[Basic] Debugging inventions

[johndallman]

"Testing and Bugs" on p474 has rules for finding bugs in inventions, but I can't find anything on time, costs or skill rolls for fixing them. Have I missed something?

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by johndallman

"Testing and Bugs" on p474 has rules for finding bugs in inventions, but I can't find anything on time, costs or skill rolls for fixing them. Have I missed something?

No, I don't think you've missed anything. They seem to be absent - I guess the assumption is that players will probably just use the buggy prototype, and knowing how it can go wrong is more important than taking the time to fix it?

If you wanted rules for fixing the bugs, I'd probably call that another cycle of invention, requiring a new concept and prototype roll. You'd get the +5 for having a working model, but -1 per minor bug and -2 per major bug removed. To avoid introducing new bugs in a never-ending process, I'd say that regular inventors use Gadgeteer rules for bugs on these rolls (i.e., no bugs on a success by 3 or more), and Gadgeteers eliminate the bugs on any success.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

If you wanted rules for fixing the bugs, I'd probably call that another cycle of invention, requiring a new concept and prototype roll. You'd get the +5 for having a working model, but -1 per minor bug and -2 per major bug removed. To avoid introducing new bugs in a never-ending process, I'd say that regular inventors use Gadgeteer rules for bugs on these rolls (i.e., no bugs on a success by 3 or more), and Gadgeteers eliminate the bugs on any success.

I think I just played it as another round of invention, with the working model bonus. Making it without bugs is why it's an new invention though, not a copy, so I'm not sure you'd need your bug removal penalty.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

I think I just played it as another round of invention, with the working model bonus. Making it without bugs is why it's an new invention though, not a copy, so I'm not sure you'd need your bug removal penalty.

My issue with just making it another round of invention with no adjustments is that it makes it either too hard (for regular inventors) or too easy (for Gadgeteers) to remove all bugs. It's too hard for regular inventors because they basically have to keep rolling until they get a critical success, and for Gadgeteers, the +5 for a working model basically ensures they'll get a success with a margin of three or more quite quickly.

Also, I tend to think that more bugs, and more serious bugs, should take a bit more effort to fix. Putting a penalty based on the number of bugs you're trying to fix means that there's a tactical choice for inventors to make: do they shoot the moon and try to invent something to fix all the bugs in one go? Or take it cautiously, doing one or two bugs at a time? (The fact that in my suggestion, correcting one major bug, or two minor ones, will net you a +3 bonus, just enough to reliably eliminate those bugs for a standard inventor, is not a coincidence.)

[Daigoro]

After checking, I'd misremembered. +5 is for actually making a copy of a working model, so penalising from that is the equivalent of the given +1-+5 for a variation of an existing model (i.e. it's a variant without bugs).

The problem I'd have with too many penalties is that it'll be even harder to make a version 2 than it was to make the version 1. This shouldn't be the case unless you're in Crit Failure land and chasing a misunderstood concept.

Thus, instead of counting how many bugs there are, just replace the +5 with, say:
+0-+2 if it contains major bugs
+3-+5 if it contains minor bugs

The problem though is that there aren't any suggestions for what characterises major or minor bugs.

Oops, actually, the text says "Bugs that remain after testing..." Doesn't this imply that the testing process itself fixes the bugs?

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

Oops, actually, the text says "Bugs that remain after testing..." Doesn't this imply that the testing process itself fixes the bugs?

That fails a reality check. Quite a few things are invented or designed, and work at a basic level, but never become successful because of design problems.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by johndallman

That fails a reality check. Quite a few things are invented or designed, and work at a basic level, but never become successful because of design problems.

I'd be inclined to put that in the "below the level of GURPS resolution" basket. It's true enough, but as a game, we've given one way that's easily playable and fun enough.

But, such optional rules could be more content for the ever-wished-for Powerups: Gadgets and Inventions.