Which cyberpunk mechanic is better?

[Thrawn4]

Greetings.

So, I am currently updating my cyberpunk RPG, and I have been wondering which approach is better:

A) All stats are increased from the same XP pool. Makes for more variety, as you can have both mundane characters as well as those with a lot of cybertech.

B) Cybertech is bought from a second pool. It feels more cyberpunky to me, as the system basically emulates the premise that you can just throw money at your doc to get better (and that mundane people are inferior). Of course, you have less variety when it comes to character building.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[Xervous]

We need many more details about the system to make a proper assessment.

[Quertus]

I guess I’m used to cybernetics being purchased from a pool called money, because that’s the most Simulationist answer. That pool can be used to buy other things, like weapons and ammo, vehicles, drones, reinforced walls, bribes, information, medical treatment, and shower in a can.

So, that’s my bias. I guess the question you need to ask yourself is, what is your goal? What feel are you aiming for? Is the character trying to choose between a new arm and a new car, or between a new arm and a new skill?

[Wintermoot]

It's an interesting thought concept.

Cybernetics, the character improvement dynamic you can buy. It brings in thoughts of people paying real life money for in-game gear in video games or buying high level characters from character farmers who build them up then sell them for profit.

Taking it back to D&D, you spend money to buy equipment, and through them some character improvements like new spells. Now imagine if you could just buy entire levels. Are you a 3rd level fighter, but you want to buy 4 levels of wizard to slap on top of you? No problem as long as you have the gold.

In a cyberpunk game, I think it adds a reasonable layer of game interaction. The rich can afford to be stronger, faster, better and more able than the poor. They want some high level bodyguards, take some low level schmucks and slap 7 levels of warrior ability onto them for a low low cost.

I think it makes sense in the "punk" part of cyberpunk, where you are always supposed to be dealing with class divide and sticking it to the man and so on. Somebody with a lot of money can buy imbalance, but that's baked into the mechanics of the universe and is expected.

The question is how to integrate it in a game like shadowrun or similar where 'cybernetics users' are just one type of character vs other types of characters. How to you have a party where five of the six characters have to earn XP and use XP to improve their characters, but the sixth just needs to get money and use money to improve? What does HE do with the XP he isn't using and what keeps the other five from using money to follow suit.

It would make sense, in that thought path, to divorce cybernetics from being a character type or character trait and turn it into pure equipment. Then anyone can use cybernetics or not, depending on individual desire.

I think if I was building a system from ground up, that's the way I'd lean. Treating cybernetics as equipment that can be bought vs improved on like normal character traits using whatever character building mechanic you are using.

[Anymage]

Shadowrun melds a lot of tropes, and if they let cyberware be pure bonus they'd have no reason for every character to not go heavily into the cyber. Making cyborgs be just one character type out of many is just letting other tropes not get pushed out.

So the question for the OP is how much they want noncybered characters to be a reasonable build in this game, vs. the only reason to have any of your meat body left is because you're too poor to afford a good upgrade. That's a theme call we can't answer for them.

[Mastikator]

TBH I think it's best to treat cybernetics as equipment that is hard to equip and unequip, almost everything they could conceivably do can be done if they were worn/hand-held. Also everything that is good is either proprietary of the BBEG megacorp OR very illegal + very expensive.

[Pauly]

As long as 'gear' and 'experience' give different benefits then I think it works.

That gives the GM the choice of offering quests where the players can take the money and buy gear or do the 'right' thing and get rewarded with XP. For example they are tasked with getting a special bit of gear in a heist. If they double cross the questgiver and keep the gear they get a certain amount of credits to spend on gear. If they hand the gear over they get XP instead.

If you balance it right then the players will never feel cheated as they'll always get a reward from a mission, maybe not the reward they wanted. Which makes it' different from standard RPGs where the choice is XP and gold or XP but no gold.if players always get XP for completing a mission then gaining XP is no longer a reward it is an entitlement.

[Thrawn4]

Thanks everyone for your replies.



In a cyberpunk game, I think it adds a reasonable layer of game interaction. The rich can afford to be stronger, faster, better and more able than the poor.
I think it makes sense in the "punk" part of cyberpunk, where you are always supposed to be dealing with class divide and sticking it to the man and so on.

That's what I thought. The mechanic fits the worldbuilding.



The question is how to integrate it in a game like shadowrun or similar where 'cybernetics users' are just one type of character vs other types of characters.

There are no classes and no magic in my setting. The PCs are all basically some kind of private eyes with some kind of augmentation.



I think if I was building a system from ground up, that's the way I'd lean. Treating cybernetics as equipment that can be bought vs improved on like normal character traits using whatever character building mechanic you are using.


Not sure I can follow you. So you would advocate to use two pools, where one pool would be income/money that is used for cybertech?

Then again, you are an AI from the future, so that is to be expected :wink:




So the question for the OP is how much they want noncybered characters to be a reasonable build in this game, vs. the only reason to have any of your meat body left is because you're too poor to afford a good upgrade. That's a theme call we can't answer for them.
The thing is that this appeals to me very much, but at the same time I also value freedom when it comes to creating your character. And if people have to cyber up in order to compete, it matches the setting but it undermines the creation process.


As long as 'gear' and 'experience' give different benefits then I think it works.

That gives the GM the choice of offering quests where the players can take the money and buy gear or do the 'right' thing and get rewarded with XP. For example they are tasked with getting a special bit of gear in a heist. If they double cross the questgiver and keep the gear they get a certain amount of credits to spend on gear. If they hand the gear over they get XP instead.

If you balance it right then the players will never feel cheated as they'll always get a reward from a mission, maybe not the reward they wanted. Which makes it' different from standard RPGs where the choice is XP and gold or XP but no gold.if players always get XP for completing a mission then gaining XP is no longer a reward it is an entitlement.
Definitively different benefits.
I like your ideas, but I think those decisions can be implemented in both versions.



Another idea that struck me thanks to this threat: My system is suppossed to be rules-light, so I only have like 7 augmentations and other equipment is downplayed. It has worked very nicely in my previous games, but for a system with secondary ressource pool I might have to add more options...

[Vahnavoi]

Greetings.

So, I am currently updating my cyberpunk RPG, and I have been wondering which approach is better:

A) All stats are increased from the same XP pool. Makes for more variety, as you can have both mundane characters as well as those with a lot of cybertech.

B) Cybertech is bought from a second pool. It feels more cyberpunky to me, as the system basically emulates the premise that you can just throw money at your doc to get better (and that mundane people are inferior). Of course, you have less variety when it comes to character building.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I'm not sure your premises hold.

To wit: one currency for all character traits only leads to more variety in absence of dominant options. If there is a clear dominant option, regardless of whether that option falls under cybernetics or something else, players will gravitate toward that option. Having only one currency can even worsen this because it heightens the opportunity cost for choosing a non-dominant option.

On the flipside, cybertech using a different currency only leads to everybody being the same if, well, every cybernetic upgrade path is functionally the same. Put differently, you seem too concerned of the cybernetic versus non-cybernetic split that you forgot to consider how different cyborgs can be.

So I suggest you take a step back and tell me which of the following most appeals to you:

1) Characters have mutually exclusive cybernetic and non-cybernetic paths; these are meant to be "balanced" in some sense.

2) Characters have mutually exclusive cybernetic and non-cybernetic paths; it's fine if one is strictly superior (the inferior option is meant to be taken as a challenge or under pressure).

3) Cybernetics are meant to replace non-cybernetic traits; everybody is meant to use cybernetics to improve their weak traits.

4) Cybernetics are meant to improve non-cybernetic traits: everybody is meant to use cybernetics to improve their best traits.

[Bohandas]

Purchasing cybertech through XP definitely seems like more of an Alchemical Exalted vibe than classic cyberpunk

[Thrawn4]

I'm not sure your premises hold.

To wit: one currency for all character traits only leads to more variety in absence of dominant options.

I would like to think that eventually, there won't be any dominant options. Playtests so far indicate that this will eventually be possible if I balance accordingly.


I'm not sure your premises hold.
Put differently, you seem too concerned of the cybernetic versus non-cybernetic split that you forgot to consider how different cyborgs can be.
An interesting point. Although it occurs to me that this requires a more diverse tech-tree than I currently have.


I'm not sure your premises hold.
So I suggest you take a step back and tell me which of the following most appeals to you:

1) Characters have mutually exclusive cybernetic and non-cybernetic paths; these are meant to be "balanced" in some sense.

2) Characters have mutually exclusive cybernetic and non-cybernetic paths; it's fine if one is strictly superior (the inferior option is meant to be taken as a challenge or under pressure).

3) Cybernetics are meant to replace non-cybernetic traits; everybody is meant to use cybernetics to improve their weak traits.

4) Cybernetics are meant to improve non-cybernetic traits: everybody is meant to use cybernetics to improve their best traits.[/QUOTE]

Actually... non of these. Mutually exclusive paths rarely appeal to me (and it is a point-buy system anyway). And the purpose of Cybernetics is mostly to add new abilities.



Purchasing cybertech through XP definitely seems like more of an Alchemical Exalted vibe than classic cyberpunk
Granted. It is an abstraction, meaning that rather than honing your (for example) athletic skills, you put effort into saving money and adapting to your new cybertech. Question is, would you rather have a system that feels more cyberpunk (=tech for money) but restricts your character creation process?

[False God]

It's not cyberpunk without inherent limits on freedom. "Gear", from guns to artificial limbs, should be bought with money. It helps reinforce the cyberpunk free but not free. You can be poor and have nothing and be free in a sense, free from all these trappings, but you have no power. You can be rich and have connections and cool cybergear, and have a different kind of power and freedom, but you're still limited in other ways.

So I vote "money" for buying augmentations.

[Anymage]

Not all cybernetics are the same. The guy who has most of his body replaced by stronger and more durable parts to become a combat machine is not the same as the guy who has a hacking terminal inside his head. And while in theory in an infinite money scenario everybody would wind up the same except for minor variations based on carrying capacity (e.g: you can't simultaneously have a gun arm and two hands without having very obvious extra limbs added), different build paths on the money tree are possible until you reach the "more money than god" stage. Plus, if you have any mechanic where too much cyberware messes you up, what sort of gear you want to fill your available capacity with will also make room for build diversity.

Everybody in your cyberpunk setting would have some form of augmentation if they could afford it, but that's very much on brand. So long as different archetypes want different types of ware and so long as your system doesn't create dominant strategies, character variety will still be a thing.

[Vahnavoi]

Actually... non of these. Mutually exclusive paths rarely appeal to me (and it is a point-buy system anyway). And the purpose of Cybernetics is mostly to add new abilities.

Then I'd say different currency for cybernetics is way to go. The natural conclusion is that everyone would like to be some sort of cyborg, but whether they'd be the same sort depends on the abilities. Be wary of adding abilities that are either too good for their cost or mandatory for some function.

[stoutstien]

Is there any inherent risk of adding in implants or other non upfront costs involved? Such as being trackable thanks to the tech you have in your arm or whatnot.

[GloatingSwine]

B) Cybertech is bought from a second pool. It feels more cyberpunky to me, as the system basically emulates the premise that you can just throw money at your doc to get better (and that mundane people are inferior). Of course, you have less variety when it comes to character building.

Don't emulate throwing money at hardware to get better.

Throw money at hardware to get better.

And for street level characters that have the sort of conflicts you can recognise at cyberpunk that's "most of their money, to get the castoffs and seconds of the really good stuff the corpos and militaries have".

The central ethoses of cyberpunk are "The future's here, it's just not evenly distributed" and "The street finds its own uses for things".

So a lot of the available hardware should be either old and janky or repurposed. If they want to punch real hard they don't get sleek combat arms, they get an industrial jackhammer repurposed from a demolition crew for an arm.

For a really good cyberpunk world the world the players spend most of their time in needs to feel unfair, uneven, and jury rigged.

[Cactus]

This whole topic baffles me. Why not have things that are (in universe) available to buy for money be available for the PCs to buy with money? You're writing a cyberpunk game with only 7 augments?!

I've been playing a homebrew cyberpunk game weekly for about a year and any published cyberpunk gear is available subject to a sniff test of is it stupid or OP. There are two limiting factors:
1. Money isn't infinite (and I spend a lot of mine on custom guns because I enjoy the GM's build-a-gun rules)
2. All cyberwear has a humanity cost. Post-surgery psychotherapy can reduce the impact but never negate it entirely. The cybersymbiosis skill can increase the threshold at which you go mad but skills only have 5 ranks.
Thus nobody ever has the option to just take all the cyberwear. We have to choose the things that we prioritise and each character has different priorities.

[gbaji]

In addition to the cyber vs normal path comparison (which seems like is not really a thing here?), maybe have different paths for cyber stuff as well? Otherwise, as some people have observed, it's just going to be "how much money have you spent", and the more money, the more powerful.

If different types of cybernetic upgrades can be placed on different body parts, but maybe only one on each, then you force the players to choose what they are upgrading, and with which upgrade. This can create variation in character builds and some semblance of balance.

Is there going to be any sort of experience path at all in this system? Or is literally everything the character improves on based on getting new/upgraded cyber stuff? Because one method to manage this is to have money that buys the tech, but actual exp points spent on various skills to make more/better use of that tech. The idea being that you *can't* just slap a bunch of expensive augments on some basic street thugs and have high powered body guards. I mean, you'll have high powered street thugs, with street thugs capabilities (just augmented). But perhaps the exact same augments in someone with the skill/ability to use them properly would result in someone much more powerful.

There's lots of ways to go about balancing this sort of thing. But I do think that if it's just "money==power", then you're going to see a whole lot of linear advancement in the characters that are played. Unless there are a lot of other attributes that will "matter" during play. Which, I guess, brings up the question of "what kind of game play are you looking for?". You mentioned investigators, so presumably some aspect of this will be infogathering. But outside of that, are the augments just about combat effectiveness? Or are there other things going on? I suppose there could be a fair amount of balance between stealth, intelligence, combat (and different modes of combat, I suppose). But yeah, you have to plan that out and balance them, otherwise players will tend to just gravitate to "what works best".

And if my general experience in RPGs is any indicator, that'll mean "I must be good at combat" as the first choice, with "Ok. Now that I've surivived the first adventure or two, I'll think about augmenting for other stuff". I suppose that also is dependent on how well a "party" interacts in this game. Can the PCs actually have dramatically different skillsets they have focused on and still be effective? Because if the game requires that one person must have stealth, and one person must have intel gathering stuff, but those two characters are likely to get ganked when the inevitable "final boss fight" comes up, you might have a problem. Historically, some game sysstems handle this better than others. And yeah, games set in a modern or sci-fi setting tend to be the hardest to manage this discrepancy in combat capability. In a fantasy game, it's a lot easier to put the wizard in the back of the party. In a modern firefight, you really have to come up with reasons why the enemy is all shooting at the guy with heavy armor and *not* at the wimpy looking guy in the back who's actually jacking into the security system (and is therefore the actual threat).

Ok. That last bit is more of a general point, but given the presumed setting of any game with cyber stuff in it, probably relevant.

[LibraryOgre]

Personally, I prefer all non-alienable enhancements to come from character-enhancement resources, rather than money.

So, if I'm improving my character via cybernetics, I prefer to do that via advances, edges, XP, karma... whatever you call them. While I can see the "You throw money at it and now you've got super-eyes", I think doing it that way creates the possibility of more imbalance than I like... a GM who gives a ton of money will favor the cybernetic. If someone, for some reason, doesn't go cybernetic, then they're put at a disadvantage. If money is strangled after character creation, then the person who went cyber in character creation has a different advantage.

Not saying it's wrong, just not my preference.

[Cactus]

Cybernetics shouldn't be the only thing worth spending money on. I mentioned custom guns in my previous post. There are also spy cameras, hacking tools, hi-tech goggles, vehicle upgrades, climbing gear, IR shielding stealth cloaks, radio jammers, etc.

A third limitation from our homebrew game is the number of slots that certain cybergear has for enhancements. Eyes typically have slots for three features, arms have four IIRC. Some gear requires a neural interface which has five slots, so you can't have six things with that requirement.

We have some overlap between what can be achieved through cybergear and spending XP. Both can raise attributes and skill chips are a great way to access niche skills or specific knowledge that we wouldn't prioritise for XP spending. I bought a skill chip to pilot a container ship we hijacked, and another to speak Hindi and Gujurati when we spent a couple of weeks in Indiatown.

There are many ways to force the PCs to make choices that don't involve a meta-currency of special 'cybergear XP'.

My group does like crunchy simulationist games (my GM's weapons research probably means he's on a watch list!) which directs a lot of the game design and how we play. I'd like to hear more about why Thrawn4 is apparently taking a different approach.

[gbaji]

A third limitation from our homebrew game is the number of slots that certain cybergear has for enhancements. Eyes typically have slots for three features, arms have four IIRC. Some gear requires a neural interface which has five slots, so you can't have six things with that requirement.

Cool. That was pretty much the sort of thing I was suggesting and/or asking about. Makes players think about the gear set they are choosing for their character, and can create some amout of balance between different combinations.


We have some overlap between what can be achieved through cybergear and spending XP. Both can raise attributes and skill chips are a great way to access niche skills or specific knowledge that we wouldn't prioritise for XP spending. I bought a skill chip to pilot a container ship we hijacked, and another to speak Hindi and Gujurati when we spent a couple of weeks in Indiatown.

Got it. Which works IMO, since presumably if you already have some actual skill in something, you wont need to use a chip for it, and can maybe free up that slot in our gear for something else. That works.

[NichG]

I guess the way I'd do it would be, yes, cyberware is driven primarily with money, but cyberware is highly tied to the 'slot' that is the body part it replaces and there are lots of mutually exclusive functions, as well as sometimes benefits+drawbacks rather than pure upgrade. Everyone will want to cyber up, but cybering up always pushes you towards specialization a little bit.

And while as gear you can do different loadouts, it isn't fast or easy to change unless you've got megacorp military facilities and go full borg. Furthermore, very invasive cyber has an adaptation period that can't be avoided as your brain gets used to different response parameters for your body - this could be represented as a permanent loss of a point of skill associated with a given piece of cyber whenever you switch it around, maybe just for the most potent things like speedware or stuff that drastically changes the force you exert. Some of the downsides would be social - I like how in Skitterdoc the author makes a big point that someone with monowire installed isn't going to just be allowed through security scanners into e.g. airports, high end hotels, etc without it being detected and locked somehow; and how certain loadouts are unique enough that it's like dental records that a scanner can just grab, meaning that if you're on the punk side there may be places you just can't go without being ID'd.

If you want to get very dystopian, have cyberware not just be a one off cost but have maintenance and subscription costs for online services integrated into the functions. So sure, you can pay for power, but it also means that a signal jammer might give you arrhythmia or blind you. Makes it better for punks to use heavily modded street grade stuff rather than the top of the line commercial offerings - at least that stuff will have had the corpo security backdoor patched and will be set to connect to a microserver installed alongside it rather than phoning home.

But in particular I'd focus cyberware on expanding ways of interacting with the world rather than just numbers in dice rolls. A good cybereye (with a subscription plan of course) means you now get facial recognition database access for every person you run into, and have full cryptographically signed, legally admissible record of everything you've seen in the last 8 hours. A different eye sacrifices that but you can literally see wifi hotspots and transmissions and use their bouncing around like bat echolocation. A different eye instead lets you perfectly simulate the passive physics of objects 1 second in advance, so you know exactly whether a gunshot will ricochet or hot or miss, or whether you can make a given jump (implement as once per round, you can retroactively choose a different action after seeing your roll or consequences on a physical feat).

Or, your artificial lungs mean that smoke and airborne toxins and diseases are a non-issue, rather than being +1 to stamina or whatever. Different set of lungs instead lets you lay down a smoke screen or poison gas cloud by exhaling but requires secondary gills to be installed. Different set of lungs is hypereffective at extraction but sacrifices filtering, meaning that you can deal with super low pressure environments without any problem (hang out on a commercial aircraft hull at 30000ft no issues).

[Thrawn4]

Alright, lots of replies and food for thought. Thanks everyone. :smallcool:

To respond to some specific points you raised:


This whole topic baffles me. Why not have things that are (in universe) available to buy for money be available for the PCs to buy with money? You're writing a cyberpunk game with only 7 augments?!

Somewhat short answer: After playing rules-heavy games for most of my gaming career, I long for light systems where you can grasp the basic mechanics and create a character (at least the mechanics) in a few minutes. 7 augments wasn't quite accurate, I just summarized several augmentations in sets to reduce the bookkeeping.

Of course, thanks to this thread I have come to realize that I probably have to break it down into more detail if I want to introduce a system where you buy stuff for cash, otherwise there are just not enough options.


In addition to the cyber vs normal path comparison (which seems like is not really a thing here?), maybe have different paths for cyber stuff as well? Otherwise, as some people have observed, it's just going to be "how much money have you spent", and the more money, the more powerful.


And if my general experience in RPGs is any indicator, that'll mean "I must be good at combat" as the first choice, with "Ok. Now that I've surivived the first adventure or two, I'll think about augmenting for other stuff".
I think your former statement actually fits the theme quite nicely, if you can balance it in a way that the best gear is only available for the upper echelons of society.

Regarding your second statement: My system is less Shadowrun and more detective noir, so fighting happens occasionally but is not really something where you have to excel.


While I can see the "You throw money at it and now you've got super-eyes", I think doing it that way creates the possibility of more imbalance than I like...
A fair point that I had not considered. I guess with more playtesting one might circumvent that, but still...


Cybernetics shouldn't be the only thing worth spending money on. I mentioned custom guns in my previous post. There are also spy cameras, hacking tools, hi-tech goggles, vehicle upgrades, climbing gear, IR shielding stealth cloaks, radio jammers, etc.
[...]
I'd like to hear more about why Thrawn4 is apparently taking a different approach.
Fair enough. It's just that my system goes very easy on the bookkeeping. So you might bring a gun or something similar, but there isn't a list for vehicles, loaking techs or most of the other things you have mentioned.
I mean, I can see the appeal of a simulationist approach, but it's just not to my current liking.

[Devils_Advocate]

Why not use actual in-setting currency as the one character currency? New hardware costs money, and meaningfully improving your skills, whether through expert training or through new software for your neural implant, also costs money. Or maybe you can barter for or just steal some stuff, but the point is that it has to be acquired from other people, as things have advanced to the point where "practice for a while on your own" is no longer enough be able to compete.

That's the only way to have one unified currency anyway unless the setting's money is pretty worthless, which it can't be if money is power. And, let's be honest, it makes a lot more sense than the whole "kill kobolds to get better at lock-picking" thing. Instead of giving weird metagame rewards for stupidly risky but interesting courses of action, you can just... motivate the characters as well as the players by putting the rewards in the game world.

[Telwar]

For many, many, many games, money is basically another XP pool. It's especially pronounced in Cyberpunk sorts of games, since those settings include gear that can massively benefit the character, often more so than actual XP.

SR6 has an optional rule (in the Decking supplement) to let deckers upgrade their deck/programs with XP rather than cash, but it's just that, an optional rule. Everyone needs cash as well as XP.