Another thing that falls from this is that not all equipment at a given tech level is equally capable. That’s true to life, and worth modeling (not everything is state-of-the-art). Also, it allows some stories to be told that otherwise wouldn’t: “You came in that? You’re braver than I thought.” (and Han is detained on Hoth because he has to make his maintenance roll in suboptimal circumstances, and has to deal with some extra shifts on the time track). So the cheap stunts, and oter siks that don’t give an aspect but just suck up a build point model that.

It’s also worth pointing out that during the design process, we did have a more traditional ship design system that was cumbersome and “realistic” (given the assumptions that were being entered into the spreadsheet). And you know what? Given the huge amount of space that needed to be devoted to r-mass, in the end there were only a handful of possibilities available at a given tech level, and it corresponds pretty close to the amount of variation that is in the final system. (In a few cases the calculated “costs” of drives and the BP formulae embed a remnant of those original realistic assumptions.

All that’s to say, the cheap stunt, and the other sink stunts available, are (for me) a really crucial part of the ship design process.

I’m still going to stick by my assertion from our email’d discussion: I think the cheap stunt *does* do something (it forces the existence of the Cheap aspect, and it consumes 2 build points when something else that puts an aspect on you — Transfer Aspect — consumes but 1 build point). And in one case you have it actually adjust the cost math for being able to buy the resulting weapon.

So I don’t think you’ve ended up with as pure a “scaffolding” or whatever implementation of cheap as you think you have. But ultimately this doesn’t have to be a problem with the addition of a single rule (and the removal of the cost reduction in the one instance where it’s cited in the text): a Cheap aspect can be free-tagged when you’re buying the item.

Once that’s there, I immediately see a comfortable, balanced implementation of the “cheap” stunt by getting that free tag effect. Transfer aspects don’t come with a free tag! So of course this is +1 bp over that. And that free tag takes care of any cost-math you might otherwise be tempted to play with, because the buyer’s always getting a boost with this thing.

And because the “Cheap” aspect that results is there, and gets treated like a transfer aspect to the user of the equipment, then it does the job that a “bad” aspect is there to do: generate fate points for the player. That’s a player-incentive reason to grab a piece of cheap equipment, even, because it puts more juice into their story!

So my complaint about cheap as it currently stands, when it comes down to it, is that I think the presentation is muddled — this small tweak to it takes it from muddy to clear, and makes sure that cheap stuff is delivering the most power it *should* be delivering to the story.

That’s an excellent point, Fred! It’s something I’ll definately be houseruling in my game. Cheers!

Thought about this a little on the bus. The free-tag solution was niggling at me and couldn’t pin down why. This morning I did.

The problem with making Cheap a free-taggable aspect is that it becomes an automatic usage — there are no circumstances under which you would NOT use it. Lacking choice, it seems like a sub-optimal use of the mechanism. As it’s functionally identical to reducing the cost of the item by two (more), that would be the preferred way to manage that reduction.

If you want story from the process, then story should be paid for in story currency. This is why the scope rule exists in Diaspora, and this is how the Cheap aspect (from the stunt) would play out. As it’s paid for, it demands narration — its use is a choice and choices have impact only when they derive from decisions that must be weighed. Automatic choices have no impact.

Torvil has elected to purchase a spacecraft. He’s looking at an inexpensive model because he’s stingy (in fact, has the aspect, “Stingy bastard”). He likes shopping (aspect, “Loves to haggle”) and so the player has drawn out the scene already. Finally he makes his roll and scores a net of -3 shifts. He will take a hit on his Wealth track and he doesn’t want that.

Now, Torvil can invoke “Stingy bastard” or “Loves to haggle” and find a story to tell, but he can’t tag both because they have the same scope (himself). Fortunately, the craft he’s eyeing has the aspect “Cheap” as a side-effect of its Cheap stunt. So he can tag “Cheap” and invoke “Stingy bastard” for two precious fate points and avoid taking any Wealth stress. He does so.

“Well, it’s real pretty of course, but I think maybe I’ll settle for the other one you showed me, the used one. I can probably fix her up okay.”

Now “Cheap” has entered the narrative properly (the player is motivated to get something for her fate points, and so she adds facts through the tagging mechanism — that’s what you buy with a fate point): we now know that the vessel Torvil chose is cheap in part because it’s used, and that’s a branching point for the story — a hook on which to hang unforseen narrative. We are not, therefore, simulating cheapness (a pre-existing feature with pre-existing story in the item) but rather facilitating the telling of a story about cheapness that we do not discover until the story currency is paid.

Also, an effective -3 on cost means pretty much anyone can afford a spacecraft. Too deep.

Enh. The free tag would work fine for me (and at least in my Fate, a tag can also result in a reroll, so it’s not as simple as always being a -2 to the cost). I get your objection, but it lives in a space that doesn’t concern me for my own table’s purposes.

I just thought I’d say that I love it when people leave the scafolding in. When a game has these beams sticking out of it that we can use to support our improvisation by tying it to the existing playtesting and logic, then not only is that easier on us, but it means that our house rules say something about the current scafolding; either that it fits or not, which means better feedback to you on your basic assumptions!

Josh that’s pretty much exactly the intention. Diaspora is built to play the way I like to play, and drifting a game is part of how I play it. Having the hardpoints identified and the blueprints in hand is an invitation. In this particular case this scaffolding happens to look like something that other games build in as a solitaire mini-game and judging by my mail that’s obviously confusing. It could have used more or clearer text in the book.