Invention And Fabrication: Make Any Item In The Game With The Tech Maker Ability.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ค. 2024
- Rules As Written: Homebrew any item in #CyberpunkRed using the Tech's #Maker ability. I break down, A to Z, how to get this done.
Happy New Year/Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays
Join our community discord!
/ discord
Subscribe to the Tabletop Cyberpunk Podcast
open.spotify.com/show/5HJ1Eha...
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram. TikTok
@jonjonthewise
Twitch
www.twitch.tv/jonjonthewise
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 Intro
01:36 "Maker" Summary
04:06 "Maker" Formula
04:55 Red Economy
05:46 Invention Intro
06:05 IDEA
06:21 SCHEMATICS
06:44 PARTS REQUIRED
07:04 PRICING
07:33 My Example Item
10:05 Fabrication Intro
11:29 Fabrication Formula
12:25 Outro - เกม
I’ve had this idea for a Solo’s equivalent to the meth trailer from Breaking Bad for a while now. You take a garbage truck, clean out the inside and armor plate it from the interior so that it looks like an average garbage truck on the outside. The real trick is the compactor at the back, though. You mess around with the mechanism so that it opens outwards like a submarine hatch, and right at the front you have a mounted HMG or grenade launcher. The compactor door is likely sturdy enough to take a beating if you need to shut it, and there’s enough space on the inside for something like a small armory, living quarters, Netrunner setup, etc. just not all at once.
If your target sees a heavily armored personnel carrier with about a dozen mercenaries inside, they’re liable to delta the fuck out of there in a hurry. But a garbage truck, semi truck, or even a gas tanker are all perfectly normal things, nobody bats an eye. So you can roll right up to the end of their driveway, hop out ready to break down the door, nab the bastard and shove em in the back and lock the hatch behind you.
Who the hell is going to check the compactor of a garbage truck for Arasaka’s regional manager of printer ink and toner?
Great breakdown !
All I can see now is Sam as the guy rocking on the guitar in Mad Max Fury Road. Make it happen Jonjon.
He's personally sent me that GIF like a thousand times lol. He's got that image in his head too
@@JonJonTheWise Sounds to me like the Rockerboy needs a mobile concert. Get a nomad group to help him with that
@@MysteriousAya stay tuned! We go more in-depth with Sam's band in the new campaign.
2 steps ahead of you fam
*Spoilers* I may or may not have a guitar with a flamethrower on it
Sweet breakdown! Also loving the end card as well, fits perfectly to your style choom! #Netrunner4Life
thank you buddy
Flame thrower guitar axe 🎸 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 that is hilarious 🤣 . Love that you allowed it to be used 😂
Ayyyyyyyy
Good break down, but I'd scale the Tech Fee on the difficulty of the check, and if they have to both invent & fabricate that's gonna cost extra!
I believe that’s how it is in the rules. Invention only gives you the blueprint. You still need to fabricate it.
@@jonathanhickle9793 From what I remember, it says you have a working prototype at the end of invention check, because it does say that you lose the materials from failing the invention check.
Have these rules been updated? My copy of the book seems to say different things about fabrication. (Such as materials are not wasted when you fail your roll)
Yes that was my mistake. You do not lose materials
Ngl cyberpunk red is looking like it's a great game to run an all support group
I can attest that you don't need a combat specialist in your group. You don't need anything. You can do 5 netrunners if you want. It's great
@@JonJonTheWise the system is shaping up better than I dreamed
I thoroughly plan on running a TT unit game. Then going to see if I can't get people who are interested in espionage and intrigue for an Exec's rise to power campaign.
@@MysteriousAya I've been tinkering with a Q branch game all this week
Agreed, actually I am much more interested in the non-combat characters and the alternate ways to solve problems and interact with the world.
I'm a noob and have a question.
Iv picked tech so maker is my role. Can I only choose 2 out of invent. Build fit and repair?
Doesn't that mean I can't do anything on my own? What's the point of designing and building a weapon mod if I can't fit it to the weapon?
Also if that is the case then it makes no sense. If a guy was talented enough to design and build a silencer or scope etc for a rifle then it makes no sense that they wouldn't be able to fit it.
ive been trying to figure is out for a hot second. thanks jon jon, i could kiss you
Hi JJ, just a clarification question regarding schematics and fabrication. If the item has already been invented i.e. VH Pistol "Sternmeyer P-35", would the tech need the schematic (cue netrunner and corporate espionage etc.) or could they, (assuming they have acquired the gun) retro it, and use that as the template to create another? I am gravitating to needing the schematic, however, I would love your thoughts on it.
It would make me curious as to how they use the Upgrade skill as it sort of means they "invent" a new version of it, and therefore might need the schematic to do this too...I can appreciate the synergy between the different Maker specialties, it would be good to have a process for each, similar to your Idea, Schematic, Parts, Pricing, suggestion for Invention.
I would allow the tech to reverse engineer an item to make a new one. You could make it a DV20 Weaponstech roll to take it apart carefully and recognize it's design.
Failure means they broke something while breaking it down and that ruined their work. From then you can tell them that they can try to fabricate schematics that are similar at a +2 and hope for the best
@@JonJonTheWise That's sounds like a really good option, thank you for that 👍 . I'll have a think about more advanced tech with circuitry etc. I might even go the route that if the Tech as you say, reverse engineers it, then they can only make poor copies of that item, as they do not have the actual original schematic. They could then upgrade the item to standard and no further...after all, poor items are generally a substandard 'knock-off'.
I like the option that a netrunner could find a schematic on a run as part of the 'treasure'...no risk it no biscuit mentality you mentioned in a previous video. It could even be given as a reward for a run instead of payment.
I am sure I will be back with further questions for other stuff, really glad we have your experience and sage advice to draw upon.
hi JJ thanks for many advices. i have a question about prices to fabricate. in DnD the material cost are half de price of the item, here in cyberpunk, if I am a Techie, how does it work?
I have a few videos covering this topic. I can’t get too into it in a comment. But it is along the same vein as d&d but it is the full price of all materials . There’s more to it than that though
Hi JonJon. Let me give you an engineering point of view to realistic design of complex items:
The problem of creating an electric guitar axe with flamethrower is not just a problem of getting the individual parts. It is also solving the positive and mostly negative influences of each part to another unlike in a thing designed for one purpose.
Ask following questions:
- Would it sound like an electric guitar? -> Yes, it just wouldn't have feedback of the vibration of the wood, but that could be simulated by some post-process chips before feeding it to speaker.
- Would there be enough space for fuel while not negatively impacting it's swinging ability? -> Maybe fuel and speaker could be in backpack and the connector could be both for sound signal with a fuel hose wrapped around it. It would need to be unplugged through quick detach self-sealing connector before using for melee. Or there could be a small cartridge for one shot, to be reloaded.
- When using it in melee - how sturdy it should be? -> On axe, there is nothing to easily break, it is designed for one purpose. Would the strings snap easily? Should there be a protective cover, that would rotate into the neck and body upon opening for playing?
This would require some material and extra engineering leading to higher costs. Possibly some malus.
I wonder if I understood the techie costs. If the techie creates it on his own, it should be costs of tooling and extra materials (screws, glue, soldering materials...). Tooling cost should strongly relate to cost of first prototype versus routine fabrication. Should relate to the complexity of own manufacture (not much if connecting a few pre-made things, much more if creating from scratch).
Techie payment should only be included when buying form another techie because the one building it pays by his time and effort.
Are there more general questions that an engineer asks themselves when designing equipment? Having those questions in a general form would be super helpful as a GM
@@Siazo10 That is interesting question. The answer to it necessarily cannot be as specific like above, may distill some fundamental questions:
1) What is the problem the product should solve?
2) What is the available tech I can reuse and what are it's limitations? Do I have good enough energy density in power cell to build railgun for example? (As GM: What implications would it have for the world to have it? Does it fit the universe?)
3) What are the limitations of currently available tech have to overcome? (Genuine original R&D, may be too steep for lone tech except tiny improvements)
4) How the product will be used and what ergonomic problems I need to solve in that regard? (If I install weapons on my car, how do I control them and to what extent? Do I need also sensors and AI assist? Will a complex weapon light enough to use in practice?)
5) If I combine several sub components, do they all fit in? Are all of them sturdy enough for the intended purpose?
6) What trade-offs I need to make to achieve gains one one category over other? (For example: Downforce = + traction, - top speed. Extra armor = + protection, - acceleration etc.)
I agree, I feel like there need to be limits of realism to this or else your tech quickly turns into a mad scientist. But it's ultimately up to each GM and their preferred game style how they balance realism vs the 'rule of cool'.
@@jansvoboda4293 Thanks this is really helpful!
y'all can argue the needs for realism in games, meanwhile i'll have fun with my chain axe guitar with a flamethrower.
My genuine hope is that the systems:
- theoretically would make building a Gundam possible.
- practically makes building a Gundam impossible die to the enormous costs.
If you're looking for giant mechs then you should check out Mekton. It's a game by R Talsorian and could be converted to Red with some creativity and thought.
really informative vid friend, i just have a quick Queerie about your playlist...
did you mean to follow this video with 3 recipes for Asian cooking?
Thank you. And no I didn't lollll wtf. Must have been a mistake
I just removed them thanks for the heads up Stephen 😂. Ive been making asian food lately
@@JonJonTheWise they look delicious, I'm probably going to try them sometime.
I love little happy accidents like that.
:)
Good video JonJon but one thing I noticed is that you said guitars are an everyday item (20eb) but in the graphic priced the guitar at premium (100eb) even though on page 351 the book says electric guitars or another instrument are expensive (500eb)
Haha I guess it's up to everyone's interpretation. I said everyday item and priced it at 100eb. So I'm terrible 😂
I don't see how detailing the making process will make the resulting item less broken or less unbalanced if that is the case :D If the item is already broken, it doesn't matter how you created it, you will still result in a broken item.
Not necessarily. There are two way how a new product can break the status quo. Either it is more powerful than anything currently available (what I imagine you mean), or equivalent to something that was so far very rare is now available cheaply in huge numbers, having tremendous impact on the world. I suggest that making process deals with the latter problem.
@@jansvoboda4293 Oh, I assumed this ability only produced the item for personal use. You're describing a case of breaking the economy which is rarely a problem in D&D that was given in the example.
@@rustymudbear5287 That depends how you narrate the game. Either you can make it just a superficial adventure with common tropes, or an experience of imaginary world ruled by logical implications. The first one is relatively linear amusement park ride, the latter an exploration of implied sets of choices.
In the first approach, the player would be content with the fact he expressed something and GM would be content as long as the item do not break challenges on particular ride that is planned. In the second approach, player would get ideas of alternate routes, like getting immensely rich and setting up his own corporation. GM would have to explain why no one else could do it when low level techie could beat corporations in their own game and come up with ideas how to regain control of the world without casting some ridiculous deus-ex machina solutions. Unlikely technological breaktrough by one of characters could be an interesting story driver, but that should be securely in the hands of GM knowing what he is doing rather than late realization that he arrived at a place he has no longer a good control of.
I would just disclose, that what picked my interest in the subject is actually the potential of the latter approach that I see as the pinnacle of interactive experience.
I think that the character of Rober Ford from Westworld put it quite eloquently: th-cam.com/video/FPtnaQpk22Y/w-d-xo.html
@@jansvoboda4293 The sandbox approach has its theoretical merits for sure, but it's not very interesting to me precisely due to the lack of overarching narrative. You might say I'm from the other camp 🙂 I've heard all this about player agency and limitless possibility loads of times but I've yet to be impressed by player actions, either in the games I've ran, listened about or listened to - in case of sandbox games I mean. Sure, the players will prevail at some point and feel very happy and smart but that's both boring to participate and watch for me, all these long periods of planning which are interspersed with GM furiously making stuff up on the fly or pulling rabbits out of his hat one after another. I'd rather play a board game 😜
@@rustymudbear5287 I think you misunderstood my point. I am not saying, put players into an empty sandbox to do whatever. What I meant was, that carefully crafted world imposes it's own limitations to player's actions that they can understand.
If players are passive by nature, you do not need explanations. If they tend to interact with implied options, it is always better if the limitations come from the narrated nature of the world consistently, rather than some ad-hoc justification.
Eg. you naively admit some action and it leads to new options. But now you see the new option would break your world and have to provide ad hoc rule, why that option cannot be taken. Hence the narrative of world is not consistent and it breaks the spell.
It's not necessarily about "make your own story from scratch", it can be "pick your methods how to solve your goals in the story".
No one is a good person deep down. Christ was the only sinless one, we all else are terribly sinful. We all fail
"All have fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23
Part of the point of Christianity is that we recognize we are not good people, that all goodness we have comes from God, so we must be forgiven by God for our wickedness.