View source for Talk:Aberrant 2.0 Mental Systems

=Adding Foreign Powers=
''"Hey, Glory. Stand over there while I fire this railgun at you."''<br>

Studying the powers of others is an important part of nova 'gadgeteering'. It allows the creator to expand his repertoire without the incredible feats of insight needed to devise a new power from scratch. But if a gadgeteer expects to have an easy time replicating a power just because he has the email address of a relevant nova, he will be disappointed.

Having your powers studied is time-consuming, often annoying, and sometimes (especially in the case of powers like invulnerability or regeneration) painful or dangerous. The nova being studied must be present in the lab for as many time intervals as it takes to accumulate the successes devoted to the power in question, and if the gadgeteer botches a roll during this time, a lab accident inflicts some detrimental effect on the testee. The nature of the accident is left up to the storyteller, and might range from amusing to mortally dangerous depending on the circumstances and the scale of the botch. Beyond this, many novas are justifiably leery of being made obsolete by gadgeteers who can replicate their powers in gadgets that won't complain about pay or working conditions.

As difficult as it may be to persuade (or force) your fellow novas to spend the day wearing mostly electrodes, it pales next to the difficulty of inventing a power from scratch. A gadgeteer who wants to create a power with no example available should have high ratings (4+) in one or more relevant abilities, and the storyteller should require that they find some way of gathering information on the power, be it deconstructing a computer fried by cyberkinesis, or taking detailed quantum readings of the site of an elemental mastery duel. Exceptions may be made for particularly straightforward powers, like Quantum Bolt or Armour.

=Advancement Flaws=
Did you know that cutting corners can make your R&D efforts take less time? Well, now you do. Suggestions for flaws for advancements of any sort, vehicles, weapons, and drugs, should go here.

*Vulnerability (to something common, like rainwater)
*Addictive
*Damaging to user
*Explodes
*Falls apart
*Doesn't work
*Emits psychic screaming
*Travels via hell
*Requires inspired user or ingredients
*Expert use only
*Polluting
*Produces annoyingly low calcs in cutscenes
*Bulky
*Impaired function (less protection, less damage, less speed)
*Insane

==Gaining Flaws==
Flaws are aberrations but for gadgets. They are the price of power, sometimes willing and sometimes accidental. Flaws are categorised into three levels of severity.
*'''Minor Flaws''' could be a weakening of armour soak one level below spec, a small loss of accuracy from a gun, 25% reduced fuel efficiency in a vehicle or some other minor impairment of function. This may be a function the project was designed to improve, and represent the project falling short of expectations.
*'''Major Flaws''' could be the requirement of expert dice pools to operate the device, a vulnerability to a fairly common environmental condition like sand or heavy rain, or a more severe impairment of function. Moderately impaired functions should be a different one to the one intended to be improved by the project.
*'''Severe Flaws''' are potentially crippling drawbacks, like a gun that explodes on a d1 roll of 1 each time it is used, or an FTL drive that travels via Hell. In general they should make scrapping the entire project look more tempting than actually trying to use the thing.
Flaws are gained in three ways:
*'''Concessions''': Straightforward performance increases can be matched with straightforward performance decreases to reduce technical challenge. One or more minor flaw s can be added to a project to reduce the cost by half of the flaw's equivalent value in successes, up to half the total cost of the project. I'm dubious about this one.
*'''Bugs''': When you push the envelope into immature technology, unforseen issues spring up. Each type of project has a Bleeding Edge Threshold. When the number of successes accumulated exceeds this threshold, a minor flaw of the ST's choice becomes apparent to the developers. When the number of successes exceeds twice that threshold, a second minor flaw becomes apparent, or a minor flaw becomes major. Three times the threshold adds a major flaw or makes a major flaw severe. Each additional threshold multiple reached adds another major flaw or replaces a major flaw with a severe one.
*'''Errors''': Avoidable mistakes in development that become apparent far too late. If a development roll is botched, the project develops a minor flaw. If a second roll is botched, the project develops a major flaw. If a third roll is botched, the project develops a severe flaw. A fourth botch forces the project to start from scratch.


*Known issues: The Bug mechanic does not handle possibly very different success counts for working on similar items.
*Possible fix: Instead apply it to going beyond the limits on improvements per project, and tighten them up slightly.

=Examples=
*'''Itano Minimissile Launcher''': 124 sux
**Missile Launcher: (6+2) x 5 = 40 sux
**Concealable (O): 50 sux
**ROF +100%: 10 sux
**Ammo + 150%: 9 sux
**Ultralight: 15 sux
**Accuracy +2, Dmg 12L [6], Range 2,500, Rate 2, Magazine 10, AA, Exp(3), Guided, Conceal O, Mass 20, Min Str. 3

*'''Rapier Special Operations Armour''': 175 sux
**Field Suit: (4+1) x 5 = 25 sux
**+2B soak: 6 sux
**+2L soak: 14 sux
**Powered: 20 sux
**+1 dexterity: 30 sux
**+1 stamina: 20 sux
**+1 perception: 20 sux
**3d automeds: 30 sux
**+2d failsafe: 10 sux
**Soak 6B/8L, Strength + 1/Dexterity + 1/Perception + 1, 3d automeds, 6d failsafe, Mass 9