Deckplans - are they worth it ?
- Thread starter Gee4orce
- Start date
I think the question is really "do people want something to show them the general layout of the ship (i.e. a schematic)", or "do people want something to show them the exact layout of the ship to scale with miniatures so they can do tactical gaming on them (i.e. a deckplan)".
My feeling is that starships aren't dungeons. Schematics work perfectly well for showing the layout, but I seriously doubt that a lot of people actually use deckplans for miniatures combat. And you really don't need to say "what's my speed? 5 squares? Damn, I'll never make it to the toilet within one round!".
My feeling is that starships aren't dungeons. Schematics work perfectly well for showing the layout, but I seriously doubt that a lot of people actually use deckplans for miniatures combat. And you really don't need to say "what's my speed? 5 squares? Damn, I'll never make it to the toilet within one round!".
Schematics would work well for me, in most cases.EDG said:
The architect in me really likes seeing the deckplans, though - even if I never will set a single miniature upon them.
I think MrUkpyr is right - the readability of some of those deckplans is worse than no deckplans at all. I'd honestly rather the unreadable ones were left out of the books, and made available as extra cost PDFs - ideally in 15mm and 25mm squares.
Dave Chase
Mongoose
In response to your question EDG, I think it depends on the players and GM. I like having deckplans in both schematic and detailed. Some players need a little push into imagination and some need a hand to lead them.
Squares, hexes and the like can be just as annoying as they are helpful. I prefer no marks on my deckplans as long as there is a scale guide. But that depends on how much you are going to use actual distance.
I like players to place a chip/figure where they are during the game (in a space ship.) it helps remind them that they don't hear/see everything that antoher player says/does. It also helps when something does happen, because it gives them things they have to do or get to during the situation.
Back to why also like both schematic and detailed drawings. As players grow with their ship or they decide they want another ship they can shop around and see what they like. Then if they don't find just the ship they want, they can add/draw it to a schematic version of the ship to customize it.
Just my opinion
Dave Chase
Squares, hexes and the like can be just as annoying as they are helpful. I prefer no marks on my deckplans as long as there is a scale guide. But that depends on how much you are going to use actual distance.
I like players to place a chip/figure where they are during the game (in a space ship.) it helps remind them that they don't hear/see everything that antoher player says/does. It also helps when something does happen, because it gives them things they have to do or get to during the situation.
Back to why also like both schematic and detailed drawings. As players grow with their ship or they decide they want another ship they can shop around and see what they like. Then if they don't find just the ship they want, they can add/draw it to a schematic version of the ship to customize it.
Just my opinion
Dave Chase
EDG said:..... the layout, but I seriously doubt that a lot of people actually use deckplans for miniatures combat. And you really don't need to say "what's my speed? 5 squares? Damn, I'll never make it to the toilet within one round!".
Having a set of deckplans that show important equipment is a good thing if you play a tactical game along the lines of Azhanti High Lightning or Snapshot.
Perhaps if there were a good set of tactical rules in print, then maybe people would use deckplans with miniatures more often to settle boarding actions.
maybe wargames are just not in vogue anymore.....
fireyphoenix22
Banded Mongoose
On RPG.COM they have a group called "D.B.Game Design"
they have two products w/ deckplans, now they also have the deckplans available in 1" grid form for printing out a large scale plan.
now i'm happy with the deckplans as they are printed in the books,
the only exception would be the really big ships in high guard, those are
very hard to see let alone read.
As for starships, i like full view art (ie) top, bottom, side and end shots as well as a slice down the center line.
Schematics might be a better alternative than deckplans for capital ships.
plans with a medium detail are sufficient .
they have two products w/ deckplans, now they also have the deckplans available in 1" grid form for printing out a large scale plan.
now i'm happy with the deckplans as they are printed in the books,
the only exception would be the really big ships in high guard, those are
very hard to see let alone read.
As for starships, i like full view art (ie) top, bottom, side and end shots as well as a slice down the center line.
Schematics might be a better alternative than deckplans for capital ships.
plans with a medium detail are sufficient .
C. Chapman
Mongoose
I'm in the camp of enjoying deckplans, but I also agree that they really should only be done for ships the PCs are likely to own, with larger ships being considered on a case-by-case basis. I don't use or game with minis or tokens of any kind, but it's still cool to see a decent deckplan and get a nice solid grasp of the interior of a given ship. The approach used by JC sounds nice.
I also agree that having deckplans for a lot of the larger ships is not only pointless, but has been a problem; the larger ship deckplans would consume too much book space if presented larger, but presented as small as they are they are pretty illegible and therefore next to useless anyway. That makes them wasted space anyway. These clear restrictions are an extra reason for why deckplans should be generally limited to those of the smaller ships PCs are likely to be using.
So, I'd certainly urge Mongoose to adopt a stance that concentrates on the smaller ships in terms of producing deckplans, freeing up space for extra material, or possibly (though this is less likely) freeing up some resources so that the deckplans actually being produced are better done.
Colin
I also agree that having deckplans for a lot of the larger ships is not only pointless, but has been a problem; the larger ship deckplans would consume too much book space if presented larger, but presented as small as they are they are pretty illegible and therefore next to useless anyway. That makes them wasted space anyway. These clear restrictions are an extra reason for why deckplans should be generally limited to those of the smaller ships PCs are likely to be using.
So, I'd certainly urge Mongoose to adopt a stance that concentrates on the smaller ships in terms of producing deckplans, freeing up space for extra material, or possibly (though this is less likely) freeing up some resources so that the deckplans actually being produced are better done.
Colin
Honestly, I'd be happy with some really good/better shots of the outside of ships and if need be just general layout (schematics) of the interior (maybe if the ship is kind of confusing from outside).
Although I have only been playing Traveller for a month now, I do not foresee scaled floorplans of ships (that often aren't even really to scale and seem to have a lot of leeway as is) as being anything I require in the future of the game.
Although I have only been playing Traveller for a month now, I do not foresee scaled floorplans of ships (that often aren't even really to scale and seem to have a lot of leeway as is) as being anything I require in the future of the game.
kafka
Mongoose
EDG said:
As I take the Age of Sail quite seriously...one game out of five will involve some sort of boarding action. But, as I said earlier, I would be quite happy if these were separate products after Scout (afterall that one is done) and focus more upon the interior look of different ships.
I love usable floorplans of the ships.
Honestly, I'd only expect the ships players will probably be on a lot for complete plans.
Capital ships would only need segments. (corridor B, barracks, cargo bay, etc).
The reasons are easy.
First, the players are probably going to spend a lot of time on their ship.
They may even invade someone elses ship.
And what GM isn't going to occasionally have action pop up where the players least want it, their own ship... (even if it's nothing more than trying to catch the furry little stowaway that just ran off with something the players need badly...)
I don't care if the floorplans are scaled for miniatures, or if I can print them at a large enough size for that. (I hate drawing these things out by hand.)
Honestly, I'd only expect the ships players will probably be on a lot for complete plans.
Capital ships would only need segments. (corridor B, barracks, cargo bay, etc).
The reasons are easy.
First, the players are probably going to spend a lot of time on their ship.
They may even invade someone elses ship.
And what GM isn't going to occasionally have action pop up where the players least want it, their own ship... (even if it's nothing more than trying to catch the furry little stowaway that just ran off with something the players need badly...)
I don't care if the floorplans are scaled for miniatures, or if I can print them at a large enough size for that. (I hate drawing these things out by hand.)
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
In my games, deckplans are used, and frequently. I'm sure that they are completely unecessary in a highly narrationalist style of play, but then again so would schematics and miniatures, and the ship stats. Saying "Starships aren't dungeons" is correct as far as it goes, but rather misses the point. Dungeons are, by their nature very limited in what kind of adventures one can have, and thus tend toward very stereotyped gaming situations. Starships are different when one gets out of the "dungeon map = dungeon crawl" mindset.
For everyday use (such as going to the bathroom), and narrative parts a schematic, or even a vague drawing is fine. But, for the adventure bits, there's a lot more that can use a deckplan than just a minis Game. generally, they are situations where movement has to be optimized and traded off against time.
Examples of which have all happened in a two year game and used deckplans are: "Search the abandoned ship", "Find the bomb before it goes off", "Kill the infestations of alien vaccume resistant crawdads before they get into everything", "clear the captured ship", "rescue the hostages" , "rescue the survivors", "rescue the survivors in the middle of a firefight", "escape from the brig and seize the ship silently without shooting", damage control in a space fight", damage control in a catistrophic accident, "pilfer the ship in the next slip while in port"; and of course, the ever famous "board them,kill them, and steal their silverware, arrrrr."
And oh, yes, we have also run miniatures games in them; and keeping the more wargamy bunch of traveller players interested can't be a bad thing in terms of extending sales. So just writing that aspect off seems a bit shortsighted, and I'm glad mongoose hasn;t done that. I know that its somtheing that seems to have ots of local variance, but there do seem to be lots of people 'round here who like minigaming and traveller and do it often -like say at the next con, Gypsycomet ?
For everyday use (such as going to the bathroom), and narrative parts a schematic, or even a vague drawing is fine. But, for the adventure bits, there's a lot more that can use a deckplan than just a minis Game. generally, they are situations where movement has to be optimized and traded off against time.
Examples of which have all happened in a two year game and used deckplans are: "Search the abandoned ship", "Find the bomb before it goes off", "Kill the infestations of alien vaccume resistant crawdads before they get into everything", "clear the captured ship", "rescue the hostages" , "rescue the survivors", "rescue the survivors in the middle of a firefight", "escape from the brig and seize the ship silently without shooting", damage control in a space fight", damage control in a catistrophic accident, "pilfer the ship in the next slip while in port"; and of course, the ever famous "board them,kill them, and steal their silverware, arrrrr."
And oh, yes, we have also run miniatures games in them; and keeping the more wargamy bunch of traveller players interested can't be a bad thing in terms of extending sales. So just writing that aspect off seems a bit shortsighted, and I'm glad mongoose hasn;t done that. I know that its somtheing that seems to have ots of local variance, but there do seem to be lots of people 'round here who like minigaming and traveller and do it often -like say at the next con, Gypsycomet ?
captainjack23 said:
Troll!!
I can't say I agree, dungeons are no more limited than starships, it's all about the creativity of the GM - taking "dungeon" in its common, wider RPG usage as a controlled internal space in which encouters take place, as opposed to "wilderness" which is an uncontrolled external space (by which definition, starships are indeed dungeons).Can't say I disagree with your substantive points, but then agreement is so dull 8)
GypsyComet
Emperor Mongoose
zzzzz zzzzzzzz ZZZZZZ.snurk wha.. WHAT!? Oh. Right. Yes. Next con.. zzzzzz
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
phild said:captainjack23 said:
Troll!!
Well, yes.
Forgive me for speaking ill of dungeons, our shared common cultural heritage and I'm not being (overly) facetious, either. You are right, it is about how the GM uses it, and what kind of style the game is run in, and the mindset of the players. So, okay, how bout substituting this: "Comparing spaceships to dungeons misses the potentially subtle and nuanced play possible to a creative GM in a dungeon; all of which is available in a spaceship setting, as well" ...and then read the rest of the paragraph ?
Am I still a Troll ? If so, can I regenerate ? cause at my age, I'll put up with being green, warty and having a giant nose if I can regenerate.
but so much better on the digestion. :wink:
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
GypsyComet said:
Ladies and gentlemen, the traveller target audience !
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
phild said:
And what the hell; its not like I'm not already vulnerable to fire and acid, so what's the downside ?
Personally, I'd like less of the huge detailed deckplans, which are unclear when shrunk to the size displayed in the High Guard book. A simple schematic deckplan of where the various functional areas are on the ship (i.e. Bridge, Engineering, Crew Quarters), possibly colour coded if the book will be printed in colour. Similar in a way to the Babylon 5 station guide diagrams. A few more detailed insets of "this is the bridge", "this is a standard crew cabin", "this is an officer cabin" might add some detail to important areas or areas that may be used by characters.
Similar threads
