| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dredwulf60 wrote: | | I have not figured you out. Yet. |
Here you go. Whill cut to the core of it a while back. | Whill wrote: | | He provided thoughts and justifications. These variants were obviously not created out of thin air. They were intended for practical use in the game, like everything he does. |
Key word being practical.
I re-write stats so that they include features that are mentioned in the fluff write-ups, yet are reflected nowhere in the game stats themselves.
I write up rules for things like gravity bombs so as to provide a framework for gamemasters who want to include such things in their games.
I base my revisions on in-universe evidence (or lack thereof, on occasion), with some personal preference thrown in for flavor.
I also try to incorporate existing rules wherever possible, as they will be more familiar, and thus more easily integrated.
I used to write up rules based on "that is how it works in the real world". Now I write up rules based on a mix of "that is how it works in the real world" and "that will not be so needlessly complicated as to drag the pace of a story down simply for the sake of tedious minutiae whose sole redeeming feature is 'it's realistic'."
When I wrote up rules for visual scanning for my ASC system, I tied them to the Mechanical attribute and Passive sensors, not line of sight out of a cockpit window. My reasoning was that Passive sensors already existed, and could readily be adapted to perform a visual scanning function that would work in the vastness of space, using the Electro-Photo Receptor system described in the SW Sourcebook.
On the other hand, writing up a Perception based system that provided bonuses for visual scanning based on the vagaries of ship design and what direction the pilot happened to be looking would require starting from scratch, be almost entirely subjective, tedious to generate, and ultimately result in a bonus/penalty spread of around 2D (-1D for a cockpit with a poor view, +1D for one with a good view).
I don't consider the Perception based system to be of sufficient value to the overall game to waste time writing it up.
I also don't consider slavishly copying real-world air combat maneuvers to be a valuable use of time unless one looks into the underlying reasons why those maneuvers exist in the first place. They have evolved over a hundred years of combat in a specific environment, where gravity pulls strongly in one direction and lift is almost entirely dependent on keeping air moving laterally across the fighter's wings. These factors are almost entirely absent in a universe where repulsorlifts can negate both the pull of gravity and the necessity of flowing air to maintain lift.
You are, in essence, citing a non-existent rule that you would have to invent from scratch solely to justify writing up rules for two separate versions of a Bootlegger's Turn, with the only difference being that one version goes "up" and the other goes "down". Far simpler and faster to have a single maneuver that does both.
And if the material I post nauseates you, feel free to stop reading.
_________________
"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 |
|
 |
Mojomoe
Commander
Joined: 10 Apr 2010
Posts: 442
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a mechanic for intimidation or showboating. How would people handle that?
For example, let's say your wingman was being pursued by an enemy fighter and you wanted to try to swing in behind your ally to goad the opponent into following you instead. What would you roll? Would it be con vs perception, intimidation vs willpower, starfighter tactics vs knowledge? Or simply an opposed piloting roll, counting on basic knowledge of piloting to tell the opponent pilot that he was being baited? I would think it would be something more than simple piloting, because you'd be in effect tricking/provoking the enemy pilot into making a dumb move, and the better trained they were the less likely they'd take the bait. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mojomoe wrote: | The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a mechanic for intimidation or showboating. How would people handle that?
For example, let's say your wingman was being pursued by an enemy fighter and you wanted to try to swing in behind your ally to goad the opponent into following you instead. What would you roll? Would it be con vs perception, intimidation vs willpower, starfighter tactics vs knowledge? Or simply an opposed piloting roll, counting on basic knowledge of piloting to tell the opponent pilot that he was being baited? I would think it would be something more than simple piloting, because you'd be in effect tricking/provoking the enemy pilot into making a dumb move, and the better trained they were the less likely they'd take the bait. |
I'd be inclined to Con v. Perception, but both rolls being capped at your Starfighter skill.
So, let's say Atton, with a 6D Con and a 4D Starfighter skill is trying to distract Carth, with a 4D perception and a 6D Starfighter. Atton would roll only 4D for his Con, because he's limited by trying to do this with a Starfighter. Carth would roll 4D for his perception... his greater Starfighter skill wouldn't apply.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you are going for realistic dogfighting, a show-off move to intimidate prior to the battle has no real historical basis. Pre-battle, maneuvers were usually deception oriented, with the intent of luring enemy fighters into a false deployment. The vast majority of air combat kills took place before the loser even knew he was being attacked. The closest historical basis for showboating moves occurred after the battle, and were more like a pilot putting his signature on what he had just done, so that everyone knew who had done it.
Chuck Yeager, for example, was known for doing a low level pass with a slow roll whenever he had just completed some improbable task (ref: The Right Stuff, by Tom Wolfe).
Ultimately, a true professional (which most fighter pilots are) wouldn't be put off by a showboat maneuver; if anything, they'd consider it an exploitable weakness (after all, a pilot performing a maneuver is dividing his attention between the enemy and the maneuver).
It's an interesting idea in theory, but it doesn't work well in application.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
