[Notebook] Building New Races

[Morgenstern]

At the lower tech end, if you know the majority of the campaign is going to be a case of humans are comfortable, aliens are at terminal risk, it sounds similar to fatal falls and some other narrow vulnerability-based drawbacks. Call it [-0.5] for highly dangerous threat with opportunity for heroic recovery (slowed or nauseated and gasping like a fish for 1-3 minutes before collapsing), [-1.0] for instantaneous drowning checks.

[Sletchman]

How about the other way around?  Creatures that can exist in multiple atmospheres?  Like a space axolotl.

[MilitiaJim]

Dolphins in land-capable power armor for example.

Don't forget the fricken laser beams.

I suspect that if you have aliens with vastly different atmospheric necessities, that would reduce much angst.  Planets inhabited by the others aren't of use to you, but you still can fight for asteroid belt minerals.

[Wolverine]

Creatures that can exist in multiple atmospheres?  Like a space axolotl.

Wouldn't things like that be covered with the aquatic quality?

[Sletchman]

Creatures that can exist in multiple atmospheres?  Like a space axolotl.

Wouldn't things like that be covered with the aquatic quality?

That particular creature was a bad choice because yeah, its Aquatic II.  I couldn't think of anything that could exist in say, Oxygen and Methane.  Or different pressures [say Vacuum and 15psi].  Something bad for most species, but reasonably common, in addition to a neutral common atmosphere [usually an earth replica in most Sci-Fi that I've seen].

[Morgenstern]

How about the other way around?  Creatures that can exist in multiple atmospheres?  Like a space axolotl.

I want you guys to know that working this out is giving me some good ideas for the GMing section . It looks like as long as anyone in the party is going to be expected to be in a terminally hostile environment, everyone in the party will see a -small- XP bump for the added risk, even if it's in the form of potentially having to stop and help a teammate who has lost environmental protection.

For the axolotl, I would model it on the Triton solution (see the thread with my Mastercraft adaptation of Light of Olympus):

[2.0] Like a Fish in Water: You may breathe freely in air or water and suffer no penalties for being submerged.

For other species, just rename the benefit as appropriate and swapping the air and water with the two "common environments" the species can manage. 2 points for addaptation to an extra environment will keep it reasonably rare in design.

[Morgenstern]

Dolphins in land-capable power armor for example.

Don't forget the fricken laser beams.

My cerebrate-dolphins tend more towards the anti-personnel explosive blister charges (sort of like being snuggled up in a blanket made out of claymore mines). They don't have the optical accuity or telemetry-anticipation to handle really long range shots. We, being evolved from poo-flinging monkeys, are quite good at "leading" a moving target compared to many of the sapient races in Farthest Star .

I suspect that if you have aliens with vastly different atmospheric necessities, that would reduce much angst.  Planets inhabited by the others aren't of use to you, but you still can fight for asteroid belt minerals.

The 'big three' of Farthest Star's aliens can all cope with human-norm gas mixes, but some of the second tier will probably take good advantage of the dramatic prospects offered by such threats/challenges.

[Doublebond]

Is farthest star its own system? Or is it a setting/genre that still makes use of the Mastercraft line? I kept hearing about it so I assumed it was the Sci-Fi supplement to Mastercraft, but is that the case?

[Morgenstern]

Farthest Star is my personal intellectual property, consisting of a series of text files, artwork, outlines, and a number of ideas that have not been set down anywhere outside my head. It has been in quiet development for more than 5 years now if I am rembering correctly. As I spent the greater part of the last 2 years creating parts of and working with the Mastercraft system, I'm still thinking in those terms when working on Farthest Star's mechanical aspects because it is convienient for me. There are also a number of posters on this forum who I've enjoyed working with on it, and Mastercreaft represents something of a shared language as we keep up that correspondence.

[Sletchman]

These really should go in the Wiki - took me literally ages to find this thread [ended up having to go through Morg's entire post history to find it].

I'm happy to add it, but the question is how to format it - there are the following differences between this list and the one in the wiki:

1.0pts  = +1 [Any] -1 [Any]  - Listed in the wiki but not here.
3.0/2.5pts = +2 [Any]  - Listed in the wiki as 3pts, but here as 2.5pts.
3.0pts = +2 [Any], +2 [Specific], -2 [Any]  - Listed in the Wiki, but not here.
3.5/4.0pts = +3 [Specific]  - Listed in the Wiki as 3.5pts, but here as 4.0pts
4.5/4.0pts = +3 [Specific] +3 [Specific], -3 [Specific]  - Listed in the Wiki as 4.5pts but here as 4.0pts.

I'm happy with adding the ones that aren't in this list to it, assuming no one disagrees, but we need to decide which costs to have for the ones with differences, we can't have the same value listed at two different costings after all.

[Blankbeard]

These really should go in the Wiki - took me literally ages to find this thread [ended up having to go through Morg's entire post history to find it].

I'm happy to add it, but the question is how to format it - there are the following differences between this list and the one in the wiki:

1.0pts  = +1 [Any] -1 [Any]  - Listed in the wiki but not here.

It's used by Ruthless.  I'd say leave it as it fits in between +1 (Specific A), –1 (Specific B) (0.5) and +1 Any (1.5)

3.0/2.5pts = +2 [Any]  - Listed in the wiki as 3pts, but here as 2.5pts.
3.5/4.0pts = +3 [Specific]  - Listed in the Wiki as 3.5pts, but here as 4.0pts
4.5/4.0pts = +3 [Specific] +3 [Specific], -3 [Specific]  - Listed in the Wiki as 4.5pts but here as 4.0pts.

Trust Morgenstern over me.   

3.0pts = +2 [Any], +2 [Specific], -2 [Any]  - Listed in the Wiki, but not here.

That one's from the Saurian.  He's got +2 [Any], +2 [Specific], -2 [Specific] at 3.5.  I personally don't think that the extra Any is worth another half point, but perhaps it is.  Might list that one as unsure for now, but I guess it can't be less than 3.5

I'm happy with adding the ones that aren't in this list to it, assuming no one disagrees, but we need to decide which costs to have for the ones with differences, we can't have the same value listed at two different costings after all.

I think that's a good idea.  Since it's spring break, I have enough time to look over my spreadsheets and see if I can rebalance the affected talents.   BTW, thanks for pointing this out.  It's the first time I've come across this thread.

[Morgenstern]

These really should go in the Wiki - took me literally ages to find this thread [ended up having to go through Morg's entire post history to find it].

I'm sure that made for some interesting reading .

1.0pts  = +1 [Any] -1 [Any]  - Listed in the wiki but not here.

+1 specific/-1 specific is listed as .5 - adding "any" to a fixed pattern bumpts it up to 1.0. I just didn't list all the "any" configurations as they roughtly double the length of the list.

3.0/2.5pts = +2 [Any]  - Listed in the wiki as 3pts, but here as 2.5pts.

+2 specific is listed here as 2.5/ +2 any would be 3.0 again using the "bump" rule.

Id be curious to see how blankbeard's simultaneous equations settle out with theser values - its possible I bunggled sometign with this new calculation method, but I'm pretty sure it works for all published cases.

[Blankbeard]

I'll post something tomorrow.  The only one that looks off is the Orc.  It comes in at 6.5.

[Sletchman]

I officially hate the Wiki.  I had to rewrite the entire entry from scratch in HTML to get the formatting to not look stupid, or have massive triple line spacing for no apparent reason.  Can everyone read it properly?  No mistakes or anything?  I merged the lists together, so anything missing I added in, and I took Morg's costs per Blankbeards suggestion for conflicting prices.

The only issue I can see is Orcs now come under costed, perhaps they need their attribute back up to 4.5pts per Blankbears original values [Morg also mentioned that Orcs get off a little too easy for their attributes under his system].

The update is: Here, for those who don't know.

[Mister Andersen]

Yeah, having code in HTML -- which you have to specifically fully enable -- for a decent looking presentation seems to defeat the purpose of having  wiki with a pseudo-Word interface