Steve Jackson Games Forums

Steve Jackson Games Forums (http://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)
-   GURPS (http://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars? (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=53605)

jacobmuller 11-05-2009 08:14 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Sounds like Optional skill specialisation. Worth just +1 for the opted class but a rules option isn't necessarily a player option - GM picks the options and the players build round them.

edit: just thinking about relative SM - the suggested limit was+/-4? Missiles would be the most drastically affected. Way easy to hit for PtDef and they'd have hopeless targeting. They'd be useful only as anti-fighter ordnance - massive overkill - or overwhelming salvos - expensive - or planetary bombardment - evil empire punishment for unimportant backwaters.

Kelly Pedersen 11-05-2009 09:33 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth (Post 878698)
When you factor in the extremely short ranges at which fighters engage, I think the accuracy is quite a bit better than you're giving it credit for.

Not quite sure what you mean here? My main point about particle beams was that low sAcc led to them being primarily practicle at short ranges, which is good since we want to emulate the close-in dogfighting style of SW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth
I don't know how you're going to convince designers that all spacecraft need to be streamlined, though.

Honestly, I'm not sure that all spacecraft, or even most spacecraft, in SW are streamlined, at least in the Spaceships sense. As I understand it, a spaceship "streamlined" as Spaceships uses the term would be something that would be at least somewhat capable of areodynamic flight without superscience stuff like contragravity. Really, only a few of the starfighters really seem to qualify for that.

Ulzgoroth 11-05-2009 10:22 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen (Post 878776)
Not quite sure what you mean here? My main point about particle beams was that low sAcc led to them being primarily practicle at short ranges, which is good since we want to emulate the close-in dogfighting style of SW.

Fair enough. My point was that a slightly low sAcc isn't going to keep them from tearing those fighters into little plasma puffs on its own, considering that the average range between a fighter and a capital ship exchanging fire is in the Zero category.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen (Post 878776)
Honestly, I'm not sure that all spacecraft, or even most spacecraft, in SW are streamlined, at least in the Spaceships sense. As I understand it, a spaceship "streamlined" as Spaceships uses the term would be something that would be at least somewhat capable of areodynamic flight without superscience stuff like contragravity. Really, only a few of the starfighters really seem to qualify for that.

I think they are...they they fly through atmosphere fast and contain obvious streamlining features. They might count as not winged, due to doubtful lift-generating qualities of their 'aerodynamic' elements, but they don't need wings when they have both contragrav and high-thrust reactionless engines.

OldSam 11-08-2009 06:30 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
one more thing about the Piloting-skills for SW...

if we have:
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Small) -- Fighter, Shuttles, ... (-SM6)
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Medium) -- Freighter, Corvettes... (SM7-9)
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Large) -- Cruiser, Heavy-Transport... (SM10+)

...then which defaults from one to another would be appropriate in your opinion?

Three Possibilities:
1)
Small to Medium -2 and to Large -4 et vice versa.
Medium to Large -2 et vice versa.
2)
All default to one another at -2?
3)
All default to one another at -4?

(though I don't want to be too strict, I'm not sure if -2 is really enough differentiation...? -4 would certainly be a really clear difference but it makes defaulting not easy...)

Logically the size-differentiation would also apply to to Piloting(Aerospace) and Mechanics(High-Performance Spacecraft).
Mechanics basically suggest defaulting to one another at -4, though types vehicles can be more related or very different...
(can we assume that along with a greater difference in SM the used type of systems and controls is also more noticeable changing?)

Kelly Pedersen 11-08-2009 11:01 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OldSam (Post 880024)
one more thing about the Piloting-skills for SW...

if we have:
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Small) -- Fighter, Shuttles, ... (-SM6)
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Medium) -- Freighter, Corvettes... (SM7-9)
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Large) -- Cruiser, Heavy-Transport... (SM10+)

...then which defaults from one to another would be appropriate in your opinion?

By default, all of those are covered by a single skill. If we want to sub-divide them, it's simplest, in my opinion, to call them specializations of the base skill. So they become one category easier, and default to each other at -2.

OldSam 11-08-2009 11:41 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen (Post 880076)
By default, all of those are covered by a single skill. If we want to sub-divide them, it's simplest, in my opinion, to call them specializations of the base skill. So they become one category easier, and default to each other at -2.

well, unfortunately the Basic Set handles this skill too simplistic for a setting with many different spaceships like Star Wars in my opinion (for comparison: there is an own skill each for light and heavy airplaines...)
that said, specializations can be nice to have as an extra option (e.g. Piloting (Spacecraft/Small, Tie-Fighters)), but the "basic"-skills for piloting spaceships would be too easy if they are not average level.

Lord Azagthoth 11-09-2009 10:10 PM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
I have made categories:

Piloting(Capital;Fighter/Bomber; Freighter/Transport; Utility Craft) in the same way as I have divided the starships.

Specialties are special maneuvers (e.g., Talon Roll)

Familiarities could include different kinds of ship inside one class (e.g., X-wing; TIE Fighter; TIE Defender)

OldSam 11-10-2009 05:58 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Azagthoth (Post 880845)
I have made categories:
Piloting(Capital;Fighter/Bomber; Freighter/Transport; Utility Craft) in the same way as I have divided the starships.

Do you really think a 4th class is needed? Moreover utility craft doesn't seem to be unequivocal in comparison to Transport etc.
I'd say an approach with a well-defined differentiation (like the SM-Value or something like that) would probably be the best way. Also like SuedodeuS wrote, it seems to be compliant with the implementation of the original Star Wars RPG:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS
I remember the Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook (d20) had three classes of ship - starfighters, space transports, and capital ships. Piloting each one was a seperate feat. Starfighters were anything up to 20 meters long and 49 metric tons (SM+6), space transports were up to 100 meters and 499 metric tons (SM+10 for length, but only SM+7 for weight), and capital ships were anything beyond that. So, your numbers look pretty good. I'd personally change the naming scheme to "small=fighter," "medium=transport," and "large=capital."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Azagthoth
Specialties are special maneuvers (e.g., Talon Roll)
Familiarities could include different kinds of ship inside one class (e.g., X-wing; TIE Fighter; TIE Defender)

Listing some examples for special maneuvers is a cool idea! =)
Though these should be "Techniques" not Specializations - unless you didn't mean that ;-). I just had a look on the techniques shown in Spaceship4 p.31, there are already some samples like "Reversal Maneuver".

Lord Azagthoth 11-10-2009 08:14 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
With Utility Crafts I mean specialized spacecrafts (asteroid miner, repair craft, etc.). The Pilot skill could also include the operation of the specialized tools of the spacecraft.

I also like the SM way of dividing the Pilot skills. Its easy to use and does not leave any room for discussions.

For the maneuvers,... yep, I did mean Techniques.

SuedodeuS 11-10-2009 10:39 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Azagthoth (Post 880975)
With Utility Crafts I mean specialized spacecrafts (asteroid miner, repair craft, etc.). The Pilot skill could also include the operation of the specialized tools of the spacecraft.

The Pilot skill should be for, well, piloting. Any specialized tools should be handled with the appropriate skills. Additionally, I suspect the specialized tools of an asteroid miner and repair craft are going to be quite different, so why should one specialization work for both?

Additionally, if you allowed Pilot to work such tools, then logically you should allow it to work with the specialized tools of other craft - notably, the weaponry of fighters and bombers. Do you really think Gunner and Artillery should be replaced by Pilot, just because you also happen to be flying the machine?

The upshot of all this is that the divisions of the Pilot skill should only be based on how you fly the things. In SW, presumably fighters, transports, and capital ships are each piloted a bit differently. I'd expect utility craft to fall into one of these categories (most generally transports) rather than somehow fit into their own.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.