Space Pirates

[Oscar Evans]

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.

[Precious Villain]

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.

[Oscar Evans]

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!

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.

(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.

[Oscar Evans]

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.

[Oscar Evans]

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.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

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?

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.

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)?

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

[Oscar Evans]

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

[sean2099]

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

[Oscar Evans]

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

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

[sean2099]

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

[Oscar Evans]

I think your no-dice conclusion is a good one. Quickly and violently.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

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

[sean2099]

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

[Oscar Evans]

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