[Torg] Weird science question?

[Sam Frazier II]

Ok, 

   My initial response to the Weird Science stuff was gobbled up by the server for being to large, So I just posted it again. 


    Here are my player, who happens to be the gadgetter of our groups, response to my comments and your method of Weird Science. 


*smile*

SDF II

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



 >>>-- 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.
/agree


>>>-- 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, but I feel there is >>>a better way than 
levels.
/agree 
again. However, I think this method is also overpowered, because if you flaw a 
device enough with his proposed limitations, you can build a flaky nuke without 
too much effort.


>>>-- Flaws: While the 
limitations are common, they don’t have enough of a flaw to associate with the 
device.
He 
does have an interesting flaw in there, though I don’t think he calls it a flaw. 
The one about making multiple skill rolls to make a device work is kind of 
amusing. I think that could become a pain in the ass, but if it was a device 
that wasn’t needed in a life or death moment, it would be a good rp 
event.


>>>-- 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 
also feel this is lacking in depth. Part of the fun (and horror) of making a 
gadget is calculating all the stats. 


>>>-- 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, >>>where you activate it with 
possibilities and anyone can spend to use it.
Not 
to mention this method really soaks up the time of a gadgeteer. I always keep in 
mind the possibility of finding a lab, but with our group and adventurers, I 
think I’ve only been in 3 or 4. I certainly do not want to spend all my design 
time in the lab, nor then be forced to spend a scene “pondering” on the design. 
That’s BS. If I had to be tied to that, the first gadget I would make is a super 
long range fail-proof teleporter to abuse that rule to death. 


>>>-- 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.
This 
is a better explanation, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with the way  
I botch now. J


>>>-- 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.
This 
is an interesting concept. I assume you mean this applies during repairs or 
rebuilding, not creating during the initial build phase for the gadget. Also, 
the “time” is the original build time, I assume? The wounding is different, 
since the current rules state a gadget takes shock and then fails when it’s 
Toughness is exceeded. A simple WS roll to repair and the gadget is back in 
action again. I’m not sure I like the wounding at first glance. We’ll need to 
talk about it more in person with examples.


>>>-- Don’t like the 
levels when building the device either. One WS roll should actually cover it, 
not several.
I 
didn’t read it the same way you did. I see needing only one roll to build it. 
The whole process is very complex still, so I don’t think this is an 
improvement.


>>>-- 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.
Given 
all the other hoops I would have to jump thru to make a gadget, I wouldn’t 
complain much about the DN being 1.5x outside the lab. The labs are hard enough 
to get to as it is.


>>>-- 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.
The 
industrial power charge is flawed, too. He states that the I. power can be used, 
but that the device must be completely torn apart and rebuilt in order to use it 
after charging, and the components are drained after charging? 
WTF?


>>>-- 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?
That’s 
a creative solution, using capacitors to absorb shock. I like that a lot. Could 
be an add-on rule to the system we use now. Treat it like adding a switch with 
the booster rules thrown in. Can add shock caps up to a point and if you succeed 
really well, they can absorb a lot of extra shock. Or did you mean capacitors = 
compensators?


>>>-- 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 A Double Botch causes a wound 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
So 
if Gadget swaps a component while unskilled, his DN would be 13 and wouldn’t get 
to use his adds in WS? Ergo, I would be fixing it with my 13 Mind plus a bonus 
#? This could get interesting if the wound is caused to the player, not the 
gadget.


>>>-- Using the Device: 
Can be used by anyone. The First person in an adventure to use the device pays 
the “Adventure Cost” of device.
Per 
standard rules. /agree


>>>-- Swapping 
Components: “any number of” should be ‘one’ in the performing a swap listing he 
has.
Yes, 
he failed to make that clear enough.


>>>-- 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
Fair 
enough. That would also more the danger factor rise a lot 
more.


>>>-- 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.
/agree


>>>-- 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.
This 
is a reiteration of what you said before, I think.


>>>-- 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.
I 
have been wanting to make some shock grenades…


>>>-- Proper Tools: It 
should be assumed a blueprint, lab, understanding of device, and proper tools 
are needed. Penalties for missing components >>>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
>>>            -- +5 for 
no lab.
 >>>As far as adding to a 
device/blueprint/etc I’m not sure. I’ven’t covered it just 
yet.
Did I 
mention that I really don’t like his blueprinting rules? I also don’t agree with 
the not understanding part of the DN adds. The only way that I have been able to 
get an understanding of anything has been to do it on the fly as we game. I 
don’t have testing time for free like the melee or firearm types get when they 
level their skills. If I’m tinkering on a device to learn what it does, I have 
to activate it , see what happens, and then pay the piper with Reality. Not cool 
to limit my understanding by costing me possibilities to find out something new. 
I would much rather be spending time learning about the gadgets and gear I carry 
around with me anyway and improving what I have, instead of making it more 
difficult for me to build and repair.

 
>>>Some of my thoughts 
heading down our potential Self-Made Gadget/Gizmo creation 
system:
>>>-- Components can be 
built anytime, but assembled 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.
Let’s 
keep the blueprinting to on RL paper for now. It’s working fine, if we spend 
more time to work on the process. Building components at any time….ok, it might 
work, but I think we need to talk more about it. You would have to convince me 
that method is better. Currently, if I build anything, there is a chance to lose 
it via destruction, theft, whatever from the game world. If I design something 
on paper and it takes me more time tinkering in off hours to accumulate the time 
needed to build the gadget, it’s bad but I can deal with that. It make sense 
because I’m not able to focus on something like I would in a lab. But…if the 
component builds would save me build time, that might be worth the risk of 
losing the components.


>>>-- Assembly costs 
based on what is being put together. Device Toughness different from Component 
Toughness. Not sure how to work it without >>>testing.
I 
don’t know about assembly costs. Making something cost more in order to build it 
faster would be somewhat desirable, but making something cost more based on the 
power of the gadget isn’t very good in my thinking.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.justintimeadventures.com/pipermail/torg/attachments/20081111/804d0e3b/attachment.html>