to modernity this was a very harsh landscape.  Our capital city was called Pile of Bones at it's inception... an apt name.




The South of Alberta is much the same, they even have the most amazing bad lands in them.  (Drumheller is a must see)


I can see the argument for placing the three environs together.  Plains/Steppes/Desert

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

Allen, your examples are on the arid end of the plains spectrum.

Looking at the various classifications of biomes, there's a sufficiency of types to make Plains/Steppes/Grassland a reasonably good grouping. There's also a lot of "forest" biomes that splitting that into Forest for "temperate" and Jungle for "subtropical/tropical" would not seem too harsh.

Taking the 14 major land biomes identified by the WWF, and shrinking that list down to:
Arctic
Forest
Grassland
Jungle
Desert
and allowing the boundaries to be a bit fuzzy at SysOp discretion, particularly since we're not requiring outdoorsy people to take survival skills on a per-planet basis, seems plausible to me.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[Mungo]

Hi,

Yes, that list looks fine to me.

And for non-humans we have so far:

Vacuum or Space
Subterranean
Ocean
Hellworlds
Iceworlds
Gasworlds
Rockworlds? (or is this Space, when they have no atmosphere?)

Hmm, I am not yet quite satisfied. But also have no better ideas for the moment.

BR
Juergen

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

I'm not settled on whether true space and airless rockworlds should be a single specialty or two.

best wishes,
Nicholas

[allenrmaher]

Allen, your examples are on the arid end of the plains spectrum.

Yes, because pre-irrigation and human intervention the PreColumbian North American plains were for the most part very arid places with droughts that lasted decades (the dirty thirties was a short one in historical perspective).

I was just speaking to the example given.  There are wet grasslands as well. And the rivers that run off of the rockies do make some areas naturally fertile in the midst of an arid plain.  The discussion was about wilderness survival, and what the plains  would be like without human intervention in a wild state (rather than the carefully water manged places most plains are today)

Survival here 120 years ago was a very different ball of wax.

Your classification is  fine as a game mechanic and works with HARP rules well enough.

An alternative though might be to assume that many survival skills are common, finding shelter, building shelter, starting fires, finding food, finding water, trapping and fishing.  This constitutes the skill portion... and that different environments present different difficulty levels.

A lore skill could then provide a bonus to the roll based on the environment/flora/fauna in question.

[allenrmaher]

Vacuum or Space
Subterranean
Ocean
Hellworlds
Iceworlds
Gasworlds
Rockworlds? (or is this Space, when they have no atmosphere?)

Mostl of the above are beyond a human's survival ability... without significant technological intervention.  These are really no longer skills as such and functions of technology, and lore/science.

[Mungo]

Mostl of the above are beyond a human's survival ability... without significant technological intervention.  These are really no longer skills as such and functions of technology, and lore/science.

Yes, they are for possible non human species.

BR
Juergen

[allenrmaher]

Which takes it to the next question... does the current concept of survival really work in a multi species multi planetary setting?

For example no amount of skill would allow humans to survive in most of those environs, while no amount of skill will allow zero-G vacuum based life to adapt to a moderate to high G terrestrial environment.

Even in less extreme cases, octopi, whales, and other sentient aquatic species when out of their medium are unable to survive without technological assistance.

Perhaps for the SCI-FI Genre:
Survival Terrestrial
Survival Aquatic
Survival Extreme Environments (for your many splendoured environments)

Those native to the environment can take the skill and make rolls without penalties, for others technology will be required.

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

It's very probable that we do have to rewrite the Foraging/Survival so that some specialties are only available to certain species, certainly in terms of Foraging. There might still be elements of Survival for extreme environments that could be learned (you may be in an environment suit, but sticking your foot in that pool of liquid helium is a mistake, mister), but it's definitely more marginal.

Best wishes,
Nicholas