Game Mechanics - Open Discussion

305 posts / 0 new
Last post
LatwPIAT LatwPIAT's picture
UnitOmega wrote:As a player

UnitOmega wrote:
As a player you have to spend your resources wisely and accept sometimes you might "lose" them, and your GM should as just general "being a good GM person" steer you toward making relevant choices but sometimes your character just needs to have a lot of points in Swim.

Good GMs are ideal, but since you can't always guarantee that any given GM will be good (first-time GMs rarely are, for one!) having a system that ensures neither GM nor player messes up too badly is a pretty good thing to have!

@-rep +2
C-rep +1

sysop sysop's picture
At this point this sounds

At this point this sounds almost like it needs to be addressed in an entirely different section of the material under "Running a Good Game" or "Accounting for EP specific situations" instead of integrated straight into the rules section area. A good or bad GM can be the most important part of a game and this is an aspect probably better handled at that level.

I fix broken things. If you need something fixed, mention it on the suggestions board.
I also sometimes speak as website administrator and/ moderator.

o11o1 o11o1's picture
sysop wrote:At this point

sysop wrote:
At this point this sounds almost like it needs to be addressed in an entirely different section of the material under "Running a Good Game" or "Accounting for EP specific situations" instead of integrated straight into the rules section area. A good or bad GM can be the most important part of a game and this is an aspect probably better handled at that level.

Hiding character creation advice behind the "Players please don't read this part" section strikes me as paradoxical.

A slight smell of ions....

LatwPIAT LatwPIAT's picture
sysop wrote:At this point

sysop wrote:
At this point this sounds almost like it needs to be addressed in an entirely different section of the material under "Running a Good Game" or "Accounting for EP specific situations" instead of integrated straight into the rules section area. A good or bad GM can be the most important part of a game and this is an aspect probably better handled at that level.

I'd say the opposite; rigid rules that prevent specific situations from ever occurring can prevent a bad or mediocre GM from making mistakes, while GM advice can only suggests ways to avoid it, and is harder to internalize and far more easily skipped over or forgotten.

(You work with computer systems, right? The best way to stop a user from doing something stupid is to make it impossible for them to do something stupid, not to warn them against it in the manual. Which is why you sanitize inputs instead of simply asking users very nicely not to enter text in number fields.)

@-rep +2
C-rep +1

Decivre Decivre's picture
o11o1 wrote:sysop wrote:At

o11o1 wrote:
Hiding character creation advice behind the "Players please don't read this part" section strikes me as paradoxical.

Perhaps it can be in both places regarding modes of transportation. If the team is going by ship everywhere, or working locally most of the time, there's really no change. But if egocasting is going to be the common means of travel, then informed players will know what exactly to buy from the book, without the need for a verbal tutorial from the GM (you can still do it; I just think it'd be nice if the book had it, in case the GM wasn't experienced enough to give it).

Also as a bonus, it acts as a reminder for the GM about picking mode of travel for the campaign. Which is a good thing to have for those inexperienced GMs who might not have even thought about it yet. Even I can be absent-minded and it might be handy to receive a "the book told me that I might want to not buy certain things if I'm traveling by egocast... how is the team traveling" message before I get a first look at character sheets.

Added thought: this could be an interesting way to encourage playgroups to invest in a ship, as it reduces the need to egocast and gives you a greater sense of physical permanence.

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

Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

Ian Argent Ian Argent's picture
Point buy vs packages

I've come to the conclusion that a pure point-buy system is great for veterans and people who like to wring the max efficiency out of a system (I'm one of the latter, so I am reluctant to admit this), but some kind of structure to character generation, more flexible than "pick an archetype" but more guided that "Here's a budget, here's the price list, go crazy" should be the default for character generation. Hopefully it is structured in such a way as that an "advanced" pure point buy system can generate the same modular-built characters. Something like the package system that's in Transhuman, for example, though "modernized" for EP2

Look at it this way - if the core rules were written for experienced players, we wouldn't need the ritual invocation of "this is a RolePlaying Game" taking up a couple spaces in the page count. That's not the only place that a core rule book will or shall cater to new players, either.

RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
FYI, the playtest stuff we're

FYI, the playtest stuff we're posting today contains an updated Game Mechanics section. We incorporated a bunch of the feedback so far. A few things are still under discussion.

You'll note we renamed "rests" as "recharges" -- did not expect the backlash on that term ;)

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

Ian Argent Ian Argent's picture
RobBoyle wrote:FYI, the

RobBoyle wrote:
FYI, the playtest stuff we're posting today contains an updated Game Mechanics section. We incorporated a bunch of the feedback so far. A few things are still under discussion.

You'll note we renamed "rests" as "recharges" -- did not expect the backlash on that term ;)

Just yoinked from DTRPG; will chew thereupon

the8bitdeity the8bitdeity's picture
Is there list of changes from

Is there list of changes from the previous iteration?

RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
the8bitdeity wrote:Is there

the8bitdeity wrote:
Is there list of changes from the previous iteration?

Sorry, but no, didn't have the time to maintain a change log while I did updates.

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

TheGrue TheGrue's picture
RobBoyle wrote:the8bitdeity

RobBoyle wrote:
the8bitdeity wrote:
Is there list of changes from the previous iteration?

Sorry, but no, didn't have the time to maintain a change log while I did updates.


Not to sound ungrateful Rob, but going forward it would really help with this whole playtest process to be able to quickly reference what's been changed.

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

Ian Argent Ian Argent's picture
Quick Take on the update

Glad to see day clarified as 24 hours for the purposes of recharges. I'll wait and see what subjective vs objective time brings to that. (I can see it going either way)

Snipped the rest to bring over to the chargen thread.

LatwPIAT LatwPIAT's picture
Right, so, updated stuff!

Right, so, updated stuff!

Difficulty Modifiers
"Slightly", and "Very" modifiers for Easy and Hard is a great improvement upon the language used. (However, I always wonder what distinguishes "Hard" from "Very Hard". Better detail on exactly what a modifier is supposed to represent might be good here. I seem to recall CoC 7e was pretty good about this, describing Hard and Very Hard in terms of what kind of character could expect to accomplish what at the different difficulty levels.)

Critical Examples
I still think the list could do with some more examples that aren't combat-related.

Superior Successes on Opposed Tests
As written it's still possible to get a Superior Success while losing an opposed test. If this is intentional, it should be noted to avoid confusion. If this is not the intent, the 33/66 Rule or the rules for opposed tests should be rewritten to disallow it.

Ties on Opposed Tests
It's still not clear what should be done should be done ties appear on an opposed test and a deadlock would be inappropriate.

Tied Criticals on Opposed Tests
It says "If both opponents roll critical successes, the higher roll (or skill) critically succeeds, the lower critically fails" Well, which is it? Is it higher skill or higher roll? If you want higher skill to be a tiebreaker for tied rolls, that should be explicit; there's currently no rule that says what happens on equal critical success rolls on an Opposed Test. (And if Skill is a tiebreaker, what happens when two characters have the same rating in the skill?)

Movement in non-Earth Gravities
Yay! You fixed this! Thank you!

Standing Up and Jumping
I'd still like it to be made clear whether jumping distances are halved when Standing Up in the same turn as you Jump.

Microlight and Winged Movement
As written, all morphs that would move by winged movement would probably also be classified as microlights - might be worth noting that microlights doesn't include flapping-wing locomotion.

Submarines still Full Move faster than Boats!
What is up with this?

@-rep +2
C-rep +1

o11o1 o11o1's picture
Playtest Packet Page 11 wrote

Playtest Packet Page 11 wrote:
>>> Allow Additional Gear Buying at CharGen?

As they say, "You can't take it with you". I vote NAY to buying extra gear at chargen.

As a compromise, if it needs to be allowed, focus on buying a second gear package rather than letting people buy ala-carte.

A slight smell of ions....

Ian Argent Ian Argent's picture
LatwPIAT wrote:

LatwPIAT wrote:

Ties on Opposed Tests
It's still not clear what should be done should be done ties appear on an opposed test and a deadlock would be inappropriate.

Ties go to the defender? That's a common metarule.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Microlight and Winged Movement
As written, all morphs that would move by winged movement would probably also be classified as microlights - might be worth noting that microlights doesn't include flapping-wing locomotion.

Which would, presumably, use Athletics? The weirdness here is some of the synthmorphs who ought logically use Pilot: Aerospace for their Winged modes (Dragonfly, and if Kites are ever brought up to EP2, for example). I guess I'd say "use Athletics or Pilot: Aerospace, as the GM deems appropriate."

LatwPIAT wrote:
Submarines still Full Move faster than Boats!
What is up with this?

Submarines in real life move faster than boats for the same power to mass ratio, and assuming similarly efficient streamlining. I forget the details as to why, other than "Hydrodynamics."

Archon79 Archon79's picture
Why reemove these aspects

The removal of money seems odd, and destrys the crunch that makes the differences in economic model clear, doin, in my view large amounts of damage to the central human conflict of the setting, the scarcity vs post scarcity economic models and the societies that spring from that, reducing everything to 'flavours of rep' flattens what was vitally important to window dressing. The removal of the speed attribute on the other hand takes away a large part of the attraction of EP combat, sorry moving like my character is in the Matrix, and having that vast disparity in power between the cyberneticly enhanced combat morph and a flat or an infomorph and a meat hacker was central, made characters feel transhuman in a visceral way, one that the replacement handfuls of beads mechanics absolutely do not.

LatwPIAT LatwPIAT's picture
Ian Argent wrote:LatwPIAT

Ian Argent wrote:
LatwPIAT wrote:

Ties on Opposed Tests
It's still not clear what should be done should be done ties appear on an opposed test and a deadlock would be inappropriate.

Ties go to the defender? That's a common metarule.

Still needs to written, black on white, in the rulebook. Besides, not all actions have "defenders".

@-rep +2
C-rep +1

TheGrue TheGrue's picture
Ian Argent wrote:Submarines

Ian Argent wrote:
Submarines in real life move faster than boats for the same power to mass ratio, and assuming similarly efficient streamlining. I forget the details as to why, other than "Hydrodynamics."

Since the power required to achieve a given speed is proportional to submerged surface area, this is true only of displacement hulls. Surface vessels built for speed use planing hulls, and are capable of much greater speeds.

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

o11o1 o11o1's picture
Various other notes

Morph Pools are a lot lower than some of us were theorycrafting. not a bad thing, just takes me a bit to recalibrate.

I'm mainly looking at the lower order morphs, but it seems to me that 1 CP is worth about 2 points in pools, or 1 point in pools plus either a DUR boost or a nifty 'Ware.

Bouncers and Hibernoids seem overcosted, they have stats that look on par with a Ruster or Neotenic, but cost as much as an Olympian?

I see that the Futura is 2 pool-points above a Sylph, and costs 1 CP more, though the sylph has a couple social mods, which is a hole in my CP-to-what-you-get theory.

Why no 0-CP pod option? Is this a setting choice to highlight the upshots of the Pod approach?

Worker Pods cost twice as much as the basic, but only have 1 more Vigor and no extra DUR, and lose a Flex. If they had an extra implant or two it would make more sense to me.

Neo-Octopus don't seem to have the Common Extra: Venom Sacs listed.

Sad to see the Takka Octo-Synth not make it in. Also sad to see no "cheap" options for a Flexbot (Bouba comes to mind), but I can get why it was done. That said, the sidebar on flexbots did not clarify if you are supposed to total up all the pools from all your modules. I assume yes because of the numbers, but it would be nice to head that argument off in advance.

It might be smart to list the negative traits before the positive traits (I always find it easier to pick them first.

On a related matter to the questions of buying gear during chargen, should there be a sidebar to the (admitably min-maxy) option of taking a Flat with a lot of negative morph traits, using the savings on positive ego stuff and then attempting to ditch it the first chance you get? My house rule is that negative stuff on your morph gets you positive stuff again on that morph (or I suppose gear) to minimize the incentive to abuse the system. Most of my players aren't that big of dirty cheaters though.

Resources Trait should include a line about the implications of having it at 0 (IE, not having it). If Resources 1 means you have a cubical in a beehive, does Resources 0 imply that you're out living on the street, or just that you're operating paycheck-to-paycheck on multiple jobs? I ask mostly for the case of players that forget to save points for it.

Upon skimming, I like the gear packs overall. Will need to sit down later and try to back-calculate the costs of things.

On the Fake Ego ID, how many points of Rep does it start with? a full on 60/40 split, or something weaker?

Also, where did money go? I understand if it's being folded into a new system, but it doesn't seem to have been mentioned at all.

A slight smell of ions....

Ian Argent Ian Argent's picture
Archon79 wrote:The removal of

Archon79 wrote:
The removal of money seems odd, and destrys the crunch that makes the differences in economic model clear, doin, in my view large amounts of damage to the central human conflict of the setting, the scarcity vs post scarcity economic models and the societies that spring from that, reducing everything to 'flavours of rep' flattens what was vitally important to window dressing. The removal of the speed attribute on the other hand takes away a large part of the attraction of EP combat, sorry moving like my character is in the Matrix, and having that vast disparity in power between the cyberneticly enhanced combat morph and a flat or an infomorph and a meat hacker was central, made characters feel transhuman in a visceral way, one that the replacement handfuls of beads mechanics absolutely do not.

We don't see the economy in play yet, only the economy in character generation. That having been said, for the purposes of play, tracking how much cash a player has is an extra fiddly bit, and for most purposes, the Resources mechanics will work with less bookkeeping.

LatwPIAT wrote:
Ian Argent wrote:
LatwPIAT wrote:

Ties on Opposed Tests
It's still not clear what should be done should be done ties appear on an opposed test and a deadlock would be inappropriate.

Ties go to the defender? That's a common metarule.

Still needs to written, black on white, in the rulebook. Besides, not all actions have "defenders".

I should have been more clear that I was suggesting that they spell it out. If no defender, then both fail.

TheGrue wrote:
Ian Argent wrote:
Submarines in real life move faster than boats for the same power to mass ratio, and assuming similarly efficient streamlining. I forget the details as to why, other than "Hydrodynamics."

Since the power required to achieve a given speed is proportional to submerged surface area, this is true only of displacement hulls. Surface vessels built for speed use planing hulls, and are capable of much greater speeds.

Do we expect to have a morph with a planing hull? Movement types seem to be in place for the use of morphs, not vehicles, they're really quite slow for motor vehicles; in which case I don't see a lot of use cases for a morph with a planing hull. If you want to go jetskiing on Titan, you're probably going to go faster than either 8/24 or 8/32. (Only place that's readily accessible I can think of off-hand in Sol System that has enough liquid surface to bother, though I suppose eventually Mars will have open bodies of water, and of course the outsystems have a couple of very nice oceans.) Sometimes you just gotta leave the complexity at the door; and the role of fast surface vessels is probably handled by Hovers or Ionics anyway; since neither are limited to water.

Thank you for the refresher on why subs are faster than displacement hulls, though - I had forgotten.

TheGrue TheGrue's picture
I mean, I don't see any

I mean, I don't see any reason why morphs with hydroplanes couldn't exist in the transhuman future...

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

Ian Argent Ian Argent's picture
Morphs with Hydroplanes

TheGrue wrote:
I mean, I don't see any reason why morphs with hydroplanes couldn't exist in the transhuman future...

Sure, but they would be even more specialized than Salamanders and Surya.

RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
LatwPIAT wrote:Critical

LatwPIAT wrote:

Critical Examples
I still think the list could do with some more examples that aren't combat-related.

I do plan to add to this later.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Movement in non-Earth Gravities
Yay! You fixed this! Thank you!

Still subject to change, as I believe this only applies to movement that relies on friction with the ground. Need to research more about other movement types.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Submarines still Full Move faster than Boats!
What is up with this?

It comes from looking up average speeds, and an assumption that most boats are not racing boats. We're just offering a default Movement Rate here, there can be a lot of variety depending on the final morph/vehicle in questions.

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
o11o1 wrote:

o11o1 wrote:

I'm mainly looking at the lower order morphs, but it seems to me that 1 CP is worth about 2 points in pools, or 1 point in pools plus either a DUR boost or a nifty 'Ware.

I pool = 2 CP. If you want to see the actual calculations, look here.

o11o1 wrote:

Neo-Octopus don't seem to have the Common Extra: Venom Sacs listed.

Was thinking of adding this actually.

o11o1 wrote:

Sad to see the Takka Octo-Synth not make it in. Also sad to see no "cheap" options for a Flexbot (Bouba comes to mind), but I can get why it was done. That said, the sidebar on flexbots did not clarify if you are supposed to total up all the pools from all your modules. I assume yes because of the numbers, but it would be nice to head that argument off in advance.

We may have room to add some morphs, so we will be taking requests on which other morphs people think are important to have in the core book.

Good catch on the flexbot pools, I'll add that in.

o11o1 wrote:

Upon skimming, I like the gear packs overall. Will need to sit down later and try to back-calculate the costs of things.

These will also be adjusted once the Gear chapter is in a more finalized state, but we will also be taking recommendations on gear that should/shouldn't be in those starting packs.

o11o1 wrote:

Also, where did money go? I understand if it's being folded into a new system, but it doesn't seem to have been mentioned at all.

All gear is given a Complexity rating that determines how long it takes to acquire whether you buy it, acquire it with rep, or nanofab it.

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

Ghostwalker Ghostwalker's picture
RobBoyle wrote: I get that

RobBoyle wrote:
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).

Sorry for repeating myself, but although the pool idea is good (i like it), it does not seem to fit for me with the proposal and concept presented in the book. As I said in the other topic, if someone has spent a milion credits to build a perfect killing machine that is almost post-human, I really hope that mechanics emulate that. And only with the pool, I doesn't look like the case. Again, it's like buying a Ferrari and get the same performance of a Beetle.

The concept presented in the setting, for me, is that a very modiefed morph it MUCH above the normal flat human. A very modified Remade SHOULD have a better perfomance, bonus, than a normal flat. And that's not the case as far I can see.

o11o1 o11o1's picture
Thanks for the feedback, RobBoyle

Looking over the spreadhseet, I now see what you mean by "1 pool = 2 CP", the last step of the calculation is to only charge 25% after totally everything up. I wasn't expecting a big final division, so maybe I was closer than I thought. ( I was simply doing the math with fractional costs in my head. )

I now also see why the Hibernoid felt overcosted, it has a predivision total of 14 CP compared to it's 16 and 17 value friends, but they all get divided and land at "4 CP final" I would suggest that it's worthwile to try to keep an eye on Morphs that can "buy more things" while still being inside the rounding error. As it is, a Hibernoid and a Ruster are within 1 CP of each other predivision, but are a full CP apart from each other post divion, purely due to how the numbers landed. An extra IMV point in one of it's pools might be good, probably to set it up with 1/1/1/2 and the various implants.

Other morphs that look oddly costed: the worker pod by your own spreadsheet, should have a cost of 3, but is given a hard-coded cost of 4? What's the useful special thing they get that's not covered by what the sheet tracts?

Likewise, the basic Pod is only barely into the final cost of 2 CP range, I would suggest that it be weakened a little bit (maybe in the DUR?) so that it can be a single-cp option along with the splicer.

A slight smell of ions....

eaton eaton's picture
Quote:The concept presented

Quote:
The concept presented in the setting, for me, is that a very modiefed morph it MUCH above the normal flat human. A very modified Remade SHOULD have a better perfomance, bonus, than a normal flat. And that's not the case as far I can see.

At the end of the day, none of the pool mechanics have been controversial save one: the elimination of SPD as a distinct morph-derived stat. In theory, none of the other stat/skill/morph simplification systems REQUIRE that speed be eliminated; it's not ego-derived so it didn't trigger the onerous resleeving calculations that other attribute bonuses did.

However, SPD is intimately related to the problem of combat that's unbalanced to the point of boredom and frustration. I've got a 6-player group that's been campaigning together for nearly 3 years now. I would say they're *fairly* experienced with EP, and they realize that combat is brutal and unforgiving. One player, however, has SPD 4 while most of the others have SPD 1. In a recent combat scenario, she *literally murdered a TITAN Warbot* before half the other players had a chance to take a turn.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that kind of burst performance in a pinch, but the EP1 speed mechanic ensures that it applies to *literally every single combat engagement the players participate in*. If we're concerned about realism, that doesn't track with a fundamental problem in nature and technology: speed is energy and resource intensive. Cheetahs can hit 80mph sprint speeds, but they can only sustain it for a short period of time. Electric cars can do 0-60 in a heartbeat, but they burn through an entire battery charge doing so unless they're economical with their acceleration.

From a pure "realism" perspective, moving to Vigor pools just as much sense as EP1 style "raw speed." A Fury may have the implants and the drugs necessary to run circles around everyone else in combat… but that's a burst of activity that burns through physical resources quickly. If they take a breather, they can pull it off a second time, perhaps even a third time… but they'll need some downtime to recuperate afterwards, or drugs, or additional special gear that replenishes their vigor between combat rounds.

Both SPD and the Vigor Pool are just mechanics that model the same world-concepts in different ways. IMO the idea that a Fury (to use the popular example) is 'no better' than a flat because it's not running double-time 24/7 isn't about gameworld realism, but attachment to the particular mechanic from EP1. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's at least stop arguing that it makes Transhumanity less Transhuman?

Ghostwalker Ghostwalker's picture
eaton wrote:(...)

eaton wrote:
(...)
From a pure "realism" perspective, moving to Vigor pools just as much sense as EP1 style "raw speed." A Fury may have the implants and the drugs necessary to run circles around everyone else in combat… but that's a burst of activity that burns through physical resources quickly. If they take a breather, they can pull it off a second time, perhaps even a third time… but they'll need some downtime to recuperate afterwards, or drugs, or additional special gear that replenishes their vigor between combat rounds.

Both SPD and the Vigor Pool are just mechanics that model the same world-concepts in different ways. IMO the idea that a Fury (to use the popular example) is 'no better' than a flat because it's not running double-time 24/7 isn't about gameworld realism, but attachment to the particular mechanic from EP1. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's at least stop arguing that it makes Transhumanity less Transhuman?

I am not talking about the Speed, but about the Aptitudes. For example, a Remade is stronger, faster, and smarter than a Flat, at least in concept. That's all my problem: the rules and the concept presented does not fit together.

The setting says that transhuman are far better than normal humans, and in some places, they even can have pitty them. The Aptitude Bonus in 1st Edition represent that and the flat player could compensate by saving points in other things, for example.

But in 2E by now, the Flat and the Remade are almost the same. The Remade isn't smarter, stronger, and faster. The pools help, sure, I won't deny. But is not the same thing. They are sacrificing the "simulationism of the concept" for simpler mechanics. At least for me, I don't like it.

o11o1 o11o1's picture
Ghostwalker wrote:eaton wrote

Ghostwalker wrote:
eaton wrote:
(...)

I am not talking about the Speed, but about the Aptitudes. For example, a Remade is stronger, faster, and smarter than a Flat, at least in concept. That's all my problem: the rules and the concept presented does not fit together.

The setting says that transhuman are far better than normal humans, and in some places, they even can have pitty them. The Aptitude Bonus in 1st Edition represent that and the flat player could compensate by saving points in other things, for example.

But in 2E by now, the Flat and the Remade are almost the same. The Remade isn't smarter, stronger, and faster. The pools help, sure, I won't deny. But is not the same thing. They are sacrificing the "simulationism of the concept" for simpler mechanics. At least for me, I don't like it.

Even in first edition, I never got the impression that those extra Aptitudes were really making a giant miles long difference like you seem to be talking about. Sure, Aptitude bonuses were a -scares- resource, Morph only as they were, but on the dice that's really only an extra 5 or 10%, easily within the range of not reliably noticing it during a game session.

A slight smell of ions....

Ghostwalker Ghostwalker's picture
o11o1 wrote:Ghostwalker wrote

o11o1 wrote:
Ghostwalker wrote:
eaton wrote:
(...)

I am not talking about the Speed, but about the Aptitudes. For example, a Remade is stronger, faster, and smarter than a Flat, at least in concept. That's all my problem: the rules and the concept presented does not fit together.

The setting says that transhuman are far better than normal humans, and in some places, they even can have pitty them. The Aptitude Bonus in 1st Edition represent that and the flat player could compensate by saving points in other things, for example.

But in 2E by now, the Flat and the Remade are almost the same. The Remade isn't smarter, stronger, and faster. The pools help, sure, I won't deny. But is not the same thing. They are sacrificing the "simulationism of the concept" for simpler mechanics. At least for me, I don't like it.

Even in first edition, I never got the impression that those extra Aptitudes were really making a giant miles long difference like you seem to be talking about. Sure, Aptitude bonuses were a -scares- resource, Morph only as they were, but on the dice that's really only an extra 5 or 10%, easily within the range of not reliably noticing it during a game session.

Yes, I know. But at least the 1st Ed. rules fit the concept to some degree.

In GURPS, in other hand, the Attributes have so much weight in all the system, so, +1 or +2 make a huge diference. And GURPS Transhuman Space was one the influences listed in Eclipse Phase.

I love GURPS. Is one of my favorite rules system. But I also love how in Eclipse Phase the Aptitudes has less impact in Skills than GURPS.

___

The thing is concept. For me, it doesn't matter the impact of the Aptitute in the system so much. My concern is how the rules emulate the concept. If Transhuman are stronger, smarter, and faster than a normal human being, and the main core mechanic that represent those things are the Aptitudes, so, the "transhuman races" should have some king of bonus in those things - the pool system is not enough, at least for me.

Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture
That, and aptitudes are all

That, and aptitudes are all mental stats, so morphs with bigger bonuses had them because they had a better nervous system, not because of their physical differences. At least that's the theory, but synthmorphs getting a lot of SOM, and aptitude caps changing with regards to size of morph messed with that a fair amount.

Considering that I'm glad morphs no longer have aptitude adjustments, because it made it very unclear just what the aptitude represents. Now it's fully a mental Ego stat which refers to the capabilities of the ego purely. I wouldn't mind some raw physical stats or traits for morphs though, so that there's a little mechanical ground to stand on why a Daitya piloted by a low SOM ego should still win an arm wrestling match with a high SOM case. I personally find it pretty easy to handle with DM fiat, but having some rules might be nice.

Grim G Grim G's picture
A quick quasi-review

From skimming this thread I can tell it's just like every other feedback thread I've seen. Toxic. This reminds me of /epg/ who, hilariously enough, hate this forum. That being said, I like toxicity; it's a good way to measure how passionate the player base is.

My experience I've GMed a total of 5 sessions of EP, and haven't ever been a player. However, I have basic GM experience and understand some of the universal GM principals, so take my opinion for what you will.

Resources and the taking there of This seems to be a hot topic in this thread: taking away the character's gear after character gen. Personally I find the idea of refunding CP for casting to be a little cheap. I mean sure, equipment is disposable, but refunding them just does seem logical. I have two solutions to propose as an alternative to the house rule.

1) Spiral out. I made it clear on my first time running the game that the characters will be on Mars ONLY, and certain gear can get past customs if the characters have a license to do so. The idea is that the first adventure is located in a city, the next may be somewhere in another city, the third may be on the other side of the planet or in orbit, etc. This has the benefit of allowing everyone to use their gear, and level up their transferable assets before you start launching them across the sun.

2) Give them time to prep. Give the characters a week to prep at the very least, and a month or more at the most. Prep can be treated as a simple montage scene where the PCs call in favors at home or at their destination: So if someone wants to send their reaper from Mercury to Titan, they have enough time to either send it there beforehand, or pull favors for another firewall cell to get you a reaper. Taking away the player's equipment shouldn't happen fully unless the players have leveled up these character up to a good extent, or the situation is urgent (I.E. the team F'd up).

Resource Pools I like 'em. Reminds me of how stats in Numenera work. It seems that they are supposed to be used more often to by the sounds of it. Personally I don't think Flex is OP as it doesn't have a niche like the others do.

Other things I liked Putting careers in char-gen is something I greatly approve of: I found that most of my players hardly considered what their character's day job was. That being said, is there going to be a system of wage integrated into careers? Cause that could be noteworthy for adventures that go on for extended time. The larger morph selection is something I enjoy as it provides various options for similar purposes. Getting rid of shape change from reapers is also something I liked as it felt unneeded and made Flexbros feel less powerful. Skill compression was definitely reasonable and may make melee combat interesting. Superiors are an excellent way to streamline Margins of success/failure, though I feel as though there should be at least on universal outcome no matter the task (such as getting 1 rez point or 1 point to a related resource).

Other feedback I hope that melee, at least in some way, becomes a viable option. Obviously that wouldn't be realistic, but realism sometimes has to take a back seat for cyber-ninja fun.

1st ed had a problem in the GM section when it came to explaining how to actually be a GM. It gives you a few tips, but it doesn't teach you some important fundamentals about structure, motivation, resolution, what an encounter needs, what should you avoid doing, etc.

Likewise, I do not recall the core book coming with an encounter, perhaps some of the previous ones can be put in the 2nd ed core book for new GMs to use until they can take of their training wheels.

One thing that helped me understand hacking was a flow chart that explained it. Perhaps we can have something like that in the cheat sheet?

That's all I have to say so far, and I hope more rules get released soon. I'm pumped for this!

Grim G Grim G's picture
Trappedinwikipedia wrote:That

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
That, and aptitudes are all mental stats, so morphs with bigger bonuses had them because they had a better nervous system, not because of their physical differences. At least that's the theory, but synthmorphs getting a lot of SOM, and aptitude caps changing with regards to size of morph messed with that a fair amount.
Technically they do have SOME stats (not a lot though). I guess one quick rule would be to spent 2 vigor for an auto success.
Considering that I'm glad morphs no longer have aptitude adjustments, because it made it very unclear just what the aptitude represents. Now it's fully a mental Ego stat which refers to the capabilities of the ego purely. I wouldn't mind some raw physical stats or traits for morphs though, so that there's a little mechanical ground to stand on why a Daitya piloted by a low SOM ego should still win an arm wrestling match with a high SOM case. I personally find it pretty easy to handle with DM fiat, but having some rules might be nice.
Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture
I think you messed up the

I think you messed up the formatting of that quote or inserted your reply in the middle or something.

I'd rather spend the vigor on extra actions personally, as it's pretty easy to get a large success chance, and more attempts with a good chance for success seems better than 1 guaranteed success, in most situations at least.

o11o1 o11o1's picture
Trappedinwikipedia wrote:I

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
I think you messed up the formatting of that quote or inserted your reply in the middle or something.

I'd rather spend the vigor on extra actions personally, as it's pretty easy to get a large success chance, and more attempts with a good chance for success seems better than 1 guaranteed success, in most situations at least.

With the rare special case that you have a fight where it's really important to you to mess up an opponent before they manage to take even a single turn (in which case the 'go first' option serves you well.) Say, before the enemy Async has a chance to throw certainty-level persuasion at you.

A slight smell of ions....

Ghostwalker Ghostwalker's picture
Trappedinwikipedia wrote:That

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
That, and aptitudes are all mental stats, so morphs with bigger bonuses had them because they had a better nervous system, not because of their physical differences. At least that's the theory, but synthmorphs getting a lot of SOM, and aptitude caps changing with regards to size of morph messed with that a fair amount.

Considering that I'm glad morphs no longer have aptitude adjustments, because it made it very unclear just what the aptitude represents. Now it's fully a mental Ego stat which refers to the capabilities of the ego purely. I wouldn't mind some raw physical stats or traits for morphs though, so that there's a little mechanical ground to stand on why a Daitya piloted by a low SOM ego should still win an arm wrestling match with a high SOM case. I personally find it pretty easy to handle with DM fiat, but having some rules might be nice.

For me 1st Aptitudes represent both body AND mind. Look at the Mentons with their enhanced brains, for example.

And, again, the concept is that Transhumans are stronger, faster and smarter than a normal human. How emulate that? In 1st Edition, that was Aptitudes and their bonus.

Strenght tests use SOM. If SOM is purely a mental characteristics, so, why Strenght tests would use that? So, a Neotenic body with a Ego with 30 SOM would be stronger than a world weightlifter champion with a Ego with Som 15? That's weird.

We need to clarify what Aptitudes are. The mechanical diferences between body and mind shoud be clear. If Aptitudes only represent your "soul", the system can't have a physycal test using only a SOM or REF.

Conceptually speaking, the transhuman Morphs don't enhance just the body, but the mind (in this case, the brain). How emulate that? The 1st have Apt Bonus. 2E have the pools, but it doen't seem enough, at least IMO.

EDIT: Ah, and yes, I also wouldn't mind some raw physical stats or traits for morphs.

I will let some questions:

If someone is stronger, what this mean mechanically speaking?
If someone is smarter, what this mean mechanically speaking?
If someone is faster, what this mean mechanically speaking?

eaton eaton's picture
Quote:If someone is stronger,

Quote:
If someone is stronger, what this mean mechanically speaking?
If someone is smarter, what this mean mechanically speaking?
If someone is faster, what this mean mechanically speaking?

In EP1, these three were (somewhat uncomfortably) modeled as SOM, COG, and REF/SPD. In EP2, they're (somewhat uncomfortably) modeled as SOM/Vigor, COG/INT/Insight, and REF/Vigor.

Somatics was always a little weird as a measure of physical strength, because it was supposed to be about your ability to effectively utilize a morph's physical strength. (Witness, say, a martial artist's ability to flip a stronger attacker or a weightlifter's ability to lift more without being hurt when using better form). Infomorphs, after all, have literally no physical strength yet maintain a Somatics rating. Indeed, the core attribute description for SOM is: "How well you can exploit your morph’s physical capabilities, including strength, stamina, and sustained positioning and motion."

Using SOM bonuses on the morph to model physical strength while SOM stats on the ego modeled ability to utilize physical strength always felt a little odd; to a certain extent these kinds of mismatches are unavoidable, I just think it's frustrating to see people describing EP1's mechanics as inherently more realistic in this regard when in fact they are just differently weird.

Ghostwalker Ghostwalker's picture
eaton wrote:In EP1, these

eaton wrote:
In EP1, these three were (somewhat uncomfortably) modeled as SOM, COG, and REF/SPD. In EP2, they're (somewhat uncomfortably) modeled as SOM/Vigor, COG/INT/Insight, and REF/Vigor.

My concern is how well handled this combination will be. I'm still missing some stat related to raw physical strenght.

eaton wrote:
Somatics was always a little weird as a measure of physical strength, because it was supposed to be about your ability to effectively utilize a morph's physical strength. (Witness, say, a martial artist's ability to flip a stronger attacker or a weightlifter's ability to lift more without being hurt when using better form). Infomorphs, after all, have literally no physical strength yet maintain a Somatics rating. Indeed, the core attribute description for SOM is: "How well you can exploit your morph’s physical capabilities, including strength, stamina, and sustained positioning and motion."

Using SOM bonuses on the morph to model physical strength while SOM stats on the ego modeled ability to utilize physical strength always felt a little odd; to a certain extent these kinds of mismatches are unavoidable, I just think it's frustrating to see people describing EP1's mechanics as inherently more realistic in this regard when in fact they are just differently weird.

Okay, I'm inclined to agree with that. If 2E will going to that direction, they need to re-think all the strenght tests related to SOM. Because, if SOM are purely a mental stat, why there are so many rules related to raw physical ativities that use SOM? Because this could get weirds situtations where an Ego with 40 SOM housing a cancer-terminal FLAT boy body doing many physical stunts easily.

UnitOmega UnitOmega's picture
Grim G wrote:This reminds me

Grim G wrote:
This reminds me of /epg/ who, hilariously enough, hate this forum.

Spoiler: Highlight to view
Some of /epg/ is this forum

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

eaton eaton's picture
Quote:Okay, I'm inclined to

Quote:
Okay, I'm inclined to agree with that. If 2E will going to that direction, they need to re-think all the strenght tests related to SOM. Because, if SOM are purely a mental stat, why there are so many rules related to raw physical ativities that use SOM? Because this could get weirds situtations where an Ego with 40 SOM housing a cancer-terminal FLAT boy body doing many physical stunts easily.

Yeah, definitely agree with this. Really, it's one of the places where EP's split between mind and body becomes trickiest.

I mean, if we were just going flat-out nuts, I'd consider keeping COO as the physical-actions-related ego trait and making SOM (aka STR) a shell/morph trait. Don't have a body? You don't have any physical strength, simple as that.

Actually… Hmmm.

CordialUltimate2 CordialUltimate2's picture
OFFTOPIC: What is /epg/ ?

OFFTOPIC:
What is /epg/ ?

Exurgents wanna eat your ass and you are low on ammo? Register to mobile gear catalogue at eldrich.host.mesh! ORDER NOW! FOR FREE PLASMA MINIMISSILE PACK! *explosive delivery options included

Ghostwalker Ghostwalker's picture
eaton wrote:I mean, if we

eaton wrote:
I mean, if we were just going flat-out nuts, I'd consider keeping COO as the physical-actions-related ego trait and making SOM (aka STR) a shell/morph trait. Don't have a body? You don't have any physical strength, simple as that.

Actually… Hmmm.

OMG, EXACTLY! We need some stat to represent that raw physical side of a body, beyond DUR. I know that in 1st the Lifting rules use both DUR and SOM, but I think would be better to have a stat apart from Aptitudes to represent this raw ST.

So, COO would represent "the abilty to use your body efficiently", we don't exactly need a SOM Aptitude for that.

Or could be something like this:

EGO APTITUDES:

COG
INT
SAV
COO
WILL

MORPH APTITUDES:

SOM
REF
DUR

It would be easier to learn and use, at least IMO.

I mean, we really need some trait to use in physical tests that depends of the body alone.

UnitOmega UnitOmega's picture
CordialUltimate2 wrote

CordialUltimate2 wrote:
OFFTOPIC:
What is /epg/ ?

Eclipse Phase General thread on 4chan's /tg/ (traditional games) board. Unless there are other imageboards with EP general threads, in which case they would also be /epg/.

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

eaton eaton's picture
As is my way I've already

As is my way I've already started converting the stats in the playtests into spreadsheets to crunch things. Anyone here is welcome to check them out: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LwJUVd2zG7VBHxB2gh7K1u82VYM14XXfR8akMhzjKEM/edit?usp=sharing

At present I'm just tracking skills, traits, and basic morph stats. Some random thoughts on crunching the numbers:

  • The "average" morph has a total of just 4 pool points, weighted a bit towards Vigor and Flex. Only 7 morphs (counting individual flexbot modules as distinct morphs) have 9 flex points. 24 morphs have 1 point of flex, and 14 have 2 points. Every single biomorph has at least 1 flex point, and a full half of them have 2. Flex feels like it's definitely a "biomorph thing," at least statistically.
  • Vigor is the most variable point pool by far: 14 have 0, 14 have 1 point, 7 have 2, 6 have 3, and two morphs (the Fury and Reaper) have 4 and 6, respectively.
  • About half of the game's ego and morph traits are available in multiple levels, a much higher percentage than EP1.
  • Skill distribution among the core attributes is reallllllly lopsided. 11 are COG and none are WIL, for example. IMO, shifting a couple of skills to other attributes would be a nice touch.

That last part — the lopsided skill balance — has been sticking with me in particular. That, plus some inconsistency in how the EP2 skills are named, has me feeling off-balance. In a perfect world, I'd love to see:

  • Interface moved from COG to INT. When working with new devices and sussing out how to operate an unfamiliar interface, I'd argue that Intuition is more valuable than Cognition anyways.
  • Research moved from COG to INT for the same reasons. Not only does it give INT something more to do, I'd argue it makes more sense mechanically.
  • Psi moved from COG to WIL. Currently, there are literally NO skills linked to WIL, which feels downright weird. Psi attacks are resisted with WIL checks, makes sense to use WIL for actual Psi actions.
  • Free Fall moved from REF to SOM. That makes the breakdown of physical skills between REF and SOM a bit more balanced, and makes sense because free fall is closer to coordination (now rolled into SOM) than pure reflexes.
  • Make Hardware, Medicine, and Pilot standard skills rather than Field skills. With that approach, only Knowledge skills and the catch-all "Exotic Skill" require a field, and COG's lopsided presence on the skill breakdown is mostly due to the oddball knowledge skills.
eaton eaton's picture
Quote:OMG, EXACTLY! We need

Quote:
OMG, EXACTLY! We need some stat to represent that raw physical side of a body, beyond DUR. I know that in 1st the Lifting rules use both DUR and SOM, but I think would be better to have a stat apart from Aptitudes to represent this raw ST.

I think reflexes still makes sense as an ego skill, but I really do like the idea of making COO the 'physical ability' state for egos, and SOM the 'physical strength' stat for morphs.

With that breakdown (and the skill/attribute mapping tweaks I mentioned above), the breakdown of action skills would be:

  • Cognition: Hardware, Infosec, Medicine, Program
  • Intuition: Interface, Research, Perceive, Survival
  • Reflexes: Fray, Guns, Infiltrate, Pilot
  • Coordination: Free Fall, Athletics, Melee
  • Savvy: Deceive, Kinesics, Persuade, Provoke
  • Willpower: Psi

Meanwhile, all knowledge skills would be COG-linked.

TheGrue TheGrue's picture
Psi is already WIL-based,

Psi is already WIL-based, which I maintain is an inconsistency with lore as long as Lucidity is derived from WIL.

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

eaton eaton's picture
Good catch — Psi is listed as

Good catch — Psi is listed as WIL-linked in the short list (pg14) of the playtest doc, but COG-linked in the long skill list (pg17). Because the Insight pool (COG/INT linked) is used to avoid an Infection test, rather than the Moxie pool (SAV/WIL linked), I assumed that EP2 was treating Psi powers as a function of COG.

I'm very much pro-WIL for Psi, and I'd like to see the 'Resist Infection' pool point action moved to Moxie rather than Insight to resolve the inconsistency…

UnitOmega UnitOmega's picture
Hardware, Medicine etc should

Hardware, Medicine etc should totally stay field skills. Much like the Knowledge skills, de-fielding them makes a focused character way too good at very broad, differently scaled things. With Gunnery now covered by interface, Guns compiles a lot of tools which variables would be handled per the piece of gear (I/E, Beam weapons have intrinsic limitations vs a railgun) but fundamentally what you do with the skill is all the same. You roll it to hit people with personal-scale weapons at a distance.

If Hardware was not a field, you could have somebody focus down points to get an 80 in the ability to masterfully fix small electronics, heavy industrial machinery, weapons and spaceframes - basically they would be the ultimate tool box and would masterfully be able to solve all problems. Medicine and Piloting have similar problems - if the skills are not diversified then it makes characters less diversified and allows way too much swiss-army knife characters. I don't think it's very on-genre if characters can be magically omnidisciplinary in so much that your field medic would also be a master veterinarian, psychiatrist, forensic pathologist, virologist and cyberneticist.

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

TheGrue TheGrue's picture
I think I've demonstrated

I think I've demonstrated above that Swiss Army Knife characters are already a concern. They're called "High COG characters who stack modifiers and use Complimentary Skills".

Naturally, the one exception seems to be IT because those are the only two skills you can't default on.

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

UnitOmega UnitOmega's picture
TheGrue wrote:I think I've

TheGrue wrote:
I think I've demonstrated above that Swiss Army Knife characters are already a concern. They're called "High COG characters who stack modifiers and use Complimentary Skills".

Naturally, the one exception seems to be IT because those are the only two skills you can't default on.

You might have to break that down for me again - I'm not sure it's actually that easy, the Complementary Skill rules are actually pretty strict now. You can only complement Active with Knowledge and it has to be an area where they don't overlap - I/E it explicitly says Academics: Engineering does not complement Hardware: Industrial to make a habitat repair, as the basic engineering knowledge required for that task is already part of your Active skill test.

COG has been the skill to get for broadest distribution (though I agree with some of Eaton's points - especially as Gunnery for instance was INT before, Interface could easily be INT as a whole) but with no direct aptitude bonuses and it seems the overall cap is 30 total that's not as big of a deal.

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

Pages

Topic locked