Seems like a fairly balanced system. I did a compilation of the biomorphs and pods from the base book here (though I'm guessing you guys already did one internally, it may be useful for anybody else who wants to make the comparison). There are a few traits in column V that I didn't quantify. I like the suggested multipliers at the end. I noticed the morphs in the book have a high of ~1.111 for Octomorph, and the lowest multiplier is 1.2, so there's no way to remake a more efficient version of something. Still, while I could see giving players open-run of this could be disastrous, this does seem like a nifty tool for a GM or for the less munchkin-y players. Question on the R&D multiplier: Say a player wants to design a new line of morphs. Do the R&D multipliers represent the cost in initial development that a player could make on their own with the given skill? Is that for a corp to custom-tailor a morph? Are there any guidelines for reproducing the morph once the R&D is made (or buying in bulk from a corp)?

I'll just clarify right now, since the "discount" thing seems to be throwing people off. Bad wording on my part, sorry. Adjusted CP = Real CP * .25

And now we start to get to the meaty bits. OK. I hope I don't sound overly invested when I say this is an aspect of the Eclipse Phase ruleset that I care a little bit about. I am interested in seeing how well someone else can do, especially implementing a working method for creating Pods and Synthmorphs (which is a little bit hellish). First impressions, just looking at the actual document without working out any of the underlying math, looks good. I have to applaud whoever wrote it (Mr. Graham?), you seem to have managed to much neater system than I did. That might simply be greater skill at technical writing though, something I suck at. The use of R&D cost multipliers is a smart decision. It means that you can hide any small variance in the system behind a veneer of balance (that phrasing sounds bad, I mean that as a good thing.) One of the things I noticed when I was doing my own morph rules (the ones from The Eye, that is) is that many of the 'canon' morphs, especially Synths, are very difficult math wise. This helps that along. You might want to include a quick mention on calculating Wound Threshold. It is a simple division of durability, but there isn't much point in not including it, if only for completion sake. You don't really seem to have gone that far into the specifics of Synthmorphs though? No support for Movement Rates outside of the very vague Core rules is something I don't particularly like. Inherent armour is also something that you are missing, although I guess you could hack that onto the augmentation section using the armour values from the Core. Going to go away and try out some of the math now, but thought I would write down my initial impressions.

Some people have asked about costs for things like Synth morph armor (various levels of it), claws/beaks, small/large target, etc. You're actually looking at my third draft. The first two did have this info, but it accidentally got cut from the version you're looking at (because of reasons; the first two drafts were using a totally different system to calculate augment/trait costs). So here's a table of costs in post form for now, with the caveat that they're not finely balanced vis a vis the current system, which I'll make sure gets incorporated into the 4th draft when we release it. They synthmorph stuff below is mostly superseded by what's in the current draft, but I include it for completeness: armor > 14 pts     20 CP synthmorph death rating     20 CP armor 11-14 pts     5 CP natural melee weapon, 2d10 or greater DV     5 CP small target     5 CP wings     5 CP natural melee weapon, 1d10 DV     1 CP extra limbs/legs     1 CP armor 5-10 pts     1 CP octo ink attack     1 CP synthmorph environmental durability     1 CP synthmorph pain filter     1 CP synthmorph shock immunity     1 CP synthmorph unarmed DV bonus     .25 CP large target     -5 CP

I think some of my players would be more interested in designing and selling morphs for monetary purpose than just their own. One really liked that aspect of AY's work in Ego Hunter and I wager he'll play a Genehacker as his next character. So, how do you compute the price for the newly designed morph? Also, I hope you're gonna add some fluff to that, to show the process of morphs creation from the characters' perspective Does someone plan to make a java or excell sheet for morphs creation? It would be so helpful to have a spreadsheet or even a smartphone app like the diceroller

Yes, I'll have dueling spread sheets with Kindalas. I'm not going to release mine during the playtest, though. I don't want to taint the results by revealing too much about my intentions.

Did you intend for morphs with negative CP (real or otherwise) to have a negative cost (step 14), or did I miss a step? If "I missed something", Ignore: Would this make them 'free'? If so, perhaps a minimum cost is in order to cover storage costs for the seller if nothing else: Trivial for Synth's and anything else which can be stored indefinitely without maintenance, Medium for Biomorph/Pod (Flats), Free for anything not requiring physical components. -Joe

All I wish to "create" is a New Feline based off a Tiger/Lion that is mainly biped that does not have a monkey tail.

Step 10, sub step 1: "No more than 2 positive morph traits..." becomes "No more than 2 negative morph traits..." -Joe

Step 4: Attribute Maximum: Is this per attribute or global. If global, how do I adjust for morphs with attributes with different maximums (like the hyperbright or the Neotenics)? Cost Multiplier Table: Variant Row/Characteristics Column: Does 20pts difference refer to the total difference or adding up the absolute value of each change? -Joe

No it was not Larry Niven's Kzinti....It was a world in the near to mid future where uplifts had happened. Dang now I am going to have to go thru my very large library of books to find that Novel. The tiger character was a ex merc now private investigator.....IIRC. Thanks

Sometimes my Google Fu works...ie found it author is S. Andrew Swann, The Moreau Series: Forests of the Night has the tiger uplift that I have on the cover. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cvra_fotn.jpg

I went through each step and looked at a) how I could break the system, and b) equivalent morphs/gear/traits and other costs, then added suggestions, and a summary at the end. (Assumes "Costly R&D".) Step 3: This is equivalent to the Toughness Trait, or 10CP. If I buy an existing morph and add a level of toughness, it costs me an additional $500 x 10CP = $5000, or about 5CP worth of starting cash. In this step it costs 5CP x .25 (Adjusted CP) x 2 (max Costly R&D) = 2.5CP max. Suggestion: At least double the CP of Dur. Step 4: Of the 61 morphs in the 5 books that are not simple variants of another morph, only the Remade, Reaper, and Informorph cap at 40 for all attributes, and only the Fenrir, Hyperbright, Savant, and Dvergr otherwise break 30 on any of their attributes. To raise the aptitude maximum of a single attribute by 10 costs 20 CP through a trait, and isn't allowed for multiple attributes. To raise all morph attribute maximums to 40 in this step appears to cost 10 x .25 x 2 = 5CP max. Suggestion: Have it per attribute. Have the base at 25 (Splicer). Step 5: Almost every morph has one (or usually more) aptitude with +5. 31 have one or sometimes 2 aptitudes with a +10 or higher in their specialty. Only the Dvergr and Hyperbright have a +15. The cheapest Cyber/Bio/Nanoware augmentation per aptitude boost is the High-G Adaptation at $200 per +1 (0.2 CP each), and the most expensive is the Neural Enhancers at 4000 per +1 (4 CP each). Each +1 in this step costs 10 x .25 x 2 = 5CP max. The Remade and Hyperbright have the highest total aptitude bonus without 'ware at 35. Suggestions: Cut the base CP cost by half or more. Cap the total amount of bonuses to ~50. Double the cost for aptitude boosts over 10 like skills. Allow only 1 or maybe 2 to be over 10 and allow no more than 2 or 3 aptitudes over 5. Require the Uncanny Valley Trait to be added to any morph with over +10 in any one bonus or over 25 in total bonuses. Any morph with over 35 total bonuses must be built as "Limited Edition" with a minimum multiplier of (aptitude bonus / 10). Limit each morph to one or two negative aptitude penalties which can't go below -5 each, and these don't offset the 50 cap and 20 / 35 condition above. Step 6: The only skills available are Climbing, Flight, Free fall, Freerunning, Infiltration, Palming, Pilot [Any], Swimming, Unarmed Combat, and perhaps some from the supplements. Cost per skill point is normally 1-2 CP. Cost per skill point here is 0.5 x 0.25 x 2 = 0.25CP max. Suggestions: Make it a list of what CAN be taken. I'm worried about abuse, but the list is so restrictive... Remove Pilot from the list of skills, and add any of: Deception, Perception, Intimidation, and Navigation. Cap out each skill bonus at +30, with a 60 total bonus cap. Step 7: Cost for 'ware in step 7 is 1/2 or less normal 'ware costs, but still needs to be built and installed. Suggestion: Take the 'ware out of the .25 discount and GM Cost Multiplier and tack it on at the end. Maybe give a 10% discount to Synth 'ware because it is built in, but any biomorphs or pods still need it implanted, and we're no longer in a mass production economy... Step 9 and 10: Using a random trait that costs 10CP: If I buy an existing morph and add a level of toughness, it costs me an additional $500 x 10CP = $5000, or about 5CP worth of starting cash. In this step it costs 10CP x .25 x 2 = 5CP max. Suggestions: This would still be easy to abuse, so take the traits out of the .25 discount and GM Cost Multiplier, and tack it on at the end. Step 11: Completely nukes game balance. I think that you are trying to make the math easier by putting this at the end? Also, there are no morphs in the books with a CP < 0 (or a physical morph with a $$ < Medium/$1,000). Suggestions: It's was a good idea but.. Dump the multiple. Step 13: The only comparison I can think of is the software quality table. Suggestions: I really like this table. I think I'd like to stack some of the multiples so that, for example I could use the Limited Edition multiple on top of the Cheap R&D Campaign Axiom. I'd also like to see some additonal multipliers, like "been available forever: 0.9" etc. The only problem I have is with the Variant multiple because is difficult to use when basing off a morph out of the book or otherwise already generated. Since everything is additive in this, maybe make it add/subtract 1.2 - 1.5 x the CP cost of the difference? Step 14: The (CP of the morph x 1000) and the $$ of the morph in the books never appear to match. Suggestion: Per Step 13, make the R&D level apply to the CP only, and then the "Limited Edition" type multiplier apply to the $$ cost based on the pre-Step 13 CP? Have a minimum cost for various types of morphs, like 'High' for Biomorph, and 'Medium' for Synth's. This would cover the creation and storage costs for otherwise 'junk' morphs (flats, Case, etc). Overall feedback: I really like the idea, the simplicity, and the flow of the rules. If I were writing the math inside, I'd use the following. It only completely fixes the augmentation and trait issues, but gets everything in line with the morphs in the main book. (I haven't tried any of the other books yet.) Step 3: CP = Durability - 30 Step 4: CP = ((Sum Aptitude Maxes)-175)/4 Step 5: CP = Total of aptitude bonuses modified by total of aptitude penalties (without the x 10). For each bonus that exceeds 10, add 1 CP x quantity over 10. Step 6: CP = Skill bonuses x 1 Step 7: CP = Total Cost / 1000 Step 8: CP = 15 for synth, 10 for neo animals and pods Step 9: CP = Trait Cost Step 10: CP = Trait Cost Step 11: Removed Step 12: Same Step 13: Total the above, minimum of 0. CP only: Costly R&D Multiplier: .75 - 1.25 (I think this will cover all the morphs in the main book if the Octomorph is assumed to have -30 Freerunning in normal gravity to offset its Swimming skill.) Step 14: Add additional entries to multiplier table to get reasonable $$ only multipliers. -Joe

Joe wrote:

I really like the idea, the simplicity, and the flow of the rules. If I were writing the math inside, I'd use the following. It only completely fixes the augmentation and trait issues, but gets everything in line with the morphs in the main book. (I haven't tried any of the other books yet.) Step 3: CP = Durability - 30 Step 4: CP = ((Sum Aptitude Maxes)-175)/4 Step 5: CP = Total of aptitude bonuses modified by total of aptitude penalties (without the x 10). For each bonus that exceeds 10, add 1 CP x quantity over 10. Step 6: CP = Skill bonuses x 1 Step 7: CP = Total Cost / 1000 Step 8: CP = 15 for synth, 10 for neo animals and pods Step 9: CP = Trait Cost Step 10: CP = Trait Cost Step 11: Removed Step 12: Same Step 13: Total the above, minimum of 0. CP only: Costly R&D Multiplier: .75 - 1.25 (I think this will cover all the morphs in the main book if the Octomorph is assumed to have -30 Freerunning in normal gravity to offset its Swimming skill.) Step 14: Add additional entries to multiplier table to get reasonable $$ only multipliers.

I like this! There are a few things I'd change, but I think it's a much better starting point than the current draft, even though adherence to current morphs is not so strict (the splicer, for example, comes out at less than 5CP). a) At step 4, I'd divide by 5 rather than by 4. It makes the math easier, and it slightly improves the fit to corebook morphs. b) At step 13, I'd remove the cost multiplier. In other words, I'd keep the cost multiplier a straight 1. I'd keep this as the CP cost under any situation. Rarity and campaign axiom multipliers should only affect credit cost (and as a consequence, difficulty of acquisition through rep networks), not CP cost. c) Variant morphs: these should cost slightly more than baseline ones in terms of credits to reflect their rarity (CP values are computed as above) but not as much as a completely new morphs, unless the variations are extreme. To compute the cost percentage by which a variant exceeds the baseline, list all the variations from the baseline and add their absolute CP values. E.g. a variant with an addition -10 trait and an additional +5 to an aptitude costs 15% more than the baseline.

babayaga wrote:

Joe wrote:

Require the Uncanny Valley Trait to be added to any morph with over +10 in any one bonus or over 25 in total bonuses.

I'm not in favour of this, as it would include both the Fury and the Ghost.

My bad, that should have been over +30 in bonuses. That way it aligns with the existing morphs (Remade, Hyperbright)

babayaga wrote:

b) At step 13, I'd remove the cost multiplier. In other words, I'd keep the cost multiplier a straight 1. I'd keep this as the CP cost under any situation. Rarity and campaign axiom multipliers should only affect credit cost (and as a consequence, difficulty of acquisition through rep networks), not CP cost.

This had two purposes: 1) Fudge factor to justify the current morph CP costs. 2) Allow the GM to reward/penalize a player for a good/min-maxed morph design. Maybe it should be just a standard GM Fiat multiplier that has nothing to do with R&D cost, and multiply in the R&D Cost multiplier in step 14?

OK, I have spent more time with these numbers. I am going to be blunt. They don't work. They are widely off what I would consider balanced. I understand that I am just another person on the internet, however I have a lot of experience with the morph system. I have gone through the numbers involved with the system numerous times, and I know the general value of things (if you use the morphs we have as a baseline.) I have gone through the system and remade morphs that I did using one of my iterations that I know is balanced. Morphs that should cost 40CP come out at 65CP, before applying any of the R&D multipliers. The AP bonus costs are wildly off. Implant costs don't seem to resolve. This seems to be true throughout. If the rules went through with these numbers I wouldn't use them, nor would I feel comfortable giving my players free reign with them. I would stick with my systems, not because they are perfect but because I feel that they are more balanced than these.

Quote:

But with so many morphs already in print, shouldn't there be a minor disincentive for people making up totally new and untested designs? Doesn't it capture the idea that making a morph on your own is hard work?

The trouble is that there's only a disincentive if the custom morph has natural aptitude bonuses. Putting implants that give aptitude bonuses on a custom morph is far cheaper than straight bonuses or buying said implants at chargen, so it's extremely easy for players to cheat the system, and the far from reasonable cost of aptitude bonuses gives them tremendous incentive to do so.

I'd say that "it's a game played by people" is good reason to be wary, but that's because I'm a misanthropic grouch, heh. But the reason I'm being hard on the current system is not because I'm a stickler for absolute game balance, it's because I really, REALLY want a system for creating new morphs; it's one of the major reasons I'm excited for this upcoming book (the other being the rules for infomorphs.) However, if the system is too easy to cheat, GMs who are as paranoid as I am won't want to use it, so fewer players will get to play with it.

OneTrikPony wrote:

PLEASE DON'T PUBLISH ANY RULES FOR MORPH CREATION I think this discussion has to be considered in the light of the fact that the morph creation rules aren't something that will be used In-Game by player characters. That fact is highlighted by lack of any proposed rules for Skill Tests or time frames. They only have utility for the GM and for players at CharGen.

I disagree. If this system creates balanced morphs, I'd be very happy if a player came to me with a morph he'd created and would like to use, and I'd probably let him have it. The PC didn't make it, the player did.

Quote:

As a GM I would like to have a tool that allows me to measure the effects and game balance of my Creative efforts. However, I fervently believe that game balance SHOULD NOT be the primary consideration for rules mechanics of morph creation. If you publish these, or Any, Rules for morph creation you'll be locking all EP writers into that rules set permanently. This has horrible potential to kill creativity. [u]These, and all rules, should serve the Developer's Vision for the Setting First.[/u] Game balance *is* important and this game is fairly well balance at this time. However, EP is not, and should not be, a perfectly balanced tournament or board game. Equivalency and point values are impossible to achieve in a setting this varied and complex. This has been proven on these boards multiple times; The Cat vs Whale discussion is a prime example of the ways in which balance conflicts in the rules set are --and can only be --rationalized by the setting. Another good example is in this thread; I'm certain that people who've asked for a DUR cap of some sort have completely forgotten about the Q-morph. If you make a simple easy system for balanced morph creation and cost analysis you're going to obliterate any rationality in the economics of the setting. The reason there are outliers in any analysis of the Published morph is because the setting demands that they be there. If you have to throw out the statistical outliers to make this rules set fit the setting then what you're really trying to do is turn EP into a boardgame. The morphs that get Retconed are the major indication that this rules set will not serve the game.

Developers and everyone else are free to make morphs that don't follow these rules. A system that covers 95% of the morphs is fine, and the remaining 5% that for some reason don't fit the mould are just winged by the developers or GM. I understand your point that the setting is too complex for everything to be captured by one system - I just disagree that a system should necessarily capture everything.

Quote:

If you are convinced that morph creation rules are vital to the game then I ask that you IGNORE SIMPLICITY. Make them as complex, textured, and nuanced as the setting demands. Spend some serious time and many many column inches on this, because morph creation rules are a very dangerous thing. When you've found a way to write these mechanics without retconning any of the existing morphs you'll be close to getting it right.

i think a complex system could be gamed much more easily, and/or would be so complex it wouldn't be used. I'd prefer a simple system like this to make "mainstream morphs". Anything really exotic should be covered by a judgment call from the developer or GM.

What's wrong with the Surya's? I thought they were really really cool, and wish to play one at some point. I'd love to see groups more like the Suryas (not like like them, but similar in their unusual and transhumans element of the setting). The existence of morph creation rules doesn't bother me, though it seems to me that they'll either be too good and remove the use of established morphs, or not good enough and never get used. Rather than morph creation rules, I'd rather see new, interesting morphs which fill new, interesting niches. As far as I can concerned, the most interesting new morphs of recent releases have been things like the example Habitat Morph, the Fenrir Synthmorph and the Case, unusual morphs with unusual uses that add a bit more variation to what you can select. Slight variations on other morphs just need to be done as they were in existing expansions; variants. Things like "Europan Neo-Cetacean" work fine because they take the established morph and stick in some cool changes that make it work, without doing an entirely new morph block where one isn't necessary.

I really think they should be more expensive than the morphs presented in the books. In game, it makes sense that the corps and other groups that are mass-producing morphs get a more cost-effective product out since they can spread out the overhead. From a balance perspective, it makes sense to me at least that the package deals provided by the existing morphs should be more cost-efficient than an a-la-carte customization. Perhaps there could be a few multipliers on the lower end (ie, <1) to bridge this disparity, and maybe even a re-examination of said multipliers. Perhaps even redo them to be multiplicative and add a discount for mass-production.

Personally I let people buy morphs as gear when I run games otherwise they are just weirdly overcosted and it reinforces the idea that bodies are a commodity, which is good

CodeBreaker wrote:

That makes sense when determining credit cost, it doesn't when determining CP cost.

That makes a lot of sense to me. How about these two steps for a solution: 1) Start with existing morphs and modify them. Particularly for biomorphs, it makes sense to me to start with an exalt and make changes instead of starting with a blank slate. This should bring the CP costs a bit more inline with what's expected (since you're starting from a closer position). 2) Point out that credit cost and CP cost may have different multipliers, and give examples of why.

After much thought and excelling about with maths and formulas and etc. I've come to the conclusion that in the case of morph design rules players and GMs would be far better off with a spirit of the rules approach instead of a list of cold mathematical calculations. I think we'd all benefit from a discussion on Morph design theory and a series of recommendations about what combinations of implants and bonuses and aptitude maximums are common. As well as discussions about the starting soup that the morphs are built from. And reasons why some morphs are so exceptional compared to others. Basically my TL;DR is guidelines and suggestions are a better way to go with the morph design rules then with math and the ensuing "best build" min/maxing that will ensue. Or to reference battletech and the mech design rules. Why risk building a rule set where every official design is worse then what's possible.