Remove ads

Marked for Death: A Rational Naruto Quest

Voting is open for the next 1 day, 9 hours
Reader mode
OliWhail said:
lmao please no. I was up until midnight last night working on a grant with (*checks*) 120+ citations, and more still to be added, and I'll be working on it more until dinner.

Please. No more :p

That said, coming up with amusing titles for papers to "cite" might be fun, so maybe do that? :D
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What bibliography software do you use?
 
Velorien said:
For the record, Hana would be a Sidereal, and she would kick ass.

(These two statements are potentially but not necessarily connected.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sidereals are awesome. You have to wrap your brain around the weird sideways ways their powers work, but once you do they're amazing fun. For example, there's a charm called The Yellow Path. It finds the best route to your destination, cutting time off the trip. Seems straightforward, but destination is defined incredibly broadly. It could be a place you don't know the location of, a person you'd like to find, someplace safe, someplace dangerous, someone that needs your help, or even something really vague like an abstract concept, if you want the shortest path to the place where you'll be most likely to find 'satisfaction' or 'happiness' or 'victory' or whatever. I can't even remember the number of times I used it in a MUSH to just mysteriously show up wherever another character happened to be because I wanted to chat with them. (I never explained how I always knew where they were, of course. It's important for Sidereals to appear mysterious and all knowing.)

And then if you overcharge the charm by various means like designing a custom hearthstone to amplify it then it's practically teleportation/time travel, giving you a magical path that gets you where you need to go and ensures you will definitely, absolutely get there in the nick of time. I once abused this to lead a squad of crack exalts riding Tyranosaurus Rexes (yes, that's a thing, because even basic Sidereal survival charms are awesome) into the underworld (the realm of ghosts and things that cannot die) via a magical path past its defenses, showing up just in time to rescue a solar exalt friend who'd been captured and put into a cage that would convert her into an evil inverted exalt. Since I'd exploited an ancient legal loophole to set up an attack by the Aerial Legion on the underworld's holdings in Creation as a distraction the physically unbeatable Deathlords were absent and we rescued her and GTFOed before they could return and stop us.

The only real hitch in that plan was that I forgot that seeing the core of the underworld caused animals to lose their minds. The T-Rexes fled and we were forced to abandon them and run back on foot. I like to imagine that a pack of T-Rexes is still rampaging around hell eating a lot of very confused ghosts.

In short, Exalted is bloody awesome. And I never understood why I was one of the only people who ever played Sidereals. Maybe the twisty thinking required put people off, but they were just so much fun.

Mage: The Ascension is also awesome. Those two games will forever have a special place in my heart.
 
Last edited:
Dissonance said:
Also
If you roll no successes and at least one "1", you get a botch, or critical fail. The more 1s you rolled, the worse the botch.
With smaller dice pools this makes botches more likely than successes. (?I think?)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think so? For a pool of 1 die, p(botch) = 1/10. It seems like p(botch) should decrease with number of dice, so I don't think it ever beats p(succeed).

Okay, let's do it. In general, p(don't botch) = p(at least 1 success) + p(no successes, no 1s) = (1-(3/5)^N) + (1/2)^N. (No successes or 1s leaves 5 of 10 possible die values, between 2 and 6.)

The derivative of p(don't botch) is ln(5/3) * (3/5)^N - ln(2)*(1/2)^N. This is negative at 1 but positive at 2, and clearly is positive as N increases. P(don't botch) decreases to a minimum of 89/100 at N=2, and rises thereafter.
 
Last edited:
Langevin said:
I don't think so? For a pool of 1 die, p(botch) = 1/10. It seems like p(botch) should decrease with number of dice, so I don't think it ever beats p(succeed).

Okay, let's do it. In general, p(don't botch) = p(at least 1 success) + p(no successes, no 1s) = (1-(3/5)^N) + (1/2)^N. (No successes or 1s leaves 5 of 10 possible die values, between 2 and 6.)

The derivative of p(don't botch) is ln(5/3) * (3/5)^N - ln(2)*(1/2)^N. This is negative at 1 but positive at 2, and clearly is positive as N increases. P(don't botch) decreases to a minimum of 89/100 at N=2, and rises thereafter.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, he's thinking not of the Exalted system but the oWoD dice system where 1s actually subtracted successes. In that system low dice pools had very high botch chances. Exalted is much more forgiving because it's supposed to be a cinematic system about over the top heroes who can accomplish grand feats. oWoD is supposed to be difficult, dangerous and gritty.
 
Last edited:
[X] Lore Update: Meanwhile, with Noburi
 
Last edited:
[X] Lore Update: Hana's Hivemind on the Three Faces of Motherhood interlude.
 
Cariyaga said:
On a note entirely unrelated to bending funding reality to my will:

@eaglejarl, how would you like the Grant Application to be formatted re: Citations? Because I mean, uh, we don't exactly have citations unless you want to write out the papers we'd be citing. Just make the citations and then write a brief summary of what the papers might suggest, science sin though that is?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

MMKII said:
(Please just let us bullshit this part away within reason, I'm begging you. I draw the line at creating a pile of fictional science papers to cite for the fictional grant application for our fictional research project.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Are you suggesting that you're going to submit a grant application with no citations??? And you expect to get funding?!

Oh my my my my... Today's generation of pseudo scientists. Tsk tsk. SMH

Yes, you can write titles and authors as long as the titles are clear.



Please do recall that this needs to be written to NIH standard. Any deviation aside from the citations will result in immediate rejection, and citations must still be in proper form. Just saying.


Edit: My cofounder recommends downloading Zotero (so?), the citation manager he uses. You'll want to download the NLM format for it, which is what the NIH wants.
 
Last edited:
MadScientist said:
What did your cofounder have to say about all this, out of interest?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
He is amused. He agrees with me that, if the resulting grant is particularly high quality and in accord with NIH NSF requirement, then we would at least want to talk to the person/people involved about actually writing a real grant proposal for our company.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Voting is open for the next 1 day, 9 hours
Remove ads
Back
Top