Thoughts on Brodkil and damage output

[flatline]

i don't know about you, most adventuring parties are nothing but thieves who get rich off stealing everything they can off the dead.

If I kill someone who is attempting to kill me, does looting their remains make me a thief? Or is the loot merely the spoils of war?

--flatline

The first does not negate the second, nor vice-versa.

Let's put it this way, In the USA property of the deceased belong to the State or next of kin. They do not belong to the looters.
Now, it used to be that you could loot the dead, but that isn't legal anymore.

Is it your argument that that laws of the USA, a nation that no longer exists on Rifts Earth, should still apply in that setting?

If so, then I'd like to point out that it is the policy of the United States military during wartime to confiscate the weapons, money, medicine, etc of fallen enemy soldiers in order to prevent other enemy forces from reclaiming those resources.

--flatline

[flatline]

no, the point is, they are thieves.

And probably murderers, depending on your point of view, I suppose.

--flatline

[Nightmask]

no, the point is, they are thieves.

That's really too broad of a statement. While some adventuring parties are thieves acquiring the possessions of those who've attacked them in an attempt to rob or kill them but ended up losing isn't really thievery, it's just compensation for the harm and trouble they inflicted (since you certainly can't expect there to be any courts around to adjudicate things).

[eliakon]

no, the point is, they are thieves.

That's really too broad of a statement. While some adventuring parties are thieves acquiring the possessions of those who've attacked them in an attempt to rob or kill them but ended up losing isn't really thievery, it's just compensation for the harm and trouble they inflicted (since you certainly can't expect there to be any courts around to adjudicate things).

Errr, actually that IS thievery (at least by modern definitions) It may be justifiable thievery, but its still theft. Now if the local laws, such as they may be, say 'you may take a persons possessions if they attack you' then its not theft, otherwise your still stealing, you just can justify it to your self easier.

[Noon]

Maybe it's just a question of whether there's someone in the local vicinity calling it thievery.

Otherwise it's just events that happen.

[flatline]

no, the point is, they are thieves.

That's really too broad of a statement. While some adventuring parties are thieves acquiring the possessions of those who've attacked them in an attempt to rob or kill them but ended up losing isn't really thievery, it's just compensation for the harm and trouble they inflicted (since you certainly can't expect there to be any courts around to adjudicate things).

Errr, actually that IS thievery (at least by modern definitions) It may be justifiable thievery, but its still theft. Now if the local laws, such as they may be, say 'you may take a persons possessions if they attack you' then its not theft, otherwise your still stealing, you just can justify it to your self easier.

Whatever else you want to call it, it's Pragmatism. You could leave their stuff out there for someone else to find or for nature to eventually cover up, or you could take what is useful to you and benefit from it. Saying that it's theft or deciding that it's morally wrong doesn't change the fact that it's usually a good idea.

--flatline

[eliakon]

no, the point is, they are thieves.

That's really too broad of a statement. While some adventuring parties are thieves acquiring the possessions of those who've attacked them in an attempt to rob or kill them but ended up losing isn't really thievery, it's just compensation for the harm and trouble they inflicted (since you certainly can't expect there to be any courts around to adjudicate things).

Errr, actually that IS thievery (at least by modern definitions) It may be justifiable thievery, but its still theft. Now if the local laws, such as they may be, say 'you may take a persons possessions if they attack you' then its not theft, otherwise your still stealing, you just can justify it to your self easier.

Whatever else you want to call it, it's Pragmatism. You could leave their stuff out there for someone else to find or for nature to eventually cover up, or you could take what is useful to you and benefit from it. Saying that it's theft or deciding that it's morally wrong doesn't change the fact that it's usually a good idea.

--flatline

It may be pragmatic, it may even be 'the right thing'. But its still theft. So you cant say they aren't thieves. They just are pragmatic thieves. Its like saying that Robin Hood wasn't a thief.

[flatline]

no, the point is, they are thieves.

That's really too broad of a statement. While some adventuring parties are thieves acquiring the possessions of those who've attacked them in an attempt to rob or kill them but ended up losing isn't really thievery, it's just compensation for the harm and trouble they inflicted (since you certainly can't expect there to be any courts around to adjudicate things).

Errr, actually that IS thievery (at least by modern definitions) It may be justifiable thievery, but its still theft. Now if the local laws, such as they may be, say 'you may take a persons possessions if they attack you' then its not theft, otherwise your still stealing, you just can justify it to your self easier.

Whatever else you want to call it, it's Pragmatism. You could leave their stuff out there for someone else to find or for nature to eventually cover up, or you could take what is useful to you and benefit from it. Saying that it's theft or deciding that it's morally wrong doesn't change the fact that it's usually a good idea.

--flatline

It may be pragmatic, it may even be 'the right thing'. But its still theft. So you cant say they aren't thieves. They just are pragmatic thieves. Its like saying that Robin Hood wasn't a thief.

So I guess all soldiers who are acting under orders to deprive the enemy of valuable resources must be thieves, too.

--flatline

[eliakon]

Whatever else you want to call it, it's Pragmatism. You could leave their stuff out there for someone else to find or for nature to eventually cover up, or you could take what is useful to you and benefit from it. Saying that it's theft or deciding that it's morally wrong doesn't change the fact that it's usually a good idea.

--flatline

It may be pragmatic, it may even be 'the right thing'. But its still theft. So you cant say they aren't thieves. They just are pragmatic thieves. Its like saying that Robin Hood wasn't a thief.

So I guess all soldiers who are acting under orders to deprive the enemy of valuable resources must be thieves, too.

--flatline

If they take the resources? Yes. That's where the whole "Nazi looted art" thing comes from. If they take something, in their own nation, where the laws make it legal, then no. But that's not really the point here is it. Unless your players are actual uniformed agents of the government acting in official capacity, AND all 'loot' is turned over to the state, then you have just managed to prove that Apples are not citrus.....which does nothing about the fact that Oranges still are.

[flatline]

And if there is no such thing as a sovereign state in this setting?

-flatline

[eliakon]

And if there is no such thing as a sovereign state in this setting?

-flatline

Theft is still theft *shrugs* Though I guess you can just say 'none of us are from sovereign states, and we are out side the claimed territory of all states, so we can do anything we want and its all cool'
It doesn't make it not theft, though it does make it less likely to be illegal theft.

[Nightmask]

And if there is no such thing as a sovereign state in this setting?

-flatline

Theft is still theft *shrugs* Though I guess you can just say 'none of us are from sovereign states, and we are out side the claimed territory of all states, so we can do anything we want and its all cool'
It doesn't make it not theft, though it does make it less likely to be illegal theft.

Looking at the general definition of theft taking the possessions of someone who tried to kill you only to end up dead themselves wouldn't be theft since you can't form the intent to permanently deprive a dead person of their possessions since they're dead and your original purpose was self-defense.

The more appropriate word would be either Scavenging or Looting, depending on whether or not you can claim what they've taken was taken for the purposes of survival (Scavenging) or to acquire luxury goods (Looting). If you killed them with the intent to take their goods in the first place then it would be Theft and Looting due to your intent.

[flatline]

And if there is no such thing as a sovereign state in this setting?

-flatline

Theft is still theft *shrugs* Though I guess you can just say 'none of us are from sovereign states, and we are out side the claimed territory of all states, so we can do anything we want and its all cool'
It doesn't make it not theft, though it does make it less likely to be illegal theft.

We are more likely to say "this will help us attain our goal" and let the morality of the situation be determined by what our goal is.

--flatline

[Noon]

If you just declare yourself the local lawmakers (and nobody argues because you have big guns) and then 'make a law' that it's fine, then does it stop being thievery?

I mean, that's how it works in real life anyway (well, government relies on many guns rather than a few big ones, but that's splitting hairs).

[Killer Cyborg]

If you just declare yourself the local lawmakers (and nobody argues because you have big guns) and then 'make a law' that it's fine, then does it stop being thievery?

I mean, that's how it works in real life anyway (well, government relies on many guns rather than a few big ones, but that's splitting hairs).

It all depends on how you define "thievery," which I assume is your point.

[PSI-Lence]

i'm more interested in what other house rule power they all gained at the cost of MDC?

For your own potential use?

and if you think that they would not 'just start' with tech weapons and such then how did your players get MD guns and armor?

Saved up money, mostly.

Sure, they find some low power weapons occasionally - a 1D6 laser isn't going to up the damage of a brodkil, is it? And even those cost a bundle.

As I see it brodkil are lazy and the players are fairly industrious at tracking down loot.

how much do they spend on fixing their armor?

How much did you spend to become a game auditor?

They've had some discounts, but generally payed SB1 prices.

if there is some undead god coming back, why are your players focused on selling guns, and to whom are they selling them? (don't they have more important things to worry about?)

You sound like the sort of player who thinks they know how to better play other players characters than they do.

Does anyone have to justify how they play their character to you?

or have you never given them the option and insist on never attacking them with expensive items?

You're being annoying with the 'insist' part, as you utterly ignore how someone else might have an idea of how the game world works that differs from yours and just saying it's insisting.

When you're interested in how I think the world works, get back to me.

but are you saying that (your) broodkill do not prefer technology? if you changed it fine, but at that point you are probably better off just making a new race

What is up with how some of you guys game? Is it utter just world fallacy? Where even the demons, if they want something, some kinda justice comes up and gives them the plenty easy opportunity to get it?

Of course it's easy for them to get it - you make it easy because this is the order you think in 1. They like tech 2. You modify the world to forfil #1.

You don't 1. figure out your own idea of how the world works then 2. See if that actually contradicts the fluff text and creatures don't just get what's on their christmas wishlist.

all the stuff trying to kill you in rifts is MDC if you have to mortgage your house to buy one it's still better off to have a laser rifle than to be eaten

Mortgages...in rifts.

Okay, if that's part of your game world landscape. Just not really there for mine.

there are plenty of ways to get around the PC's just selling guns , but you still haven't even gotten to why you have an issue with that?

You're ignoring the supply aspect as being the problem. I don't care about them selling something they could come across. I do care about them selling things they just wouldn't come across.

and why would you conspire to keep good items out of their hands that they should have to fight for , but should have the option at least

You sound like nightmask.

Here's the thing - if a player consistantly just treated my rendering of the world as conspiring I would politely decline to offer them a seat anymore because A. I don't think they enjoy roleplaying at all when presenting a world just seems someone in RL conspiring or B: They are just whining to gain advantage.

I fully admit I do not run games to please people who try to use words like conspiracy to leverage advantage in what they get to write in pencil on their scrap of paper.

You can't believe a world with lots of poor folk in it - I get that. The conspiracy crap doesn't matter - the central conceit of lots of poor folk doesn't float with you. ALL the rest of it wont make sense, because that central conceit is alien to you. Yours is rifts with mortgages in it.

i don't know how to break up the quotes so here goes...

no, because if you just decide that magical items are granted to broodkill in exchange for MDC (which has absolutely no canon examples of) then you are changing the canon even more than you already have, so in that case would it not just be easier to cut the price of MD weapons by 1/4?

saved from what? did you have them all RP characters from the point they were 5 yrs old to adulthood saving allowances and money they got on paper routes and mowing lawns? how did they manage to survive with broodkill running around with no MD weapons or armor? ...and why don't your NPC's (including broodkill) do the same? or have all the npc's your players ever met lv 0-1?

maybe if you made it possible for your players to get 'decent' damaging weapons (3d6+) instead of the 1d6 laser you "occasionally give them" you wouldn't had to have cut the MDC of the broodkill and your players wouldn't have become bored in fights causing you to have to lower the mdc

if you want 'lazy broodkill' it seems they'd take jobs that gave tech weapons or credits but are of little risk to themselves

you posted about how to tweek broodkill to do more damage without the tech weapons they would have by canon rules so your players wont have as many credits ...and you give them discounts on armor repairs...and generally weaker broodkill since they die faster with lower MDC so they don't damage the players as much or use up player ammo
...also where are they fixing their armor and selling it?


you think i'd be one to tell a player how to play their character? ...do you catch that you are basically telling your players how to play by cutting out the options of what they can do? if you don't want them getting rich (and again still not clear as to WHY you seem to fear that so much) then it seems the impending undead god is kind of a pressing matter and time sensitive, if the players want to keep making trips back to town for ever 30 broodkill they fight to sell the weapons it's going to take a long time for them to get very far

probably very different opinions on this, but i say as a GM you should be there to give players options but let them decide what they want to do, it seems you have this 'grand story' you want to tell and they aren't following your script close enough


you can 'think' whatever you like about the game world just remember if you are changing canon (which you already pointed out you are) then it really just shows you are making your own world not working within the same world as the books set out


your saying players (probably SDC mortals?) can get their hands on MD weapons and armor and beat anything they have come across so far ...but supernatural MD lesser demons can't? seems the players started with a disadvantage if this was a real world setting the broodkill are vastly better equipped to get weapons and armor than the players are


yes mortgage was a turn of phase ... but do you think a small town mostly SDC with a mayor and small band of protectors with MD capacity would not have banks and mortgages as well? or bank loans , or hell to take the "arm and a leg" phrase more literally have you looked at the cost of cybernetic organs? if you could find the right doctor and buyer you could sell a lung or a kidney and easily have enough for a MD weapon and some light armor, make a few scores as a mercenary and you could buy replacements


you are changing canon saying that the players would just 'not come across it to sell' they could LITERALLY trip over a cashe of weapons/armor it's mentioned in plenty of books how people found pre-rift storage sites with tech loaded in them (hell that's where the CS got it's start), it's pretty rare for new books to even introduce SDC weapons but they are loaded with guns and vehicles and bots (all with weapons on them too) that are MD and even if you want to say they are rare, fine but that is not the canon anymore so again if you are changing that much of your game world just admit it


you wouldn't need to decline me a seat at your table , since once you explained how much you changed it would sound too much like a typical 'fantasy rpg' but more annoying with MDC (MDC works well with high tech high dmg MD weapons ...not so much with 1d6 pistols and a vibro knife) i don't mind survival type games , starting off and working up to be a powerhouse ...but you're knee capping your players and preventing them from getting anything stronger, how are they going to fight an undead god with 1d6 lasers?

your rendering of the world is more on par with putting a speed limiter on a ferarri so it's equal to the ford


news flash , most of the people on earth now are poor. people still have cars (sometimes 2 or more) that cost what an MD pistol in rifts would maybe people in rifts aren't as poor as you think, after all look at the pay listed for most OCC's

during the 'golden age of man' things were much better than in 'our' time (realistically unlikely since with MDC work on repairs and producing new items for replacements would be lower over time) and a population around 10 billion, all living pretty good

chaos earth, you're looking at around 1 billion (forget where i saw the stats if someone can find them?) 9 billion people died ... and left everything they owned , much like the black plague the survivors would have decent pickings of what was left

rifts earth over 300 years later for towns to gather, form laws and communities , family's to get power and heirlooms
for over 100 years military grade weapons have been mas produced and sold to anyone that could afford them

sure plenty of poor people would still exist (though most of the poorest would be victims or food probably) so is your point the players could not sell the weapons to poor people? as you neglected to mention in my first example , the party could find themselves in the position to give weapons up for necessity's like food and water from small towns (to bring back your tired example, if a PC is dying of thirst will they not buy the water for 5 credits because the waiter doesn't have 1000 credits change for the guns value?)

a town could have a retired operator that can fix armor, but needs to scrap some weapons to get the MDC steel for a patch job.
they may even decide it's the "right thing" to give the town a few weapons (hell arm a militia of 12 and leave 10 in town and bring a few gun hands to help themselves out)



it seems like you're just railroading your players, forcing a 'lower than canon' tech level game (you have a problem with the cost of lasers by canon because you think if there is a lot they would be more expensive ... but there are a lot of diamonds and they are expensive too when cut and mounted)

if you're lazy and want easy "fixes" where there is no real issue then

1. cut the cost of all modern weapons and armor by 9/10ths
2. have armed broodkill hit and run, making the players work harder for fewer guns
3. since your changing canon anyway have broodkill do more damage, maybe give them psionics
4. use something other than broodkill that don't need such heavy modifications (do you only own the first 2 or 3 books? if so make up a race)
5. charge full price or 30-50% more for repairs and items the players may need (or make them travel to somewhere else)

[Noon]

You guys are so upset about a talisman in the hands of a brodkil!

Psi-lence, have you run a game as a GM?

I'm guessing you feel you play or run games with no discrepancies in regard to canon?

That's why you have an all or nothing binary attitude about it - to you it's like if anything is counter to canon, well screw it, may as well make the CS a bunch of floopers while your about it? Anything against canon and it all crashes down for you?

[Alrik Vas]

Hey...you're PC's. You're all Murder-Hobos and Homocidal Tomb Raiders. Get over it...and get out there and find something to sell.

[PSI-Lence]

You guys are so upset about a talisman in the hands of a brodkil!

Psi-lence, have you run a game as a GM?

I'm guessing you feel you play or run games with no discrepancies in regard to canon?

That's why you have an all or nothing binary attitude about it - to you it's like if anything is counter to canon, well screw it, may as well make the CS a bunch of floopers while your about it? Anything against canon and it all crashes down for you?

i notice you keep ignoring anything that you can't write off as people saying that canon is the only way so again i'll simplify it as much as possible for you

...you want stronger broodkill , than make them stronger, or don't gimp them you obviously don't care about canon why not just "decide" energy weapons are only worth 3 credits each?

nobody said canon can not, or should not be changed but gave you PLENTY of examples of why what you're doing has no reason involved and you just ignore it (i have a feeling you treat player concerns the same way so i am sure you ran games yourself ...but ran them into the ground)

i change and alter canon as i see fit, but i don't pretend that it's the way it "should be" you, break canon and try to rationalize doing it in ways that don't make sense and ignore all the other options you have, seems you are not a gm but just a story teller and the players aren't cooperating with your 'grand vision'

[Noon]

i am sure you ran games yourself ...but ran them into the ground

Ad homenim. Don't do that again. A sorry would be wise as well.

i change and alter canon as i see fit, but i don't pretend that it's the way it "should be" you

These are the words you guys put in my mouth - you go 'Why are you doing that with brodkil!?' I explain it and you treat it as a claim of how it 'should be'.

Show me where I told you this is how you 'should' game?

Or were you guys having a problem with how I game because you guys are saying that's not the way it should be?

If anyone was coming from a 'should be' standpoint, hey, I wasn't interested in arguing in the same terms as you.

Or anyone can fantasize I was coming from a 'should be' standpoint all along. In which case I give up with talking with you. I have a strong vision for my game world - keep reading that as a 'should be' claim if it makes you happy somehow.

[eliakon]

i am sure you ran games yourself ...but ran them into the ground

Ad homenim. Don't do that again. A sorry would be wise as well.

Don't be surprised that people take a personal attitude with you, when you take one with them. Its not RIGHT, for anyone, but your comments are just as full of negative personal comments.
SO lets all play nice so we don't get locked please.

i change and alter canon as i see fit, but i don't pretend that it's the way it "should be" you

These are the words you guys put in my mouth - you go 'Why are you doing that with brodkil!?' I explain it and you treat it as a claim of how it 'should be'.

when you explain that 'no no, the printed stuff makes no sense, thus here is the way that make sense why don't you SEE?'
that's why we see it as 'should beism' your argument that your changes are just the logical way to do things, and that the written way is inherently wrong, combine to be a 'no it should be this way'

You're not prepared to see canon as being wrong, not even in the fluff

this is pretty much the definition of "my way is the way it should be" btw.

[PSI-Lence]

you should notice nobody has said 'you are wrong' for changing canon to fit your game, but you tell people that they are wrong for following canon examples of how things 'are' people gave you plenty of examples of how they changed things or how you could change things to your needs , but first you have to start with canon to understand you are both altering the same set of rules, but you are using the setting for "your" game world, not "the" (canon) rifts game world

for someone so set on changing canon to suit their needs (lowering the MDC of broodkill to make them easier to kill and taking away the offensive punch of bionics and tech weapons) why, instead of making up broodkill that for some reason could not get their hands on some easy to grab weapons all to avoid giving players the chance to loot weapons you think are to high priced ...the simplest change would be to lower the cost of MD weapons , it would be one sweeping change of canon instead of many

nobody cares or said your "broodkill" should not have talismans , but that according to canon 'broodkill like tech' since it is so easy to get as many people pointed out broodkill should not have an issue with getting it even off of humans defending themselves with it, but you claim that bandits are less well armed (which of course historically even is not true) but it still remains that if you need to change them so much then they are no longer the broodkill from rifts, they may look the same and have the same name but your "broodkill" may as well just be called "GM race 9"

making non canon changes is fine, but i wouldn't be looking for how to increase the MD/MDC of some bark armor and a musket that i have taken to calling a glitter boy, just because the boom gun and glitter boy armor are worth too much for a player or npc to have, i'd either deal with the price

(paying mercenary's better and raising the over all standard 'wage' in rifts, lowering the cost of any tech weapons/armor/bionics, raising the cost of repairs, not let players chose glitter boy OCC, having the buyers for high price items so few that trying to sell a GB even in mint condition for the 2.5 million you can expect for resale would be the full campaign ...or keep the world the same and let the players do what they want to do)

[random_username]

In the event there are difficulties in presenting balanced challenges for players might check this link out.

http://palladium-megaverse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=129640


Can always toss them some innate ability boosts that are either somewhat unstable, have nasty side effects, or only offer abilities through consumable item usage (potions, herb magic W3:England potions/edibles particularly via Blood Druids, etc).

The Psi-Implants from W12:Psyscape can be particularly handy for those located in North America (though they could show up elsewhere in theory) due to continental shifting (black market/german black market/shifters in general/gypsies knowledge of stable rifts/etc). Mainly the Eruptor Implant (instant damage focused psionic). These are (A) mind implants making them difficult to re-use, (B) Unstable/Experimental implants with nasty side effects, (C) Often crude knock-offs of the basic experimental ones. Meaning while they have expensive costs to acquire, resale value is likely nil.

Can also check out the Monster Brodkil in S3:Mindwerks, which at maximum rolled supernatural PS can nearly inflict 1D6x10 MD per punch. An item as simple as one of the Faerie Foods (CB1 Revised) could boost that PS into the 1D6x10 MD per punch category for up to several hours.

[Grug]

Found this in another thread and well if 8k a pop seemed too much...

'The Market Cost*of a Talisman is 30,000 X the level of the spell in the Talisman (Rifts Azrno page 61)'

[flatline]

Found this in another thread and well if 8k a pop seemed too much...

'The Market Cost*of a Talisman is 30,000 X the level of the spell in the Talisman (Rifts Azrno page 61)'

That's crazy high. There's no way that's a sustainable market price.

--flatline

[Nightmask]

Found this in another thread and well if 8k a pop seemed too much...

'The Market Cost*of a Talisman is 30,000 X the level of the spell in the Talisman (Rifts Azrno page 61)'

That's crazy high. There's no way that's a sustainable market price.

--flatline

Must be why there's no market for Talismans then, the cost is simply too high for a market to exist.

[flatline]

Found this in another thread and well if 8k a pop seemed too much...

'The Market Cost*of a Talisman is 30,000 X the level of the spell in the Talisman (Rifts Azrno page 61)'

That's crazy high. There's no way that's a sustainable market price.

--flatline

Must be why there's no market for Talismans then, the cost is simply too high for a market to exist.

The cost to produce a talisman is:
1. the value of the mage's time required
2. any costs incurred obtaining the PPE
3. a worthless trinket

There are probably mages that consider their time so valuable that they would never consider making talismans to sell for less than $30k, but I'm sure there are mages who would be glad to make and sell talismans for much less than that.

--flatline

[eliakon]

Found this in another thread and well if 8k a pop seemed too much...

'The Market Cost*of a Talisman is 30,000 X the level of the spell in the Talisman (Rifts Azrno page 61)'

That's crazy high. There's no way that's a sustainable market price.

--flatline

Must be why there's no market for Talismans then, the cost is simply too high for a market to exist.

The cost to produce a talisman is:
1. the value of the mage's time required
2. any costs incurred obtaining the PPE
3. a worthless trinket

There are probably mages that consider their time so valuable that they would never consider making talismans to sell for less than $30k, but I'm sure there are mages who would be glad to make and sell talismans for much less than that.

--flatline

That's the same argument that is proposed about spell prices.
like many things in palladium RAW and logic are not used in the same breath.

[Alrik Vas]

Mages likely charge a high price for their time and knowledge. If the trinket is really worthless (like, could be a carved piece of wood or something) i could see the cost being the mage's expertise. If i were a wizard, I'd charge as much as I could get away with.

[flatline]

Mages likely charge a high price for their time and knowledge. If the trinket is really worthless (like, could be a carved piece of wood or something) i could see the cost being the mage's expertise. If i were a wizard, I'd charge as much as I could get away with.

In the absence of competition, you can ask whatever price you want as long as someone is willing to pay it. But if people are willing to pay such high prices, you won't stay the only supplier for very long.

--flatline

[Nightmask]

Found this in another thread and well if 8k a pop seemed too much...

'The Market Cost*of a Talisman is 30,000 X the level of the spell in the Talisman (Rifts Azrno page 61)'

That's crazy high. There's no way that's a sustainable market price.

--flatline

Must be why there's no market for Talismans then, the cost is simply too high for a market to exist.

The cost to produce a talisman is:
1. the value of the mage's time required
2. any costs incurred obtaining the PPE
3. a worthless trinket

There are probably mages that consider their time so valuable that they would never consider making talismans to sell for less than $30k, but I'm sure there are mages who would be glad to make and sell talismans for much less than that.

--flatline

I was being a bit sarcastic on that, that and the thread creator insisting that 'well letting them have the technology they're said to favor would benefit the players and don't want that so magic talismans all around' when the talismans would be way more costly by the book than the Brodkil could ever hope to afford or acquire (even if they had a preference for such which they don't) unlike the supposedly 'too valuable' technology.

[Noon]

It depends on whether, if one PC made a talisman and like gave it to another PC for, like, free - as a kind of team work, whether you'd say that isn't allowed, NM.

Or if one runs NPC mages like robots who can only ever charge book price because that's what's programmed into them, sure.

For people running games that way, I can see the problem in it.

Side point: There seems to be this bee in peoples bonnets that treasure HAS to be built right into the monster - as if treasure can't be handled seperately. If you feel you really have to have treasure built right into the monster, okay - but it's not a requirement. Please quit having a "If you don't have treasure built into the monster, then you don't have treasure at all!" fallacious conclusion.

[eliakon]

It depends on whether, if one PC made a talisman and like gave it to another PC for, like, free - as a kind of team work, whether you'd say that isn't allowed, NM.

Or if one runs NPC mages like robots who can only ever charge book price because that's what's programmed into them, sure.

For people running games that way, I can see the problem in it.

Side point: There seems to be this bee in peoples bonnets that treasure HAS to be built right into the monster - as if treasure can't be handled seperately. If you feel you really have to have treasure built right into the monster, okay - but it's not a requirement. Please quit having a "If you don't have treasure built into the monster, then you don't have treasure at all!" fallacious conclusion.

just a side observation here.
so what your saying is that magic can be handled on a 'this costs less than book because it serves a purpose' way. But technology must always have full list costs paid at all times?

And I don't get where your side point comes from. I don't think anyone here has said anything about treasure built into monsters, other than some concern about the value of salvage....

[Noon]

It depends on whether, if one PC made a talisman and like gave it to another PC for, like, free - as a kind of team work, whether you'd say that isn't allowed, NM.

Or if one runs NPC mages like robots who can only ever charge book price because that's what's programmed into them, sure.

For people running games that way, I can see the problem in it.

Side point: There seems to be this bee in peoples bonnets that treasure HAS to be built right into the monster - as if treasure can't be handled seperately. If you feel you really have to have treasure built right into the monster, okay - but it's not a requirement. Please quit having a "If you don't have treasure built into the monster, then you don't have treasure at all!" fallacious conclusion.

just a side observation here.
so what your saying is that magic can be handled on a 'this costs less than book because it serves a purpose' way. But technology must always have full list costs paid at all times?

I grant if how it is is that some tech guy sleeps for a few hours then makes a laser rifle out of a bit of wood he finds on the ground, it'd seem lopsided.

It's not detailed how much materials and specialised equipment is needed to make laser rifles. But I've gone out on a limb and assumed tech guys don't just meditate for a few hours to do it.

And I don't get where your side point comes from. I don't think anyone here has said anything about treasure built into monsters, other than some concern about the value of salvage....

Then you're missing comments like "Letting them have technology would benefit the player" - comments like this assume the only treasure to be had is the one on the monster.

[Alrik Vas]

Mages likely charge a high price for their time and knowledge. If the trinket is really worthless (like, could be a carved piece of wood or something) i could see the cost being the mage's expertise. If i were a wizard, I'd charge as much as I could get away with.

In the absence of competition, you can ask whatever price you want as long as someone is willing to pay it. But if people are willing to pay such high prices, you won't stay the only supplier for very long.

--flatline

I change markets a lot

[Alrik Vas]

Oh, Noon, there's something other people are forgetting as well. Sometimes...you literally don't have time to collect your treasure. Sometimes, @#)% is just @#&#@ entirely and if you go back for that plasma rifle you get swallowed by Fnarlar the Insatiable as he hunts for the rotten gits who killed his brodkil...or a tsunami, or a falling mountain of hubris, or a ritual gone wrong or whatever environmental hazards that exist in the situation the players have gotten themselves into.

My guys didn't feel like risking their lives to loot a literal treasure horde because the mountain was coming down around their ears. They could have tried, but it was likely some of them would be making new characters.

[eliakon]

It depends on whether, if one PC made a talisman and like gave it to another PC for, like, free - as a kind of team work, whether you'd say that isn't allowed, NM.

Or if one runs NPC mages like robots who can only ever charge book price because that's what's programmed into them, sure.

For people running games that way, I can see the problem in it.

Side point: There seems to be this bee in peoples bonnets that treasure HAS to be built right into the monster - as if treasure can't be handled seperately. If you feel you really have to have treasure built right into the monster, okay - but it's not a requirement. Please quit having a "If you don't have treasure built into the monster, then you don't have treasure at all!" fallacious conclusion.

just a side observation here.
so what your saying is that magic can be handled on a 'this costs less than book because it serves a purpose' way. But technology must always have full list costs paid at all times?

I grant if how it is is that some tech guy sleeps for a few hours then makes a laser rifle out of a bit of wood he finds on the ground, it'd seem lopsided.

It's not detailed how much materials and specialised equipment is needed to make laser rifles. But I've gone out on a limb and assumed tech guys don't just meditate for a few hours to do it.

I would guess that its one of the hundreds of factories that have been churning them out in massive lots for decades if not centuries( just on rifts earth) to arm the massive armies that are running around? That's why tech prices are just as ludicrous. The only purpose that the prices serve is to limit PC access to gear. Its like saying that an AK-47 should cost $1400 in a modern game. Yah that's how much you might pay if you bought one, retail one at a time in a gun shop. A military is probably paying 3-400 bucks tops, and a second hand one in a war zone is going to be even cheaper (I know that US units in Iraq were paying 'top dollar' (ie more than market price) to clean these off the streets...and they were paying between $50-$100 US. Its the same with any tech device, single production is expensive, mass production is cheep, but that's not realized in game.
This sets aside the question of how much time it takes for each mage to make each magic item, how many mages it takes to equip any given force, or of course what this item is (its certainly not the talisman spell)

And I don't get where your side point comes from. I don't think anyone here has said anything about treasure built into monsters, other than some concern about the value of salvage....

Then you're missing comments like "Letting them have technology would benefit the player" - comments like this assume the only treasure to be had is the one on the monster.

For someone that decries that people are putting words in his mouth, I find it interesting that you are complaining about a quote that was never said. No one said anything about the tech being 'good loot' or any such. In fact the idea seemed to be that looting weapons was NOT a feasible way to get rich quickly (which would indicate that the weapons were not seen as the loot) Nor was there ever any comment that, in fact, there had to be loot.

[Noon]

It depends on whether, if one PC made a talisman and like gave it to another PC for, like, free - as a kind of team work, whether you'd say that isn't allowed, NM.

Or if one runs NPC mages like robots who can only ever charge book price because that's what's programmed into them, sure.

For people running games that way, I can see the problem in it.

Side point: There seems to be this bee in peoples bonnets that treasure HAS to be built right into the monster - as if treasure can't be handled seperately. If you feel you really have to have treasure built right into the monster, okay - but it's not a requirement. Please quit having a "If you don't have treasure built into the monster, then you don't have treasure at all!" fallacious conclusion.

just a side observation here.
so what your saying is that magic can be handled on a 'this costs less than book because it serves a purpose' way. But technology must always have full list costs paid at all times?

I grant if how it is is that some tech guy sleeps for a few hours then makes a laser rifle out of a bit of wood he finds on the ground, it'd seem lopsided.

It's not detailed how much materials and specialised equipment is needed to make laser rifles. But I've gone out on a limb and assumed tech guys don't just meditate for a few hours to do it.

I would guess that its one of the hundreds of factories that have been churning them out in massive lots for decades if not centuries( just on rifts earth) to arm the massive armies that are running around? That's why tech prices are just as ludicrous. The only purpose that the prices serve is to limit PC access to gear. Its like saying that an AK-47 should cost $1400 in a modern game. Yah that's how much you might pay if you bought one, retail one at a time in a gun shop. A military is probably paying 3-400 bucks tops, and a second hand one in a war zone is going to be even cheaper (I know that US units in Iraq were paying 'top dollar' (ie more than market price) to clean these off the streets...and they were paying between $50-$100 US. Its the same with any tech device, single production is expensive, mass production is cheep, but that's not realized in game.
This sets aside the question of how much time it takes for each mage to make each magic item, how many mages it takes to equip any given force, or of course what this item is (its certainly not the talisman spell)

Do you lower the book price of weapons in your game, then?

And I don't get where your side point comes from. I don't think anyone here has said anything about treasure built into monsters, other than some concern about the value of salvage....

Then you're missing comments like "Letting them have technology would benefit the player" - comments like this assume the only treasure to be had is the one on the monster.

For someone that decries that people are putting words in his mouth, I find it interesting that you are complaining about a quote that was never said. No one said anything about the tech being 'good loot' or any such. In fact the idea seemed to be that looting weapons was NOT a feasible way to get rich quickly (which would indicate that the weapons were not seen as the loot) Nor was there ever any comment that, in fact, there had to be loot.

Either I've mentioned 'good loot' or 'get rich quickly', or otherwise you've just put more words in my mouth without any evidence, just bluntly asserting it.

I imagine it feels like the height of debating for you? Ie, it wont get any better than this?

[Grug]

I hope I'm not coming off as too aggressive.
The op was about the the Brodkil not doing enough damage. And you didn't want to give the brodkil technology, cause you didn't want the player's to have access to that type of loot. And it didn't match the flavor of your campaign. Which is cool!

Then it was mentioned that a basic laser rifle is 8k. Which most people agree(?) is high.

The solution was a talisman which the npcs could get for more or less free, from a mage they're working for. Interesting choice, but neato all the same.

Then it was mentioned the book price for a talisman is 30k+. True there is only one example and it might not be an accurate cost. Which could make the loot problem appear again... As far as I can tell we were looking at the items they were getting and what they can sell them for. Which goes from 800 credits for a rifle to around 3k for a talisman.

So we could have the brodkil be working for a knock off version of Wilks called Wonks. Whose guns consume ammo twice as quickly and any roll of 1-5 to strike the gun explodes (cause explosions are cool). But explains how the brodkil are getting there technology.

Or the brodkil can be working for a mage whose is making them talisman for free.

Both choices are right. I might find one makes more sense according to the book, but flavor of the campaign trumps all else imo.

If I wanted to make brodkil wear pink moomoos using giant lollipops as weapons and singing Christmas carols the whole time. Cause it fit the flavor of my campaign. No one should tell me I'm wrong.

[flatline]

A spent talisman has no resale value unless you have access to the wizard who created it since that's the only wizard who can recharge it.

--flatline

[flatline]

Alchemical talismans can be used by anyone and refresh every day....
so are other kinds of permanent talismans.
The only kind with that restriction are temporary ones.

Okay, so which are we talking about when we say they have a value of $30k x level?

And is that the same kind of talisman that was originally being discussed?

I had assumed in both cases that we were talking about the kind made by the invocation magic spell. My apologies if I was wrong.

--flatline

[Grug]

You are correct flatline. It is the talisman via the level 13 (I think 13) spell.
Now some books do state that an alchemist can recharge them too. But who knows what the alchemist population is in rifts.

[eliakon]

Do you lower the book price of weapons in your game, then?

Depends on who is buying and where. But yes. When my players contact a weapons manufacturer and say "I want to buy 20,000 rifles, with an option on 50,000 more (just happened in my most recent game). Then the manufacturer said "wonderful, looked at the cash payment." And started working out a huge discount (30% of list, with a bunch of freebies). The army that those PCs works for has a rifle (cost $900 it has been using, it pays $25 for)

And I don't get where your side point comes from. I don't think anyone here has said anything about treasure built into monsters, other than some concern about the value of salvage....

Then you're missing comments like "Letting them have technology would benefit the player" - comments like this assume the only treasure to be had is the one on the monster.

For someone that decries that people are putting words in his mouth, I find it interesting that you are complaining about a quote that was never said. No one said anything about the tech being 'good loot' or any such. In fact the idea seemed to be that looting weapons was NOT a feasible way to get rich quickly (which would indicate that the weapons were not seen as the loot) Nor was there ever any comment that, in fact, there had to be loot.

Either I've mentioned 'good loot' or 'get rich quickly', or otherwise you've just put more words in my mouth without any evidence, just bluntly asserting it.

I imagine it feels like the height of debating for you? Ie, it wont get any better than this?

1) Personal attacks are not a form of debate, and in fact are reportable, so I would ask you not do so,
You have explicitly previously made it clear that you understand what an Ad Homenim attack is. Although you have been pretty free with making them.
2) The words “Letting them have technology would benefit the player” were never typed in this session, so as such it is YOU who are putting words in people’s mouths
3) it was YOU who was the first person to mention that “so the players get some loot” back in your first post. I would guess that everyone else figured at that point that you were interested in loot *shrugs* dunno easy mistake
4) The ‘get rich quick’ was not attributed to you, it was a comment about the forum people thinking it WOULDN’T work. I never said you said “good loot” again that’s you putting words in MY mouth. All I did was reference your original statement [quote=”Noon”]Anyway, the amulet will burn out after that but is maybe worth 100 credits for materials if sold, so the players get some loot.[/quote]

I am willing to continue this discussion provided you can keep it civil, stop leaping to the conclusion that everyone is misquoting you, and misquoting others. If that is not possible, then this is not a debate but just a shouting match, and I have little interest in that sort of activity.

[eliakon]

You are correct flatline. It is the talisman via the level 13 (I think 13) spell.
Now some books do state that an alchemist can recharge them too. But who knows what the alchemist population is in rifts.

Which is useful, but irrelevant since no canon talisman/item works like the proposed device. Ergo its a custom homebrewed enchantment, which means that with out any more knowledge about it we can even speculate about its costs in any meaningful way.

[Alrik Vas]

And suddenly we've got back to the uselessness of this agrument.

[Alrik Vas]

You know...that is a good point. I could just imagine some guy walkin' along and a splugorth comes out of an alley.

Sploogie: "Pssst, hey kid. Wanna learn magic?"
Guy: "You bet i do!"
S: "excellent...come work for me, and i'll show you the true mysteries of the megaverse!"
G: "What are we going to do?"
S: "oh, i'll tell you what we're going to do...SUMMON ELEMENTALS AND SYPHON THEIR PPE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO!"
G: "I don't get it..."
S: "Alright, fine so I need to make amulets and have no time to do it on my own...just go with it, trust these tentacles of mine...sssshhh...trust."

And then this guy, who becomes a "spell caster", is really just another being's press-ganged talisman maker.

The end.

[eliakon]

there's more then enough alchemists in Rifts earth that they are manufacturing amulets by the thousands a year. Federation of magic has and stormspire are examples of this. Atlantis is also, a big producer.

Except that the items in those books, are not alchemic. There may be many amulets made, but most of those are either the spell version, or the armor ones (neither of which are examples of alchemy).
There may, or may not be Alchemists (as per the occ) on rifts earth, but the books are vague on this (shocking I know, a vauge rifts book )

[PSI-Lence]

It depends on whether, if one PC made a talisman and like gave it to another PC for, like, free - as a kind of team work, whether you'd say that isn't allowed, NM.

Or if one runs NPC mages like robots who can only ever charge book price because that's what's programmed into them, sure.

For people running games that way, I can see the problem in it.

Side point: There seems to be this bee in peoples bonnets that treasure HAS to be built right into the monster - as if treasure can't be handled seperately. If you feel you really have to have treasure built right into the monster, okay - but it's not a requirement. Please quit having a "If you don't have treasure built into the monster, then you don't have treasure at all!" fallacious conclusion.

so dozens or even hundreds of high level mages (since they are using lv 13 spells with high PPE) where an automated factory could have a few workers just to feed raw material and clear any jams in the machines? and pressing the green button on a machine doesn't drain you of all your PPE

having mages cast the same talisman spell over and over sounds more like they are being treated like robots by you actually , mages need sleep, and food machines need power and occasional maintenance, and anyone with some basic mechanics skills could set it up, (assuming they got a hold of a factory or blueprints for a weapon) so a lv 3 operator could arm hundreds of broodkill instead of hundreds of mages needed

you said you were limiting weapons so players couldn't sell them off...then complained that the broodkill don't do enough damage so you gave them potentionally much more expensive items and are saying that the players are getting 'treasure' in other ways so you are still giving them even more than you mention anywhere else and still ignore all other options , how many times have you cried out about people being stubborn for not changing what's in the books, but when it's pointed out to you that even in the scenario you set up that your "solution" (of just making up things as you go) doesn't fit in

[Nightmask]

It depends on whether, if one PC made a talisman and like gave it to another PC for, like, free - as a kind of team work, whether you'd say that isn't allowed, NM.

You really should read what I post, since I never said that wasn't anything that wouldn't be allowed, if anything your own arguments have been against anything like that. Certainly you've behaved as if technology, the preferred thing for Brodkil, could only somehow end up in their hands if they bought it and could never get into their hands otherwise and that as bandits they'd never be able to acquire such gear yet inexplicably mages would just be handing out magical gear that requires a high-level spell to craft along with large amounts of magical energy.

Or if one runs NPC mages like robots who can only ever charge book price because that's what's programmed into them, sure.

For people running games that way, I can see the problem in it.

Well you certainly sound like you're running NPC mages like robots, having them slaving away churning out talismans for tech-favoring creatures like Brodkil and doing it for free for the sole purpose of ensuring that the PC group can't find anything of value after their battles. Something that makes far far less sense than them actually having things that they actually favor using and would be relatively common in the setting. It's about as plausible as criminals running around in a modern setting using limited use magic wands and spell talismans instead of hand guns or rifles like they favor because 'well can't be having the PC acquiring those hand guns and rifles, they aren't ever supposed to find anything valuable on the people who tried to kill them especially anything you'd expect to find on them, not like they actually earned it for managing to survive'. So not very plausible at all.

Side point: There seems to be this bee in peoples bonnets that treasure HAS to be built right into the monster - as if treasure can't be handled seperately. If you feel you really have to have treasure built right into the monster, okay - but it's not a requirement. Please quit having a "If you don't have treasure built into the monster, then you don't have treasure at all!" fallacious conclusion.

No one other than yourself has said anything of the sort, they've discussed the gear most commonly favored by the NPC opponents that are the central focus of this thread. YOU behave as if it's all about loot and focus exclusively on how to completely remake the race so that it's lacking in anything that the PC group might be able to make use of. From an AD&D perspective it would be like rewriting Orcs so that they never had any swords or shields or armor and instead had a range of one-shot magical items instead so that they could be a threat but never have anything left over that the PC could use themselves even when the one-shot magical items would be far more expensive than the swords and armor they canonly use and the PC could take for use or resell afterwords.

[Nightmask]

It Varies. in Stormspire, There is a Lizard Mage (who are all Alchemists) who has turned magic production into a manufacturing line process. in Dweomers you have Gods of magic. There Really are enchanters and what not press-ganged into making items on rifts earth (even the Xititix press-gang psychics to operate their Rift Generators).

As for weapons: by the books no one buys weapons at Market Value.
The Base percentage they get is 10% with bargaining and random events getting that all the way up to 50%.
A 20,000 Credit weapon will only net you 2000 credits.
what are you afraid of?


the cost of repairs and ammunition is in the thousands of credits and nothing useful can be bought for under 1000 credits.

Could be just standard 'I want to drain the PC group of resources' behavior, see to it that they have no rewarding conflicts (in the 'at least we broke even and a touch more' Resource sense) and instead everything just causes the group to bleed resources so that they're always kept at the same point rather than improving, like upgrading to better armor and weapons. Some are practically phobic about letting the PC actually acquire better than the Plastic Man armor and 1d6 MD pistol they started with.