|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 14, 2009 12:13:18 GMT -5
I don't think it's a coincidence that some GMs outright ban the inventing action from their games. And Neros you are fortunate if you've never had to deal with the invention action in any of your campaigns. But that also means you haven't seen firsthand how imbalancing it can be the longer a campaign runs.
I don't want to ban Invention. I understand that it is a fun action and allows playes to be creative. BUT I do want it to have some balancing factors to it so that GMs won't want to ban it from their campaigns anymore just because they don't want to deal with it/actively have to regulate it.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 14, 2009 13:09:38 GMT -5
Im aware of how imbalancing it can be on the long run, even though I havent experienced it.. As said, I agreed that it needed balancing..
Hmm.. Now that i look at it, what you are suggesting WfF, reminds me about the Arsenal Modifier..
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 14, 2009 13:14:51 GMT -5
What about this. Each issue Inventor gets an Inventing Pool= 3x Inventing AN in stones. Inventor may use these stones to invent obviously, or to "deploy" an invention that issue. The cost to deploy an invention = 1/3 the cost of the invention. So if the invention is really expensive, it's going to be hard to deploy it too frequently.
And if you want to keep inventing better and better stuff, you have to think about managing your inventing pool, so that you'll have stones to actually "deploy" the stuff that you made?
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2009 13:25:22 GMT -5
lol VJC, that's disturbingly similar to my mechanic! Dio won't like it.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 14, 2009 14:30:24 GMT -5
(EDIT: Have to catch up reading...)
TWF.. you can't POSSIBLY have played a DnD 3.5 game without knowing what I'm talking about... Did you ever craft an item? You had to pay 1/25th it's GP cost in XP... And losing experience is the equivalent of forgetting what you've done in the past.... Think about it...
If ANYTHING like that is incorporated into this system, I'll boycott this entire forum.... I know it may seem irrational, but vjc hit one of my TRUE rpg Hatreds with this one. No means no, I don't care if I have to tear down all of Babylon with my bare hands! NO!
Now back to rational speech...
You're right that there needs to be balance, and TWF's original idea was balanced IMO, and I liked it... (Gadgeteer) But I wanted to keep a way in the game to create permanent items, not just well this issue..... So how bout this as a compromise... Gadgeteer comes in, and does it's thing, and the items can be permanent at GM approval... This way, it leaves the decision up to the GM.
Either way, I don't like limiting invention in the first place, but I'll go with the majority... Except for the LoE thing... Never!
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 14, 2009 14:35:48 GMT -5
Now that I've caught up to the current read.... TWF... I never said I didn't like your Gadgeteer idea... I liked it, I just think it's a baby Inventing, and we have to somehow incorporate permenant items within it.
That being said... vjc may have hit on the solution...Invent all you want... can you bring out your big guns.... I like that... Though we should allow Intelligence to play a factor... so How bout (3x Inventing AN)+Intelligence in the pool...
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2009 14:59:29 GMT -5
(EDIT: Have to catch up reading...) TWF.. you can't POSSIBLY have played a DnD 3.5 game without knowing what I'm talking about... Did you ever craft an item? You had to pay 1/25th it's GP cost in XP... And losing experience is the equivalent of forgetting what you've done in the past.... Think about it... OKay, here's the reason why I didn't think that was what you were talking about. It has nothing to do with anything that's been proposed.[/quote] No one at any point ever suggested that we mimic the D&D rule. If you misunderstood what I said, I'm sorry if I wasn't blatantly clear about what I meant. I will be blatantly clear now. Imagine you have a character who has Powered Armor. They have a Proton Canon that is basically a Force Blast AN 7. They want it to be a little stronger, more like AN 8 and Efficient, right? Well I suggest they spend LOEs on that. There is no reason to get Inventing involved. Improving a weapon system in that fashion is NO DIFFERENT than a normal hero character with a Force Blast AN 7 spending LOEs to achieve the same purpose. The only difference between imporoving a Proton Canon and a Force Blast is flavour. Flavour and absolutely nothing else. Involving a different mechanic is akin to insanity. That's all I've been saying. You read way, way, way too much into it, and I'm sorry for my part in that confusion. The thought that you would read the whole D&D item creation system into it never occurred to me. Fortunately no one is suggesting that, or anything even remotely similar, so let's never mention it again, mmkay? How about this: When you come up with a mechanic that allows players to create useful equipment that is BALANCED, we'll talk about it. If you do so, please make your own thread, as this thread is for my Inventing Action. Until you come up with something like that, 1.0 Inventing is officially dead as a doorknob. It is the most poorly conceived rule in 1.0. Fun, sure, but hideously broken. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 14, 2009 15:00:38 GMT -5
Uh.... you didn't say anything about spending LoE...
vjc did... haven't you been reading who I've been railing against?
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 14, 2009 15:02:16 GMT -5
He said this
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2009 15:07:51 GMT -5
(as an aside, I hate that the default text size for quotes is 1. lol I can hardly read them sometimes.)
Sorry, I didn't read that the first time - I really thought you were talking about something I said. Hence why it seemed to come entirely out of left field.
Anyway, my point stands: It shouldn't matter whether you get your powers from a device you built, a mutation, or a talking cat with a moon-shaped mark on its forehead that grants you cosmic powers: If you want to improve your CAD, do it the way everyone else does.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by UrbanBlue on Feb 14, 2009 18:08:00 GMT -5
I made this thread actually.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2009 18:22:45 GMT -5
Oh, sorry, you're right. ^__^ I had been intending to make my own thread, but you beat me to it.
I came across as a little possessive there - not my intention, but there it is. As always, if someone has something else to offer, I'm all ears.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by UrbanBlue on Feb 14, 2009 18:25:09 GMT -5
Oh, sorry, you're right. ^__^ I had been intending to make my own thread, but you beat me to it. I came across as a little possessive there - not my intention, but there it is. As always, if someone has something else to offer, I'm all ears. ~TWF It's cool. I like Invention, personally, although I've never used it. However, I agree that it needs to be limited.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 15, 2009 6:24:47 GMT -5
*Raises Hand*... Just noticed something, isent this more a Modifier than a Action?
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 15, 2009 11:51:24 GMT -5
I think the Inventing Stone Pool combined with "Deployment" cost mechanic is probably the most straightforward solution to properly limiting inventing without crippling it. Invent as much as you want, but to bring out your inventions will cost stones from your pool.
This also makes it more of a resource management game. The player needs to make intelligent decisions on how they want to spend their inventing resources. Should I spend more stones on inventing improvements this turn or do I save up my stones to bring out a really powerful invention this issue? Etc.
|
|