The armoury review, week 614

Picture a wildly stereotypical Cyberpunk BBS as your read this

---

Halondove reporting in, still alive. Today's telltale is "vexed cinnibar precludes wastrel solipsism". You know the drill, gang. Gear and guns, honest impressions, no mercy.

Rusty Mick's Off-Brand Specials: the Giveaway Gun

“It's really gear”
“Sometimes you just need that 'what the hell!?' edge”

Look, you don't go to Mick's for chips and irons and that workaday crap. The reason I trot down to that poky rat-hole every once in a while is for an edge. Mick's genius, if you wanna call it that, is laying his servo-hands on kit that no scummer nor rent-a-cop nor Mister Johnson ever considered you might have.

"Scanner-proof? That's a dangerous game you're throwing yourself into. Trouble is, y'see, you never know what Mr Johnson has waiting for you, so it's very much a case of contact with the enemy, and you're the proverbial plan. Sure, you can tuck a bioplas gadget into a muscle pocket with synskin to hide the scars, but if you run into a Kurokawa-type tissue analyser at the front door, it's a balls-up situation, and by that I mean you're going to be hanging from your ankles in an interrogation cell.

What you want is to skip the risk of taking your toys through security at all. Walk in clean and give 'em nothing to work with. Well, only what you need to show a bit of respect; a couple of mid-range bugs they can squash, just enough to keep them confident they've got the upper hand.

Now, take a look at this little beauty. Fully functional, nice and obvious. You can hand it in at the welcome desk or wait for them to frisk it off you and sling it in a locker. They're practically doing the recon for you."

Little Chicken 'Oyakodon' Type 4 Clip

This middle-of-the-road auto clip fits neatly into any Type 4-compatible magazine. It can contain standard bullets, but the owner replaces one or more with disguised nanotech reconnaissance tools. When a pre-set internal timer activates, a tiny electrical charge briefly runs through the memory metal casings of these 'bullets', causing them to split open and release the payload before resuming their cylindrical form.

Agglutinator payloads are self-assembling origami robots which cooperate to extract themselves from confinement. They are thin enough to slip through cracks in a typical locker or bag, and light enough to move within a captor's pocket without being noticed. Agglutinators contain one key component each, and combine into a larger form that can function as a full-blown recon device to capture images, signal or other information. They then transmit their data in ultra-slow signals that are virtually impossible to detect, before deliquescing into unidentifiable fluid.

Linnorm payloads, on the other hand, are a mass of nigh-invisible intelligent nanowires that can wriggle their way out of almost any container. Linnorms are programmed to seek out specific targets, but can also receive instructions encoded in apparently harmless transmissions from devices that will typically pass through security. Linnorms can physically tap into corporate surveillance systems, such as CCTV and intranets, to obtain the desired information. Once their job is done, the linnorms work their way back to the origin point for retrieval without the need for any transmission.

Yıldız QBR 'Cassandra' Handset

To the untrained eye, as well as the trained eye and 99.8% of analytic devices, this sleek telecomms handset looks like the typical overpriced, bloatware-ridden corporate-assigned gadget. If the user is forced to operate it under scrutiny, its slow performance and limited functions are unlikely to attract more than eyerolls and sympathetic scorn.

In truth, the Cassandra is a highly sophisticated memory-metal electromagnetic bomb, with circuits that realign into a crude telecomms device when primed. Once the triggering conditions are met (typically timed), it releases a pulse that scrambles unshielded electronics in a significant radius, suppresses communications and creates a perfect opportunity for a second team to follow up.

Of course, once a Cassandra goes off there's always a decent chance its depositor will be asked some meaningful questions. So it's usually best to fob it off on a patsy.

Rusty Mick's Off-Brand Specials: the Double-(Barrelled)-Cross

“It's really gear”
“Sometimes you just need that 'what the hell!?' edge”

Look, you don't go to Mick's for chips and irons and that workaday crap. The reason I trot down to that poky rat-hole every once in a while is for an edge. Mick's genius, if you wanna call it that, is laying his servo-hands on kit that no scummer nor rent-a-cop nor Mister Johnson ever considered you might have.

"Holdout gun? Always a solid option. Not always easy to get to when things turn sour, mind. The trouble is, turning coat only takes a moment and typically they've got you bang to rights.

What's tricky is, your average betrayal isn't a spur-of-the-moment thing; it's a set-up. Vehicles get hacked, scripts overwritten. Tools get sabotaged. And of course, that old classic - ammo gets swapped out.

Only a handful of these boys got made before the company wiped in the '13 Unpleasantness. Never on the open market, but I managed to lay my hands on this beauty. Someone pulls that smirk on you mid-run? You don't need to worry what's in the magazine before you let 'em have it."

Rakotoarisoa Industries 'You Bastard' Baobab++

This ultra-rare prototype shotgun was designed for the truly discerning (well, paranoid) runner. Superficially indistinguishable from the Baobab - itself a clone of popular Indonesian models - its additional features justify an eye-watering price tag. Discreet reinforcing mesh massively enhances the weapon's resilience, allowing it to survive low-powered direct hits and use as an impromptu shield without impeding its firing capabilities. The chamber and barrel are hardened and shaped to redirect explosive force, reducing the chance of a fatal misfire - accidental or otherwise. More importantly, its heavy frame conceals an emergency secondary firing mode driven by magnetic pulse. If the owner has sudden doubts about their ammunition, a simple flick of the finger activates the backup mode, allowing sections of the barrel to be launched as spinning projectiles. Though the range is short, the ammunition very limited and the lethality low, it can still take down an unprepared traitor or buy time to reach cover and draw a backup weapon.

The barrel's construction divides it into a small number of sections cunningly fitted together. When one is launched, the magnetic impulse system adjusts itself to select the next section for firing. Fitting new barrels is time-consuming and costly, but worth the price.

Specs

(system-neutral and therefore vague)

The Baobab++ functions as a normal shotgun when firing its main ammunition. Its reinforcement reduces the damage it suffers when used to parry attacks or the chance of it breaking when struck.

The adapted chamber and barrel reduce the chance of a misfire occurring naturally. If tampered ammunition is fired, it is only half as effective as normal in damaging the weapon.

Switching to the secondary firing mode is a quick and easy matter: treat this as equivalent to flicking a safety or ammo selector. In this mode, any chambered ammunition is ignored entirely (bypassing the chance of a misfire). The magnetic pulse fires sections of steel barrel with effect equivalent to a heavy handgun (including range and rate of fire). The razored edges reduce the effectiveness of soft armour but otherwise rely on speed and impact. Each barrel provides ammunition for four shots. Once any barrel segments have been fired, the accuracy and lethality of the standard firing mode for that barrel is decreased by a cumulative 20%.

The Baobab++'s sturdy construction allows it to be wielded as an effective club. Once the barrels have been fired off, the exposed electrical elements can deliver any remaining charge as a taser.

The rarity and subtle design of the Baobab++ make it extremely difficult to distinguish these additional features from any mundane shotgun of its type simply by examination. Appropriate scanning tech can identify the presence of the battery.

A Baobab++ weighs twice as much as a normal shotgun of its type due to its construction and battery requirements. Replacing the barrels after use takes approximately one hour with appropriate tools.

Rusty Mick's Off-Brand Specials: Mk II Flashfield

“It's really gear”
“Sometimes you just need that 'what the hell!?' edge”

Look, you don't go to Mick's for chips and irons and that workaday crap. The reason I trot down to that poky rat-hole every once in a while is for an edge. Mick's genius, if you wanna call it that, is laying his servo-hands on kit that no scummer nor rent-a-cop nor Mister Johnson ever considered you might have.

"Sure, any Corp surplus hut can flog you a cheap flakjack or some bonded armour. Maybe even a knockoff force bubble. Nobody's going to overlook that, are they? People come prepared.

Or you can spread some cred, book yourself in at an all-night chop-shop and get subdermals, if you don't mind never taking another jab of stimms. Subtle, maybe, but when Mister Johnson puts two barrels of las in your back from half a metre it's not making much difference.

This little chap may not look much, but it might just save your life. Just so long as you can turn the situation round in three seconds or less. Now, about that speedchip you didn't want..?"

DuttonTech Mk II 'Oops' Flashfield

This discreet device is a simple circular disc ten centimetres across, with a web of flexible filaments that stretch along the spine, easily covered by a simple shirt. It's wired to a hefty powerpack that can be worn as a belt, slipped under a chestplate or concealed in bulky shoulder pads. Though the pack wouldn't disgrace a lascannon, it's burned out with a single use, and that's barely enough for the needs of this power-hungry contingency plan.

The filament mesh serves as an antenna to detect incoming energy signals above a certain threshold, including lasweapons, plasma beams and most projectile fire. When triggered, the Flashfield discharges its powerpack to generate a dense energy field that protects the back, neck and back of the head. Though the field burns out in seconds, it buys the wearer enough time to react to a betrayal - or, more charitably, an enemy getting the drop on you.

Specs

(system-neutral and therefore vague)

The Mk II senses concentrated energy with enough velocity to cause serious harm - it would detect a bullet, energy blast, shrapnel or blade, but is typically set so a fall or punch wouldn't trigger it. Large objects that injure through sheer mass, rather than concentration of force, are usually ignored.

When triggered, the field is strong enough to resist small-arms fire and reduce the effect of typical longarms by 80%. Vibration alarms silently alert the wearer to the danger, and are strong enough to wake them. It lasts long enough for the wearer to:

1. notice the attack
2. move a few steps; or, drop and roll
3. draw and ready a weapon and take a shot; or, strike at an attacker; or, dive into cover

The device is good for a single use before burning out. Supplies are highly erratic.

---

Inspired by Whartson Hall's excellent Cyberpunk game. The old "politely invite them to go first and shoot them in the back" trick is established enough that I got to wondering why nobody seemed to have invented a countermeasure.

Visitant: Technological Gift trees

I'm still calling these "trees" all over the place, but let's be clear: they're very obviously pools. There is no hierarchy.

I actually really like the Demon: the Descent way of handling special abilities, and would have liked to use that. My original idea for Visitant was that there wouldn't be specific species at all. Instead, I'd discuss broad alien archetypes, and players could then combine certain low-level powers to make a species of their choice. More potent abilities would be keyed off these, just like D:tD.

For one reason and another (not insignificantly, a strong representation from a friend that Extremely Specific Splats were more White-Wolfy than vague mumbling, which seems true enough) I went the other way, and it has some advantages. Like, I don't have to worry about people combining completely arbitrary sets of abilities and producing some RAW-derived monstrosity. Only a small subset of abilities can be combined, which is frankly bad enough.

Today I present the last two Gift pools: the tech powers. Luminescence and Nanokinesis are both power sets I dreamed up out of nowhere. I started writing powers long before I'd nailed down exactly what the aliens would be. I originally intended these to be attached to a specific alien, but there were two things. One, I had no particular ideas for said alien. Two, I was very conscious that my aliens get a very restricted choice of powers compared to most White Wolf games, and allowing them free choice from some technology-based pools seemed both genre-appropriate and a useful getaround.

I may still write some more of these if I get inspired.

Kitting Monitors, decision time

Okay, I've done more than enough procrastinating on the subject of equipment. Time for some decisions. How do I want to model equipment in this game?

Basic guiding points here:

• premise: sorcerous spacefaring bionic secret agent lizards
• tone: Saturday morning cartoons meet Dan Dare
• tech level: high-tech, not ultratech
• crunch: moderate

What have I got in my pockets?

I think for a game like Monitors, I probably should be aiming for a fairly abstract non-mechanical system. It's supposed to be a sort of campy, fun, enthusiastic game. You don't want to have to go through a list at the start and worry about whether you take a Transdimensional Aggrandizer Node, you want to attempt to disrupt a dimensional vortex and invent the Transdimensional Aggrandizer Node on the spot as something in your utility belt that will let you do that, just as flavour text.

Essentially, a Monitors character should be assumed to have access to the equipment they routinely need to use their skillset. Since they are sorcerous spacefaring bionic secret agents, this means that any Monitor should be assumed to have a fairly substantial arsenal of stuff for dealing with magic, space travel, mundane technology and Secret Agent Stuff, plus whatever an ordinary citizen in a professional job would generally have, plus equipment and supplies needed for the routine requirements of their specific role. No mechanical attention is needed on this point.

Kitting Monitors, part 6: martial stuff

This is obviously a sequel to this post, this other post about how non-weapon equipment and its mechanics can influence a game, and this third, fourth and fifth post about distribution of tech amongst the general population.

Martial equipment

I can't entirely avoid talking about this stuff again, but it's a different angle.

Weapons!

What kind of weapons are commonly available to civilians is a huge deal. There's a complex mixture of legality, opportunity and culture here, but I don't claim to understand that.

One factor is the typical discrepancy between a civilian and a ne'erdowell. If armed civilians tend to carry the same level of weaponry as a criminal, it's more likely civilians will tackle criminals. This also makes it harder to pick out a likely threat from a crowd, be they would-be assassins or the police you're trying to avoid; you can't simply scan to see who's armed and focus on them.

Kitting Monitors, part 5 (stuff people have, part 3)

This is obviously a sequel to this post, this other post about how non-weapon equipment and its mechanics can influence a game, and more immediately, this third and this fourth post about distribution of tech amongst the general population.

As a reminder, we're looking more or less at this list:

• Does game-mechanical equipment exist at all?
• What equipment exists?
• What is treated as Equipment rather than just stuff you have?
• How do you get Equipment in the first place? How easy is it to get more, both in the long term and the short term?
• Maintenance? Breakages? Upkeep costs? Do these things exist, and if so, how do they work?
• How reliable is equipment?
• Is equipment assumed and subtractive from, or optional and additive to die rolls?
• How crucial is the possession or otherwise of specific equipment to success? Are activities, or even missions, allowed to fail because PCs don't have particular items?
• What technology is assumed to exist, to be available to PCs, and to be available to common NPCs?
• What is assumed normal equipment for a PC? How useful is it compared to what NPCs have? How much and how often does it affect the basic resolution mechanics? (are you adding bonuses to every roll? etc.)
• What non-mechanical capabilities can equipment provide?
• How vulnerable is a PC without their equipment?
• How, if at all, is equipment limited?

We're still looking at types of technology that the population and the PCs have available. This should be the penultimate installment, thank goodness.

Making stuff

A fairly common sci-fi trope, which is just starting to creep into real life, is manufacturing on demand. It's very common for settings to feature food, clothes, furniture or other basics being assembled from raw matter or nutrient sludge, produced on demand by some machine in the corner. This rarely creeps into more complex items like machinery, although I'm sure I've seen at least one instance where blasters could be synthesised. The real-world 3D printers aren't yet up to this kind of thing, but we can slowly make replacement bones, artificial limbs, and crude foodstuffs.

Makers are essentially just another way to Get Stuff, not that different from shopping. However, they do allow a couple of get-arounds. They can be used to obtain stuff you wouldn't be able to buy, even if makers record all transactions, require security clearance for dangerous items, or have only a limited set of templates. PCs can hack into makers, steal or spoof the ID of someone with the right clearance, upload their own templates, and so on. Another point is that a maker allows you access to far more than you can reasonably carry, picking it up on the spot rather than toting it around. You're not limited to times when shops are open, and rare items can be obtained without waiting days for delivery.

Kitting Monitors, part 4 (stuff people have, part 2)

This is obviously a sequel to this post, this other post about how non-weapon equipment and its mechanics can influence a game, and more immediately, this third post about distribution of tech amongst the general population.

As a reminder, we're looking more or less at this list:

• Does game-mechanical equipment exist at all?
• What equipment exists?
• What is treated as Equipment rather than just stuff you have?
• How do you get Equipment in the first place? How easy is it to get more, both in the long term and the short term?
• Maintenance? Breakages? Upkeep costs? Do these things exist, and if so, how do they work?
• How reliable is equipment?
• Is equipment assumed and subtractive from, or optional and additive to die rolls?
• How crucial is the possession or otherwise of specific equipment to success? Are activities, or even missions, allowed to fail because PCs don't have particular items?
• What technology is assumed to exist, to be available to PCs, and to be available to common NPCs?
• What is assumed normal equipment for a PC? How useful is it compared to what NPCs have? How much and how often does it affect the basic resolution mechanics? (are you adding bonuses to every roll? etc.)
• What non-mechanical capabilities can equipment provide?
• How vulnerable is a PC without their equipment?
• How, if at all, is equipment limited?

We're still looking at types of technology that the population and the PCs have available.

Communications

In my view, one of the biggest technologies humanity has is communication tools. We can do things with these that would be staggering to ancestors only a few measly thousand years ago. We can preserve information accurately for long periods (writing). We can convey information to other people without actually contacting them (also writing). We can give information to other people in secret (encryption), and even do so while appearing not to (hidden encryption). We can talk to members of other groups who have their own languages (translation). We can communicate with people increasingly great distances away, increasingly fast, with increasingly complex information (writing, telegraph, telephone, the internet). These have offered enormous advantages. Knowledge is disseminated quickly, trade is facilitated, safety increased, cultural understanding improved, personal life enhanced, and perhaps it even makes the world more peaceful.

Kitting Monitors, part 3 (stuff people have, part 1)

This is obviously a sequel to this post and this other post about how non-weapon equipment and its mechanics can influence a game.

As a reminder, we're looking more or less at this list:

• Does game-mechanical equipment exist at all?
• What equipment exists?
• What is treated as Equipment rather than just stuff you have?
• How do you get Equipment in the first place? How easy is it to get more, both in the long term and the short term?
• Maintenance? Breakages? Upkeep costs? Do these things exist, and if so, how do they work?
• How reliable is equipment?
• Is equipment assumed and subtractive from, or optional and additive to die rolls?
• How crucial is the possession or otherwise of specific equipment to success? Are activities, or even missions, allowed to fail because PCs don't have particular items?
• What technology is assumed to exist, to be available to PCs, and to be available to common NPCs?
• What is assumed normal equipment for a PC? How useful is it compared to what NPCs have? How much and how often does it affect the basic resolution mechanics? (are you adding bonuses to every roll? etc.)
• What non-mechanical capabilities can equipment provide?
• How vulnerable is a PC without their equipment?
• How, if at all, is equipment limited?

What stuff do people have?

I've posited Monitors as a shiny future setting, but there's a pretty wide variety of these available. They've been offered for about a century, and each incarnation typically features basically the same technology and society as the writer, except better. Also, flying cars. That's a little unfair, but you get the gist: I can set a wide range of technologies as the baseline for civilians, simply by assuming the better stuff is too expensive/inconvenient/unfashionable/illegal.

I think you can probably break down important technology into some very broad groups. There are others that will shape societies in powerful ways (horse collar, anyone?) but I'm nowhere near clever enough to discuss those, even though this is the kind of history that is absolutely fascinating. I'm going to think mostly about things likely to affect games.

At this point I wrote out a swathe of text discussing some specific technologies, then realised that most of it would be more appropriate to a discussion on setting, rather than one on the role of equipment in establishing the feel of a game. So I'm moving it, and starting again.

Kitting Monitors, part 2

This is obviously a sequel to this other post about how non-weapon equipment and its mechanics can influence a game. Dan's comment is also essential reading.

As a reminder, we're looking more or less at this list:

• Does game-mechanical equipment exist at all?
• What equipment exists?
• What is treated as Equipment rather than just stuff you have?
• What technology is assumed to exist, to be available to PCs, and to be available to common NPCs?
• How do you get Equipment in the first place? How easy is it to get more, both in the long term and the short term?
• Maintenance? Breakages? Upkeep costs? Do these things exist, and if so, how do they work?
• How reliable is equipment?
• How, if at all, is equipment limited?
• What is assumed normal equipment for a PC? How useful is it compared to what NPCs have? How much and how often does it affect the basic resolution mechanics? (are you adding bonuses to every roll? etc.)
• Is equipment assumed and subtractive from, or optional and additive to die rolls?
• What non-mechanical capabilities can equipment provide?
• How crucial is the possession or otherwise of specific equipment to success? Are activities, or even missions, allowed to fail because PCs don't have particular items?
• How vulnerable is a PC without their equipment?

Maintenance and reliability

This is largely an aspect of the setting rather than the equipment per se, but maintenance issues are important too. The big ones are the overall reliability of equipment (in the short and long term), and any work or resource costs to keeping them in play.

Kitting Monitors, part 1

So next on my list of Monitors tasks is Generic Equipment, which is to say, stuff that isn't weapons or armour which probably means stuff that isn't weapons or armour, but let's wait and see where the rest of this post takes me. This is an, um... interesting one. I say this about quite a lot of aspects of games, but equipment is one of the things that defines what a game is like. Actually, I'm going to break that down a bit more, because I think there are quite a lot of ways in which equipment affects a game.

This analysis is in no way procrastination.

Some questions that I think are worth asking at this point:

• Does game-mechanical equipment exist at all?
• What equipment exists?
• What is treated as Equipment rather than just stuff you have?
• What technology is assumed to exist, to be available to PCs, and to be available to common NPCs?
• How do you get Equipment in the first place? How easy is it to get more, both in the long term and the short term?
• Maintenance? Breakages? Upkeep costs? Do these things exist, and if so, how do they work?
• How reliable is equipment?
• How, if at all, is equipment limited?
• What is assumed normal equipment for a PC? How useful is it compared to what NPCs have? How much and how often does it affect the basic resolution mechanics? (are you adding bonuses to every roll? etc.)
• Is equipment assumed and subtractive from, or optional and additive to die rolls?
• What non-mechanical capabilities can equipment provide?
• How crucial is the possession or otherwise of specific equipment to success? Are activities, or even missions, allowed to fail because PCs don't have particular items?
• How vulnerable is a PC without their equipment?

Let's have a closer look at some of these.

Equipment's existence

Designing the equipment section of a game seems like a very natural step, but I feel like it's important to stop and note that it is absolutely not an obligatory one.

In trad roleplaying games like D&D, which aim for a kind of simulation, equipment is important. Dungeon-delving is dangerous, and equipment allows characters to mitagate that by preparing and by making clever use of what they have. Resources are limited, and so important. On the one hand, there's an angle of making do with what you have and only that; on the other, there's the triumph of having come prepared for this specific eventuality. This ties into the source material, where Chekhov's Guns are fairly common, unassuming items being acquired along the way to avoid a deus ex machina. It's also, frankly, just fun (for some of us) to pore over shopping lists of weird items, and to find uses for the random junk we loot.

Call of Cthulhu and similar also model equipment, although it's much less significant in play. One of the interesting factors here is the distinction between the research and investigation phases. In research time, Investigators often have the money and the opportunity to obtain just about anything that currently exists, even illegal items. In many cases buying aeroplanes, heavy weaponry or enormous piles of meteoric iron is nothing to the party budget. Once they're on location, though, they are suddenly tied down to exactly what they have to hand. This drives up the horror aspect by creating a restriction, but also helps to (once again) reward planning. It tends to bolster realism in the sense of giving people only what they thought to bring, though this can also lead to characters doing excessive preparation and carrying implausible loads everywhere just in case.

That being said, games do not have to mechanically support equipment as a distinct entity with mechanical implications. Storygames are obvious contenders for this, but systems like Dungeon World seem to minimise it with their focus on actions rather than tools. You can assume that characters have "appropriate equipment" and can get on with their tasks without worrying. You can handle it with generic "do I have the right stuff?" rolls, rather than modelling specific equipment.

In a game that's All About decisions, emotions, slapstick mishaps, Deep Meaningful Themes or generally isn't that interested in being a simulation, this may be a better option.

Big-E and little-e equipment

Once you've looked at whether you want equipment rules at all, and assuming you answered "Yes", there's a decision to be made about what will constitute game-mechanical equipment.

In many cases, you don't really want every single item to be treated equally seriously by mechanics. Differentiation here is one way to help shape the game experience, emphasising things that add to the tone you wish to create, and backgrounding other things. You can do this through aspects like whether equipment has to be specifically taken by characters; by where you offer variety in types of equipment; and by where you decide to implement actual rules for equipment use.

In a game about pre-modern humans, it may absolutely make sense for Writing and Reading to be separate skills, and for writing implements, inks and paper types to be modelled in detail. Some will last far longer than others, but others are reusable. Vellum offers enormous, expensive prestige. Leaves are plentiful but fragile. Stone-carving is very slow. The ability to communicate without speaking, or keep records, is important; so is the risk that someone else can secretly read. But in a modern police procedural that is an annoying distraction from the focus of the game.

In that same police game, your radio probably should be an abstraction you just use to communicate. But in a military game, particularly one where you play something more senior than "guy with gun", radios could offer important mechanical effects: coordinating fire for maximum effort, getting information that other games would give through perception rolls, minimising exposure to shellfire or other ordinance, requesting information you can't personally recall, and so on. And in a resistance game, radio use could be an entire subsystem involving multiple rolls and skills connected to decisions about where, how and when to make the call.

Most games don't consider your clothing to be relevant, except occasionally for disguise or getting into parties. It doesn't generally matter what kind of shoes you have. Maintenance supplies are rarely modelled in game, even though keeping gear in good shape is vital. In some games, all kinds of equipment may be listed as available, but most of it has no mechanical effect and is therefore not Equipment. A calculator is not normally considered Equipment, but in a post-apocalyptic setting it could be incredibly useful in later-stage survival - providing someone has access to the right textbooks, it offers a massive advantage in building up your settlement or rebuilding technology.

Addition and Subtraction

Counterintuitively, I suspect that the rather dry decision of how to implement equipment modifiers is going to be important in establishing game feel. There are basically two approaches to this, assuming that some kind of modifiers will exist at all (not a given).

In the first approach, Equipment is an asset to what you're attempting. It makes it more likely that you will succeed at some task, granting a bonus over and above your current ability. This is the basic approach taken by Deathwatch and its kin.

Alternatively, a game may assume you have adequate Equipment when attempting a task. Lacking the usual equipment will impose a penalty, possibly including a flat denial - some things just can't be done without some kind of vaguely appropriate tools. D&D tends to favour this approach, with penalties to lockpicking without Thieves' Tools, and so on.

There are mechanical reasons to choose one or the other, depending on how much equipment is likely to be in play and how often you expect it to be used. Generally, in design matters it's a good idea to choose the option that means doing the smallest amount of maths, to save frustration. This would mean that if equipment use is common, penalties are simpler; and if equipment is rarely used, bonuses are similar. However, other factors also come into play.

Psychology is important, and it does tend to feel different getting a bonus rather than a penalty. Bonuses give the sense that you are being rewarded (for forethought, planning, resource management, generally being awesome). Penalties give the sense that you are being penalised (for not being prepared, inefficient use of resources, mistakes, or simple bad luck). I suspect that bonus-heavy games will tend to make characters feel more empowered and create a more positive impression. Penalty-heavy games will tend to make characters feel got at, and create a sense of pressure or concern. Psychologically, it feels important to try and avoid penalties, whereas it feels less important to obtain bonuses.* This makes sense when you think about it, because penalties chip away at what you already had, while bonuses are extra rewards that would be nice to have.

This is musing, not science; I don't have actual data on this.

Deathwatch is an interesting case here, because as I've mentioned elsewhere, it comes across as surprisingly penalty-heavy for a game about superhuman heroes. However, equipment is very much a case of bonuses. In fact, the absolute basic space marine gear provides a load of constant (and rather complicated) bonuses, while other equipment available adds yet more. This contributes to a sense that your enhancements and constant-companion armour make you inherently superior, and that being well-prepared for a mission will vindicate itself mechanically - even though that isn't necessarily true in practice...

This bonus/penalty thing comes about basically because the game line was designed rather oddly. It was built for the needs of Dark Heresy, a game mostly about relatively normal humans with relatively normal (sci-fi) equipment; it also insisted on mirroring the statlines of the D6-based tabletop game while building a percentile system. This was more or less okay for one game featuring people with pretty similar statlines. When people or creatures with different stats appeared, though, some serious hacking was needed to keep something approximating the tabletop stats while also sticking broadly to the fluff. You can't simply translate 3 and 4 on a D6-based table-comparison system to 30 and 40 on a straight percentile system and expect coherent results. The result is that space marines have attributes of 30-40, but special rules are introduced to change how effective these stats are. These include many bonuses to specific rolls based on their augments, implents and armour, which they will have virtually all the time. For example, their armour provides a straight +20 to Strength which applies every single time they use physical force.

The 40K line in general is a bit poor at describing skill use and when situational modifiers apply. For the most part, it seems to encourage the use of penalties; as I've described, this tends to create a sort of pessimistic mood, which actually fits the dark setting quite well, even when applied to space marines. However, it's always assumed that you have appropriate equipment when attempting a roll, so equipment modifiers are virtually always bonuses. For example, an auspex (scanning device) grants a massive +30 to Perception, and surgical equipment offers +10 to medical rolls. This helps create the sense that equipment is a special and is a positive asset, which is both cheering, and fits the setting's treatment of technology as strange and wondrous.

---

Okay, that seems like enough for now. More later. Feel free to comment.

Monitors: some possible Enhancements

Following on from an earlier post, I present a few sample Enhancements I've designed for the game on top of the ones everyone gets. I'll be wanting more. There are two main categories, implants and cybernetics.

One possibility is letting you take other kinds of gadgets as implants or built into cybernetics. But as I haven't invented any of those yet, there's no examples here.

My intention for the game is that while enhancements have specified mechanical benefits, this is a moderately sciencey setup and other effects should apply if it makes sense and seems fun.

Implants

Implants are bits of electronic and biotechnology incorporated into the subject's body so seamlessly that they're undetectable without medical examination.

Echolocator

Using ultrahigh-frequency sonar, the echolocator provides its owner with a whole new sense. When using the device, the character gains all-round perception, and can navigate in total darkness. The sonar cannot detect colour or markings, but can distinguish general textures. It also provides a +2 bonus on Perception when the target is hidden behind something, due to sound refraction. The device can be turned on or off as the owner chooses with a mere thought.

The echolocator can be confused by chaff, heavy rain, insect swarms and similar effects; by soundproofing and absorbent substances; or by excessive background noise. Two characters with echolocators can often sense each others' sonar, but individual devices may use different frequencies. The device doesn't detect or interfere with natural sonar. A few creatures with high-frequency hearing can detect the sonar.

Nanohaem

While a small amount of nanotech is common for Monitors, nanohaem is a complete in-bloodstream detoxification system. Tiny particles detect and purge harmful substances, tweak hormone levels and track their owner's general health. Nanohaem grants +2 to any defence against Toxic damage. In addition, any penalty die inflicted by Toxic damage immediately has its size reduced one step, to a minimum of 1d3. The nanohaem can also halve the duration of any lingering effect caused by toxins, narcotics or equivalent effects.

Neural Jack

A nervous-system interface can connect directly with technology, making many jobs easier and permitting bonding with mechas, large vessels and similar devices. Using short-range wireless links, neural jacks allow the user to operate computers discreetly and at great speed. A skilled neural jack user can operate a jacked device without anyone noticing.

Most Earth-style electronics accepts neural jack input, and jacking into an enabled device takes no additional time. Technology without input devices can be hotwired for neural jacks as easily as any other input. Secure devices can be hacked at a distance using neural jacks. Some high-security devices may block neural jacks or include countermeasures. Alien technology may not permit neural jack use, or require additional rolls for successful use.

Using neural jacks grants a +2 bonus on rolls to operate electronic devices and reduces the time needed to perform tasks. By freeing up hands, neural jacks make some complex activities easier, providing the same +2 bonus. It negates most noise, but computers may still beep and monitors display work in progress. A Will roll can be used to feign another activity while using neural jacks to covertly operate machinery. Neural jacks can typically be used from up to a metre away, though obstacles may block signal.

A good example here might be the classic chase scene. It's a lot easier when you can drive the hovercar directly from your brain, leaving both hands free to shoot back.

Cybernetics

Cybernetics are enhancements that either supplement or replace an existing organ, often after an injury. While replacement organs are common, Monitors cybernetics are a cut above, providing significant benefits to their owner.

Cybernetics come in two broad types. Bionics are elegant replicas of the original, undetectable in most circumstances. Their complexity and discretion allows limited room for enhanced capabilities. Augmetics are bulkier and more conspicuous, focusing on power and function rather than form. They offer a significant advantage but are very difficult to conceal, which makes the user far more conspicuous, easier to identify and can raise suspicions. Regardless of type, some cybernetic enhancements cannot be used in public without revealing their nature: firing your hand off on a grapple line, or the sudden telescoping of your eye, is very hard to explain away.

A character can choose the appearance of their own bionics within these bands; an augmetic might be a crude-looking mechanical affair of pistons and valves, or a sleek and beautiful thing apparently made of scarlet glass.

In general, an augmetic grants antagonists a +5 bonus to identify, track or research the character. The augmetic is too large, noisy or oddly-shaped to be disguised easily by covering or makeup, but creative disguises may succeed. NPCs such as guards, may be more suspicious of characters with augmetics, and search or watch them more carefully.

If I end up using the power-consumption rules I mentioned briefly, augmetics would also consume one power point from the character's allocation. If not, I may want some other drawback, as I think the balance is still notably in favour of overts. One possibility is that augmetics are vulnerable to EMP-type disruption or can otherwise be temporarily impaired.

Options labelled (A) are only available to augmetics.

Cybernetic Arm

This enhancement can be designed with a range of features to suit its owner’s tastes. Options include:

• Enhanced Servo-Motors: greater power grants +2 bonus on rolls using the arm where speed and strength are important, such as bending bars, punching, searching rubble, repairing barricades or bowling.
  • Overcharger (A): classified power and propulsion technologies providing enormous power for their size, increasing this bonus to +5.
• Toolkit: incorporates specialist algorithms and tools to aid in professional tasks. Grants a +2 bonus on one of Fettle, Medicine, Science or Tech rolls involving practical work or evaluation. You may choose this benefit more than once, affecting a different attribute each time.
  • Secondary AI: a semi-autonomous computer within the limb greatly enhances its technical value. Increase the bonus to +5 on one chosen attribute.
• Weapon Mount: the limb incorporates one weapon of your choice of category None or Hand. While it would be possible to build grenades into a cybernetic, it would also be really stupid. When not in use, the weapon can be concealed within the arm and only close technical inspection or military-grade scanners will reveal it. Activating or concealing the weapon does not require an action.
  • Stabilisers (A): the weapon mount can incorporate an Assault or Heavy weapon instead. Penalties for firing one-handed apply as normal.
• Grapple: the limb incorporates a grapple line. The hand functions as a pulse-driven grappling hook with independent AI, granting a +2 bonus as it intelligently grips the target. The hand can scuttle short distances on landing to find a suitable pivot point, which takes one action of time.
• Shield (A): a collapsible force shield can be deployed at a moment’s notice. (I need some shield/parry rules for this)

Re: servos - I'm still not quite sure how to articulate this one to get my idea across. The idea is that servos can make sudden powerful movements, so they don't make you faster at doing things on the whole.

The "pulse-driven grappling hook" will be an actual bit of equipment at some point so the Grapple option makes sense.

At present, entirely under rules as written, it's possible to create a character with Strength 27 - just take a Crocodilian or Varanid, give them a full whack of 20 Strength, and an augmetic granting +5 Strength. I'm not yet sure whether I care about that.

The idea I'm trying to get across with toolkits is that having a bionic arm designed for interfacing with technology shouldn't grant you a bonus to remember theories, and an augmetic eye designed for lab work shouldn't help you debate science. It's theoretically possible, it just seems off.

Weapons - this is not the sort of game where people are expected to regularly lose or swap weapons, making this more useful for quick draws and concealment. That being said, being able to bring a heavy weapon in under the guise of a replacement arm is still pretty damn useful. The limit on non-limb cybernetics is because building a massive recoil-causing cannon into someone's eye socket would be madness.

While I was initially led to make Hand weapons minor benefits out of flavour (it seems more practical and therefore more likely), I have considered the balance issue as well. I know my weapon balance is only hazy, but one of the plus factors for Hand and None weapons is specifically that they are easy to carry and conceal. By making the implant only a minor benefit, I reduce the feeling that you're paying twice for those advantages. In contrast, having a concealable rifle is a substantial benefit, even if it's still obvious that you have an augmetic arm.

Cybernetic Eye

A replacement eye can be equipped with a range of sensory modifications. Options include:

• Spectral Compressor: the eye translates near-infrared and near-ultraviolet into visible light, allowing vision in a wider range of conditions. The eye switches to the best available mode, generally providing a mix of monochrome and thermal-image vision in poor light. Mechanically, the owner ignores penalties to vision caused by poor lighting other than total darkness.
• Flash Filter: algorithms detect and compensate for sudden changes in light intensity, reducing the risk of blinding. The eye grants +2 Visor against Photon damage and a +2 bonus on any other relevant rolls, such as spotting a target against the sun.
  • Compensator (A): multiple lenses and an image reprocessor stabilise images even further, increasing the bonus to +5.
• Camera: as well as a visual feed, the eye can take photographs or brief clips of what the owner sees. These can be exported like any other data. The eye can also be used to play back footage or view image files. The eye's storage chip can be swapped or wiped like any other memory device, and has space for around one hour of video.
• Magnifier (A): the eye incorporates adjustable lenses, providing limited telescopic and microscopic vision. This provides a +2 bonus whenever these abilities would be beneficial.

Monitors: weapon balance, with extra musing

So I'm reasonably happy with the rudimentary weapon table, and now need to think about that actual weapon balance thing.

A significant issue is what (if anything) should be assumed to be the default. I don't know how much attention this idea tends to get in general, but I think it's important. I keep finding things I'd never thought about that seem important... this one is a hazy and tenuous idea, but I wanted to talk about it anyway and see if there's anything to it.

So my thought was that that games that feature significant amounts of combat gravitate towards what I will for my own amusement call an Unmarked Representative Weapon, or URW for a handy pronouncible acronym. This is the weapon that doesn't really need mentioning. Unless specified otherwise, people will carry one of these, making them Unmarked. The difficulty of a combat is calculated largely (though not, hopefully, exclusively) around the URW. Game mechanics are balanced around their capabilities and weaknesses - although these weaknesses are generally only weaknesses-by-absence (WBAs). It's assumed that these are the weapons the party are using, and if they deviate significantly from this they're likely to experience game balance issues.

While there's often one weapon that best embodies the URW and that players tend to prefer, an URW may essentially stand for a collection of equivalent weapons (making it Representative). They may have very minor narrative or mechanical differences, but in practice there's very little or no difference in how they play.

In some systems, PCs and NPCs/monsters may have different URWs for various reasons. Perhaps it's a matter of smooth running for the GM; perhaps there's a power gap between the two and the weapons available fit into that. Or monsters may vary very widely from combat to combat in style and power, leaving more room for variation. Nevertheless, Call of Cthulhu aside*, I suspect they'll generally end up with similar weapons in systems where PCs and monsters are built in equivalent ways.

* Call of Cthulhu has three fundamental power levels: Dangerous, Another Hit And You're A Goner, and Splat.

I suspect there are two main subclasses of URW: the Generic URW (GURW) and the Optimal URW (OURW).

The GURW is an URW because it's an optimal compromise between the game's major factors in weapon choice - typically availability, damage, accuracy and defence. It's not likely to be stand-out in any particular regard, but puts in a good all-round performance with no weaknesses worth noting. This is the archetypal URW. It's likely to be a staple weapon of the genre the game draws from.

The OURW is ubiquitous because it's good. Rather than simply a solid compromise, the OURW is above-average in many respects. It isn't likely to be the very best at anything, but it's no stout yeoman either. There are other choices you could take to get better performance in particular aspects, but many weapons are categorically worse than it, and only to be used in very niche situations or emergencies. There are very few situations where the OURW isn't a good option. It must also be easy to get hold of, otherwise it's unlikely to actually become ubiquitous.

Example: D&D

In much of D&D, the default weapon is baaaasically the longsword except where something enforces another option (like rogue backstab weapons or pre-3rd ed. class-based weapon choices). Hit points, enemy damage and so on are coordinated around the idea of about 1d8 damage plus some stuff. It's assumed that shields are a sensible and common option. If everyone instead adopted either daggers (much lower damage) or greataxes (much higher damage and no shields) then I'm fairly sure problems would erupt.

In practice, people will take weapons other than the longsword, such as spears and maces. In most circumstances, though, these are functionally identical to longswords: identical or equivalent damage, one-handed and requiring no special training to use. The longsword Represents them. You don't tend to get a lot of people taking daggers, whips or bastard swords that are substantially different in effect and repercussions.

All that being said, D&D characters deviate from the URW because the class system - and often, the rules that specifically restrict choices by class - tend to push characters into particular equipment choices. Rogues are pushed towards light weapons, barbarians towards double-handed ones, fighters and clerics towards board and sword. On the whole, though, both PCs and monsters tend towards a 1d8 weapon, though as level increases that damage die becomes decreasingly relevant.

Example: Deathwatch

Deathwatch's URW is the bolter, and it's an OURW all right. While there are loads of other weapons around, there's very little reason to take most; a large number of potential weapons are poorer in every single respect, while a handful are slightly better in very specific situations. This is linked to power levels and canon. Space Marines canonically are superhuman killing machines with weapons far better than ordinary mortals, and the availability of special ammunition in Deathwatch lets them customise the bolter with an array of special tools that let them fill every niche from grenade launcher to armour-piercing sniper weapon.

There's a slight complication from the heavy bolter, which is really very good and tempting. Nevertheless, "class" abilities and niches, plus general fluff, seem to discourage everyone from taking a heavy bolter everywhere. A Deathwatch campaign where everyone carried heavy bolters would probably wind up somewhat overpowered, while one where everyone took laspistols would be very short. There's a certain tendency (in our games at least) to carry a backup weapon for niche situations, like dealing with Hordes, but that basic bolter damage of 2d10-and-a-bit is the benchmark. The classic melée weapon, the chainsword, officially deals 1d10+3-and-a-bit, but in practice the Marines' bonuses from Unnatural Strength and power armour tend to mean they'll end up with about a +10 to that for about 19 damage, which is close to the bolter (I can't honestly be bothered to run the numbers for dice-drop-lowest, critical hits and margin of success right now). Because Deathwatch is so lethal, the balance of weapons and using them tactically seems very important. I haven't played it enough to say much more, though.

There's also a very specific level of defence, in that Space Marines wear armour, and it's exactly the same armour. This is significant because enemy offensive power has to be calculated against this value, and of course anything that strips the Marines of their armour tends to make things far more deadly (not least because armour in this system directly reduces damage rather than anything more statistical). In my (limited) experience, enemies that aren't Hordes seem to be about two-hit kills - and to have the same effect on Space Marines.

Example: Call of Cthulhu

Call of Cthulhu isn't really a game with lots of combat. Nevertheless, I think I can argue that it tends towards the handgun as its URW. This is mostly because it's a lot easier to carry around a pistol (and to justify having one) than anything heftier, while most Call of Cthulhu settings don't really lend themselves to melée weapon skills. The shotgun is probably the best-known weapon, but both game and many Keepers discourage people from carrying one. However, this game is sufficently unmechanically-balanced that I don't think you can learn that much here. There's cultists to fight, sure, but once you get onto any kind of gribbly monster, everything's basically either a ghoul (handgun), a byakhee (shotgun) or invulnerable (run screaming).

One reason is because it's very easy for Investigators to end up attacking each other. Another is that actually most people in the 1920s didn't walk around with shotguns, or even own one - yeah, I know! It's also partly because the combat system and the shotgun rules produce a ludicrously massive gap between shotguns and all other weapons, to the point that a shotgun at close range is liable to obliterate just about anything that isn't actually an alien, while a pistol bullet is unlikely to kill anyone and even a rifle is a bit chancy. This is officially made up for by the loss of power at range, something which I've never heard of anyone actually remembering to factor in. Call of Cthulhu isn't really a game where you fire at things more than twenty feet away anyway.

I'm not sure this is really going anywhere, but I found it mildly interesting. Time to move on.

Back to the point

What sort of weapons should Monitors be assumed to carry in normal circumstances? Pistols, suitable for secret agent work? Rifles and swords, for expeditions and enforcement? Heavier weapons, used to battle tough creatures and break through fortifications? The last seems a bit excessive given the game's premise as more like troubleshooters than warriors, so I don't want to encourage tooling up.

On the whole, I think there are probably two general levels. For investigations, crime-busting and subterfuge - stuff in relatively civilised places - small weapons are the norm. For exploration and pirate-fighting, more military weapons may be expected. Any kind of heavy weapon really ought to be an unusual choice for specialist situations where serious opposition is expected. I should therefore try to make those the natural options, and try to balance things around that.

What is balance?

How, exactly, am I going to balance weapon types - inasmuch as they need balancing?

The first thing to note is that I don't intend to try and make (for example) a small pistol and a shoulder-mounted missile launcher mechanically equal in combat. That would be silly. Each weapon is good at the thing it's good at, and the issue is using them effectively.

A pistol is good because it's portable, quick to draw and aim, has minimal recoil, is relatively quiet, concealable, can be used effectively against targets very close up as well as more distant ones, and you can do other things while holding it. Its most obvious weaknesses are its relatively limited effect (which is to say, although perfectly effective at killing a person, it won't punch through armour, tear through a crowd or kill an elephant), its limited effective range, and a lower threat value than larger firearms.

A heavy blaster cannon is good because it's effective at long range, can blast an area rather than a single target, is very intimidating, punches through most kinds of armour, and hits hard enough to take down a monster. On the downside, it is heavy and inconvenient to carry, kicks like a mule, makes a lot of noise, is virtually impossible to conceal, is very hard to aim at nearby targets and dangerous to the wielder at close range, and requires both hands to stabilise.

Most of the time, weapon choice should be dictated by logic. It's not really sensible to wander round with even a rifle all the time, because it's a pain, even before you think about alarming civilians and so on. People don't like having other people around with weapons. It scares them. If you want a weapon to keep with you, a small gun or even a lighter weapon is a better option.

Knuckling down

Okay, so, rules stuff. The major balance points are going to be:

• Size
• Manoeuvrability
• Preferred range
• Penetration
• Effect
• Subtlety

Pistol-type weapons will be lightweight, easy to aim and fire, one-handed, and easy to conceal. They have limited stopping power.

Rifle-type weapons will be middling weight, really need two hands to aim and fire accurately, and bulky enough that they're hard to conceal. You can't even walk around with one and not attract attention unless it's in a golf bag or something. These are designed for actual combat and so are good at penetrating armour. Most are pretty noisy.

Heavy weapons will be very heavy, and can't be used one-handed. They can't be concealed on your person, but must be smuggled in somewhere. Doing anything else while carrying a heavy weapon is difficult. Some kind of servo-assisted battle armour may alleviate these issues but produces new ones. Naturally, they are very powerful. They're difficult to aim quickly and poor at tracking nearby targets; many also have area affects that make it unwise to use them close up.

Wounding weapons (physical, shock and force) cause actual Wounds. These are good for bringing down targets, but tougher targets may weather a Wound or two with limited penalty. Also, it's common to have some level of protection against Wounding weapons.

Blinding weapons immediately restrict a target's ability to succeed at anything requiring senses. The duration of the effect is uncertain, though some tend to last longer than others. It's unusual for non-military targets to have defences against blinding, though some creatures weather it better than others. They hamper targets, but don't stop any but the weakest ("minion" class creatures).

Slowing weapons immediately hamper a target's ability to act, though this doesn't necessarily reduce their competence. The duration of the effect is uncertain, though some tend to last longer than others. They hamper targets, but don't stop any but the weakest ("minion" class creatures).

Photon weapons inflict Blind and are silent - though most produce enough light that their effects can be spotted. Most creatures don't wear eye shielding, but some (including robots) may adjust rapidly to glare.

Physical and force weapons just hit things. This is straightforward and generally effective, but easily resisted by armour. Some physical weapons deliver non-Wounding effects, particularly hyperdomic toxin weapons.

Shock weapons produce a burst of electricity. This is particularly effective against robots, but it's hard to produce a strong charge over distance so these are weaker than force weapons. In many cases, though, the difference is irrelevant because targets are only lightly armoured.

Gas weapons mostly affect biological targets. They're pernicious and may linger, but most creatures can muster some kind of defence against them by holding their breath or improvising a mask. They're fairly quiet and tend to hamper targets' ability to raise the alarm for fear of breathing the gas.

So, for example:

• A flare pistol is a short-ranged photon weapon that inflicts limited Blinding damage. It's easy to carry, and its ease of use and immediate effect makes it a good choice for an infiltrator expecting trouble, or someone who always wants to watch their back. While it's unlikely to take someone out of action, it's effective against many targets that might shrug off a blaster shot and gives a moment's respite to run like hell. While it won't necessarily pass a frisking, it's pretty discreet and offers some chance of evading a casual search.
• A shock rifle is a medium-ranged shock weapon that causes a Wound. It's bulky and fairly blatant, and very difficult to conceal. It's reliable, powerful enough to take out most non-military targets, and especially effective at disabling robots (and some other devices). Carrying this thing is a pain and will freak out civilians, and if a creature jumps you your best best is to try and club them with it. Anything wearing heavy armour, or with a resistant physiology, may present a problem.
• A suppression cannon is a long-ranged force weapon that's designed to flatten groups of targets. It isn't great against armoured targets. It's huge, heavy and as manoeuvrable as a king-sized quilt - and don't even think about pulling off any stunts while you're hauling one around. Firing at anything close-up is a mistake: firstly, because they can dodge faster than you can aim; and secondly, because if you do hit you'll probably get caught in the blast.

Actual actual rules

• Each step out of the preferred range imposes a penalty. This means that pistols can be used with difficulty in melée, while long-ranged weapons will suffer a large penalty and are essentially useless.
• A pistol is average-rated for any attempt at concealment. A rifle-sized weapon will be one step higher, and large weapons will be at least two steps.
• Creatures with any defences will tend to have several points more of Armour than of other defences. Exceptions might include specific species, and individuals who can get away with shades but don't want to attract attention by wearing armour.
• Pistols and similar weapons can be drawn rapidly and stored in pockets without encumbering the wielder. Medium weapons offer fewer storage options and generally take up at least one hand except when slung. A heavy weapon always takes up at least one hand. This increases the difficulty of tasks where two hands are really wanted (such as climbing) and slows down others (such as typing).
• Firing a medium weapon one-handed will increase the difficulty step once. For heavy weapons, twice.
• Carrying a heavy weapon, or any other Unwieldy item, increases the difficulty of physical activities where balance is important. This stacks with the penalty for not having free hands.
• Most weapons risk attracting enemies. The risk generally scales with weapon size, as this also affects their noisiness. A few weapons have the Stealthy property and do not attract attention.
• Obviously carrying a weapon will tend to impose penalties on social interactions. It makes them nervous and less inclined to chit-chat. It also tends to make you noticeable and may lead to other law enforcement officials interfering to see what's up. There will naturally be situations where they simply aren't permitted, but that's a GMing issue.

From what I can see, this would seem to support the desired outcomes. Small weapons are weak but convenient, and good for covert ops. Medium weapons are effective, offer occasional inconvenience if you're engaged on tasks where having a rifle ready is a sensible precaution, and are moderately inconvenient in situations where that's excessive - but (I hope) not to the point where it would ruin the reality-light adventure vibe I'm aiming for. Heavy weapons are really very inconvenient and are best restricted to tactical use against heavy targets at relatively long range.

Monitors: drafting some weapons

So following my previous post, the question is what and how to implement in terms of weapons balance. I'm aiming for a reasonable mixture of:

• choice (allowing people to equip characters as they'd like)
• balance (not having some choices so superior or inferior that maths overrides flavour)
• variety (having different weapons actually feel different to use)
• simplicity (keeping choices, mechanics and descriptions straightforward)

I don't want this silly little game bogged down by twenty-column weapons profiles, or long periods spent agonising over shopping lists. At the same time, I'd like to offer people some choice about their equipment, and to have it actually make some difference to how the character plays.

The most basic and essential factors here are range and effect. You need to know what you can shoot at and what happens if you hit - are they hurt, knocked out, turned into chocolate? Having outlined some armour rules, a further concern is how good the weapon is against armour and what protects you against it. We should also give some kind of indication of how big it is. I'd also like to indicate some general properties of the weapon (mostly the way it works) as these may affect its interactions with other mechanics, such as resistances. As some weapons will affect an area, I need to note that down somewhere too.

So an early look at things might look something like this (numbers are arbitrary):

Weapon	Range	Target	Strength	Size	Notes	Class	Defence
Flare pistol	Short	Single	Blind 1d4	1		Photon	Visor
Magnesium bomb	Throw	Blast	Blind 1d6	1	Disposable	Photon	Visor
Photon cannon	Long	Blast	Blind 1d10	30	Unwieldy	Photon	Visor
Stunner	Melée	Single	Slow 1d4	1		Shock	Armour
Shock rifle	Medium	Single	6	5	Two-handed	Shock	Armour
Mister	Melée	Single	Slow 1d4	1	Gas	Chemical	Mask
Needler	Short	Single	Slow 1d4	1		Chemical	Armour

I don't really like the "Notes" business. And there are too many columns already. I don't see why blast/single needs its own column. Also, I think we could simplify things by having the Class determine the Defence used, rather than a separate attribute. I don't want to use Effect for that because there's no reason why (for example) gas can't blind someone, and this wouldn't target the same defence as a photon effect would.

Weapon	Range	Effect	Strength	Class	Notes
Flare pistol	Short	Blind 1d4	2	Photon	Stealthy
Magnesium bomb	Throw	Blind 1d6 blast	5	Photon	Disposable
Photon cannon	Long	Blind 1d10 blast	10	Photon	Unwieldy
Stunner	Melée	Slow 1d4	2	Shock
Shock rifle	Medium	1 Wound	5	Shock	Two-handed
Mister	Melée	Slow 1d4	2	Gas, Toxin	Stealthy
Needler	Short	Slow 1d4	2	Physical, Toxin	Stealthy

Here, we know that Photon effects always target Visor, Gas effects target Mask, and that Physical, Shock and Force effects target Armour. The Toxin keyword will mostly come into play when robots and other entities with odd physiology are involved. Other keywords may well have special properties: for example, Gas effects used in low-G may behave differently, and Shock weapons have more effect against robots. Stealthy weapons are both silent and invisible except to the target, ideal for subterfuge - most photon weapons can't achieve this, as there tends to be visible overspill, but the small pistol can maintain a narrow beam.

Further notes

The eagle-eyed among you may notice that I forgot to include ammunition capacity. Nope. I'm not using ammo. This is part of my effort to distinguish Tech and Magic: technology is fundamentally reliable and predictable, which means your weapon will never run out of juice mid-combat. This doesn't mean they've endless capacity, it just means you shouldn't be taken by surprise. Rather than a resource to manage, ammunition/charge becomes a narrative limit. You know that you don't have enough charge in your blaster to take out every soldier in the base, but you never have to worry about it in ordinary "reaasonable" use. Without having to track it most of the time, the GM can offer appropriate limits if the character is in an unusual situation, perhaps stranded somewhere and unable to recharge. Only grenades have limited use, and the same limit may apply to some other one-use items.

One possibility is to have generic weapon groups (Pistol, Rifle, Heavy) that combined several properties like Range, Size and how many hands you need. This would certainly make the tables smaller, but wouldn't actually be much simpler - you still need to know what those properties are, so I'm not sure it's an improvement.

I could certainly further simplify things by dropping the range of weapons. For example, without the Needler and Stunner, we could decide that all Slowing weapons are Gas, and then use Class to determine the damage type, rather than having a separate entry.

Another thing I want to consider for future drafts is whether the familiar scheme of Light (short range, low damage, low pen) and Heavy (long range, high damage, high pen) weapons is suitable, or whether I can mix it up a bit.

Weapon balance for Monitors

So, I think I'm reasonably happy with the armour system, at least for now, and should move on. What still needs work before I can test this thing out?

• Equipment of some kind
• Revisiting skills
• Revisiting magic in the light of skills and combat rules
• Actually coming up with some spells and stuff
• Balancing
• Probably some more stuff I haven't thought of yet

Eh, let's stick with the "stuff" theme.

Equipment choices

As I discussed recently, if there is a choice of weapons, people will tend to gravitate to the mathematically optimal. This is sensible both IC and OOC, most of the time. What you want to avoid, I think, is (at least) three issues:

1. having an array of equipment that in practice will rarely be used because it's suboptimal
2. having characters take equipment that makes no sense IC because they are better than the "correct" choice even allowing for any inconvenience
3. discouraging players from taking archetypal equipment because some other choice will make their archetype much better at its job

At the same time, I absolutely do not want to implement a really crunchy combat system to lovingly model every possible consideration. I also want to allow leeway for adventure genre tropes. So, what sort of factors might I want to consider - and what should have mechanical treatment rather than being left to the GM?

• Preferred range - weapons are suited to different ranges
• Accuracy - how easy is it to hit a target?
• Stopping power - how strongly is the target affected?
• Penetration - how good is the weapon at getting through armour, respirators or flare guards?
• Effects - what kind of effect does the weapon actually have?
• Subtlety - how loud and obvious is the weapon?
• Size - can the weapon be easily carried and concealed, or is it a massive chunk of steel?
• Power - how energy-guzzling is the weapon?
• Firing rate - is the weapon unusually fast or slow?

Power

I've been vaguely thinking about power for a while as a semi-lampshade way to restrict equipment. With most things being high-tech, it's not unreasonable to say that they need power, and things like weapons or serious equipment will have power needs orders of magnitude larger than things like communicators. That means you need to carry a serious power source. So a character could be limited to, say, ten power points that would run things like weapons, major bionics, gravity dampers, force fields or thermoreg clothing. This would leave characters weighing up bigger guns against other equipment options.

I don't know whether I'm going to implement this one or not, I just thought it was an interesting idea.

Range

Range in Monitors wants to be quick and dirty. My general plan is just to allocate a single Preferred Range to each ranged effect out of something like (Close), Short, Medium, Long, (Extreme). For each slot outside the preferred range, attack difficulty increases by 5. So a pistol would be effective at Short range and suffer a -10 penalty at Long range, while the opposite applies to a sniper rifle.

You'd need to apply common sense here - obviously firing point-blank at a stationary target will be easy - but except for unusual situations like that I think it's probably good enough.

Accuracy

Some weapons may trade off punch for accuracy, gving you a bonus on attack rolls. This shouldn't be a straightforward thing to optimise because it's really going to depend what you're going to fight. An accurate weapon will be great against lightly-armoured targets and poor against armoured ones.

Again, not sure if I'm planning to use this or not. It might be something you can do to weapons rather than a separate category.

Stopping power

This is basically going to come down to heavy weapons or not. Some weapons, if they hit, will wreak havoc on a target, others are just painful. Heavy weapons are good for big beasties, vehicles, tough creatures and just making very sure of the job. This is likely to use the system I mentioned last time of causing multiple dice of damage, each requiring an Armour save.

Penetration

It's no use hitting something if your attacks don't do anything. There will be different defences that protect against different attack types: most likely something like Armour (for general attacks), Mask (for gas attacks), Visor (for visual effects) and Ward (for some magical attacks). Some weapons will be good at overcoming these defences, while others are easily repelled.

Effects

As already discussed, there will be different types of weapon effect. The ones I'm envisaging are actual Wound loss, Blind and Slow. I might be willing to consider others, but every effect added will complicate the game and risk things bogging down in a mass of status effects. Different effects will be useful in different situations. To slightly complicate matters, effects will interact with the actual type of certain weapons: for example, there will certainly be Slowing weapons that target both Armour and Mask.

Subtlety

Monitors isn't just supposed to be a combat game, but one where infiltration, tactics, diplomacy and exploration are all part of the game. In any case, you don't want to bring every guard for miles around down on your head even in a combat game. While I won't be implementing realistic noises (because it's supposed to be a fun adventure game), some weapons will be louder and more obvious than others, and so risk getting you into further trouble.

Size

What with being secret agents and so on, Monitors aren't just supposed to wander around the place in hulking battle-armour with missile launchers. It's also really out of character for some archetypes. Some weapons are light and easy to hide, for those who either want to blend in, or only want it for emergencies. At the other end of the scale, carrying a heavy weapon will make all kinds of things more difficult, as well as weighing you down. Heavier weapons are also unwieldy and tricky to use in a hurry. In between are reliable rifle-type weapons, neither small enough to conceal nor large enough to get in your way.

Firing rate

Another one I'm not sure about using. A potential trade-off for some weapons is a reduced firing rate, due to recharging or recoil. This would probably mean getting off powerful attacks but at a reduced rate, which makes the weapon less effective against numerous targets, as well as increasing the pain of missed attacks.

Monitors: armoury

In a adventure-romp game of secret agents and special forces, weapons are going to be important. Let's see what sort of things a Monitor might be dealing with. I'm picturing this as several broad groups with different types of effect. PCs can trade off between power and convenience, as well as between weapons effective against different targets. While extensive armoury lists are a common RPG thing, I may actually end up using few weapons than I've outlined below; to some extent I think a few well-distinguished weapons that people can use to define a character may be a better fit than a long list that turns into number-crunching or constant re-equipping.

Photon weapons

These weapons produce a brief, intense burst of light across a range of wavelengths, allowing them to dazzle a wide range of species, regardless of their visual organs. They are near-silent, and their safety makes them a favourite for policing.

• Flare pistol. Effectively a supercharged torch, the flare pistol sends a sharp pulse of light at a single target. In an emergency, it can be used to fight up surroundings, overload sensors or signal for help.
• Magnesium bomb. A grenade which releases a brilliant burst of light when triggered, dazzling onlookers.
• Photon cannon. A heavy photon weapon used in shock raids and to subdue wild beasts. It functions like a hypercharged spotlight, flooding the target area with a tight beam of brilliant light, with minimal overspill.

Force weapons

These weapons induce sympathetic kinetic impact in the target, acting like a physical blow. They range in effectiveness from light slap to sledgehammer, and auto-calibrate to the target's composition to avoid unwanted lawsuits.

• Blaster. A small handgun that can send an opponent reeling.
• Blast rifle. The mainstay of many a security force, this convenient and reliable weapon has a kick like a carthorse.
• Blast cannon. A heavy and powerful weapon that can send targets flying and buckle armour plating.

Shock weapons

These weapons produce a pulse of electricity, scrambling circuits or nervous systems and leaving targets slow and clumsy. More painful than photon weapons, their use is more heavily restricted, but they are particularly favoured for anti-robot use.

• Stunner. A lightweight melée weapon that zaps the target with a disabling pulse.
• Shock rifle. The gold standard in robot fighting, portable and devastating.
• EMP grenade. An disrupting weapon used to disable vehicles and computers, but equally useful against robots and tech-dependent organics.
• Suppression cannon. A heavy weapon used to quell riots, subdue packs of vermin and bring down large creatures that shrug off lighter weaponry.

Knockout weapons

These weapons use a mix of tranquilisers to subdue targets, rendering them slow and clumsy, and eventually unconscious. They are effective against most carbon-based lifeforms.

• Mister. Easily concealed in a pocket or fist, this is a favourite of both safety-conscious civilians and career criminals.
• Needler. This light weapon fires a minute hypodermic loaded with sedatives. Monitors and other specialists carry a range of ammunition types for unusual targets.
• Knockout grenade. Developed from crude gas grenades, this intelligent weapon directs a stream of nebulised sedative towards nearby targets.

Physical weapons

These weapons use direct physical force. They are mostly used as backup or in extremis.

Weapon effects

Some possible special rules:

• Unwieldy weapons suffer a penalty at close range and may be inconvenient at other times (more difficult to ready, harder to do other things while holding)
• Force weapons have reduced effect against oozes, rubbery creatures and so on, which can absorb and disperse the kinetic energy without harm.
• Shock weapons are more effective against robots and certain creatures. They create a blast if the target is in water, but if fired underwater, instead create a blast centered on the user.
• Gas weapons are ineffective against non-breathing targets.
• Disposable weapons are single-use.
• Chemical weapons rely on metabolism, and are ineffective against robots and certain creatures.

Most likely creatures can have associated keywords, and these determine vulnerability or resistance to weapons. I don't think it's necessary to go full-blown D&D Types on it.

Resistance to soft attacks (blind and slow) could work in one (or both) of two ways. The first is to simply decrease the die size, thus increasing the odds of the target recovering. The second is to allow a reroll. I'd need to run the maths on these to determine which is nicest.

Vulnerability to soft attacks has slightly different options. The first is to decrease the die size, thus reducing the odds of the target recovering. Unlike resistance, I really don't think rerolls are a good idea: this would leave a 1d10 blind as a 1/100 chance to recover, adding an extremely swingy factor to such creatures, which I'm not keen on. So my second option would be a simple one-time penalty, with the first success on the recovery roll being ignored. Again, maths is needed.

---

Next time on Monitors - more fun with maths, as we take a look at wounding probabilities and the hit/wound interaction!

Monitors: I, robot

I've had a quick think about the general place of technology in Monitors, and now it's time for some specifics. So, cyborgs! How does one go about modelling cyborghood in an RPG?

Probably inspired by Deathwatch, and partly because I already mentioned an vocaliser implant for languages, I'm vaguely thinking of having a sort of standard payload for Monitors; a set of minor but useful implants and enhancements that all recruits receive. They would have a few set upgrades, and then select a small number of personalised ones to suit their character. The default kit will hopefully add a bit of flavour, while also offering plausible in-game reasons for things that are useful from a metagame perspective.

Standard Cybernetics

As default, Monitors receive:

• Vocaliser: allows articulation of all major lects, regardless of physiology. Narratively, this is a vital tool for a special response force, allowing them to communicate with the broadest possible range of people during the course of their missions, and providing assistance with covert operations where disguise or deception are called for. Metawise, it gives a plausible reason for Monitors to be able to talk to most NPCs without demanding an implausible "universal language" or hyper-accurate interpreter technology. It also allows that capability to be selectively disabled, and leaves open the possibility of species or individuals who can't be so readily understood - their language is simply too obscure.
• Auditor: tracks and records anatomical data, and provides feedback as appropriate. Narratively, this is as useful to monitors as similar tools are in real life to athletes, astronauts, soldiers, firefighters, medics and other people in dangerous situations. It keeps them aware of their state of health and energy levels. Metawise, this allows PCs to evaluate their condition in roughly the same way as players do.
• Mnemoniser: a supplementary memory chip that allows them to store and recall clues, contacts and notes. Narratively, this is just a more efficient version of a notepad or dictaphone, which can't be lost, stolen or copied, and can be used without noise or motion in covert situations. Metawise, it just makes it that bit more logical that PCs remember the clues they encountered during an adventure, and should encourage GMs to give prompts without hesitating over whether the PCs ever said they were making a note of the address. I'm picturing the mnemoniser as a sort of mental dictaphone, so it doesn't connect to the Monitor's senses - if they want to take pictures or record conversations, they need external tech. Certain electromagnetic effects can scramble or corrupt the chip, so amnesia plotlines are not completely out of the question.

Common Enhancements

• Neural jack: a nervous-system interface that can connect directly with technology, making many jobs easier and permitting bonding with mechas, command helms of large vessels, and similar devices.
• Nanofilters: minute medical devices that monitor and filter the bloodstream, breaking down toxins rapidly and boosting the immune system.
• Cybernetic eye: possible features include infra-red setting for night vision, photography (spliced to mnemoniser), rangefinger, motion tracker and optical filter to avoid glare.
• Cybernetic arm: possible features include increased strength, surgical implants, tool implants, built-in weaponry, thermal shielding, grappling line and collapsible shield.

I'm considering a distinction in the level of cybernetics, possibly creating some kind of augmetics/bionics distinction. Basically, low-powered cybernetics offer limited benefits but are hard to distinguish from the real thing. High-powered ones offer more and better benefits, but are increasingly obvious, which has disadvantages for concealment, disguise, and identification: it's hard to argue that your massive steel arm and glowing red eye are entirely normal, difficult to persuade the guards that you're just a passing beggar who happens to have expensive cybernetics, and almost impossible to convince them that you're not the same steel-armed red-eyed intruder they were told to arrest. Obviously, things like really obvious distinguishing features do tend to be handwaved in RPGs, but I think it's worth giving a bit of attention to nonetheless.

There will be other enhancements, of course, but these are the ones that came easily to mind.

Basically, I'm thinking that chargen will include characters making a series of selections. Skillswise, they'll get default skills plus a number of points to allocate. They'll select (I think) a couple of major spells, plus a couple of minor ones that might have niche utility, just to add interest. They'll get their basic cybernetics, and choose a number of extra enhancements. Finally, they'll pick equipment, which will probably include at least one artifact as well as weapons, armour and devices. There's just a bit of a question as to whether I have one set of options and that's basically it (minimal changes to character after creation) or whether they start off with slightly less stuff and get more assigned through successful completion of missions. This will alter the tone of the game somewhat. Either way, though, I plan to try and avoid the looting model, because it just doesn't fit with what I'm trying to do.

Monitors: technicalities

At this point, I seem to have something that roughly resembles a functioning system for Monitors, and should start thinking about trying to scrape together a top-secret alpha test of my game of anthropomorphic armoured warlock lizard cybo...

Oh yeah.

So as I stated in an earlier post:

Magic and technology are two key ways of interacting with the world. The conceit behind these two elements in Monitors is basically their contrast. Technology is modern, exciting, comprehensible, relatively shiny, mostly safe and mostly reliable: a product of the genius and hard work of countless experts. Magic is antediluvian, arcane and potentially sinister: scraps of secret knowledge that occasionally drift to the surface.

So in a game, I'd like these two to feel substantially different. I want technology (barring experiments and so on) to feel sleek, reliable, and generally cool. I want magic to feel exotic, mysterious, significant, and maybe a little subversive.

Referencing

Because I think it was helpful last time, I was planning to glance at some implementations of technology in other games. However, I fairly soon felt like it wasn't doing much - I've not actually played much in the way of sci-fi games, and speculating wildly on games I haven't played won't be helpful. So just the one for you.

Technology in Deathwatch

The Imperium of Mankind has a deeply suspicious, superstitious and ignorant attitude towards technology. As a result, while they possess technology capable of many marvellous things, they generally don't have the science to connect it all. Devices tend to have individual abilities, rather than forming part of a logically coherent set of capabilities across society. Most people have very limited understanding of technology, able to use devices through rote training rather than understanding, and entirely unable to maintain them short of the most basic field repairs. Even the scientifically literate tend to handle technology in highly ritualistic terms, knowing what has worked before and repeating it obediently, and mixing engineering with religion at all times. Devices are encrusted with holy symbols and sigils in the hopes of persuading them to function, expensive sanctified oils are used, censers wafted and even reboots administered with reverence. Much of the technology is beyond their capability to recreate, and must be maintained and studied constantly, in the vain hope of rediscovering lost knowledge.

In practice, much of the technology functions fairly readily (though I've mostly only encountered simple gear so far). There are jamming rules for weapons, and some are more prone to malfunctions than others, especially plasma weaponry. A distinctive feature of the universe is that alien species differ considerably in their take on technology. Orks have enthusiastic and ludicrous technology that works because they believe it will, but is astonishingly unreliable; Eldar have technology refined to amazing heights of elegance, though not mechanically better than anyone else; Necrons have "sufficiently advanced technology"; and Tau are an up-and-coming species whose freshly-researched technology is within (considerable) spitting distance of our real technology. Each take highlights a different kind of culture, and gives each race a different feel.

Pondering

So I'm looking for shiny shiny tech. What sort of traits will make technology feel like a sleek, safe, reliable counterpart to the twisting esoteries of magic?

Reliability

The general run of technology that characters encounter should be more or less perfectly reliable - and when it isn't, it should at least be predictable, and any problems should be explicable. I don't think it particularly undermines the reliability aspect if technology has limited charge, or can be countered in logical ways, or if sabotage causes an engine failure. What I don't want is for the technology to feel unpredictable and its results uncertain, because that's venturing too close to the tone of magic.

In mechanical terms, this is going to mean that things like malfunctions should be extremely rare, and I think also suggests that players shouldn't usually have to worry about things like batteries or ammunition. If you're always wondering whether your weapon will jam, it's hard to treat technology as an ever-reliable friend and ally, in the spirit of the cheery Golden Age science fiction I'm inspired by.

The natural exception here is plot-tech, which is an essential part of any sci-fi game. Monitors are very likely to be called in to investigate technological mishaps, or experimental technology. Similarly, freak accidents might render reliable tech unreliable in order to enable a plotline, such as the classic Deepjump-gone-awry or an engine failure that strands them on a remote world. To maintain the feel I'm looking for, the unusual nature of these occurrences should be emphasised by the GM - a solar storm affected the Deepjump engine, or perhaps a piece of space debris with an unusual chemical composition managed to pass through the shields and damage the engine (a potential plot hook in itself).

There are also a handful of cutting-edge or extreme technologies that are a big deal, in particular the intersystem and intergalactic Deepjumps that form part of the background to the setting. Deepjumps are inherently stressful, physically demanding and technologically complex, which is why they're such a rare event. Other alternatives exist, slower and safer. Here, the game can set up a pleasing contrast and mood, by emphasising the precautions and preparations necessary for a Deepjump, and the strain it places on the jumpers. Because everyday technology is so very reliable and safe, this should make Deepjumps feel special.

Comprehensibility and familiarity

It isn't at all necessary for players to understand the science in the game, or even for the science to be accurate (accurate science doesn't necessarily play well with adventure). However, the characters should be au fait with the technology they use, having a broad understanding of what it does and how it does it. This is sort of the converse of Deathwatch, where tech-use is a matter of rote learning and conviction, leaving tech mysterious and arcane. Essentially, in terms of social position, most Monitors technology should feel like the sort of everyday tech we take for granted ourselves - lighting, heating, transport, the Internet, plumbing - there when you need it. A hovercar chase through a city of spires is no more dangerous than a car chase, and almost certainly much less so, since the vehicles' AI systems will swerve them around civilians, while data networks will quickly try to clear the road. Making an intrasystem jump is no more of an event than taking a flight.

There are again a couple of deliberate exceptions to this rule. Rare alien technology may be beyond the understanding of the characters, either too advanced or simply too differently-conceived for its principles to make sense to them. In many cases, though, alien technology should be fairly straightforward to analyse and understand - it's using the same laws of reality, after all. The second exception is again extreme technology, which may be really understood only by a handful of experts and geniuses throughout the Universe. Again, Deepjumps are likely to be an example of this.

Maintenance

Given reasonable circumstances, characters should be able to repair most of the technology they use. All Monitors are trained in technology, and simple jobs like soldering, rewiring, fitting new powerpacks, sealing holes or swapping out circuit boards should be no problem for them. More advanced jobs will require a bit of time and training, but a Monitor with a medium to high Tech skill (or Science, if appropriate) should be able to fix most things, given sufficient time and resources.

Adaptation

It's hard to accept that science and technology are everyday parts of life if characters can only use what's put in front of them. To really accept that, you need to be able to take that technology and put it to new and unexpected uses. I think this comes in two parts. Firstly, creative use of technology should be encouraged, which means in GMing terms, being fairly generous about using things in unexpected ways. Secondly, characters should be able to use their skills to jury-rig devices out of what's available. Reversing polarities, aligning fields, feeding signals back into themselves to cancel them out, overcharging powerpacks and plugging primary education-level AIs into military mechs are classic bits of sci-fi that reinforce the idea that characters know about technology and are comfortable using it creatively. Generally speaking, I think creativity is one of the major signs that you actually understand something and can move beyond simply following procedures.

Shininess

This isn't strictly necessary - you could vary the aesthetics of the tech if you want - but the sort of clean-living optimism of classic sci-fi really calls for tech to be shiny, sleek and cheerful. Weapons should be rounded rather than spiky, and fire beams of gleaming energy rather than bolts of necrotic energy. Engines should roar enthusiastically and hurl vehicles forward on smokeless beams of blue light, rather than billowing clouds of sulphurous smoke. Machines should run on solar power, cold fusion and safe-for-children pseudofuels, rather than coal and fission and the souls of the living. Equipment should need little or no safety precautions, because it's just that well-engineered and goshdarned safe. And people should say things like "goshdarned" rather than turning the air blue.

This will have little direct mechanical impact. Things like fuel sources may make some difference in play, despite having no numeric effect - it's certainly easier to get solar power than coal. Things like combat descriptions, or the effects of accidents, will be affected by these aesthetic choices, although there's no reason why accidents can't in fact have nasty consequences for bystanders - flying shards of metal are, after all, flying shards of metal.

---

Next time I will think about some actual examples of Monitors technology.