1E Range Concept

CRMcNeill · Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:54 am Post subject: 1E Range Concept

When it comes to combat rules, there are times I feel a little bipolar. I waffle back and forth between wanting a complicated, realistic system and wanting a fast, simple system that gets the job done. In the past, I've suggested using a static range system, with varying Difficulty for individual weapons based on each weapon using the same ranges. For example, Medium Range would be the same for, say, both blaster rifles and blaster pistols, but pistols would be at a +10 Difficulty to hit at the range.

What I'm leaning toward at the moment is taking a page from the Mini-Six system, where individual vehicles have Speed Scales depending on which environment they operate in. This is then applied as a modifier to their Speed Code. The four Speed Scales are:

What I'm thinking of doing is Range Scaling, with five different Range types based on the type of combat, each broken down into five different range categories, all of which are then offset based on the same ratios from above.

The five Range Types will be:

Each Range Type will then be broken down into five Ranges:

The Range Type modifiers then tell you how the Range Types overlap. For instance, say a character with a Personal Weapon attempts to attack a speeder equipped with Vehicle Weapons. Applying the +2 modifier for Vehicle Weapons means that combat is possible between shooters of differing Range Classes, but that the Difficulty shifts when the modifier is applied:

Personal Weapons vs. Vehicle Weapons

Weapons, then, rather than having differing Metric distances for the different ranges (as in 2E), would be limited much like how proton torpedoes are limited in 1E (can only fire at Short Range).

For instance, a Holdout Blaster, rather than having a Range of 2-4/8/12, would have a Range of Point Blank / Short (+10), with the (+10) representing the added Difficulty of hitting a target in that Range.

In addition, certain weapons (like sniper rifles or other precision weapons) will operate in higher Range Types while still inflicting Character-Scale damage, so a Sniper Rifle's Range would read like so:

It's a little disjointed at the moment, but lately I'm finding myself more and more disillusioned with aspects of the 2E system, and I think a static range rule system is a better fit for 1E than 2E.

Just me rambling, but if anyone is interested in pursuing this with me, I'd appreciate your input...
_________________
"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 · Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:01 am Post subject:

A big part of this is going to be generating ranges and modifiers for a list of generic, common weapon types, like those listed in the WEG Core Rulebooks:

A range list for these weapons should provide a sufficient baseline to modify other weapons accordingly.
_________________
"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

TauntaunScout · Line Captain Joined: 20 Apr 2015 Posts: 981

I'm confused. Which side of your combat rule bi-polanerosityness scale is this supposed to be on? Are you making simple or complex rules?

CRMcNeill · Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:25 am Post subject:

Naaman · Vice Admiral Joined: 29 Jul 2011 Posts: 3190

This is good. Though, it may be worth considering that all ground combat should happen on the same scale category: some weapons are character scale in terms of their portability, but speeder (or even walker or starfighter) scale in terms of their targeting capabilities and/or damage.

CRMcNeill · Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:21 pm Post subject:

Whill · Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:28 am Post subject:

So will this still involve static ranges?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage

CRMcNeill · Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:38 am Post subject:

Whill · Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:16 pm Post subject:

Naaman · Vice Admiral Joined: 29 Jul 2011 Posts: 3190

Not sure whether CRM feels this way, but I PREFER to have weapons fit into categories for a few reasons, even at the expense of deviation from canon:

1) Character concept - the character who makes an informed decision to take a carbine over a rifle is choosing to give something up to get something. I see static ranges (and bonus/difficulty modifiers) as the SIMPLEST way to achieve this. Bonuses or penalties (instead of difficulty modifiers) also eliminates the problem of substituting a dodge roll for the range difficulty: a hard shot is still a hard shot (penalized) regardless of how the target's dodge roll turns out.

2) Consistency. Players can easily understand that some weapons are BETTER in some cases even if they are generally inferior. Within 2m, a pistol becomes way more handy than a rifle, even though it is weaker (I give pistols a bonus up close, while rifles get a penalty; conversely, most pistols automatically "miss" at medium range or farther). Players choose between having specialized weaponry (submachine guns or designated marksman rifles, for example, or more general purpose weaponry such as a carbine and pistol or a battle rifle or whatever). The combination of weapons chosen becomes more deliberate depending on how the player wants to fight.

3) Simplicity: why keep separate info for what each individual weapon does at each of it's own range increments? If we know that short barreled rifles pack the power of a rifle but give up range for faster handling in close quarters, we get a tangible trade-off that actually results in an informed choice, versus the player/gm having to check the weapon's stats every time a fight starts.

The system I use disregards the specific weapons in the RAW and instead uses generic types (playgroups can add more variety by creating specific models within each type). A rifle is a rifle, a hold-out is a hold out, etc.

Of course, Whill, you've already seen what I'm talking about, so you know that I favor "what makes sense to me" over RAW or even canon to some extent.

Bren · Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:56 pm Post subject:

I feel like I get the desired trade offs between weapons with the existing individual weapon stats. Though I will admit I tweak some weapons to mitigate the tendency in later supplements to invent killer weapons e.g. 6D damage heavy blaster pistols with the same range and number of shots as an ordinary heavy blaster pistol.

CRMcNeill · Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:15 am Post subject:

Naaman · Vice Admiral Joined: 29 Jul 2011 Posts: 3190

CRMcNeill · Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 11:45 pm Post subject:

A thought on this...

1E hardly deals at all with increasing or decreasing range, such as in the case of chases/pursuits, charging/fleeing an enemy, etc. 2E largely dealt with this problem by the use of Move values, which gave hard numbers for exactly how many meters/SUs a character or vehicle could cover in a particular round. If one were to track the relative speeds of two craft involved in a chase, one could generate a specific value w/r/t the distance between the two, and thus determine the range for weapons. However, the 1E rules simply compared Speed Code results, with the higher roll moving one Range Bracket closer or further away. The problem comes in that, under the 2E/R&E Range rules, Range Brackets increased in size the greater the distance became.

I'd like to incorporate that aspect into this proposed range system somehow. In broad terms, what I'm looking for is some sort of graduated system, whereby the "winner" of the Speed Contest must clear a bar that gets consecutively higher as range increases. For instance, if a chase is occuring at Point Blank Range, and the character being chased wins, the range increases to Short Range. However, to increase from Short to Medium, the character now must not simply beat his pursuer's Speed Code roll, but must do so by 10 points. If the character wins by less than 10, the Range stays at Short, but must now only beat his pursuer by 5 points. Then once, the runner beats his pursuer, the Range increases to Medium, at which point the bar for success is +20.

This is just a rough draft of the idea at the moment, but I think it shows the direction I'm leaning well enough. 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

Chaosmeister · Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2020 5:20 pm Post subject:

I am not sure what you are gaining besides mode "simulation" in the game by going this route and don't quite grasp why it would be harder to loose someone in a chase the further you are way from them. At first glance this is complicated and counterintuitive to me as a fresling to this system.
_________________
Teamwork is essential, it gives them someone else to shoot at!

	The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> First Edition and IAG	All times are GMT - 4 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 1 of 5