Rules problem (morphs) | Eclipse Phase

Sun, 2012-08-12 04:29

#2

Decivre

I actually proposed

I actually proposed alternative rules that addressed this issue [url=http://www.eclipsephase.com/expanding-use-existing-mechanics-character-s.... Check them out if you like.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Sun, 2012-08-12 05:48

#3

Ferretz

Nice, I'll see if I can pitch

Nice, I'll see if I can pitch in with my ideas on that forum thread. Thanks :) -E.

—

"I can’t talk to a man who bears an undeserved animosity towards ferrets."

-GRAHAM CHAPMAN (1941-89)

Sun, 2012-08-12 16:51

#4

DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture

Eclipse Phase is a new

Eclipse Phase is a new product line produced by a new company. Growing pains are to be expected. No, Eclipse Phase seems to over look the fact that some morphs might not be built the same. According to the rules, a Menton and an Olympian are considered equally strong if their final SOM scores (after considering ego aptitudes, morph bonuses, and other factors) are the same. As for health, a flat has 30 DUR, a splicer has 35 DUR, an exalt has 40 DUR, so a 40 DUR orca with no armor rating does seem fragile. Some people on the forums do think that the Fenrir (Rimward, p. 186) is a tank like morph that should be tougher than what it was presented as. However, smart cats can be vicious creatures, so you'd best watch out for them. More so if you look like a giant fish. ;) Some morphs do get bonuses and abilities not covered by traits or augmentations. The uplift orca get a +20 unarmed combat and natural bite attack. The octomorph bonuses to +30 swimming, +10 climbing, a bite attack, and an ink attack. Some morphs have a walking speed different than the norm. The case synthmorph has a walking speed of 4/16, while a synth synthmorph has a walking speed of 4/20. I might be able to aid you with patching the rules, but not right at the moment. I'll try to get back to you soon.

Tue, 2012-08-14 01:53

#5

Thampsan

Like with a lot of games the

Like with a lot of games the rules require a bit of willing 'blindness', or suspension of disbelief. I challenge you to find a roleplaying game who's mechanics don't have massive flaws and that cover all possible bases for situations. Sure smart cats could probably take an Orca according to the rules but why would you let it? Smart cat vs Orca isn't very realistic since one is intelligent and the other isn't. Why isn't the Orca wearing some sort of protective armour outside of it's watery habitat, plus chances are it probably has some servo arms so that it can manipulate things, including - probably, weapons. If the cats are in the Orca's environment and can withstand the immense hydrostatic pressure, then chances are their claws aren't doing shit. The same logic dictates that the common house cat in D&D 3.5 could kill the average Commoner NPC. But that doesn't happen because the laws of gaming narrative allow us to look past such insane occurrences.

Tue, 2012-08-14 18:14

#6

Madwand

I don't buy this. The OP's

I don't buy this. The OP's point is a good one. The rules SHOULD reflect expected reality, and the OP has pointed out some real flaws. Cat claws shouldn't do more than 1 or 2 points of damage, and the Orca should have some natural armor and possibly several hundred durability. Size matters, a lot, and the rules should reflect that. They don't -- instead, the cats tear the orca apart in seconds. It shouldn't require the GM to just make something up to correctly simulate this fight.

Tue, 2012-08-14 18:20

#7

Ferretz

Cat claws do 1d10+2, which

Cat claws do 1d10+2, which sounds waay to high, but that's how the rules are written. The Orca has 40 Durability if I remember correctly, and no armor. :/ I know the example (cats vs orca) is strange, to say the least, but you could easily do it with other morphs of different sizes. The sheer mass of something should give some protection. E.

—

"I can’t talk to a man who bears an undeserved animosity towards ferrets."

-GRAHAM CHAPMAN (1941-89)

Tue, 2012-08-14 20:15

#8

Thampsan

Obsession with rules leads to

Obsession with rules leads to games like F.A.T.A.L. Don't be that guy.

Tue, 2012-08-14 20:38

#9

Madwand

That's a slippery slope

That's a slippery slope fallacy. Just because we care that a favorite game has better rules does not mean we become obsessive or end up creating a bad game. Rather the opposite; better rules generally makes for a better game. Certainly a better simulationist ruleset would do a better job of emulating the hard sci-fi genre that Eclipse Phase is trying to be most of the time.

Wed, 2012-08-15 02:11

#10

SashaKemper SashaKemper's picture

I have to disagree. Better

I have to disagree. Better GMs make for better games, even with terrible rules.

—

Schizophrenics make for interesting storytellers.

Wed, 2012-08-15 03:59

#11

NewAgeOfPower NewAgeOfPower's picture

Better rules make the game

Better rules make the game better. However, a terrible GM with a great game is still mediocre, while a great GM can make the crappiest games epic.

—

As mind to body, so soul to spirit. As death to the mortal man, so failure to the immortal. Such is the price of all ambition.

Wed, 2012-08-15 04:08

#12

Decivre

SashaKemper wrote:I have to

SashaKemper wrote:
I have to disagree. Better GMs make for better games, even with terrible rules.

But a good GM with a good ruleset has the potential to do even better than a good GM with a terrible ruleset. I know for a fact that I would much rather make a fun campaign with Shadowrun's Deckers, Eclipse Phase's Asyncs or Reign's Smoke Mages than I would ever want to ponder trying to make a fun game while rolling up characters' Anal Circumference and the likelihood that their Anakim has a 3-foot penis.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Wed, 2012-08-15 04:25

#13

Ferretz

It's better to have a good GM

It's better to have a good GM than a bad one. It's also better to have a good rules set than a bad one. I've playtested rpgs for years, and game designers always strive to get the best possible rules system which also fit the desired mood and style of the setting. You'd want a different rules system for something like Call of Cthulhu than, say, Spycraft 2.0, for instance. That being said, characters and NPCs of vastly different physical sizes... well, that's one of the important concepts of the game. And the rules for handling this should work. Right now they do not, and I'm interested in seeing a fix. I would have liked to see the morphs "feel" a bit more like physical shells the characrers use. I like that they have a static DUR, but I think they should have other stats too, not just modifiers. I don't think that the Aptitudes should try to cover all statistics, including the ones that are physical (SOM for example). Mind over matter only takes you so far... but not that far. E.

—

"I can’t talk to a man who bears an undeserved animosity towards ferrets."

-GRAHAM CHAPMAN (1941-89)

Wed, 2012-08-15 07:02

#14

Gee4orce

Common Sense

Don't forget that no rule overrides common sense. The trouble with detailed rules is that players start to expect them to cover all eventualities, but they never can. You still have to fall back on judgement every so often. Take FATE - this is a very popular game engine that uses expressive phrases like 'Live hard, die fast' and 'Brought up on the wrong side of town' to describe your character. No amount of rules could ever detail every possible Aspect, nor should they. Instead, the players and referee have to come to an agreement about the meaning and scope of aspects, and whether or not they are applicable to a particular situation. Just because Eclipse Phase has more detailed rules for certain things, doesn't mean we shouldn't have to expect to fall back on common sense every so often. FWIW: I have long been of the mind that the EP rules are too complex. I recently had a read through Hero System version 6. Oh... Coming back to EP from that was a breath of fresh air, let me tell you !

Wed, 2012-08-15 09:27

#15

Thampsan

Yes, that's true. It's also a

Yes, that's true. It's also a good tool to illustrate the logical extreme of over systematizing. As other people have bought up what about those games with rules-light, like FATE system, like in another thread Nobilis, or Fudge. Games with overly complex rules systems often come out looking like Ars Magica (great game, great concept - so unwieldy that while I own almost every book and supplement in the latest edition, i'll probably never run it because of how complex it is), or Riddle of Steel and it's insane combat mechanics. The biggest problem Eclipse Phase has is that it is dealing with a very challenging subject matter and trying to provide a ruleset for it. Post-singularity everything is god-like or at least demi-god like to us as ordinary humans. The fact that they conceived of abilities as tied to mental states is genius, the fact that not everything scales quite perfectly is unfortunate, and can be house-ruled on the fly. It's just more than a little frustrating to see people fussing over small details in an otherwise solid system, especially when greater complexity might make the game significantly harder to play.

Wed, 2012-08-15 12:00

#16

Madwand

This isn't something that

This isn't something that would take much greater complexity to fix. A bit more attention should be paid to differences in size and mass when determining game stats, that's all. And I really, really hate relying on a GMs "common sense" to fix rules problems. Their common sense never matches mine. If I were the player commanding those cats, taking actions based on what I knew the rules to be, I'd be pissed if the orca were buffed (how can I make plans based on bad information?) or my cats nerfed. If I were the orca, I'd be incredulous if I were ripped to shreds in seconds by cats, or if I were told that I automatically won the fight due to my mass, I'd ask what house rules the GM had for better mass increasing my combat stats. It all leads to madness.

Wed, 2012-08-15 13:00

#17

Unity

Decivre wrote:SashaKemper

Decivre wrote:
SashaKemper wrote:
I have to disagree. Better GMs make for better games, even with terrible rules.
But a good GM with a good ruleset has the potential to do even better than a good GM with a terrible ruleset. I know for a fact that I would much rather make a fun campaign with Shadowrun's Deckers, Eclipse Phase's Asyncs or Reign's Smoke Mages than I would ever want to ponder trying to make a fun game while rolling up characters' Anal Circumference and the likelihood that their Anakim has a 3-foot penis.

The terror I feel at actually getting these references is mind-numbing right now.

—

[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/info_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/immort_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/mesh_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/exh_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://boxall.no-ip.o

Wed, 2012-08-15 13:07

#18

Treebore

As someone who is a really

As someone who is a really good GM, I much rather work with good rules than crappy ones, so keep on coming up with "fixes".

Wed, 2012-08-15 14:45

#19

Decivre

Thampsan wrote:It's just more

Thampsan wrote:
It's just more than a little frustrating to see people fussing over small details in an otherwise solid system, especially when greater complexity might make the game significantly harder to play.

This isn't a particularly small detail. In fact, the game's tendency toward everything being of equivalent strength is a terribly large detail. A swarm of flexbots structured as a crane, according to the mechanics of the game, has the same capability for lifting an object as any other morph. That's a pretty large gap in the mechanics. But not all of us want some drastic, ultra-realistic mechanic for determining strength. If you check out my link in the first post I did in this thread, the mechanic I came up with is just a simple metric for things, using durability as a simple gauge for morph size and strength. It also ups melee damage in the game (makes it relative to how big your morph is).

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Wed, 2012-08-15 16:39

#20

Treebore

To clarify

I actually like the rules of EP, but there are some obvious... discrepancies, such as which Morph is stronger than which, and the Orca versus cat issue, that illustrate some gaps it would not hurt to fill, and the above linked method for determining strength is pretty darn simple, so doesn't add any real complexity, and still answers a pretty darn important question. So coming up with answers to these questions do not necessarily put the RPG at risk for becoming overly complicated. It could, I've seen it happen before as well, but with such lessons learned and some out side of the box thinking such as the above strength solution, good simple answers to these things can be achieved with some simple mechanical tweaks.

Wed, 2012-08-15 17:14

#21

Ferretz

What I would love to see is

What I would love to see is some kind of "rules plugin" that uses the existing rules, like Durability, to gauge physical Strength of the morph, it's size (a DUR 40 Orca would still be stronger than a DUR 40 Fury combat morph), and it's resilience (cats claws would simply not hurt an Orca. Too small). -Eirik

—

"I can’t talk to a man who bears an undeserved animosity towards ferrets."

-GRAHAM CHAPMAN (1941-89)

Wed, 2012-08-15 17:40

#22

Treebore

Ferretz wrote:What I would

Ferretz wrote:
What I would love to see is some kind of "rules plugin" that uses the existing rules, like Durability, to gauge physical Strength of the morph, it's size (a DUR 40 Orca would still be stronger than a DUR 40 Fury combat morph), and it's resilience (cats claws would simply not hurt an Orca. Too small). -Eirik

You mean like what decivre did in his link above? I agree, a simple add on to a rule that already exists.

Thu, 2012-08-16 03:00

#23

Ferretz

Yes, something like that. But

Yes, something like that. But does that take into account the resilience of larger morphs, or just their physical strength and lifting capability? Also, I still feel that size, not just Durability, should have something to say on it. :) E.

—

"I can’t talk to a man who bears an undeserved animosity towards ferrets."

-GRAHAM CHAPMAN (1941-89)

Thu, 2012-08-16 03:05

#24

Decivre

Ferretz wrote:Yes, something

Ferretz wrote:
Yes, something like that. But does that take into account the resilience of larger morphs, or just their physical strength and lifting capability? Also, I still feel that size, not just Durability, should have something to say on it. :) E.

Which wouldn't be too hard to factor in as a modifier to FV. Simply add (or subtract) your morph's size modifier from the base value of DUR + SOM, divide by ten, and done. So now the new mod would be (DUR+SOM-SIZ)/10. I subtracted size since larger sizes come with negative modifiers (subtracting a negative nets you a positive). The root of the mechanic is simplicity.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Thu, 2012-08-16 15:16

#25

Madwand

The problem, this time, is

The problem, this time, is something that will take a bit more than a simple house rule to fix. It's a good house rule -- but this is a more fundamental problem. There are a few solutions. Ideally, we could get an updated edition of the system which DOES properly take into account size and mass of morphs and other objects. But in general, almost every non-human-sized morph needs to be updated. Durability should probably be somewhat related to mass, with some percentage modifier for delicacy or unusual toughness. Some simple calculations can show us what happens if durability is dependent on mass. An adult male orca can mass up to 10 tons -- about 80 times as much as a big, strong human. If we take a Splicer's 30 durability as baseline and assume a linear dependence of DUR to mass, I estimate the durability of an orca to be up to 2400. If DUR is based on the square root of mass, you get a DUR of 268. Cube root, you get 129 DUR (I think 268 is about right, personally). You should also probably add some natural armor, as it may not matter how long you scratch at an orca with cat claws. These numbers are not something a quick house rule can fix -- it takes a system designer that is paying attention. The cat problem is another issue: here, the problem is again a system that doesn't properly take into account size and strength. A cat claw should not start from a d10 for damage, and should not add it's full SOM/10. Instead, 1d2-2 is closer to the truth. Unfortunately, the system just doesn't support this size of creature. Even a rat or roach does 1d10 damage, which is WAY too much. It's not even clear who would win in a fight, rat or roach, which is just ridiculous. It's the cat and commoner problem all over again, but much, much worse this time.

Thu, 2012-08-16 18:32

#26

Monty

Rules problem (morphs)

I think a big morph could do more damage. The orca can't deliver 1d10+dam.bonus for Unarmed attack, it must be... I don't know... maybe 4d10, 5d10. The cats will be destroyed with a single coup.

Thu, 2012-08-16 19:46

#27

Decivre

Madwand wrote:The problem,

Madwand wrote:
The problem, this time, is something that will take a bit more than a simple house rule to fix. It's a good house rule -- but this is a more fundamental problem. There are a few solutions. Ideally, we could get an updated edition of the system which DOES properly take into account size and mass of morphs and other objects. But in general, almost every non-human-sized morph needs to be updated. Durability should probably be somewhat related to mass, with some percentage modifier for delicacy or unusual toughness. Some simple calculations can show us what happens if durability is dependent on mass. An adult male orca can mass up to 10 tons -- about 80 times as much as a big, strong human. If we take a Splicer's 30 durability as baseline and assume a linear dependence of DUR to mass, I estimate the durability of an orca to be up to 2400. If DUR is based on the square root of mass, you get a DUR of 268. Cube root, you get 129 DUR (I think 268 is about right, personally). You should also probably add some natural armor, as it may not matter how long you scratch at an orca with cat claws. These numbers are not something a quick house rule can fix -- it takes a system designer that is paying attention.

I'm not really using durability as a gauge of pure mass. Rather, I'm using it as a combination of factors. The natural musculature of the morph, it's natural ability to throw its weight or manipulate objects of mass. Not all weight is necessarily going to factor into this; in the case of whale morphs, their bodies consist of a large portion of fat. This probably does not contribute well to their ability to strike or lift (in fact, as someone who is overweight, I can guarantee you that fat does not contribute to your ability to dish out or deal damage; outside of a football tackle, it is often a hindrance to both).

Madwand wrote:
The cat problem is another issue: here, the problem is again a system that doesn't properly take into account size and strength. A cat claw should not start from a d10 for damage, and should not add it's full SOM/10. Instead, 1d2-2 is closer to the truth. Unfortunately, the system just doesn't support this size of creature. Even a rat or roach does 1d10 damage, which is WAY too much. It's not even clear who would win in a fight, rat or roach, which is just ridiculous. It's the cat and commoner problem all over again, but much, much worse this time.

It helps to mitigate the problem, however. In the standard scenario, a smart rat would deal 1d10 damage, while a transhuman splicer would do about 1d10+1— effectively an average of 5.5 damage versus 6.5. In my newly proposed system, a smart rat still has an average of 5.5 (or 4.5 if you decide it's a small target, granting it 1d10-1; so a smart roach might even net a 3.5 with 1d10-2), but a transhuman splicer would deal 9.5 on average… nearly twice (or more) the damage. Once you factor in the lower durability of the rat (or roach), the victor seems almost obvious. Almost. I do agree, however. Eclipse Phase does not really have a solid sense of scale. Small creatures are nearly as massive creatures. That was part of the reason I designed this mechanic. We probably can't expect a real fix for this until the next edition comes out (or they decide to completely overhaul the rules, if they are going to forgo the usual edition setup of games). But this fix is small enough that it can be applied to the game relatively easy with little footprint. And while it doesn't eliminate the problem, it certainly addresses it well enough for something that requires very little effort on the playgroup's part.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Sun, 2012-08-19 10:50

#28

Rada Ion

Madwand wrote:I don't buy

Madwand wrote:
I don't buy this. The OP's point is a good one. The rules SHOULD reflect expected reality, and the OP has pointed out some real flaws. Cat claws shouldn't do more than 1 or 2 points of damage, and the Orca should have some natural armor and possibly several hundred durability. Size matters, a lot, and the rules should reflect that. They don't -- instead, the cats tear the orca apart in seconds. It shouldn't require the GM to just make something up to correctly simulate this fight.

I don't want to derail this thread too much but I am having a hard time understanding why an Orca should have natural armor. Do you mean blubber, or fat? Why is that considered natural armor (if that was what you meant)? I'm not sure any living animal has anything that would be classified as natural armor, with the exception of a turtle shell, or maybe some insect carapaces. Most skin and or fat is all connected to a blood supply, and is part of the animals living body, especially skin that is an organ. Allot of this stuff should just be house ruled I would say. It is incredibly hard to make every system in a RPG balance and at the same time have the system be playable IMHO. Anyone ever play Millennium's End by Chameleon Eclectic games? That was a game system that tried it's best to make a realistic tactical combat system that was usable in a RPG. They succeeded, as long as you could dedicate 4 hours to a 30 second combat scene. In short it failed. I guess what I am getting at here is in my game I will house rule it on the fly, because I'm all set with making age after page of house ruled addendum to 'fix' something that isn't really broken. But if some people are gung ho about it, more power to you!

Sun, 2012-08-19 11:24

#29

OpsCon

Personally, I don't see an

Personally, I don't see an issue with Somatics being the basis of strength. Yes, should some things have a bonus to certain tasks dependent on the situation? Heck yes. That Flexbot configured as a crane that was discussed SHOULD get a bonus for lifting stuff. And the system allows for that already. It allows for up to +60 (or -60) depending on the situation. Morphs built for power have a SOM bonus. Some that can be built for power have the option of one. The Flexbot itself has no Aptitude bonuses, but can clearly EASILY work with other Flexbots for teamwork bonuses, and then situational bonuses based on 'configuration.' I think the rules work well pretty much as is. Other than our group's change to SPD and INIT, we have seen no need for many houserules.

—

KT Alex 'Iceshade' Andrade [img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo6_r1_400.jpg[/img] [img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo1_400.jpg[/img] [img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo2_400.jpg[/img]

Sun, 2012-08-19 11:33

#30

NewAgeOfPower NewAgeOfPower's picture

So a 20 SOM guy in a neotenic

So a 20 SOM guy in a neotenic can beat a 20 SOM guy in a splicer? That seems pretty unrealistic.

—

As mind to body, so soul to spirit. As death to the mortal man, so failure to the immortal. Such is the price of all ambition.

Sun, 2012-08-19 12:00

#31

OpsCon

Well, logically, the system

Well, logically, the system already accounts for many factors. Reach - The Splicer will have reach on the Neotentic. +10 to splicer in both attack AND defense. (See below) Resilience - The splicer has a Durability 30 vs the Neotentic 30. That's a wash. But anyone who has kids knows they are more durable than you think. Also, these are NOT kids. (See below) Small Target - The Splicer has a -10 on attack due to size. His reach advantage cancels that. So, wash. However, the Splicer still has the +10 on defense due to the Splicer's reach advantage. That there puts the Neotentic at a disadvantage. Superior Position - Any GM I know would probably say the Splicer gets the Superior Position bonus from the greater leverage and height. +20 to splicer on attack. So far, the Splicer has a +20 to attack, and a +10 to defense, and the Neotenic has jack. Training - You don't mention this, but training matters. Who has the higher Unarmed? Are they equal? Are the both defaulting? Finally- You proposed situation is not a valid comparison. A Splicer is a barely modified Flat. A Neotinic is not a child. Neotentic =/= Child. A Neotenic is a genetically engineered transhuman who is MADE to be small. It is also CLEARLY made to be superior to a Splicer to begin with. And SOM alone does not win melee combat. What about INIT? REF and it's impact on Fray? Combat is not a one-number statistical science.

Quote:
That seems pretty unrealistic.

Except the fact that Neotentic =/= Child. A Neotenic is a genetically engineered transhuman who is MADE to be small for efficient habitat and spacecraft operations. We're discussing a sci-fi setting that for all it's relative hardness has stargates and psi, as well as digital cthulhuoid horrors from beyond space. I'm less worried about SOM and more worried about how valuable REF and COG is compared to the other stats.

—

KT Alex 'Iceshade' Andrade [img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo6_r1_400.jpg[/img] [img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo1_400.jpg[/img] [img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo2_400.jpg[/img]

Sun, 2012-08-19 17:20

#32

NewAgeOfPower NewAgeOfPower's picture

Your argument is weak, but my

Your argument is weak, but my own previous argument was quite unclear. 'Bruce Lee' in an Olympian vs 'Bruce Lee' in an Menton. Ego: 15 COG 30 COO 15 INT 30 REF 30 SOM 15 SAV 30 WIL with Unarmed at 90 for both Bruce Lees. yes? The Olympian's advantages are largely nullified, due to Bruce Lee already meeting COO, REF, and SOM aptitude maxima in those morphs. The Olympian has an advantage, with its higher durability, but the advantage isn't that massive. One would expect Bruce Lee (Olympian) to be able to trash Bruce Lee (Menton) at least 3/4 times, but mathematically, using the EP system that isn't what actually happens...

—

As mind to body, so soul to spirit. As death to the mortal man, so failure to the immortal. Such is the price of all ambition.

Sun, 2012-08-19 21:12

#33

Decivre

OpsCon wrote:Yes, should some

OpsCon wrote:
Yes, should some things have a bonus to certain tasks dependent on the situation? Heck yes. That Flexbot configured as a crane that was discussed SHOULD get a bonus for lifting stuff. And the system allows for that already. It allows for up to +60 (or -60) depending on the situation.

What about their ability to strike? Should a large pile of merged flexbots slamming down on you in the form of a massive robotic fist not hurt more than a single flexbot hitting you with one of its appendages? How much should their strength scale in comparison to another morph as they merge? The simple bonus/penalties mechanics for resolution does nothing to really help define actual strength in any discernable way. I'm all for leaving it up to the GM, but sometimes a GM wants a gauge to work with.

OpsCon wrote:
Finally- You proposed situation is not a valid comparison. A Splicer is a barely modified Flat. A Neotinic is not a child. Neotentic =/= Child. A Neotenic is a genetically engineered transhuman who is MADE to be small. It is also CLEARLY made to be superior to a Splicer to begin with. And SOM alone does not win melee combat. What about INIT? REF and it's impact on Fray? Combat is not a one-number statistical science.

Not quite. A neotenic is a transhuman designed to utilize the benefits of a pre-pubescent mind. They have the high mental plasticity of children, along with the body to match. The picture of the neotenic morph in Sunward showcases that they might not be children (as they will never actually achieve puberty), but their appearance is decidedly as such. They also have hobbled physical strength as a side effect. There's a reason that it carries a social stigma.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Sun, 2012-08-19 21:35

#34

OpsCon

Decivre wrote:

Decivre wrote:
Not quite. A neotenic is a transhuman designed to utilize the benefits of a pre-pubescent mind. They have the high mental plasticity of children, along with the body to match.

Really? Funny, the entry in the core is pretty much the opposite of that.

EP Core pg 141 wrote:
Neotenics are transhumans modified to retain a childlike form. They are smaller, more agile, inquisitive, and less resource-depleting, making them ideal for habitat living and spacecraft. Some people find neotenic sleeves distasteful, especially when employed in certain media and sex work capacities.

Nothing about a childlike mind, except for inquisitive, which is a trait of INT, not just children. And then the attributes...

EP Core pg 141 wrote:
Aptitude Maximum: 20 (SOM), 30 (all else) ... Advantages: +5 COO, +5 INT, +5 REF, +5 to one aptitude of the player’s choice;

I know the game is creative commons, but you're reading into stuff that is not originally there. That said, I just said I personally don't see the problem. In my experience, you want to keep houserules to a minimum unless you really understand the math behind the system. Or, if for no other reason than in an already complex game, why add MORE complexity. Also, a rule like this will lead to some types of players ONLY taking Synthmorphs (in particular for hand to hand combat), in contrast to the setting implication that most people still prefer a normal body. However, if you're going to use a house rule for a perceived problem, yours DOES seem to work, so far. Which is the closest to an endorsement on a houserule I don't think is needed that I'm going to give.

—

KT Alex 'Iceshade' Andrade [img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo6_r1_400.jpg[/img] [img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo1_400.jpg[/img] [img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo2_400.jpg[/img]

Sun, 2012-08-19 21:55

#35

NewAgeOfPower NewAgeOfPower's picture

Most of my players have taken

Most of my players have taken Biomorphs despite this houserule. Biomorphs are just better in too many circumstances if you have the money to kit them out right. Of course, for combat, almost nothing beats a combat synth, but my Face, for example, much prefers his personal Sylph...

—

As mind to body, so soul to spirit. As death to the mortal man, so failure to the immortal. Such is the price of all ambition.

Sun, 2012-08-19 22:18

#36

Gerzel

I think the thing might be to

I think the thing might be to add a morph-only attribute. Call it strength or structure.

Sun, 2012-08-19 23:08

#37

NewAgeOfPower NewAgeOfPower's picture

Thats precisely what Decivre

Thats precisely what Decivre did- Strength Strength is derived from the bulk of the morph (DUR) added on to your ability to use that morph (SOM) scaled appropriately (/10)

—

As mind to body, so soul to spirit. As death to the mortal man, so failure to the immortal. Such is the price of all ambition.

Sun, 2012-08-19 23:24

#38

Gerzel

I don't mean as a derived

I don't mean as a derived attribute but a full attribute in its own right.

Mon, 2012-08-20 15:46

#39

Decivre

OpsCon wrote:Really? Funny,

OpsCon wrote:
Really? Funny, the entry in the core is pretty much the opposite of that.

I stand corrected then. It does make me wonder why there would be a child-like morph with none of the actual features of children, other than physical ones. It would make far more sense to simply make a smaller human frame without the stunted neotenic features.

OpsCon wrote:
That said, I just said I personally don't see the problem. In my experience, you want to keep houserules to a minimum unless you really understand the math behind the system. Or, if for no other reason than in an already complex game, why add MORE complexity.

Of course keeping houserules to a minimum is key. That's why I went with a minimalist houserule, and one that takes little to no effort to implement. It doesn't even require a modification to your character sheet; you can place the FV value where damage bonus sits (it effectively replaces it).

OpsCon wrote:
Also, a rule like this will lead to some types of players ONLY taking Synthmorphs (in particular for hand to hand combat), in contrast to the setting implication that most people still prefer a normal body.

Synthmorphs already tend to be superior in melee combat. They already gain armor and durability advantage alongside psi and shock immunity. Bonus melee damage isn't too much of a shock. Beyond that, one would expect a robot to do better in melee combat anyways. As has been brought up in many threads before, the game puts mechanical balance behind hard realism. So the fact that a machine hits harder is just part and parcel to that.

OpsCon wrote:
However, if you're going to use a house rule for a perceived problem, yours DOES seem to work, so far. Which is the closest to an endorsement on a houserule I don't think is needed that I'm going to give.

Well, it's better than nothing.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Mon, 2012-08-20 22:36

#40

Thampsan

Another important

Another important consideration is that why would all synth morphs be built with 'super strength', durability is not strength. If anything Synth bodies are more easily limited (and also unshackled) than organic bodies - organic bodies can be strengthened through exercise, but if a synth morph manufacturer specifies an intentionally low max lift or crush capacity then unless you mod it no amount of somatics or durability is going to accurately represent true strength of a synth morph. Rather if you're going to add a strength component it should work off the 'max somatics' potential rather than durability (which measures resilience rather than 'raw strength').

Tue, 2012-08-21 03:54

#41

Decivre

Thampsan wrote:Another

Thampsan wrote:
Another important consideration is that why would all synth morphs be built with 'super strength', durability is not strength. If anything Synth bodies are more easily limited (and also unshackled) than organic bodies - organic bodies can be strengthened through exercise, but if a synth morph manufacturer specifies an intentionally low max lift or crush capacity then unless you mod it no amount of somatics or durability is going to accurately represent true strength of a synth morph.

Remember that the FV mechanic works off of a combination of both durability AND somatics (as well as theoretically size, as we were talking about earlier). A restriction on the latter reduces your FV just as easily as lowering the former.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Wed, 2012-08-22 10:52

#42

colgrevance colgrevance's picture

Re: Rules problem (morphs)

I think this discussion touches on the main gripe I have with the EP system: Aptitude values should depend much more on morphs than on some ephemeral 'ego' (especially those concerning physical abilities like reflexes or somatics). In my opinion, the basic values should always be given by the morph, with the Ego providing modifiers (exactly the opposite way from the rules as written). This way, differences in strength/size/etc. could easily be incorporated into the basic morph stats. But I also think this is only a real problem in very combat oriented games or when dealing with subjects at vastly different sizes (like in the original Orca vs. cats example). In such situations, I tend to use common sense and adopt some sort of houserule. I'll definitely look into the solution Decivre proposed above.

Wed, 2012-08-22 15:09

#43

CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture

colgrevance wrote:I think

colgrevance wrote:
I think this discussion touches on the main gripe I have with the EP system: Aptitude values should depend much more on morphs than on some ephemeral 'ego' (especially those concerning physical abilities like reflexes or somatics). In my opinion, the basic values should always be given by the morph, with the Ego providing modifiers (exactly the opposite way from the rules as written). This way, differences in strength/size/etc. could easily be incorporated into the basic morph stats.

It actually works well, and is an extremely easy change to make. All you have to do is take the current morphs, set basic aptitude scores to 15, apply the morphs modifiers and you are basically set. At character creation players aptitude bonuses all start at +0, and they can adjust points as they want (-5 to WIL gives you a +5 to something else). When you do it this way, though, Aptitude Max becomes less useful. So, instead, I changed it to Skill Max, which is simply a value that starts at 60 and adds the morphs default Aptitude Max. When sleeved into that morph the player cannot have a skill value higher than their Skill Max. Ezpz, you have morphs that determine aptitudes and egos that modify them. I did the Core rulebook morphs and put them on a wiki before getting bored; http://codebreaker.wikispaces.com/home

—

-

Tue, 2012-08-28 09:16

#44

wesleystreet wesleystreet's picture

Are you ladies and gents

Are you ladies and gents running into a lot of whale v. kitty-style scenarios in play? Or even one? Is this something I should actually be concerned with in practice or is this discussion purely theoretical?

Tue, 2012-08-28 15:22

#45

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

EP is very much-so a story

EP is very much-so a story-focused game. Perhaps because of the complexity of the subject matter, or perhaps because of the inclination of the authors, a lot of the game relies on GM story telling and fiat. Regarding how morphs operate, I can definitely see this coming into play; we should be describing the functionality of different morphs as different, to underline this. Personally, I love math. I would be quite happy with sets of specialized rules and abilities for each morph, tracking things like their sprinting distance, size, etc. But I understand a lot of people wouldn't enjoy that. So I'm okay with just saying 'your crab morph is not very good at jumping, and the olympian easily overtakes you'. Regarding the specific example; yes, there's some weirdness about stats, durability especially. Part of this is because as the numbers get too high, the game starts to break down. I think there needs to be some good thought in blending large morphs into vehicle damage resistance, for dealing better with vehicle combat, etc. Another detail is that it's not always clear how things have been modified. I can see a neo-orca being modified to only be the size of a dolphin (in which case, DUR of 40 makes sense), or swarm cats being the size of large bobcats, and therefore quite dangerous. But this really deserves being mentioned. Finally, yes, small morphs should have a reach penalty, which should have an impact in combat, and possibly smaller weapons (and damage code). This seems like an easy fix.

Tue, 2012-08-28 22:30

#46

CruiserSailor CruiserSailor's picture

This reminds me of a thread I

This reminds me of a thread I once saw called Tanks vs. BattleMechs. Or another Star Wars vs. Star Trek. When Gene Roddenberry, and George Lucas set out to design what were to become billion dollar licenses, my best guess is that they didn't stat out all too much 12 phasers here, and 4 on the lower half of the saucer. I've seen a book that said something like 400 crew, 5 year mission. Only later do we get Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, for the fans who crave that sort of fictional, alter-reality, to make it more "real" to them. Likewise, A star Destroyer is a "Mile long" right? Except it's a six foot model in room with cameras, never flew in space, and the multi-thousands fictional crew don't exist to take on the 40 security officers (all ensigns) of Trek. I house rule games because that's the way I play Most Games. Battletech, I play to the rules to the individual shot because we all agree, with the Millenium's End / Rhand: Phoenix Command / Aftermath! hyper crunchiness example above to Play That Way, and let the thing of it, just Be. If you are craving a system to handle size, and Orca morph vs cat things, Bloby blob vs space folded hookers, go for it, that what Creative Common(s?) License is about. All of your proposed numbers, rules changes, and outcomes generated by same will all be hypothetical, and fictional, and restricted to those using such a rules set, just as all D&D 1.0 is different from D&D 3.5, 4th Edition, now 5th edition playtest. Personally, If the GM is using huge zero-gee orca in a game, I am not messing with it. I was at Sea World in San Diego at the moment the whale in the tank killed a young orca calf. That's my reality. An orca that can off it's own young is not worrying about some cat things. Everyone's mileage will differ. I'm using rules to provide a sketch framework for stories, where conflict needs to be resolved where my "Best Guess" isn't enough. For a game Like Eclipse Phase, seems to me like the focus in my mind is on the nature of Post-Humanism, what it's like to wake up in a completely different alien body, have huge amounts of information at hand, much too much to sift through, and have to make life and non-permanent death decisions based on that. So I'm not worried about modifiers, because to me, those modifiers are not telling me any much more with regard to the theme. I'll house rule left and right and hope the players can understand that what happens next makes for an interesting plot twist, a better story, and a continuing story arc. If the cat things are all that great at killing orcas, then we need two or three, or the Cat things are like the plus 5 flaming sword of EP. Cause I've seen a non-lifted orca in action and it filled me with dread, thinking about actually going within 30 feet of one. Maybe the stats as written or proposed in EP are wrong for many. Changes are possible. I think it's cool it's a Percentile, and has story generated fear effects over time, like Compsiracy X. Neither Eclipse Phase, nor Conspiracy X are themed as pretty much combat games. Combat-as-Drama is a style of writing and play. That doesn't make it wrong, just as the designers wrote in that all sorts of stories are possible here, it can work. But over stattingh stuff for combat, makes it way too crunchy for my taste. But there are some GMs and players that are all about "Crunchy." They need those numbers to imagine it in their mind that is mostly analysis of things, and how they work. An Engineer's approach to the universe. But I'm more of a storyteller, seeking the plot. I'm looking for a different theme with this, so to me, stats don't matter as much. And I like those story heavy, not so much stats, more descriptors games. Others won't. C'est la vie. I still like running and playing battletech, even though it is so crunchy it takes hours.

Wed, 2012-08-29 09:11

#47

wesleystreet wesleystreet's picture

nezumi.hebereke wrote:EP is

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
EP is very much-so a story-focused game.

I would amend this to say dramatic impact and rule-of-cool play a greater role in EP than tactical accuracy. The very nature of a percentile based game is going to cap or limit certain actions, depending on where your bar of roll success is set. I don't want to come off as an apologist as there are some conceptual issues when it comes to character creation and skill use (ex: five different skills for use with pointing a weapon at a target and pulling the trigger). But scuba-cat v. land orca sounds like such an implausible scenario that I doubt any developer would have anticipated it. However if this is a core concept for your campaign, please invite me to play! :)

Fri, 2012-08-31 14:54

#48

The Doctor The Doctor's picture

wesleystreet wrote:Are you

wesleystreet wrote:
Are you ladies and gents running into a lot of whale v. kitty-style scenarios in play? Or even one? Is this something I should actually be concerned with in practice or is this discussion purely theoretical?

If sessions are turning into whale-versus-kitty scenarios, then something is very wrong. Whale-versus-great white shark-on-PCP, sure. I think some of the problem is that what the stats actually mean in Eclipse Phase is too subtle; explanations were in bits that might get thrown away during reading. Your average transhuman in Eclipse Phase is more than head and shoulders above baseline humans today, and should be treated as such. Combat is deadly. Characters can be incredibly fast. The implications of these things should influence not only the strategy the players use but the scenarios the GM designs as well as how NPCs are run.

—

[img]http://drwho.virtadpt.net/graphics/info_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://drwho.virtadpt.net/graphics/argo_userbar.jpg[/img] [url=https://drwho.virtadpt.net/graphics/blankbadge.png][img]http://drwho.vir...