The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

New Scale System
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> New Scale System Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13 ... 15, 16, 17  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LegendaryExGamer
Ensign
Ensign


Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
I tend to agree the idea that roleplaying is for the players. I have done away almost completely with the notion thatt rules-based game balance is even relevant to the enjoyment of the game.

Rather, let balance be achieved via situational variables. Let the players SKILL SELECTION (and other choices, such as equipment, etc) dictate balance, rather than the VOLUME of dice he's rolling.

As for the cinematic expression of dice roll results, if we are going down that path, why have mechanics in the first place? Jus let each player say, "I do this or that." And then let GM arbitrate the results according to what would make a" good story."

There is a certain satisfaction with making the roll that your entire batle plan hinges upon at the critical moment.

Power gaming? Not me. Though I am proba ly a min-maxer: its a mentality I apply to my whole life, incidentally, and I find it fun to "min-max" character skill and equipment combos... kinda like solving a puzzle that noone else ever knew existed.


You must be one heck of a GM, I would have killed to have you run a game for me when I was getting rules hammered by the satanic lawyer that used to run our games....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Etiquette Tip for Future Reference: When quoting someone for a reply, it is appreciated if you trim all but the relevant portions of the previous message.

LegendaryExGamer wrote:
I've always thought of Turrets and View Ports, and smaller objects as being something that's GM discretion. So, if you look at the Scale as the Entirety for something... You're looking at it in a linear fashion. There could be 300 or more turbolaser emplacements on the facing of a Death Star... If you want to have at them, go for it. Any fighter should logically be able to target any weapon emplacement and destroy it.

Indeed. My point was not that it should be otherwise, but that WEG's RAW (Rules As Written) did not allow for such occurrence. To destroy a single turbolaser tower in a strafing run (per WEG's rules), the Starfighter would have to somehow beat 33D with a 6D quad-laser cannon, and not only that, but beat it by exactly 4-8 points, and then roll a 2 or 3 on a D6 to damage or destroy one weapon emplacement.

Like I said, it's unrealistic.

My solution to the problem would be more along the lines of allowing the pilot to declare a specific result at increased targeting difficulty (which would, in turn, be offset by the scale modifier). So yes, it is possible with a D6 system if you structure the rules right.

Quote:
You stack Fire in the D6 System, layering batteries and you have a high enough command skill, the opposing ship explodes.

Actually, the book specifically states that a capital ship does not require a Command roll unless the Crew listing includes the phrase "can combine". In all other circumstances, it is assumed that a single person is responsible for the task in question, whether it is Gunnery, Sensors, Piloting or whatever.

Quote:
It's too easy. Technically, depending upon how you look at it... You could use 3 batteries on a Mon Cal, for combined damage if you make the appropraite Command roll and deliver 12D of damage to the Star Destroyer and it explodes, or in other rules combining fire adds a +1 per gun to damage and the ship still explodes... Not realistic. No matter which spin on combining fire you use, the system fails to handle it in pure D6 Mechanics of just Dice Codes.

Or you could use the method you left out, the 2E mechanic where the coordination bonus slopes off as the number being coordinated increases. The degree of increase is mathematically irregular, but it does a better job of keeping the numbers from getting too far out of hand.

Personally, I prefer the 2x = 1D method, where the coordination bonus goes up by 1D every time the number being coordinated doubles. It provides good bonuses down low, but also slopes up more and more rapidly to keep the numbers from getting out of hand.

Here's the link.


Quote:
We either use light lethality , 1 per 5 or full lethality 1 for 1 in our games.

I've found 1/1 to be too lethal and 1/5 to be not lethal enough.

Quote:
Yeah.... It was something like 25 of them using combined fire... That example hardly proves your point.

If you don't like being proven wrong, you should be more circumspect about making absolute statements. You may not like it, but the simple fact of the matter is that walker-scale vehicles have damaged capital ships on at least two occasions on screen; once in AOTC and once in a Clone Wars episode. If you want things to be different in your Star Wars universe, that's your prerogative, but I don't agree. Personally, I find it far more realistic for walkers like the AT-AT to be at -2D from smaller capital ships than I do for starfighters to be at -2D.

Quote:
Like you're not looking at the core of the game play and saying "You want to shoot a specific location? No problem, it's a capital Scale based gun, so it should have a 2D Capital Scale body strength. Most undefined objects in Star Wars are rated at 2D." I would say that the Glass on the Bridge of a Star Destroyer is also 2D capital, point defense guns would be 2D starfighter scale.

I think you should spend more time reading my posts before you get judgemental. My methodology is based more around using familiar rules and concepts to achieve new effects, because new rules are easier to accept and utilize if they are based on something familiar and comfortable.

Quote:
Just because something is Death Star Scale doesn't mean it's guns or view ports are death star scale. The ONLY THING on a Death Star that's Death Star Scale (other than its 30+KM Radius and Mass) is one Superlaser.

It's simple logic

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I never said that it was; I just pointed out that the rules-as-written said that it did.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
LegendaryExGamer
Ensign
Ensign


Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
An Etiquette Tip for Future Reference: When quoting someone for a reply, it is appreciated if you trim all but the relevant portions of the previous message.

LegendaryExGamer wrote:
I've always thought of Turrets and View Ports, and smaller objects as being something that's GM discretion. So, if you look at the Scale as the Entirety for something... You're looking at it in a linear fashion. There could be 300 or more turbolaser emplacements on the facing of a Death Star... If you want to have at them, go for it. Any fighter should logically be able to target any weapon emplacement and destroy it.

Indeed. My point was not that it should be otherwise, but that WEG's RAW (Rules As Written) did not allow for such occurrence. To destroy a single turbolaser tower in a strafing run (per WEG's rules), the Starfighter would have to somehow beat 33D with a 6D quad-laser cannon, and not only that, but beat it by exactly 4-8 points, and then roll a 2 or 3 on a D6 to damage or destroy one weapon emplacement.

Like I said, it's unrealistic.

My solution to the problem would be more along the lines of allowing the pilot to declare a specific result at increased targeting difficulty (which would, in turn, be offset by the scale modifier). So yes, it is possible with a D6 system if you structure the rules right.

Quote:
You stack Fire in the D6 System, layering batteries and you have a high enough command skill, the opposing ship explodes.

Actually, the book specifically states that a capital ship does not require a Command roll unless the Crew listing includes the phrase "can combine". In all other circumstances, it is assumed that a single person is responsible for the task in question, whether it is Gunnery, Sensors, Piloting or whatever.

Quote:
It's too easy. Technically, depending upon how you look at it... You could use 3 batteries on a Mon Cal, for combined damage if you make the appropraite Command roll and deliver 12D of damage to the Star Destroyer and it explodes, or in other rules combining fire adds a +1 per gun to damage and the ship still explodes... Not realistic. No matter which spin on combining fire you use, the system fails to handle it in pure D6 Mechanics of just Dice Codes.

Or you could use the method you left out, the 2E mechanic where the coordination bonus slopes off as the number being coordinated increases. The degree of increase is mathematically irregular, but it does a better job of keeping the numbers from getting too far out of hand.

Personally, I prefer the 2x = 1D method, where the coordination bonus goes up by 1D every time the number being coordinated doubles. It provides good bonuses down low, but also slopes up more and more rapidly to keep the numbers from getting out of hand.

Here's the link.


Quote:
We either use light lethality , 1 per 5 or full lethality 1 for 1 in our games.

I've found 1/1 to be too lethal and 1/5 to be not lethal enough.

Quote:
Yeah.... It was something like 25 of them using combined fire... That example hardly proves your point.

If you don't like being proven wrong, you should be more circumspect about making absolute statements. You may not like it, but the simple fact of the matter is that walker-scale vehicles have damaged capital ships on at least two occasions on screen; once in AOTC and once in a Clone Wars episode. If you want things to be different in your Star Wars universe, that's your prerogative, but I don't agree. Personally, I find it far more realistic for walkers like the AT-AT to be at -2D from smaller capital ships than I do for starfighters to be at -2D.

Quote:
Like you're not looking at the core of the game play and saying "You want to shoot a specific location? No problem, it's a capital Scale based gun, so it should have a 2D Capital Scale body strength. Most undefined objects in Star Wars are rated at 2D." I would say that the Glass on the Bridge of a Star Destroyer is also 2D capital, point defense guns would be 2D starfighter scale.

I think you should spend more time reading my posts before you get judgemental. My methodology is based more around using familiar rules and concepts to achieve new effects, because new rules are easier to accept and utilize if they are based on something familiar and comfortable.

Quote:
Just because something is Death Star Scale doesn't mean it's guns or view ports are death star scale. The ONLY THING on a Death Star that's Death Star Scale (other than its 30+KM Radius and Mass) is one Superlaser.

It's simple logic

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I never said that it was; I just pointed out that the rules-as-written said that it did.


I'm not sure how many people you've managed to alienate from this site, but I think you are doing a pretty good job now. I don't want to argue with you anymore and watch you contradict yourself in multiple statements and then, back away from other comments you already argued about when talking scale. This is a pointless circular argument.

If you were going to say anything intelligent on what I've already brought to the table, you would have read our rules. I already know yours. They're 20 years old.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LegendaryExGamer wrote:
I'm not sure how many people you've managed to alienate from this site, but I think you are doing a pretty good job now. I don't want to argue with you anymore and watch you contradict yourself in multiple statements and then, back away from other comments you already argued about when talking scale. This is a pointless circular argument.

If you were going to say anything intelligent on what I've already brought to the table, you would have read our rules. I already know yours. They're 20 years old.


[yawn][/yawn]
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio

PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:

Indeed. My point was not that it should be otherwise, but that WEG's RAW (Rules As Written) did not allow for such occurrence. To destroy a single turbolaser tower in a strafing run (per WEG's rules), the Starfighter would have to somehow beat 33D with a 6D quad-laser cannon, and not only that, but beat it by exactly 4-8 points, and then roll a 2 or 3 on a D6 to damage or destroy one weapon emplacement.

Like I said, it's unrealistic.

My solution to the problem would be more along the lines of allowing the pilot to declare a specific result at increased targeting difficulty (which would, in turn, be offset by the scale modifier). So yes, it is possible with a D6 system if you structure the rules right.


I'd probably go with something simpler, myself. The turrets, themselves, are starfighter-scale objects, firing starfighter scale blaster bolts. They can be targeted and taken out, but doing so doesn't affect the Death Star, as an object... even if you flew around and "killed" every turbolaser turret, the Death Star itself wouldn't be structurally compromised.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
LegendaryExGamer
Ensign
Ensign


Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

I'd probably go with something simpler, myself. The turrets, themselves, are starfighter-scale objects, firing starfighter scale blaster bolts. They can be targeted and taken out, but doing so doesn't affect the Death Star, as an object... even if you flew around and "killed" every turbolaser turret, the Death Star itself wouldn't be structurally compromised.


That's a nice, simple, way to look at it. That's a great way to look at it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
The turrets, themselves, are starfighter-scale objects, firing starfighter scale blaster bolts. They can be targeted and taken out, but doing so doesn't affect the Death Star, as an object... even if you flew around and "killed" every turbolaser turret, the Death Star itself wouldn't be structurally compromised.

True enough. The only drawback I can see is that, in general, the toughness of a ship should extend to the armor on its turrets. Using a flat value regardless of the Hull rating of the ship itself kinda shorts the bigger, tougher ships if you can render them impotent by skinning their weapons off. Maybe using the Hull value, but at a scale step below the scale of the weapon. So, for example, using my system, an anti-starfighter weapon on an ISD (Hull of 7D) would be 7D Speeder Scale, which adjusts to 5D Starfighter Scale. Its smaller relative size would also be reflected, in that the Difficulty to hit the weapon (since it can't Dodge) would be equal to the base difficulty for that range, plus either 2D or whatever static modifier you feel is appropriate.

In fact, the relative immobility of the weapon would be a good place to apply the static modifier, IMO.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since it makes for a usable option, here is a revision of my scale system, with the flat values in parenthesis behind the dice (using garhkal's suggestion of 1D=4 to generate flat values).
    Character 0D
    Swoop +2D (+8)
    Speeder +4D (+16)
    Starship +6D (+24)
    Walker +8D (+32)
    Frigate +10D (+40)
    Destroyer +12D (+48)
    Dreadnought +16D (+64)
    Death Star +24D (+96)

I have also added this to the current version of my system.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio

PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Maybe using the Hull value, but at a scale step below the scale of the weapon. So, for example, using my system, an anti-starfighter weapon on an ISD (Hull of 7D) would be 7D Speeder Scale, which adjusts to 5D Starfighter Scale. Its smaller relative size would also be reflected, in that the Difficulty to hit the weapon (since it can't Dodge) would be equal to the base difficulty for that range, plus either 2D or whatever static modifier you feel is appropriate.

In fact, the relative immobility of the weapon would be a good place to apply the static modifier, IMO.


That makes sense. When you factor in that they have practically no active defense ("You want to dodge... with your turret? The one attached to the Star Destroyer?"), they become useful targets, but not perfect targets.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That would also give a baseline for things like the quad-laser towers on the Lancer. If the idea is to extend the quad-lasers out from the hull to give them increased fire arcs, then the sacrifice would be the added cost of armoring the towers, or accepting a 1D/2D penalty to their Hull value if they are targeted by a starfighter...
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
When you factor in that they have practically no active defense ("You want to dodge... with your turret? The one attached to the Star Destroyer?"), they become useful targets, but not perfect targets.

So how would this apply to other features of the ship? The Lightly Damaged result has 4 other results apart from weapons: Maneuverability, Hyperdrive, Shields and Engines. Using the same rule for these systems would make pretty much every capital ship highly vulnerable to starfighter attacks.

Maneuverability and Engines are both interesting loopholes in that, if you can stack enough Lost Moves, the target can be destroyed without ever being more than Lightly Damaged.

Also, starfighters attacking shield generators for effect in capital ship combat features pretty heavily in the loss of the Executor at Endor. Obviously, this should at least be within the realm of possibility...
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio

PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
MrNexx wrote:
When you factor in that they have practically no active defense ("You want to dodge... with your turret? The one attached to the Star Destroyer?"), they become useful targets, but not perfect targets.

So how would this apply to other features of the ship? The Lightly Damaged result has 4 other results apart from weapons: Maneuverability, Hyperdrive, Shields and Engines. Using the same rule for these systems would make pretty much every capital ship highly vulnerable to starfighter attacks.

Maneuverability and Engines are both interesting loopholes in that, if you can stack enough Lost Moves, the target can be destroyed without ever being more than Lightly Damaged.

Also, starfighters attacking shield generators for effect in capital ship combat features pretty heavily in the loss of the Executor at Endor. Obviously, this should at least be within the realm of possibility...


I'd be inclined to assess maneuverability penalties to fire control, rather than directly to engines. Engines could maybe involve cycle time... i.e. a cap on how many shots you can take?
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
I'd be inclined to assess maneuverability penalties to fire control, rather than directly to engines.

But if we're talking about independently steerable weapons on the Hull of a ship, how would Maneuverability be a factor?

Quote:
Engines could maybe involve cycle time... i.e. a cap on how many shots you can take?

I could see that, maybe even as the equivalent of a Controls Ionized result due to power loss.

However, I do think there should be a way for starfighters to make surgical strikes on capital ships to affect more than just weapons. I just think the bar should be set a bit higher. After all, losing 1D of Maneuverability is a much bigger deal to a ship that only has 1D of Maneuverability than it would be for that same ship to lose one turbolaser battery out of 60.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I coul see a maneuverability penalty being applied to fire control, as the turret's controls may be damaged, so they jave a harder time turning or angling their guns. The turret would be the "ship" and its ability to turn and angle weapons is essentially how its "maneuverability"comes into play.

As for a fire control penalty, I'd say its the same effect, but expressed by a different narritive. Let a maneuver penalty be a mechanical issue, and the fire control be an electrical/electronic issue.

Alternatively, let a maneuverability penalty instead be assessed to the specific arcs that the turret can target.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On page 95 of the 2R&E Rulebook, there are rules for damaging personal weapons that would apply just as well to the weapons on starships...
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13 ... 15, 16, 17  Next
Page 12 of 17

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0