[Torg] Weird science question?

[Sam Frazier II]

Take these with a Grain of salt. I think what you have would work, but
there are parts I don't like and would definitely Change. Some of it I
know what I'd change it to, some of it I don't. I'm not completely done
with it, but my Gadgetter of my group and I are working on something
different from the Terra source book. You've provided some extra input,
to which I thank you for posting this here. 

Remember, this is
just my initial thoughts and opinions. I haven't used this to create
anything so I don't fee I can rightfully judge it fairly.

NOTE: My thoughts on "our" system (at the bottom of this) are in flux.
NOTE:
Any of my numbers that might be off or contradicted elsewhere in this
are a result of my mind reviewing your stuff, comparing to Terra,
comparing to "our" system which isn't written yet, and the thought of using some of these ideas in "our" system or "Terra"s method to make
our game easier. 

So
don't get all defensive, backlashy, or fired up on any of these. As I
have said, I don't feel I can rightfully judge this method as I'ven't
used it. AND this is my initial read over. 

Thought you might like to read these anyway.

SDF II

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


Well I gave the stuff a once over, 
and I think it might have some potential. Here are my initial 
thoughts.
 
-- One Weird Science skill as 
defined currently is enough for me. I don’t like the idea of two Nile skills that can be covered by 
one.
-- Levels: This uses levels instead 
of actual numbers to determine DN, etc. I don’t really like that. I’m not sure 
what to do about it I don't like, but I feel there is a better way than 
levels. After all we do have specific numbers to play with.
-- Flaws: While the limitations are 
common, they don’t have enough of a flaw seletion to associate with the 
device.
-- Lack of device information: Where 
are the Toughness and other potential attributes of the device? I am thinking 
they should at least have those.
-- I don’t like the fact the 
possibilities are spent when you generate the blueprint. All the cost is stuck 
on the Gadgeteer, I like the Terra book method, where you activate it with 
possibilities and anyone can spend to use it.
-- Definitions of Botch and Double 
Botch. I don’t like these definitions. First off a roll of a 1 should always be 
a double botch and always/potentially(?) lead to a mutation. I would define them 
as such.
            -- Botch: A failed roll 
which read on the result chart as Minimal, Avg, or Good 
failure.
            -- Double Botch: A roll 
of 1, or a failed roll which read on the result chart as a Superior or Spectacular 
failure.
-- When building the device: If the 
device is damaged, the time and DN should be relational to the damage done to 
the device E.G. One wound to the device (which is where the devices’ toughness 
would be needed) would mean ¼ of the time and resources are needed to rebuild 
it. A device with 3 wounds (which was stabilized by a Weird Science roll, as 
anything with 3 wounds takes a shock per round until stabilized or the amount of 
shock equals the toughness and adds the fourth wound to the device) … thus a 
device with 3 wounds would need ¾ of the time and resources to rebuild 
it. Remember we always round up.
-- Don’t like the levels when 
building the device either. We have actual numbers, let's use them. 
-- When building a device, under 
cumulative penalties, what penalty if building not in the lab? Should it be a 
flat +? Or should it be 1.5 of the original DN (E.G. a device that has a DN of 
10 in a lab, has a DN of 15 if built outside the lab)? I’m leaning towards the 
latter myself.
-- Using the Device: As I said 
earlier, possibilities should be spent here to charge the possibility capacitor 
(an Idea about components see below) for the devices use, not during Blueprint 
phase which makes no sense to me.
-- Using the Device: I like the idea 
of charges per device and I don’t like the idea of charges per device. Perhaps 
that can be tied better to the use of capacitors which absorb shock?!? 
Thoughts?
-- Using the Device: When swapping 
out the components for charges or for a fresh capacitor (kinda like that Idea 
now that I think about it) a WS roll is needed or it’ll break. DN: 8. Botch is just a failed attempt. A Double 
Botch causes a wound to the device and breakage of the device. This should be able to be done 
unskilled, but with increased difficulty say by +5 so a Weird Science for a DN 
of 13. Changing out ANYTHING on a device is dangerous. See Swapping 
components
-- Using the Device: Can be used by 
anyone. The First person in an adventure to use the device pays the “Adventure 
Cost” of device. My opinion.
-- Swapping Components: “any number 
of” should be ‘one’ in the performing a swap listings.
-- Swapping Components: ‘A 
multi-action penalty will be applied for each device-component swap. Thus if you 
swap out two components on one device, it counts as two actions.” should be 
added in the list
-- Swapping Components: The DN for 
the WS roll on swapping components should be 8 + MA penalties. The component or 
device level should have nothing to do with it 
IMHO.
-- Swapping Components: Can be done 
by a character with no Weird Science skill, but +5 is added to the DN so the 
base DN is 13.
-- Charging Components: In a Lab 
there should be a DN for charging a device (or un-charging a capacitor) which 
should be 8. It should be noted that a Botch will cause the charge to blow up: 
damage to user Double Botch blows up charge, damage to user + mutation. This is 
weird science after all. If we go with uncharging a capacitor, we could say it 
could be used as a shock grenade. No double-Botch roll if detonated purposely. 
Mutations happen on accident, not on purpose.
-- Proper Tools: It should be 
assumed a blueprint, lab, understanding of device, and proper tools are needed. 
Penalties for missing any of these should be applied everywhere in this list or 
when jury-rigged/adhoced.
            -- +3 for improper 
tools
            -- +5 for no 
blue-print
            -- +3 for no 
understanding of device
            -- -3 for using Personal Proper Tools
            -- 1.5 DN for no 
lab.E.G If the normal DN would be 12 with a lab, the DN without a lab would be 12 * 1.5 = 18. 

As far as adding to a 
device/blueprint/etc I’m not sure. I’ven’t covered those just 
yet.
 
 
Some of my thoughts heading down our 
potential Self-Made Gadget/Gizmo creation system:
-- Components can be built anytime, 
but assembled-swapped later into a device. 
            -- Possibility 
capacitors are a DN: 12 in the lab (18 outside a lab. I’m going with the 1.5 the 
original DN I mentioned earlier.) + 1 possibility to 
create
            -- Power Components 
costs depend on the Power put into the component, which must have a toughness 
equal to or greater than the power itself.
            -- A capacitor DN 
relates to how much shock it will hold before overloading. If a Capacitor 
overloads, the damage to the user and the device is equal to 1.5 times the shock 
capacity of the failed capacitor + automatic Knockdown. 
            -- Boosters DN relates 
to how much boost it provides a given power component or 
attribute/skill.
 
-- Assembly costs based on what is 
being put together. Device Toughness different from Component Toughness. Not 
sure how to work it without testing.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.justintimeadventures.com/pipermail/torg/attachments/20081111/403e13bd/attachment.html>