Morph Creation - Draft 1 - Playtest Q. Responses Only

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
AdamJury AdamJury's picture
Morph Creation - Draft 1 - Playtest Q. Responses Only

Download Morph Creation - Draft 1

This is a rough first draft of the morph creation rules for Transhuman. Please post your answers to the following questions in this playtest thread:

Q. 1 – How did you review the material in this draft?
Did you try them out in actual play with your group? For how many sessions? Using what kind of PCs? Did you crunch some numbers in a marathon character generation session? Or simply read through them with a critical eye?

Q. 2 –What's the most critical problem you've identified in these rules?
Is there an endemic problem you think is underlying this rules set? Is this material too complicated for your liking? Is there a specific rules item you think is egregiously broken and needs to be fixed? Is there anything that you simply think *must* be changed?

Q. 3 – What's the best part of these rules?
Is there anything that you absolutely loved? Something that you sincerely think *must* make it into the final version? Anything that really contributes to the game in a positive way? Something that shouldn't be changed?

Q. 4 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 1)
The 25% discount to all of the elements comprising a morph was roughly arrived at by taking the costs for all morphs in EP core, eliminating a couple of extremely expensive/cheap outliers, and averaging the amount by which they discount their component parts. Is this too much of a discount, too little, or about right?

Q. 5 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 2)
Is it overly complex? Would you prefer something that makes fewer attempts to enforce game balance, but is simpler? Or would you prefer to introduce additional complexity if it meant finer game balance?

Q. 6 – GMs, would you ever let your players use this unsupervised?
The rules are written to be adjudicated by the GM, but the intent is that it be low maintenance – EP GM's have enough work to do! Are the checks on keeping a player from devising something completely broken adequate to the task?

Q. 7 – Mechanical retconnage.
Many core book morphs don't come out to their original CP costs under this system. Is this OK, or a problem? If you decided to use this system, would you change the costs on core book morphs in your campaign?

Hailspork Hailspork's picture
Q. 1 – How did you review the

Q. 1 – How did you review the material in this draft?
Just a critical eye. And a spreadsheet.

Q. 2 –What’s the most critical problem you’ve identified in these rules?
The lack of certain unquantified traits in pre-existing morphs; eg, small size, extra arms, flight, reduced maximum Som, etc.

Q. 3 – What’s the best part of these rules?
The cost-multiplier table. As stated in the other thread, I think it'd be nice if there were more in-depth guidelines for personally researching morph designs; in particular the timelines, resources, skill checks, and what kind of multipliers to apply to the prototype vs successive clones.

Q. 4 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 1)
If the discount means multiply by .25, then that seems a bit right. If you mean 25% discount (which is inconsistent with the explanation below), then that seems insufficient.

Q. 5 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 2)
Personally, math is second nature to me, so it's not a problem. That said, it's some addition and multiplication that you do almost never (how often will people really be designing morphs?) doesn't seem like a problem to me. I would recommend one change: Remove the minus 35 from step 3 and the minus 30 from step 4, and instead add a single minus 65 step. It makes the math just a little easier and eliminates confusion for durability below 35 and such.

Q. 6 – GM’s, would you ever let your players use this unsupervised?
If I ran a game with a fork of myself, I would never let my fork use this unsupervised. Durability is way too cheap (usually 10 cp per 5, now it's 1.25 per 5) with no limit. Attributes also have no maximum limit beyond the single attribute limit of 15. I would actually suggest a limit of 30 to the total attributes and change the limit of a single attribute to 10, but add a few design-only traits to circumvent each of these.

Q. 7 – Mechanical retconnage.
Aside from flats, the biomorphs from the base book range in CP cost from about 55% to 111% of what you'd calculate here; this range seems fine to me. It makes sense that the more mass-produced morphs would be cheaper. The place where this seems to be a problem for me is with morph traits; giving them a 75% (or is it 25%?) discount seems about right particularly when you factor in the limitation of no more than 2 positive, 2 negative. However, this is not represented in the book. I will probably start house-ruling them to be half-off in general.

DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture
Q. 1 – How did you review the

Q. 1 – How did you review the material in this draft?

First with a critical eye.

Second, I ran a morph of my design through this system.

I shifted through my notes for one of my old morphs I made using the rules form an Eclipse Phase fanzine "The Eye". It was issue number #3. See pages 17 to 20. I took my old Cogplus morph, made a few adjustments, and then ran it through this creation system.

Q. 2 –What’s the most critical problem you’ve identified in these rules?

The impact for aptitude bonuses is way too much. I'm sure it is broken. I think that multiplying the bonuses by 10 was a mistake.

If I were to run the aptitude bonuses from the Remade morph, and stuff it on a generic morph, the final number would be 130 cp. The Remade morph is a 60 cp morph, so something has got to wrong there.

If I did the same for the Case, the number for the aptitude penalty (-50) + synthmorph bonuses (25) push the morph to -25, only to get worse due to the other factors of the morph.

My Cogplus morph (first draft) was rated at 75 cp (60,000 cr) using the system presented in the "The Eye" issue #3. It had less implants then. It was intended to be an optimized version of the Remade morph with some improvements (like how the Menton was to the Exalt). My current draft of my Cogplus, when put through this system, is rated at 195 cp (195,000 cr).

Q. 3 – What’s the best part of these rules?

You can create your own morphs. I have many morphs I want to through this system once all bugs are worked out (hell, I want to put them through anyways).

Q. 4 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 1)

The 25% discount? I'm not sure about that at this time. It seems that the aptitude bonuses being multiplied by 10 to determine cp is a more pressing concern.

Q. 5 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 2)

Is the math too complex? I'm not afraid of math. I might be willing to accept more if it produced better results. Just don't try to over do it though.

Q. 6 – GM’s, would you ever let your players use this unsupervised?

So long as they kept proper notes, so that I might double check the results, I'm fine with my players playing on their own. I'll be posting my notes for my current draft of my morph, the Cogplus, so you can see what I mean about good notes.

I should not that *I FEEL* it is more important that the GM be able to review what the players makes effectively, than it is for the GM to be able to trust its players on their own. Its not that I expect players to try to cheat the system, I expect that errors to show up from time to time. Good notes should allow GMs and players to do a review without getting a headache.

Q. 7 – Mechanical retconnage.

Many morphs don't come out the same as they did in the core rulebook? Are you kidding me? They're wildly off. The 2 morphs I had tested, the Remade and the Case are very different from the core rule book. Mind you, the 10 times multiplier for aptitude bonuses seem to be the major deciding factor.

ScienceGuy ScienceGuy's picture
Morph creation rules comments

Q. 1 – How did you review the material in this draft?

Read through with a critical eye. (plus a bit of number-crunching in my head)

Q. 2 –What's the most critical problem you've identified in these rules?

What is the cost for built-in synthmorph armour? This should surely be something that can take different values, depending on whether the morph is a Case or a full-on battle morph (and let's be honest, players are going to want to build these!).

We need a way to handle smaller morph frames (so we can create eg. neotenics). I would also be tempted to have 'large frame' as part of these rules, rather than a trait.

DUR costs need to be in line with the 'Frail' and 'Tough' traits.

Is the aptitude max cost per-aptitude, or one overall cost?

Q. 3 – What's the best part of these rules?

Just the ability to custom-design our own morphs is awesome!

Beyond that, I would say that these rules seem fairly in balance with all the existing morphs. This is really important IMHO.

Q. 4 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 1)

The 75% discount seems about right to me.

Q. 5 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 2)

I am entirely fine with the level of maths involved. I don't think I'd change it in either direction.

Q. 6 – GMs, would you ever let your players use this unsupervised?

I'd think a GM-say-so was quite important for any rule set like this. Players are always likely to find somewhat broken edge cases :-)
But I think the checks are pretty good here.

Q. 7 – Mechanical retconnage.

I think it's fine that the core book morphs don't quite come out at their original costs.

Decivre Decivre's picture
Q. 1 – How did you review the

Q. 1 – How did you review the material in this draft?
Critical eye for now. Plan to do a full abuse run this week.

Q. 2 –What's the most critical problem you've identified in these rules?
There is a lot of space for abuse with regards to skill and aptitude bonuses. Also, the calculation of aptitude maximums needs a bit of clarity... the value is chosen maximum -30 per aptitude, or do you just choose a single aptitude maximum (meaning you couldn't make something like the neotenic)?

Q. 3 – What's the best part of these rules?
Custom morphs, 'nuff said. Besides that, the rules are fairly elegant and straightforward, which I like. Of course, I'm used to calculating BV in Battletech, so take that for what it's worth.

Q. 4 – How do you feel about the math?
The Final GM Multiplier needs more clarity. I understand how we choose a multiplier based on the overall availability of morph R&D, but I feel there are some holes in this info. For example, there's a cost reduction to the standard multiplier if you are only making a variant to a "stock morph", but no info on how to price a homebrew stock morph within your setting (if you should decide to add a few morphs which you determine to be stock within your campaign). Of course, this is assuming "stock" means standardized and common within the setting. I'm guessing the multiplier is 1, but it would be good to know for sure.

I might also recommend an "average multiplier" be referenced within each multiplier range (much like how average cost is referenced for cost ranges with regards to equipment). It's always good to have a hard number for those who are unsure where in the range to start.

Q. 6 – GMs, would you ever let your players use this unsupervised?
Maybe, but I would be wary of its use outside of the character creation phase. I've seen plenty of people at the table try to abuse the reputation system for getting exorbitantly expensive things at the relatively low cost of a favor. And this has plenty of space for abuse (aptitude maximums, skills, durability, and probably other areas).

Q. 7 – Mechanical retconnage.
I'd like to see them retconned, if only so that the morphs from the books could potentially be used as a pricing guideline for people wanting to design their own morphs. I might even recommend making the morph creation process for those morphs (or at least a selection of them) available in this book (or as a PDF download, to save space for other things).

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.

Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

kindalas kindalas's picture
Morph Creation - Draft 1 - Playtest Response

Eclipse Phase transhuman

Morph Creation

Q. 1 – How did you review the material in this draft?

Critical eye and my Excel-Fu skill

Q. 2 –What’s the most critical problem you’ve identified in these rules?

The Discount Math, No Durability Limits and no special morph features, like armor and claws and ink and wings.

Discount will be discussed in Q4 & Q5 but I have math based recommendations for the math.
The no durability limit, on the Trait review I advocated making some Zero cost traits to cover things like morph size and shape and limb counts. I’ll repeat my request for it here and add that the size Traits should come with a maximum for durability. I’m ok with different values for meat and metal bodies but they need to be there. Otherwise it is too easy to decide that spending 250 Real PC on a Reaper’s Attributes can be pulled back a bit to boost DUR by 50 extra points personally I’d give up a +5 to SOM for 50 DUR. But I’d let implants and the Tough Trait increase DUR over the current Limit. Let’s put the limits at 40, 60, and 100 for Small, Medium and Large sizes with an extra 30 for being a Synth.

The extra stuff, I know jack has mentioned that it was there but got trimmed and I think it needs to be put back in. Especially the synthmorph armor info Morph claws, beaks, ink cannons and stuff. But they should probably be rewritten as Traits or implants.
I also don’t like the limit of max 10 of each cost category or the max two negative and positive traits rule because it is needlessly limiting and it should be left to the GM to control Trait choices.

Q. 3 – What’s the best part of these rules?

I really like how the rules use a bunch of the fundamental EP character generation rules to keep things balanced.

Mainly the Aptitude bonus times ten valuation.

And I really like how the math works out because I can now make a custom morph section for my Excel Sheet that has rules and structure and…

…Transhuman is keeping me busy.

Q. 4 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 1)

Dropping the cost of Morphs from the Real Cost to Adjusted cost of 25% of Real was a smart move. However the final multiplier thing is out of place. What I did was build ALL of the morphs used in Eclipse Phase using the presented system. From that I figured out that the average morph costs 25.42% of its Real cost. But I also learned that the Median was 22% and the Mode was 15.5% with a Standard Deviation of 7.14%

And When I look at the Biomorphs from the Core book they average at 19.48% and 4.00% Standard Deviation.

What these numbers tell me is that Morphs should cost between 32.56% and 18.29% of their Real Cost and that GMs with more “reasonable” morphs should be a lot closer to that 18% then to the 32%

When I drop the bottom 4 morphs (the below zero models) and the top 4 (worst discounted) the average cost is 22.2% of the Real Price.

In conclusion the fixed 25% is too high. I’d recommend between 15-30% shooting from the hip and a side bar describing the reasons for the top most discounted and least discounted Morphs for GM guideline work.

I would then recommend instead of the fancy multiplier thing have a section describing the hassles of Morph Design and R&D. Like how biomorphs take a couple of YEARS to grow and even with accelerated growth for testing three years is a good ballpark to look at when players decide to make the “next” remade. Pods would take 6-18 months to develop and synths as quickly as time compressed simulspace allows for. (I don’t think that non seed AI simulations can do genetic sims accurately enough to make a Biomorph)

Q. 5 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 2)

Complexity is 100% good. If I can make excel do the math to verify all of the variants in use in 15 minutes then the complexity is fine. Fyne for the Community fans.

I’m already asking for some more complexity for the sake of balance so I’ll live with more.

Q. 6 – GM’s, would you ever let your players use this unsupervised?

I would let my players math things out until they hit the real cost stage. Then I would make them write me a backstory and then I would handwave a discount rate that is something between the Swarmoid’s 83.3% of Real Cost and the 12% of the Worker Pod’s Real Cost.
But a sidebar that explains some of the reasons why morphs are valued differently would be nice.
There is after all a reason why the least discounted morphs are the Swarmanoid, Flexbot, Martian Alpiner , Fenrir, Skulker, Xu Fu and Kite. One is out dated and the rest are specialised synths.

[b]Q. 7 – Mechanical retconnage.

Since I’m advocating a change in the math to use the current morph discounts as examples of what new morphs should cost I wouldn't retcon any morph. Well Maybe the Fenrir with its assumed (by me) 200 CP cost because it’s Real Cost in within 5 of the Reaper’s Real Cost. And they are both horrific kill bots in my book.

I’d consider giving a bonus of the Case because it sucks hard. It should be a 10 or 15 CP Bonus, but Flats and Infomorphs should be a 5 CP bonus and the Spare should cost 0 CP.
But everything else is very close.

Q. 8 – If you did Excel-Fu will you share?
Yes here is the link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nhgr5fqwr3btlwn/New%20Morph%20Math.xlsx

The first sheet is a report sheet and the second is all of the math.

I hope it helps.

William Wilson

I am a Moderator of this Forum
My mod voice is red.

The Eclipse Phase Character sheet is downloadable here:
Get it here!

babayaga babayaga's picture
Did not work well for us!

Q. 1 – How did you review the material in this draft?
We went through a marathon character generation session trying to "abuse" the system. We then used the characters in a replay of the "Bump in the Night" scenario

Q. 2 –What's the most critical problem you've identified in these rules?
The main problem is that the new pricing system is not coherent with previous morph examples. This not only causes a "disconnect" with past material; more importantly, it encourages new morphs with a far different feel from what we've seen so far in Eclipse phase.

First of all, some costs are too large, others too small. Let's look at the Adjusted Cost (so, Real Cost* 0.25) which is essentially what you'd expect to pay for a stock morph, and compare it side by side with an eyeballed cost in existing morphs (estimated by looking at *similar* morphs, like e.g. an Exalt and an Olympian, isolating the few differences).
+5 to an Aptitude. Transhuman: 12.5CP. Current morphs: 5CP.
+10 Trait. Transhuman: 2.5CP. Current morphs: 5CP.
+5 DUR. Transhuman: 1.25CP. Current morphs: 5CP.
+5 maximum to all Aptitudes. Transhuman: 1.25CP. Current morphs: 2.5-5CP.

Second, in the new system it appears that one can freely create morphs with very large penalties balancing very large bonuses, for a total cost of 0. This (particularly combined with the previous point, that makes some prices very steep and others very low) can lead to morphs that are incredibly potent at one task, and weak at all others... for an Adjusted cost that is 0 or even negative, so that even a hefty multiplier does not yield a positive Final cost. For example, consider a combat morph with -15SAV, -10COG, +5COO, +5 REF, +5 INT, +45 DUR, 35 Aptitude Maximum, and 50.000 credits worth of augmentations, in particular SOM and REF boosting ones. Current morphs do not seem to have this +15/-15 syndrome.

Third, one should probably distinguish CP from credit cost for "rare" morphs. If rarity means a morph is 2 to 4 times more expensive in terms of CP for what it does, almost no player will want to start with such a morph. Unlike the proposed system, current morphs address this well. The Futura is very expensive in terms of credits because it's so rare; however its "performance" is on par with 40CP "improved" Exalt variants like the Menton, the Olympian, and the Sylph -- so its CP cost is only 40CP. So, I think rarity should apply a modifier only to the credit cost (and to the difficulty of finding the morph through rep networks etc.), not to the CP cost. While it's true that getting "rarity for free" means that the character is effectively getting free credits should the player choose to sell the morph, it's also true that having a rare native morph causes its own set of problems for a character who looks for one.

Last but not least, I strongly dislike the fact that the multipliers to obtain the final cost are given as ranges. It almost reads as "since we couldn't design a solid system, you'll have to fix the result on a case-by-case basis eyeballing it". Instead, I'd much rather have a single, clear multiplier in each case.

Q. 3 – What's the best part of these rules?
The idea behind the "point creation" of new morphs. In fact, I would have loved a set of mechanics for the actual in-game creation of a new morph (design, testing, patent issues, risks of glitches, etc.)!

Q. 4 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 1)
As mentioned above, the math does not work out well. Most current morphs, which *do* feel balanced, are not accurately represented by the system. This cannot be fixed by changing only the 0.25 factor (in fact, if the only option is to change the 0.25 factor, it's probably best not to change it at all). Instead, the costs for the individual components should be adjusted -- some increased and some lowered.

Q. 5 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 2)
The math is not overly complex per se. I'd be willing to accept even a little extra complexity.
However, the same (or better) results could be achieved with greater elegance. For example, I'd try to group sums and multiplications: instead of adding (DUR-35) at step 3 and (Aptitude Maximum-30) at step 4, I'd have the player add DUR and Aptitude maximum, and *then* subtract 65 (however, it's probably easier to evaluate it at a glance as it is, so it's probably the best choice for a playtest). Similarly, instead of multiplying by 0.25, and then by a GM modifier (say, a factor 2 for a limited edition morph), I'd simply scale down GM modifiers by a factor 4 and use only those (in this example a straight 0.5 multiplier to the Real Cost).

Q. 6 – GMs, would you ever let your players use this unsupervised?
As it stands, no. I do think, however, that the system could be fixed, in which case it would be absolutely fine to leave into the unsupervised hands of the players (this would require exact numbers rather than ranges for the last multiplier though).

Q. 7 – Mechanical retconnage.

I would not mind retconnage per se. I'd rather have coherent rules: existing morphs should conform to existing design rules.

In fact, a few current morphs would probably benefit from a price adjustment regardless of whether there's a new pricing system or not. For example, the bouncer is slightly too expensive at 40CP for what it offers (compared e.g. to the olympian and particularly the sylph on one side, and with the Exalt on the other); it should probably cost 35CP. Furies and Ghosts are probably too expensive by 5-10CP or so; Remade appear too cheap by 5-10CP.

However, the morph design system in the draft is not well balanced, and risks breaking a lot of stuff that, right now, works fairly well.

Joe Joe's picture
.25 multiple = not good

1) I like to break things, so I went through each step and looked at a) how I could break the system, and b) equivalent morphs/gear/traits and other costs, assuming "Costly R&D".

2) The .25 multiplier DESTROYS any game balance. (See "Min-Maxer Abuse (Warning for GM's)" post in Discussion)

3) I like that they exist at all and that we will have a new book. (Yay!!!!)

4) The _75%_ discount is the biggest problem in that it looks really cool at first (package deal) until the min-maxer in me starts to play. (See "Min-Maxer Abuse (Warning for GM's)" post in Discussion)

5) The math is as easy or easier than the rest of the game, so I'm not having an issue.

6) Not in a million years! (See "Min-Maxer Abuse (Warning for GM's)" post in Discussion)

7) I would probably use my own system, which changes up a lot of the multiples and brings things more in line with what exists. My guess is that you guys could do a lot to clean it up some more. (See my post in Discussion after "Min-Maxer Abuse (Warning for GM's)")

Glint Glint's picture
Sorry, my first post is a bit harsh

Q. 1 – How did you review the material in this draft?

Some minor number crunching.

Q. 2 –What's the most critical problem you've identified in these rules?

1) The cost for aptitude bonuses is far too high. An Exalt morph (which has a total of +20 aptitude bonuses) would cost just as much as a morph with ten Expensive implants (75-100 CP with the Costly R&D multiplier.)

2) Inversely, the cost for implants is far too low, especially considering the fact some offer aptitude bonuses. The Reflex Booster costs 20 Real CP and gives +10 REF and an increase in speed, while a +10 REF morph bonus costs five times as much, with no speed increase. The Hardened Skeleton implant gives +5 DUR and +5 SOM and costs 5 Real CP, just as much as increasing DUR directly.

The cost of implants is further decreased by the .25 discount. Buying an Expensive implant during character creation costs the equivalent of 20 CP (1000 credits = 1 CP, Expensive implants cost 20000 credits,) but an Expensive implant on a custom morph costs 7.5-10 CP, which is at least a 50% discount.

Also, the "ten implants per cost category" limit is too lenient; I feel it should be a limit on the total cost of all implants (and not a very high one at that.)

3) The "round the Adjusted CP cost to the nearest 5 CP" rule caused some wonkiness with one of my morphs. This morph had, among other things, the Limber trait at level 1; the Adjusted CP cost for this morph was 2.5 CP, which was rounded to 5 CP. However, increasing the Limber trait to level 2 increased the Adjusted cost to 5 CP. So this morph:

a) gets to increase a level 1 trait to level 2 for free, or

b) is charged the level 2 cost for a level 1 trait.

Q. 3 – What's the best part of these rules?

I really can't say I care for these rules as they are now, other than the ability to create pods and synths.

Q. 4 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 1)

I don't have an opinion on the discount itself; the stuff before it is what I'm more concerned about.

Q. 5 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 2)

Actual math aside, the process is just about right. It's complex enough that the created morphs feel different from other morphs, but not so complex it requires major math wrangling.

Q. 6 – GMs, would you ever let your players use this unsupervised?

At present, no. The very low cost of implants is especially open to abuse.

Q. 7 – Mechanical retconnage

I think that, as noted above, the 30 CP Exalt morph having a cost almost three times that amount (and at least 15 CP more than the Remade morph) using these rules is a good indication they're unbalanced.

I've grown tired of this body
Cumbersome and heavy body
I've grown tired of this body
Fall apart without me, body

-"Body," Mother Mother

Janusfaced Janusfaced's picture
I welcome the retconage.

Q. 1 - How did you review the material in this draft?

Simple reading. I tried to create my own Excel spreadsheet, but kindalas's is better than mine, so I use it.

Q. 2 - What's the most critical problem you've identified in these rules?

Aptitude Bonuses. Is it possible to take negative modifier, like Case morph's "–5 to one chosen aptitude"? If it is, negative Aptitude Bonuses would be abused.

Skill Bonuses. Why 0.5 multiplier is applyed for skill, while it isn't for Apptitude? Is there any limit on Freerunning and Freefall (sometime work a place of Fray), and Unarmed Combat? It sounds "+50 for Unarmed Combat with 25 Real CP" is possible.

Augmentations limit. Is it too many "Max 10 for each price category"? I feel "Max 10 on total, exclude standard augmentations" is more balanced.

Cost Multiplier Table. I coudn't figure what Cost Multiplier I should select. How to determine a morph is under "Costly R&D" or cheap one? And how to determine Cost Multiplier between 1.5 to 2.0 about a Costly R&D morph? I prefer more concrete guidelines, like "If a morph has +10 aptitude bonus, its Cost Multiplier is 1.5 (Costly R&D).".

Q. 3 - What's the best part of these rules?
Being able to make my own morph! Yes, there is no rule about test modifiers and timeframe. But it is enough for players at char-gen phase.

Q. 4 - How do you feel about the math? (Part 1)

I feel it will be simpler to combine two multipliers into just one. I mean, if Adjusted Cost Multiplier is 0.25 and Final Cost Multiplier is 1.6, it should be 0.4 (0.25 * 1.6).

That said, most of published morphs are close with the 25% discount, so the number is fine.

Q. 5 - How do you feel about the math? (Part 2)

I don't mind about complexity. Spreadsheets will take care.

Q. 6 - GMs, would you ever let your players use this unsupervised?

I hope so. But I'd like to have some safeguard against extreme min-maxing. For example, some features (+15 for one aptitude) should need Gamemaster approve.

Q. 7 - Mechanical retconnage.

I welcome the retconage. When I design a variant of existing morph, it is very convenience its CP Cost is match with morph creation system and I must work at only a small fraction of it.

Your average, everyday, normal, plain and dull transhuman

Janusfaced's outpost(writtern in Japanese)
http://janusfacedsoutpost.blog.fc2.com/

jackgraham jackgraham's picture
wrapping up comment

Hey, all.

Thanks so much for your feedback. I'm currently tabulating the responses so far so that we can make some decisions. I'm not going to lock this thread, but responses posted after this comment may or may not be given consideration.

J A C K   G R A H A M :: Hooray for Earth!
  http://eclipsephase.com :: twitter @jackgraham @faketsr :: Google+Jack Graham

riffraffarmageddon riffraffarmageddon's picture
Morph Creation Q and A

Q. 1 – How did you review the material in this draft?
Did you try them out in actual play with your group? For how many sessions? Using what kind of PCs? Did you crunch some numbers in a marathon character generation session? Or simply read through them with a critical eye?

A. 1 - This material was meticulously read and evaluated. Several characters were very quickly drawn up as best as possible. Many numbers were crunched.

Q. 2 –What's the most critical problem you've identified in these rules?
Is there an endemic problem you think is underlying this rules set? Is this material too complicated for your liking? Is there a specific rules item you think is egregiously broken and needs to be fixed? Is there anything that you simply think *must* be changed?

A. 2 - The most critical problem that I found was that there were only two pages of rules. It sort of shows how important the game creators think this is to give it such a short cursory overview. The cost multiplier table is woefully inadequate. Instead of saying "A good lab setup" why not describe it like "Character must have access to or purchased a tools shop or tools facility." Also, what the hell is a morph that has a unique look? This is a universe where people can be robots that look like giant snakes, or bugs, or an exotic she goddess. How about saying, "A singularly unique form that is so exotic that it stands out in all crowds, ie. an eight foot tall troll, or a quivering ball of intelligent goo." I would recommend being a LOT more descriptive in the Cost Multiplier Table.

There is also a huge problem with saying that anything under 20 points causes clanking mass social stigma. Did I miss something here? When I look at any synth morph no mater the cost they all have that social stigma. Why do only the cheep ones have it now? Seriously did I miss some version upgrade to the rules or something? In short you really should expand on what mandatory stigmas must remain with all potential morphs. For example what about the Neotenics, do they still get a stigma if you design one yourself. To be honest I like the idea of being able to remove these stigma by doing a different design. However, I would like to know that its actually a possibility and not something I just read into the few rules that exist.

Q. 3 – What's the best part of these rules?
Is there anything that you absolutely loved? Something that you sincerely think *must* make it into the final version? Anything that really contributes to the game in a positive way? Something that shouldn't be changed?

A. 3 - The best part is that the game creators are actually thinking about this, and I personally think its about time. What disappoints me about that is that this system SHOULD have been developed and employed at the beginning of game creation. That way you might of avoided making stupid f@*#ing space wales. The most positive thing about this is that it can be done. There isn't anything in the two pages of rules that makes me drool, but the concept must remain, and the concept must make it into the game.

Q. 4 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 1)
The 25% discount to all of the elements comprising a morph was roughly arrived at by taking the costs for all morphs in EP core, eliminating a couple of extremely expensive/cheap outliers, and averaging the amount by which they discount their component parts. Is this too much of a discount, too little, or about right?

A. 4 - The 25% rule is fine. However, it disappoints me that you had to through out the outliers. As mentioned earlier, if a system like this had been in place from the very beginning there wouldn't be any outliers.

Q. 5 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 2)
Is it overly complex? Would you prefer something that makes fewer attempts to enforce game balance, but is simpler? Or would you prefer to introduce additional complexity if it meant finer game balance?

A. 5 - The math was very easy and mostly done in my head. I would have no problem if you added more to your equations. However, that's coming from somebody who does his own taxes... and I itemize. Something you need to keep in mind is that multiplying a negative number by whatever adjustment cost multiplier isn't going to do anything... because is still a negative damn number. I think this is a potential problem with your math, but that's just my opinion.

Q. 6 – GMs, would you ever let your players use this unsupervised?
The rules are written to be adjudicated by the GM, but the intent is that it be low maintenance – EP GM's have enough work to do! Are the checks on keeping a player from devising something completely broken adequate to the task?

A. 6 - What do you mean "unsupervised?" what the hell are we kindergartners? If I GM (and that sucks) I would demand that the player character produce the entire morph so that I could then spot-check it. I in no way shape or form would go through the entire process with them. Yes they can be "unsupervised."

Q. 7 – Mechanical retconnage.
Many core book morphs don't come out to their original CP costs under this system. Is this OK, or a problem? If you decided to use this system, would you change the costs on core book morphs in your campaign?

A. 7 - Yes this is a problem. In fact it rubs me so raw I actually signed up to this forum to complain. As mentioned earlier, if you had a system in place from the beginning this wouldn't be a problem. Its almost as if the game creators have painted themselves into a corner, turned around, and "Shit! how did we do that?" Come on guys how can you suddenly discover that the "cost value" of certain morphs don't jive with your story line at this stage of the game? I can understand how some expensive "specialty" morphs can be inserted for various reasons. However, to determine that a morph can potentially be so cheep that it neutralizes the concept of the indentured info morph is a little lame. If I used this system I wouldn't change the cost of the original Core morphs. That's your job, for the day when you do EP version 2.

Hate You Can Trust!

Axel the Chimeric Axel the Chimeric's picture
Q1 - I reviewed it mostly via

Q1 - I reviewed it mostly via testing it out a little and talking about it with friends from my EP group.

Q2 - The most critical problem I've identified is that the math isn't right. A standard Exalt, by this math, would cost 50 CP just for the aptitude bonuses alone.

Q3 - Giving players a chance to design their own morphs can be a great part of morphological freedom. I actually used a player-made system as a part of a previous game involving a morph designer character of much repute, and it led to the creation of an Ammonite morph for a neo-octopus.

Q4/5 - See 2. The math's easy but doesn't line up with the book.

Q6 - Unsupervised? Yes. I'd still require approval, though.

Q7 - This is the biggie. I've started using morph pool rule variants with my players and a big part of that is whipping up random morph varieties on the fly. The increased cost attached to custom morph design means that players will be more inclined to go with "off the rack" styles of morph, rather than add to transhumanity's strange and bizarre ecosystem.

Apologies that this is glib, it's late at night and I am tired.




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