Game Mechanics - Open Discussion

305 posts / 0 new
Last post
RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
Game Mechanics - Open Discussion

Post all feedback on the Game Mechanics chapter here.

Get this and other drafts here.

What we're specifically looking for:
* Typos, bad grammar, and other mistakes
* Unclear or confusing text
* Broken or contradictory rules
* Feedback on how the rules worked in actual gameplay

We'll post some specific questions in another thread.

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

ApSciLiara ApSciLiara's picture
http://puu.sh/vGVfw
RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
You're too fast! Try again in

You're too fast! Try again in a few minutes.

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

ApSciLiara ApSciLiara's picture
Oh okay, there it goes. Never

Oh okay, there it goes. Never mind ^-^

SquireNed SquireNed's picture
My thoughts:

My thoughts:

• Pools seem cool. Moxie is under-used by my groups (and myself, if we are honest), and having more pools and more encouragement to use those pools is good. I like that different pools have unique effects, though it could be a PITA during play.
• New criticals and the simplification of MOS are interesting. Could be useful for designating particular Significant Success modifiers in place of just a flat +X for combat damage, as well as other circumstances (though this isn't something that couldn't have been done the old-school way).
• Action economy looks interesting. I assume that speed modifiers are gone, given the lack of any language related to them. This makes me a little sad, but it's probably more balanced. I assume augmentations like Neurachem still exist, perhaps providing other bonuses.
• Automatic actions are interesting. I like them more than "free" actions.
• Movement types table makes me happy. So happy.

Creator of Street Rats, a CC-BY cyberpunk roleplaying game.

MrWigggles MrWigggles's picture
Yea, in the comment section

Yea, in the comment section of the kickstarter they got rid of Speed all together. It seems to be a buy in from the vigor pool. I suspect that some Morphs wont have any or have a negative starting pool, and that mods add or take away from these pools. I suspect something like Pheremones will give you Moxie boost in your pool.
A side effect maybe a condensation and lack of variety in the cyberware, which is good or bad. If their effects to a degree or broken down to which pool they modify, then its hard not to see various cyberware as redundant.

atamajakki atamajakki's picture
I'm not in love with Superior

I'm not in love with Superior Results; it feels a little too much like trying to borrow from Fantasy Flight's Star Wars Advantage dice thing, and with Criticals already in the game they feel redundant. The list of options for what Superiors can be spent on is too long to memorize, which means we'll likely have to have them on a GM's Screen or else just ignore the mechanic.

Pools are a fun mechanic. Is "upgrade a success to a superior success" supposed to say that, or should be upgrade to a critical?

Flex Pool is my favorite kind of mechanic in tabletop (cousin to Fate Points, Preparedness in GUMSHOE, and the like), but I guarantee you all hell will break loose when the people who hate that sort of thing find it. I hope you keep it when they inevitably complain.

Is there any chance of changing the Initiative mechanic? It's (AFAIK) the only d10+modifier roll in the game, and that's always upset me.

Leetsepeak Leetsepeak's picture
How long do Vigor and Insight

How long do Vigor and Insight allow you to ignore the effects of 1 trauma or wound?

MrWigggles MrWigggles's picture
I think this thing is taking

I think this thing is taking more inspiration from Gumshoe then from Fantasy Flight or Fate. Using Flex pool to spantaniously will in stuff for your character or having relationships with NPCs, are defiantly things out of Gumshoe.

UnitOmega UnitOmega's picture
As a fan of the EotE lines, I

As a fan of the EotE lines, I'm personally okay with the distinction between Advantage and Triumph - I also personally really like the codified aspect for both Critical and Superior, I know some people will not like it, but as a GM having hard and fast examples when people just do better at rolls is always great.

I personally would have to wait until I see about the sources of such points until I give a full thought on the pools - I like the distinction between Mental/Social/Physical/Luck and how you can have characters with high "currency" in different focus now, as opposed to just EVERYBODY should buy as much MOX as they can handle because it's so valuable. Presumably replacing aptitude bonuses from Morphs with the pools sounds good though.

Also like the codifying of actions per Turn, that was always unnecessarily nebulous in 1E.

Oh, and much like people being mad about narrative currency with Flex, I know some people who will and already are butthurt about "Short and long rest", I think it's fine again, just structuring something which before was all on the GM to decide before. The 1d6 for a Short rest seems a little weird unless we're planning on using different sized dice for other things now, though.

H-Rep: An EP Homebrew Blog
http://ephrep.blogspot.com/

MrWigggles MrWigggles's picture
In E1, you refresh moxie

In E1, you refresh moxie after a long rest. EG, after a nights sleep. Wasnt used much in my experience.

Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture
I like how Excellent, I mean,

I like how Excellent, I mean, Superior Success has breakpoints at 33 and 66 instead of 31 and 61. No more buying one extra point into skills at 60 for that double excellent result!

I also like how the system better spells out what it does outside of combat. I often wasn't sure what to do with critical or excellent rolls outside of combat.

I also like how Task Action Times are still something players have more effect over, but with fewer moments when I pull out my TI at the table.

I like speed being gone. It's such a hard mechanic to work around that I bet trying to keep it would make combat a very contorted design space. I will miss super-room clearing characters. It was fun even if it made combat non-participatory for most of the party.

Perhaps somewhat hypocritically I also like the various pools, and I'm interested to see more of how they work. I'm guessing various personal augmentations can add to various pools or refresh them more quickly, and I know they're supposed to be morph connected. It'll be really cool to have a Menton or Hyperbright have more mechanics than a huge COG thrown their way.

I really like the breakdown of opposed tests. It's extremely clear. It's also nice to have the rest lengths for Moxie and the other pools spelled out. Previously I hadn't been totally sure whether a significant rest meant hours or days.

Stuff I kind of dislike:

The movement and jumping rules feel a little weird to me. The horizontal jump numbers feel extremely short. IIRC the average long jump for HS freshment is like ~4.8 meters so a 3 meter base seems weird for morph which are often above human norms.

Maybe change the base standing horizontal leap to 3 meters? (1.9 meters is apparently "very poor" on fitness tests) And change the running leap to 6? Still pretty round numbers but they don't make me think that an Olympian wouldn't be able to play Varsity track and field in high school without being very lucky.

The additional distance gained by Rushing and making a check should be increased. In EP1e it was +.25 m per 10 MoS, and now it's .25 per 33 MoS! Tripling that number seems good to me, and allows a skilled transhuman long jumper to cross 7.5 meters, which is still well below the current world record.

I don't want to get too involved here though, because EP is not the game of transhuman high school sports and horror. (though that might be really cool)

Hover and Thrust Vector are not explicitly stated to not work in vacuum like several other flight related movement rates. It that intentional so those two do work in space?

Finally, it looks like Coordination might be gone (from the blurb about defaulting on Guns rolls on page 3). I hope that is not the case because splitting Dex into two different skills was a nice thing, Dex is too often a god-stat in RPGs. That said, I don't think it'd really break the game too badly in EP, I just liked it. Of course, as I haven't seen the skill list I might be totally off base here.

MrWigggles MrWigggles's picture
How would a curtain of air,

How would a curtain of air, eg, hover, work in zero g?

TheGrue TheGrue's picture
This is a very strange

This is a very strange playtest, releasing the playtest rules in a state that can't actually be playtested.

I guess we could use the existing character creation and gear rules and staple them onto the new core mechanics, but doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of playtesting the new edition?

Thermonuclear Banana Split - A not-really-weekly Eclipse Phase campaign journal.

Decivre Decivre's picture
I like what I see so far, but

I like what I see so far, but some things jump out at me.

  • Why the sudden use of d6s? I'm not complaining, but I kind of liked that the game only required d10s. And The only uses of d6s that I know of (bonus damage and refreshing pools) feel to me like they'd be better with d10s. Why this change?
  • The new rest mechanics feel like a good fit. I like the die roll recovery of pools.
  • Superior results are a MUCH better idea than the original MoS. The limitation of two superior result benefits is an interesting choice. As a recommendation: perhaps you should make three superior results another option for a critical success. Feels odd that critting makes you totally lose the chance for superior results.
  • Coordination has been merged with Reflex, which is great. REF was just the movement aptitude before, so nothing of note is really lost.
  • I hope that Flex won't be a morph pool, because I think it odd to have narrative control be a morph trait. I can't even imagine what a morph that grants more narrative power might look like. It feels like it should be the replacement for the original Moxie pool.
  • So Athletics has replaced Freerunning, Flight and Swimming? But no similar simplification for Pilot? I feel like both should have similar levels of simplification, since most groups with a pilot are only gonna have one guy working all the vehicles, and it's odd he'll get stuck with multiple skill dedications just for movement even though everybody else can swap from feet to fins with no problems.

This is pretty awesome. The new mechanics are great. Can't wait for Character Creation.

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.

Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

LatwPIAT LatwPIAT's picture
When to roll and the

When to roll and the Starbucks Menu of difficulties:
"Roll the dice when the results may influence the plot or have other consequences, when the situation is challenging, when a character is unskilled, or when a character is opposed by another force. Don’t make tests for mundane, everyday tasks." - p. 2

The table of modifiers (same page) then lists seven different levels of difficulty: Effortless, Simple, Easy, Average, Difficult, Challenging, and Hard.

Taken together, this somewhat awkwardly implies that most rolls should be made at -20, which I'm not sure is the intended reading. If not, different terms should probably be used to avoid any confusion.

Speaking of synonyms, while the differences in magnitude of the modifiers makes it clear that "Easy" and "Simple" are two different things, the terms are basically synonyms, which means they add no clarity what different modifier mean. When is something Easy but not Simple? I don't know, and a trip to Dictionary.com was no help.

The same applies to "Hard", "Challenging", and "Difficult". They're synonyms!

Also, "Effortless"? Surely if something requires no effort, I should not have to roll?

00, 99, succeeding, failing, superior successes, critical failures, etc.
Consider rewording this so that it's clear that you can't succeed and critically fail at the same time. It becomes especially relevant for a roll of 99 under a skill of 99 or more. This is a critical failure. It is also a successful roll greater than 66, giving two Superior Successes. One might think that a critical failure cancels a Superior Success, leaving the roller with a Superior Success and a Critical Failure on the same roll.

Critical Examples
Examples #2 and #5 are applicable to any situation. Results #1 and #3 seem to be things mostly relevant in combat. This leaves result #4 as the only example of what a critical success/failure is supposed to be outside of combat.

Opposed Tests and Edge Cases for Dice Rolls
"If both sides tie or fail, either the opponents remain deadlocked or the highest roll wins (GM’s choice)."

What happens if both sides tie, but a deadlock would not be appropriate? E.g. dodging a swung club; either it hits or it misses, there's no in between.

"If both opponents roll criticals, the higher roll critically succeeds, the lower
critically fails."

What happens on a tie with criticals?

Opposed Tests and Superior Successes
Two terms are used; to "succeed" and to "win". As written, it is possible to get Superior Successes while losing the opposed roll, or to get Superior Failures while winning. This is somewhat counter-intuitive, and should perhaps be pointed out!

Action Turns and the list of stuff you can do
Might I suggest the following? Instead of the way it's currently listed, write it as something like:

"Each turn you may perform base or full movement, take 1 Quick Action, and one of the following:

  • 1 Complex Action
  • 1 Task Action
  • 2 extra Quick Actions"

Declaring Movement Type
"Each action turn, you declare one type of movement action (with the exceptions of jumping and standing up, which may be combined with others) at the beginning of your initiative."

This awkwardly implies that you need to declare how you're moving even if you're choosing to stand still.

"Amounts" when Rushing
You should probably specify that the amount a Superior Success adds to the Full Move is the Base Move, and not some other amount.

Standing jumps while Rushing
You get the benefit of Rushing when Jumping even while making a standing jump. While this makes mechanical sense (spending a Quick and a Complex action to jump longer), it's not intuitive that long standing jumps are best performed by first taking a Rush action and then not using it to run.

Triple Jump
If I take 3 Quick Actions for my turn, can I use them to jump thrice?

Prone to Jump
If I take 3 Quick Actions for my turn, start prone, use one QA for Standing Up and one for Jumping, is my jump distance halved?

MOVEMENT IN DIFFERENT GRAVITIES
People walk faster in strong gravities and slower in weak gravities, not the other way around.

Hopper Locomotion
Hopper + Rush + Jumping, that is, a Hopper maximizing its horizontal jumping, gets a greater increase in total movement than a Walker + Rush (+ Jumping) does. Why can the Hopper, already hopping, hop farther than it hops when Rushing, but the Walker, walking, not walk farther than it walks while Rushing?

Submarines are faster than surface boats!
Really, that is all.

@-rep +2
C-rep +1

GreyBrother GreyBrother's picture
My thoughts after reading through it

  • I like the Superior Results as written.
  • Pools, oh boy. I am not sure at all. The easiest is Flex, i get the idea behind them, i like it personally, but a pool like that is something best asked the group if it is something they want to play with.
  • Maybe instead of getting a fixed choice of options, going with something like Shadowrun 3s pool system might be more useful for the desired effect? I imagine a system where the player has to decide inside a scene, which rolls they want to boost. Speaking of scenes...
  • Can we replace the refreshing with something that lets a GM better pace it instead of having to bookkeep times? With the system as it is, accellerated time simulspaces will become more of a headache than they already are (and an Infomorph that got access to a Simulspace server can basically start to refresh pools in Combat). Instead of a short rest, pools reset at the end of a scene, and a long rest is the play session. Yeah it screws with in setting time, but really, as players we'll track these much easier than asking "can we now rest? do our rests reset now? when do they reset? I just used three layers of simulspace accelleration, how long does it take for me?"
  • Whats the difference between an Action Scene and Action Sequence? (I can assume that they are the same, but i am not sure)
  • Coreruled movement rates for all movement types? Yesplz

    All in all, it unfortunately hasn't impressed me personally that much, but i would work with 2E as it is, though i would not make use of Flex at all.

  • AdamJury AdamJury's picture
    TheGrue wrote:This is a very

    TheGrue wrote:
    This is a very strange playtest, releasing the playtest rules in a state that can't actually be playtested.

    One thing we have found to happen in the past, when releasing more playtest stuff at once: people jump to the more complicated stuff, immediately begin making characters, etc. -- using their understanding of the _previous_ edition to guide them through it. By giving everyone a couple days to absorb the basics, we think the next few chapters will flow more smoothly for both the testers, and those of us collecting and analyzing the feedback. :-)

    Decivre Decivre's picture
    GreyBrother wrote:Can we

    GreyBrother wrote:
    Can we replace the refreshing with something that lets a GM better pace it instead of having to bookkeep times? With the system as it is, accellerated time simulspaces will become more of a headache than they already are (and an Infomorph that got access to a Simulspace server can basically start to refresh pools in Combat). Instead of a short rest, pools reset at the end of a scene, and a long rest is the play session. Yeah it screws with in setting time, but really, as players we'll track these much easier than asking "can we now rest? do our rests reset now? when do they reset? I just used three layers of simulspace accelleration, how long does it take for me?"

    Alternatively, simulmorphs will have their own separate pools which get refreshed when you rest in the simulspace, and this in no way affects your other morphs (infomorph or physical).

    Honestly, if I were asked to come up with the rules myself, that's how I'd handle it. That way you can't try using some solipsistic pocket reality to rest up your Fury mid-battle.

    Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.

    Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

    UnitOmega UnitOmega's picture
    Decivre wrote:

    Decivre wrote:

    So Athletics has replaced Free Fall, Freerunning, Flight and Swimming? But no similar simplification for Pilot? I feel like both should have similar levels of simplification, since most groups with a pilot are only gonna have one guy working all the vehicles, and it's odd he'll get stuck with multiple skill dedications just for movement even though everybody else can swap from feet to fins with no problems

    It's not as obvious, but it looks like the fields for Pilot have been collapsed with "Naval" and "Aerospace" as examples, so there's probably some broader application of them - but I think it should stay a field skill, driving a car has bugger all to do with piloting a boat or flying a plane other than maybe some roughly similar control concepts and related underlying talents - i/e defaulting.

    H-Rep: An EP Homebrew Blog
    http://ephrep.blogspot.com/

    GreyBrother GreyBrother's picture
    Decivre wrote:GreyBrother

    Decivre wrote:
    GreyBrother wrote:
    Can we replace the refreshing with something that lets a GM better pace it instead of having to bookkeep times? With the system as it is, accellerated time simulspaces will become more of a headache than they already are (and an Infomorph that got access to a Simulspace server can basically start to refresh pools in Combat). Instead of a short rest, pools reset at the end of a scene, and a long rest is the play session. Yeah it screws with in setting time, but really, as players we'll track these much easier than asking "can we now rest? do our rests reset now? when do they reset? I just used three layers of simulspace accelleration, how long does it take for me?"

    Alternatively, simulmorphs will have their own separate pools which get refreshed when you rest in the simulspace, and this in no way affects your other morphs (infomorph or physical).

    Honestly, if I were asked to come up with the rules myself, that's how I'd handle it. That way you can't try using some solipsistic pocket reality to rest up your Fury mid-battle.


    Good thoughts! Brings up another thought: Infomorphs and Synths don't need rest, Biomorphs would sleep. Mentally exhaustion IS a thing, so i assume the rests will be something like chilling at the movies or somesuch?
    Decivre Decivre's picture
    UnitOmega wrote:driving a car

    UnitOmega wrote:
    driving a car has bugger all to do with piloting a boat or flying a plane other than maybe some roughly similar control concepts and related underlying talents - i/e defaulting.

    In that same vein, I knew a high school track-and-field athlete that couldn't doggy-paddle to save his life. But I still see value in merging skills.

    The way I see it, future education is more comprehensive. Just as many talents we take for granted today were once not taught so broadly, perhaps broader understanding of underlying physics became a staple of all vehicular training, and that combined with mesh-based interfaces makes the differences moot.

    If a weekend jogger can somehow also learn to be master of zero-gravity maneuvers, then that's no more realistic than an umbrella pilot skill.

    Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.

    Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

    Decivre Decivre's picture
    GreyBrother wrote:Good

    GreyBrother wrote:
    Good thoughts! Brings up another thought: Infomorphs and Synths don't need rest, Biomorphs would sleep. Mentally exhaustion IS a thing, so i assume the rests will be something like chilling at the movies or somesuch?

    Yeah, that would work. Anything non-strenuous. Rests are a good roleplaying opportunity, as you can play out a conversation between your characters. Or watch a sim, play a game... my usual recommendation for this mechanic is that no one can do anything that requires tests or produces through effort.

    Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.

    Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

    CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture
    I kind of get the feeling

    I kind of get the feeling that, at the least, running jumps should take into consideration the movement speed of the character. The Hopper movement type has a built in modifier, but I'm not sure it makes sense for a Roller moving at ~48m/at to only be able to running jump the same distance as a Snake moving at 20m/at.

    Divide rush speed by 20 and add that number of metres to the distance jumped, for example?

    -

    twodsix twodsix's picture
    Thoughts:

    Thoughts:

    The wording in the last sentence for opposed tests is weird. While the intent is clear, taking it strictly as written, if both participants roll criticals then the higher result wins, this means you can make a case that a critical failure on an 88 or 99 beats a critical success on a 66 (taking it even more literally the former person critically succeeds and the latter person critically fails despite rolling the opposite). As I said, the intent is clear and 'a success beats a failure' should take precedence, but from a cheating rules lawyer perspective I would have written it as 'if both opponents roll critical successes then...'.

    The use of d6s is strange. While it's a die type literally everyone has somewhere at least at the moment they only turn up in superior successes adding damage and refreshing pools. Maybe it'll be used more once the rest of the chapters are released, but I don't understand why 1d6 was used over 1d5 (or 1d10).

    I like pools, especially how I can see them interacting with morphs. Before there was little reason not to always go for the most optimised morph and balancing party morphs was entirely GM fiat and limited availability, but I can see myself agonising over whether to sleeve in a Menton for extra Insight or a Splicer for a tad more Flex (which is, of course, significantly more powerful than the others due to raw flexibility). I have no problem with a weak morph giving more narrative power, it's never fun to lag behind the group because you failed one roll and now you're the unmodded splicer in a group of tooled up high end morphs (and even if you do what I like to and get a ton of blueprints for modifications there won't always be time to spend in a healing vat). I really hope I've got how pools link into resleeving correct anyway, I don't really see a different way for it to work.

    It reminds me of Transhumanity's Fate, how Morphs cost fresh (and a tooled-up morph has more Morph Stunts, so costs more Refresh). And while you might be able to invoke the fact you're in a Fury Morph to be better in combat my Splicer/Synth has 'off the shelf looks', which not only generates me a bunch of Fate Points from being mistaken for similar morphs but also can be invoked to blend into crowds or impersonate generic members of a profession. It doesn't make 100% sense from an in-world perspective, but it makes it more fun as a game.

    I think that boils down to the reason I like certain bits of what we've been shown more than others. Having 4 different colours of glass beeds to represent pools sounds like it'll be fun as a game, faster reseleeving sounds like it'll be more likely to happen in-game, superior successes should be faster than MoS while playing, while the movement rules seem to be complex enough that I'll just handwave them.

    Getting used to Moxie now being the social pool will be weird for a bit, everything listed under Flex is something I would have allowed for a 1e Moxie Point, but once it clicks I think it'll make for a better game. While exploring the effects of technology in detail and whether or not my morph can jump 0.2m further than yours is fun, in a game me and my friends just care about 'how difficult is it to make that jump? Is there a CM around that'll let me fab a gun?' While having detailed rules doesn't stop a GM from making quick and rough decisions, and detailed rules for various areas is certainly stuff I want to see in 2e books at some point, I find that a set of flexible, generic, but powerful rules works much better as a foundation for a game.

    However I know that some people prefer rules that model the world over rules that model the world than ones intended for quick and easy gameplay, and to that I say that don't worry, nobody's going to burn your 1e books or go around the internet taking down all the 1e pdfs out there (that's hard enough with games where you can't legally share them). It sucks that such a style won't get any more official books, but at the end of the day it's a difference in game styles.

    Londoner Londoner's picture
    ALL negative modifiers?

    'Before rolling: Ignore all negative modifiers to the test.'

    Any modifiers at all? ....

    HariSeldon HariSeldon's picture
    Pools

    I'm still reviewing the playtest doc, but I went straight to the Pools section first, as that was the bit that I was most curious about. Having read it, I'm not really sure about the rationale behind replacing morph modifiers with pools in terms of how a morph is supposed to work.

    In 1st Ed. I get attribute bonuses from my morph because having an artificial body makes me stronger, faster, etc. Because that body is a high performance piece of futuristic engineering, it performs at a consistent level, and its features are always available to me. So those bonuses are constant as long as I'm sleeved in that morph.

    In 2nd Ed. I get a finite pool of points to spend. If my pool is exhausted, I get no benefit from my morph. But what does that mean in game terms? Has my morph stopped working? Why does having a little rest make it start working again, albeit only for a short time? It doesn't feel so futuristic and high-tech any more, because now I'm worried about whether it will run out of juice at a crucial moment.

    As others have mentioned, this feels like it has been influenced by Gumshoe, a system which personally I never play for precisely this reason. It feels very weird to me that a character can excel at one moment, and be entirely ordinary the next, without any in-game change having taken place.

    From a mechanical point of view, I realise that re-calculating skills when you re-sleeve can seem like a bit of a hassle, but it's a hassle which is over quite quickly in the grand scheme of things. More importantly it doesn't take any time during actual play, whereas pools require more in-game book-keeping. But it does seem a more realistic approach to how a morph would work. It's also going to be less of a hassle if you're shrinking the number of skills.

    I think the Flex pool is a special case because it's modelling something which is far more abstract and meta to begin with. I don't have a problem adding that one into the system. I'm assuming that isn't going to be a morph pool, but rather something like the 1st Ed. Moxie.

    I shall wait and see how this looks when we get more information and some sample morphs. But at the moment it doesn't really have a good feel for me.

    Janusfaced Janusfaced's picture
    My thoughts:

    My thoughts:

    Dice basics
    I confused six-sided dice a little. Of course I have them and I figure most of RPG players have also, I am feeling D5 is better. It is niggling to have two types of dice, I think.

    The 33/66 rule
    I like it. I am figuring MoS, Mof, Excellent Successes and Severe Failures are replaced with it.

    Opposed tests
    >If both opponents roll criticals, the higher roll critically succeeds, the lower critically fails.

    It sounds doubles-and-succeed can be a critical failure sometime. If I roled 33 against TN 50 but my opponent roled 44 against TN 50, It means I scored a critical failure. Am I correct?
    If so, how the 33/66 rule are applied on it? Is it a superior success, because "TN or less" and "33 or more"? Or a superior fail, because "critical FAILURE" and "66 or less"?

    Pools
    Fantastic idea, but I have some questions.
    1: if they are acquired upon sleeving. can resleeving refresh them?
    2: none of pools are rerated with COO aptitude. Does it gone?
    3: is other upgrading ("one superior success to two" or "two superior successes to critical") possible?
    4: if Biomods (require 4 hours sleep) can reduce long rest time, can Circadian Regulation (require 2 hours sleep) reduce it also? How about synthmorph (require no sleep)? How about rests in subjective time simulspaces?

    Task Actions
    I am fine about modifiers changes (it is used to be +10 at +50% and -10 at -10%). But I liked "I know it failured at Mof% time later". Does the rule gone?

    Initiative and order of actions
    Speed stat are gone, but I like it. Honestly, it was Shadowrun 4th legacy.

    Your average, everyday, normal, plain and dull transhuman

    Janusfaced's outpost(writtern in Japanese)
    http://janusfacedsoutpost.blog.fc2.com/

    asura8 asura8's picture
    So. Just some mild worries

    So. Just some mild worries about the mechanics and how they apply to tone.

    1. The new success/failure system is interesting. However, I am a little worried about the tone this sets for people trying things outside of their specialization. If you are not specialized at all (aka, you have less than a 60, lets say), you have a very high probability of not only failing, but failing with a superior fail. By codifying the bad things that can happen, I think this makes it a bit worse for people who are stretching their limits.

    2. It is unclear what GM/player choice means under criticals, since it says criticals are determined by the GM.

    3. I love the idea of the ability Pools. I look forward to seeing how they interact with resleeving. That being said, Flex is very troubling as a default rule for those of us who run horror games. Horror games always struggle with dealing with the balance of player agency and the powerlessness that makes horror (especially Lovecraftian horror) have impact. The Flex pool is fantastic for more pulpy play, but it feels like horror is being given the shaft this edition. Is this why the tagline is changing? Are we moving away from a horror setting?

    4. Refreshing Pools: so. First things first. Change 1d6 to 1d5. Why? Because 1d5 is an easy jump from a 1d10 and everything else in the game uses 1d10. Why would you suddenly require a second dice when you don't have to?

    Second thing is that defining things in terms of days feels awkward in terms of the setting and there is no information here about how Synths refresh their pools. Perhaps the better thing is to define a Rest action by which you refresh short bursts? I think this might work better as any GM will be able to take advantage of the players taking 4 hr naps constantly.

    Really, the pools require us to see how Resleeving works if nothing else to make concrete judgments.

    RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
    atamajakki wrote:

    atamajakki wrote:

    Pools are a fun mechanic. Is "upgrade a success to a superior success" supposed to say that, or should be upgrade to a critical?

    We tested out upgrading to a critical in previous playtests, but it was problematic. Testing out superior success upgrades now.

    atamajakki wrote:

    Flex Pool is my favorite kind of mechanic in tabletop (cousin to Fate Points, Preparedness in GUMSHOE, and the like), but I guarantee you all hell will break loose when the people who hate that sort of thing find it. I hope you keep it when they inevitably complain.

    It's easy enough to ignore if you don't like it. Flex is still very useful without it.

    atamajakki wrote:

    Is there any chance of changing the Initiative mechanic? It's (AFAIK) the only d10+modifier roll in the game, and that's always upset me.

    What would you prefer to see?

    I'm not a fan of static Initiatives (just using REF or whatever with no rolls; plus most people will have a 15 there or close to it), and % rolls with mods are too swingy.

    Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

    GRAAK GRAAK's picture
    My 2 cents.

    My 2 cents.

    Premise:
    I've always used Moxies and had no problem with remembering about them, probably because of my past love with warhammer fantasy roleplay where you have Fortune Points.

    "Narrativeness":
    I love the more narrative bent granted by Flex, for my part. EP is rule heavy and quite crunchy but it's not D&D: I've always intended and played it with a focus on the story first, mechanics second ... Probably the modularity of the crunchiness helped in maintaining the game narrative for me. So thumbs up regarding this aspect!

    Pools and resleeving:
    In a game where resleeving could a common thing (for PCs) the old mechanics for changing morph really needed a faster approach.
    But I'm not a fan of metacurrencies.
    I can stand one currency (Moxies) but not more than one. I left Infinity the RPG when I read they have 3 pools. Now here we have 4!
    My problem with multiple pools is that their management diverts me from the narration, the immersion in the setting and in the characters. Their management risks to put mechanics before the story, and this is something that has to be carefully evaluated!! Obviously IMHO.

    Proposal:
    What if there is only the old Moxies pool but they can be spent only to some skills/characteristics depending on the morph and its implants?
    For ex: a Fury would let you spend Moxies for physical rolls, but a Menton wouldn't!
    But if that very Menton mount Reflex Booster you can spend Moxie also for Fray and Melee rolls.

    Of course we'd need a fix on the different moxie effects with this approach. Ex: you can always flip-flop dice results with every morph, but you can upgrade/downgrade success/failure or ignore malus only to certain skills characteristics depending on the morph and implants.
    This way you would have: simplified resvleeving, got rid of 4 metacurrencies (mechanical burden!), and differentiated morphs and implants.

    Criticals:
    I'm also against the lot of new effects for Critical success, part because I feel them unnecessary, they really don't add so much to the game... part because they become the 5th metacurrency! :O
    I've totalized a Crit, let's go to see the list of what I can do with it...

    I'm for the "simpler is better" philosophy. If it's not broken, or a mechanical burden probably deserves to be left as it is.

    Disclaimer:
    All I've written is with maximum collaborative and constructive feedback. If it's seem too hard it's not my intention: it's that I'm not a native English speaker, so I have only 40% in this Language skill :)
    Sorry for grammar mistakes I surely have done in any case.

    Laskeutua Laskeutua's picture
    First impressions

    Alright, lets do this...

    Quote:
    For some other rolls (damage, stress, refreshing pools), Eclipse Phase uses both six-sided (d6) and ten-sided (d10) dice. These dice are added together, sometimes with a modifier, to get the result. A 2d10 + 3 damage roll of 5 and a 3 would result in an 11.

    Picking this apart requires actually seeing the rules this affects, but I still want to raise it:
    Why not d5s? Kingdom Death already went a fair ways to getting people used to the idea of them not so long ago, and the idea of d3s have been around for roughly eons.

    Moreover, means that a player only needs to remember the d100 and they're solid.

    Admittedly I'm biased, I go out of my way to dispense with the need of a bathtub full of d6s.

    Quote:
    Insight pool is linked to mental capabilities: Cognition, Intuition, and their linked skills.
    Moxie pool is linked to social interactions: Savvy, Willpower, and their linked skills. It may also be used for Networking Tests.
    Vigor pool is linked to physical efforts: Reflexes, Somatics, and their linked skills.

    Does this mean no more Coordination stat (rolling it into Som and Ref does make sense but...)

    As for the 4 pools... Don't Rest Your Head gets away with this by being a crunch-light, narrative focused game where the mechanics are merely there to give structure to the story being told.
    Now I absolutely LOVE Don't Rest Your Head, but...
    Eclipse Phase is a very different beast.
    Eclipse Phase is crunch-heavy, but given the tonal shifts of EP (The gears change between Futurama, Ghost in the Shell and Dead Space), the character sheet being the single island of stability in that triad of 'modes' the campaign takes place over is a necessity.
    Dice pools like this can easily slip into narrative, abstract territory if not handled carefully.
    And given the split this seems to be causing already - it might be worth investigating alternative rulesets for DMs who prefer 1st ed's way.

    Hell, one of the biggest factors I use to judge RPG systems by is how they handle optional rules, a well thought out alternative here and there is something I consider a benefit (because it tells me the designers' considerations regarding the system and how they're choosing to deal with it).
    Admittedly though, the editors' notes in Savage Worlds alone taught me a surprising amount about the nature of RPG design, and I love anything and everything that gives glimpses of insight into that side of things.

    Brings up another question: when's the character sheet drop? I find that the character sheet is the most useful tool in judging how a system functions.

    Quote:
    You may spend points from your pools to affect the tests you make. Each pool may only be used for tests that use their linked skills or aptitudes (i.e., a Vigor point can be used on a skill test or aptitude check linked to REF or SOM). Flex my be used on any tests.
    Before rolling: Ignore all negative modifiers to the test.
    Before rolling: Add +20 to the test’s target number.
    After rolling: Flip-flop a d100 roll. For example, 83 becomes 38.
    After rolling: Upgrade a success to a superior success.
    After rolling: Downgrade a critical failure to a regular failure.

    Okay, so the pools replace moxie. And... judging by the ruling the pools also replace morph bonuses for stats?
    This sounds like a lot of dicking around to keep track of. Given that rep favours are already a pain in my forever DM side.
    Again, going to have to see the in depth one of this, either this is very, very clunky, or very, very streamlined.

    Quote:
    33/66 rule

    This sounds inelegant to me, but I've a reason for being biased. 33 and 66 are already crit thresholds and I don't see why doubling up on their significance is useful - it's already a pain when players insist on trying to squeeze out a couple extra points to hit a crit threshold (good thing 55 is a solid number to reach and easy to work with).
    Overweighting those thresholds is something I can see awkward problems with. 30 and 60 already have a similar importance as it stands, albeit for different reasons (30 being the aptitude max for nearly all morphs, 60 being the 'softcap' for character generation), so why shift these goalposts ever so slightly askew?

    But, I admit I'm tackling this from an odd angle.
    See, whenever I run EP, I have a houserule that skill checks of 91+ are auto-failures (imho this is implied to be the way the game's supposed to be run because of the fact that 90 is the 'hardcap' for skills, but I know others disagree).

    Because of this, I used a variation of this rule - 30/60/90
    I give a lot of weight to degrees of success, and I treat 00s the way D&D players treat nat20s. If the PC pulled off a roll of even 90 on a skill they have that high, they deserve special treatment.

    Quote:
    If you lack the skill you need to make a test, you can rely on your character’s innate talents and default to the skill’s linked aptitude instead (see Aptitudes, p. XX). For example, if you lack Guns skill, you can still shoot using your Reflexes aptitude as the target number.
    There is no modifier for defaulting, but critical successes are ignored.

    Wait, does this mean there's a checkbox for 'proficiency' on character sheets now? because honestly, given the nature of the system that seems like an arbitrary hurdle to jump though in an already lengthy chargen process. If the character sheets are laid out anything like 1st ed, then it's just going to be frustrating to keep tabs on.

    In current rules, I just treat skill tests with whatever was on the character sheet, no defaulting to me simply meant you cannot use related skills - what was listed was what you got, no arguments. Simpler that way.
    No arbitrary penalties, as given the stakes that EP can get into and how painful failure can be (pass a durability test or a nanoswarm eats you alive) the low skill rating is penalty enough. The penalty for deferring to a different skill however is reasonable, and I'm all for that rule.

    I'd also like to use this space to add something I houseruled to consolidate the inconsistent, x3 and x2 chaff that littered the books:
    Apt x3 tests I referred to as Aptitude Checks, used them in edge cases where skills make no sense - (like, Somatics Check to drag the heavy thing)
    Apt x2 tests I referred to as Saving Throws. You get where I'm going with this. Roll me a SOM save to not be crushed to death. Reflex to catch the railing so you don't fall down the mineshaft.
    Durability was only ever used as the basis of a check or save if the only factor on the outcome was how well constructed the body was - no action on your part would change anything (e.g. nanoswarm eating you - though even then I'd permit a reflex save on a character hitting guardian hive).

    Quote:
    There are two types of rest actions: short rests and long rests.

    Playing D&D5e?
    I have to admit, I do like this system. Gives concrete downtime. For those running a full horror campaign this is actually a really good tool: without the assurance of 'I'll get it back at the start of next session' like the old moxie, you can really grind them down.
    To be honest actually, I'd take another leaf out of 5e's book and give expanded rules on quality of rest as well - situational lengthier times and an incrementally worsening fatigue system for not taking said rest.
    Given that this can be a really easy way for DMs to throttle the tone of the campaign, (shorter rest timeframes = pulpier feel, longer rest timeframes = grittier feel), I feel a lot of thought should be put into making sure this rule is implemented well.

    Might also be worth tying healing/stress and wound/trauma management into this rest framework.

    For instance, with my last group I reasoned that because muses are actively trying to keep the players sane (it was a more horror themed campaign after all), the muses would roll Academics: Psychology every session when the moxie refreshed - successes removed d5 points of stress, +1 per level of exceptional [See above], d10 on a crit. Alternatively the player could choose to attempt to remove traumas - 1 on a success, the same removal of stress points on exceptionals, 2 on a critical.

    This might sound overly nice to the players as a system, but I still managed to have two characters restore from backup after hitting IR, with a third opting to just reroll.

    For healing I used the rules as written because everyone had medichines because why would you ever not - but I wished I had the ability to use the same mechanics as I homebrewed for the muse stress management.
    Tying healing (and therefore medichines) into this system would go a long way to simplifying that side too.

    Quote:

    An action turn represents roughly 3 seconds. There are 20 action turns per minute. During each action turn you may undertake one of the following:
    1 complex action and 1 quick action
    1 task action and 1 quick action
    3 quick actions
    Additionally, you may take any number of automatic actions per action turn. The GM may allow you to make additional quick actions, depending on their nature.
    Note that basic movement such as walking or running does not require an action (Movement, p. XX). More complex forms of movement, however, may require quick, complex, or even task actions.

    All I ask is that when you get to mental/mesh actions and mental speed/multitasking implants, that the writeup for them be as clear as the writeup here.
    But it seems like speed as a stat's no longer a thing by the way this is written? because honestly, that would actually be a shame. The speed system was actually one of the things I raved about with EP.

    Quote:
    Movement types

    And we get clear distinctions what skills can use what move system? ALL OF MY YES!

    ... Another question then, would you prefer new posts when the game gets amended or edited posts?

    zkline zkline's picture
    Laskeutua wrote:Alright, lets

    Laskeutua wrote:
    Alright, lets do this...

    Quote:
    If you lack the skill you need to make a test, you can rely on your character’s innate talents and default to the skill’s linked aptitude instead (see Aptitudes, p. XX). For example, if you lack Guns skill, you can still shoot using your Reflexes aptitude as the target number.
    There is no modifier for defaulting, but critical successes are ignored.

    Wait, does this mean there's a checkbox for 'proficiency' on character sheets now? because honestly, given the nature of the system that seems like an arbitrary hurdle to jump though in an already lengthy chargen process. If the character sheets are laid out anything like 1st ed, then it's just going to be frustrating to keep tabs on.

    In current rules, I just treat skill tests with whatever was on the character sheet, no defaulting to me simply meant you cannot use related skills - what was listed was what you got, no arguments. Simpler that way.
    No arbitrary penalties, as given the stakes that EP can get into and how painful failure can be (pass a durability test or a nanoswarm eats you alive) the low skill rating is penalty enough. The penalty for deferring to a different skill however is reasonable, and I'm all for that rule.

    I'd also like to use this space to add something I houseruled to consolidate the inconsistent, x3 and x2 chaff that littered the books:
    Apt x3 tests I referred to as Aptitude Checks, used them in edge cases where skills make no sense - (like, Somatics Check to drag the heavy thing)
    Apt x2 tests I referred to as Saving Throws. You get where I'm going with this. Roll me a SOM save to not be crushed to death. Reflex to catch the railing so you don't fall down the mineshaft.
    Durability was only ever used as the basis of a check or save if the only factor on the outcome was how well constructed the body was - no action on your part would change anything (e.g. nanoswarm eating you - though even then I'd permit a reflex save on a character hitting guardian hive).

    THere's no need for a proficiency checkbox, as far as I can tell. It's just saying that you can use an aptitude for a test if you didn't put points in the skill, much as you can in 1E.

    Reading the chapter myself, I like Gumshoe et al, so am curious to see where things go. I'm also coming at this from a relatively fresh pov, since I haven't had a chance to play 1E.

    Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were, but without it we go nowhere.

    Decivre Decivre's picture
    Just realized an inherent

    Just realized an inherent flaw of the rest system. Is the rest limitation based on Earth time (2 short rests and 1 long rest every 24 hours), or whatever planet you happen to be on? Because this could be problematic for, say, a tidally-locked exoplanet or moon. Or even just a place with extremely-long days.

    Laskeutua wrote:
    This sounds inelegant to me, but I've a reason for being biased. 33 and 66 are already crit thresholds and I don't see why doubling up on their significance is useful - it's already a pain when players insist on trying to squeeze out a couple extra points to hit a crit threshold (good thing 55 is a solid number to reach and easy to work with).
    Overweighting those thresholds is something I can see awkward problems with. 30 and 60 already have a similar importance as it stands, albeit for different reasons (30 being the aptitude max for nearly all morphs, 60 being the 'softcap' for character generation), so why shift these goalposts ever so slightly askew?

    There are some interesting properties of those numbers on a d100.

    By splitting the die at exactly 33 and 66, they've made it so that there are exactly 30 non-critical results between each interval (so there are 30 non-criticals between 00 and 33, 30 between 33 and 66 and 30 between 66 and 99). This means a perfectly even distribution of these three roll target areas that should be fairly easy to remember. Also, doing so at the critical marker is more elegant than saying "32 or less for double superior failure, 34 or better for superior success".

    Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.

    Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

    Laskeutua Laskeutua's picture
    zkline wrote:Laskeutua wrote

    zkline wrote:
    Laskeutua wrote:
    Alright, lets do this...

    Quote:
    If you lack the skill you need to make a test, you can rely on your character’s innate talents and default to the skill’s linked aptitude instead (see Aptitudes, p. XX). For example, if you lack Guns skill, you can still shoot using your Reflexes aptitude as the target number.
    There is no modifier for defaulting, but critical successes are ignored.

    Wait, does this mean there's a checkbox for 'proficiency' on character sheets now? because honestly, given the nature of the system that seems like an arbitrary hurdle to jump though in an already lengthy chargen process. If the character sheets are laid out anything like 1st ed, then it's just going to be frustrating to keep tabs on.

    In current rules, I just treat skill tests with whatever was on the character sheet, no defaulting to me simply meant you cannot use related skills - what was listed was what you got, no arguments. Simpler that way.
    No arbitrary penalties, as given the stakes that EP can get into and how painful failure can be (pass a durability test or a nanoswarm eats you alive) the low skill rating is penalty enough. The penalty for deferring to a different skill however is reasonable, and I'm all for that rule.

    I'd also like to use this space to add something I houseruled to consolidate the inconsistent, x3 and x2 chaff that littered the books:
    Apt x3 tests I referred to as Aptitude Checks, used them in edge cases where skills make no sense - (like, Somatics Check to drag the heavy thing)
    Apt x2 tests I referred to as Saving Throws. You get where I'm going with this. Roll me a SOM save to not be crushed to death. Reflex to catch the railing so you don't fall down the mineshaft.
    Durability was only ever used as the basis of a check or save if the only factor on the outcome was how well constructed the body was - no action on your part would change anything (e.g. nanoswarm eating you - though even then I'd permit a reflex save on a character hitting guardian hive).

    THere's no need for a proficiency checkbox, as far as I can tell. It's just saying that you can use an aptitude for a test if you didn't put points in the skill, much as you can in 1E.

    Reading the chapter myself, I like Gumshoe et al, so am curious to see where things go. I'm also coming at this from a relatively fresh pov, since I haven't had a chance to play 1E.

    You might want to clean up the quote here, it's nested weirdly.

    Keeping track of whether a character can crit or not is an important detail - a lucky crit can turn a loss into a victory, and a 1 point investment into a couple of arbitrary skills to 'activate' crits in them sounds...
    Well, it sounds like ticking a proficiency checkbox.

    And it means that players are going to be forced to 'activate' crits in arbitrary skills by investing a skill point in them that they might not have otherwise wanted to spend.

    Honestly, I just don't see the point in removing the chance of critting for defaulted skills, it's hard to determine what's being defaulted and what's not in some cases (such as a player investing a couple spare points into rounding a skill to an even number, because they had those points to spare).
    Moreover, when boiled down, at apt 40, which takes considerable investment to get to in the first place, a defaulted skill still only has 4% chance of critting.
    It's a tiny number, and a player who manages a crit off that number in a clutch, really terrible situation is going to feel incredible for getting out in one piece if they manage it.
    It's exactly the kind of rule I'd ignore if I were GM'ing because I have enough crap to keep track of.

    Decivre wrote:

    Laskeutua wrote:
    This sounds inelegant to me, but I've a reason for being biased. 33 and 66 are already crit thresholds and I don't see why doubling up on their significance is useful - it's already a pain when players insist on trying to squeeze out a couple extra points to hit a crit threshold (good thing 55 is a solid number to reach and easy to work with).
    Overweighting those thresholds is something I can see awkward problems with. 30 and 60 already have a similar importance as it stands, albeit for different reasons (30 being the aptitude max for nearly all morphs, 60 being the 'softcap' for character generation), so why shift these goalposts ever so slightly askew?

    There are some interesting properties of those numbers on a d100.

    By splitting the die at exactly 33 and 66, they've made it so that there are exactly 30 non-critical results between each interval (so there are 30 non-criticals between 00 and 33, 30 between 33 and 66 and 30 between 66 and 99). This means a perfectly even distribution of these three roll target areas that should be fairly easy to remember. Also, doing so at the critical marker is more elegant than saying "32 or less for double superior failure, 34 or better for superior success".

    That actually made me pause and consider things - not something that happens often.
    It's a pretty thing to consider from a purely abstract, numbers divorced from the application kind of a way, and I guess if you were coming at it from that angle, it would seem more elegant/make more sense to handle it from that approach.

    To clarify some meaning here, because I'll be using these terms: softcap is 'can be exceeded but inefficient to do so' while hardcap is 'system says no, you can't go beyond this point'.
    I'm thinking of things more in relation to other standards shown in the system: 30 is aptitude softcap, 40 is aptitude hardcap. 60 is skill softcap. 80 is is another softcap, harder to push past. 90 is hardcap.
    Therefore the thresholds I see that a player would care about in chargen is 30, 40, 60, 80, 90 - because these are the numbers that determine how they place their build points. Without knowing that spread of even distribution, 33 and 66 kind of sound arbitrary, and some players might even see it as a 'tax' of sorts (and believe me, talk to D&D players sometime about those kind of taxes they feel the system imposes upon them, you'll be there all day) - whereas numbers that relate to system caps feel less tax-like and less arbitrary as there's something inherently tangible that can be related to the character creation process that a player could identify.

    Decivre Decivre's picture
    Laskeutua wrote:To clarify

    Laskeutua wrote:
    To clarify some meaning here, because I'll be using these terms: softcap is 'can be exceeded but inefficient to do so' while hardcap is 'system says no, you can't go beyond this point'.
    I'm thinking of things more in relation to other standards shown in the system: 30 is aptitude softcap, 40 is aptitude hardcap. 60 is skill softcap. 80 is is another softcap, harder to push past. 90 is hardcap.
    Therefore the thresholds I see that a player would care about in chargen is 30, 40, 60, 80, 90 - because these are the numbers that determine how they place their build points. Without knowing that spread of even distribution, 33 and 66 kind of sound arbitrary, and some players might even see it as a 'tax' of sorts (and believe me, talk to D&D players sometime about those kind of taxes they feel the system imposes upon them, you'll be there all day) - whereas numbers that relate to system caps feel less tax-like and less arbitrary as there's something inherently tangible that can be related to the character creation process that a player could identify.

    Out of curiosity, where did you get the 90 as hardcap number? I only ask because the original game's hardcap was 99 (core page 152). I remember that because I once tried starting a debate about the uselessness of that final point (99 still counts as a failure).

    Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.

    Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

    Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture
    We haven't seen how character

    We haven't seen how character creation works, skill and aptitude soft caps may have been moved or changed. Purchasing skills may have changed as well.

    That's a really good catch for rest Decivre, Venus has ~118 earth day long days, so only allowing a long rest about every 4 months would be a problem. Specifying earth days (or 24 SI hours of proper time, so to make sure gate-stuff doesn't mess with the rules)

    Laskeutua Laskeutua's picture
    Decivre wrote:

    Decivre wrote:

    Out of curiosity, where did you get the 90 as hardcap number? I only ask because the original game's hardcap was 99 (core page 152). I remember that because I once tried starting a debate about the uselessness of that final point (99 still counts as a failure).

    90 is the highest a skill can be raised to in character creation without the use of external gear or implants. It requires that a character either invests in specialisations or in the Expert positive trait.

    I argue that this implies that 91+ is meant to be a failing roll even though nothing in the rules explicitly states so (in fact the only thing I could find was that 99 is always a critical failure), but I'm also fully aware that I might be alone in this perception and that most would disagree with me.
    Worth mentioning that rolls are only supposed to be taken if: there is a risk of failure and/or there is something of value at stake. I don't consider a 1% chance of failure a meaningful risk as a GM, but a 9% chance, with 1% reserved for exceptional failure, is something I'm happier to work with.

    RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
    Trappedinwikipedia wrote:

    Trappedinwikipedia wrote:

    Hover and Thrust Vector are not explicitly stated to not work in vacuum like several other flight related movement rates. It that intentional so those two do work in space?

    Finally, it looks like Coordination might be gone (from the blurb about defaulting on Guns rolls on page 3). I hope that is not the case because splitting Dex into two different skills was a nice thing, Dex is too often a god-stat in RPGs. That said, I don't think it'd really break the game too badly in EP, I just liked it. Of course, as I haven't seen the skill list I might be totally off base here.

    Hover and thrust do work in vacuum if you have a source of air/reaction mass/etc. We'll clarify that.

    COO is indeed gone, combined into REF, in an effort to trim our redundancies. Plus it worked better for the pools to have two aptitudes linked to each pool.

    Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

    RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
    Decivre wrote:Why the sudden

    Decivre wrote:

    • Why the sudden use of d6s? I'm not complaining, but I kind of liked that the game only required d10s. And The only uses of d6s that I know of (bonus damage and refreshing pools) feel to me like they'd be better with d10s. Why this change?

    We wanted a bit more granularity than d10s provide.

    Sure, we could have gone with d5, but in my experience, most players don't have an actual d5 sitting around, they roll a d10 and divide by 2, and it's slow. I've watched people struggle with it at the game table too many times. Everyone has d6s, it's easier to just grab it and roll. YMMV.

    That said, if you prefer d5s ... close enough, run with d5s instead.

    Quote:

  • I hope that Flex won't be a morph pool, because I think it odd to have narrative control be a morph trait. I can't even imagine what a morph that grants more narrative power might look like. It feels like it should be the replacement for the original Moxie pool.
  • It is a morph pool. It's more common among low-end morphs, who don't have other pools/advantages, as an offset and to make them still worthwhile.

    Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

    RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
    HariSeldon wrote:

    HariSeldon wrote:

    In 2nd Ed. I get a finite pool of points to spend. If my pool is exhausted, I get no benefit from my morph. But what does that mean in game terms? Has my morph stopped working? Why does having a little rest make it start working again, albeit only for a short time? It doesn't feel so futuristic and high-tech any more, because now I'm worried about whether it will run out of juice at a crucial moment.

    As others have mentioned, this feels like it has been influenced by Gumshoe, a system which personally I never play for precisely this reason. It feels very weird to me that a character can excel at one moment, and be entirely ordinary the next, without any in-game change having taken place.

    From a mechanical point of view, I realise that re-calculating skills when you re-sleeve can seem like a bit of a hassle, but it's a hassle which is over quite quickly in the grand scheme of things. More importantly it doesn't take any time during actual play, whereas pools require more in-game book-keeping.

    View it as your morph gets tired. Sure, you're Fury is fast, and you can go faster and more often in a fight, but even a Fury is going to get worn down to "normal" human levels after a while.

    I get that there's a bit of weirdness to it, but we simply had to get rid of aptitude modifiers. Recalculating all of your skills was a pain to many people, and it was often a pain during gameplay if you had to resleeve in the middle of a scenario. It is among the the top complaints we received about 1E. So they had to go. But we still wanted morphs to have an impact on your abilities, and this pool system seems to work pretty decently. So far in playtests, running dry on pools hasn't been too big of an issue -- we actually cut out some refreshes, because we had too many. If anything, we have a concern that some players may not spend their pools because they have a tendency to hoard points until they need them.

    I haven't played Gumshoe, so I can't speak to the similarities, but these sort of narrative control mechanics have been getting tossed around for years (and we had something similar as an optional rule in Transhuman).

    Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

    Decivre Decivre's picture
    Trappedinwikipedia wrote:We

    Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
    We haven't seen how character creation works, skill and aptitude soft caps may have been moved or changed. Purchasing skills may have changed as well.

    That's a really good catch for rest Decivre, Venus has ~118 earth day long days, so only allowing a long rest about every 4 months would be a problem. Specifying earth days (or 24 SI hours of proper time, so to make sure gate-stuff doesn't mess with the rules)


    As a recommendation on this, perhaps it would be easier to specify the amount of time you must spend active between rests, rather than a limit per day. Hours, minutes and seconds will likely stay the same regardless of locale, so a limit of, for example, 6 hours between short rests, and 16 hours between long rests minimum might work better than 2 short and 1 long per day.

    Ooh, and it could open up the possibility of implants and sleights that manipulate your capacity to rest....

    Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.

    Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

    asura8 asura8's picture
    RobBoyle wrote:Quote:

    RobBoyle wrote:
    Quote:

    [*]I hope that Flex won't be a morph pool, because I think it odd to have narrative control be a morph trait. I can't even imagine what a morph that grants more narrative power might look like. It feels like it should be the replacement for the original Moxie pool.

    It is a morph pool. It's more common among low-end morphs, who don't have other pools/advantages, as an offset and to make them still worthwhile.

    Woah. Woah woah woah. Stop there. I already know I am not the only person who has voiced this opinion online. One of our big fears for the Flex pool was that it was going to be a Morph trait. It just does not seem to fit there.

    I understand that it is a balancing mechanic for low-end morphs in that form, but there has to be better cost related ways to offset that. The setting is about transcending your humanity on a fundamental level. Why would Flats and Synths have a higher amount of the most powerful Pool? That is intensely troubling.

    What about having a worse morph is suggestive that you should be more capable of taking narrative control? It really should be limited to Ego Traits like Good Luck / Patron / etc, which gives you a concrete connection to help explain the narrative control.

    Laskeutua Laskeutua's picture
    asura8 wrote:RobBoyle wrote

    asura8 wrote:
    RobBoyle wrote:
    Quote:

    [*]I hope that Flex won't be a morph pool, because I think it odd to have narrative control be a morph trait. I can't even imagine what a morph that grants more narrative power might look like. It feels like it should be the replacement for the original Moxie pool.

    It is a morph pool. It's more common among low-end morphs, who don't have other pools/advantages, as an offset and to make them still worthwhile.

    Woah. Woah woah woah. Stop there. I already know I am not the only person who has voiced this opinion online. One of our big fears for the Flex pool was that it was going to be a Morph trait. It just does not seem to fit there.

    I understand that it is a balancing mechanic for low-end morphs in that form, but there has to be better cost related ways to offset that. The setting is about transcending your humanity on a fundamental level. Why would Flats and Synths have a higher amount of the most powerful Pool? That is intensely troubling.

    What about having a worse morph is suggestive that you should be more capable of taking narrative control? It really should be limited to Ego Traits like Good Luck / Patron / etc, which gives you a concrete connection to help explain the narrative control.

    "So our party consists of a Street Samurai, a Hacker in a high end synth, an AGI drone jammer and there's also Jeff, the Fate Point Bitch."
    I have to agree with Asura8, mechanical parity despite setting themes seems... an act of wanton dissonance: mechanics should reinforce the conceit of the setting.

    CP was the balance/parity lever, is this an implication that morphs are not costed via build points anymore?

    RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
    Janusfaced wrote:

    Janusfaced wrote:

    It sounds doubles-and-succeed can be a critical failure sometime. If I roled 33 against TN 50 but my opponent roled 44 against TN 50, It means I scored a critical failure. Am I correct?
    If so, how the 33/66 rule are applied on it? Is it a superior success, because "TN or less" and "33 or more"? Or a superior fail, because "critical FAILURE" and "66 or less"?

    You are correct, the 33, which would normally be a crit success, would be a crit fail in that situation. Crits overrule superior results (you can't have both), so it would simply count as a critical failure.

    This is one of the rules I am interested in playtest feedback on, though, so let me know what you think of it.

    Janusfaced wrote:

    Fantastic idea, but I have some questions.
    1: if they are acquired upon sleeving. can resleeving refresh them?
    2: none of pools are rerated with COO aptitude. Does it gone?
    3: is other upgrading ("one superior success to two" or "two superior successes to critical") possible?
    4: if Biomods (require 4 hours sleep) can reduce long rest time, can Circadian Regulation (require 2 hours sleep) reduce it also? How about synthmorph (require no sleep)? How about rests in subjective time simulspaces?

    1. The way we currently have it, spent pool points are carried over to the new morph, to avoid sleeving just to refresh pools.
    2. COO has been combined into REF.
    3. Yes.
    4. 2 hours with circadian, yes. Synthmorphs and infomorphs still must take the time to rest (gotta defrag and clean out those caches or something). VR is a section I haven't gotten to yet; I have some ideas but I'm open to suggestions ;)

    Janusfaced wrote:

    Task Actions
    I am fine about modifiers changes (it is used to be +10 at +50% and -10 at -10%). But I liked "I know it failured at Mof% time later". Does the rule gone?

    Just an oversight, I'll add something like that back in.

    Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

    RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
    GRAAK wrote:

    GRAAK wrote:

    Proposal:
    What if there is only the old Moxies pool but they can be spent only to some skills/characteristics depending on the morph and its implants?
    For ex: a Fury would let you spend Moxies for physical rolls, but a Menton wouldn't!
    But if that very Menton mount Reflex Booster you can spend Moxie also for Fray and Melee rolls.

    We considered something like this, but it doesn't quite address the different degrees of advantage different morphs provide. When it comes to mental things, for example, hyperbrights > mentons > exalts > flats. You could give a hyperbright more Moxie, of course, but if it then gets neurachem, that more Moxie translates into it being better at Fray than, say, an Olympian. Ultimately we just decided we liked separate pools better.

    Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

    mellonbread mellonbread's picture
    I'm sure some of my feedback

    I'm sure some of my feedback will already have been covered in this thread, but since the number of people expressing a specific idea, opinion or feedback in a playtest can be important, I'll go ahead anyway.

    Making the action economy more specific is good. Yeah it brings us closer to the D&D model of "move action, action, bonus action and reaction", but it beats the old "complex action and as many quick actions as you can get away with."

    The new dice system changes feel unnecessary. If the goal is to reduce complexity then adding a list of things that happen at specific breakpoints isn't necessary, the old axiom of 'bigger is better' for success was good enough. Yes there were specific cases tied to things like certain weapons, but those won't fit in an exhaustive list of bennies for rolling well anyway. Ditto with criticals, although I'd need to see more of the new combat system to judge those changes. I also don't think the tiers of failure are really necessary. I understand it's supposed to address the problem in old EP that while calculating MoS was easy, MoF required a numeric operation to compute. But I can't remember MoF ever actually coming up in play, it was always just failures versus critical failures.

    I'm extremely suspicious of "rests". I think they could be nice if they were used to highlight differences between synths, pods and biomorphs, or to give more of a spotlight to things like hibernoids which were basically fluff morphs with little mechanical distinction. On the other hand, I do tentatively agree with other posters who have suggested tying them to 'scenes' or something more abstract rather than codified lengths of earth time.

    I have to attach a caveat to all these opinions.

    Quote:
    One thing we have found to happen in the past, when releasing more playtest stuff at once: people jump to the more complicated stuff, immediately begin making characters, etc. -- using their understanding of the _previous_ edition to guide them through it. By giving everyone a couple days to absorb the basics, we think the next few chapters will flow more smoothly for both the testers, and those of us collecting and analyzing the feedback. :-)

    It makes it very hard to decide how I feel about 'the basics' when the information I need to form a nuanced opinion doesn't exist yet. I don't mind waiting, but if I only have a small part of the picture all I can really do is nitpick what I have in front of me without any real idea how it will work during play. Yes, the OP asks mainly for proofreading and clarifying questions, but most of the posts here are about the content and I would expect that to continue through successive iterations.

    Also in the OP, we've got a request for

    Quote:
    * Feedback on how the rules worked in actual gameplay

    Which we can't really give yet.

    Congratulations on the successful Kickstarter, looking forward to more updates.

    Did you hear the one about the guy who became a fence?

    Spoiler: Highlight to view
    They say he was a real posthuman
    RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
    Laskeutua wrote:Brings up

    Laskeutua wrote:
    Brings up another question: when's the character sheet drop? I find that the character sheet is the most useful tool in judging how a system functions.

    We have an ad-hoc one that I'll see if we can get updated in time to post with Making Characters next week.

    Laskeutua wrote:

    I'd also like to use this space to add something I houseruled to consolidate the inconsistent, x3 and x2 chaff that littered the books:
    Apt x3 tests I referred to as Aptitude Checks, used them in edge cases where skills make no sense - (like, Somatics Check to drag the heavy thing)

    You'll be happy to hear that we have cleaned a lot of this up and also instilled an Aptitude Check system of apt x 3.

    Laskeutua wrote:

    ... Another question then, would you prefer new posts when the game gets amended or edited posts?

    New posts, please.

    Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

    Decivre Decivre's picture
    Laskeutua wrote:"So our party

    Laskeutua wrote:
    "So our party consists of a Street Samurai, a Hacker in a high end synth, an AGI drone jammer and there's also Jeff, the Fate Point Bitch."
    I have to agree with Asura8, mechanical parity despite setting themes seems... an act of wanton dissonance: mechanics should reinforce the conceit of the setting.

    More to the issue, it is strange to me that the tradeoff for using a weaker morph is to get the most powerful morph pool available. If that's what Flex is for, it needs to come down in overall power.

    I used to play a Luck Adept in Shadowrun... a character whose whole gimmick was dumping as much into Edge as possible, and exploiting that for every advantage... so I have no problem with a character built around luck. My problem is that luck is somehow tied to inferior morph choice.

    Alternatively, this might be used to balance out a low-stat, high cost morph. Flats are often rare and valuable, it makes sense that a GM with a mind for balance would want you to get something out of that price. That said, it should still be heavily checked; it's the most powerful pool.

    Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.

    Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

    Laskeutua Laskeutua's picture
    Decivre wrote:Laskeutua wrote

    Decivre wrote:
    Laskeutua wrote:
    "So our party consists of a Street Samurai, a Hacker in a high end synth, an AGI drone jammer and there's also Jeff, the Fate Point Bitch."
    I have to agree with Asura8, mechanical parity despite setting themes seems... an act of wanton dissonance: mechanics should reinforce the conceit of the setting.

    More to the issue, it is strange to me that the tradeoff for using a weaker morph is to get the most powerful morph pool available. If that's what Flex is for, it needs to come down in overall power.

    I used to play a Luck Adept in Shadowrun... a character whose whole gimmick was dumping as much into Edge as possible, and exploiting that for every advantage... so I have no problem with a character built around luck. My problem is that luck is somehow tied to inferior morph choice.

    Alternatively, this might be used to balance out a low-stat, high cost morph. Flats are often rare and valuable, it makes sense that a GM with a mind for balance would want you to get something out of that price. That said, it should still be heavily checked; it's the most powerful pool.

    Getting that Luck Adept in Shadowrun is kind of a niche thing though, not the easiest character to put together nor the easiest to play and relied on in depth player knowledge.

    My issue is when things like that become the low hanging fruit of character generation, it inevitably becomes part of the party 'checklist'. Combat character, check - tech character, check - face, check - fate point bitch, check. How many times have you joined a D&D table only to be told 'by the way... we don't have a healer... hint, hint'.

    Now, if this were specific to flats sure, I can accept that. I've come upon EP players who play Jovians and go in with a hardcore humanist bent. That specific case I'm fine with because it opens up a particular theme for EP to explore. But if you were to tell me a case gets that same flex entitlement... that's where you're going to lose me.

    RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
    asura8 wrote:[One of our big

    asura8 wrote:
    [One of our big fears for the Flex pool was that it was going to be a Morph trait. It just does not seem to fit there.

    I understand that it is a balancing mechanic for low-end morphs in that form, but there has to be better cost related ways to offset that. The setting is about transcending your humanity on a fundamental level. Why would Flats and Synths have a higher amount of the most powerful Pool? That is intensely troubling.

    What about having a worse morph is suggestive that you should be more capable of taking narrative control? It really should be limited to Ego Traits like Good Luck / Patron / etc, which gives you a concrete connection to help explain the narrative control.

    Fair enough, but you may want to hold out until you see the morph stats. It's not overwhelming. They literally get 1 or 2 points of Flex and nothing else. So far it has been well received in playtests.

    In my experience, narrative control options tend to amount to offsetting disadvantages, correcting player oversights, and smoothing out gameplay (often by skipping past minor details to get to the good stuff). It is useful for leveling the scales, but rarely provides any sort of overwhelming advantage. So it has worked out well so far for PCs in disadvantaged morphs.

    Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

    Pages

    Topic locked