Jump to navigation
eaton wrote: The easiest mechanisms I can already think of are Motivations and Interest: [Field] skills. Imagine this mechanism: Research, Rep-based social investigation, or persuade/provoke tests can be used to discover an existing interest or motivation for an NPC. Each interest field a player knows about an NPC can be used to give a +10 to one social test. Each motivation can be used to give a +20 to one social test,. Perhaps all of these bonuses would come with an "if you can figure out how to work it into the conversation with them" caveat?
Surly wrote: We shouldn't lean heavily on memetics. It peaked in the early 2000s, and as an academic discipline it's now more or less dead. The question "What can we learn about ideas by thinking about them like genes?" was excellent. But the answer turned out to be "not much."
ubik2 wrote: One thing I'm looking forward to is a cleanup of the pilot modes. Previously, the interaction of aptitudes and speed, between the controller and the controlled were a bit messy.
It looks like this system should work better, now that the aptitudes are more properly bound to the ego, but I'm not sure quite what will happen with the pools. In particular, the controlling morph's Vigor pool probably shouldn't be applicable, while the Insight pool may be.
I'm guessing that with the new skill division, when jamming, you will still use the pilot skill (unless it's a type that uses athletics natively). It's less clear whether you would still use interface, or switch to guns for firing weapons in that case.
Quote: I also find myself wondering how your Pools apply when jamming bots, or even just driving a dune buggy. Should a large tank get a set of it's own Pools, or does it just use those of the driver (and possibly crew?)
eaton wrote: Giving commands to a jammed drone was a mental action in EP1, wasn't it? Or am I mixing up the distinctions between giving orders to a slaved AI, remote-controlling, jamming, and actually sleeving in? If it's a mental action to give a command to a jammed shell, a lot of that sorts itself out.
Trappedinwikipedia wrote: I'm talking about first edition. I just mean there's precedent in the system.
Trappedinwikipedia wrote: What is an STG?
ubik2 wrote: Trappedinwikipedia wrote: What is an STG?
I'm guessing storytelling game, though I think of pools as just a consumable resource, like hit points, potions, and spells in D&D.
I think the abuse problem is when someone uses points to introduce narrative elements, which may derail the game. For example, if I insert my catgirl waifu in the middle of our serious game by spending a Flex point to introduce an NPC. I think the rules make it clear that that shouldn't fly, but I'm sure some players will try it.
Flex Pool Rules wrote: Introduce a new or existing NPC to a scene. Their presence must
be plausible. You may define one aspect of this NPC: their morph,
factional allegiance, a noteworthy skill, a specific trait, etc. The GM
determines the other details.
Flex Pool Rules also wrote: Introduce a new, plausible relationship between your character and
an existing NPC. This connection should be more loose or minor than close or serious. For example, you may have a common friend, shared history, or old but minor rivalry. You may define the rough basics, but the GM determines the finer points and the NPC’s attitude towards your character.
Lurkingdaemon wrote: Kinda have some specific things I'd like to see in regards to upcoming stuff - mostly pertaining to gear:
[*]Something like the Brain Box augment - so folks can have brainmeats in somewhat less delicate morphs.
[*]Condensed ware options for flexbots - unifying Shape Adjusting and Modular Design since both, so far, have only been used by Flexbots would be good for streamlining wares (and cost savings on flexbots in general).
[*]More uplift morphs - biomorphs and pods. Cetacean morphs were fun, despite how infrequently they'd be used. The background of Fortean and their pod designs was also amusing, if weird (and some of their named designs never got stats). Only issue with the designs from 1st Ed feels like inconsistencies revealed by the custom morph design rules.
[*]More traits! Good, bad, flavorful! Especially the flavorful! Most of the traits we have now are good and functional, but rather boring in how straight-forward they are. Many of the more flavorful trait options are both missing and a bit of a stretch to recreate.
[*][b]Custom morph creation rules out of the box[/b] - so there isn't any of the apparent funkiness that happened with morph creation/costs between the 1st Edition Core being made, and Transhuman.
Those are the biggest things on my wishlist so far.
o11o1 wrote: At least the morph creation guidelines should be fairly doable, since they're actually mathing it out judging from the fact we were able to locate a spreadsheet of the computations. As long as we get enough info to recreate that, it should help us point out if a given morph is having it's cost manually fudged because the equations did something weird in it's case.
ubik2 wrote: It's not clear whether custom morphs would still get the 75% cost reduction.
It's intended for things like "Someone at this party knows the passcodes to the research lab" and the GM ensures that such a person exists at the party, and presumably can reasonably be located and talked to/kidnapped/impersonated in the usual manner that PCs are wont to do.
Or spend a second flex point:
Quote: It's intended for things like "Someone at this party knows the passcodes to the research lab" and the GM ensures that such a person exists at the party, and presumably can reasonably be located and talked to/kidnapped/impersonated in the usual manner that PCs are wont to do.
o11o1 wrote: Still, a clarifying sidebar on the *intended* use of NPC making flex would be super nice to have.
Lurkingdaemon wrote: o11o1 wrote: Still, a clarifying sidebar on the *intended* use of NPC making flex would be super nice to have.
My personal take on it, bereft of such a sidebar, is to implement the NPC's in the same spirit as the intent behind the spent Flex: If players are trying to strong-arm or 'brute force' the narrative, then make their 'solution' as much of, if not more of a chore to reach. If they're playing along or having fun, likewise, have some fun with it.
MNMadman wrote: ~Snip~
Quote: My personal take on it, bereft of such a sidebar, is to implement the NPC's in the same spirit as the intent behind the spent Flex: [b]If players are trying to strong-arm or 'brute force' the narrative[/b], then make their 'solution' as much of, if not more of a chore to reach. If they're playing along or having fun, likewise, have some fun with it.
o11o1 wrote: So then the key unanswered question of flex pool becomes "What counts as abuse" ?
eaton wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but this is just the sort of thing that suggests a section with guidance for GMs would be a great addition... ;-) Not general GMing advice as much as tips and pointers on unique mechanics or issues in the fictional world that can trip up new groups/gms, and how to roll with them.
Maudova wrote: I think I will encourage players to use flex in all sorts of creative ways. I'd let them define a lot more and would demand so. Let some of the creative stress be carried by the players. I don't see what's wrong with dropping a few friendly NPCs into the story. Let the players challenge you.
pouncedakitten wrote: Scary players challenging my authority.... not at all. Advanced Game Mastering is challenging and being challenged by players. My main issue with this Unsexy Flex STG mechanic is it "mechanizes" good GM method. Instead of organically reaction to good roll play we now have little chips to be thrown at problems like soccer brats at the field vending machine. Players basically get to demand solutions instead of looking for them or building them through game play.
As a GM I'm always looking for ways to incorporate my players' choice of solutions. If they ask for an item that would be there, it is. If they look for a type of npc that should exist they are there to be found. These mechanics aren't so much creative in making interesting solutions to problems as they are in the art of bullshitting. This really just makes for lazy players.
pouncedakitten wrote: [...] most adventures have this kinda "relationship/ clue" already built in and there to discover in any given scene. While using the STG mechanic is player savvy and pushes "creativity", it's also a downright lazy way of getting around obstacles. I readily acknowledge player creativity in any given situation and try to make their solutions work for them. Sure the GM has ultimate control of this mechanic but here the players are encouraged to regularly change and or alter scenes in ways favorable to "WINNING" and can easily spoil moods, the tone of an interaction, or hijack the plot. It's not necessarily bad for them to do these things, but the mechanic is a dissociative one, and if a player leans on it then in some ways they gain bad roll playing habits with their magical ability to warp reality.