Aberrant: Infinite Earth - Gadgets Feedback thread

[SeaEagle]

New Gadgets Background HERE

In this thread discuss any additions or changes to this new version of the background.

[Sean Cassidy]

Okay, looking at it now - after some sleep - this is looking better. Still, we'll still have to keep an eye on it. At the lower levels, about 1-3 dots, Gadgets are somewhat more powerful, but I'm still willing to give it try as is. One thing I think we should add though is some sort of limit on the number of powers (not just dots) a device can have. Currently, as is, they can have as many as they can pay for, at one dot a piece. Yes, more dots in a power is better, but even having just one dot can provide a big benefit.

Just as a rough idea, I'd say 1 power at Gadget 1, 2 powers at Gadget 2-4, and three powers at Gadget 5, or maybe 1 power at Gadget 1-2, 2 powers at Gadget 3-4, and 3 powers at Gadget 5. I'm willing - and would like - to hear other ideas or comments. Thoughts?

[Sean Cassidy]

Another suggestion - Dice Pools. Not sure if we simply want to have the power bestowed on the user, who uses it as if they possess it. Would someone's stamina really affect a Force Field generated from a device? It might work for one that functions as a gun - point and shoot, who would get to use Dex + Firearms instead of Stat + Power Rating - but not in all cases.

As an Alternative, how about the Stat used is the Gadget Rating, and you add the Power Rating of the Power as normal. So say a Gadget 2, providing a Force Field 4, would roll 2 + 4 dice? (Personally, I'd prefer going with the fixed result FF from the Player's Guide for a Gadget anyway )

[SeaEagle]

It would make sense to use the Gadget rating for stuff like that.

I'll see if anyone else wants to place power caps on a Gadget. As in a limit to how many.

[Telluris]

I think a fixed result FF works for a gadget. It's not as though someone can blow WP or Power-max it.

And I agree with Asa's suggestion that Gadgets should use their Rating as the attribute for the dice pool when applicable. A notable exception might be someone attacking with a q-bolt gadget. They should maybe roll Dex + Firearms to hit with it, since that's the pool closest to 'pointing and zapping with a device'.

Thoughts?

[Kazuo]

I know I'm not actually playing a character in CN yet, but I am seriously considering submitting one for play and so I thought I'd comment here as it may have an effect on my submission.

The primary problem I see with the Gadget rules as they're being presented is that it looks as if they're being approached with the mindset of being the beginnings of a potential ruleset for inventions - not so much for Gadgets. This is understandable, given that the Aberrant: Player's Guide has rules for 'gadgeteering', while the background we're trying to create is based on the Adventure! game's background called 'Gadget'. But this is still a problem since they are not the same thing! Not at all.

Adventure! is the only Aeonverse game that ever incorporated rules for 'Gadgets' within its system, and it did a very good job - especially in that it marked a strong difference between a 'Gadget' and an 'advancement' or an 'innovation'. Other game lines, such as Mutants & Masterminds, have similar concepts within them (Devices, as opposed to Gear or Inventions) and in each case there is a very strong distinction made between (what we're calling here) a 'Gadget' and an 'invention/advancement/innovation'. This distinction is largely a story-driven one, but is nonetheless extremely important and well-worth giving consideration to.

In Adventure! terms (which I'll use since that's the game closest to Aberrant), a Gadget is something that is both unique and intrinsic to the character to whom it belongs. Reed Richards regularly creates and uses advanced and/or innovative technology to aid him in his or his family's many adventures, but none of these items are really intrinsic to who he is - the items that he uses are 'advancements' or, just as often, 'innovations' - and while it's possible that some of them may make repeat appearances within the comics it's just as likely that we'll never see them again after Reed puts them to their intended use to overcome whichever plot point necessitated their creation in the first place. On the other hand, Iron Man's suit of armor is pretty much the quintessential 'Gadget'. Tony Stark would not be who he is (in super-hero terms, at least) without his suit of armor. Sure, he spends time tinkering with it, improving it, or repairing it after it gets banged up, but we never question whether or not he'll once again wear the suit into battle with some nefarious super-villain or another, or if the suit is actually going to go away for good. In fact, that's just a silly question in general, because he's Iron Man!

Captain America is another good example of a hero with a Gadget, as opposed to an innovation or advancement. His shield is a part of who he is. Yeah, he might lose it at some point, or it might get stolen, but we all know he'll get it back eventually. His getting it back might become the center piece of a story arc, or it might just happen to show up again at some later point as a result of Cap's actions during the current story arc, but either way he's gonna get that shield back. Bet on it.

That being the case, I would recommend using Adventure!'s outlook on all this as much as possible (or Dave's, for that matter, since he obviously was aware of this distinction as well), and in this case it would state: "Assume an Innovative gadget [one that emulates a power, as opposed to simple advancements to existing techology] has a dice pool equal to the character's appropriate Trait..."

Basically, it's a Gadget - a part of the character, their personal mythos, and of who they are - let them use it as such.

Additionally, "[a] gadget is likely to be the target of thieves and con men. In the proper circles, the item (and your character's mastery of it) is nigh-legendary, and your character's enemies will go to considerable lengths to separate him from it. Yet, it will always return to him somehow, and it will never fail him when he needs it. If your character's gadget is ever separated from him, coincidence returns it by the end of the story (recovering it may even be the story's focus). A gadget cannot be destroyed except in the most extreme circumstances or by killing its owner."

(Both of the above quotes are from Adventure!, pg. 146.)

All of the above would be in regards to the actual Gadget background. However, there is still the question of how to handle what Aberrant called ‘gadgeteering’ (and that Adventure! gave the much more appropriate tile of ‘super-science’), and how one should go about creating such items in-play.

For my part, I’d like to see a stronger emphasis placed on the differences between 'advancements' as opposed to 'innovations'. The Player's Guide gadgeteering rules deal pretty much exclusively with 'innovations' and don't really even touch what Adventure! calls an 'advancement'. I think it's worth bearing in mind the fundamental difference between the two.

Simply put, an advancement is a highly 'advanced' piece of standard technology. In fact, in the A! rules all it takes to be able to begin developing one is Mastery in the appropriate Ability, meaning that even a mundane human can potentially develop the same sorts of advancements as any Inspired character could. Furthermore, advancements do not have a "battery life", as it were. An advanced car has capabilities that are ahead of its time, but it's still just a car and is no more (or less) prone to breaking down than any other vehicle on the road. This is not to say that a prospective inventor will never have to worry about repairing it, but it is to say that they shouldn't have to worry about it exploding on them in a few months time.

An 'innovation', on the other hand, is real, honest-to-goodness super-science. Creating this stuff is beyond the means of any normal human - no matter how many dots they have in the relevant ability - as it is just as likely to be breaking the physical laws of the universe as anything else. For our purposes, I would say this translates to the necessity of at least a single dot in Mega-Intelligence. "Particularly advanced" innovations - say those that emulate a Power with an Extra tacked onto it, anything higher than a Level 2 Power, or that is meant to emulate more than one power - should require the appropriate Mental Prodigy enhancement (and possibly 3 or more dots in Mega-Int as well). Moreover, innovations should definitely qualify for the "battery life" complication. Since they're probably breaking the laws of nature as it is, it only makes sense that they're going to blow up in their user's face sooner or later. I would not, however, recommend on allowing a battery life of "indefinitely". Instead, I would recommend that adding an additional month of functionality to an innovation out of the gate require an additional +1 to the difficulty on the roll to create it, and that we use A!'s system for adding functional time to it after the fact (i.e. the nova has to completely take it apart and rebuild it, which is a process that takes 1/10th the initial R&D time and that requires yet another creation roll to determine if the rebuild is successful).

----------------------------------------------------------------

Having gotten all of that thematic fluff-stuff out of the way, I agree with Asa that allowing the acquisition of powers through a simple Background is potentially very abusive. I'm fine with a Gadget Background being able to provide Advancements of any sort - and I don't think I'd have any problems with them being able to provide the functional equivalent of an enhancement, body modification, or even most L1 powers. Powers of a Level higher than 1, however, just seems kind of problematic to me.

My recommendation would be to approach this problem in a manner similar to the method used in Mutants & Masterminds. Basically, you purchase your gadget-derived powers in exactly the same way as you approach any other power, only at a reduced cost and with the understanding that it can be potentially lost, stolen, or even used against you.

Putting that into Aberrant terms; we could call these 'removable powers' either 'Artifacts' or (taking yet another cue from M&M) 'Devices', and say that they are purchased in the same way that tainted powers are - at half-cost. However, instead of inflicting aberrations on the nova purchasing them, these powers would come with the caveat that they may be taken from the nova or lost, and that if it emulates a damaging or other attack-based power (such as a super-science quantum-bolt-emulating blaster rifle) the nova does not automatically have immunity to its effects, meaning that it can potentially be used against them. It should be assumed that even if it is lost/stolen it always returns to the nova at some point, and even should it be lost or stolen in some way that effectively precludes the nova ever getting it back they should at least have the option of being able to rebuild it from scratch or in some other way acquire a replacement. In any case, the trade-off for those saved NPs is that the nova can be robbed of that power's use, even if only for a time - and that any powers so purchased can be potentially used against them as well.

As far as being able to add Advancement options to an artifact/device (such as increasing the Concealability of a Q-bolt Blaster), just charge 1NP per 4BP to be added to the power, and enforce the same sorts of advancement restrictions as are placed on standard advanced gadgets (i.e. no more than 6 options for an advanced weapon, etc).

Anyway, there's my .02 for now. If I think of anything else, I'll post it later.

EDIT: I knew I was forgetting something. As an addition to the above, I would say that any power purchased in this way should be considered as "in-theme" for Cosmos Nova purposes.

[SeaEagle]

"Putting that into Aberrant terms; we could call these 'removable powers' either 'Artifacts' or (taking yet another cue from M&M) 'Devices', and say that they are purchased in the same way that tainted powers are - at half-cost. However, instead of inflicting aberrations on the nova purchasing them, these powers would come with the caveat that they may be taken from the nova or lost, and that if it emulates a damaging or other attack-based power (such as a super-science quantum-bolt-emulating blaster rifle) the nova does not automatically have immunity to its effects, meaning that it can potentially be used against them. It should be assumed that even if it is lost/stolen it always returns to the nova at some point, and even should it be lost or stolen in some way that effectively precludes the nova ever getting it back they should at least have the option of being able to rebuild it from scratch or in some other way acquire a replacement. In any case, the trade-off for those saved NPs is that the nova can be robbed of that power's use, even if only for a time - and that any powers so purchased can be potentially used against them as well."

You know, why is it that this is... starting to make complete sense... this whole paragraph right here.

Also the new gadget rules as we have them would work better for making mundane gadgets. A full customization system.

I almost wanna say let's do it like this... Gadgets are the "Taint Discount Cost" powers placed in a container that is the Gadget, and a Device is a mundane item pimped out and customized with the BP system we had. So this literally becomes a power construction method on one hand, and a simplified background in the other.

What's people's view on this?

[Mr Fox]

I like it, but I have a few things to add for consideration.

So what we have now is:

Gadget - the "Taint Discount Cost" powers placed in a container.

Device - a mundane item pimped out and customized with the BP system

Jedi wants to build the Millennium Falcon. This would obviously be a massive artifact level gadget under the current build rules, and I'm not sure it would even be possible. It would need to include Faster than light travel, Quantum bolts, gravity control, regular sub-light travel, force fields, power generator and maybe more besides.

This could be accomplished by making a series of gadgets, Sub-light engines, FTL drive, Artificial Gravity Generator, Shields, Laser Cannons, but they would all be wrapped up in a big Falcon shaped shell.

However, Sub-light engines might actually be a Device instead of a gadget since engines of various sorts actually exist already. Characters with the appropriate skills could theoretically make these. Same might be said of a power generator.

Overall, I think the proposals made so far would would be fine for making something like this, but not so much on the built in expiration date idea. I could definitely see constantly needing to tinker with the ship and make repairs as stuff breaks, but I don't think that actually replacing the parts entirely would be appropriate.

I would also want to have the 'automatically gets it back if it is lost' applied to the whole ship.

Keep in mind that I don't plan to have the ship built and flying next week. This is a project Jedi will work on over time, possibly one that requires stories along the way to build/acquire certain parts.

This also reinforces the idea that in order to build something you should have to have the skills needed to make it. For example, Jedi has his 'comm link', which is a powerful micro computer, but he has Science 5, Engineering 5 and Computer 5, so it is a normal device (except that he uses quantum to power it, that may need to be rethought under the new rules). The point being that he spent three years acquiring the knowledge of how to do what he wanted to do before he starting making it. The same wouldn't be true of a Gadget since that is a power wrapped up in an object and powers are beyond normal science and skills by definition. However, I would say that something like the Falcon would require skills as well as 'gadgeteering'. After all you can't make a space worthy vessel if you don't know squat about engineering and science.

[Kazuo]

The "expiration date" policy should apply to 'innovations' built using the 'gadgeteering' (or, in A! terms, 'super-science') rules. I.E. gadgets that you do not pay anything for beyond the time it takes to create them, and that mimic actual quantum powers. If you want it to be permanent, you would actually purchase the item using Experience Points.

As an aside - and in case it wasn't clear from my earlier post - I still feel that novas should be able to build 'innovations' (gadgets that mimic powers) using rules similar to those found in the 'gadgeteering' section of the PG or to the 'super-science' rules found in A!. It's just that such items - being innovations - should be unstable at best and therefore prone to breaking down at some point in the future. Also and again, there should be no guarantee, should you lose the item or have it stolen, that you will ever see it again. For that kind of reassurance take out an insurance policy in the form of experience points spent and official dots added to your PC's sheet.

[Sailor OOC]

Kei here.

1: I like the container concept.

2: Mundane kitbashing should stay but as a "Custom Gear" background.

3: The Gadgeteering option in the APG should stay in play, but if someone wants to keep their toy, invest the XP value of the power(s) it simulates. If you can get enough XP into it as the cost it would be for the gadget bought as a "container" before it pops, then you get to keep it.

4: Self-built stuff would indeed require the proper Abilities.

5: Using XP, you can also have some gadgeteer friend (fellow player character) or NPC build the Device.

6: Of course during character creation you can build a Gadget using NPs.

Am I on the right track here? I should build some examples (Kei's Suit and Vest) to see how it works out.

[Novakowski]

The Question i have is the Diffence Between Gadgets, Devices and how the rules apply to Advencements and innovations

[Sailor OOC]

Once a proper post is up regarding the new order with Gadgets/Devices/Customizations, we should have all your answers.

[Kazuo]

Since, as Kamiko said, this is all still under development and we don’t know exactly what everything will wind up looking like or being called I’m going to settle on some specific terms and adhere to them throughout this post (which will, hopefully, answer a few questions at least). The terms I will be using are: “gear” (also known as ‘items’ or ‘possessions’, and sometimes just ‘stuff’), “advancement”, “innovation”, “gadget” and “innovative gadget”.

‘Gear’, ‘items’, or ‘possessions’ would be any of your character’s belongings that – regardless of their relative value or level of technological complication – are ultimately not unique and that can be duplicated (easily or otherwise) by anyone else with enough time and/or resources. It doesn’t matter how amazingly cool the BFG that DeVries let your Elite character use on her last operation; in the end it’s just another enormous gun, no different than that used by any of a dozen other Elites in DeVries’ employ.

An ‘advancement’ or ‘innovation’ would be any device that is, fundamentally, unique.

An ‘advancement’ is just that: a device of some kind that contains or makes use of an advance over existing technology that is at least one generation ahead of its time. Continuing with our BFG example, above, it might be a gun that works exactly like DeVries’ standard BFG, but that has +3 Accuracy and that has been collapsed down in size so that it’s not much larger than an oversized elephant gun (still pretty big, but way smaller than the standard version). As an advancement, it works using technology and principles that are already well-developed; it just improves – or advances – them.

An ‘innovation’, on the other hand, would be a device that goes completely and utterly beyond current technology or scientific theories. It might even work by going utterly outside of current scientific theory. A mega-intelligent nova could theoretically write a fully-sentient computer program that somehow manages to exist and operate on the hard drive of their desktop computer (which almost certainly wouldn’t contain anywhere near enough memory or technological complexity to house an honest-to-goodness Artificial Intelligence), and simply by doing so they have not merely pushed existing technology ahead – they’ve left it utterly behind. Continuing on again with our BFG example; if we took our modified, ‘advanced’ BFG outlined above, and modified it so that it still fired what appeared to be normal DU ammo rounds, but it actually worked like a Quantum Bolt with the MIRV extra added onto it, that would be an innovation. This goes beyond normal science, is fundamentally unique, and therefore qualifies as ‘innovative’.

A ‘gadget’, in the broad sense, would be any ‘advancement’ or ‘innovation’ that is not only fundamentally unique, but that is also fundamentally a part of who your character is. Again, it’s like Captain America’s shield or Iron Man’s suit of powered armor. Cap’s shield is an ‘advancement’ and Iron Man’s suit of armor is an ‘innovation’ – but they’re not just advancements or innovations – they’re a literal part of their owners’ legends. This distinction is important to grasp, since it defines the difference between a “one-off” invention and a true gadget, and it is not dependant on any mechanical difference in functionality, but rather in a difference of relevance to the character’s personal story. (It’s worth noting, however, that a Gadget – innovative or otherwise – will work indefinitely, while normal innovations will not. This is one mechanical difference between the two, all talk of story-relevance aside.)

An ‘innovative gadget’ is simply a further distinction of type. By default, a gadget is assumed to be an advanced piece of unique equipment that is a distinct part of that character’s arsenal and legend. An ‘innovative’ gadget is essentially the same, except that it uses principles that go beyond a mere ‘advancement’ of current scientific understanding and that enter the realm of the fantastic. Typically, innovative gadgets can only be operated by Inspired characters, though I think there should probably be an Option available for them that would make them useable by mundane baselines as well.

[Mr Fox]

We already have a defined list of advanced studies. Those should be purchased, or someone needs to have them in order for an "Innovation" to be created.

In other words someone isn't going to be able to invent an FTL drive without science knowledge beyond that currently available. While it would be possible for a nova to create or possess a nova Gadget that relies on nova abilities that could warp a ship across space, that would be a gadget and could be done without the science necessary, but it couldn't be replicated, and it would be a one-off item.

Just for reference here in this thread, the advanced sciences are:

Advanced Tech - Normal technology beyond our current scientific understanding: FTL technology, self-replicating nanites, etc.

Advanced Medicine - Medical knowledge beyond our current level of understanding: A universal vaccine, nova specific physiology and genetics, etc

Nova Tech - Tech specifically that utilizes quantum energies to produce effects that mimic nova powers: A quantum disruptor ray, a quantum battery for storying quantum energy, etc.

Magic Knowledge (Only useable in specific universes where magic exists)

[Novakowski]

I look forward to this as one of my Ingame goals is to have Surpreme develp advancements for the public to use not just agents or other Nova's. i was getting confused on the rules as they compare to brainwaves.

[Novakowski]

Question then What is the preq. for these skills

[Mr Fox]

Good question. You wouldn't be able to take Advanced technology, or Nova Technology until you had at least Science at 5, preferably both Science and Engineering. 5 in Medicine before you take Advanced Medicine.

[SeaEagle]

Fox, mind if I replace what I wrote for the new gadgets background with a writeup of how things will work?

I can append it as we make changes.

[SeaEagle]

ok changes made.

[Mr Fox]

that's fine. In fact it's a good idea.

[SeaEagle]

Okay to simplify things I wrote up what we're doing. Now, the actual APG Gadgeteering we don't have to go through here, but I now have clear terms for the two types of gadgets.

Mundane modified gear gets the "Custom Gear" Background.

Powered Gadgets are well... "Powered Gadgets" and use the "Gadget Container" proposal.

[SeaEagle]

Mala just mentioned something to me that just takes us back to square one... In fact a lot.

I think we need to temporarily ban gadgets until this is worked out. In fact I don't think we should use the mechanic... it's breaking the game hard.

I really don't know what to do. This is starting to become a big chore.

[Shosuro Miren]

Okay, throwing my ideas in the hat and trying for some clarification. Sorry this is on my Puck account, but I can't log in to my Vyserian account at the moment.

Three types of Gadgets are being proposed, from what I can figure out:

Advanced Tech: Things even baselines can come up with, that are just nifty advances on regular items.

Inspired Tech: Leaps in technology that only an Inspired being could come up with/create. They can mimic powers and be created via rolls, but have a short fuse on breaking down (unless then paid for in xp) and are generic in that they are not thematically tied to the character. They can be stolen, broken, or otherwise taken away without superhuman effort.

Devices: These are items the are intrinsically tied to the character they belong to, must be paid for via xp or NP, and will always find their way back to the owner in the course of time/plot. The permanent loss of a Gadget is major event for a character and should be a critical plot point or character growth point.

At this point, I honestly think the Gadgets background should be tossed and a just a flat out purchase system put in place. Here’s my thoughts:

Advanced Tech: Once the game has begun, a character must declare when they are beginning to work on an Advanced Tech in in-game time and wait the appropriate time in-game before bringing the new tech into play. The only way around this delay is to pay for the tech through stored NP or xp.

R&D Time: 1 roll allowed per day, each success used per roll equates to one hour that day spent on developing the item and on 1 BP to spend on the item.

Repair: Ditto R&D except that each success is only ten minutes of time; repair on the item requires a die pool of not less than the original die pool -2 used to create it..

Resources: Each BP of Advanced Tech is considered worth, on average, $500 for sale or purchase.

Inspired Tech: This allows Powers to be included in the item as well as Options. Powers are purchased with BP thusly:

1 BP for one dot of a Level 1 Power or +2 QP Pool

2 BP for Quantum 1 (Base 20 QP)

3 BP for an Enhancement

4 BP for Quantum 2 (includes +2 QP)

5 BP for one dot of a Level 2 Power

6 BP for Quantum 3 (includes +2 QP)

7 BP for one dot of a Level 3 Power

8 BP for Quantum 4 (includes +2 QP)

9 BP for an Extra

10 BP for Quantum 5 (includes +2 QP)

Fuse: Free Options and Powers applied to Inspired Tech break down. The more complex the item, the shorter the fuse; (100 – Free BP)/5, round down.

Example -

Blaster Pistol (36 BP)

Options: Range +50% (1 BP)

Power: Quantum Bolt (Plasma) 4

Range: 90 meters

Quantum Rating: Quantum 2 (4 BP)

Quantum Pool: 22

Extras: None

Enhancement: Accuracy (3 BP)

Damage: [4] + 16d10 Lethal

Dice Pool: Dexterity + Firearms

Fuse: 12 uses if entirely created through in-game time and rolls.

Purchase cost: 4 NP or 12 xp

R&D Time: Ditto Advanced Tech; must have Int 6+ to created Inspired Tech; must have M-Int 1 to include Level 1 Powers, M-Int 2 to include Level 2 Powers and M-Int 3 to include Level 3 powers.

Repair: Ditto Advanced Tech.

Resources: Each BP of the Inspired Tech is considered worth, on average, $5,000 for sale or purchase.

Devices:

Devices are considered intrinsic and iconic to the character and will always find their way back to them. They are built the same way as Inspired Tech, but must be bought via NP or xp.

R&D Time: Variable, honestly this is fluff.

Repair: Devices are generally very hardy. Needing to repair one should be a story/plotline, not a mechanic.

Resources: Devices are literally priceless. A character would never sell one and the only market for it is the black market, where prices will be whatever a thief thinks they can get away with.

BP costs:

1 NP = 9 BP

1 xp = 3 BP

[Mr Fox]

I like it.

[Shosuro Miren]

As a thorough test-run, I'l remake Vyserian with my proposed rules. He was originally made on 56 NP.

[Sean Cassidy]

I like the look of these rules, clean and simple. I just think the BP costs for powers and such should be adjusted some, so reflect the comparison in NP costs of various powers and such. Not sure if NP/XP for x number of BP needs some adjustment too.

1bp for a dot of level 1 power, then 5bp for a dot of level 2 power, and 7bp for a dot of level 3 power aren't quite in keeping with their respective NP/XP costs. I'm thinking something like 1bp/3bp/5bp for levels 1/2/3 powers, same as their NP costs would work. But since this is an overall reduction in BP costs, I think Q-rating should cost more, as is, it only costs 2bp per rating, which also increases the items Q-pool. I'd suggest 5bp per dot of Q-rating, again, in comparison to the NP cost of Q-rating, and you have to buy Q-rating 1, it isn't free.

By this system, buying a device with 5 dots in a level 3 power, with Q-Rating 5, would cost 50bp, while it would be 45bp (5x7 + 10) under your current costs. Reasonably comparable I think, a little bit more. Also, I don't believe a Device should start off with the same size of Q-pool as a regular PC. Yes, a character can recover QP faster, but outside of combat, it doesn't matter nearly as much. I'd suggest Devices start off with a base Q-Pool of 10, +2 per dot of Q-rating, and it could still be bought larger as 1bp/2qp.

Buying Extras with BP shouldn't be allowed - lets someone add far more extras on a device than someone can just buying the power regularly. I think someone with the power natural would have a better chance of developing extra techniques with it. If someone wants an extra on a power, it simply adjusts the level accordingly, and they buy with the BP as the appropriate rate. IE, Impervious Armor is bought as a Level 3 power.

I think leaving Enhancements at 3bp is fine - yes, it's debatable if they are equivalent to a single dot in a level 2 power, but I do generally consider them better than a single dot in a level 1 power. I'd suggest changing the cost to 2bp, but if we say the Mega-Att for Enhancement purposes is equal to Q-Rating, and you can buy Enhancements from various Mega-Atts on the same Device (with a good reason of course), I think it balances out.

For NP/XP costs for BP, with these changes, not sure if they have to be adjusted. 1np gives you 9bp. That would let you buy a Device with Q1 and either 3 dots of level 1 powers or 1 dot of level 2 powers, with a q-pool of 12. Close to what you can do normally with 1np, though it the device has its own q-pool, both a bonus and a possible detriment, you get a deal with the level 1 power. Looks reasonable to me. 6np nets you 54bp, which lets you build a Device with Q5 and 5 dots of Level 3 powers, with 4bp left over. Buying 5 dots of level 3 powers would normally cost you 10np, in theme, which works out to almost half, like the previously mentioned taint-deduction cost method. Again, pretty reasonable.

The only problem that could accrue later is when spending XP. Without a Gadget rating, its a flat cost for each amount of BP, unlike the ever increasing costs for Backgrounds and Quantum powers. Not sure if this is enough to get worked up over, or if anyone has a way to deal with it, as the costs stand now. At the moment, they seem okay, but of course, it hasn't been truly tried or stressed yet.

Also, before under the Gadget Background Rules we had before, I liked where the Gadget Rating equal the Attribute for Dice Pools, but though a Gadget Rating, I can't see that working, and it's just simpler to use the PC's stats, or an appropriate dice pool depending on the Device (like Dex + Firearms for a Q-Bolter Gun).

Yes, I realize BP costs mimic NP costs, yet it seems to be working okay, at least on first glance.

COSTS

1BP - 1 dot of level one powers

1BP - +2 Quantum Pool

3BP - Enhancement

3BP - 1 dot of level two powers

5BP - 1 dot of level three powers

5BP - 1 dot of Quantum Rating

Other - as normal for Advancements

Base Quantum Pool of Device - 10 + (2xQuantum Rating)

9BP = 1np or 3xp

My two (three, four...) cents.

Addendum: I almost forgot, Mala, I liked your earlier limit about only being allowed to have a number of Devices equal to your Quantum Rating, or even maybe Quantum Rating +1 (doesn't apply to Advancements and Inspired Tech). But this isn't a deal breaker or anything. Just like the idea of only having a limited number of unique, intrinsic items linked to a PC.

[z006]

Yeah, that just got lost in cut and paste, the rules about how many devices. Okay, I'll use your ratings and redo Vyserian. Lets see how this goes....

[Sailor OOC]

So how can you get the advanced tech with XP/NP?

[Sean Cassidy]

You don't have to spend any XP or NP on Advanced Tech (stuff not using or mimicking Quantum powers), just need time and some rolls. But if you want it NOW, I guess you can just figure out the BP total, and then spend the appropriate amount of NP/XP.

[Novakowski]

This seems to be going well. will need to see it flush out to see how it intergrates but this is bigging to look very thought out.

glade i meet you guys.

[Sean Cassidy]

Okay, posted another Alternative to the Gadgeteering rules here

[z006]

Okay, round....whatever. Next revision of my proposal for Gadgets:

Advanced Tech: No changes.

Inspired Tech: No free rides. Pay for everything and take the time to develop it in-game.

Devices: You can have a number of Devices equal to your Quantum Rating at a time. The difference between Inspired Tech and Devices is that any harm coming to a Device or a Device being separated from its owner is a major plot. Devices should also be intimately and inextricably be tied to a character's theme and overall story.

Revised Cost Chart

1 NP = 9 BP

1xp = 3 BP

Options - add $500 to the worth of an item for each BP spent on Options.

Weapon Options

Accuracy (+1/2BP), Damage (+1B/2BP or +1L/3BP), Strength-Min (-1/1BP), Strength-Max (+1/2BP), Range (+50%/1BP, max x2), Maneuver (+1Mnv/1BP) - It has to make sense for the user or the gadget, Rate of Fire (+1/1BP), Clip (+50%/1BP, max x2), Concealability (-1 step/2BP)

Armor Options

Bashing (+1/2BP), Lethal (+1/2BP), Penalty (-1/2BP), Destruction (+1/1BP)

Vehicle Options

Safe Speed (+50%/1BP), Max Speed (+50%/1BP), Maneuver (+1/1BP), Passangers (+50%/1BP, only once), Armor (+1B/1BP or +1L/2BP)

Innovations - add $5,000 to the worth of the item for each BP spent on Innovations.

1BP - 1 dot of a Level 1 Power or +2 Quantum Pool

2BP - 1 dot of a Level 2 Power or one Enhancement

3BP - 1 dot of a Level 3 Power or one level of Quantum Rating (including Quantum Rating 1)

Base Quantum Pool: 12 at Quantum Rating 1, +2 for each additional level of Quantum Rating

A note on one-shot devices from Asa's alternative rules: If you making a one-shot device, it's for a plot or fluff. For fluff, just play it out for fun and don't use it for anything requiring rolls. If it's plot then it's a plot device and should be handled as such (i.e. the plot ST sets the rules on the cost or recuperation of any xp spent on building the device).

[z-Coyote-Mad Scientist]

I don't want to see limits on the number of gadgets available to a PC. My character will never have more powers than she has right now and will eventually have a bunch of gadgets floating around her lab. Five is not going to be enough and if this limit persists, I'll have to basically revamp the character entirely. Hell, I don't know if I could play her with that kind of limitation. I know I'm not being entirely fair to make this demand but to be honest so long as the rules don't completely screw me I have no objections to them. The only thing I'm demanding as a player in this forum is that you don't force me to break my character concept because another PC scared everyone with the number of devices they had bought. To be honest, Coyote will have as many given time and inclination on my part.

I also don't want to see us having to be saddled by an hour per roll to whip something up on the fly in the field. What I already had my pc do in Enemy Way would be impossible by the proposed rules.

Since I have people who bitch but don't do their part to help, my counter-suggestion is simple:

Innovations are built as powers, with a 1 NP or 3 xp break per dot on the cost (as compensation for the possibility of losing it). Quantum is set at the minimum required for the power and grants a Q-pool of 10+2xQ. Use the Out of Theme costs unless you're building a device based on a power the PC has. Then "extras" can be applied to the cost, such as allowing baselines to use it or raising the Q and Q-pool (I can determine the costs for these at some point other than 4 am). Easy. The time required for building the item requires an hour of research, then an hour of construction per NP, or every 2 xp rounded up. (In other words, if it costs 2 NP, it takes 2 hours to research and 2 hours to build. If it costs 4 xp, the same.)

Gadgets are built using the OP rules Dave proposed, and you can require rolls and research for those. Each OP required for the item requires an hour of research, then an hour of construction.

Let on the fly, one-shot items be created by Advanced science/magic/whatever rolls; the number of successes needed is determined by the ST (or narratively) and takes 5 mins per sux out of combat and 1 round per sux in combat.

[Sean Cassidy]

I find hand-waving one-shot items perfectly fine. Make the roll, use it once or twice, then it's done, don't go insane with what you make during combat, and not too insane out of combat. Same with Plot devices.

A cost break per dot in a power works fine for me - and we don't really need to say they need to be able to use Options as well (if you want to increase the armor rating, just buy Armor, another bonus die to hit, raise your stat or the ranks in the power, etc.). I'd suggest that powers that -could- have been legitimately bought in-theme, as befit the character, even if they don't have any dots in it could also benefit for the in-theme cost breaks when making a permanent Innovation/Device. Keeping the minimum Q-rating and currently proposed Q-pool is fine. I'd still like to see that Suite powers can't be build into Devices, you have to buy the individual techniques.

In the advent of 'lost' dots, like in the cast of Level 1 powers, which with this option and out of theme, would give you 2 dots per NP and you want 5 dots in it, you can carry over the unspent dot into another level 1 power and into another Device. This is for NP costs only.

Hmm... in fact, in theory, we could make it work even more like the costs for Devices in M&M. Instead of a flat cost reduction per dot in a power, we could instigate an NP reduction for every x number of NP spent on Devices. -1 NP per 2NP spent would make them half price, -1 NP per 3NP spent would give a savings of one third, if people find 50% is too much, whichever people prefer and can reach a consensus on. Just total up the costs of all Devices, then reduce the amount spent, as appropriate.

Again, this is for NP costs only, we can keep the flat -3xp per dot for later Devices, or even change it so people save the same proportional amount (half or a third), which would help in the case of level 1 powers, which the first two dots cost 6xp, so in theory, would be free.

Gadgets (items using Advancement Options) using Dave's/Adventure! rules is perfectly acceptable.

My last thoughts on the idea.

Additional note and my last, last thoughts on the idea of Gadgets/Devices - I'm truly not a fan of people permanently losing XP, ever since level draining in D&D, so people will recover their Devices/Gadgets they have bought and payed for, though in some cases it might take some time and effort.

Alternatively, people can abandon them and get reimbursed the full amount they spent on them, but I don't want to see this option abused to get a constantly revolving door of Devices. I mean, just don't use this option often. We can all come to some agreement I'm sure if we see someone abusing this.

[Mr Fox]

Coyote has a point. Limiting gadgets per character would kill her character concept. I'd vote no on limiting the number of gadgets. There is at least one other person interested in playing whose concept would not work if we place a limit like that. I understand the other view point about these things being a signature part of the character, but in the case of Coyote, it's not the specific item that is 'a defining part of the character', but rather the fact the character is an inventor constantly whipping out new stuff that is the defining part of the character. Its kind of like Silent Bob's coat, you never know what he'll pull out of that thing that might be perfect for the situation.

[Mech]

I think that unless it's a simple oneshot use gadget on the fly, gadgets/devices/what have you should never be free. There needs to be some cost in experience to buy lasting items of power.

[The Hospitaler]

Agreed. (Oh, Kei here. )

[z-Coyote-Mad Scientist]

I think that unless it's a simple oneshot use gadget on the fly, gadgets/devices/what have you should never be free. There needs to be some cost in experience to buy lasting items of power.

One-shot inventions would be one-use for the thread they're created for/in and then done. I see this being a MacGuyver power: give Coyote a satellite dish and a stick of dynamite and she makes a phone call to Rob. Afterwards, she can't keep it going without more research (nor would she, it was a shitty phone ). If someone likes their one-shot, they can do the necessary research and creation, create a permanent device and pay all the costs for it.

[SeaEagle]

Ah, so Macgyver a widget, then after it's used, take it to your workshop and start thinking on how to make it work... repeatedly...

[SeaEagle]

One more question then... are we close to completion so we can compile this for the actual approval process? Including what we discussed here?