I was asked to run a game a few days ago and had to come up with something on the spot. It was a one shot so i couldnt use any of the numerous (complex and political) stories and campaigns i had been planning, and it was one players introduction to gaming so i didnt want it too heavy or complex.
One of the players (my brother) proposed Space Pirates and i liked that. So i wracked my brain and came up with a basic system and some story ideas. It was a very enjoyable game, and i thought the system had a lot of potential.
I thought it best that the primary mechanical dichotomy* of space combat be energy management. Your vessels generator produces a set amount of energy per turn which can be allocated to shields, weapons, engines, hyperdrive, scanners etc. Im sure the idea is relatively familiar to anyone who has played The X-Wing/Tie Fighter games. You can customize your vessel with different sized systems which require differnet outputs from your generator to run ala Mechwarrior/Battletech. Some systems, such as projectile weapons, require no energy to use but are heavier and less powerful. Once an enemies shields are down you can target these systems directly, which decreases their effectiveness (The secondry dichotomy of combat).
Initially i used a very complicated system. A 30 ton generator stored 30 energy units and had an output of 6 per turn. A 10 ton shield system stored 20 units protection and had a consumption of 1 energy for 2 protection to recharge. I simply wrote the numbers down and this made combat slow and mostly math. I have considered other systems (Tokens, or putting a marker at a point on a measure) but i still think this will probably slow the game down too much. My brother thought it focused far too much on mechanics and demphasized clever tactics (The tactic he used was agreeing to transfer a hostage and instead opening fire from behind when their shields were down).
At the moment i am thinking the easiest way to express energy management would be with a schematic of your vessel (With the energy consumption/output/weight, which can all be expressed as one variable, written into boxes representing the different systems) that you place tokens on. Energy is produced from your generator every turn with no storage and allocation is a turn-by-turn affair. Im worried that this destroys most of the purpose of energy management. I havent even gotten to additional rules like overcharging and potential dammage that does to systems, different types of weapons with varying accuracy/dammage types, etc but they can be added once i get the basics down.
Is there any other way to express and record energy management in a fashion that is both fast and interactive, or should i find another primary dichotomy entirely? Maybe i should play it more loose and fast and rely more on dice and roleplay (Which do you think is suited to the setting)? Ive come up with a relatively clean system for the secondry dichotomy (assigning the systems numbers, rolling the dice, allowing the player to change the number up and down by amounts depending on the hit accuracy) but any help with that would be appreciated as well.
Any general discussion on ideas of how to handle a Space Pirates game is also more than welcome.
Note this is soft sci-fi. The players started the game with their cargo holds full of 20 tons of 'Handwavium' and a necessity to find a fence for it, so this game is deliberately ignoring science.
*Im going to use that term since i like it. Going all out early or saving up, offense vs defense, risk vs reward. Stakes. Thats the dichotomy...something to give the player to think about.
How about a big pool of dice?
I take it you are aiming for a sort of "bridge crew" feeling, where each player has separate responsibilities for ship systems in combat - rather than a battle tech (or, really, aero tech) setup where everyone has their own ship.
Each ship would have a set amount of "energy" at the beginning of combat - represented by a whole mess of six sided dice (they're the most common). Each system (sensors, shields, weapons, engines) can use only so many dice at once - based on how cool it is. To do something, the player rolls at least one die from the pool (using power), and maybe adds some dice for skill or clever tactics (adjudicated by the GM). When a system is damaged, it's maximum dice are reduced.
I think such a system (while a little complicated during setup, but you don't seem to mind that), offers some pretty quick play. At the same time, it rewards quick thinking (clever plans use less energy, and are more effective!) and character skill (good pilots get more out of their ships, good gunners do more damage). The system also forces players to get more creative as the fight drags on - they have less energy to use and need those GM bonuses more!
As far as "re-charging" your dice pool, I suppose that's a roll by the Space Engineer (put "Space" in front of *everything*) - adding back some dice.
I know this doesn't do away with all the recordkeeping and so forth of a typical token based system. But I do submit to you that the players are going to spend a certain amount of time arguing over their strategy, figuring out how many dice to roll and picking those dice up, etc. anyway. I figure this just free loads the whole "energy management" concept into the work they're already doing.
Quote from: Precious Villain on May 16, 2006, 05:56:41 PM
How about a big pool of dice?
I was reluctant to use massive pools of dice, since that seems In Vogue these days. I wanted to minimize the random effect and emphasize player choice.
That being said, your system is relatively eloquent!
Quote from: Precious Villain on May 16, 2006, 05:56:41 PM
I take it you are aiming for a sort of "bridge crew" feeling, where each player has separate responsibilities for ship systems in combat - rather than a battle tech (or, really, aero tech) setup where everyone has their own ship.
I probably should have made it clear, but it is a setup where everyone has their own ship (Although i suppose it could be played either way). This way the players dont argue over energy allocation and what have you. Although they did spend almost 10 minutes arguing over who should go in cloaked and who should go in uncloaked and distract, and it turns out their rondevouz was in the middle of a sensor-disablity nebula anyway so it didnt matter.
Quote from: Precious Villain on May 16, 2006, 05:56:41 PM
(put "Space" in front of *everything*)
Haha! You already have the hang of the setting!
The currency is, as it happens, 'Space Denarii' (Đ).
Anyway, i should probably offer more information on my goals and how i expect play to proceed, here. My objective is to create a system where most of the character generation mechanics are in designing the ship, and combat relies more on those choices than characters skills or stats. In fact i am considering having only skills, and no stats at all. Also i wanted a system that emphasizes player descisions over randomness. The combat is probably rather Gamist then, which is what i want really from a combat system. Something thats exciting and resolves the conflict cleanly. However, these are just my agendas- they are subject to change and ideas that dont fit my agenda are more than welcome.
Now, an example of play under my current system.
Player: Eirik Two Toes
Ship: The Lusty Wench
Generator: 5tonnes
Engine: 1tonnes
Shield: 3t
Armour: 4t
3x 3t Laser Cannons: 3 dammage/1 energy each
Ricardo The Space Snake
Ship: The Stellar Serpent
Generator: 5t
Engine: 3t
Shield: 2t
Armour: 5t
2x 3t Laser Cannons: 3 dammage/1 energy each
2x 4t Projectile Cannon: 2 dammage
Battle:
=1 Eirik is running his engine at full speed for 1 energy.
=2 Ricardo is running his engine at full speed for 3 energy.
=3 Eirik spends 3 energy to fire his Laser cannons, engine: 1e.
Eirik rolls against his enemies speed at 3 on a d10 for each weapon. He gets 6, 8 and 5- they all hit.
He does 9 dammage. Ricardos shield soak 6 dammage (three times his shield rating). His armour is reduced by 3 to 2.
=4 Ricardo spends 2 energy to fire his laser cannons, and fires his projectile cannons, spends 2e recharging his shields, and cuts his engine to 1e.
Ricardo rolls against his enemies speed at 1 on a d10 for his lasers. He gets Lasers: 7, 2. Both hit.
Ricardo rolls against his enemies speed +1 (2) on a d10 for his projectiles (They are less accurate). He gets a 6 and a 2. One hits.
He does 10 dammage. Eiriks shields soak 9 dammage. Armour -1 to 3.
=5 Eirik lasers: 2e, shields: 3e (He turns his engine off).
Eirik rolls against 1. He gets 7, 6
Does 6 dammage. shield -6.
=6 Ricardo shields: 2e engines: 3e. He takes Evasive Action (He can do this because he didnt fire this turn), doubling his difficulty to be hit.
=7 Eirik lasers: 3e, engine: 1e (His shields are charged).
Eirik rolls against 6. He gets 9, 9, 4.
Does 6 dammage. shield -6.
=8 Ricardo shields: 2e engines: 3e. He takes Evasive Action. He is on the run.
=9 Eirik lasers: 3e, engine: 1e.
Eirik rolls against 6. He gets 6, 6, 1. All shots miss.
=10 Ricardo lasers: 2e engines: 3e. His shields are fully charged, time to attack.
Ricardos lasers roll against 1. He gets 8, 4.
Ricardos projectiles roll against 2. He gets 2, 9.
Ricardo does 8 dammage. 9 is soaked by Eiriks shields (rounded up, it soaks in 3's).
=11 Eirik lasers: 3e, shield: 2e
Eirik rolls against 2. He gets 9, 9, 2.
Ricardo takes 6, -6.
=12 Ricardo lasers: 2e shields: 2e. engines: 1e
Ricardos lasers roll against 0. So he automatically hits.
Ricardos projectiles roll against 1. He gets 5, 1.
Ricardo does 9 dammage. 6 is soaked by Eiriks shields (He didnt fully charge). Armour is reduced by 3 to 0.
=13 Eirik lasers: 3e, shield: 2e
Eirik rolls against 1. He gets 6, 1, 4. 2 hit.
Ricardo takes 6, -6.
=14 Ricardo lasers: 2e shields: 2e. engines: 1e
Ricardos lasers hit.
Ricardos projectiles roll against 1. He gets 4, 6.
Eirik takes 10. -6.
4 dammage passes on to his systems. Ricardo rolls a 2 on a d6, hitting Eiriks 2nd system, his engine. Eiriks engine is taken it -3. He is dead in space. He rolls against 3 to see if it explodes. He gets 9. Phew.
=15 Eirik lasers: 3e, shield: 2e
Eirik rolls against 1. He gets 2, 5, 6
Ricardo takes 9, -6.
3 dammage passes on to his systems. Eirik rolls a 5 on a d6, hitting Eiriks 5th system, his lasers. One of Ricardos lasers is destroyed (taken to 0).
=16 Ricardo lasers: 2e shields: 2e. engines: 1e
Ricardo elects to make a targetted shot at Eiriks engines, increasing the difficulty by 2. This will move the system dammage allocation 1 towards Eiriks engine.
Ricardos laser rolls against 2. He gets 4.
Ricardos projectiles roll against 3. He gets 6, 4.
Eirik takes 7. -6.
1 to systems. Ricardo rolls 3 on a d6. However his targetted shot moves it down by one to 2 hitting ricardos engine. Eiriks engine is taken it -4. He must roll against 4 to see if it explodes He gets 4.
=17 The engine of The Lusty Wench explodes and does 7 damage each to the sorrounding systems. His generator is taken to 1, his shield to -1. Eirik roles to see if his shield explodes. He gets 6. Eirik has now but one power coming from his dammaged engine, unable to run his systems, his shields are down and his engine has been vaporized. He opens a channel to Ricardo using backup power, offering his unconditional surrender. Ricardo accepts.
Firstly, it relies more on chance than i thought it might. Secondly, the descision seems to be running your engines or not. The only real reason to run your engines is to take evasive action while your shields recharge. In Eiriks case with his awful engines, evasive action would have been fruitless and it hardly made a difference when he had them on. I dont know if there is much point rolling against 1. Might need to look into that.
I should add some other offensive option (More lasers?) to allow a player to go all out on an attack. Yeah, decrease the likelyhood to hit, increase the number of weapons. Might work.
Oh well. Even with these few variables, this battle took a long time to type and would probably take just as long to play. I like the system i just dont know if its feasible.
In turn 4 Ricardo only does 8 dammage, not 10. Pretend he got a 3, not a 2.
He should also do 8 dammage in =12. Not 9. *sigh*i
n =16 he hits Eiriks engine, not Ricardos (He is Ricardo!)
In =17 it does 4 dammage, not 7.
Haha. See not even i can keep track. This system is painfully flawed.
Quote from: Oscar EvansIs there any other way to express and record energy management in a fashion that is both fast and interactive, or should i find another primary dichotomy entirely?
It seems to me the big hang-up comes from the "generate then allocate" process--dice, tokens, or M&M use notwithstanding. Why not simply throw that out, and then when the engines "take damage" have the system (or player choices) just lose a certain number of tokens from their pool to allocate to ship functions?
In short, the engines will really just tell the player how many tokens they may shuffle (their maximum) and there is no game method of tracking "generate > store > expend". Basically, the game system will assume that the players will use all power at all times.
If you are just DIEING to handle batteries in the game system, then do it by making them just another ship component: a turn's allocations to batteries generates additional tokens (on the batteries) that may be moved to a different component for one future term. Use a different color token and, boom: you are only handling generation and storage and burn
when a player actually banks power, not every single turn.
Quote from: Oscar EvansMaybe i should play it more loose and fast and rely more on dice and roleplay (Which do you think is suited to the setting)?
Only you can decide that. Otherwise, you are running a poll, and many Forgites are rather critical of "poll posts". I, however, believe they are fine; I find other's opinions useful to help me approach a market....
But NOT to help me decide what is "best" for my games.
All that said: If the game is about space combat, then it needs interesting challenges and simulation systems to explore that. If the game is about "tough moral choices" that face pirates, or about the weird soap operas that revolve around space-born pirates, or about... well, you get the idea... then it should focus on social interplay, character emotional development, and relationships. Not a lot of need for crunchy game mechanics to handle "realistic" energy management and tactics.
[Aside: Why is realistic in quotes? Because I am in the futurist camp that believes that space battle will be fought in nanoseconds, by machines, at tremendous distances, using weapons that are phenominally destructive. Thus, a lot of the Star Wars/Star Trek/Buck Rogers/Battlestar sort of dogfighting just wouldn't happen: it's like bringing a Sopwith Camel to a F-22 engagement. But that's just me....]
Thanks for sharing your interesting game ideas; how can we help more?
David
I had hoped you would have something to say, David. Im not sure how interesting my ideas are, though. I feel sort of like i should just go back to the drawing board.
Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 17, 2006, 12:44:59 PM
In short, the engines will really just tell the player how many tokens they may shuffle (their maximum) and there is no game method of tracking "generate > store > expend". Basically, the game system will assume that the players will use all power at all times.
I did have batteries in an earlier version, but the one in the play example wasnt using batteries (Unless you count shields, which when fully charged stay charged until they are struck- so they are a FORM of power storage). I guess using a schematic and tokens (And just leaving the tokens there each turn, unless you want to move them around) MAY be a sufficiently easy way to track energy allocation.
Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 17, 2006, 12:44:59 PM
...batteries... just another ship component:
I had thought about that, and its probably a good idea. If i can ever streamline the system enough to include them.
Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 17, 2006, 12:44:59 PM
All that said: If the game is about space combat, then it needs interesting challenges and simulation systems to explore that. If the game is about "tough moral choices" that face pirates, or about the weird soap operas that revolve around space-born pirates, or about... well, you get the idea... then it should focus on social interplay, character emotional development, and relationships. Not a lot of need for crunchy game mechanics to handle "realistic" energy management and tactics.
Although i am probably a Narritivist at heart and love struggling with moral issues, i wanted a relatively gamey system for combat. I prefer my storytelling diceless or at best, a basic 'GM arbitrarily sets difficulty and roll'. However, its hard to make combat sufficiently exciting doing this. So i wanted a gamey system to get the players involved and excited over combat and resolve it cleanly, to offer the sufficient 'punctuation' to the story.
Note that im no expert on G/N/S theory and am using the terms to the best of my understanding.
Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 17, 2006, 12:44:59 PM
Because I am in the futurist camp that believes that space battle will be fought in nanoseconds, by machines, at tremendous distances, using weapons that are phenominally destructive
Im afraid to say this is very, very soft sci-fi? Personally, with the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (Offensive technology far outstrips defensive technology, and i believe it will remain that way), i think any entity strong enough to build space ships is not going to be going to war with any other entity strong enough to do so. Either way, as we become more affluent the drive towards conflict decreases. Far more likely is that we will expend our power oppressing militarily inferior people who will naturally respond with guerilla warfare. Oh wait thats already happening.
Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 17, 2006, 12:44:59 PM
But NOT to help me decide what is "best" for my games.
I was just trying to open the discussion up. While i do need help with nutting out the system, all those numbers can be frightfully dull. If anyone wants to discuss or propose anything about the system or setting id welcome it, is all.
Oh darn...was it Decipher ( i know they had star wars game) and west end games (first incarnation) that made the "first" star wars rpg?
I am bringing this because my memory is telling me they used d6s to determine damage, shield soak, etc. I personally think every die roll adds a layer of complexity to the space battle.
We need to know how far in the future you want to go. I am imagining, in the near future, we will have lasers and guns that fire projectiles with electricity (electric rail guns replacing cannons.') instead of chemically. If there was a "first military space craft", those would the weapons mounted on it with the addition of various kinds of bomb (mostly nuclear). The lasers would be used to for surgical strikes (probably to disable craft without destroying it) and the electrically propelled bullets and shells would be used for general damage.
As for defense, I foresee ECM weapons, magnetic fields to propel metallic objects away and some sort of energy sink to absorb lasers. Of course, the first generation versions of these weapons would use a lot of energy. Therefore, the first military space craft would be large, bulky ships carrying relatively few energy weapons for its size. I imagine that the ships would be powered by fusion reactors.
Maneuvering these ships would be hard to do, therefore armor and the ability to absorb energy, along with accuracy would be the determining factors of any battle (unless one or more side just used nuclear weapons).
With all this being said, I picture defensive capabilities to be pick and chose. i.e., you can't defend against all kinds of attacks. You would have to pick magnetic shields (propelling metallic objects) or turning on the energy sink (absorbing lasers). You would have armor and attempts to "jack with the computer aiming the weapons." Hence, electronic measures and countermeasures become another factor in battle.
To make it more fair (in my opinion) the ship could only use lasers, ecm or projectile/explosive weapons during a turn (not all three.) I see a roll for aiming (representing the hacking being done on both sides) and a roll for damage. If the weapon hits and if you chose the right defense, then you get to deduct the defense value of the shield from the damage roll before it hits. If not, then calculate damage to armor. If damage exceeds armor, then (I haven't got that far yet.) ECM = penalties, then ship shutdown once penalities reach a certain point.
BTW, I can't even imagine what things would be like beyond that point.
Hope this helps,
Sean
Quote from: sean2099 on May 17, 2006, 08:03:15 PM
I personally think every die roll adds a layer of complexity to the space battle.
A good point. The system is already to complex. I want to minimize the effect of chance anyway, so cutting down dice rolls would be a good idea.
Quote from: sean2099 on May 17, 2006, 08:03:15 PM
We need to know how far in the future you want to go.
While its interesting to discuss, im more worried about a system that works than tech levels. For what it matters, the time frame is 'far, far future'. So Mankind has scattered across the entire universe, but has no central government to organise them. A sort of fuedal structure exists, part medieval european kings and nobles, part vigilante frontier justice. Lots of factions each with its own agenda. Perfect for Space Pirates. I might post something more on the setting
Quote from: sean2099 on May 17, 2006, 08:03:15 PM
magnetic fields to propel metallic objects away and some sort of energy sink to absorb lasers.
The idea of different defensive abilities to defend against different types of attacks is interesting. Although ultimately, it would be an easy descision: Whichever attack does the most dammage is the one you defend against. If you dont know beforehand what defenses/attacks someone is using then its just rock paper scissors, and again, you might as well be throwing dice. Therefore it is just an extra complication without increasing player choice.
Quote from: sean2099 on May 17, 2006, 08:03:15 PM
To make it more fair (in my opinion) the ship could only use lasers, ecm or projectile/explosive weapons during a turn (not all three.)
Thats the basic principle of an energy consumption system: You cant run everything at maximum at once. It may be much more simple if you have, say, 6 systems and can only run 3, rather than have 6 systems each with a different energy consumption and a generator with a output that depends on its size. Then again, using a rigid 'this is how many systems you get, this is how many you can run' system limits player choice when it comes to designing their ship.
Quote from: sean2099 on May 17, 2006, 08:03:15 PM
ECM
I hadnt thought of ECM and ECCM. I had thought about targetting computers, scanners, cloaks, etc but putting it in the freamwork of ECM and ECCM makes it rather more simple. Then again, who knows, ill have to think about it.
Oh, one other thing, i will be including self-propelled explosive weapons. Missiles, what have you. I havent gotten around to them yet. I think they will probably have a delay to hit (fire them on turn 4, they hit on turn 7, for example) allowing the defending player to hope to outrun/outdodge it, try to shoot it down, or pump as much power into his shields and hope he can take it.
Thanks for posting!
I'm gonna guess that Sean has read some Iain Banks. ;-)
Oscar, I'll leave tech levels as an aside: just a tossed-out opinion that didn't really speak to the sort of play you have elucidated with subsequent posts.
I think your no-dice conclusion is a good one. If you posit things like computer-assisted targeting (and countermeasures), reasonably effective sensors (and countermeasures), and electromagnetic weaponry (and countermeasures) then the space battles of your far future really won't have a lot of randomness or fortune to them. The best system allocation wins. Quickly and violently.
But do not fail to consider Sean's mentioning of hacking and weapons of disablement: after all, this is Space PIRATES: the players will want very much to control opposition craft, not destroy them. Opposition will probably want to destroy, not control (except maybe high-minded authorities). So the battles from the perspective of players will become a balancing act between not being destroyed while taking control of the opposition: using less force and still attempting to win. Starship aikido.
So I think you want your system to very seriously consider how successful attacks can be "shaped" for different ends. Perhaps a called "shots" sort of system, where players keep up defenses and maneuver until they have enough "juice" (built up advantage) to make a called shot that knocks out the opponent's engines... or life support, if the living contents of the craft are not desired. That might be done with a well-aimed shot, or it might be done with a successful insertion of a computer virus via the opposition's sensors, or it might just be a case of coming alongside and hull breaching with marines (because few space vessels could survive being right next to an opponent when it blows, a fight could be ended with simple proximity; like being held hostage by a guy with a bomb strapped to his chest).
So we're talking about a system that supports maneuvering, attacks, countermeasures, shields, armor, sensors, and computer assists. Does that, however, necessarily mean we break out the hex maps and minis and start to roll initiative? Or couldn't such interplay and complexity still be managed by a conflict resolution system that would also support the more narrative, social, soft aspects of your game play? What real difference is there between starship aikido and using subterfuge in a conversation to get the opposition to slip some secret? Or convincing the nubile Venusian Princess to let you dock for the night (no snickering!)? Both sides of these conflicts peek past their defenses--exposing themselves to do so--and snipe away at their objective....
Perhaps a good look at the current d20 Star Wars dogfight rules would be useful to you? They have a somewhat abstracted combat system (no minis) which nevertheless uses elements of tactics and resource allocation to make combat appropriately cinematic and "crunchy" without bogging down in math and minutiae. It's definitely a long way from Star Fleet Battles or even the Star Trek starship combat rules, which used a lot of little boxes to mark energy allocation and remaining shields and hull strength--kind of a nightmare, as I recall, but its focus was on how a crew can help a machine, and that was neat.
Of course, there are some things you will have to handwave away, not the least of which will be computer control. As Iain Banks realized in his Culture Universe, once you have an AI running battles with light-speed weaponry (EM), then the humans just become fragile cargo that limit maneuverability and gee-loads. The fights will be all about which machine can dominate the other one mentally, only using weaponry to interdict maneuvering or blind/disarm the opposition. And given the likely speeds of computation by then, it would be more like watching a game of chess played at light-speed: the humans know they won the battle because they survived the first second of the engagement. Nope, not at all the sort of game you want at all; so no AI control can be allowed.
Just some meandering thoughts... I am not sure what specifically I could help you with in design, now that we've gotten past the "general notion of play" stage....
David
I thought about your energy allocation system. What if you did something like this for skills? With a digression into ship building, what if certain ships received so many design points...they place points into things like weapons, electronics, shields, etc. At the end of design, all of your categories would have a rating. This rating would represent the maximum "skill" result. i.e. if weapons are rated at a 5 and there is a gunner with 'ship weapons skill: 5', then the result of any skill rolls is a five (this represents the human/computer interface)
If the rating of the ship or human is less, use the lesser rating. The static ratings are compared with each other...higher rating winning. i.e. weapons vs defense. Another tangent: perhaps sensors could equate to initiative roll.
Then if weapons hit, a static damage number is applied (minus shield rating) to the ship's hull. At this point, every maneuver has a static rating. Perhaps players (as higher level officers) could 'inspire' (in one form or another) x number of areas. For every unit of inspiration, the static rating is raised by one for that turn.
In any case, I tried to write an example of a system where there are no dice rolls in an effort to eliminate randomness. If I read your posts correctly Oscar, this is what you are trying to do. I am not saying that this the solution to your design dilemma but perhaps comparing an idea with lots of randomness and an idea with no randomness will help you in your design efforts.
Sean
Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman
I think your no-dice conclusion is a good one. Quickly and violently.
Quote from: sean2099
In any case, I tried to write an example of a system where there are no dice rolls in an effort to eliminate randomness.
I may use some dice, but i dont want huge dice pools to resolve hitting, then more huge dice pools to resolve dammage, then more to resolve shields, etc. Depends what other methods i can use, i suppose. Current idea is one roll to hit, and if you punch through armour and shields (Which is only going to be towards the end of the fight, anyway) another roll to see which system you dammage. When the systems are reduced beyond 0 (Which is right at the end of the battle), another roll to see if they explode. I may eliminate one or more of those rolls.
Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman
Starship aikido.
I think you have a pretty good grasp of what im going for here, David. Each combat would be different though. Sometimes you just want to force them to jettison their cargo, other times you want to scavenge their ship, other times you're just trying to survive. I like that though, Starship Aikido. Nice term.
Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman
What real difference is there between starship aikido and using subterfuge in a conversation to get the opposition to slip some secret? Or convincing the nubile Venusian Princess to let you dock for the night (no snickering!)?
I do certainly want a system though where you build advantage and spend it towards a specific goal, risk vs reward, etc. Perhaps i should try and come up with a system that is more fluid and is useful for more than space combat. You are right- the general principles apply to everything. Its got me thinking about all sorts of structures to facilitate that, but that is almost a different game! I need to define my design objectives here. They are not to create a broad, sweeping abstracted narritivist game (Although these sorts of discussions are actually really helpful to the abstracted narritivist project i AM planning, but hah, one game at a time).
Ill have to see if i can check out d20 Star Wars.
Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman
Just some meandering thoughts... I am not sure what specifically I could help you with in design, now that we've gotten past the "general notion of play" stage...
Dont worry David. It has ALL been helpful, even if just to challenge me to define my design.
Quote from: sean2099
This rating would represent the maximum "skill" result. i.e. if weapons are rated at a 5 and there is a gunner with 'ship weapons skill: 5', then the result of any skill rolls is a five (this represents the human/computer interface)... ...For every unit of inspiration, the static rating is raised by one for that turn.
Interesting ideas, Sean! It does conflict a little with my design goals though, which are to use the ships technology rather than the characters skills. However, you could spend something else, ship related, to perform the same actions. Obviously, if im not using as many dice, im going to need to rely on the players spending something (This is the origional idea of energy allocation) in order to increase the chance of sucess.
RE: All the above: Glad to help. Looks like you are getting closer to what you envision.
A thought occurred to me last night; something we've been sort of disregarding.
Delta-V. Unless a space engagement is a "boom-n-zoom" (surprise strike leading to immediate defeat), the actual "winner" might be the craft with the most net delta-V (i.e fuel to burn to change vectors) after the engagement! Regardless of damage (yep...follow me).
Say I am space pirate and I get into a protracted "turn-n-burn" engagement with my target ship. But it has more delta-V. I have to be careful that, in defeating the vessel, I do not strand myself in the shipping lanes, waiting for rescue (from authorities... bummer). Because you can bet that a vessel about to be overrun would commit to serious, fuel-burning actions, perhaps up to and including fuel dumping.
And my solar panels won't bail me out in time: no pirate would engage in-system, with all sorts of local defenses around: they'd go for ships just emerging into their target Oort cloud (or insert hand-wavy FTL rule here... but it's gotta be somewhere with isolation, or piracy becomes a very dicey proposition). You are gonna get the most of your piracy out in the cold, dark regions of the shipping lanes.
Further, the general notion of delta-V applies equally to those "soft" conflicts mentioned above. You can only try to charm the Venusian Princess so many different ways and times before you have "struck out" (i.e. lost all delta-V and are left hanging). You can only try word game tricks so many times before your subterfuge target clams up, suspiciously. Emotional exhaustion, in general, is very close (metaphorically) to running low on fuel.
And it doesn't have to map into your allocation system directly! You could use delta-V as a sort of "turn limiter" for any conflict. A ship's delta-V determine how many times you can use all power before you better be lighting your warp drive and making your way to some helium/hydrogen. Likewise with social encounters: your "charisma" would be a turn limiter on attempts at social domination, coercion, or persuasion. To make various methods of social "attack" strategic, some could take more "stages" of success to be a complete success--burning a turn each stage--while others might not take as many stages, but have less efficacy.
For instance, a "seduction" might take five stages. Your "charisma" might allow you seven turns: you can only flub two lines, or you will strike out. Meanwhile, a subterfuge might only have two or three stages: that same seven "charisma" can allow you to possibly succeed at prying out a secret TWICE (or thrice) in one conversation! And on the flip side, you could allow "banking" of successes--similar to using starship batteries--to store up successes for a later conflict. I might have a three in "charisma" and so to seduce someone, I'd need to have two (or maybe three, if I roll poorly) encounters before I hit the lucky fifth success and started looking for a room.
More to consider: Are you interested in modeling orbital dynamics and other physical effects? Either for allowing funky maneuvers to escape/attack, or to save delta-V? Gravity assists, atmospheric aerobraking, gravity lensing (increase EM weapon range and sensor fidelity), etc? Might get a bit too crunchy....
HTH;
David
Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 19, 2006, 09:45:43 AM
RE: All the above: Glad to help. Looks like you are getting closer to what you envision.
A thought occurred to me last night; something we've been sort of disregarding.
Delta-V. Unless a space engagement is a "boom-n-zoom" (surprise strike leading to immediate defeat), the actual "winner" might be the craft with the most net delta-V (i.e fuel to burn to change vectors) after the engagement! Regardless of damage (yep...follow me).
HTH;
David
I thought about the players spending actions in one form or another. I believe the fuel is one way of doing that but as I posted, I imagined the ships running on nuclear power (that's why I didn't think about fuel.)
Just rattling off some idea and such.
Perhaps the computing power running the ship would allot so many actions per round. The players running the ship could spend them (if manually piloted) or the "ship" could if on autopilot. There is an element of "winking" when it comes to the speed of the ship's computers.
Related to the above statement and sound a bit similiar to the original concept, perhaps the "computer" wouldn't be running at 100%. Perhaps there is room for spare computing power to be applied to different applications. If you wanted weapons to do more damage, then through energy realloctation, more calculations made about target, etc., the rating would go up by x points. In other words, use something quick and easy that takes different factors into account other than just energy.
As I am writing this, the idea of energy allotment had the right purpose but that should be a subroutine (energy management) of the ship's computers.
Although the "fuel idea" is viable, I believe that they players know raids should take a certain amount of time and no more, otherwise the "space police" would show up. That way, you could have nuclear power and limited interactions. Butperhaps I'm wrong...
Sean
Mechanically, Delta-v would serve a similiar purpose as a long term battery. Limiting your total actions over the course of the conflict. Trading off spending it early and ineffeciently for a big bang, or saving it up for a long term conflict. Managing it as a seperate variable from energy would probably just make combat even more ponderous.
Haha. You both have wonderful ideas. You are very good at making my game more complicated.
Im sort of at an impasse here. Ill post my design document, then i think ill put this on the back burner until i can come up with some new inspiration.
Space Pirate Design Document (http://www.artema.com.au/oscar/pirates.htmlt")
*sigh* Lets try that again (Wish you could edit these things): Space Pirates Design Document (http://www.artema.com.au/oscar/pirates.html)
QuoteI imagined the ships running on nuclear power (that's why I didn't think about fuel.)
Not to knock on this belief, but nuclear power by itself won't push a starship around. Sure, you could handwave fuel issues away for the sake of expedience, but I can't think of even a fanciful design that can move a ship in vacuum without flinging
something out the back end.
A nuclear rocket would likely be throwing out helium or water vapor or something else with a high specific impulse for the nuclear reaction's temperature. (Again, I call out for physicists with the hard numbers!)
Now, you might could have something like a "gravity drive" (i.e. handwave) that uses only electrical output from a generator (nuke-steam, whatever) to push and pull against gravity wells. But that's going to make the "fights in deep, dark space lanes" unlikely. Which really makes the MOST sense, if you have FTL craft: no one would be spending any time in normal space between destinations anyway. All piracy happens between, say, the Oort cloud of a system and its destination planets/habitats, and it tends to prey upon in-system transport craft rather than out-system liners.
But then again... is the FTL "works anywhere, works every time"? If so, you can just treat the whole maneuvering and attack elements as short FTL hops. It would be kind of cool to play a space battle game where most/all participant craft are actually at zero relative velocity but are popping all over the map with micro-FTL jumps. :)
QuoteManaging it as a separate variable from energy would probably just make combat even more ponderous.
...
Haha. You both have wonderful ideas. You are very good at making my game more complicated.
First, let me say that I will clam up at a single request. I am just trying to consider all the raw elements of how I imagine space battles to be conducted, and toss them out there to be caught or left to flop on the deck like a decompression victim.
Disclaimer aside, I don't think using fuel as a limiter would be hard at all. Consider:
1) Make it a rule that a ship power system will always output its full power. Remember that any unused power may be shunted into batteries, becoming single-use (different color) tokens to place at will (as opposed to the main color token, which show allocations to systems that might be shuffled to other systems, from round to round).
2) From that full power output value and some other "fuel load" value of the ship, simple division will determine how many "full rounds" in which a ship may engage before running dry. That become a mere round counter, in actual play.
3) Include a (minor) rule and ship stat that calculates how many power tokens will make a ship do a jump (its mass and "FTL rating" probably determines this cost). That should just be a fixed amount, unless you want jump distances to become a power-consumption issue (and can explain why that is, in your dimension-breaking FTL drive!).
That should do it. Basically, fuel load become a pre-play ship stat like "stamina" that (by rule dictation that the engines always output full power) is always the same in every battle for that ship. Thus, it isn't really managed at all: only the battery-use rules are needed. And I have shown already how they can be simplified by only dealing with banked tokens, not every token generated every round. In other words, simple management by exception.
The "running dry" issues only come up if (a) the turn counter for the ship runs out and (b) it does not have enough banked power tokens (battery juice) to effect an FTL jump to escape.
...And you done gone and opened the FTL door. It has its own funkiness to consider: can a ship be followed through FTL? Or is it impossible to gauge how far along a known vector a particular ship has jumped (I suggest this latter case be true, to avoid creating no-win situations).
Heheh... OK, OK, I'll read the design doc, now. Any advice as to how we should read it? Still tinkering, or read for coherence, or just copyedit?
David
QuoteWhich really makes the MOST sense, if you have FTL craft: no one would be spending any time in normal space between destinations anyway.
The game would be real boring if they travelled between systems without FTL! :)
QuoteAll piracy happens between, say, the Oort cloud of a system and its destination planets/habitats, and it tends to prey upon in-system transport craft rather than out-system liners.
Yeah. Only maybe slightly INSIDE the Oort cloud. In order to make it to the planets in any reasonable amount of time from the edge of the Oort cloud, the players would need to be travelling at an insane speed. No human has the reaction speed to pull of manouvers at that speed, and if we give control the computer it removes meaningful player choice. In fact, this is even the case if the players wish to travel between planets in-system in any reasonable amount of time. My brother has proposed the idea of an in-system thrusters, seperate from both your inter-system and combat speed thrusters.
Of course. I will probably just give the finger to science and ignore all this.
QuoteFirst, let me say that I will clam up at a single request. I am just trying to consider all the raw elements of how I imagine space battles to be conducted, and toss them out there to be caught or left to flop on the deck like a decompression victim.
No no, go ahead. Im just the same way when giving advice. Some of your advice has been helpful, some hasnt, but all of it has helped me to define my game. Im just worried you might be giving far too much attention to my underdeveloped little game, which might end up still born if i cant figure out a way to pull it off. Like i said earlier- im at somewhat of an impasse, as i am having trouble coming up with a fluid system that achieves all my objectives. Ive tried several different systems, played test games- and none of them really 'strike' me.
QuoteOr is it impossible to gauge how far along a known vector a particular ship has jumped
The origional idea was that yes, you can track someone through a jump. You are very vulnerable after a jump though, as it is a serious power drain. This gives your quarry ample oppourunity to run away or blast you.
Quote
Heheh... OK, OK, I'll read the design doc, now. Any advice as to how we should read it? Still tinkering, or read for coherence, or just copyedit?
Very early yet. Just giving an overview of my objectives. Obviously i have a few more concrete ideas than that, but im willing to scrap them if i can think of anything that better suits my agenda.
QuoteIn order to make it to the planets in any reasonable amount of time from the edge of the Oort cloud, the players would need to be travelling at an insane speed.
Define "reasonable." Define "insane."
Put differently: if you are going for the flavor of piracy, how about going for the time scales of piracy in our own past? There similarities are there. An FTL jump into a system is a lot like open ocean sailing: no pirate would try to get you on the open ocean, and no space pirate would try to get you in deep space. But once you are in-system, maybe it DOES take a few weeks or months to match velocities with a target planet and get to it. Much like the months of coastline following that a ship might have done, to find their destination port(s).
And don't let reaction speed at high velocities hamper your thinking. Frankly, if a pirate hasn't matched velocity with its target craft, the whole fight is going to be over in a flash, anyway: the target will zip past at such a high relative velocity that the pirate would only get off one shot, which would probably hit because it would be, say, a laser beam laid in the path of the speeding target.
Thus, you can assume any space combat began with a velocity matching period. Then, at zero relative velocity, your notion of "combat thrusters" becomes irrelevant: it's just shifts in relative V to change positions relative to the target. In other words, using the same drive systems (thrust) to maneuver for some form of advantage.
QuoteYou are very vulnerable after a jump though, as it is a serious power drain. This gives your quarry ample opportunity to run away or blast you.
OK, then you need some system in place for:
a) how hard it is to pin-point someone's jump destination - it shouldn't be automatic; sensor reads of power output and astrogation should be the minimum "checks" to determine what a destination star would be; otherwise, any jump could be any arbitrary distance, which then could include any star on that vector (and there's a LOT of stars on MOST vectors in a galaxy).
b) who recovers faster - could decide the battle in one shot!
c) if there is any way to "outjump" someone - if I get, say, a lightyear or so "lead" on a pursuer, I should be able to change vectors randomly and become, effectively, untrackable.
Current Design Doc FeedbackQuoteIt is very important that it be balanced, and there be no single superior design or piece of equipment.
Boy, howdy, that's true. And, man, it's gonna be hard to pull off. It is just WAY tricky to avoid the "Ogg Mage Syndrome" - given enough of a player base, the synergies of effects in a game system will inevitable bubble out an optimal combination of effects.
But it is possible to minimize the Ogg Mage Syndrome to the point where there are a couple "Oggy" choices rather than one. And "patching" your system after a while can go a long way toward shaking up old synergies. You could even write and release expansion products which appear to be "new stuff" but are actually "fixes to old stuff" that lead to more balance between effects. ;)
QuoteIdeally the story should evolve out of what sort of trouble the players decide to get themselves in.
System, system, system: here's one you can hang on! You mention that "the characters will quickly develop relationships" through the course of play; I suggest that the character creation system START them with some. Call them Obligations, Contacts, Bounties, whatever... basically make a form of disadvantage or flaw system which maps the character into the world from the get-go. EVERYONE owes somebody something, EVERY character has jettisoned some thug's precious cargo or owes the government for their ship and training or stole some planetary ruler's crown jewels to jumpstart their piracy profession.
If you require the players to invent their own "starting issues" then they will not only give you a clear flag as to the style of play they want, but they will also be better able to see if they have conflicting goals and need to, perhaps, rethink some aspects of the character-as-a-group-member. You might even be able to make "metacategories" of these character obligations, and require the players to agree to a single metacategory from which each will choose their individual issue or flaw. Basically, this allows you to circumvent players choosing incompatible issues (like one always has to get groundside to work politics while the other needs very much to be hiding out in the Oort clouds of the galaxy-a classic case of the "Shadowrun Decker's Dilemma").
I am all full of new phrases for old game patterns, today. ;)
It's baking nicely...
David
QuotePut differently: if you are going for the flavor of piracy, how about going for the time scales of piracy in our own past?
That does make it a lot like real pirates. It might make the game play fractured or sluggish though, and will certainly limit options. 'Okay, 2 months later, you finally arrive at port.' *short scene about them getting repairs and unloading their cargo* 'Right, next we want to go here.' 'Okay, 5 months later you arrive.'
Im looking to make a fast-paced, high stakes, big trouble sort of game. The players constantly jumping from one problem into another, dodging bounty hunters, avoiding other pirates, making shaky deals, taking whatever oppourtunities they can to make a buck. Having long periods of uneventful space-travel would probably break the tension and disturb the time-frame. I mean, if they take on a drug run, how long is the crime boss going to give them before he calls out the thugs? They could have sold it and be half way across the galaxy by then. Their trouble should be able to catch up with them (And they should be able to catch up with their trouble!). Sure, they can hide- but only for so long.
QuoteBoy, howdy, that's true. And, man, it's gonna be hard to pull off. It is just WAY tricky to avoid the "Ogg Mage Syndrome" - given enough of a player base, the synergies of effects in a game system will inevitable bubble out an optimal combination of effects.
True, but i dont expect to have a huge player base. I just want it balanced to the point that the players cant go 'Well that sucks, obviously if you just do x you dont need anything else'. If i keep to a few variables that shouldnt be too hard. Of course, that also limits player choice! Argh.
QuoteOK, then you need some system in place for...
a) Yes, the idea is that it takes a few minutes to track someones destination. This gives them their lead on powering up again after the jump.
b) That would probably be based on the consumption of your jump drive and/or the output of your generator.
c) The idea is that you cannot change direction mid-jump. Even if you jump a short distance, it still takes a while to power up your jump drive again.
You could, if you had a sufficient lead, jump once, then make another before your persuer arrives. There would be no way to track that.
This is balance issues though. Ill figure something out, whatever works best.
QuoteEVERYONE owes somebody something
I was actually thinking about this last night and thats exactly what i came up with! All players start with a debt of some sort. It might be anything from a bounty or gambling debt to a debt to your family for financing your ship. If they dont get themselves into further trouble trying to pay it off, then they get into trouble (of one sort or another) with their creditors!
In my test game, i started them off with their cargo holds full of an illicit substance they needed to get rid of. Not technically a 'debt' but definately a big Trouble Magnet.
Quotethe character-as-a-group-member.
Now this is something i had problems with in the initial game. The players ended up separating! I want to encourage independence and oppourtunism, as thats what piracy is all about. Just not the point that i need to run 4 different games.
One solution to this is just to stick them on the one ship. But this would mean that either...
A. They would be lead around by the nose by the 'biggest ego' of the group. This is something i dislike in roleplaying games, i see it happen all the time. Since there is only one ship to make descisions about, if they arent led around by a big ego they will probably spend their time arguing.
B. It would focus the game on character skills, so that they each have a role within the ship (engineer, doctor, tactical, security, etc) and thus can each contribute equally. Character skill is something i wanted to de-emphasize in space combat, and this would turn that entirely on its head. It does have the advantage of specialization though, something which my system might be lacking (Hrrm, something to consider!).
The other option is to tie them all together with a plot mechanic. I tired to do this in the test game by tying them to their mutual interest in their cargo, but that didnt work. That also limits peoples chances to come up with really interesting and unique debts.
This is another area where 'making it like real pirates' probably doesnt fit.
Anyway. Ive come up with a few new ideas on how to manage ship design, energy management etc (You know, the technical stuff). Ill write something up later and give it a bit of a test. Lets hope this one isnt painfully bloated as well.
Quote from: Oscar Evans on May 24, 2006, 08:50:52 PM
Now this is something i had problems with in the initial game. The players ended up separating! I want to encourage independence and opportunism, as that's what piracy is all about. Just not the point that i need to run 4 different games.
Maybe favoring "well rounded" ship design is not the key. Allowing players to have very specialised ships "stealth", "dogfighter", "interceptor", "ramming"... and allow them to have
one pool of points for
all their ships might help. None of them can take another ship alone.
Shields, Energy Repartition and karmaThe "shields" are maybe not so important. Be it in Star Wars or more recently in Battlestar Galactica, "shieldless" combat add a little more grit to combat. And that leads us to...
Energy repartitionIs that so vital to the theme ? Maybe having Pilots allotting their piloting skills to either "Evasion", "Attack", "Diversion"... might work as well. Each player could have some special "tricks" he could use (looping, Immelman, whatever...). Ship design would still be important: armor, damage, different type of weapons, ECMs, handling...
This doesn't mean they should have a lot of piloting related skills. One skill should be enough as it will be divided into multiple actions.
For the larger ships the Space Pirates attack Shield can be be replaced with escort ships. Instead of "Their shields go down 1 level" you have "You blow away one of the Rigelian Deathspiter who escorted the ship".
Time limit: someone suggested the arrival of the "Space Police" to make an attack, that can also be the time before the target ship makes a FTL jump again. I think you should choose beetween a Time Limit OR Energy allocation, using both may require a lot of bookkeeping.
When hit, ships loose tokens, dice from dice pool, whatever you will use to measure their efficiency.
This makes Space Combat much more "gamist" , opposed to the "simulationist" view I see in the posts above (but I may be wrong). Putting that much crunch into Space Combat may turn the game to a boardgame
à la Battletech/Aerotech. This can be a lot of fun, but I don't think that's your goal when I read your design document.
KarmaAs someone pointed out, the goal of the Space Pirates is to loot enemy ships not destroying them. The target ship should then have a "surrender" level. If he has suffered enough damage or threats he surrenders. There should be several to do this: board the ship, take down all of it's escort, crippling it's combat system or propulsion...
The way players achieve their goals give them different reputation: "Bloodthirsty", "Cunning", "Efficient", "Cold"...
This reputation can then be used to force an enemy to surrender ("Oh my ! It's the Space Pigs we got to surrender !")
Target ships can then have too a reaction "type": against "Bloodthirsty" Pirates some will try to flee, others will surrender or fight to the death. The players do not know this before they attack them (or it can be a clue they try to find when planning an attack).
Of course the more the Pirates are known the more it should be difficult for them to find places to hide/repair/etc.
I know many things I've said seem to go against your design goals, but, well, you never know...
I only discovered the forge today and love discussions like this.
I have an idea for simple space combat that uses energy manipulation.
Each system gets a different die according to it's quality i.e. poor lasers get a d6, average d6, good d8 and excellent d10.
Each player gets so many dice to play with per turn i.e. 6 dice for all systems
You can use more than one dice per system per turn and take the highest roll for that system.
e.g. player A zaps pirate B with his lasers using 2 dice of energy these are a 3 and 5. Pirate takes 5 damage off his shield.
Player skills are simple pluses to the dice rolled for that area.
e.g. using the previous example, if player A had a +2 laser skill the result would be 7 damage not 5
To have attack and defence you could use targeting computers Vs manuver drives, you roll manuver during your turn to see how well you dodge till the next turn.
Then damage is weapons Vs shields with generators renewing shields upto the die max each turn
i.e. my shields are 3, I roll 5 on my d6 shield generator, my shields go up to my maximum 6
To show different weapons, start with two types
type A lasers (pluse gun) will damage shields and phyiscallly damage ships (damage come off the hull of the ship)
type B lasers (ion cannon) will only do half damage to shields but can incapacitate ships (damage comes off the dice pool of the ship)
A ship can carry both types of lasers but only fire one per turn
All this should encourage players to go for different ship specs, 'do I have big lasers or a good manuver to dodge', it gives them an upgrade path for their ships, 'I need those d8 shield generators' and finally teamwork, 'I'll take out his shields, then you can incapaciate his ship'
And all without to much dice work, one for hit, one for damage.
hope any or all of these ideas help.