A Second Edition Wishlist.

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
ThatWhichNeverWas ThatWhichNeverWas's picture
A Second Edition Wishlist.

Sooo, I've actually been writing this for about a month without knowing that a new version was actually in the works.
Awkward.

I realise this might seem like nitpicking before it even comes out, but on the other hand “speak now or forever hold your peace”.
To be ABSOLUTELY clear, I am friggin' buzzed about V2, and not having it yet is making me literally nauseous.
This is just me trying to contribute to something I love whilst suppressing the Jitters.

--- Change Attributes from to Areas of Expertise.

I've always found that connecting skills with personality traits or capabilities is a bit awkward, as there is always discussion on why a given skill builds of one attribute rather than another, it makes certain attributes implicitly more powerful, and it means that defaulting (an effective way of reducing skill mechanic complexity and build requirements) HAS to be capped.
At the same time, there's also the implication that each attribute is linked to a specific character type.

Basically, I propose that this relationship be formalized – instead of representing 'basic' capabilities, use attributes to represent specific areas of expertise.
For example, there could be a 'Combat Experience' attribute, which would serve as the base value for Beam weapons, Kinetic weapons, Demolitions and so forth.
This makes making a specific character type simpler to create, and makes it completely apparent at a glance what the character is supposed to be.
Skills which are largely distinct or for which Defaulting makes no sense can be collected as a distinct category.

As for the Attributes as they stand, they could become levelled traits, granting general bonuses useful across character types – Reflex absorbing Ambidexterity, Coordination giving Speed, Cog giving additional Mental Actions, so on.

--- Simplify Speed.
Speed in V1 is a lot more complex than it needs to be. Let's just say that your speed is how many actions you can perform Simultaneously , with the same logic for mental speed/actions.
I'd also like mental actions to be more generalised as “what you pay attention to”, so Aiming, Full Defence, making your Attack into a Called Shot and so on would all fall into this type.

--- Make Biomorphs/Pods/Synths more distinct.
Again, fairly straightforward – instead of using one as a baseline from which others differ, have each type have a set of traits that always apply. This is more a clarity issue than anything, but could open some doors.

--- Consolidate Morphs into Genelines.
This has been mentioned before by others, but I'd like to see the amount of 'unique' morphs reduced, with existing types being upgrade packages for their basic variant..
This would make things like “Right At Home” easier to parse, and makes the availability of more exotic morph types easier to handle in-game.
It also simplifies morph availability and, oddly enough, 'unique' morph creation.

--- Consolidate Traits and Gear as Blueprints as a levelled, resource based mechanic.
EP is a little weird – the setting is built around the Ego being important, but in practice the system makes a character's Gear more central to both the character and gameplay.
Blueprints 'somewhat' counteract this, but they're very vaguely defined.
What I'm proposing is that Blueprints become the basic character Element beyond Skill ratings; each Blueprint represents a list of available Gear or Abilities with an associated cost to possess/active in game, with 'Better' blueprints or innate abilities reducing that cost.
For example, having a Blueprint as a Trait means it is always available, Software/'Configs' are free and installed upon sleeving into a Cyber/Meatbrain respectively, and the rest marked with a resource cost from Trivial (free with access to manufacturing) to Expensive.

My thinking is that this would give characters the broad possibilities that are associated with "constant" gear, but leaving what the character has 'at a given time' remain flexible.
Consolidating gear into a packages also means you can have flexibility without necessarily having so many options that choice-paralysis becomes an issue.

--- Break Gameplay into Long-Term, Downtime/Prologue and Gametime, and partially incorporate character creation into standard gameplay.

Firstly, and of least importance, I enjoy Character creation and advancement, and V1 is terrible at both. The mechanics simply aren't there.
Secondly, as has been mentioned in other threads, downtime and daily life are rarely addressed in RPGs which is a shame because they are often what makes a setting and character compelling.
Finally, something which rarely sees any focus is a scenario's 'prologue' – mostly there'll be a little bit about how the characters got to the scenario start, and then a bit of time organising gear and getting ready for the 'actual' game.

What struck me is that these things are not only present but not really acknowledged, but that they all sink up together.

What I'm thinking is that this be brought together and formalised into gameplay "states".
The first is Long-Term, which would encompass Long-term investments and character development. Pretty simply, this would be Character advancement, the purchase of 'permanent' equipment in the form of Blueprints, and investing in Lifestyle and Credits (Rating), which are used in “Downtime”.

This phase would essentially incorporate a character's lifestyle/day-to-day lifestyle, the scenario prologue and the inevitable shopping trip that every scenario starts off with.
Functionally this would be similar to the Vignettes in Delta Green or Red Markets – the player gives the character a small number of improvements derived from what the character has spent their time doing, such as skill bonuses or additional moxie points. Scenario specific alterations or other effects like skillsofts would provide additional options to choose.
Secondly, the character would gain a specific amount of resource 'points' (Moderate, Expesive...) which would then be applied to their blueprints/traits as above.
The character's Credits and Lifestyle would define how many Resources are available and manipulate the available Improvements respectively.

The intent here once again is to lighten the burden of character creation and more directly incorporate that flexibility into gameplay so that characters can configure their abilities more directly to apply to the scenario or make up for deficits (say, through a player being absent) whilst retaining character identity: a combat-focused character will always have more base combat capability than others due to their skills and traits, but if a scenario is more focused on intrigue or investigation then they can adapt accordingly.

It would also provide a specific avenue/currency for the GM to apply plot elements, such as unusual/alien technology or treatment-resistant mental effects, rather than having to crowbar them into the standard gameplay resource system.

In GameTime it would largely be business as normal, but with it being explicit that any changes made to the character or their equipment being strictly temporary: the events of the scenario will always be, by definition, unusual circumstances and events that stand out from normal life. If the player decides after the game that a change should be permanent, they can use their Long-Term/Downtime in the future to represent the permanent investment.

--- A 'Severity' based damage system.
What I'd like to see is when a character attacks a target damage is only rolled once, with additional weapons or effects being consolidated onto that attack.
Thematically, this is very easy to explain – it's usually more important where you are hit than what you are hit with.
Basically, the roll represents the severity of the impact point – armor/ap applies but any damage bonus the weapon has does not; extra damage or weapon effects are applied only if the roll-armour is greater than zero, meaning the attack damaged something non-trivial.
Basing damage on the affect on the target rather than the effectiveness or number of weapons makes it much easier to deal with multiple or distinct weapons, and also with unusual or robust target physiologies.

...I may have put too much thought into this.

In the past we've had to compensate for weaknesses, finding quick solutions that only benefit a few.
But what if we never need to feel weak or morally conflicted again?

Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture
Those speed changes are

Those speed changes are horrible. Just stack speed and melt everything before anyone has any chance to react. It's already one of the strongest, if not the strongest stats in the game (Only Moxie really competes) It might make sense, but it'd be horrible for having playable combat-like lose initiative and be TPKed before anyone's turn comes up bad.

Otherwise I don't really care for them except for the morph geneline thing, which I agree with.

Base attributes are very helpful as catch alls, so without a really large number of less generic ones there will be very noticeable gaps. There's a reason that almost every RPG has base stats, even if they aren't actually connected to skills (like Delta Green). It's just hard to make a game work without them.

Gear and Traits aren't that similar, so I don't see why they are being lumped together, and I don't think they really fit. I generally don't like very abstract gear systems, so I'm still waiting to see what the complexity thing looks like.

I don't think downtime needs to be formalized that much. I think everything but extended downtime works pretty well already. I also really like EP's very complicated character creation. It's a lot of fun to have that much control after you learn the system.

I generally don't like more formal and (probably) abstract rules, because they have the effect of limiting options for players overall. Everything with special rules is no longer a place where what makes sense can be used. EP has pretty weak advancement rules, but I don't think really like this method.

I don't get the damage system.

BalazarLightson BalazarLightson's picture
The Need for Speed

Speed is my biggest hassle in the game.

Our Spd 4 Wired-up MRDR Hobo PC runs rings around us all. Our sniper PC's was a speed 1 guy until he resleeved into a wired morph. He was bored in the combats. Whereas another mental action guy had loads of time to aim and prepare for each of his two action phases.

Simplifying speed I think is kinda key. I like your suggestions.

I'd like to see more downsides to drugs and neural-ware. They are just too neat and clean for my liking. Adding bad side effects would help keep the numbers of super wired and chem'd folk down.

MAD Crab MAD Crab's picture
Speed is a big problem, as

Speed is a big problem, as high-speed characters basically mean you MUST run high-speed enemies. I ran an absolute tank (The titular MAD Crab) who, as it turned out, could easily be killed by our resident face-puncher because of the speed difference and the weird rules around shock weapons.

Blueprints are... I dunno. It seems like character advancement in this game is not stat-based, but blueprint based.

MrWigggles MrWigggles's picture
Speed doesnt really have a

Speed doesnt really have a graceful solution. If you include in the game, you're kinda of stuff with these problems. This speed implementation is easier then Shadow-run initiative cost per action method. You just get an extra turn.

As far as its forcing the GM to use multiple speed combatants. It does and doesn't. If you you having combat regardless, multiple speed characters exist in the world in general. MRDR isnt that exotic in setting. It would weird if you never hit a harden target who doesnt have some combatants with multiple speed. Though I am not sure why I find this harder to ignore then simply the opposition from having good white hat hackers.

Baribal Baribal's picture
Speed is not only a supremely

Speed is not only a supremely powerful attribute that could be said to be game-breaking, it could also be said to be game-flow breaking. While one character acts once, others act four times, and that's not even considering multitasking. So basically some players are sitting back and let things unfold while being impotent of doing anything but commenting.
While I haven't gamed it out, I'd suggest trying a system where speed doesn't mean number of actions, but order of declaring actions, and the ability to interrupt slower characters where appropriate.

Morgan's Butchery | Body bank, morph individualization and upgrades | Psychotherapy and Psychosurgery, therapeutic and recreational | http://eclipsephase.com/comment/59484#comment-59484

MrWigggles MrWigggles's picture
You run into the similar

You run into the similar issues. Vampire the Masquerade has a Act First Declare Last system, along with speed. The former, doesnt do anything for the later, and its even when celerity isnt used in combat its still cumbersome. One Roll Engine, has a Quality and Expedience system with a 'Slowest Declares first' system. I quite like ORE mechanic, as it better simulates, resembles the real timenature of combat. Your actions can be slower then others or done better. it sucks, as you have to go down this count of width dice each time, as which action goes first changes each round of combat, and who declares first can also change each combat round.

There is no graceful solution for having a speed multiplier.

CordialUltimate2 CordialUltimate2's picture
SPEED:

SPEED:
Power of speed can be pretty easily balanced.
Use 7th sea system and give every character base 2 actions per round. (lets say that now round is 4 or 5 seconds long). Now character with 4 speed is only 2 times faster. And character with Neurachem I or MRDR dose in their veins is reasonably 50% faster.

BTW love the term MRDR hobo. It will now appear in my game for sure :-)

DOWNTIME:
It is such a GM dependent thing. My GM doesn't give us breathers longer than few days.
Formalised system would be good, but there are better/more important things to be done with the system. Like:

FUTURE TRAINING METHODS:
This is what scratches me a bad way. I have an Ultimate character who is (of course) somewhat focused on self-development. Lately he had an embarrasing evening when he was shown to be completely unable to move in 0-g at anything more than an slow carefull crawl.
So lets say he is motivated to overcome his weakness in this purely physical domain.
Now there exist 60x accelerated simulspaces. He is pretty well off so he purchases a year of intensive 0-g training in full physics simulation. After a week he should be able to get out of the simulation as a competent and developed spacer. Maybe a damn 0g ballet dancer.
This should be adressed in some way. Currently RP are to scarce to allow for such a thing. And yet in the setting it should be clearly possible.
Similiar case are the psychosurgeried skills.

GEAR:
They said that gear is to be simplified somewhat or at least overhauled. And you are right about the EGO and GEAR thing. But wasn't it true for the entirety of human history? Better tools enable EGOs to do.

WOUNDS:
You propose a entire rewrite of damage system. I'm neutral on that matter. Your idea seems fine to me. How well it would mesh with rest of EPv2, only PS know and maybe even thet don't ;-)

NANOSWARMS:
Some clarifications on their abilities, movement speeds and capabilities would be great. So far in my game there were times when to judge whether nanobots would be a good thing to use simply for the lack of these informations.

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

eaton eaton's picture
Quote:I don't think downtime

Quote:
I don't think downtime needs to be formalized that much. I think everything but extended downtime works pretty well already. I also really like EP's very complicated character creation. It's a lot of fun to have that much control after you learn the system.

Learning, programming (for code and blueprints), travel, and extremely long task actions are all pretty straightforward building blocks right now; I don't think any mechanical changes to these are needed, although an explanatory section that explains how they apply to downtime/long-term actions could be nice.

Quote:
The intent here once again is to lighten the burden of character creation and more directly incorporate that flexibility into gameplay so that characters can configure their abilities more directly to apply to the scenario or make up for deficits…

A modified version of the Lifepath system could certainly be repurposed into something like this; I'll want to see how the package-based approach plays out EPv2 before saying something more is needed…
gleech gleech's picture
I'm skeptical

I like the idea of making the package-based system the "primary" character generation system. One of the most persistent problems my group has had has been people not realizing that they needed specific skills or bits of gear to make a concept work. Grouping "the stuff you need to hack" into a hacker package should help a lot with that.

I also think that simple change will address some of OP's problems.

I don't like the idea of linking blueprints to either a trait or ranks in a corresponding skill, and I really don't like the idea of linking blueprints to character advancement. I really like that my characters can just have a rail-rifle right from the start if I want them too, and I really like that the game doesn't devolve into a gear-upgrade treadmill the way f.ex. Pathfinder games do. I like Pathfinder, for the record, I just don't like that "adding bonuses to my +2 Keen Bastard Sword" is a major method for character advancement; I very much prefer not having to do that in EP.

I also actually like the way that the legality of your blueprint interacts with the laws around nanofabbing in an area, it helps make Venus and Titan (for example) feel like really different places for my players. If fabbing a plasma rifle without getting caught is hard on Venus, but they can just print it on Titan, it stands out to them. ;)

I also also don't think that just acquiring a blueprint is that difficult. Again, maybe I've been running it very wrong, but, after playing for about two years, my players had a blueprint for literally every piece of gear they wanted in the game. Basically, all we did was track their income and expenses during the months between activation, and the high-rep characters just made wish-lists and bought up all the stuff they wanted during down-time.

And, by the way, I also agree that the systems we have now work well enough for "down-time" without it needing to be a mode that's spelled out explicitly. Although doing so also certainly wouldn't hurt anything.

I agree that speed (and the turn structure in general) really needs to be cleaned up. I like the idea that "characters who can think much faster have a distinct edge," but as it stands right now, speed is far, far too effective a force multiplier, and it makes the turn structure far too complex - breaking one turn into four phases is still a major source of confusion, sudden surprise imbalance, and raw book-keeping for my group.

To be a little picky, it also doesn't make sense that players who can think faster can actually fire a gun more quickly. The mechanism in the gun (and the player's ability to control it's recoil) will be determined by physical properties that thinking faster won't change.

I like the earlier suggestion that speed would affect the order of declaring and/or resolving actions, that might make speed a prominent feature without making it the single deciding factor in combats, or making the turn process the involved slog that it is now.

I also like the idea of making Pods more distinct from Biomorphs, specifically. Right now, the major difference between the two is that Pods get a cyber-brain and the Stigma: Pod trait by default, while biomorphs don't - and you can use masking to more or less eliminate the Stigma: Pod trait. I feel like giving them some more fundamentally different game mechanics might make them more interesting. (OK, I admit it, I'm a Bladerunner fan, and I wouldn't mind seeing them be a little more like replicants.)

Edit: now that I think about it, given the above, removing costs from gear might not be a bad thing. This is especially true for Firewall specifically, since it's never really been clear to me why Firewall doesn't just maintain a big pool of "every open-source and/or cracked bluep we could find" and give sentinels keys to it.

Edit 2: for speed, you could do something like what Battletech does. Everyone could declare actions in speed order from low to high, and then resolve them all simultaneously. That way, high speed characters will know what all the low-speed characters are doing when they declare their actions. In that system, speed is still a powerful advantage, but it doesn't completely break the combat rules, doesn't make the turn system way more complex than it has to be, and doesn't allow a high-speed character to take 4 turns to a low-speed character's 1.



BalazarLightson BalazarLightson's picture
Another Approach I'd like to

Another Approach I'd like to try to solve the Speed issue is to apply penalties to each subsequent action phase in a round, to simulate physical limitations, distraction, etc. Maybe start with a -10 on each action phase and see how that plays out.

With this system highly skilled individuals there for wouldn't get much effective penalty out of it, but novices would find it hard to do a lot of things in one round. So you're Speed 4 96% skill Swordmaster would be great in a Close Combat fight, but not so useful in a gun fight with his 56% Firearms skill.

As an immediate solution I like this a lot, but I'd have to see how it goes in gameplay.

On top of this I'd like to see bigger penalties for using speed enhancements from Cyberware or Drugs.

CordialUltimate2 wrote:
BTW love the term MRDR hobo. It will now appear in my game for sure :-)

The term was used in-game to describe one of the PCs, and it stuck fast. Actually a perfect descriptor for the PC in question, but in his lifestyle and his psychology, wandering through life, killing morphs and selling stacks to slavers.

MrWigggles MrWigggles's picture
gleech wrote:=

gleech wrote:
=
I also also don't think that just acquiring a blueprint is that difficult. Again, maybe I've been running it very wrong, but, after playing for about two years, my players had a blueprint for literally every piece of gear they wanted in the game. Basically, all we did was track their income and expenses during the months between activation, and the high-rep characters just made wish-lists and bought up all the stuff they wanted during down-time.
Its ambigious. You can play up or play down the favor system as much as you, and just do the cool down period between favor levels. You can also run it, in a more tis for tat system. The Rep, is ,'you know I'm good for it', and folks act on favors on you, or burn your rep. Yea, Bob got you that illegal high end blue print, but now bob friend needs 50k cash to bail them out.

Quote:

I agree that speed (and the turn structure in general) really needs to be cleaned up. I like the idea that "characters who can think much faster have a distinct edge," but as it stands right now, speed is far, far too effective a force multiplier, and it makes the turn structure far too complex - breaking one turn into four phases is still a major source of confusion, sudden surprise imbalance, and raw book-keeping for my group.

To be a little picky, it also doesn't make sense that players who can think faster can actually fire a gun more quickly. The mechanism in the gun (and the player's ability to control it's recoil) will be determined by physical properties that thinking faster won't change.

I like the earlier suggestion that speed would affect the order of declaring and/or resolving actions, that might make speed a prominent feature without making it the single deciding factor in combats, or making the turn process the involved slog that it is now.

Edit 2: for speed, you could do something like what Battletech does. Everyone could declare actions in speed order from low to high, and then resolve them all simultaneously. That way, high speed characters will know what all the low-speed characters are doing when they declare their actions. In that system, speed is still a powerful advantage, but it doesn't completely break the combat rules, doesn't make the turn system way more complex than it has to be, and doesn't allow a high-speed character to take 4 turns to a low-speed character's 1.


Speed from Neural Chem ect. isnt thinking faster. Its reacting faster. Thinking faster, is covered un Metal Speed. Folks who can /just/ think faster cannot shoot their gun faster. So you're right, it doesnt make sense for someone to think faster to fire faster and Eclipse Phase as of now, respect that.
And for Battletech, that isn't Speed, thats Inaitive. This isnt meaning to be nitpicky, they're seperate if related mechanics. Doing how Battletech does it, is removing the Speed from the game which is an option. And you're right Speed is a force multiplier. That exactly what its meant to do.
If you're the type to listen to AP, I suggest giving a listen to Rag Nerd Rok last Eclipse Phase AP. They handle Mental Speed and Physical Speed just fine. They just made an initiative list, and noted folks speed. When I run the game, the initative list, looks like this

PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 NPC1 NPC2 NPC3 PC1 NPC1 NPC1 --- PC2-4 dont have a speed higher then 1. PC1 has 2 speed, and NPC1 has 3 speed. And you just go down the list. Each time you complete the list, is a round. For EP, combat ticks are triggered on the round. You dont need to keep track of mental or physical speed differently. Thats up to the player. EP doesnt have any mechanics really to adjust the Initaitve order during combat. The most you can do is bid to go first with Moxie.

eaton eaton's picture
Quote:I also actually like

Quote:
I also actually like the way that the legality of your blueprint interacts with the laws around nanofabbing in an area, it helps make Venus and Titan (for example) feel like really different places for my players. If fabbing a plasma rifle without getting caught is hard on Venus, but they can just print it on Titan, it stands out to them. ;)

In our current campaign, part of my players' infiltration work was sneaking the components of a fabber into a habitat so they could print and assemble their dangerous gear "off the grid". The interaction of building up their blueprint library and figuring out how to make effective use of it in different areas has been important, I think.
Baribal Baribal's picture
gleech wrote:Edit: now that I

gleech wrote:
Edit: now that I think about it, given the above, removing costs from gear might not be a bad thing. This is especially true for Firewall specifically, since it's never really been clear to me why Firewall doesn't just maintain a big pool of "every open-source and/or cracked bluep we could find" and give sentinels keys to it.

"Sir, the rifle that we found on the perp's morph, we think he got it out of a cracked fabber on level 3, engineering lab. But get this... It's the exact same make and model, down to the fixes around the DRM'd parts, as the one they found on the saboteur who vented that hab in the Trojans last month. If I didn't know better, I'd say we've got a group of clandestine operators on our hands, maybe even a whole organization. And I'm afraid that I *don't* know better."

Morgan's Butchery | Body bank, morph individualization and upgrades | Psychotherapy and Psychosurgery, therapeutic and recreational | http://eclipsephase.com/comment/59484#comment-59484

ThatWhichNeverWas ThatWhichNeverWas's picture
Speed seems an touchy point. Who knew? :P

Please note, nothing I'm proposing is either set in stone or playtested because I'm trying to present concepts rather than specific rule systems. I'm presenting them in relatively specific ways because I'm not sure how else to describe them.
Otherwise I would put them in the Houserule board.

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
Those speed changes are horrible. Just stack speed and melt everything before anyone has any chance to react. It's already one of the strongest, if not the strongest stats in the game (Only Moxie really competes) It might make sense, but it'd be horrible for having playable combat-like lose initiative and be TPKed before anyone's turn comes up bad.

The reason I think condensing Speed would work is that it automatically bars you from performing a single action multiple times, so you can't just stack attacks for massive damage.
It pushes the character/player to make more 'broad' action selections like setting up trick-shots, engaging more enemies, or just otherwise doing several different things at once.
It also makes speed subject to diminishing returns as the amount of actions which are useful in a given situation will always be limited by circumstance.

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
Base attributes are very helpful as catch alls, so without a really large number of less generic ones there will be very noticeable gaps.

I didn't say that Attributes should be removed 'entirely', just that they shouldn't be the numerical basis for skills. Any values for the Attribute, say when rolling to remember something, would be based on a value given by the Trait version.

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
Gear and Traits aren't that similar, so I don't see why they are being lumped together, and I don't think they really fit. I generally don't like very abstract gear systems, so I'm still waiting to see what the complexity thing looks like.

How are Gear and Traits different?
Even now, both are simply abilities or modifiers to abilities for a Cost. Some Gear grants or improves Traits, some Traits make Gear easier/harder to use, and having a Blueprint means an increased/alternate initial purchase cost for a reduced cost later.
The only thing that's really different is the formatting and the nature of the cost.

For example, all characters would have a 'Cognition' Trait/Blueprint automatically, and one Upgrade could be 'Math Wiz'.
As a default, this would cost Low (to equip your Morph with an augment), but could be decreased to Trivial (you bought a better blueprint) or Free (it's an Ego Trait).
This isn't massively different to the rules as they are now, it just makes things easier to organise and balance.

gleech wrote:
I don't like the idea of linking blueprints to either a trait or ranks in a corresponding skill, and I really don't like the idea of linking blueprints to character advancement. I really like that my characters can just have a rail-rifle right from the start if I want them too, and I really like that the game doesn't devolve into a gear-upgrade treadmill the way f.ex. Pathfinder games do. I like Pathfinder, for the record, I just don't like that "adding bonuses to my +2 Keen Bastard Sword" is a major method for character advancement; I very much prefer not having to do that in EP.

You could still start with a rail-rifle right from the start. The only things that would change is that you can make it easier and cheaper to have a rail-rifle if having it is important to the character concept, and if you wanted a really good rifle the potential improvements are visible from the get-go.

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
I don't think downtime needs to be formalized that much. I think everything but extended downtime works pretty well already. I also really like EP's very complicated character creation. It's a lot of fun to have that much control after you learn the system.

eaton wrote:

Learning, programming (for code and blueprints), travel, and extremely long task actions are all pretty straightforward building blocks right now; I don't think any mechanical changes to these are needed, although an explanatory section that explains how they apply to downtime/long-term actions could be nice.

The Downtime idea is similar to Gear– it takes existing methods of character advancement (CP, Scenario Rewards, Software/Blueprint programming, Accelerated Learning, Psychosurgical manipulation...) and gives them a unifying conceptual framework: it doesn't actually matter if you got your new Eidolon by programming it yourself or you did favours for a month and bought it with Rep, or you just CPed it into existence.
Your Character has a new piece of gear, and you can attach a character specific in-universe justification.

Both the Downtime and Gear concepts are mostly changes in formatting and how the information is organised. The only real differences is that it acknowledges downtime as an explicit part of the game instead of something that's 'also there if you want it', makes a character's lifestyle and day-to-day more important, and makes 'unusual' gear and circumstances easier to parse.

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
I don't get the damage system.

Essentially, when your character attacks another you roll damage once, which represents how severe the wound would be: assuming the roll is 2d10, a roll of 2 would be a glancing hit whilst a 20 is a headshot (or equivalent). The weapon(s) or nature of the attack used apply modifiers, but don't grant more dice – a graze is a graze no matter how many bullets you fired, and being shot 10 times in the head isn't really that much worse then being shot once in the head.
The amount of damage is then defined primarily by "was that a bad place to be shot?", with armour and durability values set to reflect that concept.

In the past we've had to compensate for weaknesses, finding quick solutions that only benefit a few.
But what if we never need to feel weak or morally conflicted again?

Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture
That's a very important thing

That's a very important thing to note, because RAW, there's nothing stopping you from taking the same action multiple times, except of course the limits of the action economy. A 4 complex action character can take 4 attack actions at the same time (though they generally need to be jamming drones to actually do this, because the rules don't normally give that many bonus physical actions).

So you mean you can't take the same action more than once in the same turn but speed is changed to extra complex actions during the turn?

That doesn't break combat in half, but I still don't like it as much as the current speed rules, and it interacts strangely with a number of combat related rules like grenade timers. One of the interesting strengths EP combat has is that the way speed and delayed actions work means that the system doesn't need to have a special "reaction" action to use outside of your turn. Changing speed would either make the cost to do this very small (just delay one of your complex actions, but take the rest now, rather than not doing anything for a little while, and since you can't take the most useful actions more than once, who cares?).

It also means that the interesting "speed interrupts" where you can shoot a target moving between covers during their move goes away (as movement is the Action Turn, not Action Phase). They're kind of a pain to keep track of, but it makes for interesting combats for sure.

I actually really like the way Speed works in EP, but it easily unbalances fights more than it should. (Though EP doesn't really care about combat balance like, say, D&D does) Depreciating Speed is probably the most effective way to handle it, but one more thing to track in combat.

I don't see what gets better when Attributes are not the base for skills. Delta Green does it that way, but just has base limits for skills and allows Attribute substitution in many cases, so very little changes. All I really see this changing would be making certain skills something that every character is good at, but I don't think that makes sense for EP. EP characters are much more variable than Delta Green characters, a good unarmed combat skill makes no sense for an AI which has never had a fist to make for example.

As for gear and traits, I maintain that they aren't the same thing. Some traits maybe be gotten through gear (Math Whiz, Hyper-Linguist, Eidetic Memory, etc), but a large number of them (Tacnet Sniper, Gold Star, Coronal Adaption, Patron, Expert, Fast Learner, Civilian Analyst, Zoosemiotics, etc, etc) may not be purchased as gear.

For Egos, Traits act as a catch-all for things which should have mechanical weight but don't make sense as other things. Some of those it makes sense to have as gear, but many times it doesn't. For Morphs, Traits are even more important because they define each type of morph, as they can't (easily) be added in later. You can't give a Flat or Splicer Coronal Adaption for example, you have to get a hold of a Surya or Salamander.

The edge cases are traits like Brave, Pain Tolerance, or similar, which could probably be acquired through Psychosurgery, making them not really gear, but purchasable.

They both alter abilities for a cost, but traits generally can't be bought with credits or rep, only CP, or Rez and in-fiction justification. The differences in cost make huge differences in scope and accessibility. I also haven't talked about Negative Traits at all, because they just don't compare with gear.

As for downtime, and an addendum to gear I suppose:

Unifying conception frameworks do not, in and of themselves, make something better.

Quote:
it doesn't actually matter if you got your new Eidolon by programming it yourself or you did favours for a month and bought it with Rep, or you just CPed it into existence.

Yes it does, first, because those don't take remotely the same amount of time. Assuming that the same rules for creating a blueprint are needed to design a an Eidolon that's 5 week of work. Even with 60x time acceleration, and the significant time that entails that's about 6 days of work. It probably should have a longer timeframe than that, but that goes beyond the scope of the rules.

It takes just three days to get something [Expensive] with a level 5 favor.

So this unified downtime would actually reduce the meaningful options available to players and homogenize things into some kind of mini-game to play between missions. Downtime is already built into the character advancement rules, and given how they work, is only optional if the GM wants the players to only spend their Rez on credits and Moxie.

I don't think the system needs more formalization than a table which collects downtime activities, because it's kind of a pain to look up the things you can do during downtime.

For damage:

You're talking about replacing the to hit roll or something? Near misses and such already have rules.

Or, if there is still a to-hit roll you're just making every weapon deal 2d10±stuff and adding some flavor text? How does that improve things?

Quote:
a graze is a graze no matter how many bullets you fired, and being shot 10 times in the head isn't really that much worse then being shot once in the head.

That's the point of firing more bullets, to turn near misses or grazes into better hits with more opportunities.

Similarly, getting shot in the head 10x is much worse than 1x. It might not matter for a flat which is disabled after the first bullet, but it really does matter for something like a Reaper, Steel, or Hamilton Cylinder.

I don't think this type of simplified damage works in a game where many targets are well outside of human norms, and very different from one another.

Quote:
The amount of damage is then defined primarily by "was that a bad place to be shot?", with armour and durability values set to reflect that concept.

So exactly what is different? No more called shot rules? Wounds don't work anymore? This needs much more thought.

And I still don't see how this is an improvement over just rolling damage, and each weapon having its own damage code.

DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture
I have many ideas of what I

I have many ideas of what I want for Eclipse Phase 2nd Edition. Some of them involve renaming certain things.

Rename Jamming (bots) to Ghosting. I don't know about you, but when I hear jamming, I keep thinking jamming radio signals, not controlling robots. I figure that ghosting would be sufficiently unique word that it shouldn't be confused with anything else.

Rename XP (Experience Playback) to LM (Life Media). RPGs and many other games use xp as experience points. Because its already used by many things for one particular meaning, I would think that there would be resistance to adopting a new meaning for xp.

I don't need the game to adopt the names that I provided. If you have better names, I would like to hear them.

CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture
Clean up Jamming. Fix Speed

Clean up Jamming. Fix Speed (or just RAW the better Transhuman alt rules). More differentiation between different Morphs. Maybe update the little bits of in game fluff that don't really match up with the scientific stuff that's been happening lately.

Honestly, Morph differentiation is my big one. Whenever we talked about this a few years ago, the conversation always ended with "this isn't something that we can solve without a second edition." Go, Jack, spread your wings and fix the issue! :D

-

SquireNed SquireNed's picture
I will say for a moment that

I will say for a moment that when I heard "removed gear costs" I had a panic attack, but when I saw "and now they're the same as rep or blueprints" I calmed down and hit the pledge now button.

Does this mean that there's CP/Rez in place of money now?

ORCACommander ORCACommander's picture
ummm ned, this is a fan wish

ummm ned, this is a fan wish list not an official changelog :P

SquireNed SquireNed's picture
ORCACommander wrote:ummm ned,

ORCACommander wrote:
ummm ned, this is a fan wish list not an official changelog :P

Yeah, I got that info from the Kickstarter description.

GreyBrother GreyBrother's picture
Might i suggest you put that

Might i suggest you put that question into one of the two threads that aren't wishlists? http://www.eclipsephase.com/ep2-kickstarter-launch

gleech gleech's picture
RE:

Baribal wrote:
"Sir, the rifle that we found on the perp's morph, we think he got it out of a cracked fabber on level 3, engineering lab. But get this... It's the exact same make and model, down to the fixes around the DRM'd parts, as the one they found on the saboteur who vented that hab in the Trojans last month. If I didn't know better, I'd say we've got a group of clandestine operators on our hands, maybe even a whole organization. And I'm afraid that I *don't* know better."

We're already talking about a blueprint that's either cracked and distributed on the black market, or that's open source. So it's not like other people wouldn't also be using it. And it's not like it would be hard to alter in trivial ways just so it didn't scan as exactly the same.

I suppose you could do that to a group if you wanted to, but you could also easily excuse away not having to worry about it.

MrWigggles wrote:
Speed from Neural Chem ect. isnt thinking faster. Its reacting faster. Thinking faster, is covered un Metal Speed. Folks who can /just/ think faster cannot shoot their gun faster. So you're right, it doesnt make sense for someone to think faster to fire faster and Eclipse Phase as of now, respect that.

That's a distinction that the game itself doesn't make consistently. Neither the Unconscious Lead sleight nor Reflex Boosters cyberware explains how character A can fire a gun or swing a sword 4 times to character B's once.

MrWigggles wrote:
And for Battletech, that isn't Speed, thats Inaitive. This isnt meaning to be nitpicky, they're seperate if related mechanics. Doing how Battletech does it, is removing the Speed from the game which is an option. And you're right Speed is a force multiplier. That exactly what its meant to do.

Right. Replacing speed as such with something that's less of a force multiplier was exactly the idea.

It's partly because it's complicated, it's partly because it doesn't make sense, it's partly because its impact is huge relative to its cost, and it's partly because it screws over character who either don't realize they have to have high speed to be effective or would like to play combat characters that are effective by some means other than being matrix-fast. It's just a bad system.

CodeBreaker wrote:
Clean up Jamming.

Here here! Especially w.r.t. the Pilot: skill. As far as I can tell, you only use the Pilot: skills when remote-operating (i.e. not when jamming), but all skills when remote-operating take a -10 penalty. That means that the Pilot skill basically always has a fixed -10 penalty. That also means that you steer a boat with Freerunning (and not Pilot: Watercraft) if you're jamming it, which doesn't really make sense either.

My brain-dead proposal: attach skills to mobility systems (instead of control modes), so that you always pilot watercraft with Pilot: Watercraft, whether you're jamming it or remote-operating it.



ThatWhichNeverWas ThatWhichNeverWas's picture
94% Formatting, 5% Gameplay, 1% Cadmium.

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
So you mean you can't take the same action more than once in the same turn but speed is changed to extra complex actions during the turn?

Exactly.
You do lose the ability to interrupt other characters' turns, although I suppose an interrupt/overwatch action could be introduced, but you also have more variety in the actions the character takes, and action phases where some characters can't do anything no longer exist.

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
I don't see what gets better when Attributes are not the base for skills. Delta Green does it that way, but just has base limits for skills and allows Attribute substitution in many cases, so very little changes. All I really see this changing would be making certain skills something that every character is good at, but I don't think that makes sense for EP.

It's not meant to change much in-game at all; it would make resleeving math easier, and using Attributes for things like Speed makes them more applicable to multiple character types whilst making character-required attributes (Fray, Speed...) simpler to get.
The primary change is it makes Defaulting simpler and more generally available, and character sheets easier to read.

Let's say the [Combat Experience] Expertise is attached to both the Kinetic Weapons and Unarmed skills. An AGI character with CE 10 and Kinetic Weapons 70 would be very good with a gun but only know the basics of how to fight unarmed, whilst a character with CE 50 and Kinetics 70 is a professional soldier with a specialisation.

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
For Egos, Traits act as a catch-all for things which should have mechanical weight but don't make sense as other things. Some of those it makes sense to have as gear, but many times it doesn't. For Morphs, Traits are even more important because they define each type of morph, as they can't (easily) be added in later. You can't give a Flat or Splicer Coronal Adaption for example, you have to get a hold of a Surya or Salamander.
...
They both alter abilities for a cost, but traits generally can't be bought with credits or rep, only CP, or Rez and in-fiction justification. The differences in cost make huge differences in scope and accessibility. I also haven't talked about Negative Traits at all, because they just don't compare with gear.

If a specific element cannot be bought as gear, then it wouldn't have a cost listed to buy it as gear. You get it at the Trait level, or not at all.
If a trait is only possible as part of a morph, then it's only found on the morph's upgrade list.
I'll admit negative traits are harder to do in this fashion – I have a couple of thoughts, but haven't taken the time to work out which one would be best.

It might be helpful to think of it less as 'Traits are a type of gear' and more as 'Having a Blueprint is a Trait, which requires a resource to activate'.

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
Yes it does, first, because those don't take remotely the same amount of time.
...
It takes just three days to get something [Expensive] with a level 5 favor.

So this unified downtime would actually reduce the meaningful options available to players and homogenize things into some kind of mini-game to play between missions. Downtime is already built into the character advancement rules, and given how they work, is only optional if the GM wants the players to only spend their Rez on credits and Moxie.

...Yes, turning it into a 'minigame' for between missions is the entire point, because at the moment it's all over the place.
I consider having character advancement magnitude depend upon character build a bad thing because it makes more difficult and time consuming to rule, and reduces meaningful options by making some 'better' than others.
It's the same problem as Speed – in the RAW you technically have more possibilities but it almost always ends up as 'Second Verse, Same As The First'.
Consolidation removes possibilities, but imo it makes the rest more meaningful.

I suspect this is an issue of personal taste.

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
Or, if there is still a to-hit roll you're just making every weapon deal 2d10±stuff and adding some flavor text? How does that improve things?
...
Similarly, getting shot in the head 10x is much worse than 1x. It might not matter for a flat which is disabled after the first bullet, but it really does matter for something like a Reaper, Steel, or Hamilton Cylinder.

I don't think this type of simplified damage works in a game where many targets are well outside of human norms, and very different from one another.
...
So exactly what is different? No more called shot rules? Wounds don't work anymore? This needs much more thought.

There's still a to-hit roll, and there are still Called Shots and Wounds.
What changes is that you're only making a single to-hit and damage roll instead of one for each weapon, and there are three variables to alter with other rules like full-auto and called shots instead of two.

I haven't set on specific rules because it would take significant playtesting, but stuff like Aiming For The Head/Weakspot and Full-Auto to hit Weakspot could work by either giving a damage bonus to the Roll which is Capped at the maximum possible (2d10+X, Maximum 20) or by applying a minimum damage amount possible (The higher of 2d10 and X).

Targets with 'single' weakspots which are hard to damage have armour (making it harder to get a significant hit), and targets with multiple weak-spots or redundancy could have increased Durability scores necessitating multiple attacks.
Other possibilities are damage caps like RAW swarminoids, or counting as multiple targets for very large morphs or vehicles... but these don't have anything to do with this concept – they can be used with the damage system as-is without any difficulty.

Generally, I'm trying to create more meaningful options by enforcing variety, and then making those options mechanically simple to put into play at the table.
This is partially because I think that making the barrier between a player's decisions and their realisation in-game as low as possible is good game design, but mostly because Eclipse Phase is a game where Unusual, Clever or just plain Weird circumstances, objects and characters are very likely to come up, so the rules should be set up with that in mind.
Currently, they aren't.

In the past we've had to compensate for weaknesses, finding quick solutions that only benefit a few.
But what if we never need to feel weak or morally conflicted again?

Baribal Baribal's picture
Let's systematize...

How about we try to derive a speed system from first principles? There seem to be four kinds of speed:
* Physical speed, determining how much physical action you can cram into an action turn
* Reflexes, the speed with which you react to stimuli
* Mental speed, determining how much thought work you can do in a given time frame
* Multitasking, the ability to do more than one thing at a time

I'd like to propose that...
* mental speed should be restricted to single tasks, as switching context often undoes a lot of mental effort, and thus mental speed should help only with extended actions.
* physical speed is constrained by one's morph, and the tools one uses. A sufficiently wired synth may fire a semi-automatic weapon more often than a similarly wired biomorph, who in turn would still outpace a baseline biomorph, who in turn would probably still have a slight edge over a case. Either way, the pistol itself sets a hard limit, and this kind of speed stops to matter entirely when you use a fully automatic weapon.
* multitasking, implemented most often by forking, is completely orthogonal to this, and forks, or mental "threads", should be treated as different characters.
* reflexes, while not being entirely accurate, are best modeled by fudging the order in which characters act.

Two more constraints, for the sake of simplified processes at the game table:
* No distinction between declaration and resolution of actions. General principle is that when it's someone's turn, that person decides and acts.
* This system should yield reasonable results even when players and NPCs don't act on the same timeline, but action plainly swaps between those parties.

So here's my ideas:
* Everybody gets one action slot per turn. How many physical actions he can jam into them depends on his physical speed, and can be implemented in a point-buy system. A baseline splicer has a speed of one and can baseline physical speed of 1 and can buy two semi-automatic shots with that, an upgraded synth with a physical speed of 2 can buy four. The splicer can use his whole speed point to buy a fully-automatic discharge, and so can the synth, but as the *gun* is limited to one speed point, the synth can't buy a second. He could buy additional movement, probably incurring an increase in difficulty for firing the gun, but at least he has the potential to move farther than the splicer, who has to choose between firing and moving.
* If someone acts, anyone else can pre-empt their next action if they manage to win a competitive roll on reflexes. If the reactor wins, they act first, but can't act again until their next normal action turn has passed. If the initial actor wins, the wanna-be-reactor has to wait until it's his regular action turn again, but they can use that one (as they didn't pre-empt their action). Even better reflexes can be modeled as multiple opportunities to react to the actions of different actors, until you succeed in doing so. A worst-case degeneration of this system would be that people act twice in the beginning of a confrontation, and then everything falls back into a round-robin.
* Mental speed only matters if something takes at least several action turns to think through, and is best relegated to non-action actions.

I guess you'll recognize bits and pieces of these systems from other game systems, or things mentioned in this thread. I just typed out what had congealed in my head over the last few hours. Opinions?

Morgan's Butchery | Body bank, morph individualization and upgrades | Psychotherapy and Psychosurgery, therapeutic and recreational | http://eclipsephase.com/comment/59484#comment-59484

Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture
I wrote a long comment, but I

I wrote a long comment, but I don't think it's worth getting down in the trenches that much.

What exactly are the problems you see in the rules (and how do they effect play), and how exactly are these rules supposed to make them better.

If you can, get more specific than a general statement. And stop using metacurrencies, they work directly against:

[quoteThis is partially because I think that making the barrier between a player's decisions and their realisation in-game as low as possible is good game design

That's the opposite of metacurrencies.

At Baribal:

To boil down the speed changes as I read them:

* Synths are faster than biomorphs (except Cases, because the good budget morph should always be the Basic Pod I guess)

* Mental Speed (the augment) doesn't actually do anything in combat, even if you can see the bullets traveling. Maybe the initiative bonus applies. I don't think it holds that being able to think much faster wouldn't actually help at all in combat, where most checks are not task actions.

* Extra rules for guns (RoF limits), which don't matter for any firearm except the sniper rifle, and don't make any sense for the RoF limited family of weapons, Beam Weapons. I guess it gets harder to use Torches and Buzzers with high speed, but that doesn't feel important enough to warrant a rule personally.

* All of a characters actions happen at once. I had a game where a well equipped Ultimate managed to kill everyone in the party in less than a single combat round (except the Swarmanoid, who managed to escape by splitting their bugs across multiple city blocks). That kind of nova means that kind of thing is more likely, and would likely happen before some people even got a turn. I don't think that the combat monkey ending the encounter on their turn is that interesting personally. Imagine a (physical) speed 4 reaper making 8-24 (a lot of attacks, the exact number isn't important) attacks to start combat!

* Initiative doesn't really matter that much. That doesn't really bother me, but being able to interrupt the guy in first initiative to go first and kill everyone in the room you dislike is pretty dumb. (That Reaper from before would be very good at this)

* Physical and Mental speed (not the augment) are separate, which makes sense. It was always weird to me that taking MRDR was a good way to do things like complex analysis to delicate operations faster. I like that change.

* Multitasking would be a pain in the ass to track if it was multiple characters. Separate checks for stress, initiative rolls, etc would be a pain to track. I think that's why it works the way it does.

Rules which allow different characters to do different amounts of stuff in the same amount of time will be inherently difficult to manage from a spotlight management point of view. It's not really possible to avoid a character who acts 3x as much in the same amount of time to take over the game more in that time. I doubt that there is a clean fix for speed that solves the problem of high-speed characters being more noticeable in combat.

Laskeutua Laskeutua's picture
...

And here's me over here, just wanting an exhuman faction that isn't cartoonishly villainous and could work well in a firewall cell.

I may or may not have homebrewed something specifically for that in the past >_>

Baribal Baribal's picture
Laskeutua wrote:And here's me

Laskeutua wrote:
And here's me over here, just wanting an exhuman faction that isn't cartoonishly villainous and could work well in a firewall cell.

Since the defining characteristic of an exhuman is to reject their humanity, I don't see that happening at all. The closest approximation would be mercurials, some brinkers, maybe break-away Ultimates. There's probably even Argonauts who, due to their field of research, could be mistaken for exhumans, while not actually fitting that bill. So what bits of exhumans do fascinate you enough to want to play one?

Morgan's Butchery | Body bank, morph individualization and upgrades | Psychotherapy and Psychosurgery, therapeutic and recreational | http://eclipsephase.com/comment/59484#comment-59484

Laskeutua Laskeutua's picture
What made me want to play

What made me want to play exhuman? two things. First was was this:

Core Book wrote:

More than any other faction, exhumans seek to take the capabilities of self-modification to the absolute limit and become posthuman. Typical exhumans see the Fall as either a missed evolutionary opportunity and/or as an example of transhumanity’s inferiority and unworthiness. Though specific ideologies differ between exhuman packs, as a whole they seek to self-evolve to a more advanced state of being. To some, this means genetically transforming themselves into a top-of-the-food-chain, super-smart, survive-anywhere predator that can out-compete all other life forms for dominance. To others, it means bootstrapping their intelligence to the levels of the TITANs through extensive genetic modifications and pharmaceutical treatments or going infomorph and modifying their programming. A few are singularity seekers, hoping to find some TITAN relic that will allow them to transcend their current transhuman limitations, or even to find the TITANs themselves and be absorbed into their super-consciousness.

Exhumans are universally mistrusted by many, and for good reason. Typical exhumans engage in modifications that are extreme and untested, sometimes fringe science at best, often resulting in horrible failures and disfigurement, but more commonly driving the subject insane—or into a completely alien or feral mindset. Though individual exhumans pursue their own paths, they are known to band together in the Kuiper Belt and other remote areas. Several packs of exhumans have taken their loathing for inferior transhumanity to an extreme, declaring war on their former species and launching brutal raids and pirate attacks on isolated outposts.

It emphasises that only some exhumans are cartoonishly evil.

Second thing was the exhuman clade in Know Evil. The guy with a MAC address instead of a name in the millipede morph endeared me to the idea.

What I've always wanted to play (and this wound up being the thing that prompted me to homebrew that clade) was the idea of an exhuman steward - basically they view transhumanity as a mix of very young children and endangered wildlife that should be protected, especially from themselves. Essentially viewing the other exhuman clades as inherently weak because of how much they obsess over their dominance over transhumanity ('you are superior to humanity, why are you still acting like you have something to prove to them').

gleech gleech's picture
wandering off topic, but friendly exhumans would be neat

Baribal wrote:
Laskeutua wrote:
And here's me over here, just wanting an exhuman faction that isn't cartoonishly villainous and could work well in a firewall cell.

Since the defining characteristic of an exhuman is to reject their humanity, I don't see that happening at all.

That's a very not-*trans*-humanist point of view. :P

Baribal wrote:
The closest approximation would be mercurials, some brinkers, maybe break-away Ultimates. There's probably even Argonauts who, due to their field of research, could be mistaken for exhumans, while not actually fitting that bill.

Some extreme Mercurials would actually be pretty close. An infomorph rights activist into extreme ego modification (openly or not) might be a mercurial.

It's also worth noting that it probably depends on your cell. Pragmatists will do all kinds of things that conservatives will blow you up for, after all. ;)

Baribal wrote:
So what bits of exhumans do fascinate you enough to want to play one?

The Gene Roddenberry-esque idea that, "just because you are very different from me, possibly up to having a completely different mental architecture, doesn't mean we can't find a means to cooperate." It's fun (for some, anyway) to explore radically different characters.



ApSciLiara ApSciLiara's picture
Trait Rework. Good Lord, a

Trait Rework. Good Lord, a trait rework.
As it stands, a lot of the traits are just plain BS. Neutral Ego traits don't exist. A lot of positive traits (see: Psi, Patron, Military Rank) are ones that come with downsides to the point where they're just burning CP. Psi means you have to take mental disorders, makes you more vulnerable to the exsurgent stuff, and generally has things that I think would definitely make it a Neutral trait. And yet, it costs 20/25 points.

Unless traits are changing in another way, in which case, ignore me x.x

MrWigggles MrWigggles's picture
I never took the meaning of

I never took the meaning of positive, to mean just positive. To me, they confere a bonus. Neutral doesnt do anything. And Negative, confers just a negative. Positive and Negative can upsides or downsides.

Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture
Most of the Traits from

Most of the Traits from Firewall should probably have been neutral though, the time commitment needed for them makes them pretty bad. Professional Courtesy seems fairly useful though.

Psi is pretty hard to ballpark IMO, it's not amazing, but provides several capabilities which may not be otherwise replicated.

LuisCarlos17f LuisCarlos17f's picture
My wishs:

My wishs:

Pictures of morphs and monsters.

Furry morphs (canines and felines).

Better names for apptitudes. (COG, COO, SAV?). I have my own list of aptitudes for my homebrew d20 (Int, Dex, Wis, Con, Str Cha + Technique (crafting, art, slow actions, or pre-learnt actions like playing music or dance), Karma, Courage and Astuteness).

In the background the biosphere or ecosystem of the Earth has survived the fall. And less Noam Chosky + Keynes and more Ayn Rand , Hayek + Tomas Sowell.

A different name for "puppets". is "Surrogate" trade mark, copyright? Why not "subrogater" or cybermarotte (or telemarotte)?

Why the name muse for the "IA angel shoulder" and not another like Qareen, etiäinen, fetch or fylgja?

* A sourcebook about "what if" or "elsewolrds" about optional backgrounds, for example the aliens civilitations survived their "falls" (not only the factors).

The Master Confucius said: “The noble man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony.” (Anaclet 13:23).

ApSciLiara ApSciLiara's picture
If they rename aptitudes,

If they rename aptitudes, they have to rename them so they can create a catchy acronym, like SPECIAL. This is law.

Baribal Baribal's picture
LuisCarlos17f wrote:Pictures

LuisCarlos17f wrote:
Pictures of morphs and monsters.

I applaud the Morph Recognition Guide for being on point with this. Now If we could also get the Total Trait Tableau, and All The Blueprints... EDIT: The following is obsoleted, but there's no strikethrough tag: Or at least have digital versions that are lightweight enough to be rearranged with common free word processors. I tried opening a book in LibreOffice, and saw my machine grinding to a halt. As much as I applaud the BY-NC-SA license, it's mostly window dressing if you can't cut&paste things around freely. Heck, those "missing" books I mentioned? They could be maintained by fans, fed back into Posthuman Studios, and sold as a continually updating modularization of the original sources. EDIT: Added: I have seen the light, and it is called pdfshuffler! I guess now there's no excuse not to rearrange all the books myself.

LuisCarlos17f wrote:
In the background the biosphere or ecosystem of the Earth has survived the fall.

They actually did that to an IMO sufficient degree in "Sunward". There's little more to be added outside specific locations.

LuisCarlos17f wrote:
And less Noam Chosky and more Ayn Rand or Tomas Sowell.

I think Rimward was a little anemic on the whole Autonomist Alliance, except for the Titanian Commonwealth. Scum had a few flimsy pages; I think "The Stars Our Destination" was thicker. Also, if a quarter of one of the two largest power blocs in the solar system can be summarized as "They travel around and bring the circus to town", that's just not enough.

Morgan's Butchery | Body bank, morph individualization and upgrades | Psychotherapy and Psychosurgery, therapeutic and recreational | http://eclipsephase.com/comment/59484#comment-59484

MrWigggles MrWigggles's picture
Whats wrong with the

Whats wrong with the attribute names? Cognition, Coordination, Reflexes, Inuitition, Savy, Somatics, Willpower.
I also find it kind of funny, that your suggestion to replace puppet, is puppet. A marionette is a kind of puppet. And surrigate to me, isnt right. A surrigate, isnt a good word for that, its not what socketpuppting is.

Dilf_Pickle Dilf_Pickle's picture
They're nice and rude and smart and crazy and boring and...

Baribal wrote:
I think Rimward was a little anemic on the whole Autonomist Alliance, except for the Titanian Commonwealth. Scum had a few flimsy pages; I think "The Stars Our Destination" was thicker. Also, if a quarter of one of the two largest power blocs in the solar system can be summarized as "They travel around and bring the circus to town", that's just not enough.

Part of the difficulty might be that the Titanian Commonwealth is the only member of the Autonomist Alliance that is even remotely homogeneous. The rest are so varied that they almost (or perhaps verily) defy description save in the barest of terms: Extropians believe in absolute economic freedom, Scum are crazy space gypsies, Autonomists just want to like chill man. Everything else, if you'll permit the simplification, is up in the air.