Aberrant: Infinite Earth - Gadgets Feedback thread

[z-Coyote-Mad Scientist]

Here's some examples using the above:

The Flintlock!

1 Level 2 power, Quantum-Bolt 3

Quantum 2, Quantum-pool 19

Cost: 7 NP (3 dots at 2 NP +1 for Q) / 16 xp (4+3+6+3 for Q)

The Sexah Leatherness

2 Level 2 powers, Armor 4, Force field 4

Quantum 2, Quantum pool 19

Cost: 16 NP (8 dots at 2 NP) / 22 xp (4+3+6+9)

[SeaEagle]

I'm behind Carver's Concept. I think this should be offered up. I support and endorse this.

One thing, if we approve this, it's for all of IE... I think this fixes a lot.

[z006]

My issue with Carver's system is that any character that is primarily a gadget-using character is mechanically penalized in comparison with characters that buy inherent powers, even though gadgets by their nature can be taken away which is a fairly potent drawback. So, a gadget-focused character is already taking a risk of losing access to a power or powers and is now also barred from benefiting from in-theme cost breaks.

The alternative of using the Strengths/Weaknesses on powers preserves the in-theme/out-of-theme cost schemes present in CN while also providing a number of ways to customize the power item.

[Justin OOC]

I could get behind carver's rules. Things cost more than in theme, but somewhat less than out of theme costs, about 2/3 out of theme by my count on the second example, which is a significant point break, offset by the fact it can be removed. this is a much more balanced proposal than the current rules.

[z006]

So....a gadget character is just automatically always going to be less powerful with powers than can be removed than a character with inherent powers that can't? I don't understand the need to penalize like this.

"I'm taking a power that can be taken away from me. I should pay more for this than if I took the power without the ability for it to be taken away from me."

Where is the logic there?

[Justin OOC]

you're only paying more, if you treat everything as in theme. treated as out of theme, you're getting it cheaper.

[z006]

Actually, nevermind. I'm tired of the argument and I did forget that that devices get their own Quantum Pool. That's a trade in cost for no in-theme, though it's a confining one. I don't think her build is the best of what's been presented, but I'll back it if just end the damn merry-go-round.

Can Devices and Gadgets be put as the same item?

Say a Quantum Weapon Device with Accuracy Options? Or a say Fox's spaceship with Warp powers and Armor and Passenger Options?

Does there need to be mechanics to this or just the fluff that everything is combined together?

[Mr Fox]

I like Carver's proposal, but I can see Mala's point. Gadgets should not cost more than just buying a power straight out, especially since it has the ability to be taken away.

Maybe there is a simpler solution. Jedi has his lightsabers. I purchased the claws power at the normal cost of being in theme, however the claws do not work unless he has a lightsaber prop. So I effectively have a gadget that can be taken away, but I bought it the same way I would any other power and put the weakness on it that it doesn't work without a prop. Now that is perfectly within the rules. Meaning I could buy gadgets all day long with a the weakness that it only works with the item in hand, and I would never pay more for it than I would for the normal in-theme/out-of-theme costs. Now this is absolutely within the rules of the game, hell within Aberrant in general.

So instead of making this unnecessarily complicated, and since everyone seems to like Carver's proposal. Why don't we use her proposal, but adjust the costs according to whether the power is in-theme or out-of-theme. That way no one is gaming the system or getting screwed by it.

EDIT: Well hell. Mala just posted that she's ok with Carver's proposal as is, so let's go with it as written.

[Mr Fox]

I don't see why an item couldn't be both a device and a gadget. A magic crossbow for example that make's it's own magic bolts with a hightech targeting system for improved accuracy. You'd have to pay for it all of course.

Edit:

I count 5 people who like Carver's proposal, that's a pretty solid number. Unless multiple people post objecting to it I say we move forward with it.

[z006]

Fox - Carver will not be okay with that. Trust me. Not at all. She will not back that change in her proposal because she believes that gadget-based characters should be weaker than power-based characters. I like my proposal, which is much what you have done for your lightsabers, only with a few more customization strengths and weaknesses.

I know Carver won't back that system, though, becasue she hates the Strength/Weakness system. I don't know about the others. I'm just entirely exhausted from the whole thing. I think my final proposal is the most fair and balanced, but I'll back Carver's if that's the only way to actually get the Majority +1 vote to change the Gadget rules. The Gadget rules as they stand are completely and totally broken and need to be changed.

[SeaEagle]

I see a consensus, and I back it. I am for Carver's Proposal.

[Novakowski]

As long as it gets flush out im ok with it.

[Kazuo]

In the interest of moving things along, I will back whichever system is currently getting the most votes.

This whole thread has, however, made me wonder if I'm misinterpreting what already-established players here mean when they use the term "in-theme". I keep seeing comments to the effect that Gadgets and Devices are emphatically "out-of-theme" and this makes no sense to me.

Iron Man's suit of armor is emphatically in theme. Captain America's shield? In-theme. Green Lantern's ring? Also in-theme. Batman's batarangs, batmobile, bat-airplane, utility belt, and whatever else he decides to whip out? In-theme (though he's also a great example of someone who 'MacGuyvers' a lot). Cyclop's visor: in-theme. Spider-Man's web-shooters: in-theme. Ant-Man's helmet: in-theme. James Bond's tricked-out Astin Martins: in-theme. (Most of the rest of his stuff are one-offs, though.) Doctor Who's screwdriver and time-travelling Police Box: in-theme.

I could go on, but I think it's fairly clear that the gadgets of heroes (and villains) who're known for using them are about as "in-theme" as something can possibly get. (And as an aside, to address the comment that gadget-users should be weaker than "normal" heroes, I would like to point out that the list above includes some of the most powerful, creative, and effective characters in super-heroic and science fiction, and that, consequently, I cannot agree with that viewpoint.)

Now, I do not bring this up for reasons of point-cost for gadgets vs. normal powers. Use Carver's more expensive system or Mala's less expensive one - either is fine with me. I bring this up because I'm wondering if there is, perhaps, an unspoken assumption on the part of many of CN's established players that "in-theme" should only apply to "normal" powers? If so, this should be stated clearly somewhere, along with a well-reasoned explanation - and perhaps an example or two - so that new and incoming players like myself can avoid confusion on this point in the future.

For my own part, I am having a very difficult time imagining a reason for a character to have a Gadget or a Device that is "out-of-theme". If it is out-of-theme, then why does your character have it? I can understand having it as a one-off plot-point gizmo that shows up once to help the character resolve some difficulty and then goes away to never be seen again, but why is it sitting there as a paid-for, permanent addition to their sheet?

I'm hopeful that there are answers to these questions and concerns of mine, and I look forward to reading them once they're presented.

[z006]

That's been rather my question and point as well, but no one has been able to give that well-reasoned explanation. I've gotten "they're not powers (as in inherent powers, I guess)" from Justin and "gadget heroes are/should be less powerful than 'powers' heroes" from Carver.

The best half-argument I've heard is that everyone would just buy Gadgets for their powers if they were in-theme with an additional cost break for being items, which I suppose they might, but they then also risk losing access to all their powers if their toys are taken away. That's why I created the "item" weakness, to put items that contain powers back in with the same stream of rules as regular powers.

In my final write-up, actual gizmos that are just advanced tech get moved out on their own, and there is a power (from The New Flesh that is at base about incorporating tech into the nova's body) needed at one dot to allow the tech and powered item to play nice with each other for a Gadget that has both power(s) and option(s).

[z006]

I will also say that I'm starting to feel a little annoyed with people. No one is stating an actual preference, so it looks like a new rules set is going to go through just because it got one actual fully-fledged support. Everyone else has said either "I guess, but with this or that change" or "whatever has the most votes right now". It would be nice to hear people's actual opinions of the builds presented and get an opinion vote instead of a default "just get it the hell over with" vote. I'm at fault for this as well, so I'm going to list out each player (according the character's approved for play in CN) and their stated votes or support as of this post.

Justin has unequivocally thrown his vote to Carver's build as of his latest post.

I'll thrown my vote to my build because I think it is the most balanced and fair proposition that allows "gadget" heroes to be on par with "power" heroes, with the risks of powered items balanced out within the cost of the device through strengths and weaknesses instead of an automatic cost discount or a third table of power costs introduced to the game for power gadgets.

Fox has given support to Carver, but has spoken about reservations on the static cost of "gadget" powers in regards to the in/out of theme costs of "inherent" powers.

Kamiko's latest post was a vote for whichever build could get the Majority +1 vote to pass.

Novakowski has similarly voted for "something", not a specific proposed rules set.

Ein has not voted or commented at all.

Asa has made a proposal but not given a formal vote yet.

Varro has not voted or commented at all.

Jeremy has not voted or commented at all.

George Ray's player has not voted or commented at all.

.....I'm not sure if there's anyone else besides you, Cent.

I'm assuming Carver will vote for her own build. I can't believe I forgot to put her on the list the first time around.....

Please speak up if I missed a player!

[z-Coyote-Mad Scientist]

I'm just going to give my logic for not making gadgets cost the same as in-theme powers. It's not fair to the other PCs who (in theory) have to pick and stick with their in-theme powers.With that, the following is the list of powers that the PC would get at in-theme costs:

This is what Viserian Araseal would get with what he has on his sheet (subject to revision, of course):

Holo, Boost Perception, ESP, Bioluminesence, Boost Manipulation, Emotional Manipulation, Density Decrease, Flight, Teleport, Deflect/Redirect, Poison, Immolate, Blank, Invisibility, Telekinesis, Telepathy w/Surreptitious, Warp, Quantum Bolt w/Homing, Armor, Force Field, Disrupt w/Extra Power, Accelerate Time, Psychic Link w/Extra Links, Healing, Quantum Weapon w/Aggravated, Accelerate Time, Mental Blast

What Coyote would get, with she has right now:

Quantum Bolt, Armor, Force Field, Healing

What Kei would get, with what she currently has bought (I added Sticky-Aid since the player mentioned buying it):

Armor, Bodymod: Spaceworthy, Bodymod: G-tolerances, Healing

I understand and even emphasize with the argument that gadgets should be in-theme.

And now, having made my point, I rescind my previous statement. Gadgets should be in-theme. Why am I changing my mind? Because I just went through the CN nova PC character sheets. For those who bothered to mark what was in and out of theme, in almost every case, people paid pretty much in-theme costs for almost everything. Since people aren't worried about in-theme or out-of-theme that much, my proposal will be altered when I have the time, but for now, just refer to the in-theme costs for everything. There's no additional break to building the gadget, however.

Examples:

The Flintlock!

1 Level 2 power, Quantum-Bolt 3

Quantum 2, Quantum-pool 19

Cost: 4 NP (3 dots at 1 NP +1 for Q) / 15 xp (3+3+6+3 for Q)

The Sexah Leatherness

2 Level 2 powers, Armor 4, Force field 4

Quantum 2, Quantum pool 19

Cost: 8 NP (8 dots at 1 NP) / 21 xp (3+3+6+9)

And having looked at that, the big savings seems to be at the NP level. The Flintlock! cost 7 NP and the Sexah Leatherness cost 16 under my old rules. I saved a single xp using in-theme powers anyway.

[Kazuo]

Well, for my part, I was less interested in the costs of the gadgets/devices. My original suggestion of "just make it a half-cost power" was given because A) everyone seemed to want to keep things simple, and B ) I couldn't conceive of a good reason for making an out-of-theme, permanent gadget or device (one-offs or temporary gadgets, sure, but not paid-for, permanent ones). So I said, "just make it half cost". It's worth noting that - were we not using the special rules for "in-theme" costs in the first place - it is likely that precisely no one would have taken issue with that ruling (since it would have mean that L1 powers were 1NP/2dots, L2 powers were 2NP/1dot, and L3 would have been 3NP/1dot). Or perhaps they would have anyway; who knows? ::shrugs::

My previous post was addressed to the seeming disparity between several of the involved player's viewpoints concerning what is "in-theme" and what is not. I have been approaching this entire affair with the understanding that "inventions" are just that - wacky, super-science stuff that the mega-brains occasionally come up with and that doesn't usually stick around for all that long - while "gadgets" were something else entirely. My viewpoint is informed by A) the assumption that with this being a Trinity-verse game it was operating under a Trinity-verse mindset, and B ) the game Adventure! which is the only one of the Trinity books that makes a serious attempt at tackling gadgets. In A! a gadget is not just some random weapon or gizmo with some nifty bells and whistles - it's an integral part of your character's legend! The idea that someone might purchase some random, poorly-described armored clothing using the gadget rules just so that they can get some extra soak for their character would be outright insulting in my opinion! (And let me here point out that no one has, to my knowledge, actually done that yet in this game. I'm just sayin', is all. )

It is my personal viewpoint that, if you take a gadget, it should be at least a little bit remarkable and worthy of note. Otherwise it's just random gear, and should be treated as such.

However, I recognize that "my viewpoint" isn't necessarily the same as everyone else's viewpoint, and it certainly isn't the most important viewpoint in any case. That is why I asked the questions that I asked above; I was hoping to hear more about what other folk's viewpoints were.

Re: The Vote: If it's vitally important that I put a definitive vote towards either Mala's or Carver's system then I would have to (at this point and without having seen the revisions that Carver's just promised) put my vote towards Mala's system. Neither is as flexible as I would prefer, and neither has a cost breakout that I like (both seem to have been built, tested, and scaled with mostly 5 dots in any given Powers in mind), and both continue to assume that all Devices must have their own, separate Q-ratings and -pools - which I consider to be neither necessary nor a particularly note- or praiseworthy advantage - and both only allow for 'MacGuyvering', which I (seemingly alone) consider to be the system of inventing most open to potential abuse. (This does not mean that I'm against 'MacGuyvering', but rather that I find others' distate of the alternate means of invention proposed to be somewhat baffling.) But between the two, Mala's is the most flexible and appears to be the most able to accommodate a wide range of possibilities.

Because I am less interested in point-costs and more interested in flexibility, I will inevitably end up voting for whatever system is both still in the running and the most flexible.

[z006]

Gadgets & Devices

Gadgets:

Gadgets are meant to improve already existing items.

The costs are outlined as such:

● Mediocre Gadget with up to 4 options

●● Minor Gadget with up to 8 options

●●● Major Gadget with up to 12 options

●●●● Powerful Gadget with up to 16 options

●●●●● Artifact Gadget with up to 20 options

Option Examples

This is not a total list, more suggestions can be found starting on page 180 of the Adventure! book; feel free to suggest more, but they'll have to be voted in before they can be used.

Weapons -

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

Armor-

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

Vehicles-

Safe Speed (+50%/1OP), Max Speed (+50%/1OP), Maneuver (+1/1OP), Passangers (+50%/1OP, only once), Armor (+1/1OP or +[1]/2OP)

Time: Research is one day per option point and construction is one day per 2 option points. Powers and enhancements can lower this as appropriate.

R&D costs: Level of the Gadget -2 (Resources or Backing)

Devices, powers built into an item

Devices are the super-science of the world. They cannot be created by someone without a quantum score. Powers/M-Atts/Enhancements are purchased per their status as in-theme or out-of-theme for the character.

The Device additionally has:

The quantum level is the minimum required for the power or the creator’s quantum level, whichever is lower.

The quantum pool is 15 +2x Quantum rating.

Enhancements can be bought without the Mega-Attribute; the purchase of a Mega-Attribute dot does not confer a free enhancement. Mega-Attributes have to be bought from one dot up to the rating that creator wishes to have when in control of the item, because of this and the lack of the bonus Enhancements, the cost for a Mega-Attribute is 1 NP per dot or 2 xp for the first dot and current rating x2 per dot after for in-theme M-Atts and 3 NP, 4xp for out of theme M-Atts.

Additional options:

1 NP/3 xp to raise the Quantum

1 NP/3 xp to add 5 to the Q pool

1 NP/3xp to merge Gadgets and Devices together into one item

2 NP/6 xp to allow baselines to use

2 NP/6 xp to lock for personal use

Time: Research is 2 days per NP and 1 day per xp; Construction is 1 day per NP and 1 day per 2 xp. Powers and enhancements can lower this as appropriate.

R&D Costs: Research or Backing equal to the highest level power.

Mass Production Time: 1 week per NP or 3 xp of Gadgets, 1 month per NP or 3 xp of Devices. Combined items figure the times up separately and add them together.

MacGuyverin’ It

Simple: 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 minutes per sux out of combat and 1 round per sux in combat.

Mental Prodigy: Engineering effects:

[Mr Fox]

I've always been a big fan of playing characters that make stuff because IRL, I like making things, all my hobbies are creative. So I definitely want whatever set of rules we use and go with to be flexible.

I'd much rather go with something that is loose and empowering (in the creative sense), than something restrictive but well defined.

So, (time permitting), I'm going to try and make up an item or two under Mala and Carver's proposals and see which I think will work best before I settle absolutely on one or the other.

[SeaEagle]

Mala.

1: I backed Carver's (and still do) because I like her proposal.

With Kazuo's change over to Mala's system.

We are never going to get any consensus I am afraid on anything. No one is chiming in at all, and it's just been Myself, Fox, Mala, Carver, Justin, and Kazuo stuck in this with Nova just chiming in so we can end this and continue He's obviously frustrated. Right now We should have enough for the Majority+1, but no one else has even bothered to chime in.

Jeremy has indeed been silent.

Ein has avoided this completely.

George has been absent for two or three weeks.

Varro has RL to deal with.

Asa is probably a vote for their system.

To be honest with 4 absent or unwilling to chime in, and one actual vote to a different system I have to say it, I think we need a GM decision. This is a crisis that can only be resolved through a GM ruling.

[z006]

Or we go with a Majority +1 vote of active participants:

Justin, Kamiko, Novakowski, Vysarian, Fox, Carver, Asa, Centamine

The votes so far:

Justin, Kamiko, Carver, Novakowski, Jeremy, Asa for Carver's system (6)

Centamine, Vysarian for Vysarian's system (2)

Fox undeclared.

Majority +1 would 5 votes for one system. Give Fox a chance to run his numbers and give Asa a chance to log on and catch up. Let's see how things fall out after that. If we end up 4/4 split or 3/4 split if Novakowski decides to abstain, then we can ask Fox to step in and make an executive decision. I'll also see if I can rustle up people in chat (Jer usually shows up, Ein might pop in - he's been on several times today just not in chat) to at least glance over the thread and cast a vote.

I still want a full tally of votes, but it looks like Carver's system is going to take the prize. I want to leave the polls up for the night (to noon April 14th, CST), just for one last chance to catch the quieter players and get their take on things.

[SeaEagle]

I guess that's how it is unless Nova gives us a firm vote, and one of the absentees weighs in.

[z006]

I'd like a clarification from him, because that one sentence reads to me "as long as gadget rules get fleshed out, I'm cool with whatever".

I could be reading it incorrectly, but it's ambiguous at best.

[Mr Fox]

Jedi's new devices:

Under Carver's proposal as summarized by Mala in post #98

Personal Teleporter:

Quantum Level: 2

Qpool: 19

Teleport: 5 dots

XP Cost: 6 + 5 + 10 + 15 + 20 = 56 xp.

NP Cost: 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 15 NP

This is out of theme for Jedi so the cost is the same as buying the power itself.

The downside is that it is a device so it can be stolen or lost, the upside is that it uses it's own quantum pool.

R&D time = 56 days

Construction = 28 days

Jedi's Teleporter with integrated Navi Computer:

Same, as above but with a Navi Computer Gadget included

Navi Computer +8 option points

+100% Range (2 OPs)

-3 steps Concealability (6 OPs)

Costs: 63 xp total = 7xp Navi Comp + 56xp for teleporter

+3 xp for integrating a device and a gadget into a single item

+2 xp for new background + 2 for the second dot

That's over 2 months of play before Jedi can afford the xp to make it. That seems entirely reasonable to me. Definitely not something that is going to be abused at those kind of costs. Had it been in theme it still would have been over a month to create. So people aren't just going to be whipping out devices willy-nilly.

It wasn't too painful to figure out, I could live with this proposal.

I will do one under Mala's proposal in a little while and post the results and my thoughts on how they compare.

[Novakowski]

Ok this is is my thoughts.

1. I like Carver's proposal.
   

2. I would like some ruling or rule that allows one to turn advancement such as Kei jacket into every day idem. it is a modification that I can easily see being standard issue.

Plus as nova that develop technology. Such as in the attribute books be have. There is no guild line for this. It is really just how can I get more points from my character.

3. We have heard all the arguments for pro and con.

4. The background was for artifact the character wanted early or didn't want to permanently lose in play.

Yes it can be stolen but at the end it is return or you had a spare.

5. No storyteller is going to destroy permanently a artifact that a player has spend exp for.

So one can disintegrate Kei cloths but she would have her Vest again. She would not need to pay exp all over again.

6. So keep Carter creation just add more options and rules that allow nova to turn it into a Device so base-line can mass produce it.( I believe Device was what the Aberrant book Directive call it.)

7. So lets vote and Start gaming again. This is what we are here for right?

Summing it up Carver's proposal is my vote.

[z006]

Okay, no offense but I only understood about half that post. I'm going to try to decipher and repost what I think you were trying to say.

1. You are voting for Carver's proposed Gadget/Device rules.
   
2. I have no idea what you're asking for here. One turn advancement? Are you talking about mass producing a Gadget? We're not using the rules out of the book at this point because they are awful. If you're talking about making gadgets for free, that's not allowed in the new builds. If you want an item with a gadget option on it, you have to pay for it.
   
3. What do you mean "more points for your character"? Are you asking about experience (xp) awards? That is 25 xp per month and xp awards at the end of each thread. If you mean further gadget points to spend on a new gadget or upgrade an existing gadget, you have to buy more points through any NP you have left over from character creation or through xp gained in gameplay.
   
4. Yes, we're on to voting, The pros and cons have mostly been shown. Fox is making examples from both of the front-runner systems proposed to make his decision on what to vote for.
   
5. Yes, if you've paid for an item it will eventually return to you or you will be able to make another one without having to spen xp or NP to buy it again. (This covers your points 4 & 5).
   
6. Okay....that is a point. Carver's rules set did not include Mass Production timetables. I'd say 1 week per 1 NP or 3 xp of the Gadget and 1 month per 1 NP or 3 xp of a Device. If you have an item that is both a Gadget and a Device, you figure out the times separately and add them together. This means that it will take quite a while to develop Devices or combined items for mass production, but that's to be expected. You're creating technology that reliably mimics quantum powers. That's a huge leap in tech and standard of living for the baseline world.
   
7. We're already voting. I'm just updating the post above. We're almost done.
   

[Novakowski]

1.You are voting for Carver's proposed Gadget/Device rules.

Answer is yes

2. I have no idea what you're asking for here. One turn advancement? Are you talking about mass producing a Gadget? We're not using the rules out of the book at this point because they are awful. If you're talking about making gadgets for free, that's not allowed in the new builds. If you want an item with a gadget option on it, you have to pay for it.

Answer: it should not cost exp to build a gun as long as I know that it can get lost/broken/ destroyed at whim of ST

3. What do you mean "more points for your character"? Are you asking about experience (exp) awards? That is 25 exp per month and exp awards at the end of each thread. If you mean further gadget points to spend on a new gadget or upgrade an existing gadget, you have to buy more points through any NP you have left over from character creation or through exp gained in game play.

Answer : No I am talking about about is in character generation. Min-max

4.Yes, we're on to voting, The pros and cons have mostly been shown. Fox is making examples from both of the front-runner systems proposed to make his decision on what to vote for.

5.Yes, if you've paid for an item it will eventually return to you or you will be able to make another one without having to spen xp or NP to buy it again. (This covers your points 4 & 5).

6.Okay....that is a point. Carver's rules set did not include Mass Production timetables. I'd say 1 week per 1 NP or 3 xp of the Gadget and 1 month per 1 NP or 3 xp of a Device. If you have an item that is both a Gadget and a Device, you figure out the times separately and add them together. This means that it will take quite a while to develop Devices or combined items for mass production, but that's to be expected. You're creating technology that reliably mimics quantum powers. That's a huge leap in tech and standard of living for the baseline world.

• 
  7.We're already voting. I'm just updating the post above. We're almost done
  
• 
  Answer: thank you that is why I voting for Carver I believes it just need to be expanded a little.
  I believed I answer most of the question
  

[Sean Cassidy]

Looking at the proposal's from Carver and Malachite, I've decided to back Carver's. I like both ideas, but I'm just a little more comfortable with Carver's, so... there it is.

[z006]

We have a winner! Carver's system will be the new Gadgets/Devices system for the boards!

,, :balloon: :balloon: :balloon: :balloon:

[Novakowski]

Cool

[z006]

Novakowski - Your character can build a gun (assuming he can afford the materials) for no cost so long as its just a normal gun. If it's an advanced gun or mimics a power you have to pay for it. There are no free Gadgets or Devices in the game with one minor exception.

Your character can try to cobble a Gadget or Device together on the fly. However, these items are only good for a few uses, a failure on a roll with on of them counts as a botch and breaks the item; a botch on a roll with one breaks the device and deals 1 Lethal damage to the user in the process. These items never last more than one story (thread), and general not past the scene that it was made in.

[SeaEagle]

So... Carver's Gadgets is the law of the land. I will post up Carver's Rules in the Tech thread so that it's in a convenient place.

[z-Coyote-Mad Scientist]

2. I have no idea what you're asking for here. One turn advancement? Are you talking about mass producing a Gadget? We're not using the rules out of the book at this point because they are awful. If you're talking about making gadgets for free, that's not allowed in the new builds. If you want an item with a gadget option on it, you have to pay for it.

Answer: it should not cost exp to build a gun as long as I know that it can get lost/broken/ destroyed at whim of ST

I'm not sure what kind of games you've had before, but on this site it's considered a pretty dick move to move something from a PC that they've paid for without a very good reason. If someone has an issue with something you've bought, then they'll tell you. Otherwise, yes, you pay for super-tech; part of the cost break assumes a risk that the item can be stolen or broken. However, if it is stolen or broken, recovery and repair is generally considered part of a story/plot. The recovery more than the repair, since a cross-world thief-hunt would be fun!

[SeaEagle]

Yes... then we run into a certain universe hopping Professor in her Time Ship that looks like a life raft.

[Novakowski]

I did not think that it happens here ,but some of the threads made it sound like it. so i was voicing it out loud to make sure it was what i thought.

Reading the adventure that has been writen gave me a postive look at the style of play.

Mr fox told me awhile back that gadget made in play was free but can be stolen. that is why i voice that statement.

it was just that some things that were stated. That all gadget made had to be bought with xp to be used in game if not they were one shot idems.

Nothing i have seen Coyote led me to believe that anyone would do it. so i hope i did not lead you to think i was refering to people here.

I am glad it has been voted on.

Now to the fun of playing!

This is a great group as things are brought up every one works togather to solve it.

i am glad to be apart of it.