Hey gang, shared these early on Facebook, but since some of you aren't on there...

All da docs on da Google Drive folder: drive.google.com

Quickstart Rulebook (1.1): drive.google.com
Full Rulebook (1.2): drive.google.com
All About Cryoburn: drive.google.com or hdxent.com
Colony Summaries: drive.google.com or hdxent.com
- Colony Packet: Interim: drive.google.com
- Colony Packet: Korella: drive.google.com
- Colony Packet: Okyanos: drive.google.com
- Colony Packet: Euphoria: drive.google.com
- Colony Packet: Equilibrium: drive.google.com
- Colony Packet: Glass: drive.google.com
Guns Classifications: drive.google.com



Edited 11 times. Last edit at 04/06/14 08:30PM

(Answering a question from Facebook

OK, your point cap is going to work a bit differently in FI2 versus how it worked in FI1, which was a legacy from MJ. (This will be explained in the main rulebook, which is still coming.) Instead of an ever-increasing campaign maximum based on number of events in, there is instead a static character maximum that can never be exceeded. Your personal CP cap will start at 150 for new characters or per the table for ye veterans. It will increase by 50 every event you play. You will be able to buy cap increases in the UP shop once per season, just as you did in FI1.

The character maximum is 2100 CP, representing the pinnacle of human capability. This is the number for two reasons: it represents mastering (reaching Theory Level 5) in three disciplines by spending 700 CP in each. It also would be the maximum a character could reach, if they attended every game in this planned five-year arc, purchased a cap increase every season, and attended each summer and winter one-day event. (And actually, it lets you miss one thing, because if my math is right that would put you at a 2150 cap after five years.)

(This is also the maximum cap for any NPC character, though we generally keep them in line with or lower than whatever the current player group is at. But yes, even the biggest boss character at FI2 is going to be capped in this way.)

Added quickstart rulebook.

I knew something was messing with my number compulsiveness...
Mastery (if defined by having level 5 theory) is 500 CP spent in a discipline, not 700

20, 80, 180, 320, 500 are the level markers.
Not that I'm advocating at all capping the max at 1500, but you're going to have people with level 5 theory in three disciplines, assuming they have access to 3 somehow and focus them exclusively,(and go to every event, and take the cap increases), as early as year 4 (300 veteren start plus 400 CP x 3 years). If that's something wanted to prevent, you need to tweak some numbers.

Realistically, not everyone will focus only their core disciplines. But realistically, not everyone will find a way to get to 3 science branches, either, so you'll have dual level 5 theories popping up by the end of year two.

The theory level markers have been changed to 20, 100, 200, 400, and 700 CP.

This will be explained in full detail on the complete rulebook.

I'm still digesting this cryoburn mechanic, it definitely changes the complexion and speed of the new colony's progression.

I haven't seen the new rules as a whole yet, but if it is increasing the requirements to 700 points for Theory 5, that means a new character devoting everything to their primary would take 11 cap raises, assuming they focused all of their attention on getting it. Meanwhile, for someone looking to go to a second Discipline that is 14 cap raises after that colonist makes it to their first at 5. Maybe this is a conscious design choice to make it rarer to hit 5, if so... Neat, that's a nifty new choice.

As an additional concern, if they wanted to buy Level 5 Skills at 50 points per, they would need to shell that out on top of the 700 they already laid out to get there.

---

My biggest concern here is that whereas now it is possible for people to "catch up" to the point leaders by attending games and purchasing the cap raise catch ups, if everyone is able to purchase one each season there will be no way to catch up and the early lead will remain. It will also put extraordinary pressure on players to purchase cap raises just to keep up with the Joneses doing so.

This is aggravated if someone Finals part way through the game and restarts. As those who have had to do it can attest, it is often a frustrating process to start off from square one with nothing. When there was a conceivable method of catch up, this wasn't as bad. Now, it creates problems.

Suggestions have been made previously to create a rolling starting cap that progresses as the game does, as well as possibly a rolling starting CP; a suggestion was also made to allow "fast catch up" until a player had caught up to the current max. I think these merit consideration, rather than a method that starts the players off on an uneven footing and keeps it in place perpetually.

I haven't seen the whole rulebook, so maybe I'm missing something, but I wanted to offer some feedback on these big changes from the Beta rules we all last saw.

[Edit] Just saw Telmo's post above. Huh. That is a big, really big shift for 5. Really really big.

---

-Josh Marcus
Head of Plot, FI 3



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 01/04/14 01:22AM

I gotta agree with Josh. Lets leave aside the fact that being in a coalition doesn't count towards any of the discipline... so, since that's one of the ways you got access to three disciplines, it effectively means you can't use that to master three disciplines.

It becomes nearly impossible to master 2 disciplines without buying cap increases every year, if you go outside your discipline at all. If you join a coalition and buy even the basic levels ofthose skills, that probablability falls to zero

Worse, this means it becomes fundamentally impossible for anyone joining in year 3 and beyond to max 2 disciplines at all. Never mind catch up, they can't even hope to become reasonably powerful.

Assuming you want new players to continue joining, this seems to be a fundamentally flawed decision

This discussion doesn't seem to be as much about cryoburn, but about point caps and character progression.

I can address the specific concerns about theory level price points. This post does not address concerns about point leaders being able to buy cap raises.


Josh:

Making it more difficult to reach levels in a specific discipline is a conscious choice. This increases the potential lifespan of technology development, makes very advanced technology less common, and rewards specialization in a system where it is easier to do bits of everything.

Level 5 effects are big, and skills based on them are costly. Similar exclusive, 50 point skills already exist, like assassinate. It does take more CP than before to gain access to them.


Chris:

Some of your points are based on assumptions on what coalition skills are, how they work, and how they tie into the disciplines. You are further assuming that coalition skills are required to master a discipline, as opposed to 'mastering a discipline' meaning 'able to do level 5 procedures'.

Coalition skills are FOIG. I can't have a discussion on those, since I don't know how they are implemented. But I do trust on the cast members of rulescomm to take point requirements, point caps, and and how they interact with disciplines and procedures, if at all, into account when creating and pricing these skills.

On catching up, you are moving the goalposts with respect to theory levels -- level 5 is now 700 CP, so you consider catching up to 700 CP, rather than catching up to whichever level the other characters are. A character that starts 300 CP behind the character with most CP will be 300 CP behind, no matter the theory level markers.

Telmo, I'm not moving goalposts, I'm using the ones established in post two, and discussed on facebook. And pont caps are discussed in this thread, and the character max is specifically referenced in this thread.

Unless you completely changed the rules, there's only two disciplines that can be chosen as favored, and you need some in-game mechanic to gain access to a third, one of which has been coalition skills. Another of which is a perk, which, under a previous discussion in the rules beta, don't count towards theory. If there are others beyond that, I don't know of them (which is no great surprise) or you added them in since the beta.

So If, on the one hand, a stated goal of rulescomm is to make maxing 3 disciplines the pinnacle of human existance, and if most / all of the methods of accessing that third science involve spending points that don't grant theory, then you render it almost impossible / impossible to do

Catching up should be defined as "being able to do some of the cool stuff the people who have been playing can do." If three is the height of awesomeness, two (which they can select at the beginning) should be at least possible for as long as you'd like a shot at new members. Starting year 3, there are not enough points, even if they stick only to their disciplines exclusively, for a new player to max 2 sciences. 1350 points available if they start the first event of the season and buy a cap increase every season.

If the game were openended, none of this would matter, but you have a fixed timeline announced. Which means anyone looking at the rulebook can see that "level 5 biochemist" is unobtainable if they join in 2015.

I'm not griping for me. I obviously do not play my character to be a minimax badass. But requiring 700 points in discipline and capping a PC at 2100 means, effectively, almost nobody will be able to max 3 disciplines, because almost everyone will need some skill, at some point, outside of their disciplines... like, perhaps, gathers? Surely the production people will need them, and they don't count towards production, so every point spend there is now unavailable for getting to level 5 somewhere.

If there's no room for flexability of build at all (in terms of going outside core disciplines) then nobody will obtain what was just established as the peak of humanity. If rulescomm is specifically trying to make that impossible, why list is as the reason for the PC point cap?

There is more flexibility of build than you are describing; this is not new in this version of the new ruleset.

A character doesn't need to have a discipline as favored in order to be able to spend points in it. It is a valid character build to buy 100 CP worth of technician skills in each of the 8 disciplines, having access to level 2 procedures in each of them. Or anything else listed on the table of skills, under each discipline, not between parenthesis. (For example, first aid, tend minor wounds, and 3x biology technician give a character biology theory 2, even if biology is not a favored discipline.) All of those skills count towards theory in that discipline.

1350 points allow for reaching level 5 in a discipline and level 4 in another, with 250 CP spare (plus survival skill). Or level 4 in 3 disciplines, with 150 CP spare. There is still opportunity to build powerful generalist characters there, even if not reaching the maximum on more than one discipline.

Telmo, I love you, but you're avoiding the point.
Quote :The character maximum is 2100 CP, representing the pinnacle of human capability. This is the number for two reasons: it represents mastering (reaching Theory Level 5) in three disciplines by spending 700 CP in each.

Now the phrase "mastery" to me surely implies "has access to applied theory and knacks" which only applies to favored theories
Quote : Favored Discipline
If a Discipline is considered favored, you gain access to Applied Theory and Knacks.  See the
Science Compendium for more information on these abilities.
(Page 28 of the beta rules)

If rulescomm wants it mathematically impossible to master three sciences, that's fine. Come out and say it.
My statements about what you have to do to try and come close to mastery in three sciences stand. It surely isn't my character's goal, but if it's being discussed as the pinnacle of human possibilities in the rules, then it is likely someone's goal.
Moving the levels back to 500 and capping a PC at 1600 (and allowing the reallocation of points, at 50 per event once you get to the point cap, so you lose some skills and gain others) would make it more possible for people joining late, or those who get finaled, to have a chance at a relatively strong character starting over.

If someone finals at spring II, 2016, and they're 900-1100 points behind most people, do they come back?

>
> If someone finals at spring II, 2016, and they're
> 900-1100 points behind most people, do they come
> back?
>

I am baffled by this statement. If people only play a LARP for the points, then they might be missing the point. This is just how larps work. At larps I play, I have voluntarily retired characters that were at the top of the point scale and started over with a new character. Why? Because the I was engaged with the setting and characters, but wanted a new perspective and experience. Point and power differences never entered into my thought process.

It concerns me greatly that some of our players wouldn't come back because they had lost their points from character death. We would have failed as plot writers if that person did not feel intrigued by the setting and wanted to continue to enjoy the game.

---

Brian Paul!
-Prop Boss, Plot Team, Rules Comm, Other Stuff

I appreciate the love.

You are correct: I only referenced theory level markouts, and pointed what seemed to be misunderstandings. How many points to level 5, point caps, character progression, and how many disciplines a character is expected to cover completely are related topics, and I focused only on the first of these. I figured a partial reply would be better than a later reply.

I am waiting on other members of rulescomm for a discussion on the other topics.

Brian,
Part of the rules feedback in July came from people who joined late and felt underpowered compared to everyone else. Worse, they felt underpowered compared to the bad guys.

Allowing everyone to buy cap increases regardless of current level makes that worse, not better. A PC point cap helps with that, but no twhen its basically the most you could get anyway.

Raising the price (in CP) of level 5 effectively limits when you can come into game and hope to achieve level 5 in a science or two, because the game is finite. If it were open-ended, starting over isn't a big deal, because you will get to what you hope to achieve eventually. If you want to be able to do X, and there's no way your character can do that with the time remaining in the game, do you start over anyway, or find another game to play?

Does that mean everyone cares about that? Of course not. But anyone spending 300 up a year buying and filling cap increases probably cares at least a little about having a high end character.

You're not that player. If you look at my stat sheet, I'm not that player. That doesn't mean one shouldn't take that player's idea of fun into account. That's the biggest justification for allowing anyone, no matter their points level, to buy a cap increase. But it's a double edged sword if the game is finite. If someone needs to have a gimel dual-5 Combat / Physics badass, and they final, then what? If they have a friend who plays like them, can they join in season 4?

The harder you make it to achieve mastery of one science, the greater the barrier to (re)entry of the game later on, because it's a 5 year game.

I'm half with you on this one Chris. I really don't want the Cap raise to be available to everyone. It works best as a device that allows players to make up for a missed event or for coming into the game late/finaling. Yes, the story and world are an important part of the game but there is a ruleset for a reason and allowing or encouraging players to buy a cap raise when they have already attended every game and should be at cap basically gives me the feel of buying a more powerful character. I don't think players with more money should have stronger characters. Even if more UP opportunities were given it still feels that it is giving an advantage to players with more time/money outside of the game and I don't like it.
That being said I think making it harder to reach level 5 (or 3 or 4) theory was a good idea. That level of science or combat should be reserved as something which is difficult to do. If the amount needed for each level of theory was left as it was there would have been players entering the game with level 4 theory and having level 5 by the first spring event and that's just too fast.

I'm half with you on this one Chris. I really don't want the Cap raise to be available to everyone. It works best as a device that allows players to make up for a missed event or for coming into the game late/finaling. Yes, the story and world are an important part of the game but there is a ruleset for a reason and allowing or encouraging players to buy a cap raise when they have already attended every game and should be at cap basically gives me the feel of buying a more powerful character. I don't think players with more money should have stronger characters. Even if more UP opportunities were given it still feels that it is giving an advantage to players with more time/money outside of the game and I don't like it.
That being said I think making it harder to reach level 5 (or 3 or 4) theory was a good idea. That level of science or combat should be reserved as something which is difficult to do. If the amount needed for each level of theory was left as it was there would have been players entering the game with level 4 theory and having level 5 by the first spring event and that's just too fast.

TLDR version: Huge Theory point requirements create problems for new/returning players and for preserving/fostering the current distributions of skills/gathers and play balance. It might be better to eliminate the accelerated start of cryoburn, not raise Theory requirements. And/Or keep the Theory requirements low for a character's either first or Favored Discipline(s).

The concern that Gathers are getting shunted out is a valid one, because so many points are required for mastery of a discipline. To combat this, I bring up some suggestions below that have been made previously for how to allow for taking a number of skills that are relatively required for certain builds/the colony's economy to function to contribute to the larger Theory totals proposed. Chris made a great breakdown of this on the Beta board a while back, and this is basically referring back to what came out of that discussion. This kinda needs to be addressed by RulesCom, particularly if we're keeping 700 across the board.


Full Discussion:

I think the point being missed that Chris is trying to express is that while "power" per se is not meant to be the driving interaction for most people's Larp experiences at FI, relative ability to impact the game world and futility of attempting to make a mark on our world directly impacts most people's enjoyment of the game world. We pride ourselves on giving players an impact on the world.

As an extremely important aside, we have seen Level 1 Procedures have big impacts on the world, from Chocolate and Coffee to Resist Quickdeath and the Lontrip Battle Stim. Big science is not needed to make a big splash, sometimes being able to do something cheaply and repeatably is more important, even if it isn't perfect. Even more importantly, I've seen players have huge impacts without spending a single skill simply by having an amazing Roleplaying moment where they persuade a major NPC to change their mind, or inspire a minor NPC to step up and take a leadership role in the colony, or suggest a plan more "powerful" PCs overlooked.

Even so, objecting to precluding colonists from ever reaching the playing field at the highest levels in at least one area, or rendering it prohibitively expensive, is a reasonable concern to raise, as it is an aspect of the game that many/most people would like to have the option of participating in.

Even the portion BP is "baffled" by is important to address. If someone Finals, what are we doing with them? Do we want to apply this cryoburn table to Finaled characters to give an accelerated restart to players coming back to the game as a thank you for sacrificing their character to plot/creating a realistic and believable world? If we do not, setting a 700 point hurdle to reach 5 theory makes it extremely difficult for a new/returning PC to ever catch up in even one area.

Chris's other point about inability to diversify is another major question, as although we've seen a small move towards this with Gimels being able to get Guns (and only Guns) counted as Combat. As a result, grabbing Gathers, Vitality, Armor, or Recovery necessitate slowing Theory progression immensely (the exact numbers of which have been dissected before elsewhere on the Beta boards but you could end up with a reasonable 600-700 CP Tav with no Theory levels whatsoever). If more of these skills were incorporated into Disciplines somehow this would be less of a concern.

I kinda like making the higher level Theory harder to access, as I mentioned above and I have mentioned previously during Beta discussion. But I think the current "fix" creates more problems than it solves by stretching things too much. It takes 6 cap raises applied to nothing else to go from Theory 4 to Theory 5. Maybe 600 CP might be less egregious feeling? You've already got to hit 550 to have Theory 5 and a single Level 5 Skill under Beta rules, 100 CP extra to 650 CP is a little more without feeling quite so punitive. It's a tough judgment call. I admire RulesCom for trying to make a point about how outstanding/rare Theory 5 should be. Maybe your Favored Disciplines go 20/80/180/320/500 and un-Favored go 20/100/200/400/700? Just brainstorming things that keeps attaining 5 for one thing feasible while making 5 in multiple hard. Maybe keep 20/80/180/320 for first four levels of everything, and 500 for your first 5 but after you've hit 5 in one thing each one after has to hit 700 to get 5?

The accelerated start that the current Cryoburn rules create causes an incredibly fast progression to Level 5 under the Beta rules for Theory requirements. The problem may not be the "low" cost of Theory under the Beta, but the accelerated start values under Cryoburn as currently implemented. It might be better to estimate the max at 1800 CP, or 1650 CP after 6 events per year for 5 years, and have the current rolling cap for everyone we use with catch up purchases available for those who find themselves behind (also see earlier references to rolling cap and CP and accelerated catch up), and use a lower point requirement to go with the lower pool of points available.

To close, and to address Chris' other very valid concern, here are some possible examples for lumping things into building Theory that I think could work well without breaking everything:
Gathers count for Production for those who Favor it and Tav's.
Gathers count toward particular Sciences (Inorganic=Chem, Organic=Bio, Energy=Physics) either for everyone who Favors them or for Alephs/Tavs.
Putting a version of Repair Device in Physics/Chemistry, or letting the player choose which Favored discipline (Chem/Physics/Production) it will count toward.
Making Diagnose count for one of their Favored Disciplines of Bio/Psych/Production at the player's election (in the same fashion as Repair Device)
Blades (required to even utilize Stealth usually) and Two Weapons counting toward Stealth for those who Favor Stealth and Dalets (60 CP total, to at least be close to Gimels getting Guns for 90 CP)
Letting Gimels/Dalets and those who Favor Combat/Stealth count Armor purchases toward Combat/Stealth. Combined with other suggestions this creates Guns & Armor 150 Combat CP for Gimels, Blades & Two Weapons & Armor 120 Stealth CP for Dalets, Gather Organic 120 Bio CP for Yahmeen, Gather Energy 120 Physics CP & Gather Inorganic 120 Chem CP for 240 CP total for Semohl assuming they favor those two sciences, All Gathers 360 Production CP or 120 CP for each science with a Gather they Favor for Tavs - this could possibly use some tweaking to balance, although Psychologists do get free prepared procedures for interviewing/interrogating, CompSci/Hacker Perks give free Math Sparks, and the current Tav classification ability seems kind of weak, while Blades and Guns and Armor do give unlimited usage of some incredibly useful basic effects.
Vitality: 20/30 instead of 20/40 so fewer points lost (one Cap Raise) that could go to Theory. Or even 20/30/40 to mirror current Vitality totals that have worked just fine so far for us.

---

-Josh Marcus
Head of Plot, FI 3

I will quickly chime in to say:

The problem of people feeling ineffective is because there are foes that require big science and/or a lot of it to defeat. Since NPCs are following the same character building rules as you do, with the new rules this is less of a problem. You do not have to blow through tons of resists (only four enhancement slots), and "constant" effects are now only available through power armor.

So new players will have an opportunity to quickly become far more effective against enemies than in the current game.

Daniel

I've been mostly out of Internet-contact this weekend, so let me be brief while I catch up...

1) Reaching level 5 in a discipline is a huge deal. Enormous accomplishment, go you.

2) Why on earth would we want it to be EASY to reach level 5 in two disciplines, much less three?

3) You have 2100 points to play in. You -could- minmax to reach l5 in three disciplines. Or you could have an extremely powerful character with one strong discipline, on medium discipline, and a host of side skills. (That would be my planned endgame build, if I were a PC: L5 primary, L4 secondary, and a host of Gathers and other side skills.)

4) The game may not reset after the five year mark. Or it may. Depends on what the next HoP decides. Having a human-potential cap does make it easier to potentially continue.

5) Also, while I'm planning for five years, FI1 was planned for "about five years" as well, and ended up running six (with a season-long break before the re-launch). It's entirely possible FI2 will stretch on a bit longer than five years. It depends so much on player action.

6) FI2 is much, much easier to play at lower levels. As Daniel said, "You do not have to blow through tons of resists (only four enhancement slots), and "constant" effects are now only available through power armor." If I send out an adversary with 4x "Dodge," they are going to have to “Bestow Dodge through Tactics to Self” each time they want to use the skill. Which means all you have to do is team up with a buddy and shoot them twice in quick succession with whatever called attack you want to land. So just as BP said in a separate thread, escalation of power is really more about escalation of tactics than just "increase CP to win." This is something that is being overlooked in all arguments of "we must keep up with the Joneses." No, you really needn't.

7) Coalitions, and coalition skills, are going to work significantly differently in FI2 for (mumble mumble) reasons. I am excited for you to find out why in game.

8) Chapman raises a great point. ;-)

tl;dr FI2 is going to play out a lot differently than FI1 for many reasons, and viewing it through the same lens misses many of these important evaluation criteria.

Okay maybe that wasn't that brief. So I get passionate about this game, what of it.

Just as a note, in game design there are different playstyles. Simply put:

Some people get their enjoyment out of story, and may be baffled by others' min-maxing to "win" at individual aspects of the game. These folks may see the system as more of a story-delivery medium that must be navigated through to get to the prizes of plot and thought.

Others enjoy "being the best" at what they do in a game; fulfilling competitive goals within established game mechanics, and may not get what's so important about their competitors' well-written backgrounds.

Still others like to creatively build and explore independent of story- these players may like to find extreme niches that others may not have thought of when the system was designed, and gloss over their level of effectiveness compared to others.

All of these are valid playstyles. The most successful games have mechanics and content that cater to more than one.

That's my input for now. I'm definitely not saying "ERMERGERD THINGS ARE TERRIBLE" (designing any kind of game is not easy work and I appreciate what we have in front of us at this time) but I'm just as passionate as anyone commenting here about making FI 2 the best it can be.

-Will (Orion)

The one thing I am very disappointed in is the loss of key perks that are defining points of a character.

Dr Black has a perk that is specifically to cure deep long term mental disease. How that is implemented in game terms does not matter, I am sure the mechanics will change.
My hope was that continuing characters would have access to re buy those key perks with points once they meet the new per-requirements. I am not interested in role playing complex the trials of learning the basics again, I have already done that. I want to add to the character, not do the same character over again.

I see it as the slow laboratis recovery from cryoburn. Not only memory loss, but you need a stone axe to chop wood to build a forge to make a hammer, that you use to make a better hammer, then a screwdriver, then a engine that you use to create electricity, to make a microchip, ect. Tech from the ground up again takes time to rebuild from the fundamentals. But I don't want to role-play every trial over again. That is now suitable for off camera advancement over time.

Access to buy abilities we went through trials to achieve should be the advantage that a continuing character enjoys, not extra CP to start.

This is an opportunity to do entirely different things with your character. If you choose to repeat your character's story and progression from FI1, that's valid and available. But you can likewise try out entirely new things.

The rules have changed, and that subsystem with it. I hope you enjoy discovering just how much as you explore the new world.

I have a couple points.

I agree characters should develop over time and their life and could change some abilities, but Dr Black is still at the core a university academic and an idealist. He is learning to be a medical professional, and a care provider rather than a theorist and someone who writes research papers. If I wanted to be an explosives tech I would start a new char.

It may happen the rules changed and a mechanics of a perk no longer make sense to exist, but I assume more perks will have a translation that makes your character special in some way that is thematically similar even if the rule specifics change. For example Dr Black has learned over the course of the last several years how to treat mental disease. The mechanics may change but in essence he has run the trials and worked through the learning. He may be addled and damaged from cryo and take some time to get back into stride but that is a core component to his character. I am not excited to re role-play all the same scenarios a second time.

For a better example, if I was a scientist that can and has write an AI, when I thaw I still remember and know how to, but it is going to be years before I have put together the tools and infrastructure and support to write a new AI. That is a process that can be off camera so you can roleplay new experiences.

One of the things I liked about FI was the core concept that If you know something your character knows something, I don't have to memorize a list of things that happened but my char does not remember and consult it in and situation that may fall into what he does not remember.
This is going against that principle.
That is also the main reason why I usually don't play a second character in larps. I don't like having to segregate the knowledge of my new character from the old.

I know that I'm jumping in on this discussion kind of late, but I agree with Josh that the point of "catch-up" is subverted if the top tier players can buy cap increases at the same rate as the newer players.

My suggestion would be a rolling 'per game campaign maximum' where anyone can buy a cap increase, if they are not beyond this 'per game campaign maximum'.

I.E. -

Since the maximum cap a player could start with on Game 1 is 350 points (if they were a 1700+ point character in FI 1), on game 1, the 'per game campaign maximum' would be 350 points and each game, that total would increase by another 50 points up to the 'true' campaign maximum of 2100.

Game 2 is 400, game 3 is 450, etc...

Allowing anyone to buy cap increase up to this maximum would be, in my opinion, a very fair way to handle this.

Personally, I wouldn't even limit the number of increases a person could buy each season under these conditions, because there is no risk of someone fast tracking their way to 2100.

**As an aside, I read the cryoburn and quick guide rules this morning and I LOVE THEM! Going to read the full rule-book tonight, so I can wrap my mind around the new science / engineering mechanics.

I haven't finished the full rulebook yet. I've got about 4 hours left of work on it, and after my exhausting Shed Day yesterday I gave myself today to relax.

Updated with full rulebook!

There are a few pieces missing, as noted within, but this baby has everything you've been clamoring for. Enjoy devouring, and let me know your thoughts! (And yes, I want to know typos and stuff too, but I want to know your overall thoughts much more.)

It's quite pleasing asthetically and the information is easy to find.

Thank you! The whole team worked really hard on that.

I just realized this version doesn't have a clickable TOC. Next version will (click on the chapter and get shortcutted to it).

Thank you for doing the hard work of getting it put together! Yay!

Here are a few things I noticed:

The Sample Characters examples are using the old Theory total requirements, and the old Engineering point cost.

Dodge should specify that it doesn't let you resist Stealth Procedures, unless that's something we want it to do.

With the removal of "Slay" as a call, there should be a way to get a Melee "Pierce", if nothing else for letting plot make Melee-using Encounters. I suppose we could just go with "Damage 5" calls that kill even if we graze an arm or foot, but I prefer having a call that requires hitting a target area rather than just anywhere to have it's effect, and "Pierce" comes with that built in, causing a "Maim" on limbs and "Damage 5" to torso.

Either Ecstasy of Gold is under-costed at 30 CP for 2 Uncommon Resources, or Savvy Farmer is over-costed at 20 CP for 2 Common Resources.

The Mudder Perk should let you Harvest Refined Earth, not Biogel. I'm not sure on the balance level of the amount of work required and the potential number of times you could do it with these Harvesting Perks, but that's something we'll need to see In play to tune, if we need to. For clarity, it should state whether the other people in your group need to have the relevant Perk as well.

If someone picks up multiple Applied [Science] Perks, is a Procedure Analyzed by one Perk Analyzed for the others as well?

There is currently no good reason to get the Automaton Master Perk, instead of a regular Math/Physics Genius Perk. Automaton Master should have some benefit to offset the restriction of only being usable to Target Automata. Also, why Physics (the Science of "Energy") and not Chem (the science of "Matter")? That part's less urgent and more philosophical.

Field Medic lets you remove two levels of effect (convert Heal to Instant Heal) for 1 Genius. This further seems broken to me as it lets you do that with any Healing effect, even Surgery. Can we clarify this so that you can't instantly perform Surgery and remove the attendant implants? "... to remove any time-delay on the healing portion of the effect." The second half of the Perk is great as is.

Technician looks ok, at first blush, I love the new idea for how much complexity you can handle. I'll need time to play with it to figure out if anything is broken.

Engineer looks ok, at first blush, I love the new idea for how much of a positive modifier you can handle. I'll need time to play with it to figure out if anything is broken. I am sad to see Constant Effect go, I think there were ways to balance it without breaking it. Oh well.

Fuel-Efficient: How this interacts with procedures that have different costs will be very wonky. Not necessarily bad, but it means that the same Procedural effect having different costs in different formulations will create very different outcomes despite creating the same effect.

I love that Builder has effectively been incorporated into the Technician and Engineer skills.

For Device Delivery methods, it doesn't state that Combat devices can be Firearms or Blades by default without increasing cost, nor whether Stealth Devices can be Blades by default without increasing their cost. How does this work now?

Personal Armor versions of Smart Armor seem to be impossible. Is this intentional, "propose a Perk" territory, or accidental? Many people don't want to have to wear the bulky prop of Combat Armor and are ok with lesser protection. Is Streamlined Smart Armor meant to be this?

Is it intentionally impossible for someone to have a Power Armor Cybernetic Implant? Or is that a Perk/FOIG?

For Power Armor, can you still use the Uses per Event (or Cost-In/Effect-Out) to deliver the effect to other people? Same question for an Environmental Suit.

The Recursion effects in Math must go up a Level in base effect or, when combined with a limiter, you can get infinite loops/spirals upward.

Related to Melee lack of Slay quibble way above, I believe Backstab should be "Stealth, Pierce".

Efficient User and Recharge Device need to go up a Procedure level or they allow infinite loops and spirals upwards, as has been explored elsewhere on the Beta boards.

I fundamentally dislike the Reverse Engineer procedures, for a variety of reasons that were explored previously. I'd be happy to list them again if needed, as well as possible and proposed solutions.

It will take time to examine the Procedure tables. Thank you for color coding them!!!

Might be more later, but that's my first read.

---

-Josh Marcus
Head of Plot, FI 3

Looks good so far

Math seems much more balanced.

I love how procedures can be used to make simple goods.

I have a minor concern that blades are going to be less usful then before, without picking the stealth school it my not be worth the 20CP.

I know they were a topic of heated debate, but are Knacks gone our will they be part of the “Unlimited Skill” subset, to be included at a later date?

Michel S Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a minor concern that blades are going to be
> less usful then before, without picking the
> stealth school it my not be worth the 20CP.

This is intentional I believe. It is the future and all. Guns, guns, guns!

> I know they were a topic of heated debate, but are
> Knacks gone our will they be part of the
> “Unlimited Skill” subset, to be included at a
> later date?

Knacks no longer exist.

Can you confirm Tend minor wounds should not cure Maim and First aid should?

Stu A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can you confirm Tend minor wounds should not cure
> Maim and First aid should?

Yes, I believe that is correct. Tend Minor Wounds only has the effect of "Bio, Heal 1 Vitality".

First Aid heals Base Vitality, and restores any maimed limbs.

EDIT: Actually, as Josh brought up below, any heal effect would cure the maimed limb. So I should not have said "That is correct"; Tend Minor Wounds does only have the effect of "Bio, Heal 1 Vitality", but since it is a heal effect it will also be curing the maimed limbs.



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 01/17/14 06:43PM

Does Insta-prepare Procedure Work on psychology?

Also I mentioned before we should include a list of examples for Poor, Good, and Luxury consumables so we have a good idea of what level a product we are interested in making falls in plots mind.

I am thinking a ham and cheese sandwich on plane white bread. Is that Poor or Good. Opinions will vary

Daniel E Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stu A Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Can you confirm Tend minor wounds should not
> cure
> > Maim and First aid should?
>
> Yes, I believe that is correct. Tend Minor Wounds
> only has the effect of "Bio, Heal 1 Vitality".
>
> First Aid heals Base Vitality, and restores any
> maimed limbs.

Has it always been like that? I may have been making a mistake...

Found a mistake in the Worker: mudder perk description:

Mudders gather refined earth, not biogels.

I suppose we could leave it that way, but lets not risk a repeat of the mudder/phyco wars

---

Rymaus Liena “Ellie” Dax

If you are on a project team sharing one discipline of genius, tech, eng, and have a perk where you can use you genius-tech-eng interchangeable between two or more disciplines can you "convert" an off discipline genius to make it available to someone in the project?

Stu A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are on a project team sharing one
> discipline of genius, tech, eng, and have a perk
> where you can use you genius-tech-eng
> interchangeable between two or more disciplines
> can you "convert" an off discipline genius to make
> it available to someone in the project?

Seems like that would depend on how your perk works.

EDIT: Someone brought to my attention that you may be asking something like "If you have a perk like Biochemical Scientist, which allows you to use Bio Genius as Chem Genius, could you get in on a Chem Project Team with someone who has that perk, could you use your bio genius as chem genius for the project?"

As per the Biochemical Scientist perk, you could. It is not possible to convert genius to engineering, etc. however.



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 01/17/14 06:37PM

There's a fine difference between "Guns being the future" and not having Melee play any appreciable part.

Also Maim is "removed by any healing, bandaging or 'Cure Maim' Effect." -p31

Regarding interchanging Genius/Engineer/Technician types and then using with Project Management, that does seem to be unclear.

---

-Josh Marcus
Head of Plot, FI 3