| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 9:26 pm Post subject: Astrogation rules |
 |
|
The RAW from the 2nd Ed. (original) book for astrogation is for the GM to set a duration and a difficulty. The astrogator can choose to lengthen the trip in order to reduce the difficulty by 1 for every hour extra.
Are there any supplement books, or R&E for that matter, that revise and/or extend this basic principle in any way? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16259
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
None that I can really think of. GG9 (Fragments From The Rim) first introduced the rules for Instinctive Astrogation and Instinctive Astrogation Control, but apart from that, I can't recall anything official.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Is there a specific reason you need to find more rules? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | Is there a specific reason you need to find more rules? |
Yes, I've built an web-based engine that calculates travel times from each of 1413 systems in the galaxy to all 1412 other systems. Now I want to couple that to an engine that will generate astrogation rolls and mishaps/encounters/what-not. I'd like to know what the rules are... so that I know what I shall likely do differently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
So are you looking for rules on what kind of mishaps might occur, or....?
If it were me, I'd just GM the mishaps and form them into my story (or make them special encounters that the PCs just have to deal with on their way to their intended destination). These are good opportunities to side-track the PCs and give them information or experience that you think they may need or a chance to throw in a one-off adventure that you've cooked up and want to try out.
You might have to just make up some rules/algorithms for the engine on your own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:23 pm Post subject: Re: Astrogation rules |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | The RAW from the 2nd Ed. (original) book for astrogation is for the GM to set a duration and a difficulty. The astrogator can choose to lengthen the trip in order to reduce the difficulty by 1 for every hour extra.
Are there any supplement books, or R&E for that matter, that revise and/or extend this basic principle in any way? |
I have a big problem with the RAW here.
As the modification to the difficulty is based on added hours instead of added time in relation to the basic travel time (ie percentage of basic travel time) you can navigate long trips really easy by adding a few hours to the original travel time of several days, but doubling the travel time for really short trips dont make much difference.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:22 pm Post subject: Re: Astrogation rules |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | So are you looking for rules on what kind of mishaps might occur, or....? |
Yeah, something like that. Most importantly, I want to be able to have an engine that allows you to put in an astrogation skill and then depending on the distance plotted, offers you some options, and once these have been determined, it rolls the dice for you and tells you what happens.
| Naaman wrote: | | If it were me, I'd just GM the mishaps and form them into my story (or make them special encounters that the PCs just have to deal with on their way to their intended destination). These are good opportunities to side-track the PCs and give them information or experience that you think they may need or a chance to throw in a one-off adventure that you've cooked up and want to try out. |
No question. This is just something for the GM, who does not have a (strict) plan for the PCs to have fun with. Of course, if you want to be a more hands-on GM you can totally ignore the engine.
| Naaman wrote: | | You might have to just make up some rules/algorithms for the engine on your own. |
Yeah, that's what I expect I'll do.
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | The RAW from the 2nd Ed. (original) book for astrogation is for the GM to set a duration and a difficulty. The astrogator can choose to lengthen the trip in order to reduce the difficulty by 1 for every hour extra.
Are there any supplement books, or R&E for that matter, that revise and/or extend this basic principle in any way? |
I have a big problem with the RAW here.
As the modification to the difficulty is based on added hours instead of added time in relation to the basic travel time (ie percentage of basic travel time) you can navigate long trips really easy by adding a few hours to the original travel time of several days, but doubling the travel time for really short trips don't make much difference. |
Yes, I've thought about this too. Even in my engine as I have the travel times now (which I think are too short), it usually takes days to get anywhere unless your trip is taking you along quick hyperroutes. In that regard, hours are a pittance. I agree that it should be a ratio of some sort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:07 am Post subject: Re: Astrogation rules |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Even in my engine as I have the travel times now (which I think are too short), it usually takes days to get anywhere unless your trip is taking you along quick hyperroutes. In that regard, hours are a pittance. I agree that it should be a ratio of some sort. |
Maybe 5% or 10% instead of an hour?
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:31 pm Post subject: Re: Astrogation rules |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Even in my engine as I have the travel times now (which I think are too short), it usually takes days to get anywhere unless your trip is taking you along quick hyperroutes. In that regard, hours are a pittance. I agree that it should be a ratio of some sort. |
Maybe 5% or 10% instead of an hour? |
And then progressively longer travel times for more bonuses..
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:54 pm Post subject: Re: Astrogation rules |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Even in my engine as I have the travel times now (which I think are too short), it usually takes days to get anywhere unless your trip is taking you along quick hyperroutes. In that regard, hours are a pittance. I agree that it should be a ratio of some sort. |
Maybe 5% or 10% instead of an hour? |
And then progressively longer travel times for more bonuses.. |
I'm just going to think out loud here. You will, I hope, pardon if I point out the obvious or go in circles.
The idea is that you can chart a route that takes a wider path around known gravity wells, or through spaces that have fewer gravity wells. That seems to be the logic of the lower rolls for longer periods. The reverse is also true - take me through more precarious routes and there might be a disaster, but the more precarious route will get you there faster (if it gets you there at all).
That all makes sense, and takes care of the expected travel-time with just a ratio, rather than absolute numbers, adjustment to the RAW. However, I am still a little at odds with the remainder of the RAW.
For starters, I think the duration and the difficulty should be linked, rather than determined separately.
Because the hyperdrive makes physical distance between point A and point B irrelevant (call me out on this supposition if you want), the real factor is how much known gravity-well-producing stuff there is between point A and point B that the Nav Computer needs to plot itself around. systems that are closer to one another will generally have less stuff between them, and thus it is easier to get from point A to point B. Also, the more a route is charted (and the more the gravity wells are known) the easier (and thus quicker) it is to get from point A to point B.
I'll get to my other adjustment to the RAW, but I'd like your comments on the above first. (Also, I need to get to my real job right now...  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16259
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I certainly wouldn't say that it makes physical difference irrelevant. Locations in hyperspace are coterminous with locations in real space; it is the trip between that is shortened. You are correct in saying that gravity wells and other obstructions are a factor, but IMO, the number of unknown obstacles is what separates a well-traveled route from a "you want to go where?" route.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I certainly wouldn't say that it makes physical difference irrelevant. Locations in hyperspace are coterminous with locations in real space; it is the trip between that is shortened. You are correct in saying that gravity wells and other obstructions are a factor, but IMO, the number of unknown obstacles is what separates a well-traveled route from a "you want to go where?" route. |
I'm not sure we're in disagreement here. I may be too inarticulate to be understood.
Yes, hyperspace locations are coterminous with locations in real space. What I am arguing is that physical distances (lightyears/parsecs) do not, by themselves, make the travel time between two points longer or shorter.
To borrow words from Rumsfeldian epistemology, it is the amount and the location of known, and known unknown stuff between two points that makes it more or less difficult to plot a course between two points, and thus to make it a longer or shorter trip. The known stuff because you need to plot around it, and the known unknown because the nav computer knows that it needs to circumvent areas where it is known that there may be obstacles.
For places where it is known that there is no stuff, the ship can just zip right on through with no delay. The unknown unknown stuff that lies between to points also has no impact on the travel time. This is because a nav computer does not know that it needs to make adjustments for those things. Sure, the unknown unknowns may impact your ship when you crash into them, but it will not impact your travel time unless you get really lucky and your sensors pick up that stuff before you hit it.
The "you want to go where?" route indeed has a lot of (known) unknown obstacles, which makes it more time-consuming to get to, because the nav computer will be very careful to plot a precise course based on the limited (and out of date) data that it has to work with.
The thing to remember, here, is that most of the galaxy is known unknown. Those few places that are known are the hyperspace routes, and those hyperspace routes rarely connect any two given systems directly. You frequently have to go along multiple direct hyperroutes to get to where you want to go. The direct distance between those two places may not at all reflect where the hyperroutes need to go.
Am I making sense? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10395
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | The direct distance between those two places may not at all reflect where the hyperroutes need to go.
Am I making sense? |
Yes. An even more simplisitc way to say it is, you hardly ever travel anywhere in a strait line (the shortest distance between two points). That means that sometimes a longer route may be a faster route (or the only route)
It is analogous to my experience driving around my city. Sometimes it makes sense to go a little out of my way to get on the freeway.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:54 pm Post subject: Re: Astrogation rules |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Even in my engine as I have the travel times now (which I think are too short), it usually takes days to get anywhere unless your trip is taking you along quick hyperroutes. In that regard, hours are a pittance. I agree that it should be a ratio of some sort. |
Maybe 5% or 10% instead of an hour? |
And then progressively longer travel times for more bonuses.. |
I'm just going to think out loud here. You will, I hope, pardon if I point out the obvious or go in circles.
The idea is that you can chart a route that takes a wider path around known gravity wells, or through spaces that have fewer gravity wells. That seems to be the logic of the lower rolls for longer periods. The reverse is also true - take me through more precarious routes and there might be a disaster, but the more precarious route will get you there faster (if it gets you there at all).
That all makes sense, and takes care of the expected travel-time with just a ratio, rather than absolute numbers, adjustment to the RAW. However, I am still a little at odds with the remainder of the RAW.
For starters, I think the duration and the difficulty should be linked, rather than determined separately.
Because the hyperdrive makes physical distance between point A and point B irrelevant (call me out on this supposition if you want), the real factor is how much known gravity-well-producing stuff there is between point A and point B that the Nav Computer needs to plot itself around. systems that are closer to one another will generally have less stuff between them, and thus it is easier to get from point A to point B. Also, the more a route is charted (and the more the gravity wells are known) the easier (and thus quicker) it is to get from point A to point B.
I'll get to my other adjustment to the RAW, but I'd like your comments on the above first. (Also, I need to get to my real job right now... ) |
I'm not sure of whether I like the idea of diminishing returns on the hypertravel time extensions...
Also, I could see, for example, a long journey through well charted space with a lot of known obstacles being easy to chart, but still taking a long time.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | It is analogous to my experience driving around my city. Sometimes it makes sense to go a little out of my way to get on the freeway. |
Right so - also, you have to drive as the roads move you, rather than as the crow flies.
So, given all that, I take it that physical distance, if we were even to have such data available, is much less relevant than standardized travel times are.
Now, to go further along my train of thought, a nav computer is very much like a GPS device, which does several things:
1) determine current location
2) accept directions of where the astrogator wants the ship to go
3) accept any permutations (such as more or less time to increase or decrease difficulty)
4) plot the fastest route between the current location and the intended destination, given the permutations.
5) steer the ship along the plotted route, and automatically pull the ship out of hyperspace if the sensors pick up a gravity well.
(Perhaps that last part - pulling the ship out of hyperspace is governed by the ship's hyperspace sensors, rather than the nav computer directly).
I use a GPS device fairly frequently, and having an understanding of how these things work and a good geographical sense really do help you work those things, and not knowing these things can get you into a lot of trouble (just ask my wife, but be prepared for an ill-humored response).
In other words: skill matters.
However, I think the RAW has it wrong. The RAW says that if you don't make your astrogation roll by -9, you can't even get into hyperspace and you have to try again.
I think that the ability to enter hyperspace is completely separate from having one's astrogation worked out. I think you can always kick it into hyperspace, but it can be a REALLY bad idea to do so, given that most ships are near planets when they go into hyperspace, and planets tend to have a lot of stuff orbiting them (asteroids and the like), or near them, (like other planets and a star). Not all of these (except the star) may be visible when you hit the hyperdrive.
Anyway, I think that if you really flub your astrogation roll, you don't know that your astrogation is wrong. Therefore, when you hit the hyperdrive, you're getting yourself into trouble. So, you should be rolling on a mishap chart. On the other hand, if you only fail it by so much, you know that it's a really bad idea to hit the hyperdrive at that point in time. Therefore, you know that it's advised to re-do the astrogation.
Of course, if you've got the Empire or pirates on your tail, you may just want to take your chances with the mishap chart than get your tail blown off by enemy fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
