Quick Fixes for Techno Wiz Construction Rules

[grandmaster z0b]

I've just been going over the TW construction rules (which I know has been discussed here many times but I didn't want to necro an old thread) and obviously they need some fairly judicial GM oversight. Which I think is a good thing.

That being said, a couple of tweaks to the rules here and there could really improve the system.

Firstly some guidelines around the Device Level would help. Perhaps the Device Level must be at least half the level of the main spell? Or if the main spell is levels 1-5 you can make it level one but for levels 6-10 they must be a minimum of level 6 and for levels 11-15 the minimum is level 11... or something along those lines.

Secondly fixing the arbitrary nature of the gems would help. For example change Annihilate and Void from Lapis Lazuli to Sapphire (Black) – a change from 5000 credits per carat to 20 000.
Change Cloak of Darkness and Shadow Meld from Sapphire (black) to Obsidian (a new one not on the current list) at 500 credits per carat. Adding Shadow Meld to armor was absurdly expensive for no reason and Annihilate was stupidly cheap.

Also requiring high level spells to be flawless and/or special coloured gems would go a long way as would requiring powerful devices to have a single gem = the total carats rather than lots of smaller ones.


Thoughs? What are other people's rules?

[eliakon]

I once toyed around with requiring the spells levels in carets of gems. (so that level 11 spell needs 11 carets of gems, and multiples are in 11...so you get the a reduction at 22 carets not 12....it ended up being TOO expensive...but I think I would probably still use the first part)

[FatherMorpheus]

I have a spread sheet I use for the start of my TW Items. Then I tweak them to fit the flavor of the item or overall GM feeling.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key= ... UQUE&hl=en

From there I've been known to tweak the gems required, spells required, etc.

TW items are 1/3rd math and crunching the numbers, 1/3rd creation of a piece of art and 1/3rd the GM figuring out what works for their game.

[guardiandashi]

I once toyed around with requiring the spells levels in carets of gems. (so that level 11 spell needs 11 carets of gems, and multiples are in 11...so you get the a reduction at 22 carets not 12....it ended up being TOO expensive...but I think I would probably still use the first part)

what if there was a solid ratio between large gems, large "flawless gems, and (many) small gems

IE an item requires 20 carets of gem
if its a large "minimal flaws" gem ~15 carets would work
a single 10-12ish perfect, flawless gem would also work
small flawless ~1/2 caret gems you would need ~20-25 carets to get it to work

[Shark_Force]

there is no formula that will ever work on its own. formulas are great for many things. letting players design their own material for games is not one of those things; they are valuable in real life for understanding the relationship between different things and as a result, what you can do with those things. but if you want to have a formula that can govern how to make your game function, you're going to need to make a game that runs on real-life physics, and the relevant formulas you can use will be those of real life physics.

what a formula *can* do a decent job of when it comes to creating new content is to provide guidelines. now, I'm certainly not going to suggest that the existing TW rules do a great job of that. but to put it bluntly: the only "quick fix" for TW construction as a means of allowing players to introduce their own ideas into the game is that the player proposes the idea, the GM discusses it with the player and approves, denies, or modifies the proposed idea base on what (s)he will allow in the game, and then you go from there, with the understanding that on occasion the rules may need to be changed or even completely ignored to arrive at a desirable result.

in any event, adding more complications has seldom resulted in a "quick fix" for anything.

[grandmaster z0b]

Yeah I agree that all systems will need GM guidance, however as I said in the OP I think a few changes to the current system would go a long way.

Gems are something I really wanted to look at. I was thinking of things a low level Techno Wiz could make with the basic spell list and wanted to make a Shadow Meld cloak. The thing is for no apparent reason the gem for shadow meld costs 20 000 credits per carat whereas Annihilate only costs 5000. I don't think the cost of every gem should be proportional to the spell level however there could be some refinement to some of these things which would go a long way without making things more complicated.

[Mack]

One thing I'd include were I to redesign the TW rules is the level of the primary spell. It should affect the complexity of the design, thus affecting PPE construction cost, activation cost, etc. As is, some of the high level spells can be made as device level 1 with no ill effects.

[grandmaster z0b]

One thing I'd include were I to redesign the TW rules is the level of the primary spell. It should affect the complexity of the design, thus affecting PPE construction cost, activation cost, etc. As is, some of the high level spells can be made as device level 1 with no ill effects.

Yeah I agree, something like the minimum level should be half the level of the primary spell plus one for every secondary spell?

[Shark_Force]

*shrug* it can be improved, but ultimately, if you care to put in the effort you can exploit it one way or the other.

[grandmaster z0b]

*shrug* it can be improved, but ultimately, if you care to put in the effort you can exploit it one way or the other.

Well I still think it's better to try a couple of basic things, otherwise you may as well just give up on the process altogether and just go back to pure GM fiat.

[Galroth]

I think the easiest fix possible is to simply cap the amount the cost can be decreased from the base cost of the primary spell. I'd say cap it at 50% of what the primary spell costs. That way you can't build 1 PPE annihilate guns, but you can still achieve decent efficiency by paying more.