Quote:

Flexbots and pools. Do flexbots get all pool points of all modules? For instance, if it had 5 modules (3 vigor, 2 flex) would it get all pool points.

That's what it appears from the flexbot rules; weird math only appears to apply to the DUR (highest + 1/2 the other modules' DUR). That's probably also why they're so expensive. Outfitting a godlike flexbot with 4 modules would cost a crazypants 16CP. But man, what a flexbot!

Here's a proposal, based on the idea of adding STR to the game. What if, instead of pools, morphs got three "upgraded-ness" numbers, each linked to two aptitudes (like pools are now). Then, we did the following: - some derived numbers (like Damage Bonus) are computed from STR+SOM (instead of 3*SOM) - Aptitude Checks used APT+Linked Morph Stat instead of 3*APT So, for example, the arm-wrestling match between the Scurrier and the Remade might use something like (15 SOM + 5 STR) for the Scurrier, and (10 SOM + 40 STR) for the Remade. Equally, a Get an Idea roll could use something like (20 INT + 35 Mental Upgradedness) for a Hyper-Bright, or an attempt to read someone socially could be rolled opposed, against their (15 SAV + 25 Social Upgradedness). That might split the baby pretty aptly: I get mechanically-qualified ways that my super-morph is better all the time, nobody has to recalculate all their skills and derived numbers, and we don't even have to keep track of pools and refreshes anymore. We'd need to pick actual names for the "upgradedness" pools - it could be something as easy as "Physical Boost, Mental Boost, Social Boost". The biggest problem would be that there are one or two mechanics that Pools are handling now that we'd have to re-evolve separate systems for, like speed.

o11o1 wrote:

Well, keep in mind that " (10 SOM + 40 STR) " is in fact a derived value that we now find ourselves needing to calculate all the time under your system, so it doesn't particularly make things any easier than 1st edition.

Kind of. It's 6 numbers you'd need to track, not a revision to all your skills and derived stats (other than DB). And those six numbers are folded into a revision to how APT checks work, which OTOH I don't think is something that's even on character sheets now, anyway (meaning most people don't bother to note their APT checks on their character sheets, so most people compute them on the fly anyway. I think adding APT+Morph Boost is no worse than multiplying APTx3 on-demand).

o11o1 wrote:

(Though admittably what really irked us was the way it interacted with every skill you had on your sheet, AND had to account for the 60 soft-cap.)

Just to point out, morph apt bonuses didn't interact with the 60 threshold; adding ranks to skills used your unmodified ego aptitudes only.

gleech wrote:

The biggest problem would be that there are one or two mechanics that Pools are handling now that we'd have to re-evolve separate systems for, like speed.

The other big problem is that your system has no effect on skill rolls at all. We lose all skill-manipulating effects of pools, and gain benefit only for the replacement for aptitude checks. That said, it would be somewhat elegant. Morph stats could go from 1-60, with human baseline being 20. My big worry would be whether we need that much granularity. But I solely oppose it for the moment as a prospect because skill checks cannot be affected by morph anymore.

o11o1 wrote:

Well, keep in mind that " (10 SOM + 40 STR) " is in fact a derived value that we now find ourselves needing to calculate all the time under your system, so it doesn't particularly make things any easier than 1st edition. To my mind it's about on par with 1st edition, but just arranged somewhat differently. This has us adding an ego trait to a morph trait, which is part of what was annoying the first time. (Though admittably what really irked us was the way it interacted with every skill you had on your sheet, AND had to account for the 60 soft-cap.)

I would argue that is system is slightly better than the old, if only because it restricts total modification to only six numbers on your sheet (aptitude check values), none of which are tied to other mechanics that can cause chain effects. But I still oppose it because transhumans are exactly like baseline humans when using skills [i]all the time[/i].

o11o1 wrote:

Personally, I like the current Pools solution overall, and do not want to see it go. That said, a second Morph stat to go with DUR is something I could live with. Of course, STR would let a remade be stronger than a flat by base, but it doesn't let a Menton be smarter than a Splicer without using their pool tokens. Overall, I don't think your proposed solution solves the problems that it's really trying to solve.

I really think the solution lies in secondary use of those pool tokens. I don't want to add extraneous values to the game, and would much rather work with what we have. However, that likely means the scurrier and a baseline human are evenly matched at arm-wrestling.

So, this evening I grabbed some of the players from my group and we went through the EP2 chargen process from scratch. Testers were myself (GM + system nerd), Mike (has hand-built chars using point buy, and played a char generated with Transhuman's Life Path system), and Gwen (has played with a pregen, never did chargen in EP1). Together we wanted to bang out a trio of characters that could be fun to play together, and had an interesting intersection of backstories. After some debate and a few beers we decided we'd be daring: we used the 'random roll table' to choose all of our backgrounds, careers, and interests before tweaking skills and aptitudes in the customization phase. Me: Alfonse Mercel, a Hyperelite Academic Student who pairs solid tech skills with a regrettable penchant for digging up and selling off ancient artifacts. It's left him well-connected and well-funded, but his attempts to pawn exoplanet relics have also gotten him blacklisted on the X-Rep network. He's useless in straight-up combat, but he's a solid hacker and he relies on combat drones to keep him safe. Gwen: Nurén is a manipulative, cold-hearted criminal smuggler who clawed her way out of a bad turn as an indentured infomorph. Memories of her life before age 16 — when she was indentured — have been wiped, but she's earned a reputation as an unpredictable hardass with enough connections to get whatever she needs. Mike: Abed al-Mirrihk grew up in the Martian outback, defending his small border town and patching up fellow terraformers when they were injured in attacks. He's okay with a gun, but like Alfonse prefers to use drones to keep danger at a distance. Feedback Since it was Gwen's first time through the chargen process ever, she didn't have a lot to compare it to — but said she felt the choices were manageable, and the reduced/consolidated set of skills made the choices feel less arbitrary. Using the random die-roll with the package system made everything come together pretty quickly, and she enjoyed the idea of crafting a character and backstory around the randomly selected combinations. Most of her time was spent in the Customization phase, tweaking skills to ensure she had combat skills. She wanted to kick some ass, and trading a few skills for Guns + Fray gave her the results she wanted. She rounded it out with a Fury morph and bought all the Flex points she could, since she thought the narrative control elements sounded cool. The downside was the equipment list driven entirely by the 'Career': It left her with no weapons or armor, and that felt a little weird for her character. She mentioned that being able to pick the gear pack she wanted would've felt better. Mike had experience with both the point-buy and Lifepath systems, and had poked at the Transhuman era Package Buy system, and said this felt much smoother than any of them. He too expressed relief at the reduced skill list, and liked the "symmetry" of six core aptitudes with point pools for the linked aptitude-pairs. Both he and Gwen agreed that the heavy weighting towards COG-linked skills felt uncomfortable: when the time came to customize attributes, they both realized dumping all the points the could into COG was the obvious min/mix move, even though it wouldn't really be appropriate for their character concepts. I floated the idea of moving a couple skills from COG to INT, as has been discussed on the boards here, and they thought it would definitely help balance things. Mike's equipment list wasn't as bad, given that his Career package was well-aligned with the overall character concept. The three of us, mostly by accident, also had a nice complimentary mix of Rep scores, enemies, and languages. Nurém, Alfonse, and Abed would make a prettttty scrappy team, with no obvious combat monsters but a really solid mix of skills and resources to draw on. Next time we hang out, we might take the three of them through one of the existing one-shots to see how some investigation and gunplay comes together. Both Mike and Gwen, having played EP1 for a while, were eager to kick the tires on the point pool mechanism. General consensus: in a (fairly) short amount of time, the EP2 chargen process produced interesting characters and gave reasonable opportunities for customization without EP1's overwhelming list of often-indistinguishable skills. Both Mike and Gwen felt the skill distribution could use a little tweaking, maybe even some additional consolidation of knowledge skills, but overall they thought it was a huge improvement and they're eager to actually play with the new rules. Both Mike and Gwen also liked the idea of providing Transhuman's Aptitude Presets (brawler, thrill seeker, etc) as the default mechanism for picking an aptitude mix — in part because it would reduce the temptation to jam everything into COG + (SAV/REF). Our full player group couldn't make it tonight, so I'll be taking the other four players through chargen soon as well. Those four players run the gamut from "years of EP experience" to "only been playing for a few sessions," with infomorph hackers, bruiser/enforcers, uplift fixers, and asyncs all represented. It'll be interesting to see how they feel about it, too.

Yeah, with TWNW here. A lot of this discussion seems to be trying to solve problems that don't really exist in 2E. If you love morph bonuses so much, you can just keep playing 1E as the system in 2E really I think hits the sweet spot it's going for of simplicity and applicability without cramping anybody's writing hand. And then you can give aptitude checks bonuses. I'd also like to point out I think thinking of DUR as a "morph stat" is wrong. While your morph provides you "your" DUR, bots/vehicles you can't sleeve into have DUR, as do objects and structures. It's a "physical object" stat, if anything. Some bodies are tougher or more resilient than others, but DUR values vary for all kinds of physical items.

UnitOmega wrote:

I'd also like to point out I think thinking of DUR as a "morph stat" is wrong. While your morph provides you "your" DUR, bots/vehicles you can't sleeve into have DUR, as do objects and structures. It's a "physical object" stat, if anything. Some bodies are tougher or more resilient than others, but DUR values vary for all kinds of physical items.

You do realize that with the right hardware you can sleeve into objects, structure and vehicles, right? I agree that DUR is an attribute for physical objects, but morphs ARE physical objects in most cases so DUR ends up being a morph attribute as well (note that infomorphs do not have DUR, and likely wouldn't have SOM either if the proposed rule was implemented).

I'm saying it sounds to me like we're attaching some special significance or justification to DUR as a "morph stat" to be representative as a desire for more morph-linked "stats" when in the underpinning logic it really isn't, if you follow me? All physical objects have a durability measure in some form. And yes, they don't raise linked skills. This is the new paradigm. The whole point is that morphs don't muck about with raising so many numbers at once. You want a bonus on your linked aptitude, you can spend points of morph pools on individual rolls you care about to get a better bonus. You don't need an "all the time" bonus, you can pick what to spend your points on and track per individual roll. "Oh hurr durr then I get tired" - except that the developers have said that normally getting your points back is very easy. They had to reduce the number of rest/recharges per day because it was [i]too easy[/i] to get back morph pools. This is based on actual internal playtesting. The whole ideal now is you track less. Much like playing FATE, you could put little beads or coins to represent the morph pools - you spend a point, you move the thing, you add the bonus when you roll - that's all the track you have to do. This bonus means you have to remember to apply +5 to every roll, track you spent a point and then track when it stops. It's just bogging down the new version with the same problem as the old version. I don't blame any body if they want to houserule or homebrew, but I think given what the developers have said about design goals for 2E a lot of this stuff is just trying to backpedal from those goals. Either way is not "wrong", but there's a clear attempt to format things in a different idiom in 2E - shoehorning 1E's idioms is counterintuitive to that. EDIT: Also, if we want to push from like, a philosophical point that there should be instances where no matter how tired or beat up or whatever a superior physical form or superior level of tech design should always win (A scurrier can't ever beat a bruiser at arm-wrestling) that also might be saying some deeper philosophical things about the setting we don't really want. Like "we're all fucked, Ultimates/Exhumans/Aliens/TITANs are superior so they all eat us".

Well, at some point your GM has to exercise the rule 0 common sense outside of mechanics. Many systems have weaknesses or mechanical exploits that are hard to just patch over and your GM has to be there as the arbiter to be "No, you're being silly, stop it." Though hopefully size traits/qualities will be cleanly codified right off the bat - there should be some penalties or other interaction to try and interact with an object which is much larger and heavier than you. OR again, GM arbitration "No you can't bench-press a bus, no matter how good you roll on SOMx3". Part of the weirdness of SOM may result from an assumption that if you can roll a test you can do anything - but while obviously most RPGs try and be action positive at the same time it's kind of an unspoken rule that you can't roll to do something physically impossible. If you don't have the inherent capacity for it, you can't roll Athletics to fly, even if athletics is the skill to roll to fly, yeah? But EP also generally ignores a lot of physical baggage - there's no carry capacity or weight count on every piece of tech or equipment. Even the rules from Transhuman are a vague abstraction because I have no idea how much kg a Fenrir is supposed to be. But going down that deep dark rabbit hole of exact mass, force and etc physics would be a different game entirely. So, SOMx3 tests. Barring some negative traits, assume most morphs are generally fit you roll SOM as just a brute force check to see if you know how to summon up enough burst strength to do whatever you need to do if it's challenging or dramatically interesting. If "you don't move it" is the only result, don't roll, and if it's just picking up normal everyday things, there's no roll. Really, to me all this reinforces is what EP2 needs most is not pure mechanics or fluff - but a section where the writers sit down and have a chat with the reader about running and playing EP and what some expectations are. As you say, there are maybe more important mechanical tunings to do and some things don't even need a mechanical tuning they just need to explain what some intent and feel is here.

UnitOmega wrote:

Yeah, with TWNW here. A lot of this discussion seems to be trying to solve problems that don't really exist in 2E. If you love morph bonuses so much, you can just keep playing 1E as the system in 2E really I think hits the sweet spot it's going for of simplicity and applicability without cramping anybody's writing hand. And then you can give aptitude checks bonuses.

I certainly think the issues I'm objecting to "exist" even if you don't share them. And I'll say what I said before, "if you don't like it, just play EP1" is a pretty trivial dismissal of an opinion you don't agree with, and I doubt very much that you'd be happy about it if our situations where reversed. I mean, I'm assuming the intent is that EP2 should appeal to both of us, not just to you.

UnitOmega wrote:

Well, at some point your GM has to exercise the rule 0 common sense outside of mechanics. Many systems have weaknesses or mechanical exploits that are hard to just patch over and your GM has to be there as the arbiter to be "No, you're being silly, stop it." ... Really, to me all this reinforces is what EP2 needs most is not pure mechanics or fluff - but a section where the writers sit down and have a chat with the reader about running and playing EP and what some expectations are. As you say, there are maybe more important mechanical tunings to do and some things don't even need a mechanical tuning they just need to explain what some intent and feel is here.

Specific rules aren't only about porn for min/maxers and math fetishists; they're also about making sure that a) people have some guidance about the things that they presumptively can and can't do, and b) that most people's expectations about "what is reasonable for me" are synced up. Yes, in principle, you could just ask your GM, "how do you think this works," but you can't always see the spots coming where your expectations and your GM's expectations aren't the same. That's why it's worth it to provide good mechanical guidance about how things are supposed to work, and what ranges things are supposed to fall in. Frankly, fairly clear rules about what you can and can't do also help with annoying rules-lawyer jackasses - both when they're players and when they're GM's. And "just don't play with those people" isn't always an option, depending on what your relationship to them is (I had this problem in college, a lot). It might seem obvious that "a scurrier can't lift a car," but it's good to have rules that specifically spell these things out. If a scurrier wants to tip over a bookshelf, what's a reasonable roll for it to have to make? STR+SOM + an easyness rating of 30 (since it's pushing, not lifting) is easy to say, directly falls out of the proposed rules, and produces a reasonable number (say 5 + 20 + 30 -> 55, which seems reasonable for a space raccoon trying to tip over a bookshelf). Final objection for the record. People seem to have hit upon "wanting a number for strength" as the reasonable sub-case for morph APT bonuses, or something like them. This game also has a morph whose brain's metabolism is so high that it needs to have liquid cooling. It's every bit as ludicrous that someone sleeved in that morph doesn't get a COG boost as it is that a Scurrier can arm-wrestle a nova crab, it's just that the former case bothers some people less than the later one, for some reason.

Joe wrote:

Not an active participant, so maybe repeats: Nit pick: 1) Social is listed twice under "Skill Categories". 2) Insight is used as a name for both a pool and a trait, which appear to do different things. Power Gaming: (balance) 3) CP cost for attributes vs skills: costs the same to raise the skills in Int or Som by 5 as it does to raise the attribute (and thus the skills) by 1. Add 1 more CP and get +5 to the stat rolls too. So 3 CP vs. 10? Cog, maybe Ref, the only attributes worth raising w/ CP, but ONLY if lots of field skills taken. (Didn't include derived stats in analysis...) 4) If given the choice between ego or morph, why would anyone put a possitive trait on the morph, or a negative trait on the ego? Besides role playing...

My personal houserule regarding #4 is that any negative Morph Traits can only pay for Positive Morph traits, to discurage that sort of meta-optimizing.

gleech wrote:

I certainly think the issues I'm objecting to "exist" even if you don't share them. And I'll say what I said before, "if you don't like it, just play EP1" is a pretty trivial dismissal of an opinion you don't agree with, and I doubt very much that you'd be happy about it if our situations where reversed. I mean, I'm assuming the intent is that EP2 should appeal to both of us, not just to you.

No so much, no. I didn't have the cash to back the KS, so I've got no sunk cost in this operation - in full honesty if the suggestions of some people in this thread were to be implemented as core rules, I will drop EP2 like a hot potato. And I still haven't seen the whole product, if there are issues raised with the fundamental changes to the system which don't get smoothed in playtesting, I may be done with it anyway, I make no commitments to a product I have not seen the whole of nor invested anything in. I am perfectly comfortable with the first edition of EP and will gladly play it in the future still (and am practically guaranteed to, I'm like 1/3rd of the way through a campaign which is very seriously outlined all in 1E so I'm not rewriting it). This is my point - the 2nd edition doesn't have to appeal to both of us and in some cases will not bridge that gap, I've heard opinions from quite a few people who have zero interest in the new edition based on the playtest. And there are other smaller things which I will just take my metaphorical knife to and cut out and ignore. This is not a dismissal, this is my response: If you as a person are so strongly attached to mechanics underpinning 1E which 2E is very deliberately going out of it's way to "fix" or bypass, then the 2E may not be for you. This is okay, not all things are for all people. It may be more productive to accept that you do not like a core feature of 2E which will not change.

Quote:

If a scurrier wants to tip over a bookshelf, what's a reasonable roll for it to have to make?

SOMx3

Quote:

STR+SOM + an easyness rating of 30 (since it's pushing, not lifting) is easy to say, directly falls out of the proposed rules, and produces a reasonable number (say 5 + 20 + 30 -> 55, which seems reasonable for a space raccoon trying to tip over a bookshelf).

And here's where you've lost me. This just seems like meaningless arbitrary numbers. The system has an abstraction already, SOM score. And who says pushing is "very easy"? Is that a quality of the bookshelf intrinsically? Of pushing? What if you're pushing a uniform shape and mass on a high friction surface? I'm not opposed to strong simulation in games (As a guy who has written several homebrew systems which do have hard and fast Carry limits in kg and similar rigid numbers), but I do not think that is the intent of the game. There's a lot of complexity to actions and motion, but the game does not need to model them. You may balk at my statement of a simple "SOMx3" above, but if an Ego has solid understanding of using it's physical strength and stamina in the right ways and timing it could be phenomenally easy to knock over a shelf, regardless of how much mass they have in the morph. But the game really doesn't need to bog down and ask you to know how your character in game would apply leverage, inertia or balance to solve a problem. Just roll SOMx3.

Quote:

Final objection for the record. People seem to have hit upon "wanting a number for strength" as the reasonable sub-case for morph APT bonuses, or something like them. This game also has a morph whose brain's metabolism is so high that it needs to have liquid cooling. It's every bit as ludicrous that someone sleeved in that morph doesn't get a COG boost as it is that a Scurrier can arm-wrestle a nova crab, it's just that the former case bothers some people less than the later one, for some reason.

I'm fairly certain the hyperbright is radiator-cooled, if that's what your getting at - and if we're putting things on the record, "this game" only has that in first edition. While conversion is easy, it has not appeared directly in 2E and may not for some time (if ever) and it's entirely possible it may hold by default traits or ware which would reflect an increase above the Menton. Or just a big ol' insight pool, and when you run out you need to cool off bro.

That's kind of why I haven't been jumping on specific people and been "I don't like this idea, if they do this I'm dropping the game" or just "nah I'm cool with that rule", that's kind of counterproductive to the whole thing. People should feel free to keep spitballing, but maybe I'm just more cynical having already seen people who are in like the 100% "not down for this" camp to be like "hey if this fundamental mechanic retool is not floating your boat maybe this isn't for you." Because really, I 100% feel that the 2nd edition does not suck so far. Far from sucking, I think PS has very clear design goals with the new edition that they're trying to hit and managing pretty well. I never really had complaints about 1E either, I was not asking for a new edition and have personally argued against "fixes" in 1E which are part of the rework in 2E (skill collapsing, for instance). But again, PS clearly has some intents they are trying to hit and I think they are mostly hitting them. That's a good game to me. But I dunno, maybe that's just my ethos. I always say to play the game they give you as they intend you to play it. Then maybe if that doesn't work for you, drift it a little to suit your needs. This is why I'm starting to think that a looser "intent" section is maybe needed as opposed to "rules". Because sometimes people are just not perceptive - they need you to just tell them what you're trying to convey.

UnitOmega wrote:

gleech wrote:

I certainly think the issues I'm objecting to "exist" even if you don't share them. And I'll say what I said before, "if you don't like it, just play EP1" is a pretty trivial dismissal of an opinion you don't agree with, and I doubt very much that you'd be happy about it if our situations where reversed. I mean, I'm assuming the intent is that EP2 should appeal to both of us, not just to you.

No so much, no. I didn't have the cash to back the KS, so I've got no sunk cost in this operation - in full honesty if the suggestions of some people in this thread were to be implemented as core rules, I will drop EP2 like a hot potato. And I still haven't seen the whole product, if there are issues raised with the fundamental changes to the system which don't get smoothed in playtesting, I may be done with it anyway, I make no commitments to a product I have not seen the whole of nor invested anything in. I am perfectly comfortable with the first edition of EP and will gladly play it in the future still (and am practically guaranteed to, I'm like 1/3rd of the way through a campaign which is very seriously outlined all in 1E so I'm not rewriting it). This is my point - the 2nd edition doesn't have to appeal to both of us and in some cases will not bridge that gap, I've heard opinions from quite a few people who have zero interest in the new edition based on the playtest. And there are other smaller things which I will just take my metaphorical knife to and cut out and ignore. This is not a dismissal, this is my response: If you as a person are so strongly attached to mechanics underpinning 1E which 2E is very deliberately going out of it's way to "fix" or bypass, then the 2E may not be for you. This is okay, not all things are for all people. It may be more productive to accept that you do not like a core feature of 2E which will not change.

That doesn't make sense from the perspective of an open-source project or a commercial product. If they want me to not fork their project, and if they want me to buy their books, and if they want me to like the game, then I expect them to take my concerns into account. Not cater to me exclusively, god knows, but to at least consider the things I want and to throw me a bone if they can. I dunno man. If you want to make "I don't give a fuck, neither should you" your position, then go ahead. You're certainly right that I can't accuse you of hypocrisy at that point. I'm sorry if I'm coming across too strong. I was a huge fan of EP1, and I'm not much enjoying having being told point-blank, "screw you, your opinion doesn't matter." I admit I could probably be a little calmer about it. :S

UnitOmega wrote:

Quote:

If a scurrier wants to tip over a bookshelf, what's a reasonable roll for it to have to make?

SOMx3

So - admittedly an exaggerated example - if someone in a novacrab with a SOM of 5 can barely budge said book-case, but a scurrier with a SOM of 30 can fling it across the room, that seems reasonable to you? Okies.

UnitOmega wrote:

Quote:

STR+SOM + an easyness rating of 30 (since it's pushing, not lifting) is easy to say, directly falls out of the proposed rules, and produces a reasonable number (say 5 + 20 + 30 -> 55, which seems reasonable for a space raccoon trying to tip over a bookshelf).

And here's where you've lost me. This just seems like meaningless arbitrary numbers. The system has an abstraction already, SOM score. And who says pushing is "very easy"? Is that a quality of the bookshelf intrinsically? Of pushing? What if you're pushing a uniform shape and mass on a high friction surface? I'm not opposed to strong simulation in games (As a guy who has written several homebrew systems which do have hard and fast Carry limits in kg and similar rigid numbers), but I do not think that is the intent of the game. There's a lot of complexity to actions and motion, but the game does not need to model them. You may balk at my statement of a simple "SOMx3" above, but if an Ego has solid understanding of using it's physical strength and stamina in the right ways and timing it could be phenomenally easy to knock over a shelf, regardless of how much mass they have in the morph. But the game really doesn't need to bog down and ask you to know how your character in game would apply leverage, inertia or balance to solve a problem. Just roll SOMx3.

I was making the assumption that for most morphs, an STR score would be approximately their DUR score - except in cases, like the scurrier, where it needed to be very different. I pictured the scenario where a tiny little fuchsia space-racoon had climbed on top of a book-case that was positioned up against a wall and was trying to push it over, maybe as a distraction, maybe to pin someone under it. This doesn't seem like a far-fetched scenario, and it produces a situation where the system I was proposing works well naturally and the book's system doesn't. I think it still works as an example. "What we need to track here" varies from group to group and scenario to scenario. Ideally, at least, a game should support "fuck it, roll X formulaic thing" in situations when it's not important, and provide support for far more granular decisions and pivotal/important/interesting times, or for groups that really enjoy grappling with fine detail.

UnitOmega wrote:

Quote:

Final objection for the record. People seem to have hit upon "wanting a number for strength" as the reasonable sub-case for morph APT bonuses, or something like them. This game also has a morph whose brain's metabolism is so high that it needs to have liquid cooling. It's every bit as ludicrous that someone sleeved in that morph doesn't get a COG boost as it is that a Scurrier can arm-wrestle a nova crab, it's just that the former case bothers some people less than the later one, for some reason.

I'm fairly certain the hyperbright is radiator-cooled, if that's what your getting at - and if we're putting things on the record, "this game" only has that in first edition. While conversion is easy, it has not appeared directly in 2E and may not for some time (if ever) and it's entirely possible it may hold by default traits or ware which would reflect an increase above the Menton. Or just a big ol' insight pool, and when you run out you need to cool off bro.

Blood (a liquid) circulates through the brain (the thing producing heat) and the fin (a radiator). At least, that was my assumption; I don't know how else that crest would work. Although "the Hyperbright isn't in E2 yet" is a fair point.

Urthdigger wrote:

Something I'm curious about: People are throwing around all sorts of ideas on how to make sure the mentons are smarter, furies are faster, etc... but what about for the morphs where their thing isn't based on an aptitude test? Morphs like the Ruster or Hibernoid, whose main draws are represented via traits or augments anyone can get? I think the solution to the issue can likely be found by treating both of these morph bonuses equally. I've suggested in the past that morphs get unique abilities that only they can do, or which they can do better than similar augments, treating them much like any other piece of gear with the exception of only being able to benefit from one at a time. Alternatively, more augments that come with the higher end morphs (remember, augments that come with the morph are cheaper than buying them after the fact) could help them retain some identity, though at the same time someone can, say, trick out their menton so it's like a menton AND a sylph.

I'd actually be super OK with that. I'd be fine if APT bonuses moved from being a thing that every morph got some of, to a thing that only certain morphs that are specifically built for cognitive enhancement got - like the hyperbright I keep fighting over. And if, then, other morphs got other bonuses. Splicers might be easier to mod, being so common; scurriers might get some kind of climbing or flying bonus?

Anarchitect wrote:

Things like reaction time, coordination, and muscle strength are inbuilt into a morph's body. Things like reaction time and processing power are inbuilt into it's brain. Things like it's grace and physical attractiveness are also built into it.

eaton wrote:

The 'scurrier wins an arm-wrestling match against a Remade' scenario isn't isolated. I personally think of it as the 'Spare morph deadlifts a Fenrir' problem — it's not about philosophy, it's just an edge case where the rules as written result in an outcome that feels nonsensical. -Snip- "Brute strength" checks are still SOMx3, though, which feels even odder once DUR is in play. In any case, I don't think this is the most important of the tweaks that could be made, but I definitely think it's worth considering while PHS is monkeying around with the rules.

This is reason I'm so opposed to Morph-Based stats: Literally none of these are purely physical. Can the body help? Sure, that's why morph bonuses and attribute caps in V1 made sense. Let's look at strength by asking how much I can carry IRL – the answer is purely “it depends”. Am I carrying things in my arms, or in a backpack to better distribute the weight? What angle are my arms at? Is my back straight? Am I standing correctly to distribute my weight over my soles when I walk? Even looking at pure muscle densitywe don't get a cohesive picture, because people as a rule don't utilise their full strength – we have built in regulators to help us avoid self-injury, and when thoses kick in is learned behaviour. For the same reason, a punch from someone who knows how to tense thier arm and get thier hips into the motion will always do more damage then one from someone who doesnt regardless of comperative muscle mass. Every ostensibly physical attribute has similar considerations – reaction time depends on your ability to prioritise stimulus, and 'attractiveness' has as much if not more to do with body language and speech patterns than simple body form. The examples that keep being presented - the Scurrier/Remade matchup, benchpressing Fenrirs, Novacrabs redecorating – aren't issues because of SOM. The reason the small morphs 'should' have problems is because they're small, and I don't think anyone here would argue against size-based roll modifiers... but they should still be Modifiers, not Stats.

NotActuallyTim wrote:

It is far more complicated than merely 'Characters shouldn't have their +[Faction] meme forced on them at character creation.'

The simplicities are such that some people support factions, and others oppose them. Unless you can answer my earlier question ("Do you believe that treachery is in the victim's best interests unless the perpetrator gets caught?"), I don't see where complexities come into it. Do keep in mind that we're not talking about veneers of civility, but [i]internal motivations[/i]. TL;DR: Characters shouldn't have their +[Faction] meme forced on them at character creation Possible exception: As with the rep network list, the faction list is not a truly complete listing of all factions in EP, but of the game system's simplification schema. So +[Faction] would make sense if one could create a "Venusians for Morningstar-PC Unity" faction or something. Perhaps this could be an idea for an "advanced chargen" section.

Decivre wrote:

Joe wrote:

4) If given the choice between ego or morph, why would anyone put a possitive trait on the morph, or a negative trait on the ego? Besides role playing...

This is also a reason I would like the morphs to come with genetic templates or blueprints; because then any positive traits I get on a morph could be on every copy of the morph I make as well.

I feel like this sort of thing would work best in a farcasting/genehacking/biomorph design splatbook.

UnitOmega wrote:

Honestly, I have no idea how the funk the Hyperbright is supposed to work. I guess you're technically right in that blood (water) is probably a component of the radiating medium... probably. Though that also then radiates into the air... which is a shitty medium for cooling - ah I think somebody just thought it sounded rad.

Skin/air is the major cooling paradigm for most land animals. And mind that the blood/flesh in the Hyperbright's crests are also heat sinks.

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:

This is reason I'm so opposed to Morph-Based stats: Literally none of these are purely physical. Can the body help? Sure, that's why morph bonuses and attribute caps in V1 made sense. Let's look at strength by asking how much I can carry IRL – the answer is purely “it depends”. Am I carrying things in my arms, or in a backpack to better distribute the weight? What angle are my arms at? Is my back straight? Am I standing correctly to distribute my weight over my soles when I walk? Even looking at pure muscle densitywe don't get a cohesive picture, because people as a rule don't utilise their full strength – we have built in regulators to help us avoid self-injury, and when thoses kick in is learned behaviour. For the same reason, a punch from someone who knows how to tense thier arm and get thier hips into the motion will always do more damage then one from someone who doesnt regardless of comperative muscle mass.

The solution, in this specific STR example, would be a morph's base STR multiplied by 1) an ego-based activation rate for purely muscular efforts, or 2) damage bonuses for high skill/COO efforts (which already exists in some form with "Excellent Success" rule on EP1 p.192). While I would find such a development an exciting move closer to the "hard" end of the sci-fi spectrum, that seems to be opposite to the direction EP2 is headed.

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:

The examples that keep being presented - the Scurrier/Remade matchup, benchpressing Fenrirs, Novacrabs redecorating – aren't issues because of SOM. The reason the small morphs 'should' have problems is because they're small, and I don't think anyone here would argue against size-based roll modifiers... but they should still be Modifiers, not Stats.

Again, this is best left to the domain of complexity, not simplicity. Otherwise you get odd things like massive SR Trolls being better at climbing than lithe agile humans because of their BOD bonus.

Dilf_Pickle wrote:

I see three different complaints about speed above, all mutually incompatible in addition to bringing up baffling 'disadvantages' ("it allowed combat characters to be good at their chosen field"; "speed was so good"), and its elimination counterlogical benefits ("a little more balanced").

I won't speak for anyone else, but I think that the primary reason that speed as it was before was an issue was because it had a multiplicative effect on [i]nearly every action you took[/i]. It wasn't only more useful in combat, but more useful in nearly every scenario where you could either have it or not. Even some task actions benefited. The most glaring example was combat, but another one was hacking. In both of these, people with speed increases weren't just better... they were better by a multiplicative factor. As a person who plays a hacker, let me give you examples from my point of view: with my usual eidolon hacker build in 1st Edition, in comparison to a regular person hacking with speed 1, I could either do a similar task 10-times faster (not an exaggeration with speed 4 and 2 bonus mental actions), twice as many tasks simultaneously 2½ times as fast, three tasks simultaneously in 1⅔ the time, and so on all the way to even being able to do 12 simultaneous tasks at the same pace as that single character does just one. I'm all up for making fast characters having an advantage. But there's a big difference between "advantage" and "insurmountable edge". The new representation of speed needs to be more of the former and much less of the latter.

So far I like what I see, and some of the decisions, even if they are contentious, feel like they speed along the process of getting to grips with the game. There is something to be said for a comparative way to evaluate what morphs can and can't do on the physical side of things - a big issue being with SOM being ego-specific now. The best suggestion I can make for this is using a morphs DUR as a benchmark: smaller, or weaker morphs often have less DUR than larger, more physically capable morphs (compare a flat and a fury, for example). Even without number crunching, it's easy to see disparities like that, and compare who's morph might be more prepared for physical feats. One thing I'm a bit bummed didn't make it into this draft were some of the more physical trait options for morphs: size manipulation (increase/decrease) or the details on how those changes would work. If those rules were in this draft, I missed them completely. Gear seems to be a sticking point for me, if only because certain implants might not be compatible (bio implants for synths or infomorphs, for example) and there aren't yet suggestions on how to address such discrepancies - or a wares/gear section to reference. Otherwise looks to be very functional and streamlined. Anything else I might point out has already been brought up (issues with balancing aptitudes to skills, etc).

Ambidextrous is an Ego trait AFAIK.

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:

This, but it went farther. Speed was without doubt the best possible investment for literally every character type, to the point that not taking it was deliberately crippling the character, even though doing so would tear out a big chunk of your options. It's something you rammed into your character regardless of theme or concept, and the fact that you spent a third of your CP doing it was just the cost of doing business. The cruel irony of course being that it's only good if no-one else has it. Having a high Speed didn't make your character better, NOT having a high Speed made your character worse.

When it came to the meat of the game, fighting horrors, the "power level" of your character as a whole was more reliant on the number of firearms you could bear at once, the number of forks who could act at once, the amount of speed you had and the mental bonus actions you got... than it was on your skills and aptitudes. My playgroup allowed for each player to have several characters, and as a consequence we became very intimate with what makes a character better or worse. And as much as I loved my martial arts async and my Ultimate mercenary character, my best combatant overall was always the speed-boosted octopus uplift in a Takko with extra cyberlimbs, craptons of ambidexterity and the blueprints for his synthmorph. And as enemies got harder and we faced crazier things, I was more and more pressed to use the latter more than the others, simply because it was the only way to ensure mission success. His power was so much higher, and the others so much lower, that I ultimately had to invest in speed boosts for the others just to justify using them at all. When you can determine who is going to come out on top in any conflict solely based on who has one of three or four implants, that's a serious issue.

o11o1 wrote:

So with the new Vigor and Insight pools, what are you estimations on how true that will come to be? The current rules allow you to take up to three actions in a given turn (costing 2 vigor), so my expectation is that the guy who can reliably take three attacks and inflict the most debuffs (including 'dead is the most powerful debuff') in the fight so that it's tilted in their favor for the next few turns when they either slow down or burn through the other half of their furies vigor pool. ....Which to me suggests it might be smart to attack furies and such in waves, letting them burn through their vigor in the opener with your fleet of pistol-geared servitors, and then following with your -real- threat in the second go, before they have the chance for their ten minute rest.

On the contrary. It means that if a force of Furies is dealing with waves of enemies, they might actually be incentivized to conserve pools for powerful foes and rely on constant abilities to take on standard opponents. It also means that pool strategy could be complex enough that proper management could be a key part of situational tactics. That said, such a scenario wouldn't be necessarily lethal if the team uses their resources properly. For example, you could use an insight point to discover a clue on an escape route, giving you an opportunity to find reprieve and prepare for more fight.

Quote:

So with the new Vigor and Insight pools, what are you estimations on how true that will come to be? The current rules allow you to take up to three actions in a given turn (costing 2 vigor), so my expectation is that the guy who can reliably take three attacks and inflict the most debuffs (including 'dead is the most powerful debuff') in the fight so that it's tilted in their favor for the next few turns when they either slow down or burn through the other half of their furies vigor pool.

I'll be taking this stuff for a spin this weekend with my gaming group, but I'd say that two factors keep it from becoming as big of an issue: First, rer-round actions have been reduced. EP allowed 4 action phases (each with a full compliment of complex AND quick actions) while EP2 allows 1 full set of actions and 2 Vigor-based complex actions or quick actions. Used optimally, that means a 25% reduction in shots fired per round and a 75% reduction in quick actions per round for combat optimized characters. Second, eliminating SPD's always-on quality means that it shouldn't be used against every enemy. A juiced up Fury can only keep up that level of combat participation for 3 rounds. That's enough to ultra-maul one big bad or a small crowd of weak-to-middling enemies, but complex combat scenarios like the ones you describe will still wear them down in most cases.

Quote:

....Which to me suggests it might be smart to attack furies and such in waves, letting them burn through their vigor in the opener with your fleet of pistol-geared servitors, and then following with your -real- threat in the second go, before they have the chance for their ten minute rest.

That's how I've played through a number of combat scenarios in EP1; it made sense narratively, but the continual SPD effect made the tactic less effective than I thought it would be. (the SPD 4 character just kept mauling; the only thing that slowed her down was reloading). In one scenario, the whole team had to make its way through six stories of a corporate complex before the habitat's fusion reactor lit up. The full slog took two full gaming sessions, and involved pitched battles with groups of security personnel, desperate holding actions against escaped exsurgents loose in the building, attacks (both martial and technical) on automated defense systems, and a final conflict with a juiced up Psi-wielding flesh party blocking their path to the shuttle launch complex. In EP1, it was one of the most INTERESTING conflict scenarios the group played, but the fundamental advantage of SPD remained constant throughout the two sessions. Other than running out of ammo or accumulating too many wounds to keep going, there was nothing preventing the combat tanks from just pushing, pushing, pushing. In EP2, careful stewardship of Vigor points would've been essential. (Actually, careful stewardship of Insight points would've been essential, too — the hacker was leaning pretty heavily on multiple mental/mesh actions each turn.)

Quote:

Both for PCs and NPCs, the requirement and incentive to plot your resource needs and apply them appropriately should help diversify the game and make people think better about their options besides just "I have speed 4, maximized SOM and DUR and 6 swords, let's blend". Even if you "cheese" to get a high pool, that's only a benefit if you spend which means you can run out of it and there's actually a mechanical balance besides "The GM says no, your cannot take your combat Exoskeleton into downtown."

Agreed. That's definitely why I've warmed up to the pools as folks here have gamed out different scenarios.

Quote:

How about on the GM side, though? Say I stock a hypercorp research lab with 12 Guard pods and a trio of Furies, how annoying should I expect it to be if I say, play them as three groups that fight for a few rounds, and then retreat from the PCs so they can try to take that 10 minute rest? This strikes me as perhaps a lot of fidelity compared to what I would usually need, but it seems like a middle-high point for a complex scenario I would try to actually run.

"How smart should these enemies really be?" is a constant tug-of-war for EP GMs, I think. Seeing how fast-and-brutal combat can be (something that doesn't look likely to change in EP2, even with SPD nerfed), it can mean the difference between a total party wipe, a tough but satisfying combat sequence, or a cakewalk that just forces players to do some math before interrogating the prisoners. I did some experimental work on a 'Threat calculator' for EP1; it was... not super awesome at properly costing effectiveness multipliers like stealth gear, but generally speaking it did okay. I'd have to think through how different point pools could figure into that; I'm thinking it might have to be modeled as a spread: aggressive (hit hard, hit fast), cautious (use points for wound/trauma avoidance), balanced, etc.

My random and long thoughts about traits: 1: Some "unbalanced" traits I am figuring some traits are too cheap or unbalanced, at least in EP1 ruling. They would be fine in EP2 ruling, but I am concerning a little. 2: Fitness and Resolve traits The two aptitude check buffers might be too handy, because characters are much more likely to role SOM/WIL checks than SOM/WIL-linked skills. If I spend 2 CP to buy Lv 2 Fitness trait, my SOM check TN is increased 10. If I spend 2 CP to buy extra SOM, my SOM check TN is increased 3. So I am feeling it would be better to remove them. I think even double CP cost would be quite reasonable (as long as SOM/WIL checks remain vital at combat and stressful situation). On the other hand, I am fine about other aptitude check buffers. 3: Indifference, Obtuseness and Poor Coordination traits In the opposite manner, these aptitude check debuffers might be too light for up-to-3 CP, because characters are much more likely to role SAV/COG/REF-linked skills than SAV/COG/REF checks. 4: Exotic Morphology trait I understand some morphs are harder to resleeve, but I don't like to make it as a negative trait. In EP1, most of ill-effect of intergration test are last only days, and failed alienation test give a few stress points. So I am figuring bad intergration/alienation won't give enough penalty for bonus CP. In other words, Exotic Morphology trait makes exotic morphs less exotic (CP reasonable). 5: About aptitude-linked traits Separately from game mechanism, I am confusing what aptitude-linked traits differ than higher/lower aptitude. If my character has stronger will, what she should have? Higher WIL, Composure Trait or Resolve Ego Trait? 6: Psi-attached negative traits p. 10 said "No more than 6 CP worth of negative traits may be purchased". But Psi trait require a few negative traits without bonus CP. For example. Psi 2 require 2 Mental Disorder, Lv 2 Instability and Lv 2 Mental Vulnerability (12 bonus CP under ordinary circumstances). Do Psi-attached negative traits count against the 6 CP limit?