| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: |
One of the problem with simple mechanics that are supposed to represent 'reality'... In those 'borderline' cases I usually roll a random dice after the PC shoots to see wether he is in range or not.. |
Yeah. In this case it is the result of using hard and fast numbers to reflect something abstract (weapon ranges). Real world Effective Ranges are only approximattions (by defintion).
Assuming blaster bolts don7t go poof at the end of long range (and they might), then there reallyins't much difference between a target at 118m and 122m. If you can hit one, you can hit the other.
And it7s not like everything just happens to be standing in the excet center of the square/hex itis in. So any raange calculation on a map can vary by 1-2 meters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Step functions for range are simpler to use in a RPG than continuous functions. They just aren't as realistic a simulation. You can approximate closer to a continuous curve by using more steps, but that gets a bit more complicated.
Here is an example for a DH-17 blaster pistol
Range: 5-15/30/120 - Difficulty: easy/moderate/difficult
New Range ..... New Difficulty
5-6 ..................... 6
7-8 ..................... 7
9-11 ................... 8
12-13 ................. 9
14-15 ................ 10
16-18 ................ 11
19-21 ................ 12
22-24 ................ 13
25-27 ................ 14
28-30 ................ 15
31-48 ................ 16
49-66 ................ 17
67-84 ................ 18
85-102 .............. 19
103-120 ............. 20
+1 ................... +2 (or whatever number you want to simulate range drop off)
Note: I am not advocating this as a change. Merely tinkering with mechanics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: |
One of the problem with simple mechanics that are supposed to represent 'reality'... In those 'borderline' cases I usually roll a random dice after the PC shoots to see wether he is in range or not.. |
Yeah. In this case it is the result of using hard and fast numbers to reflect something abstract (weapon ranges). Real world Effective Ranges are only approximattions (by defintion).
Assuming blaster bolts don7t go poof at the end of long range (and they might), then there reallyins't much difference between a target at 118m and 122m. If you can hit one, you can hit the other.
And it7s not like everything just happens to be standing in the excet center of the square/hex itis in. So any raange calculation on a map can vary by 1-2 meters. |
I was earlier thinking of having weapon damage be modified by range. It would be +1D at point blank (or up to Close) and -1D at long range. If you want to simulate this gradual diffusion of bolts (and inaccuracy) you could create a Extreme range based in the RAW Long range and reduce the damage with another -1D.
The idea came from reading the story of Boba Fett (old) in a book. It was mentioned that 'at this range' the bounty hunter armour would not protect him. At the same time bounty hunter armour is noted as being more or less blaster proof.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great or deranged minds and all...from a recent PM:
| Bren wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: | | BTW, I've been thinking of stealing another James Bond rule and adjusting weapon damage up 1D at close range and down 1D at long range. It's not very complicated, but I think it would help. At the least it would drop stormtroopers more like the films than the RAW. |
I think it makes sense from a physics perspective. It seems to fit with what we see on screen. It would also make characters think twice about taking risky actions when someone is pointing a blaster at them at point blank range - which is a good thing. They should be thinking of a way to distract the guy not ignoring the blaster and charging him point blank. The ruling provides a game effect to the player: +1D damage at point blank and -1D damage at long range that I think mirrors the likely psychological effect that I suspect having a gun pointed at you close enough to look down the barrel vs. having a gun pointed at you from so far away that you can hardly see the other person's face. And it is simple to adopt. I think I like it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | Step functions for range are simpler to use in a RPG than continuous functions. They just aren't as realistic a simulation. You can approximate closer to a continuous curve by using more steps, but that gets a bit more complicated.
Here is an example for a DH-17 blaster pistol
Range: 5-15/30/120 - Difficulty: easy/moderate/difficult
New Range ..... New Difficulty
5-6 ..................... 6
7-8 ..................... 7
9-11 ................... 8
12-13 ................. 9
14-15 ................ 10
16-18 ................ 11
19-21 ................ 12
22-24 ................ 13
25-27 ................ 14
28-30 ................ 15
31-48 ................ 16
49-66 ................ 17
67-84 ................ 18
85-102 .............. 19
103-120 ............. 20
+1 ................... +2 (or whatever number you want to simulate range drop off)
Note: I am not advocating this as a change. Merely tinkering with mechanics. |
I find this chart hilarious (no offense to Bren).
Last edited by Naaman on Sat Sep 03, 2011 5:11 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | 1,5 man..
I use ranges in meters. However, I never use a battle grid just a scetch on a piece of paper. Distances are given by me in meters, but theres no counting and 'meta gaming' when it comes to positions of combatants.. So its a mix of using exact distances when it comes to shooting, with approximate distances (from the characters pov) when it comes to positioning. |
I use a map/grid but I tend to use approximate measurements for things like shooting distances and ranges. Most weapons don't just stop at long range, and most range states are approximate. So a guy who is 122 meters away is probably fair game for a blaster pistol with a long range of 120 meter. |
I mostly use a map to show what/where everthing is.. gotta know where that cover is!
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Our games are very loosy-goosy... we don't even bother with actual distance. Instead, we just ask the GM "can I get there this round?" or we say "is there any cover around?" GM will usually call for a free (no MAP) perception/search check and tell us what is immediately apparent to our characters. We do on-the-fly sketches when details are not otherwise clear.
I think this method helps to preserve the epic-ness of the space opera excitement. The game doesn't get bogged down with measurements and calculations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:54 pm Post subject: Re: metric system |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | Star Wars uses the metric system... |
Do you mean WEG rules or is there a metric reference in the films? |
"The target area is only two meters wide."
| Bren wrote: | | Quote: | | I go all math professor on my players and require exclusive use of the metric system in my game (but I provide conversion tables for the correct perspective). |
Do you smoke a pipe when you go all math professor? Many of my UG professors smoked a pipe.  |
The pipe doesn't come out until the end of the game session. 8)
| Bren wrote: | I'm all for education, but exclusive use seems a bit...anal.
My character sheet says: Height: 1.70m (5’7”) Mass:70 kg (154#) - would that really be problematic for you as a GM?
Totally eliminating the figures in () just makes it harder for those of us who grew up with English Units. |
I guess exclusive was not the best word to use. On my current Player Character sheet, there is plenty of room for these fields, so no, I would not have a problem with a player who added parenthetical conventional measures after the metric ones like in your example. What I really meant was that using conventional measure only is not permitted.
| Bren wrote: | (And I know that pounds are not a mass unit, but let's just pretend the # indicates equivalent weight at a SW standard 1G.)
| Quote: | | For all intents and purposes Mass is constant even if in lighter or heavier than standard gravity. |
I'm not a physicist, but can't we eliminate "For all intents and purposes" from the preceding sentence.  Is there a case where mass is not constant? - Mostly I am curious if I am missing some bit of college physics or have forgotten something in the intervening 3+ decades. |
You may have forgotten from your physics class that mass is not actually a constant. Mass increases with speed. However, increases in mass are negligible at non-relativistic speeds, so "for all intents and purposes" was meant to refer to this. If I had eliminated that phrase, I technically would have been incorrect in stating that mass is a constant. So the Mass field on my character sheet technically represents the character's mass at rest.
Character mass while moving at relativistic speeds will never matter in the game, but what is not so uncommon is the character being in a different levels of gravity. Artificial gravity can malfunction, there are worlds with a surface gravity lesser and greater than 1G, and there are situations where characters may enter into zero or microgravity. A character's (rest) mass stays constant as gravity varies, unlike weight.
And yes, a player could still record his PC's conventional weight in standard 1G gravity after his mass in kg, and it is very simple arithmetic to calculate the weight in various gravity levels as they occur.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:58 pm Post subject: re: Static Weapon Ranges |
|
|
Back on topic...
| Bren wrote: | Since I think I can see both points of view. Let me try to point out some of the differences. Here I will limit this to ground based, small unit combat, but similar things are true of space or other types of combat. The two main methods discussed are as follows.
Method I - Track actual distances between all participants. [This is the mechanism used in theWEG SW RPG.]
(1) Requires some method of determining starting distances and tracking subsequent movement of all participants in the combat. Often facilitated by using a battle board or map and miniatures or counters.
(2) Requires effective ranges for each weapon in use. These will differ from weapon to weapon. So at any given distance some weapons may be short, medium, or long range. Thus requiring frequent recalculation of range bonus/penalties for some, but not all weapons, as distances change.
Pro - simulates distance and angles of real world combat; often popular with tacitically minded players and GMs since it lets them see things in a god-like above-the-battle POV similar to many board games or miniatures battles.
Con - requires tracking distances and angles which slows down play and limits narrative flexibility; as a simulation, it often provides much more information than a character on the ground would really have. Chase scenes and long ranges are particularly difficult to simulate since available battle board space is limited.
Method II - Track abstract distances via range bands. Targets within a single band are treated as if they were in the same location. [This is the method used by the original Traveller rules.]
(1) Requires a method of determining what range band opponents start in and a mechanism for changing from one range band to the next. May be facilitated with an range band chart or map that displays an abstract distance by range band. Think of this like a set of boxes labeled with the different ranges.
(2) Requires modifiers for each weapon by range band. Some weapons will not be able to fire into some range bands, e.g. a pistol might be able to reach range bands 1-3 but no farther. While a rifle might be able to reach range bands 1-5 but no farther. Weapons will have to hit bonuses or penalties for each range band (though some bands will be X or no effect). Penalties only need to be recalculated when a targets change to a different range band. All targets at the same range band incur the same bonus or penalty.
Pro - abstracts combat which may speed play; if A and B shoot at each other both will be at the same range (though their weapon bonuses and penalties may differ); greater abstraction may aid narrative play by not pinning the scene down to an exact distance and angle and by moving away from the concrete hexes and distances of miniature and board game play; limits exact information which may better simulate the feeling of being in combat; works extremely well for depicting two person chases where only relative distance matters.
Con - requires the GM to describe the abstract situation in sufficient detail for players to understand the tactical scene and make decisions; visual thinkers and players used to a map or board may find the foggyness or abstraction frustrating; can be highly problematic in a complicated moving battle or one with more than 2 sides.
Did I leave out relevant details or pros or cons?
Which method do you prefer or use? |
 Has anyone implemented the standardizations of ranges in their game? I'd be really interested to hear how it has worked for you.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2259
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have not, though I doubt it would have a huge impact on my game.
The vast majority of our combats happen in short and medium range. And having to look up actual ranges is quite rare, even for us who (usually) use detailed counters and maps.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I got hung up on trying to make a conversion system from existing stats to static ranges, and that is as far as it got.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | I really love the concept of standardized range weapon ranges, but I imagine converting existing weapons would be the hard part. |
Indeed. My ideal would be something like a set of modifiers applied to the basic difficulty for the range, based on the weapon used (Example: Range: -5/0/0/+5). However, since not every weapon has the same range, converting a weapon over to a standardized range would require differing difficulty modifiers to reflect the difference in ranges (i.e. a weapon that has a longer range will have a lower difficulty modifier).
Rather than a uniform conversion formula, it might be simpler to generate generic range modifiers for the different general weapon types available in the rulebook, as all other weapons seem to derive from that standard. Once a baseline rule is available, it could be used to generate range modifiers for a specific weapon as needed.
It might also be possible to apply standardized ranges to non-weapon uses, such as Sensors or Search/Perception rolls. For Sensors, their range could extend an additional bracket beyond the range of the ship's weapons, indicating a general area within which targets could be detected but not yet fired upon, with a difficulty modifier based on the effectiveness of the cannon stat for the sensors. For Search/Perception, it would be a simple modifier added to the base Difficulty...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
What might work would be to swipe from EABA.
What that game does is use a set difficulty based on the range. EABA uses the square root of the range (in meters) plus 2, but it has a lower difficulty scale. For Star wars you'd want difficulties about 50% higher. Differences between weapons were handled by giving weapons and accuracy stat, that hlped to offset the range.
For instance, a laser rifle might have an Accuracy of 5, which would let it be effective much further out than a pistol would be.
It wouldn't match up exactly with existing weapon data in Star Wars, but then, weapon range bands, as listed, aren't all that realistic or accurate.
The square root progression actually doesn't look that bad when compared to existing weapons, and starship weapon stats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm thinking more in terms of using the existing range difficulties as a base, to which modifiers are then applied.
| SW-RPG 2eR&E, page 89 wrote: | Estimating Ranges. Rather than measuring out ranges
every round, you can use estimates:
• Targets that are very close — within three meters of each
other — are at point-blank range. (Very Easy difficulty.)
• Most combat indoors is at short range. (Easy difficulty.) If
the room is fairly large and the combatants are at opposite
ends of it, blaster rifles will still be at short range (Easy
difficulty), but blaster pistols will probably be at medium
range (Moderate difficulty).
• Most combat outdoors is at medium range (Moderate
difficulty). Sometimes, blaster pistols are at long range
(Difficult difficulty), while blaster rifles are still at medium
range (Moderate difficulty).
• Outdoor combat at great distances is generally at long
range (Difficult difficulty). |
Once the base difficulty for the combat setting is established, each weapon would have a given modifier applied to the base difficulty dependent on how effective the weapon is at that particular range. Based on the above text, a blaster rifle would be a good baseline, so its Range stat would look something like this: 0/0/0/0. A blaster pistol, on the other hand, would look more like 0/0/+10/-, with the - indicating that the weapon can't be fired at targets in that range bracket.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
