Part 2:

I have more time than I thought, so I’ll start on Part 2 now. I should start with a minor correction:
(to the base table)

+ charXP INT(15),


Okay. For most of these systems, my grasp of mechanics is such I can either know them or look them up easily (like I had to do for the next section), but in the case of one (a HERO character), I can’t. Normally, this doesn’t matter, but when writing a database design, a tenet is to only store required information, as anything derived can be performed in calculations. So.

Powers in M&M are rather simple. THey have an Effect (or two, for Linked Powers), feats, extras and flaws. And a Descriptor. In an array, they can be Static (1 AP) or Dynamic (2 AP). They can also be in an Container (more on that later) or Device. So a power table should have a parentID (for arrays and containers). These can have a many-to-one relationship. (Also should list costs. This will be useful later)


CREATE TABLE mmPowers{
charID INT(4) NOT NULL FOREIGN KEY,
powerID INT(5) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,
parentID INT(5),
pwrEffect TEXT,
pwrExtras TEXT,
pwrFeats TEXT,
pwrStatus ENUM('sta','dyn','non') DEFAULT 'non',
pwrFeatCost INT(4),
pwrEffectCost INT(4),
pwrExtraCost INT(4),
pwrLinkPower INT(5));


The last one, a refrence to another id, should be used on display. (ALso should be used by following powers)

I’m not sure that’ll work, but we can thought diagram a basic Array. Power 0 is Light Control, parent null (top level), and then 1 is ‘Light SHock’, a blinding (Obscure) power with parent ID of 1. ..

.. seems to work. It’ll probably break down during multiuser testing, but..

. .. let’s move on to containers.

Now, containers are weird. They get a total PP value and effects can be assigned to it. FOr the most part, until I re-read Ultimate Power, they can be used as if a power.

Devices will be displayed seperatly. As such we need to add a flag to the table


+ pwrDeviceFlag SMALLINT(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT 0


(I’m pretty sure the php programming for this will mean redoing the current template.)

So. Equipment is simple.


CREATE TABLE mmEquipment{
charID INT(4) NOT NULL FOREIGN KEY,
equipID INT(5) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,
equipName VARCHAR(255),
equipCost INT(5) };


Now it’s time for..

HQ

The last bit, gets it’s own title because it needs to be two seperate tables. (For the same reason, say, the power table should have several subtables, but I can get to that later, when I do a formal design document). So the first table is simple. A name, a character ID (to tie the HQ too) and a HQ ID (for it’s various effects).

The second one should contain the effect + cost.

(THis table will probably need heavy revising. No books on hand means I cannot verify the needed facts)

(I.E A standard way to handle a many-to-many connection)


CREATE TABLE mmHQ{
charID INT(4) NOT NULL FOREIGN KEY,
charHQID INT(4) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY
}

CREATE TABLE mmHQEFfect{
baseID INT(4) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
effectName VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
effectCOST INT(4) NOT NULL};


That ends this. For Part III (Done later) I will write up a formal design document, convert it into real code, and in that or IV, document it.

So.

Since I Forgot both Koihime’s sheet, my books, and what I was going to do for HQ, I started working on my database design. I got about 4 tables in and then.. stopped. (Half because soon, I will be cleaning up the place with a fury, mostly the windows, but.. ) and half because the design made no sense.

So let’s call this design b. It’s not even alpha. (It’s also a bad way to do it, as in Part III I will probably take the time to write out a formal design document and formally write up code instead of the pseudo SQL code used within these posts)

It’s pretty simple, but… a character has some certain features. However, how they are measured differs wildly. For example, a M&M character has no alignment, a 3.5e D&d has different from 4e and Exalted uses INtimacies instead. And while I am only doing this as needed, I should not design things so I need to alter what is in: merely can be added.

To resolve this, I needed to figure out how the sheets differ and how they are unique. As the testing sheet is a d20 M&M, I will focus on that and 3.5e/4e slightly.

However, we can at least start psuedocoding the main table

CREATE TABLE charBase{
charID INT(4) PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
charName VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
charDesc TEXT,
charAlign TEXT,
charBkgd TEXT,
charAge INT(6);
}


It has the base requirements of an ID, the char name, the description, the background, and the addtional field of age. We may return to it later, but this is a good starting point. (also alignment, although in M&M It may be blank or just who the person/hero works for. ETc.)

d20 Games

First off, most of the values + generation are the same for the first part. So much so that d20stats will have these common:
STR, DEX, CON, INT, CHA, WIS, Init, Reflex, Will, Fort.
Also a common function: getStatMod() which uses the equation: floor((stat-10)/2);

We also need a charID field to tie in with the main field.

However, movement changes when we consider 3.5e, M&M and 4e. The first two use the same movement, but 4e does. 3e and 4e have levels, but M&M as a power system has pp and a power level. So now we have this


CREATE TABLE d20_stats{
charID INT(4) FOREIGN KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,
charSTR SMALLINT(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT 10,
charDEX SMALLINT(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT 10,
charCON SMALLINT(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT 10,
charINT SMALLINT(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT 10,
charWIS SMALLINT(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT 10,
charCHA SMALLINT(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT 10,
charInit SMALLINT(3),
charReflex SMALLINT(3),
charWill SMALLINT(3),
charMovement SMALLINT(3),
charMovement4e SMALLINT(3),
charLevel SMALLINT(3),
charPP INT(4),
charPL SMALLINT(3),
}


A sharp eye might note something wrong off the bat: What kind of movement. So we need to change it:


- charMovement SMALLINT(3),
+ charMovementAir SMALLINT(3),
+ charMovementLand SMALLINT(3),
+ charMovementWater SMALLINT(3),- charMovement4e SMALLINT(3),
+ charMovement4eAir SMALLINT(3),
+ charMovement4eLand SMALLINT(3),
+ charMovement4eWater SMALLINT(3),

Moving on, we have a few more tables to finish this article, and we should do so, first completing the d20stat table, then moving to feats and skills.


CREATE TABLE d20_stats{
charID INT(4) FOREIGN KEY,
charSTR SMALLINT(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT 10,
charDEX SMALLINT(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT 10,
charCON SMALLINT(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT 10,
charINT SMALLINT(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT 10,
charWIS SMALLINT(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT 10,
charCHA SMALLINT(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT 10,
charInit SMALLINT(3),
charReflex SMALLINT(3),
charWill SMALLINT(3),
charMovementAir SMALLINT(3),
charMovementLand SMALLINT(3),
charMovementWater SMALLINT(3),
charMovement4eAir SMALLINT(3),
charMovement4eLand SMALLINT(3),
charMovement4eWater SMALLINT(3),
charLevel SMALLINT(3),
charGrapple SMALLINT(3),
charPP INT(4),
charPL SMALLINT(3),
}


While feat names and effects vary, what is needed stays mostly the same, with just a point/acquire variance. Including the needed foreign key..


CREATE TABLE d20feats{
charID SMALLINT(3) FOREIGN KEY NOT NULL,
featName VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
featCost SMALLINT(4),
featAquire VARCHAR(100),
featDESC TEXT}


Before we move on to skills, we should add a field to the base table telling a viewer what sheet type it belongs to. Currently, we have freeform, mutants and masterminds 2nd, dungeons and dragons 3.5 and 4E. Also Exalted (and horror of horrors BESM 2nd). (ANd then some miscellanous systems). As such, I’m going to probably collapse the miscellanous into nothing for this, and address them later.


+ chrSystem ENUM('mm2nd','besm2nd','exalted2nd','dungon3.5e','dungeon4e','hero');


Skills. A /good/ system would maintain a skill id and …
… well, you know. BE good and all.

… yeah. I don’t have my books here, and I am not writing up variant skills.
…. anyway.

It needs a userID. And then a name, rank, associated stat, and misc mods. However. Associated S…tat. It is quite likely that this is best placed as an enum. So, our prototype looks like this

CREATE TABLE d20Skills{
charID INT(4) NOT NULL FOREIGN KEY,
skillName VARCHAR(255),
skillRank SMALLINT(3) ,
skillMisc SMALLINT(3) ,
skillSTAT ENUM('STR','DEX','CON','INT','WIS','CHA')}


And that is it for part 1. Part 2 covers Powers, COntainers, Arrays, Devices, Equipment, and HQ. (as you can tell – almost entirely M&M based). Later we will return to D&D 3.5, 4e, and Exalted.

Case | 044.99
Motherboard | 114.99
Video Card | 119.99
RAM (4GB) | 114.00
CPU | 159.99
HD | 064.99 |
DVD-RW | 023.99
Power Supply | 060.00
XP Pro 64 bit. | 140.00

Total: 843.00

Cant’ even find DC’S old site..

the game will be missed.

Just to confirm I may  be posting to this more often.

Mostly to chronicle some things.

CURRENT STATUS:

Cleared: Ranger, Mage, Druid strongholds

Skipping: Thief Stronghold

In Progress: Fighter Stronghold

Upcoming: Cleric (Lathandar), Paladin, Bard Stronghold

Misc Quests:

Cleared: Circus Tent, What Karza Was Promised, Freeing the Slaves in the Copper Coronet

In Progress: Freeing the slaves in the slaver stockade.

So… here I go!

(Also, refrences to be posted here later.)

First off. I’m moved!

… second off, here comes an argument re: Innate in M&M

A quick primer (that is, list of things to keep in mind)

1) Attacks are usually consisted of mixes of powers+feats, although linked powers are rarer, due to cost.

2) M&M is an effect based system

The text of the feat:

A power with this feat is an integral part of your nature. Trait effects, such
as Boost, Drain, or Nullify, cannot alter it. Gamemasters should exercise
caution in allowing the application of this feat; the power must be a truly
Innate trait, such as an elephant’s size or a ghost’s incorporeal nature. If
the power is not something normal to the character’s species or type, it
probably isn’t Innate. Unlike other power feats, the use of Innate is not
optional: a power is either Innate or it is not.

The first thing to note about this feat is that it contains warning that GM’s should be wary of it. (Mostly because it makes the power it is attached to impossible to counter or limit. E…ven though that might be the IDEA.)

It then says it should be “part of your nature” and goes on to “..such as an elephant’s size or a ghost’s incorporeal nature”.

So this feat (ignores?) the effect based part of the game, and basically goes “Yeah, this time consider the source.”

… it’s nonsensical, as I’d rather expect eff…

… sigh.

First. Word rant.

When  I first tried to post the essay part, Word (I use 2007) decided to be cute and it copied the bloody XHTML. This isn’t cute. It made it unreadable, and I had to work around it by posting it to Notepad and partially reformat. Ack, MS. USE STANDARD COMPLIANT CODING! (Or have Word copy over normal text)

… okay, rant over.

Now, groundswork update.

Just assume anything like (1.1) refers to the associated bold heading. And for added humor value! I’ll first list it as if it was a pseudolegal change.. (.. yes, this may actually not be funny. YMMV)

The following apply to: “First Section of housework needed: Projects that are yardwork/non building related”

First, regarding section 1, clause 1. After the sentence “and my mom wants to level it to cover the roots.” replace the rest of clause 1 with “as of June 16 we have leveled several holes by digging up dirt from a freshly dug hole in the side yard. I have no clue how much more it’ll cost now, but I’m more or less confident we may be avoiding the worst of it.”

Second, regarding section 1, clause 2. This job was done a few weeks ago and is now Closed.

Third, regarding section 1, clause 3. Add in at the end. “However, as we recently expanded the rose bed (which necessitates another chore, see later), which .. took dirt from the more leveled up sides. I’m not sure where this is leading.”

Fourth, regarding section 2. This job is done and is now Closed.

Fifth, regarding section 3. Append at the end. “I think. I’m not sure what’s happening as the backyard flowerbeds have been outright ignored and the front yard hedge bed (against the house, see later) has been planted.”

Sixth, regarding session 4.Append at the end. “Update: No work done on this so far. I suspect none will be done this year.”

Seventh, regarding session 5. Append at the end “Well, it’s mid June and noises are already underway to move this. But they’re rather lackadasial, so I dont’ expect any serious efforts till early July.”

Eighth, regarding session 6. Append at the end. “As of mid June, we’ve killed like.. 9 nests, and I’ll be killing one on my windowframe shortly. Still more around, but we’re making progress. The cellar’s effectively cleared, we think.”

Ninth, regarding session 7. Append at the end. “We started on the gravel segment in the front yard and have finished it. On the other side of hte driveway, any work on the pressed asphalt will probably be put off towards next year.”

Tenth, regarding session 8. Append at the end. “This will probably be put off towards next year.”

Eleventh, regarding session 9. This job is done and is now Closed.

Twelfth, append session 10. “10. Miscellaneous Additions and Changes. We’ve expanded the mowable area some. Only another 30 minutes, but still.. to make matters interesting, we also put in a strawberry fountain. That’s 3 metal rings with dirt in between them, and a fountain on top. It’s taking up some area in a mowable area, but it’s OK, not a pain to go around. Another (Rapidly upcoming chore) is putting in white rock over the rosebed to make it look prettier. No, that’s just going to be a pain.”

The following apply to “Second Section of housework needed: Outside building related work”

First, regarding sections 1 and 2. These jobs are essentially done and the section is now Closed. (Did it as a father’s day gift)

Second, regarding section 4. Append to the end. “We’ve moved stuff out from the garage there, but beyond cleaning it up and storing stuff, no change. Sigh.”

Third, regarding section 6. This job is essentially done.. we hope. This job is Closed?

Fourth, regarding section 7. Add to the end. “We’re getting 3 more chords. And stacking them in the cellar. –;”

Now, moving on to Job Woes. No one’s actually hiring, but I’ll be spamming out applications that have a bad.. refresher. –; I guess I should try.

I’ll post the second part of it like I promised now. And note it omits the question.

(Note, this will spawn a rant about word.. in the next post, which catches up on the endless work cataloguing, adds a few things)

The excerpt lists his five arguments as listed in Summa Theologica.
•    The first argument can be summarized thusly: since things were in motion, some cause must have started this. This cause is God.
•    The second argument can be summarized thusly: some causes must have started the chain. This cause is God.
•    The third argument can be summarized thusly: Not everything can exist and not exist at the same time. The first being that must exist and cause other beings is God.
•    The fourth argument can be summarized thusly:  the only being that can be perfect and cause of other beings is God.
•    The fifth argument can be summarized thusly: Some being must direct things to their end. This is God.
All of these arguments rely on a logical argument known as reduction to absurd (reductio ad absurdum), which is to dismiss an argument by having it lead to grounds that are clearly absurd and not possible (Rescher)
Many also employ the cosmological argument.  This argument draws conclusions from observed facts and derives a unique being as the end conclusion of the argument. (Reichenbach) This argument has several weaknesses, and philosophical arguments continue over whether or not this could be a valid argument.

I started evaluating the arguments with the first.

There are a few problems with this argument and they apply equally to the second, and especially to the third, but before we can articulate them, we must first simplify the passage. The argument runs thus:
I.    Some things are in motion.
II.    Something must have put things in motion.
III.    Things cannot move itself (although this is a flawed premise)
IV.    So there must be a chain of infinite movers
V.    But movers cannot exist into the past ad infinitum
VI.    There must have been a first mover, and this is God.
As Ernest Negel notes
“For if everything must have a cause, why does not God require one for His own existence? The standard answer is that He does not need any, because He is self-caused. But if God can be self caused, why cannot the world itself be self-caused? Why do we require a God transcending the world into existence and to initiate changes in it?” (Negel 185)

The fourth one is a different argument, called the ontological argument. It has many different forms, but the general form of an ontological argument is that reason alone proves God exists. They do not rely on information at all (Poppy).  The form Aquinas uses is that “something must exist that is entirely perfect.” He says it must because something exist that is hottest.  Nagel notes that this has been criticized severely and possibly best by Kant’s criticism. “The substance of Kant’s criticism is that it is just a confusion to say that existence is an attribute, and that though the word existence may occur as the grammatical predicate in the sentence, no attribute is being predicated of a thing when we say that the thing exits or has existed.” (Negel 185)
The last argument that Aquinas uses is effectively from design. That is, some being must have designed things that do not move by chance, and that designer is God.  This argument is also the Watchmaker Hypothesis, and is the fore leading idea behind Intelligent Design.

For example:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. (Intelligent Design Network)

This is the same form of argument as the one Aquinas uses. As Nagel writes
“The conclusion for this argument is based on an inference from analogy…But is this analogy a good one? … The answer is plain. We have never run across a watch that was not been deliberately made by something. But the situation is nothing like this in the case of the innumerable animate and inanimate systems with we are familiar… And once this point is clear, the inference that the existence of living organisms to the existence of a supreme designer no longer appears credible.” (Negal 186)
Nagel then goes on to note in a large case that Darwinian Biology largely explains what happens better than this theory and has a lot of evidence (Negel 187).
Therefore, I do not find any of Aquinas’s proofs attractive; in fact, I hold them all equally unattractive and wrong. On top of that, with the first three arguments being the same thing, it is much like reading the same argument restated repeatedly.
However, other arguments to support the existence of the Christian God have arisen. For example, the argument of intelligent design has recently been assigned to mathematics simply because of some emerging patterns. The issue with this is simply that patterns can arise in any system, even a highly chaotic system (Negel 187).
However, with the advent of other ways to support the existence of God (Pascal’s Wager, Kant’s hypothesis, the “look at <x>, it happened to him”) it is somewhat surprising to learn that both the forms of ontological and cosmological arguments continue to rage on in the philosophical community.  For example, a recent paper stating that the Big Bang is the proof of the Cosmological argument (that is, it proves ex nihilo, which is out of nothing, a principle frequently attacked) was written in 1994. A book dealing with the Ontological Argument is supposed to be out soon, but a book supporting it was written by R. Mydole and released in 2003, called “The Logic of the Ontological Argument”.
There appears to be no resolving of the question, it appears there never will be as theist’s debate this with other theists, and atheists and theists continue to debate it. It may be one of our questions without an answer.

Works Cited
Aquinas, St. Thomas. “Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove God Exists.” 1274. Theodore Grayck’s Web Page. 13 June 2008 <http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays.htm>.
Grayck, Theodore. “Aguinas: Five Ways to Prove that God exists – The Arguments.” 2004. Theodore Grayck’s Home Page. University of Minnesota State. 13 June 2008 <http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm>.
Intelligent Design Network. “Intelligent Design Network.” 2008. Intelligent Design Network. 13 June 2008 <http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/>.
Kagan, Donald, Steven Ozment and Frank M. Turner. The Western Heritage. 9th Edition. Vol. 1. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2007. 2 vols.
Nagel, Ernest. “Does God Exist?” Cahn, Steven M. Exploring Philosphy. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. 183-191.
Oppy, Graham. “Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philsophy).” 12 July 2007. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philsophy. 13 June 2008 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/>.
Reichenbach, Bruce. “Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy).” 16 September 2004. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy. 13 June 2008 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/>.
Rescher, Nicholas. “Reductio ad Absurdum [Internet Dictionary of Philosphy].” 2006. Internet Dictionary of Philosophy. 13 June 2008 <http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm>.

-> The yard got expanded, adding another 2 and half hours of mowing – mainly because the ground back there is uneven+++

-> We’ve planted all but the fruit trees now, and have more roses + more flowers… to be planted tommorow.

… and that’s really it. We have a “rock garden” and we’re setting up soemthing in the back yard, but not much else has been made. We did trim the blackberry bush..

.. sigh. As for personal issues? I’m not going to list them here.

We got the front garden done, the roses planted, the wood moved and today? I’m making rows in the garden.

… soon, I’ll be doing homework and cleaning my room. Just an update so I don’t have to embed it in something else

(Incidently, I highly recommend “A World At Arms” by Gerhard L. Weinberg for anyone interested in WWII)