| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2022 9:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | CRMcNeill wrote: | A thought on the rule concept I posted here...
While I like the concept, I find myself more and more preferring house rules that resemble the RAW (or at least a familiar aspect of it) as much as possible. In this case, the RAW already has rules for Standard, Free and Non-Roll Actions. Carrying cargo above a certain amount could simply be treated as one of those three, depending on what they're carrying.
So, for instance, if a ship has a Cargo Capacity of 50 metric tons, carrying up to 50 tons would count as a Free Action; carrying between 50 and 100 metric tons would count as Non-Roll; carrying over 100 metric tons would count as a Standard Action, which would, in turn, stack as the weight increases.
Thoughts? |
So free action would mean no MAPs, non-roll action means a 1D MAP, and standard action means a separate piloting roll per standard action? If so, I like increasing difficulty modifiers better for a single piloting roll better, like how going a higher speed just makes it a harder piloting roll. Having multiple rolls is going backwards, like how movement was handled in Blue Vader. It was changed in R&E for a good reason. |
It could just be stacking Non-Roll Actions, so it's still only one roll, but with increasing penalties applied to the Standard Action of Piloting. |
You state your purpose for this is to "resemble" RAW, but the terminology you are using means different things in RAW than how you are using it. 'Stacking non-roll actions' is not a thing in RAW. By using "action" terminology, you are evoking MAPs, one form of penalty to characters in RAW. MAPs take dice off of the roll instead of increasing the difficulty number, the other RAW way of negatively modifying an action attempt. If this "action" terminology that you propose just translates to difficulty modifiers anyway, then it seems an unnecessary complication to rename the very direct and simple concept of 'difficulty modifiers,' which already is RAW. A series of difficulty modifiers is often incremental and displayed in charts in RAW.
You should call it whatever you want, but you asked for thoughts. If I have completely misunderstood your intention, please advise.
_________________
*
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: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2022 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | You state your purpose for this is to "resemble" RAW, but the terminology you are using means different things in RAW than how you are using it. |
I don't see it that way. Carrying something is an action; I'm proposing to link the "degree" of the action to the weight being carried. The more you carry, the more it affects your ability to perform other tasks.
| Quote: | | 'Stacking non-roll actions' is not a thing in RAW. |
But there is nothing in the RAW prohibiting it, either. A character could, for example, reload a weapon while piloting a speeder at Cautious Speed in Easy Terrain (both listed as examples for No Roll Actions). Said actions would result in a -2D MAP, if said character were performing any other actions.
| Quote: | | By using "action" terminology, you are evoking MAPs, one form of penalty to characters in RAW. MAPs take dice off of the roll instead of increasing the difficulty number, the other RAW way of negatively modifying an action attempt. If this "action" terminology that you propose just translates to difficulty modifiers anyway, then it seems an unnecessary complication to rename the very direct and simple concept of 'difficulty modifiers,' which already is RAW. A series of difficulty modifiers is often incremental and displayed in charts in RAW. |
There is a method to my madness. I also want to write up rules for Graviton weapons (WH40K Crossover) that impede a target's speed and maneuverability by increasing its effective mass, which also mimics the effect of a character / vehicle being overloaded with too much weight. The easiest way I've found to weaponize it is to follow the pattern of Ion weapons, but instead of imposing D penalties based on degree of ionization, this would impose D penalties based on degree of weight (either effective or actual).
So, in the interest of creating a single unified rule for weight, it's simpler to apply D penalties, using existing methods that are already familiar to GMs and players.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2022 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am a bit late to respond, but where did this come from?
CRM:
| Quote: | | The problem there is that the baseline for ships in general (including warships and starfighters) is how they perform without being fully loaded with cargo |
Is that in the rules somewhere or just an assumption?
if it is in the rules - it is silly, but that is just me.
That and warships don't have cargo - the "cargo" their hull carries is their guns and armor, and the reactors to power them (no, the game designers didn't really think about those things) - a 55 ton m1 tank does not have 40 tons of cargo (it does have a few tons of ammo however...).
Even if we go to the extremes - a modern day aircraft (where they can't bulk up on extreme armor) - the range of an bomber loaded with bombs is the important number.
I mean, as a trucker you know that all the stats and regulations are not about how much weight or mileage the truck gets bobtailing - it is about loaded values (we used to joke that some carriers hired jockey's as drivers to lower the weight - pak worked in logistics and trucking for years).
I would assume it is loaded, but hey, that is just me.
This also seems like some really low level details - but hey, I make up detailed rules all the time - so yeah, what ever works.
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2022 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pakman wrote: | | Is that in the rules somewhere or just an assumption? |
On pg. 247 of 2R&E, under Starship Statistics, it reads thusly:Cargo Capacity: This indicates — either in metric tons or kilograms — the amount of cargo a ship can* carry. This refers to the cargo's mass only, not volume.
*emphasis mine. "Can" means to having the capacity to do something, even if it isn't doing it all the time.
| Quote: | | if it is in the rules - it is silly, but that is just me. |
The silliness is, IMO, in the rules themselves, in that while a ship may carry X amount of cargo, there is nothing in the rules for how it affects the ship's performance. This topic is an attempt to rectify that error.
| Quote: | | That and warships don't have cargo - the "cargo" their hull carries is their guns and armor, and the reactors to power them. |
Correct. This is why said ships have lower relative cargo capacities compared to dedicated cargo ships: because so much of the ship's volume is already dedicated to carrying and powering other things.
| Quote: | | I mean, as a trucker you know that all the stats and regulations are not about how much weight or mileage the truck gets bobtailing - it is about loaded values (we used to joke that some carriers hired jockey's as drivers to lower the weight - pak worked in logistics and trucking for years). |
Because game statistics aren't about mileage and legal compliance with weight restrictions; they're mainly about how the ship performs in combat. The Millennium Falcon, for instance, wasn't hauling any cargo apart from passengers in any of its space combat scenes. Thus, the default for game stats should be how it handles empty, with performance decreasing from there as the load it's carrying increases.
| Quote: | | This also seems like some really low level details - but hey, I make up detailed rules all the time - so yeah, what ever works. |
It is, and I'm not going to insist than anyone uses it if they don't like. It's more for a high-crunch campaign like Tramp Freighters, where ships are hauling cargo on a regular basis, and may have to deal with the consequences of running a ship while heavily loaded and having to take it into combat.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Dr. Bidlo
Commander
Joined: 24 Nov 2021
Posts: 440
Location: Arizona, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2022 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am just seeing this for the first time. I really Ike the simplicity and elegance of what was proposed, assuming 1 cubic meter for every 2 metric tons. I may very well have to fabricate a reason for my characters to try it out in their freighter-like ship... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1829
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2022 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not sure if it is mentioned here, but the listed cargo capacity, I am thiking this numner is a maximum number before any penalties.
I know it can feel like somone carrying a heavy load over a light or a medium, but these are machines.
I belive the stats actually indicate the ship maximum available speed, manuver at the fully loaded listed cargo carried, an acclamator, will carry the 16000 troops and the vehicles and the roughly 1100 tons of added supplies withough suffering in any speed or maneuver.
This to makes sense since most time used at least during the clone wars they were fully loaded when deployed, and was still know for the extreme speed.
this to me makes the cargos listed the "max" allowed to not suffer penalties, and any "over load" only will imo impact the stat at least in any significant way |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Bidlo
Commander
Joined: 24 Nov 2021
Posts: 440
Location: Arizona, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2022 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mamatried wrote: | Not sure if it is mentioned here, but the listed cargo capacity, I am thiking this numner is a maximum number before any penalties.
this to me makes the cargos listed the "max" allowed to not suffer penalties, and any "over load" only will imo impact the stat at least in any significant way |
Just to verify, this is your own thought, not something that was expressly stated in SW2E or any other version, correct? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1829
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2022 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Bidlo wrote: | | Mamatried wrote: | Not sure if it is mentioned here, but the listed cargo capacity, I am thiking this numner is a maximum number before any penalties.
this to me makes the cargos listed the "max" allowed to not suffer penalties, and any "over load" only will imo impact the stat at least in any significant way |
Just to verify, this is your own thought, not something that was expressly stated in SW2E or any other version, correct? |
yes, is my own take, it is not stated in any rule set as far as I know, I just find it to make the most sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
