05 December 2019

Are We Good Enough?

A few months ago I discovered that I'm an anarachist, meaning I had developed certain opinions over the years and then a few months ago I came to realize they were in line with anarchist philosophy. In relation to this I was having a discussion with my father about the idea of communism in general and its relationship to the history of anarchists. He brought up something which I have often heard him say before, but which I now mostly disagree with. It relates to the United Order, a communist like organization Joseph Smith triewd to establish within the LDS Church in the 1830s, basically my father's argument is that men are imperfect and so we can't live without government, the failure of the United Order is evidence that there will always be corrupt/wicked men who take adavntage of others if there is no government to stop them. We need government because we won't be good enough to live under a perfect system until the Second Coming/Millennium.

I was going to draft a rather long rebuttal, mostly because I'm better at expressing my ideas through writing than speech, but then I found out someone had beat me to it by over 130 years! The perfect answer to this argument was written by Pëtr Kropotkin in 1888 and is titled "Are We Good Enough". I listened to the audio version today, and a copy can be found on the web here.

Sure people are imperfect, but that doesn't mean we should wait for revolution and/or reform until everybody will miraculously become perfect. I'm under no illusions that the current system of nation-states and capitalism/corporations will be overthrown in my lifetime. However, I do think that a public opinion will trend toward wanting/demanding a more direct form of democracy, and leaders/those in power will work even harder to consolidate the power they do have. I guess what I really want to say is that just because people aren't perfect doesn't mean we should hesitate to work toward the dissolution of corrupt systems that oppress us.

22 November 2019

Religion of the Cleric: 6th level Spells

Continuing my discussion of how Clerical magic can help us understand his religious beliefs. With these spells the evidence that the Deity worshiped by the Clerics is the creator of the universe and or multiverse really begins to mount up. This spell list is spread across the Expert and the Companion sets.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

From the Expert Rulebook:

Animate Objects
The cleric may use this spell to cause any non-living, non-magical objects to move and attack. Magical objects are not affected. Any one object up to 4,000 cn weight may be animated (roughly the size of two men), or smaller objects whose total weight does not exceed 4,000 cn. The DM must decide on the movement rate, number of attacks, damage, and other combat details of the objects animated. As a guideline, a man-sized statue might have a 3’’ movement rate, attack once per round for 2-16 points of damage, and have an Armor Class of 1. A chair might only be AC 6, but move at 180’ per round on its four legs, attacking twice per round for 1-4 points per attack. All objects have the same chances to hit as the cleric animating them.

At first this spell seems to be something that would fit the repertoire of a Magic-User better than that of a priest. It seems to be a random magical effect like wizards in fairy-tales might cause. However, given that it is included with the clerical spell list, maybe we can come up with a theological argument for its presence.
     It occurs to me that one argument made by LDS theologians might apply here. Some scholars in the LDS church claim that the reason Jesus was able to perform certain miracles is because he was also creator of the world; that some miracles were unique to Christ and that one of his apostles couldn't have done it if they had enough faith.  The argument goes like this: because Jesus created (or organized) the world, the particles/atoms that went into the world have a special relationship with him; essentially the atoms and molecules of earth obeyed Christ during his lifetime because he organized them into the earth at the beginning of time. Of course it is much more complex than that, but that's the gist of it, and no I don't personally subscribe to that line of thought. Certain miracles such as turning water into wine or calming the storm on the Sea of Galilee are explained away in this manner.
     So, how does that apply to this spell? I can see a similar argument being made; if the Deity worshiped by the cleric created the universe, then the Deity can also command not just living things, but also inanimate things, and that power can in turn be granted to the Deity's followers. Another thought is that if this Deity has command over life he is literally giving the cleric the power to breath life into something that was dead (or inanimate). Either way, I think this spell shows that the Deity has power over more than just living things; he can also command objects to do his will.

Find the Path
When this spell is cast, the cleric must name a specific place, though it need not have been visited before. For the duration of the spell, the cleric will know the direction to that place. In addition, any special knowledge needed to get to the place will also be gained; for example, locations of secret doors become known, passwords, and so forth. This spell is often used to find a fast escape route.

This is an interesting spell, somewhat different than most of the other clerical spells. It is reminiscent of the wizard's eye or clairaudience or other scrying spells. I guess the theological argument is fairly simple. The Deity knows everything (he is omniscient) and so it is simple matter to show a follower where a specific location is and how to get there.

Speak with Monsters
This spell gives the caster the power to ask questions of any and all living and undead creatures within 30’. Even unintelligent monsters will understand and respond to the cleric. Those spoken to will not attack the cleric while engaged in conversation, but may defend themselves if attacked. Only one question per round may be asked, and the spell lasts 1 round per level of the caster.
     The reverse of this spell, babble, has a 60‘ range, and a duration of 1 turn per level of the caster. The victim may make a Saving Throw vs. Spells to avoid the effect, but with a - 2 penalty to the roll. If the Saving Throw is failed, the victim cannot be understood by any other creature for the duration of the spell. Even hand motions, written notes, and all other forms of communication will seem garbled. This does not interfere with the victim’s spell casting (if any), but does prevent the use of many magic items by turning the command words to mere babbling.

This spell speak to both the omniscience of the deity, in that they can understand the languages and thoughts of all living things, and the Deity's connection to the natural world. The Deity is not just a the god of the humans, but also has a connection to every living thing. The Deity knows not just all languages, but the thoughts of every creature because this allows the understanding of even those creatures without a language. The reverse of this spell shows an even more interesting power of the Deity. He not only possesses understanding of a creature's thoughts, but may also change how it thinks. Language is irrevocably tied to how we process information; when our language changes, so do our thought processes. I can see why only an evil cleric would want to cast this spell; it gives the caster the ability to change the essence of who a person is. Even though it is temporary, the reverse spell has a powerful effect.

Word of Recall
Similar to a magic-user’s teleport spell, this spell carries the cleric and all equipment carried (but no other creatures) to the cleric’s home. The cleric must have a permanent home (such as a castle), and a meditation room within that home; this room is the destination when the spell is cast. During the round in which this spell is cast, the cleric automatically gains initiative unless surprised.

This is an interesting spell. It is similar to teleport in many ways, but the purpose behind its presence and use are vastly different. It speaks to me of a need for safety. Given that this is a 6th level spell, even the most valiant defenders of the faith sometimes retreat from danger or evil. Or another way of looking at it could be this is a way for a cleric to return to a holy site and defend it whenever danger approaches. The fact that the Deity can teleport his clerics to a specific holy site at a moment's notice demonstrates the power that the Deity has. The Deity is in possession of the same kind of power and abilities as any wizard, but he limits the use of these powers by his followers by providing specific circumstances and reasons for which they can be used.

From the Players Companion:

Aerial Servant
An aerial servant is a very intelligent humanoid being from the Ethereal Plane. With this spell, the cleric summons one of these beings, which appears immediately. The cleric must then describe one creature or item to the servant, or else it will depart. The approximate location of the target must also be named. When it hears this description and location, the servant leaves, trying to find the item or creature and bring it to the cleric. The servant will take as much time as needed, up to the limit of the duration.
     The aerial servant has 18 Strength, and can carry up to 5,000 cn. It can become ethereal at will, and thus can travel to most places easily. However, it cannot pass a protection from evil spell effect. If it cannot perform its duty within the duration of the spell, the servant becomes insane and returns to attack the caster.

This is interesting because at first it seems like the aerial servant might be a direct servant of the Deity worshiped by the cleric, but then it goes insane and attacks the caster if it can't complete the task? That doesn't sound like a willing servant; it sounds like maybe this creature was geased or quested or some similar effect. Maybe when this spell is cast the Deity of the cleric binds this creature from the Ethereal plane to do a task for the cleric, but when the task proves impossible the compulsion to complete the task is so strong that the aerial servant doesn't know what to do; the only way to free itself from its servitude is to destroy the taskmaster. If there is no longer a cleric to complete a task for, then the aerial servant no longer has to complete an impossible task.
     Aside form that, this spells demonstrates that the Deity has power not just over the Prime Material Plane, but also in the Ethereal plane, and most likely all the planes of existence. A creature from the Ethereal plane is just as easily controlled as a creature from the Prime plane. All living creatures are subservient to this Deity, and as representatives of the Deity, Clerics are given a portion of this power to command others.

Barrier
This spell creates a magical barrier in an area up to 30’ in diameter and 30’ high. The barrier is a wall of whirling and dancing hammers, obviously dangerous. Any creature passing through the barrier takes 7-70 points of damage from the whirling hammers (no Saving Throw). This spell is often used to block an entrance or passage.
     The reverse of this spell (remove barrier) will destroy any one barrier created by a cleric. It can also be used to destroy a magicuser’s wall of ice, wall of fire, or wall of stone spell effect. It will not affect a wall of iron.

What's remarkable about this spell is not the barrier itself, but the ability to create something out of nothing. Or maybe the hammers are transported from some other place? I doubt it. This Deity has the power of creation; it can create any object desired without the requirement of base materials. Granted a wizard can create a wall of stone or iron or other materials too, but a wizard is limited, whereas this spell only hints at the power of the Deity. This is the extant of the power that the Deity allows his followers to use, the Deity's actual power is most likely immeasurably greater. I think we can definitively say that the Deity the cleric worships has the power of creation and therefore most likely created the universe(the prime material plane) and possibly the other planes of existence as well.

Create Normal Animals
The cleric is able to create normal animals from thin air with this spell. The animals will appear at a point chosen (within 30’), but may thereafter be sent (by command) up to 240’ away, if desired. The animals created will understand and obey the cleric at all times. They will fight if so commanded, and will perform other actions (carrying, watching, etc.) to the best of their abilities. They are normal animals, and may attack others unless their instructions are carefully worded.
     The cleric may choose the number of animals created, but not the exact type; the DM should decide that (or randomly determine). One large (elephant, hippopotamus, etc.), 3 medium-sized (bear, great cat, etc.), or 6 small (wolf, rock baboon, etc.) animals can be created. “Giant” animals cannot be created. The animals disappear when slain or when the spell duration ends.

This really reinforces the ideas I've already discussed in this post. The Deity can not only create matter from nothing, but can also instantaneously breathe life into that matter. These animals aren't transported or summoned, they are specifically "[created] from thin air" and alive upon the instant of creation. These are flesh and blood animals; they are physically there and can die just like any normal animals. The short duration of their existence is more an evidence of the careful doling out of favors by the Deity than they show a limitation of the Deity's power. The Deity itself could probably allow these creatures to not disappear after a specific time period and the animals could live out normal lives, yet the Deity limits the amount of power that can be used by his followers.

Cureall
This spell is the most powerful of the healing spells. When used to cure wounds, it cures nearly all damage, leaving the recipient with only 1-6 points of damage. It will remove a curse, neutralize a poison, cure paralysis, cure a disease, cure blindness, or even remove a feeblemind effect. However, it will cure one thing only; if the recipient is suffering from two or more afflictions (such as wounds and a curse), the cleric must name the one to be cured. If cast on the recipient of a raise dead spell, the cureall eliminates the need for 2 weeks of bed rest; the recipient can immediately function normally.

The Deity's power over life and death is demonstrated by this spell. The followers of the Deity are given the power to cure nay ailment no matter how severe. The Deity clearly has power over the body's physical healing processes.

10 November 2019

The Stars Like Dust

So, I just finished reading The Stars Like Dust, the first of Isaac Asimov's galactic empire novels. I've already read all the foundation and robot books, and just got my hands on the empire novels recently. in general I like Asimov's work, sure there are lots of criticisms that can be aimed at it, and justifiably so, but I like his stories because they are great science fiction. They don't just take place in the future and with advanced technology as part of the setting, Asimov uses the premise of a science fiction setting to explore some aspect of the human psyche.

As for The Stars Like Dust, it feels a little lackluster and overly convoluted to me. There are all these plots within plots that the characters are only able to navigate because they are characters in a book, and the character don't really act like people; yeah this problem exists in some of Asimov's other works, but it really stands out here. And then the ending just seems so ridiculous to me. The constitution of the USA is going to be this revolutionary document that will disrupt all the governments of the interstellar kingdoms, yeah right!

I get that Asmiov's galaxy is thousands of years in earth's future, and yeah I guess the US could be completely forgotten. But to have the entire idea of democratic or republican government forgotten, or not in use, or not to evolve naturally again is just ridiculous. And then there's the constitution, it's not really that revolutionary of a document, at least not enough to reform society all on its own. It's not like the US government is the best that's ever existed or could exist. If anyone thinks it is, they should look at the state of the US right now, where one man has so much power that he can openly violate that document that is supposed to be so special, and the people that are supposed to hold him in check are too cowardly to do anything about it. Or if that subject hits too close home, the constitution, this perfect and sacrosanct document, gave one man the power to forcibly remove an entire people from their homeland. And where was the constitution when the leader of this 'great' country invaded a neighboring one just to gain more territory? But that was okay because that was somehow part of this country's destiny. I could go on; my point is that the US constitution and our government is not as perfect as everyone is told it is. Persons will abuse power whenever given the opportunity.

So it is kind of ridiculous that the US constitution is supposed to be some kind of revolutionary document in this far flung future. At what point in history has any people discovered the political organization of a long dead state and had their entire society disrupted by that discovery? It just doesn't happen, sure people gain inspiration from the past, but it isn't going to change anything overnight because "There is nothing new under the sun."(Ecclesiastes 1:9) Sure I can see the USA eventually being forgotten, but the idea of democratic government, I don't think so.

10 October 2019

The Cooperative DM

I was thinking about what I wrote in  my Why I DM post, and had some further thoughts to add.

I talked about the players giving me a constantly changing challenge that the AI of strategy computer games can't. Following that line of logic, why don't I just play multiplayer mode for those games? I would be challenging myself against a human opponent who I would have more difficulty predicting and manipulating. The answer lies in how the strategy game changes in multiplayer mode.

For me, these strategy games are a mental exercise and challenge. As soon as I enter multiplayer mode, it becomes a competition. First of all I don't like the hassle of setting up a multiplayer game in the first place, and second I don't like to lose (who does), which I often do because of how I play. I don't play strategy games to win; my goal isn't to 'beat' the AI. I will often draw the game out so it will last longer when I could have 'beat' the game fairly quickly. I don't care about competing, so when I do play against another human, my opponent often defeats me fairly easily because I'm not playing to win. So I usually stick to single player and spend the time to enjoy the game. My goal when I play a strategy game is to develop a strategy and see if I can execute it. It's an exercise of my mental faculties. I get enjoyment just from the play itself and the complex challenges that arise out of play.

I DM RPGs in the same way, I get enjoyment from the challenge of the play itself. In my last post about this, Scott Anderson said he doesn't see the DM as being oppositional or antagonistic. Well, I don't either, as I tried to explain in my reply. The reason RPGs are superior to computer strategy games is the human factor involved, as I explained in my previous post. And as I said above I don't play to compete. I don't take on a competitive stance when I DM. D&D is a cooperative game, and not just for the players. The DM has cooperate with the players just as the players have to cooperate with each other. I prefer to run D&D than to play strategy games because there is the human factor, but also because it is a cooperative game. I'm not out to kill the PCs, or stop their plans, my job is to cooperate with the players by presenting the setting as it is and narrating the consequences of player actions and how those actions affect the setting. My role is purely dependent on the players, so I have to cooperate with them to play the game in the first place. If I take an antagonistic role, the game will be over shortly and no one will have enjoyed themselves.

04 October 2019

Star Trek

So lately I've been watching a lot of Star Trek. I keep telling myself I should work on D&D stuff, and then I decide to do it later instead watch a few episodes of Star Trek. Over the last year or two I watched Enterprise and the TOS and TAS with my dad sporadically until we had seen every episode of each series; it was interesting because my dad had never seen all of Enterprise, and I knew I had seen the animated series, but I couldn't remember most of the episodes. I started watching TNG about six months ago. About 2 months ago I found this website with a chronology of all the episodes and movies and began watching in chronological order from where I was in TNG, and I have been watching pretty intensively since then. I finished TNG a few weeks ago and am now watching both DS9 and Voyager in chronological order. It has been an interesting experience seeing how events connect between DS9 and TNG and voyager.

I've never considered myself a 'trekkie'; I'm not fanatical about star trek(or star wars either), I enjoy the shows, but I prefer other sci-fi shows/movies a lot more(like stargate). Both DS9 and Voyager have a very 90s feel, I think more than TNG is reminiscent of the 80s. Voyager really pushes the 'noble savage' message, and it can get really annoying.

I do think each series has something unique to offer. I still think TOS is the best series; the episodes are self contained and an example of what good science fiction can be. Science Fiction is a method of reflecting on the human condition, exploring what-if scenarios; the messages of many of the episodes may be a little trite, but I still think overall TOS is a very good model for what sci-fi shows should try to do.

Captain Picard is the best captain in my book. In TNG they kinda split Kirk's character between Riker and Picard, which proved to be beneficial for Picard and a detriment to Riker(though I never did like Jonathan Frakes). Picard is a model for what a federation captain should be: he is dedicated to his principles, passionate,yet disciplined, he keeps a distance from the crew, yet inspires unswerving loyalty in them.

Deep Space Nine is different from the other shows because it's on a space station, yet I think that is what allowed it's greatest quality to shine: the Cardassians. I think the Cardassians are the best villains in all of Star Trek. I think the stationary existence of DS9 allowed the show to have not just a recurring villain, but a constant one. What makes them great, is that they aren't always the villain, they aren't 2-dimensional paper cut-outs like so many of the other aliens on star trek. The Cardassians are the true villains of DS9, not the Dominion. The Dominion is more of some looming background threat for most of the show and not really villains; I guess in that way they are similar to the Borg in TNG. I know sometimes DS9 gets criticized for its religious overtones, but that doesn't really bother me; that's definitely a part of the show where 90s culture shines through.

Voyager is my least favorite Star Trek series; I don't like half the crew, the kazon, most of the episodes have lackluster plots, and the 'romance' is pretty atrocious. Oh, and we cant forget the 'noble savage' push with Chakotay and his 'vision quests'. However, the main redeeming quality of the show, for me, is Tuvok. Tuvok is the best Vulcan portrayed on any of the shows, much as Picard is the best captain. Tuvok is a better vulcan than Spock ever was, yes I said it. Tim Russ is a fantastic actor, and his role as Tuvok is what makes Voyager enjoyable for me.

I know a lot of fans don't like Enterprise, but it is one of my favorite Star Trek shows. The 3rd and 4th seasons are widely considered to be better than the 1st and 2nd seasons because the show switched to a long form story arc that spanned the entire season. I, however, prefer the 1st and 2nd seasons. I think Star Trek excels at the episodic format. This goes back to the standard of TOS, every episode has a self contained story that explores a different scenario/concept. The best quality of Enterprise is the camaraderie among the crew. There is an Esprit De Corps that is unique to this show. You get to really feel the bond present between the crew of the ship, and I don't just mean the bridge crew; other members of the crew are regularly featured. It actually feels like there is crew on the ship besides the main actors. So often in the other shows it seems like the 'crew' are just the bridge officers. It's hard to describe, and maybe it's just me, but it feels like the crew of the Enterprise really has a camaraderie that is special.

And what about the new Star Trek movies and Discovery? I don't consider them to be star trek, and I just don't mean they don't fit the canon; they don't feel like Star Trek. Several years ago I binge watched all the Star Trek films in order(just the movies, not the series), and ended with the JJ films. Many fans hate Nemesis, and don't include it in the canon, but when I watched it, the story may not have been great, but it still felt like star trek. There was continuity between Nemesis and all that had come before, and it was still Star Trek's specific take on science fiction. I had seen the JJ films once and didn't like them, but at this point I decided to give them a second chance and was thinking that they couldn't be that bad. So I watched the JJ films immediately after seeing Nemesis, and I could barely push myself to finish them. They  just didn't feel  like Star Trek; there was nothing about them that I would call science fiction. They are just big action movies that happen to take place in space. That's called space opera or space fantasy, not science fiction.

As for Discovery, I saw the first season when it came out and started the second season, but stopped midway through. I just lost interest. From the 1st episode though, something felt off. I liked the show, so it wasn't until the end of the first season that I had to admit to myself that Discovery wasn't Star Trek either. The continuity and technological errors could be explained away, but it just doesn't have the feel of Star Trek, or the classic science fiction that Star Trek has always been part of. Maybe the aesthetic of Discovery would have worked if they set in the future, sometime after voyager ended. Recently while watching DS9, there was an episode (I can't remember which one) where future versions of Dax and Bashir go back in time and have to use an old ship; one of them makes a comment about having become used to 3D consoles/interfaces. This got me thinking of how Discovery might be slightly changed to fit into the future: with experimentation into a new method of travel, the futuristic look of the show, the different uniforms, and the change in  klingon appearances. It wouldn't take much to bring the story of the 1st season of Discovery into the 24th/25th centuries. As for the second season of Discovery, I just don't care about it anymore; I don't need new adventures with Spock, I've already got plenty of opportunity to watch Spock in action. There's no need to retread old territory. I'm hoping the new Picard show will be better and more faithful than Discovery has been.

19 September 2019

The Necessity of Rules in RPGs

I recently came across a discussion debating the validity of this quote by Gary Gygax, "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." I'd just like to talk about my experience and opinions regarding the sentiment behind this. First off we should acknowledge that this was probably said in a business sense, meaning that if the DMs knew they didn't need rules or books published by the company, then RPG publishing wouldn't be a viable source of income.

Alexis Smolensk on the Tao of D&D blog has often explained the need for codified rules in an RPG with an emphasis on the Game aspect of Role-Playing Game. I generally tend to agree with what he has written on the subject. The more we treat RPGs as games and less as story-telling devices, the more varied and meaningful our game sessions will be.

However, some of my experience contradicts this sentiment. My best friend, Christian, invented what he called "Mind Games" before I met him or introduced him to D&D. These games were very similar in play to RPGS. He would take the role of narrator and anyone else would play a character. Before the game would start, Christian would describe the setting, and each player would describe their character. He would then describe events based on what we chose to do. There were no dice or paper or pencils or anything to keep records, except sometimes we would draw a map. Consequences of actions were decided by what is now called 'DM fiat' though we didn't know of the term at the time. In many ways it could be called a 'story-game'. Yet the game played out in a manner very similar to our D&D games run by my father at the same time. In my view at the time, it was D&D without any rules.

So, I guess the takeaway is that RPGs don't need rules if a certain style of play is wanted and if you have a good DM.

11 September 2019

Fatigue and Exhaustion

Today I was pondering the problems of fatigue in D&D and how its effects have been modeled throughout the editions and in other RPGs, and a solution occurred  to me. This solution is specific to D&D and its relatives, but should be applicable to any edition.

There are specific actions which cause a character to become fatigued. These are called Fatiguing Actions. A Fatiguing Action could be sprinting for 30 seconds, marching/walking for an hour, participating in combat for 1 minute, or anything else the DM thinks would cause a character to tire.

When a character performs a Fatiguing Action that character loses a set value of HP (this could be variable based on the class of the character, 4 for a magic-user, 6 for a cleric, or 8 for a fighter, or based on HD, etc), 1 constitution point, and takes a -1 penalty to all rolls.

(When I run D&D, PCs don't die at 0 hp, they receive a wound instead. Hp represent the PCs ability to avoid wounds, so this loss of hp reflects a loss of combat ability without being a direct threat to their life. If you run the game so that PCs die at 0 hp, you may want to forego the hp loss depending on how harsh you want your game to be.)

Characters can recover from fatigue by taking a short rest of 10 minutes (1 Turn). (this ties into the rule that PCs have to rest for 1 Turn in 6, and also spend a Turn resting after every combat) This will restore the hp lost, the constitution point, and negate the penalty to rolls. If a character performs a 2nd Fatiguing Action without taking this short rest in between the actions, he must make a system shock roll. If he fails this roll he receives twice the penalty as normal; on a success only the normal penalties apply. This extra penalty also applies if the character has not rested to fully recover from their fatigue.

Example: If a character had performed 3 sequential Fatiguing Actions and had succeeded his system shock roll both times he would have a -3 constitution and a -3 penalty to all rolls. He rests for 1 Turn, bringing his penalties to a -2. He then performs another Fatiguing Action and must make a system shock roll. If he succeeds he receives only the normal -1 penalty, putting him at -3 again; if he fails he receives a -2 penalty bring him down to a -4.

When a character's constitution score reaches 3 they become Exhausted (PCs that start with a 3 constitution are always exhausted). A character will also become exhausted by being active (awake and doing stuff) for extended periods of time (16 hours for humans, if they are awake but physically inactive this period of time can be stretched out to say 24 hours). An Exhausted character will be so tired they have no energy to do anything; their movement rate drops to practically 0 and they can only perform basic actions which require little mental power and cannot perform Fatiguing Actions.

An Exhausted character can try to shrug off the effects of Exhaustion by making a system shock roll. On a success the character can function normally for 1 hour before making another system shock roll. If a character who has shrugged off the effects of Exhaustion wants to perform a Fatiguing Action they must make a system shock roll. On a success they are able to perform the Fatiguing Action and takes the -2 penalties. On a failure the character simply does not have the energy to continue on and isn't able to perform the action, and the character also takes another -1 penalty for their effort.

The effects of both Exhaustion and Fatigue will be completely negated by sleeping For a requisite number of hours (8 for humans). If a character ever reaches a Constitution score of 0, that character dies from exhaustion.

There are details that need to be filled in, like what actions constitute fatiguing actions. I also haven't taken food/water into account. The effects of dehydration and/or lack of food can be very similar to just being extremely tired. This is just an idea, and I'm putting it out there to see what others think of it.