| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 4:44 pm Post subject: Base Difficulty for Starships & Vehicles |
 |
|
So, I had an idea on this topic that is deserving of its own topic. The basic idea is to give small starships and vehicles a base difficulty for pilots/drivers to roll against to determine whether or not they are skilled enough to operate it. In short, it looks like this:1). Driver rolls Piloting only vs the vehicle's base difficulty.
2). On failure, compare the result to the Movement Mishap table.
3). On success, roll the vehicle's Maneuverability and add it to the result of the Piloting roll from Step 1.
4). Compare the total to the Difficulty of the intended action.
Using this method, the pilot won't be able to take advantage of a high performance vehicle unless he has the skill level needed to operate the vehicle itself (as high performance vehicles can be temperamental).
I've got the basic idea nailed down, but I'd like some suggestions as to what vehicles, starships and space transports should have as a 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 |
|
 |
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 4:58 pm Post subject: Re: Base Difficulty for Starships & Vehicles |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
4). Compare the total to the Difficulty of the intended action.[/list]
Using this method, the pilot won't be able to take advantage of a high performance vehicle unless he has the skill level needed to operate the vehicle itself (as high performance vehicles can be temperamental).
|
Just to clarify, as I might not have been clear in the previous thread (or you didn't care..in which case please disregard... )
I don't think this system should be tied to 'high performance' vehicles. I'd like to see it tied more to vehicles that might be judged difficult to operate for some logical or extrapolated reason.
It's entirely possible, IMO, that an incredibly performing fighter might, by a miracle of technology be an absolute cinch to fly while a dumpy but heavily armored 'ugly' fighter might almost require you to have 3 hands just to get it off the launch rack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:00 pm Post subject: Re: Base Difficulty for Starships & Vehicles |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | ..snip..
I've got the basic idea nailed down, but I'd like some suggestions as to what vehicles, starships and space transports should have as a base difficulty. |
At most i see 20 as the TOP end for some of the highest performance vehicles, and 5 at the lowest.. Most stock ship freighters would be down in the 5-8 region, some easy to grasp fighters (Ties, Y-wings) would be 7-11, while higher end fighters (x-wing, a-wing, tie-interceptor) would be 12-16 area...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd say setting the base difficulty based on what is a reasonable crew skill for people using it.
For example, Luke's landspeeder... the difficulty should probably be around 6-7, and no higher than 10. Why? Because it's a commercial model, designed for average people, and so you should be able to hit the "basic operation" numbers consistently with a 2D Mechanical and nothing invested. The Speeder bikes, one might jump up a bit, as they're more complicated, armed, and a bit more high performance.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:23 pm Post subject: Re: Base Difficulty for Starships & Vehicles |
|
|
| Dredwulf60 wrote: | | Just to clarify, as I might not have been clear in the previous thread (or you didn't care..in which case please disregard... ) |
No, I understood you fine, but I wanted to save my response until I could get the separate topic started, and then I got sidetracked by work (posting on the Rancor Pit and driving a semi-truck in Los Angeles are best kept separate).
| Quote: | | I don't think this system should be tied to 'high performance' vehicles. I'd like to see it tied more to vehicles that might be judged difficult to operate for some logical or extrapolated reason. |
I can see your point, but I think the scenario you are suggesting would be the rare exception, not the rule. In the SWU, the descriptions for high performance vehicles, be they swoops or A-Wings, almost always include the caveat that they are a challenge to operate for the unskilled.
EDIT: As far as your earlier example of the punk joy-riding the Ferrari, my explanation for this is generally to allow characters to perform simple actions (like backing the vehicle out of the garage or driving down to the corner store) for free. Skill rolls would only be required to perform dramatically appropriate action; in all other circumstances, a vehicle is quite literally just a way to move the plot forward. Unless it is somehow important to the story that an Operations check is required part-way through the trip, I don't see the need to include it.
| Quote: | | It's entirely possible, IMO, that an incredibly performing fighter might, by a miracle of technology be an absolute cinch to fly while a dumpy but heavily armored 'ugly' fighter might almost require you to have 3 hands just to get it off the launch rack. |
So under this house rule, a high-performance-yet-easy-to-operate Starfighter would have a high Space and Maneuverability, but with a low 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
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:09 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm glad someone else wants to do something like this. I have some opinions on this as well.
I posted this thread a long time ago which flopped, but it addresses some of the concepts that you're talking about, though I feel that the most important factor is being neglected here.
That is, the maximum performance of the vehicle.
But first to address your question:
When it comes to high performance, there are two things to consider:
1) The relative "difficulty" of piloting/driving the vehicle.
2) Whether the vehicle's characteristics contribute to, or mitigate, the difficulty.
Here is an example of what I mean:
If you took a big block Chevy from 1970 (say, a Chevelle SS 454) and put a modern set of appropriately sized wheels and tires on it, it would realize several benefits:
1) the performance envelope would be pushed FAR higher (especially it's "maneuverability" but also its acceleration to some degree and its braking to a significant degree).
2) the car would be FAR safer to drive "fast."
3) the car would be easier to drive in any manner (fast or slow).
So, "accessing" performance is not only a matter of the pilot's skill, but also of the physical properties of the vehicle itself either making that performance more or less accessible.
Now, with regards to the effect you're going for, if "realism" what you want to achieve, then I'd submit that the above bears consideration.
However, if you're trying to eliminate any "artificial" benefits of maneuverability conferred to an otherwise inept operator, then just run with what you've got, it looks good to me.
The other thing that I think needs to be addressed is that some vehicles cannot perform beyond a certain point, regardless of how skilled the pilot is. A Fiat 500 piloted by Mario Andretti stands no chance against Average Joe in a drag race in a Corvette. It's not even worth rolling the dice.
Similarly, a tractor trailer piloted by Mario Andretti (or even just a dually or other similar "regular" vehicle) stands no chance against average Joe casually lapping an autocross course in a Mazda Miata.
Anyway, the thread I linked may provide you with some ideas to flesh out your own concept. If you find anything useful, feel free to use/modify to fit your idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:07 am Post subject: Re: Base Difficulty for Starships & Vehicles |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
So under this house rule, a high-performance-yet-easy-to-operate Starfighter would have a high Space and Maneuverability, but with a low Difficulty. |
Right. Exactly. This here above is the essence of my point. It's just semantics when you boil it down, I admit. But this point illustrates that you shouldn't really be saying the difficulty number is due to high performance.
Very often is...
As you say about the caveat given with high performance. But why not just avoid any confusion and say that the base difficulty is based on..well...how difficult the craft is to operate to its maximum potential.
Again, just a helpful point. You know I'll be using this rule however I can anyhow, and calling it what I want.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:56 am Post subject: Re: Base Difficulty for Starships & Vehicles |
|
|
| Dredwulf60 wrote: | | Right. Exactly. This here above is the essence of my point. It's just semantics when you boil it down, I admit. But this point illustrates that you shouldn't really be saying the difficulty number is due to high performance. |
I disagree. All too often, high performance requires a higher skill level from the operator. The times that it doesn't are the exception, and this rule can be used to represent that, as well.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:12 am Post subject: Re: Base Difficulty for Starships & Vehicles |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
I disagree. All too often, high performance requires a higher skill level from the operator. The times that it doesn't are the exception, and this rule can be used to represent that, as well. |
As an automotive performance enthusiast, I will have to respectfully object here.
The "native" performance capabilities of a vehicle more often dictate the potential ceiling that the vehicle can achieve in capable hands, not the minimum skill level required for safe (or even manageable) operation.
I would submit that the speed at which any given maneuver is attempted--and not the ultimate capability of the vehicle--dictates its difficulty.
Consider your own experience driving various vehicles. You slow down when you encounter more technically challengine scenarios (steep down hill curvy sections, parallel parking, U-turns, etc), regardless of what your are driving.
A Lamborghini is just as capable of making a U-turn or being parked as a Toyota is. If the task is to idle around a corner, the risk of failure does not increase just because the engine powering the wheels has doubled (or tripled or quadrupled, etc...) it's peak horsepower output.
And in fact, the more maneuverable the vehicle, the easier it is to do anything, all other things being equal (such as the speed at which any maneuver is being attempted).
Case in point: a Porsche 911 is just as stable and "planted" at 100+ mph as a Chevy Malibu at 50 mph. In other words, the vehicle is engineered to be operated at high speed, and it retains composure and balance even when pushed to speeds that would be considered felonious. Don't ask how I know this.... 
Now, if we consider only vehicles that were deliberately designed to be a handful (such as the Dodge Viper) as our point of reference, then, sure, the idea that a higher performance envelope equates to higher difficulty represents a logical conclusion. But it is not representative of the big picture.
This issue has come up before and one of the arguments presented was that higher performance vehicles have "more sensitive" controls, and are therefore more risky to operate. This is also not true. The controls are tuned to match the vehicle. Get into any car that has lots of horsepower. You'll notice one particular difference immediately: the gas pedal has a lot more resistance to it. Also, the steering wheel feels "heavier." The brake pedal "bites" much sooner and feels much firmer. All of these things are done on purpose to make the vehicle behave in a predictable manner when being operated at normal speeds. And, when being operated at higher speeds, these qualities allow the vehicle to be more controllable than if the controls were as "light" or "loose" as on weaker vehicles (and that is not accounting for vehicles whose controls have variable degrees of "sensitivity" engineered into them to accommodate different driving scenarios).
But, again: if all you want to do is eliminate the maneuverability bonus prior to a successful operations roll, then go for it. 8) However, if realism is your objective, I would submit that the base difficulties in such a system would be so low anyway as to not even require a roll.
Or do you maintain that a tractor can potentially lap the Nurburgring as fast as a Ferrari assuming the driver is capable enough?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:17 am Post subject: Re: Base Difficulty for Starships & Vehicles |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | EDIT: As far as your earlier example of the punk joy-riding the Ferrari, my explanation for this is generally to allow characters to perform simple actions (like backing the vehicle out of the garage or driving down to the corner store) for free. Skill rolls would only be required to perform dramatically appropriate action; in all other circumstances, a vehicle is quite literally just a way to move the plot forward. Unless it is somehow important to the story that an Operations check is required part-way through the trip, I don't see the need to include it.
|
I missed this earlier. This post actually confirms that we agree more than not, though I will leave my previous post in place as is in case it addresses anything that may be relevant to what you're trying to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:40 am Post subject: Re: Base Difficulty for Starships & Vehicles |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Dredwulf60 wrote: | | Right. Exactly. This here above is the essence of my point. It's just semantics when you boil it down, I admit. But this point illustrates that you shouldn't really be saying the difficulty number is due to high performance. |
I disagree. All too often, high performance requires a higher skill level from the operator. The times that it doesn't are the exception, and this rule can be used to represent that, as well. |
Of course, you could also start basing difficulty, in part, on speed. I imagine it's not terribly hard for someone familiar with basic starfighter piloting to move an A-Wing from point A on base to point B on base while essentially idling the engine. If you ask them to fly from point A to point C at top speed, however, it becomes a lot harder unless it's in a straight line.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Which is why the RAW has it that the slower you are moving, the terrain difficulty goes down (unless its normally difficult or higher), while the Faster you go the terrain difficulty goes UP...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | So, "accessing" performance is not only a matter of the pilot's skill, but also of the physical properties of the vehicle itself either making that performance more or less accessible. |
And that can be built into the system as well by varying the base difficulty. However, the fact remains that being behind the wheel of a high performance vehicle does not make one a skilled driver. And remember, the scale here is less Fiat 500 to Corvette than it is Fiat 500 to F-15 Eagle.
| Quote: | | However, if you're trying to eliminate any "artificial" benefits of maneuverability conferred to an otherwise inept operator, then just run with what you've got, it looks good to me. |
That's mainly what I was going for. I've gotten less and less interested in realism when it interferes with the pacing of the game.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: Base Difficulty for Starships & Vehicles |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | CRMcNeill wrote: |
I disagree. All too often, high performance requires a higher skill level from the operator. The times that it doesn't are the exception, and this rule can be used to represent that, as well. |
As an automotive performance enthusiast, I will have to respectfully object here. |
My apologies; I should've been clearer. In the Star Wars Universe, high performance vehicles require a higher level of skill from the operator. Examples include the A-Wing, the Swoop, and (IMO) the Millennium Falcon. All of their descriptions indicate that they are difficult - in fact, dangerous - to operate for unskilled pilot / driver.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Which is why the RAW has it that the slower you are moving, the terrain difficulty goes down (unless its normally difficult or higher), while the Faster you go the terrain difficulty goes UP... |
Exactly. Making the first skill roll is no guarantee of making the second one if the Difficulty is high enough. This is more to filter out the idiots who shouldn't be in the driver's seat anyway. It's a measurement of a vehicle's Orneriness, not the ability of the vehicle itself.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
