| 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: Tue Dec 03, 2024 8:20 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The rules for ion cannon inflicting multiple Controls Ionized results are printed on pg. 127 of the 2R&E Rulebook, and have been a part of the game for 30+ years. How have you never encountered this?
_________________
"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 |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2024 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
A thought on the optional rule...
After some consideration, it occurs to me that using a base Difficult Difficulty with 10-point steps puts usage of this rule pretty well out of range for most characters unless they spend a FP. Considering this sort of rule would be used mostly when a ship is already suffering at least 2D of ionization penalties, a PC would need a skill level of 7D or 8D to have a reasonable chance of success, and that before any MAPs are calculated.
So the question is, should I...1) Leave the rule as is, so it's the sort of heroic thing where a PC has to spend CP or a FP to pull this off, or...
2) Change the Difficulty to Moderate, with 5-point steps, and an additional failure step for failing by 10+ where the ionization actually goes up by 1D.
_________________
"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
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Mon Dec 09, 2024 8:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtanzer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 01 Mar 2023
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2024 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd drop the whole thing altogether. They're already going to be spending alot of CP's and FP's aren't something you want to drop an just anything, so this feels like an unnecessary system.
_________________
The best villians are the ones the PCs create. |
|
| 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: Sun Dec 08, 2024 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jtanzer wrote: | | I'd drop the whole thing altogether. They're already going to be spending alot of CP's and FP's aren't something you want to drop a just anything, so this feels like an unnecessary system. |
No.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
jtanzer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 01 Mar 2023
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2024 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem I'm having is that the base idea is dumb. The idea was the the vanes functioned similar to radiators (The Far Orbit Project pg 28) , however, no ship in SW (apart from the Nebulon-B) has been shown to need or have anything like it. As a result, if you want to convince me that this mechanic is a good idea, you're going to have to show me evidence that other ships in the SW universe have the same system. I'm not going to accept "a need for it", only that they have it or not.
Edit: I'm with garhkal one this one. It seems like an overcomplicated system that is searching for a problem to solve. As for having multiple systems ionized, that's fine. Those systems are damaged which is what ionizing radiation does. Once a system has been damaged by ionizing radiation, you can't drain it, the ionizing radiation is gone - it's already dissipated after dumping it's energy into whatever it hit.
_________________
The best villians are the ones the PCs create.
Last edited by jtanzer on Mon Dec 09, 2024 1:50 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| 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: Mon Dec 09, 2024 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you read the entire thread, you’ll see the evolution of the idea from Static Discharge Vanes being the only method by which Deionization occurs to being an augmentation / upgrade that can be fitted to any ship in addition to whatever system normally dissipates accumulated ionization. The current version holds that all ships are equipped with some form of deionization system, but ships equipped with Static Discharge Vanes are better at it. It’s also intended as a way for Tech-oriented characters to have greater utility in starship combat, alongside other house rules like damage control or auxiliary power.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10435
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2024 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
The rules... have been a part of the game for 30+ years. How have you never encountered this? |
Your citation of the rule in question could have been communicated without the 'shock' and the condescending "How do you not already know this?" sentiment. I could say the same thing about some of the many misunderstandings of RAW I encounter on this site with many users, but I don't.
He obviously didn't know or forgot about ion damage. Just matter-of-factly post the citation.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | jtanzer wrote: | | I'd drop the whole thing altogether... this feels like an unnecessary system. |
No. |
jtanzer, see how useful your comment was? There is a difference between passing on an idea because you don't find it useful, and telling others not to use their own idea. If you are not a player in his game, you have pod in that race.
| jtanzer wrote: | | The problem I'm having is that the base idea is dumb. |
Dumb? Really? Are we in third grade?
| jtanzer wrote: | | As a result, if you want to convince me that this mechanic is a good idea, you're going to have to show me evidence that other ships in the SW universe have the same system. I'm not going to accept "a need for it", only that they have it or not. |
jtanzer, you seem to be suffering from the delusion that the internet is just here for you. you think we just post everything for your approval or disapproval? He is not trying to convince you of anything. He did not create this Optional Rule for you specifically, and you are not the gatekeeper for what mechanics are a good idea to the rest of us. You are taking his posts way too personal.
There isn't a "need" for any of this. The way it works is we share things. Some may find them useful. Others may not. We each decide for ourselves.
"...if you vehemently oppose an idea and/or don't have anything to add to the discussion, please consider just moving on." If you have no need for something someone else shares, it is most certainly not the case that someone has to prove its need to you. You have the power to ignore any ideas you don't like. Just move on. You have been warned about this before.
Thank you.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtanzer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 01 Mar 2023
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2024 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
No. The fact of the matter is that the people who designed the Nebulon-B put those vanes on because they looked cool. Then completely unrelated people came along and techno-babbled an explanation, which not only failed to solve the original problem but also created a whole new set of problems while also mechanizing away the fantasy part of space fantasy.
_________________
The best villians are the ones the PCs create. |
|
| 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: Mon Dec 09, 2024 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
So don’t use my house rules. Problem solved.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10435
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2024 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | So don’t use my house rules. Problem solved. |
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
| jtanzer wrote: | | No. The fact of the matter is that the people who designed the Nebulon-B put those vanes on because they looked cool. Then completely unrelated people came along and techno-babbled an explanation, which not only failed to solve the original problem but also created a whole new set of problems while also mechanizing away the fantasy part of space fantasy. |
This post was immediately after mine and you did not quote any text, which makes it look like your, "No..." is in response to me. It's also in the forum guidelines to use the quote feature when not replying to the post directly above yours. Your post was three hours after mine so it was clearly there when you responded.
But I know you were replying "No" to CRM, which means your post completely ignored my post, which is much worse than not using quotes. As you have already been warned about this before this thread, this is now moving on to an official warning. Per forum guidelines, continue this behavior anywhere on the forum and and you will be banned. And do not reply in this thread again at all.
If you don't like an idea you definitely aren't going to use anyway, just move on! Other people using ideas you don't like has no effect on you.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| 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: Fri Dec 20, 2024 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, in accordance with what I posted here, I have adjusted the Optional Rule to a variation of the less restrictive second option. This gives sufficient breathing room for the addition of an even more punitive failure option whereby the ionization level actually increases if you roll low enough. However, while the basic Success level will remain at 0-5, subsequent Success Steps will use increments of 10. this allows for a bit of initial success, but puts major increases of effectiveness into Force/Character Point roll territory. Also, if this ends up still being too permissive for your campaign, feel free to increase the Difficulty.
EDIT: Also, since this is now about more than just static discharge vanes, I'm changing the thread title to Deionization.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
