Maneuverability Codes

[Raven Redstar]

Oliver Queen 's re-post of the upgrade TIE Interceptors over on the G+ community, reminded me of a huge beef I have with Maneuverability stats in the D6 system. It seems like you either get a bonus, or nothing, which doesn't seem to adequately reflect how cumbersome some ships and vehicles can really be.

What I'm proposing is making a sort of maneuverability scale which varies from -2D to +2D.

This way, the character's skill comes more into play than equipment bonuses. Someone flying a sluggish medium transport might be dealing with a -2D maneuverability, while someone flying a high speed stunt fighter or super maneuverable swoop would be getting a +2D to their skill roll.

I can't say I'm looking forward to re-statting out every single vehicle, but it might be worth it in the long run.

Thoughts?
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________

[CRMcNeill]

Or just apply a blanket -2D modifier to the Maneuverability of all stats.
_________________
"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

[Raven Redstar]

The other possibility is creating a table based on current maneuverability and size of the vehicle for each scale category so that someone can quickly come up with the new maneuverability code instead of having to re-type every ship ever made.

The -2D is quick and easy, but it's also like taking a meat cleaver into surgery rather than a scalpel, there are several vehicles that I think might suffer needlessly at the hands of something so sweeping.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________

[CRMcNeill]

I prefer house rules that don't require major stat rewrites. Since the existing window for Maneuverability in official stats is roughly 0D-4D (with the A-Wing being at the top of the pile), a simple -2D shift would seem to serve your proposed rule quite well, prima facie. Can you provide some examples as to how it wouldn't?
_________________
"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

[Raven Redstar]

Except that for some other scales, Maneuverability is as high as 4D+2, possibly more. This wouldn't just be for starships, this would be for everything. As I said, the table would take the place of a stat block rewrite. You look at the ship's stats, factor in existing maneuverability and size charts based on scale, and the ship gets a new maneuverability code on the fly.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________

[CRMcNeill]

Sounds a bit too crunchy for me. Not that I think a negative Maneuverability code is a bad idea; far from it. I could easily see something like a SSD having a -3D Maneuverability code. It makes it even easier for me since I also apply Scale modifiers to Maneuverability when resolving combat maneuvers between opponents of differing scales.

Would your idea still work if the available set of Maneuverability scores was 3D to -3D instead of 2D?
_________________
"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

[Raven Redstar]

Absolutely! -2D to 2D just kind of covered the basic 0-4D range, but -3D to 3D makes just as much sense as well.

So in the speeder scale you could have something like a Repulsor Cargo Truck at -3D and a high end swoop at +3D.

Part of the reason I was thinking -2D to 2D would limit those sorts of "Self Piloting" type vehicles, like the Flare-S Swoop which has a 4D+2 Maneuverability. Meaning someone with a 1D Mechanical and +1 training would be flying that thing around rolling 6D, which seems off to me.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________

[garhkal]

Perhaps rather than dock the maneuvering codes, you could put in a minimum piloting score needed to use them. Sort of like with the Caelii Merced blaster pistols they are made that if you have less than 6d in your blaster skill, you take a 1d penalty. But if you have more than 6d, you gain a bonus.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Raven Redstar]

That is a possibility, gar. Although an even easier approach could be to do away with full dice maneuverability, and just use the advantage and disadvantage table. -15 to +15, giving a static bonus for the maneuvering capabilities of a craft.

Hm. Although, now that Gry has shared his source files, making updated craft stats could be very easy.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________

[garhkal]

Another possibility. Ships, whether ground craft, freighters or big cap ships have a minimum (Skeleton) crew listing, at which the craft is operated at a penalty to the piloting roll (or added to the difficulty).
Perhaps something similar could be done, where if you are not at a minimum level of operational skill, you receive a penalty.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Naaman]

I have a similar gripe. I feel that maneuver penalties are more than appropriate. I also feel that each vehicle ought to have a maximum possible performancce limit in addition to the maneuverability adjustment.

After all, no matter how good the pilot/driver, a tractor trailer cannot keep pace with a Ferrari on a twiisty mountain road.

The tractor, in this case might have a maximum possible maneuverability limit of, say, 15, while the Ferrari migjt top out at 40. Even if the roll is hogjer than the max, there is only so much that a vehicle is capable of, regarddless of the pilot/driver.

[CRMcNeill]

There is also terrain to consider. A tank may have the agility of a dead rhino, but it will crawl effortlessly over terrain that would stop a Ferrari dead (sand, mud, etc.)
_________________
"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

[garhkal]

[Naaman]

True, but the example I gave was just for illustrative purposes. A starfighter is capable of much more than a bulk freighter, regardless of the relative skill of the pilots.

If we want to incorporate terrain where appropriate (seems rare in SW, wheremost things fly/hover), then it can be GM's call or vehicles with special motivating equipment can have special rules which overcome particular typrles of terrain.

(Meant as a response to crmcniel's post).

[atgxtg]

I don;t see much advatage to the +2D/-2D scale. All you are really doning in lowering the maneuverability score, and it will cause new problems.

For instance, someone with a low skill flying a sluggish freighter 9-(-2D) is going to have problems with simple, basiv stuff, where realistically they shouldn't have problems unless they are doing something tricky. Most people can park a van.

Another thing is that realistically the more maneuverable vehicles tend to fail more spectacularly when then do blow a maneuver -because they are so maneuverable. It's much easier to "oversteer" in a turn in a Ferrarri than in a Volvo.



Star Warriors had a different way of handling maneuverability that might help here. In Star Warriors the difficulty for a maneuver varied for each ship based on how maneuverable it was. A A-Wing might be able to turn at +6 difficulty, an X-Wing +7, aY-Wing +8, and a YT-1300 at +10. The total maneuver difficulty for a round was the sum of all the difficulties for the maneuver attempted.

Some of the nice things about this approach is that:
1) Skill becomes more important, since the ship isn't giving a maneuver bonus.
2) It is still possible to do simple maneuver is a sluggish ship with low skill, but more complex maneuvers require more skill. A lot more skill (Han is still awesome in the Falcon, though. Even more awesome than in the RPG since he now actually needs that high skill to pull off the stuff he does).
3) it's not hard to work up the modifiers based on maneuverability without having to change any existing stats. All you have to do is assume the highest difficulty in a given range for a maneuver and then drop it by one per D in maneuverability. For maneuvers than have a ten point range of difficulty subtract 2 per D, and so on.
4) I already did did just that a long time ago and still have in one file somewhere.