Minimum Skill Level Required?

[CRMcNeill]

It has come up in a couple different topics that, because of the way the Maneuverability + Mechanical rule is set up, certain high performance ships are so pilot friendly that even a character with a minimal Mech attribute could hop into a cockpit and have a reasonable chance of succeeding at Piloting.

This is both completely ridiculous and perfectly acceptable under the RAW.

If this were to come up in a campaign, I would think that a large share of the blame would fall on the GM, as it is perfectly within the GM's power to look a rule's lawyer in the eye and say "Just because the RAW says your Ewok with his 1D+1 Mechanical can climb into the seat of an A-Wing and know enough to fly it does not mean I am going to allow it."

That being said, I always prefer it when I have a rule to fall back on. In this case, I would suggest requiring a minimum training level. For starfighters, it could be as simple as requiring a minimum 4D in either the Piloting skill or the Mechanical Attribute to be able to fly the ship. There are likely other skills to which this could be applied, as well.

Thoughts?
_________________
"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

[Ankhanu]

The beauty of D6 is that a rule isn't required... the GM can impose all kinds of modifiers to the difficulty to make things work the way the story needs. That said, I do recognize the comfort of a black and white rule.

I think that sort of cap makes sense, to a degree. I see no reason why your 1D+1 Ewok couldn't attempt to fly that A-Wing... but I also see no reason why it shouldn't crash within seconds
Minimum levels of training do make sense, though having a flat 4D seems a little high to me. I know 4D isn't much for a character, but don't forget what die codes represent in terms of training (see the chart in the main rulebook). 4D would make sense for certain swoops and arcane starfighters, but seems somewhat high for many, many other vehicles. The minimum should be based on how user friendly the vessel is.

I mean, look at the X-Wing versus the B-Wing or TIE Interceptor. Fluff wise, the X-Wing is a much easier ship to fly than the other two; if you have experience with a T-16, a common speeder, you already know the controls. This is somewhat reflected in the manoeuvreability codes, with the X at 3D and the B at 1D+1... but the TIE is comparable to the X-Wing at 3D+2. It would make some sense that the X-Wing might require a minimum of 3D, while the B-Wing and TIE Interceptor might require 4D, or maybe more (particularly for the B-Wing).

I don't think not meeting the minimum should mean that a player couldn't attempt to pilot the ships, but the attempt should come with a negative modifier to the attempt. Again, how big that modifier is should maybe be related to the ship, rather than a flat number. Failing to meet the minimum skill to pilot a Skipray might impose a higher penalty than failing to meet the minimum for a Y-Wing, for example.
_________________
Hotaru no Hishou; a messageboard about games, friends and nothing at all.

Donate to Ankhanu Press

[CRMcNeill]

[Ankhanu]

[atgxtg]

Well, we could cap the maneuverability dice to the pilot's die code. That would solve the Ewok in an A-Wing problem , without requiring a min. skill level.

[CRMcNeill]

[garhkal]

[atgxtg]

The funny thing is, high maneuverability is actually bad for low skill. Most trainers are designed to be more forgiving and less maneuverable that the actual combat vehicle.

I'd suspect that an Ewok with 1D+1 MEC would probably oversteer an A-wing and try to snap the nose around too quickly for his own good. In my last campaign I had some of new players, and they would typically wait too long to make their turns and then try to do 90+ degree turns at the last second. In one battle they came very close to kissing the sides of a bulk freighter at least 4 times.

I could see allowing someone to keep all the maneuverability but applying the overage to any mishap roll, too. But, hey, this is Star Wars, where a cutting edge, next generation starfighter has the controls and handling of a civilian airspeeder.

[CRMcNeill]

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I want to keep the "amusing mishap" effect, too. I mean, look at the Ewok who stole the speeder bike on Endor. He put the bike into a spin at one point, and then at another he almost fell off. I picture an Ewok in the cockpit of an unfamiliar starfighter messing with switches, and suddenly the landing gear retracts or the repulsorlifts engage and slowly start spinning the ship in an uncontrolled circle while drifting around the hangar bay. Possibilities are endless.
_________________
"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

[CRMcNeill]

It might also work to give starfighters an increased Base Difficulty to fly them, maybe something based on Speed and Maneuverability, representing how touchy high performance craft can be. Pilots with high skill levels won't be overly bothered by it, but low-end pilots or non-pilots will be far more likely to fail at it...
_________________
"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

[Bobmalooga]

I can understand why this conversation is happening, but it just seems to me that simpler way to do this would be if the character doesn't have the skill they simply can't do it by virtue of ignorance and inability to preform the necessary tasks to do said feat.

There is a difference between Starfighter piloting and Starship piloting and while planes are similar in design to one another, if I had a license to pilot a Cessna I reasonably couldn't be expected to fly an f-15.

I know that is perhaps an oversimplification of what you're going for, and I don't know any of you outside of this message board, but it seems like this would only succeed in bogging down what is supposed to be a fast-paced and action oriented game. The amusing mishap thing is a good direction to go in as it fits the tone of the movies...Especially with the Ewok ridding off on a speederbike or at least trying to...
_________________
No matter where you go, there you are...

[CRMcNeill]

You're right, and that's part of the reason I proposed this in the first place. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's perspective) we don't play in a realistic universe. We know from the films and EU that a character with low skill level can potentially climb into the pilot's seat of a ship he doesn't have the skill for and somehow manage to make it do what he wants it to do. Realistic? Of course not. But there it is.
_________________
"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]

[DougRed4]

Yeah, I'm okay with anyone being able to do just about anything. Of course there's still Advanced skills that can't be done by just anyone.

You're absolutely right that it's not realistic, but I find that it fits the space opera genre.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green

[Whill]