New Scale System

[garhkal]

[LegendaryExGamer]

[LegendaryExGamer]

I'm not saying use my system. I'm saying think about it. That's all.

It's meant to be the an, in depth, enhancement of the core rules. Advancing everything to a more mature level. For us older gamers... most have eaten it up, and the rest... like the school teacher (I have no idea how he teaches the future of the world and would never want my kids in his class) who didn't realize that he could talk to his fellow peers in the room because his character was a Wookie and no one spoke Wookie (actually, he never asked, 3 people understood his language out of a group of 9).

SIX MONTHS LATER

He tells us "I am not enjoying the game because no one understands me"

3 people speak up "We all understand Wookie, one of us speaks it fluently"

I say... I almost want to embellish with a look of confusion and drool running down my face "Dude, we are all friends, why didn't you just talk to us?"

I'm 43, he's 43... West End Games would cringe in horror if they were still around to see how their "complex" gaming system of Dice and pips horrifies adults to this day!

[CRMcNeill]

[CRMcNeill]

[garhkal]

I was going to suggest that too.. As a Ship takes damage, apply the personal armor penalties to it..

However they will have to get modified, as it stands a suit of armor that is severely damaged is useless (and thus no longer protects)..

So maybe -1 pip to hull for light damage
-2 pips for heavy and -1d for severely damaged.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[LegendaryExGamer]

[LegendaryExGamer]

[CRMcNeill]

[Naaman]

I'm starting to feel that scale differences should be represented by targeting rules rather than by dice bonuses.

When attacking a larger scale target, the attacker should e required to select a hit location (such as an X-wing targetint a laser turret) and resolve damage to that portion of the larger target.

A character attacking a speeder would select the thruster or windshield, etc and resolve damage to the system in question. If trying to shoot the pilot, just add a small penalty for shooting through the glass (or give the pilot a bonus to soak or whatever).

When shooting at a smaller scale target, the fire control system should offset any dodge bonus gained by the target, but, some systems ould not apply below a certain scale. For example, a starfighter shooting at a person should not receive the benefits of fire control if firing its ship-to-ship weaponry. If it has air to ground weaponry, hen that system can be a different scale to start with (one that is appropriate for the intended target) but not applicable to certain other kinds of targets.

I don't have any write ups just yet, but give me some time to hash it out.

This would help to explain the difficulty of using a starfigjter scal weapon to hit a character scale (2-meter) target: the computer just can't do it.

[CRMcNeill]

There's something to be said for that. After all, during the starfighter attack on the Death Star, for example, the starfighters were obviously managing to inflict damage to specific portions of the Death Star's exterior without having to roll DS-Scale damage.

I'm not prepared to abandon my system in favor of this without some compelling reasoning, but there should at least be better methods of smaller craft targeting specific areas on a larger ship to inflict heavier damage.
_________________
"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

[LegendaryExGamer]

I think you guys are missing the point of the hull value system. The starfighters in the death star trench run did inflict damage by targeting precises locations. No singular starfighter could do significant damage to the Death Star itself. However, the gun batteries, and if you're a jedi, you might know where banks of fire control are under the skin of the object.

So, in a 24D scale difference, you're telling me that you think a Starfighter can affect a Death Star object? Not possible. I believe it's actually 24 from a Capital to a Death Star, and 30D difference between starfighters.

Thus, if you had enough fire power, enough ships and starfighters, in my system, you can tear apart a Death Star. It would take you a hellishly long time, but it's possible. It's been tested, and it works.

In a traditional D-CODE rules all system, well, it's just crippled. It's old thinking.

Take for Example an MC80 against an Imperial I. 4D or 5D guns against 7D Hull & 3D Shields. Same thing goes for the Imp I, 5D guns vs 6D hull and 3D shields, can't do anything.

Technically, unless you roll well a Tie Fighter cannot destroy an X-Wing, definitely not something like an E-Wing.

Also, Walkers posing a significant threat to capital ships is ridiculous.

I don't think in a linear path, I look at other mechanics that have existed across the genre that have worked and incorporated them into the game system. D6 has it's limitations and Starship Combat is one of them. It's an amazing game system for showing character growth, for dynamic combats and performing cinematic, multiple actions. However, there's never been any depth to starship operations. Other than a couple status modifiers and no real variance between damage codes. However, if you're taking quantifiable hull damage (couple hundred or thousand points of it), you know how screwed you are.

You can always target locations. If you haven't read the book I put up then you don't realize the theme that is pervasive throughout. I always say to feel free to change, to modify, to throw out and to just run the game however you want to.

Use my rules, great. Don't use them, that's fine too. However, they are an non-linear approach to an old, dead, game system that everyone was bored as hell with because nothing out there presented anything new, nothing out there truly challenges the core concepts of the game system. Nothing makes you think. Because D6 is too simple to be taken seriously.

We put together a modern overlay, a power gaming face lift perhaps. Because what I've seen here are a bunch of gamers locked in a cycle where people have been approaching me and telling me it's hard to get their Control, Sense or Alter to 5D... Can no one handle heroic gameplay? Or are the typical GM's just crippling their players to maintain control?

Roleplaying is for the gamers, not the Game Master. You cater to your audience, not the other way around.

[CRMcNeill]

[Naaman]

I tend to agree the idea that roleplaying is for the players. I have done away almost completely with the notion thatt rules-based game balance is even relevant to the enjoyment of the game.

Rather, let balance be achieved via situational variables. Let the players SKILL SELECTION (and other choices, such as equipment, etc) dictate balance, rather than the VOLUME of dice he's rolling.

As for the cinematic expression of dice roll results, if we are going down that path, why have mechanics in the first place? Jus let each player say, "I do this or that." And then let GM arbitrate the results according to what would make a" good story."

There is a certain satisfaction with making the roll that your entire batle plan hinges upon at the critical moment.

Power gaming? Not me. Though I am proba ly a min-maxer: its a mentality I apply to my whole life, incidentally, and I find it fun to "min-max" character skill and equipment combos... kinda like solving a puzzle that noone else ever knew existed.

[LegendaryExGamer]