Acquiring Gear/Morphs - Open Discussion

81 posts / 0 new
Last post
RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
Acquiring Gear/Morphs - Open Discussion

This thread is for open discussion of the Acquiring Gear and Morphs chapter, which will be posted up with the new playtest pack later tonight.

As always, we're looking for:
* Typos, bad grammar, and other mistakes
* Broken rules
* Confusing text
* General feedback on what you think!

We'll be posting some specific playtest questions soon.

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

swordchucks swordchucks's picture
Thoughts

Overall, I'm a big fan of making blueprints clearer. This seems to do a good job of that, though I've yet to actually test the rules.

One thing I would like to see added, though, is a more robust rep system, especially one that involves ways to recharge favors faster through trading services, etc. Maybe by taking a penalty on the rep roll, you could call in a favor without actually expending the favor? Or something. Something less harsh than burning rep, but kind of in the same vein. Regardless, it feels like the rep economy is useful a bit too rarely or you have to trash your reputation to use it.

I'd also like to see a bit about methods for using resources that can't be easily traced. If you're obviously the one using your assets to buy grenades that blow up a hab, that's really bad. Maybe the answer is to make rep matter here, again? If you were to want those grenades, maybe you could make an i-rep test to find someone who'd take cash on Hab A for services done via proxy on Hab B? Regardless, it feels like Resources either too good or potentially suicide.

CordialUltimate2 CordialUltimate2's picture
Yeah. Resources trait is very

Yeah. Resources trait is very much unbalanced with Rep. As I said already in earlier thread. For 8 CP you get much more acquisition power than any for 8 CP of Rep.
Burning Rep for 3 major items is 12 CP. Getting three major items with Resource 3 trait is basically free

Exurgents wanna eat your ass and you are low on ammo? Register to mobile gear catalogue at eldrich.host.mesh! ORDER NOW! FOR FREE PLASMA MINIMISSILE PACK! *explosive delivery options included

Grim G Grim G's picture
So, under Fabbers it says

So, under Fabbers it says that in order to hack them to produce other goods, you's need to roll "Hardware: Electronics and Program Tests". Is this supposed to mean OR, or do you actually have to make 2 separate rolls in order to make it work?

Grim G Grim G's picture
Here's another question. It

Here's another question. It says that putting aftermarket addons requires a skill, but can you get someone else to do it using rep or credit?

Grim G Grim G's picture
CordialUltimate2 wrote:Yeah.

CordialUltimate2 wrote:
Yeah. Resources trait is very much unbalanced with Rep. As I said already in earlier thread. For 8 CP you get much more acquisition power than any for 8 CP of Rep.
Burning Rep for 3 major items is 12 CP. Getting three major items with Resource 3 trait is basically free

Yeah, I have to agree. You can bribe people, you don't have a cooldown.
DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture
I don't think I like 1-use

I don't think I like 1-use-blueprints. Not my kind of thing. Seems like a rip-off. You paid for a physical item but instead you got a digital file. You still need to do some stuff before you get the item you tried to get.

I do like that getting multi use blueprints comes with a free printed copy of the item it can produce.

Maybe this is a good chapter to point out that EP tech has difficulty in making living creatures. New players might not know that important detail. Point out that healing vats can fix up living creatures, and do mods quickly, but can't fab up a new biomorph in a few hours. Make it clear what EP tech can't do.

"AFTER-MARKET ADD-ONS" p. 5
Maybe you should rename this as "DIY ADD-ONS". I had to reread the PDF several times to make sense of this. When I first read it, it seemed to imply that mods can only be acquired through these means. Now I think it means adding mods yourself. Whatever. Some clarity could be used here.

Making Morphs
Is this designing your own morph, like morph creation rules, or is it building a Reaper from off the shelf parts? Designing or building?
Also is large fabbers taken into account with these build times? What if I had something big enough to fit a whole Reaper or Fenrir in it?

Edit: I guess the numbers are for building morphs, not designing them. I forgot there were already rules for making blueprints.

Grim G Grim G's picture
DivineWrath wrote:I don't

DivineWrath wrote:
I don't think I like 1-use-blueprints. Not my kind of thing. Seems like a rip-off. You paid for a physical item but instead you got a digital file. You still need to do some stuff before you get the item you tried to get.
It makes sense to me. It's a form of anti-piracy to stop you from distributing the software.

That said, it's probably not something every company does. And even if they do, you could probably bypass it with infosec.

TheGrue TheGrue's picture
DON’T SWEAT THE GEAR

DON’T SWEAT THE GEAR Yes. Yes indeed. I mean, a lot of GMs were doing this already, but it's nice to be codified. Like Rob said, "Gear: The Shoppening" is not a very fun game.

Echoing what others have said - Resources trait seems like it might be too good. Would have to see it in play to form a more detailed opinions.

I like the idea of single-use blueprints, however, as the act of moving a file is identical to a copy followed by a delete at the source, I don't actually understand how they would work. Some clarification is needed. In any event is it possible to break the copy-protection on single-use blueprints?

Thermonuclear Banana Split - A not-really-weekly Eclipse Phase campaign journal.

Axel the Chimeric Axel the Chimeric's picture
For the Resources trait, it's

For the Resources trait, it's noted that you can burn resources if you're in a hurry to get something you need urgently and that this reduces your Resources rating without reimbursement.

This is a bad idea. Just raise the cost of the item a category or, if it's already expensive, require Rep favours or some other requirement. Players shouldn't lose something they invested Rez or CP into without reimbursement.




[@-rep +1, f-rep +2]

TheGrue TheGrue's picture
I'm going to disagree

I'm going to disagree entirely on "players shouldn't lose stuff they bought", solely on the basis of game design theory and it being a bad precedent to set that players can't lose stuff that's "theirs". But I suspect that opinion is not a commonly held one.

Thermonuclear Banana Split - A not-really-weekly Eclipse Phase campaign journal.

SquireNed SquireNed's picture
TheGrue wrote:DON’T SWEAT THE

TheGrue wrote:
DON’T SWEAT THE GEAR
Yes. Yes indeed. I mean, a lot of GMs were doing this already, but it's nice to be codified. Like Rob said, "Gear: The Shoppening" is not a very fun game.

Hey, I like Shadowrun.

With that said, I feel like EP2 is going to be very good in the gear department. I like the packages for starting characters, which keeps people from leaving home without a coat on, and offsets some of the old CP cost of playing a character with expensive gear requirements.

Creator of Street Rats, a CC-BY cyberpunk roleplaying game.

Axel the Chimeric Axel the Chimeric's picture
TheGrue wrote:I'm going to

TheGrue wrote:
I'm going to disagree entirely on "players shouldn't lose stuff they bought", solely on the basis of game design theory and it being a bad precedent to set that players can't lose stuff that's "theirs". But I suspect that opinion is not a commonly held one.

I think all it does is discourage players from doing what's interesting. If burning your Resources puts you at a disadvantage - not your character, you, the player, who may not have less fun because of it - then it is a bad decision.




[@-rep +1, f-rep +2]

Grim G Grim G's picture
TheGrue wrote:I'm going to

TheGrue wrote:
I'm going to disagree entirely on "players shouldn't lose stuff they bought", solely on the basis of game design theory and it being a bad precedent to set that players can't lose stuff that's "theirs". But I suspect that opinion is not a commonly held one.
If you mean about resource reimbursement, then I agree fully.

I've already argued about it before, so I'm not going to get into a debate about it. But I firmly believe that if you lose something yoy shouldn't get a Rez Point refund, and if you gain something, you don't have to pay a Rez Point tax.

Personally I think the Resources trait is broken and flying off the rails. Maybe it could be better, but I prefer the old credit economy. It showed a clear contrast between Credit and Rep, and prices could be adjusted so that there was a clean difference with gear that was similar with different qualities.

Grim G Grim G's picture
Axel the Chimeric wrote:If

Axel the Chimeric wrote:
If burning your Resources puts you at a disadvantage - not your character, you, the player, who may not have less fun because of it - then it is a bad decision.
If your players whine about things being taken away then my suggestion is to tell them to suck it up or get a new group of players.

Role Playing is just boring if the players can stay on top of their lives without consequences, especially in Eclipse Phase where one of the core themes is "Life's not fair, you have to fight for what you want".

But again, I promised not to debate about this, so I'll stay quiet.

TheGrue TheGrue's picture
Axel the Chimeric wrote:I

Axel the Chimeric wrote:
I think all it does is discourage players from doing what's interesting. If burning your Resources puts you at a disadvantage - not your character, you, the player, who may not have less fun because of it - then it is a bad decision.

I personally don't consider things that affect a fictional character to affect me personally, but I accept that not everyone is willing or able to draw this distinction. Call of Cthulhu is all about a character's spiral into death, insanity or ruin, and the fun lies in seeing how long they last before they break. Doesn't sound like it'd be your kind of game though.

Thermonuclear Banana Split - A not-really-weekly Eclipse Phase campaign journal.

swordchucks swordchucks's picture
Resource, blueprints, etc.

I am perfectly fine with having an option to burn rep or resources in order to get something in an emergency. I think GMs would be well-advised to never make that the only way to solve a problem, but it can certainly be the easiest option.

Overall, I don't think the economy is quite "baked" yet. For one thing, we need more clarity on how a Fake Ego ID and rep works out. Such an ID is disposable and has its own rep scores... which is potentially an issue with the overall economy. It potentially makes it very complicated to play a rep-based character since now you have to track multiple identities and the rep on all of them.

As it stands now, I'd like to see the rep economy strengthened and the resources economy weakened a little. This could be as simple as playing up the traceability of the resources economy (they got Space Al Capone on Space Tax Evasion, after all) or by adding a spend/burn mechanic to it as rep, or both.

On blueprints, one thing I'd like to see changed is that blueprints you get through rep favors shouldn't be subject to the 20% chance of problems. I definitely support this for ones gained through Research (since they're free), but if you're spending a favor on it, someone should have checked it out.

As for single-use blueprints? I like them. You have to print it yourself, but you use the Digital entry on the Acquisition Time table instead of the regular time. Getting a blueprint and hacking a fabber to produce a Moderate item could save you hours of time when it matters.

On the other hand, I feel like most fabbers would come with a moderate stock of blueprints for Minor complexity items in their area of use. You might have to put creds into it or let it ping your rep network, but the blueprint would probably be there (and hacking accessible). Print time is probably a better limiter.

Axel the Chimeric Axel the Chimeric's picture
TheGrue wrote:I personally

TheGrue wrote:
I personally don't consider things that affect a fictional character to affect me personally, but I accept that not everyone is willing or able to draw this distinction. Call of Cthulhu is all about a character's spiral into death, insanity or ruin, and the fun lies in seeing how long they last before they break. Doesn't sound like it'd be your kind of game though.

The thing is, if what happens to the fictional character makes the game less fun for you, it DOES affect you personally. Being passive-aggressive about that doesn't change it.

If you're only running games with one-offs and temporary characters, who exist as little more than vehicles through which to experience the chaos of the setting? Yeah, there's not much point with refunds or even experience; the characters will be dead or discarded soon enough anyway.

But if you're interested in long-term campaigns? Especially ones with character drama, where the characters and how they interact with each other and the setting, are a big part of the allure? That doesn't work for that. When players are choosing to invest a scarce resource, they'll choose what gets them the most fun, and what gets them the most fun is something that they can feel assured will be able to either better define the character or make their interactions more defining/interesting. If you burn something, without recompense, you effectively deprive a player of a means of having fun.

Eclipse Phase is deliberately built to put characters in dangerous situations, but with an obvious way of allowing them to survive ("survive") them that opens the door for persistency and, with it, character drama; to see them evolve and grow over time. Hence, it's more suited for refunds, rather than taking away things from the player.

Grim G wrote:
If your players whine about things being taken away then my suggestion is to tell them to suck it up or get a new group of players.

Role Playing is just boring if the players can stay on top of their lives without consequences, especially in Eclipse Phase where one of the core themes is "Life's not fair, you have to fight for what you want".

That's just being dismissive, though. If someone isn't having fun or enjoying something, find out why.

I also don't see how this isn't about a lack of consequences when, ostensibly, the consequence is still there. The player can't just instantly spend the Rez refund and, oh hey, they found a money reserve. They get all the fun and drama of their character having to render themselves a pauper, and they get to actually enjoy it too, without feeling bad they didn't, say, choose to invest it in skills instead.

No, if a player character has a trait, it ostensibly means they want to use it. They shouldn't be punished for doing so to add a cool beat to the story. If a player invested in buying extra skill points, you don't take them away when the character pushes themselves to the limit demonstrating them.




[@-rep +1, f-rep +2]

Grim G Grim G's picture
Axel the Chimeric wrote: The

Axel the Chimeric wrote:
The thing is, if what happens to the fictional character makes the game less fun for you, it DOES affect you personally. Being passive-aggressive about that doesn't change it.

If you're only running games with one-offs and temporary characters, who exist as little more than vehicles through which to experience the chaos of the setting? Yeah, there's not much point with refunds or even experience; the characters will be dead or discarded soon enough anyway.

But if you're interested in long-term campaigns? Especially ones with character drama, where the characters and how they interact with each other and the setting, are a big part of the allure? That doesn't work for that. When players are choosing to invest a scarce resource, they'll choose what gets them the most fun, and what gets them the most fun is something that they can feel assured will be able to either better define the character or make their interactions more defining/interesting. If you burn something, without recompense, you effectively deprive a player of a means of having fun.

Right, time to break my promise and debate this. The crux of your argument is that characters can't develop when there is punishing consequences, that there is nothing defining/interesting in failure. That is where you're dead wrong. Roleplaying isn't just about succeeding, it's also about the portrayal of failure. Acting out how your character reacts to failure is defining.

Axel the Chimeric wrote:
Eclipse Phase is deliberately built to put characters in dangerous situations, but with an obvious way of allowing them to survive ("survive") them that opens the door for persistency and, with it, character drama; to see them evolve and grow over time. Hence, it's more suited for refunds, rather than taking away things from the player.
Survival doesn't mean you come out in one piece, you can technically survive without a leg. You can also be persistent without a leg. Characters can grow over time while things are taken away; if some hyper elite kid with an ego the size of the moon suddenly looses all his daddy's fortune, that changes him. That makes him grow. How? That's up for the player to decide. Again, acting. Drama comes from uncertainty, and when they lose something, you want to know how they will deal with it.

Axel the Chimeric wrote:
I also don't see how this isn't about a lack of consequences when, ostensibly, the consequence is still there. The player can't just instantly spend the Rez refund and, oh hey, they found a money reserve. They get all the fun and drama of their character having to render themselves a pauper, and they get to actually enjoy it too, without feeling bad they didn't, say, choose to invest it in skills instead.
Well the rules never said you couldn't put Rez back into it (as far as I know). Burning Resources is punishing, but at the same time it's broken op already. A temporary loss of resources would be reasonable, but only if it gets nerfed first.

Axel the Chimeric wrote:
No, if a player character has a trait, it ostensibly means they want to use it. They shouldn't be punished for doing so to add a cool beat to the story. If a player invested in buying extra skill points, you don't take them away when the character pushes themselves to the limit demonstrating them.
Highly debatable. This goes back to what I said about failure and survival. The uncertainty of a hard choice is a prime source of drama. It makes the character question how far they will go for success, how much they are willing to sacrifice.
Leetsepeak Leetsepeak's picture
I think there are more

I think there are more interesting ways to demonstrate consequences than taking away player's points.

But it might matter less if points didn't dictate what you can acquire. You can't get new things without spending points, and you can't get rid of bad things without spending points (you have to do other things yeah, but points are the gate.)

So if it were a system where points were not required to do these things (i.e. do anything to change yourself) then I think it really wouldn't matter. Also the points would be useless.

But because they are not useless, and they can be lost forever on somethings, that can encourage weird behavior vis-a-vis investing points in things which are perishable versus things that can't be taken away.

If giving people points back when they lose things offends sensibilities so, I think the better approach would be to ignore those rules, or to be very keen on the how and why of acquiring things (as you should be anyway? Generally?) But in systems where there are options where the points simply disappear into a black hole, the perverse incentive is to never spend points on those things.

Didn't we just go through this in 1e with Morphs and CP? There seems no good reason to repeat that mistake.

I like hard choices to be between losing the narrative thing and narrative consequences, rather than "will I lose my bennies if I get this thing rather than another thing?" One of those is in-universe and cool.

DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture
I dislike how multi-use

I dislike how multi-use blueprints for Major complexity items are not a thing that are available. We can get them for minor and moderate items, but not major.

As for designing your own blueprints, I think times required are a bit much. At its worst (major items), its either 2 years in game time or throw a fork of yourself into a super computer for 4 days. I'm tempted to do away with time dilation. Where would you even get a computer that powerful? Can mesh inserts or ectos do 60x time dilation? Important question, will you be able to merge with your 2 year old fork?

More on what you can produce. Living things like smart monkeys are something you can own in this game, but are not produce able at a nanofab. This is another reason to cover living things in the fabrication section.

ubik2 ubik2's picture
Remove Resources?

I'm wondering if it makes sense to eliminate resources entirely.

I've generally thought of c-rep as the same as resources in general (we don't know the heuristic for running that rep network, but it could match the heuristic we use for our currency). At it's most basic, that heuristic is that when you give someone else rep points, your rep gets dinged a little. Generally, that's not enough to change either of your game scores (which are an abstraction representing general wealth level).

A common objection to this is that rep networks are inherently inflationary, but I disagree with this, and our currency also has the concept of wealth creation, which is essentially an upward trend on the total points, which often does not cause inflation.

One missing element here is that while the various currencies currently used can generally be exchanged, EP doesn't really have much of a system in place for this. Resources fills that gap well, allowing you to operate on an anarchist habitat or a mars colony. Exchanging from one currency to another is fairly efficient if they are both using a similar underlying system (e.g. bitcoin to USD), but significantly less efficient when the networks differ.

In our world, for example, we can exchange fame for currency or currency for fame, but these transfers are very inefficient. We also don't have well developed non-currency networks, so (aside from reddit), people won't generally do things just for the rep on that network.

It's possible that the out of network purchases can already be handled well enough by rep tests at a penalty (e.g. using your @-rep on on the hypercorp salesman means making a test at -30). Of course, currency was developed to address inefficiencies like this (originally in the barter system), and it's reasonable to assume that the transhuman society will also develop some sort of arbitrage system to make this efficient too, in which case the penalties would diminish, and the optimal character would just buy one high rep network, and not bother with the others.

With such a system, I would expect the character's rep totals to determine their lifestyle as well, just as is currently done for the Resources trait. Similarly, it could be leveraged for additional MP. I'm not sure how to address the anarcho-communist's aversion to conspicuous displays of wealth, but perhaps that just comes from the players.

Given that the resource system in EP2 has already been developed, and is a well integrated replacement for the cash counting in EP1, I don't really think it makes sense to eliminate it now, but figured I'd share my thoughts.

Axel the Chimeric Axel the Chimeric's picture
Grim G wrote:Right, time to

Grim G wrote:
Right, time to break my promise and debate this. The crux of your argument is that characters can't develop when there is punishing consequences, that there is nothing defining/interesting in failure. That is where you're dead wrong. Roleplaying isn't just about succeeding, it's also about the portrayal of failure. Acting out how your character reacts to failure is defining.

You said you promised not to debate it, then your very next post was a reply to my post, arguing my point, before concluding with repeating your promise not to debate about it. Can't really break what was already broken.

Anywho, on point: That really isn't the crux of my argument. Characters will still develop, but certain avenues of development or action are less likely than others because the players will be risk averse. No-one is complaining about losing or failing; it's just bad to actively punish players - which the lack of reimbursement definitely feels like, if nothing else - for choosing to make good drama happen, instead of rewarding it. If someone chooses to have a wealthy character so that they can have the drama of them emptying their bank accounts and being financially ruined, they shouldn't feel like they're worse off than the player who invested in more skill points.

Take Chronicles of Darkness. You don't really find people complaining about the Sanctity of Merits rule; it doesn't destroy the drama. If anything, it makes players more likely to invest in things that previously might've been risky or dangerous. By offering carrots to players to put sticks to their characters, drama becomes much more encouraged.

Grim G wrote:
Survival doesn't mean you come out in one piece, you can technically survive without a leg. You can also be persistent without a leg. Characters can grow over time while things are taken away; if some hyper elite kid with an ego the size of the moon suddenly looses all his daddy's fortune, that changes him. That makes him grow. How? That's up for the player to decide. Again, acting. Drama comes from uncertainty, and when they lose something, you want to know how they will deal with it.

You're not (just) taking things away from the character, though; you're taking them away from the player. That is a significant difference. Characters can feel like utter death after an adventure but players shouldn't. They should enjoy the drama. If a player would just feel miserable having their character crippled and doesn't want to explore that avenue, you shouldn't do that, even if that's how the dice roll.

This is why other systems, for example, actively offer incentives for, say, a character being crippled. The player still has to deal with the effects of the character being crippled, but they might, say, get a Rez point or recover a point of Flux when that injury actively inhibits them in some way. It means that players will actively engage in the drama more readily.

The characters are the ones who should be suffering consequences. The players should be having fun.

Grim G wrote:
Well the rules never said you couldn't put Rez back into it (as far as I know). Burning Resources is punishing, but at the same time it's broken op already. A temporary loss of resources would be reasonable, but only if it gets nerfed first.

Rez spending is, ostensibly, stuff that happens "off-screen" in downtime. That's always how it's worked before.

Grim G wrote:
Highly debatable. This goes back to what I said about failure and survival. The uncertainty of a hard choice is a prime source of drama. It makes the character question how far they will go for success, how much they are willing to sacrifice.

Again, it makes the character feel that. The player shouldn't feel like they're the one making a sacrifice.




[@-rep +1, f-rep +2]

o11o1 o11o1's picture
Let's all be excellent to each other, please?

Something that is sorely missing are clarifications on Trading Favors on your rep network. Sometimes, actually a lot of the time, my characters will have some sort of expensive thing they want to get hold of with Rep, but rather than burning REP (see argument above), they would rather work for what they want, doing major favors for NPCs before they get their cool toy. This is sort of like a service contract for a really short term, but it would be nice to have that sort of thing.

Likewise, Resources would benefit from having a way to sell back gear things you no longer need to recover your power to buy things.

Something that is currently in the Combat rules rather than the Gear rules is the Downtime activities setup. I'll quote:

Gear Rules wrote:
ACQUIRE/MAKE THINGS
You may wish to stock up on gear for the next mission, or simply
prepare equipment caches, go-bags, and emergency provisions. You
can acquire 1 item of Major Complexity, 2 Moderate, or 4 Minor
without any tests assuming you have the Resources trait at Level 2+,
at least one rep score at 60+, or Program skill at 40+ and access to
a nanofabrication machine.
Halve this for Restricted items. Rare is
only available at the GM’s discretion. If establishing caches (“scratch
spaces” to Firewall), be sure to note with your GM where and how
these are hidden away.
While being prepared is a smart move, GMs should rein in
players that seek to hoard everything they can acquire. Such
behavior is not realistic, and would certainly lead to the a character
alienating their friends or burning rep or Resources.

Performing Downtime Activities has a duration of 1 week.

So, it seems that here we have a way to get hold of stuff without being subject to the primary Rep Limits. I think there should probably be a note there that those rules are for "slow time" rather the primary rep limits, which are aimed at what the rules are "during a mission" It's been said, but clarity is nice.

I do notice that the Acquiring rules don't cover the case of being more poor than a rep score of 60+ (like say a 25+ that gets you only Minor items).

A slight smell of ions....

Snarls-at-Fleas Snarls-at-Fleas's picture
Axel the Chimeric wrote:

Axel the Chimeric wrote:

Again, it makes the character feel that. The player shouldn't feel like they're the one making a sacrifice.

Why? Just finished my BitD season 1 campaign. PCs had a real good beating, but when I offered to heal them for free (and healing is a big deal in BitD) they refused and said that it would be cheating. Now they are literally broke, their stashes are next to empty, all the hard work, thieving and murder was for nothing. But they've won the gang war and utterly destroyed the rival gang.
They lost their stuff, but they are adult, they never needed childish "compensations".
o11o1 o11o1's picture
It'd be nice to be able to

It'd be nice to be able to have this sort of discussion without being accused of being a whiny child because I feel that games, which we play to have fun, should aim to be fair.

Life isn't fair, so games should be.

A slight smell of ions....

Snarls-at-Fleas Snarls-at-Fleas's picture
o11o1 wrote:I feel that games

o11o1 wrote:
I feel that games, which we play to have fun, should aim to be fair.

Life isn't fair, so games should be.

Sure, we play fairly to have fun. And losing you stuff due to bad decisions or die rolls is fair.

Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture
Axel the Chimeric wrote:For

Axel the Chimeric wrote:
For the Resources trait, it's noted that you can burn resources if you're in a hurry to get something you need urgently and that this reduces your Resources rating without reimbursement.

This is a bad idea. Just raise the cost of the item a category or, if it's already expensive, require Rep favours or some other requirement. Players shouldn't lose something they invested Rez or CP into without reimbursement.

"No reimbursement" except for the gear your burnt it for and probably stopping something worse.

This whole argument is dumb.

ubik2 ubik2's picture
Trappedinwikipedia wrote:This

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:
This whole argument is dumb.

I think people are missing the distinction between negative effects to the player, and negative effects to the character. The latter is fine, and increases drama. The former is likely to increase drama at the table, but it's not the good kind.

I'm not sure I agree with Axel in the case of burning reputation or resources, since these are ultimately a player choice, but if they were by GM fiat, I would agree. The designers seem to know this as well, which is why they suggest compensating the player with RP when these things happen outside of player choice. When a player knowingly chooses to sacrifice things (including their character), it can be a fun experience.

If a player created a sniper character, and then you took away their Guns skill with some memory editing, because they failed a roll, it's not fun. The player wanted to play a character that's good at shooting, and the GM is taking that away. Your player may just walk away from the table, and it's not because he's a whiner, it's because he's no longer having fun (which is the real goal of the game).

Snarls-at-Fleas describes a situation where the characters are suffering, and this is totally appropriate (I wouldn't want the heal either). Axel and o11o1 are concerned about situations where the players are suffering, and if that's happening at your table, you're messing up.

Trappedinwikipedia Trappedinwikipedia's picture
There isn't anything you can

There isn't anything you can do to a character which will actually negatively effect the player, short of something like burning the sheet and the player getting singed. Players need about a half hour to get over bad things happening to their characters, and then they move on.

If a player made a sniper character shouldn't you never shoot at them? After all, they can't properly use the rifle while getting patched up in a healing vat or even taking wound penalties (they might even fail a roll!).

Doing bad things to characters is part and parcel of GMing, and the GM should focus on making a good game over appeasing the players. Most players don't have a good understanding of the ways they can have fun, and if you only went for "player approved threats" you'd be missing out on the vast majority of the game.

What is really important is that the stakes are made clear, so if a character is at risk of getting their memories ripped apart by a fork of AWE which Red 5 is operating or something (bear with me I'm trying to come up with a situation where a PC could really lose their guns skill with 1 failed roll), you want that not to be a complete surprise. Doesn't have to be super specific like, but at least mentioning that they have way more mesh traffic than normal or something before AWE goes ham on them changes it from "The GM just jerked my character over for no reason" to "The consequences of this game-situation led to this happening, even if it sucked" which is a very important difference.

Similarly, the appearance of fairness is very important, a GM targeting players for meta reasons (like a sniper character breaking combat balance) is something which can actually bother a player, because they don't think it was done to the *character* because they got caught alone on a rooftop with AWE's remote controlled headhunters or whatever, they think it happened because the GM wanted a sniper gone.

Those are different issues than hurting characters or taking their stuff. So long as the consequences follow believably from the situation, and the characters are chosen for valid in-fiction reasons, rather than meta ones, there is essentially no limit to what the GM can do.

Now because I think this is veering a little off topic some stuff for the PDF:

I don't like the resources trait, it looks way to strong compared to other options, and looks like the new Moxie, AKA the stat which every character should probably max out.

I dislike how there's no cooldown compared to rep, and RAW, no limits on the volume of items which can be bought. I think it needs more restrictions and explanation to work.

Describing it as passive sources of income (such as investments, etc) which allow a certain number of complexity ratings worth of purchases per [time] (I was thinking month) would help IMO. Something like the Infection Rating rules where purchases stress your wealth and every so often you roll against a table to see if your fortunes worsen thanks to the economic stresses (or potentially improve) might work well as well.

Maudova Maudova's picture
Resources vs. Rep

I thought one of the core principles of the game is that your gear (quipement, augmentations, programs, vehicles, and even your morph) was dispensable, money comes and goes and sometimes isn't even important. Blueprints, nano fabrication, hacking, and building multiple rep networks through fake identities all gave access to things that resources does. So resources isn't king. If I have 3 fake ID's and my primary identity and I pull from all of my rep networks for favors and have a hacked nano-fab I can get a lot more gear.

Sure initial buy in at character creation is higher for rep but building multiple avenues of rep means drawing and assets across different spectrums. A single moxie negates the penalty for pulling a major item as well. So, I think the gap isn't as deep as people are leading between resources and rep.

~Alpha Fork Initialized.
P.S. I often post from my phone as I travel extensively for work. Please forgive typos and grammar issues.

ubik2 ubik2's picture
Morph costs

Originally, morph points came out of the same pool as the rest of the character, but were essentially 25% of the cost. I assumed this was designed to counter how temporary they were.

Now that the MP allowance is available throughout the character's life, would it make sense to restore the costs to full? This would also make it so that buying gear or mods aren't 4x as expensive as the ones included with the morph. With this change, there would typically be a 24 point MP instead of a 6 point MP. Also, the rounding concern that some people had would go away.

Snarls-at-Fleas Snarls-at-Fleas's picture
Maudova wrote:A single moxie

Maudova wrote:
A single moxie negates the penalty for pulling a major item as well. So, I think the gap isn't as deep as people are leading between resources and rep.

A major item ONCE in the campaign with rep vs. an unlimited number of major items with resources.

Maudova Maudova's picture
Rep vs. Resources Part II

Snarls-at-Fleas wrote:

A major item ONCE in the campaign with rep vs. an unlimited number of major items with resources.

True, again if you are part of 3 rep networks, and have 3 false identities with rep networks of their own, you're looking at at least 6 major items. Now the game is built around playing a firewall agent, so they should supply you with the basics (Guns, armor gear, morph) assuming the ST isn't trying to add resource scarcity into the game. So if your story-arch is going to need more than 6 major cost items, plus whatever your allies are bringing to the table, then you might be reaching.

Add that all together with say 3 other firewall characters and they have similar reach but maybe lesser to your tricked out social acquisitions character. They get 4 major items per story arch, for 12 major items (for free) plus your 6. That adds up to 18 major items for free per story with no need to have your resources available to you or associated to any given persons name.

I would say that rep in a social game is pretty well balanced against resources. Even if you are ego casting at the beginning of the game, resleeving, and can only use 1 fake ID just given and your regular rep network. That's still between a total of 8 and 12 major items within 24 hours of arrival. If the characters have blueprints and access to a nanofabrication machine they could have a lot more equipment ready in short order.

If your resources are in Planetary Consortium currency and you're on the Brink they aren't going to be helpful, if your resources are in Titanian Micro-Corps they aren't going to be as effective on Luna, and if they are Jovian in origin they might not be helpful anywhere else. Rep is useful everywhere. The investment into reputation is very worth it and the resource costs are comparative to the regional availability and reputations universal reach.

~Alpha Fork Initialized.
P.S. I often post from my phone as I travel extensively for work. Please forgive typos and grammar issues.

Snarls-at-Fleas Snarls-at-Fleas's picture
Maudova wrote:Snarls-at-Fleas

Maudova wrote:
Snarls-at-Fleas wrote:

A major item ONCE in the campaign with rep vs. an unlimited number of major items with resources.

True, again if you are part of 3 rep networks, and have 3 false identities with rep networks of their own, you're looking at at least 6 major items.


Or you can just have Resource IV and have any number of major items. Resource IV costs 8 CP. How much are you going to spend to have 9 rep scores with a decent chance of rolling enough to acquire major items in any of them?

The rest is kinda GMs judgement and "can I daddy" rules are not good design.

Maudova Maudova's picture
Fake Edo ID's

Snarls-at-Fleas wrote:
Maudova wrote:
Snarls-at-Fleas wrote:

A major item ONCE in the campaign with rep vs. an unlimited number of major items with resources.

True, again if you are part of 3 rep networks, and have 3 false identities with rep networks of their own, you're looking at at least 6 major items.


Or you can just have Resource IV and have any number of major items. Resource IV costs 8 CP. How much are you going to spend to have 9 rep scores with a decent chance of rolling enough to acquire major items in any of them?

The rest is kinda GMs judgement and "can I daddy" rules are not good design.

Fake Ego ID's come with their own Rep Scores. So the buy-in is pretty minimal.

~Alpha Fork Initialized.
P.S. I often post from my phone as I travel extensively for work. Please forgive typos and grammar issues.

Leetsepeak Leetsepeak's picture
How does the rep score of a

How does the rep score of a fake ego ID work anyway?

Snarls-at-Fleas Snarls-at-Fleas's picture
Maudova wrote:Fake Ego ID's

Maudova wrote:
Fake Ego ID's come with their own Rep Scores. So the buy-in is pretty minimal.

How much exactly?
TheGrue TheGrue's picture
ubik2 wrote:Originally, morph

ubik2 wrote:
Originally, morph points came out of the same pool as the rest of the character, but were essentially 25% of the cost. I assumed this was designed to counter how temporary they were.

Now that the MP allowance is available throughout the character's life, would it make sense to restore the costs to full? This would also make it so that buying gear or mods aren't 4x as expensive as the ones included with the morph. With this change, there would typically be a 24 point MP instead of a 6 point MP. Also, the rounding concern that some people had would go away.

I haven't crunched the numbers yet on 2E, but in theory I am 100% okay with morphs costing less than the sum of their parts. 1E's morphs had the opposite problem; costs were weighted so that most morphs were often cheaper to buy with credits than CP, and many high-end morphs were more expensive than cheaper morphs kitted out with ware and traits to match capabilities.

Thermonuclear Banana Split - A not-really-weekly Eclipse Phase campaign journal.

swordchucks swordchucks's picture
Burning and Rep and Resources

Rep, as written, is too weak and resources is too strong (I'd prefer to strengthen rep a lot and just put some reasonable time limits on resources before you have to start burning it). I don't think there's a real debate that can be had there. Fake IDs need more definition (how much rep, etc.) and the whole thing needs another pass.

I like burning rep/resources as a thing. I want to see it stay. I also want to see a clear admonition to GMs to make sure it's not being forced. If the players want to skip a bunch of work or risks by burning rep or resources? That's great. It just shouldn't be required.

One thing that's also missing is discussion of traceability (and how to avoid it). Almost no one wants to go on a firewall op and have spending, of any sort, traced back to their real identity. That's just asking for trouble.

Grim G Grim G's picture
Maudova wrote:Snarls-at-Fleas

Maudova wrote:
Snarls-at-Fleas wrote:
Maudova wrote:
Snarls-at-Fleas wrote:

A major item ONCE in the campaign with rep vs. an unlimited number of major items with resources.

True, again if you are part of 3 rep networks, and have 3 false identities with rep networks of their own, you're looking at at least 6 major items.


Or you can just have Resource IV and have any number of major items. Resource IV costs 8 CP. How much are you going to spend to have 9 rep scores with a decent chance of rolling enough to acquire major items in any of them?

The rest is kinda GMs judgement and "can I daddy" rules are not good design.

Fake Ego ID's come with their own Rep Scores. So the buy-in is pretty minimal.


I don't recall (ever actually) any listing of Rep amounts. In any case I wouldn't allow a player to accumulate Rep on their fake ID, as that would entail them having to keep up multiple personalities and whore themselves for like across the board.
o11o1 wrote:
It'd be nice to be able to have this sort of discussion without being accused of being a whiny child because I feel that games, which we play to have fun, should aim to be fair.

Life isn't fair, so games should be.


Games can be fun without being fair. The entire Worms franchise is unfair but fun as all hell, Super Smash Bros is the only fighting game I ever play because of the random items and stages that try to kill you (Hence why I see anyone who turns off items and only goes to Final Destination the same way I see plain rice cakes).
RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
ubik2 wrote:Originally, morph

ubik2 wrote:
Originally, morph points came out of the same pool as the rest of the character, but were essentially 25% of the cost. I assumed this was designed to counter how temporary they were.

Now that the MP allowance is available throughout the character's life, would it make sense to restore the costs to full? This would also make it so that buying gear or mods aren't 4x as expensive as the ones included with the morph. With this change, there would typically be a 24 point MP instead of a 6 point MP. Also, the rounding concern that some people had would go away.

We're intentionally keeping it lower to keep the scale of points you have to spend low and to avoid issues with the Flex point trade-off.

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
Snarls-at-Fleas wrote:Maudova

Snarls-at-Fleas wrote:
Maudova wrote:
Fake Ego ID's come with their own Rep Scores. So the buy-in is pretty minimal.

How much exactly?

This is something that is still in flux. Our original idea was that a fake ID simply came with a meager amount of rep (5, or maybe 20) in one network, but that you could build it up. We've since been toying with the idea that you could get different levels of ID with increasing rep scores. We don't want this to be a loophole for getting cheaper rep, though, so we've considered various limitations: can only be used for one network, has a chance of failing with every moderate+ use, has a temp life span, etc.

We are also considering tossing the idea altogether and including some sort of crypto-anarchist pseudonymizing service that allows you to use your actual rep with fake IDs, but there are all sorts of technical issues that would be challenging to overcome there so that it couldn't be used to reveal your real ID. It would solve the problem of tracking multiple ID rep scores though.

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

Kojak Kojak's picture
RobBoyle wrote:We are also

RobBoyle wrote:
We are also considering tossing the idea altogether and including some sort of crypto-anarchist pseudonymizing service that allows you to use your actual rep with fake IDs, but there are all sorts of technical issues that would be challenging to overcome there so that it couldn't be used to reveal your real ID. It would solve the problem of tracking multiple ID rep scores though.

It would be cool if this was something you could do *in addition* to having multiple fake IDs with their own rep scores; that way, players who wanted to simplify things could go this route but folks who prefer the granularity can still do their thing.

"I wonder if in some weird Freudian way, Kojak was sucking on his own head."
- Steve Webster on Kojak's lollipop

Urthdigger Urthdigger's picture
ubik2 wrote:

ubik2 wrote:

Now that the MP allowance is available throughout the character's life, would it make sense to restore the costs to full? This would also make it so that buying gear or mods aren't 4x as expensive as the ones included with the morph. With this change, there would typically be a 24 point MP instead of a 6 point MP. Also, the rounding concern that some people had would go away.

I prefer it the way it is. I like the various morphs, and the idea that someone would pick one suited for what they're going for rather than, say, kitting out a splicer or case every time, makes sense. In-lore I imagine it as specialized morphs being designed from the ground up to support those abilities, and hence do so in a more efficient (and cheaper) manner than simply forcing a different morph to have those abilities.

I see it less as "This has the exact same augments but cheaper because 'reasons'" and more "This morph naturally has capabilities similar to this augmentation."

Maudova Maudova's picture
My Idea on Fake Ego ID's and Rep.

RobBoyle wrote:
Snarls-at-Fleas wrote:
Maudova wrote:
Fake Ego ID's come with their own Rep Scores. So the buy-in is pretty minimal.

How much exactly?

This is something that is still in flux. Our original idea was that a fake ID simply came with a meager amount of rep (5, or maybe 20) in one network, but that you could build it up. We've since been toying with the idea that you could get different levels of ID with increasing rep scores. We don't want this to be a loophole for getting cheaper rep, though, so we've considered various limitations: can only be used for one network, has a chance of failing with every moderate+ use, has a temp life span, etc.

We are also considering tossing the idea altogether and including some sort of crypto-anarchist pseudonymizing service that allows you to use your actual rep with fake IDs, but there are all sorts of technical issues that would be challenging to overcome there so that it couldn't be used to reveal your real ID. It would solve the problem of tracking multiple ID rep scores though.

Here is my idea. Tiered ID's that eventually fail due to the fact that every principality has copies of the egos associated with it's people, right.
Minor 20 divided between 2 networks, minimum of 5.
Moderate 30 divided between two networks with a minimum of 10.
Major 40 divided between two networks with a minimum of 15.
Unshakable ID's require your ego imprint (a backup/fork), you only get only 5 rep in 2 networks, and the player can purchase Rep at the regular cost.

All failing on ego matching (Backup) to rep specific or public resleeving facilities due to ego imprint not matching, which immediately flags the ID for inspection/rep freeze, and within hours or less the Persona is flagged as false and they are locked out of that network. So clandestine agents have to backup to covert facilities. This creates a limit on how long a fake id can last simply by dint of "You have to backup sometime". If you miss a backup appointments it's considered anti-social so eventually your rep gets pinged away, drop 5 by every month until you backup.

Maybe it's too complicated, but that's what I'm going to do.

~Alpha Fork Initialized.
P.S. I often post from my phone as I travel extensively for work. Please forgive typos and grammar issues.

Grim G Grim G's picture
RobBoyle wrote:Snarls-at

RobBoyle wrote:
Snarls-at-Fleas wrote:
Maudova wrote:
Fake Ego ID's come with their own Rep Scores. So the buy-in is pretty minimal.

How much exactly?

This is something that is still in flux. Our original idea was that a fake ID simply came with a meager amount of rep (5, or maybe 20) in one network, but that you could build it up. We've since been toying with the idea that you could get different levels of ID with increasing rep scores. We don't want this to be a loophole for getting cheaper rep, though, so we've considered various limitations: can only be used for one network, has a chance of failing with every moderate+ use, has a temp life span, etc.

We are also considering tossing the idea altogether and including some sort of crypto-anarchist pseudonymizing service that allows you to use your actual rep with fake IDs, but there are all sorts of technical issues that would be challenging to overcome there so that it couldn't be used to reveal your real ID. It would solve the problem of tracking multiple ID rep scores though.


Take it from me, keeping up multiple personas is hard. I've limited myself to 1. (a black woman on twitter 5 years older than me.)
ubik2 ubik2's picture
RobBoyle wrote:We are also

RobBoyle wrote:
We are also considering tossing the idea altogether and including some sort of crypto-anarchist pseudonymizing service that allows you to use your actual rep with fake IDs, but there are all sorts of technical issues that would be challenging to overcome there so that it couldn't be used to reveal your real ID. It would solve the problem of tracking multiple ID rep scores though.

I think you could build a system with an anonymizing broker, where you transfer rep-credit to the broker, and he transfers it back to you in a liquid form. Then you could apply the liquid form to the fake id. People would see your rep lose points, and would see the other rep go up, but since the timing is unclear, and the broker services a lot of accounts, they wouldn't be able to link it to your id. It would be clear that you are participating in this liquid rep system, though, which might be frowned upon. It would also be apparent that the fake id reputation came from the broker (which would probably make people suspicious).

If there was no burn of rep, it should be possible to transfer it back at the end. Non-trivial favors are a type of burn, so that would need to be tracked too. This system is pretty similar to TOR, and I'm not sure you can build it in a way that doesn't allow a network of corrupt brokers to link your ids. Similarly, the broker could just steal the rep, so you have to have reliable brokers.

Presumably, your rep would be lowered on your real id until you got the credit back. Rep transfers would have an amount and a max, so you couldn't get a higher rep by pooling rep from multiple sources. They would also probably have an expiration, so you can auto-reclaim the rep if the fake id is lost (e.g. stack destroyed). For this model, I would assume you are unable to transfer rep across networks.

This addresses how to get rep into the fake id, but doesn't address the cost issue that people are talking about. Getting to 40 rep in a network is 8 RP, which is as much as level 4 resources, but is unlikely to have anywhere near the benefit.

Of course, the rep economy may be ok translating into resources, and back into rep. In that case, you use your rep with a broker to get cash, give the cash to a new network (from the fake id), and buy rep that way. If you're using this model, though, your rep network just ends up as a cash abstraction, and you've lost the flavor.

Also, with the first model, if everyone uses the brokers, they kinda end up being like a bank, and are no longer suspicious. To keep the rep flavor, this might happen something like having me suggest the Oprah show to everyone I know, and her quid pro quo is a friendly interview with my fake id on her show.

The fake ego id has a cost of Major, so you could also just assume most of the cost is establishing 20 points of rep (4 RP). It's not enough to get any real favors, but it's enough that people feel like they're dealing with a real, if low value, individual.

Maudova Maudova's picture
From My Phone

ubik2 wrote:
I think you could build a system with an anonymizing broker, where you transfer rep-credit to the broker, and he transfers it back to you in a liquid form. Then you could apply the liquid form to the fake id. People would see your rep lose points, and would see the other rep go up, but since the timing is unclear, and the broker services a lot of accounts, they wouldn't be able to link it to your id. It would be clear that you are participating in this liquid rep system, though, which might be frowned upon. It would also be apparent that the fake id reputation came from the broker (which would probably make people suspicious)...

I love this idea. It does create potential for abuse, in that how do two shadow brokers know that a specific fake ID isn't or is a specific person? By that I mean, two characters ask separate brokers to push their rep to the same fake ID, boosting the fake ID to much higher rep than it should have. I could see where two character or possibly even an NPC makes a request for the Rep liquid transfer to a single fake ID then the other has their mesh inserts hacked and put into a coma. Rep never retansfers as there is no request, and you now have rep to play with as this fictitious account.

~Alpha Fork Initialized.
P.S. I often post from my phone as I travel extensively for work. Please forgive typos and grammar issues.

o11o1 o11o1's picture
Maudova wrote:Snarls-at-Fleas

Maudova wrote:
Snarls-at-Fleas wrote:

A major item ONCE in the campaign with rep vs. an unlimited number of major items with resources.

True, again if you are part of 3 rep networks, and have 3 false identities with rep networks of their own, you're looking at at least 6 major items. Now the game is built around playing a firewall agent, so they should supply you with the basics (Guns, armor gear, morph) assuming the ST isn't trying to add resource scarcity into the game. So if your story-arch is going to need more than 6 major cost items, plus whatever your allies are bringing to the table, then you might be reaching.

Add that all together with say 3 other firewall characters and they have similar reach but maybe lesser to your tricked out social acquisitions character. They get 4 major items per story arch, for 12 major items (for free) plus your 6. That adds up to 18 major items for free per story with no need to have your resources available to you or associated to any given persons name.

I would say that rep in a social game is pretty well balanced against resources. Even if you are ego casting at the beginning of the game, resleeving, and can only use 1 fake ID just given and your regular rep network. That's still between a total of 8 and 12 major items within 24 hours of arrival. If the characters have blueprints and access to a nanofabrication machine they could have a lot more equipment ready in short order.

If your resources are in Planetary Consortium currency and you're on the Brink they aren't going to be helpful, if your resources are in Titanian Micro-Corps they aren't going to be as effective on Luna, and if they are Jovian in origin they might not be helpful anywhere else. Rep is useful everywhere. The investment into reputation is very worth it and the resource costs are comparative to the regional availability and reputations universal reach.

Resources as currently written does not specify that you have to declare an actual location it's connected to, it appears to as purely fungible as the old Credits system, that is probably about two thirds of the solar system has at least some use for credits, even if it's not their main gig.

Now, that could be a useful limiter to add to the system, that the bulk of your assets are in a specific, designated polity ( likely the usual "Select one planet as your home base" deal ), and then for polities on good terms with them, your Resources works at one rating lower because while you have the money, it has to get transferred through non-rapid sources. perhaps two levels lower for an "on bad terms" link, like if you have Titinian kroner accounts and need to somehow convert that into cred that works around Jupiter. (probably including a bounce through a Europa institution).

This would give it a location based limiter to compare/contrast with the seven Rep Networks. Some more work would be needed to establish a sufficiently clear and consistent guidelines to how many levels of penalty should apply. (one level of penalty ever at max might be the easy way out)

A slight smell of ions....

LibraryDrone LibraryDrone's picture
please please please, When

please please please, When your describing how often major favors can be used make it say "once per campaign ARC" instead of the current "once per campaign" i was super confused for a minute there.

“Science fiction is very well suited to asking philosophical questions; questions about the nature of reality, what it means to be human, how do we know the things that we think we know.”
― Ted Chiang

Pages