[House Rule] armour adjustments by dton range
- Thread starter F33D
- Start date
A
Anonymous
Guest
Absolutely, can I get a moderator please?
ShawnDriscoll
Cosmic Mongoose
I can imagine how "F33D" bullies his players at the table. Or maybe he just doesn't have any real social skills while on the Internet?
F33D said:
The reason I asked was because it seems you are looking to correct some of the oddities of armor factoring in the game, but there still seems to be some gaps.
In our world today, as you get heavier armor plating you have to add additional structural reinforcements underneath. With a greater armor factor able to shrug off stronger hits, the underlying structure needs to be increased too. Some of that could be potentially sidestepped by taking into account different materials, but the rules really don't go into that level of detail (which isn't necessarily a bad thing)
ShawnDriscoll
Cosmic Mongoose
Even GURPS doesn't bother with all that.Ishmael said:
phavoc said:
The rules are right to simplify it, it is it's own sub-field of engineering: http://www.indeed.com/q-Armor-Engineer-jobs.html Real world it would start with structure, then shape, material density, material thickness, and on to stuff ad infinitum. Ultimately ending in a hand-wave anyways.
ShawnDriscoll
Cosmic Mongoose
dragoner said:
Load stresses are always hand-waved. Just like fatigue and endurance and bullet count and bullet path tracking for all missed shots. Except for Bingo-style players, and computer apps.
dragoner said:
I've always thought that armor needs to reference both the type of armor as well as the size of the ship. A 100ton ship shouldn't be able to get say factor 8 armor like a heavy cruiser could. It's worse when you get into the smaller ships and stuff like that.
I agree that simple is good, I just think the calculations, as they stand at least, leave something to be desired.
phavoc said:
Sure, because complexity comes at the cost of playability, and Traveller already gets the tag of being too complex, mongoose brings it right to the edge, but adds a lot of player interactions that make space combat better. The players in the game I'm ref of often look for combat, which is a good thing, I don't mind it.
Armor is sort of hand-wave, big ships are size limited by having only one spinal, which is just one big bay; the square-cube law mentioned, future materials and designs make some theoretical upper limit a hand-wave. Any changes can add cascade effects in the rules. At some point it would probably be easier to sit down and look at the spec.'s & req.'s and design a whole new system. It would be sad to lose all the legacy designs though.
Monster capital ships with armor hundreds of meters thick, an array of spinals, would be cool, though not adventure class. Maybe de-limit some rules and see what one could come up with?
A
Anonymous
Guest
dragoner said:
As a self confessed gear head I am comfortable with more detail, actually, I prefer more detail. But I don't want to spend all day writing up a ship, that's why I have spreadsheets to do the work for me. If only FFE/Mongoose would catch up with the 21st century and license software to do this stuff for us it'd be a great day for the rules and take away the perception of complexity and archaic pen, paper and calculator designs. I'm with Phavoc, a little more detail and fewer flaws in the same design sequence that can be used for vehicles from 1dT to 10000dT would be most awesome.
dragoner said:
As a role player and not a war gamer, I really don't have a need for ships like this. I'm also a small ship universe/2300 kinda player and I'd rather the adventure class design sequence went to 10000 dT. I can see players on board a 10000 dT freighter or liner but on a dreadnaught? Not really.
hiro said:
Details in the rules? Or details you can come up with in the context of the game?
Such are the barriers erected by the EU, fundamentally it wouldn't be wise for FFE to sign away the digital rights to Traveller, we could potentially lose resources like the Travellermap.
It would be easier to use, but less realistic: I'm not in favor of more complex hand-waves. Look at the real world with all the proprietary designs and processes. I'm more disturbed by the fact that starships are naturally armored behemoths with the 50:1 rule. An AFV would have a laser or plasma MA similar to a ship's turret, missiles too; yet they do 1/50th the damage.
They are spurious to me too, but I've used them for "dungeon crawls" by the players, plus as complement on a floating city (dreadnaughts) I could do, done it in fact. Anything above a 1000 tons is above player owning grade though, because then who runs all the NPC's needed to crew it? Small ships and freighters seem tougher than they would be, but look who is on them, the players.
A
Anonymous
Guest
dragoner said:
I like for the rules to be consistent, that way they're fair. I'd prefer more detail in the design sequences cos I think a little more thought can yield more consistency. In game I like detail to add to the immersion. I'm a visual person, if I can picture the gadget or ship or street or city or world, I get more out of the game. For me, the design sequences for gear, vehicles and ships helps that.
dragoner said:
OK, now I don't know the legal side of all this tho I am painfully aware of how digital rights have become the right to steal in some people's eyes, it would be good if FFE or Mongoose made some kind of statement about why they don't use software, maybe they have and I need to google it.
dragoner said:
Let's be clear (and I know we're on a similar page as we've discussed this before):
IT'S ALL HAND WAVES!!! There is no one way. We are all free to house rule our asses into the next century...
Going back to my first reply in this post, a consistent design sequence using the same basic rules for all kinds of vehicles from 1dT to 10000dT where armour values and weapon damage are not on a scale, where the numbers for these and other things (power plants/power output for example) are arrived at by the same process is what I'd like and what I am trying to write, hence me taking an interest in this thread. Yes F33D, I am using FF&S's method for armour as a starting point so that 1cm of armour at X TL is the same whether you put it on a starship or a family saloon car and the volume of armour used changes with the surface area of the craft. It isn't that complicated once you do the numbers behind the scenes on a spreadsheet.
dragoner said:
I might put players on a 10000dT liner as passengers
In general I forgo the Traveller tradition of the PCs being the crew of a starship they own, they couldn't get the bank to give them the mortgage... it also lets them create characters with skills better applied to gaming than running a ship.
To sidetrack a little and in case Mr Driscoll is reading still, I get that you play it differently, that you hand wave everything and don't rely on what's written to play. My preference is to have it written to create consistency and a shared, "consensual hallucination"
hiro said:
I'm more of a scavenger of what's out there, but I also have done designs from the beginning, though at this point I'm a bit fatigued in as much "not another design system".
Most recent design I did - Vehicle: Custom Aerodyne Cycle
TL: 8
Skill: Flyer (Rotor)
Speed: 300kph
Range: 450km
Crew/Passengers: 1+1
Cargo: 0
Open: Open
Armor: 0
Hull: 1
Structure: 1
Agility: +2
Shipping Size: 2
Cost: Cr.60,000
On the fly, it was pretty easy.
I don't totally know either, but it seems to be the origin rights holder, as FFE allows it for everything but mongoose? Maybe GURPS too. But the EU, esp Germany, can be super picky about IP.
http://eaglestone.pocketempires.com/ & http://heldenhaufen.de/T5/ new for T5 plus a ton of legacy stuff like Andrea Vallance's HGS and Heaven and Earth (which is god-like and that I still use).
True, and yes we have.
Though I'm just leery because as shown on the list I showed you, Traveller is already on the 'hard sci-fi' list, something that turns off a lot of rpg players, it is the big dog of the list though, thankfully. People are playing it.
Isn't there a spread sheet out there for FF&S? I know there is a TNE yahoo group, they might have it.
I find players like to have a ship, the only NPC right now is the astrogator, which incidentally was my position as a player in the Pirates of Drinax campaign I was a player in. They don't necessarily have to own it though. I'm not a big fan of the Free Trader campaign; Mercs, Scouts, or whatever, come up with a reason for the players to have a ship and go. Their motivations for why they are there and what they are doing, they have to come up with themselves; I'm pretty sandboxy.
A
Anonymous
Guest
There are not enough aerodynes in Traveller! But when that aerodyne is shot at by a chick with an ACR and a TS in a starship the rules to engage and damage should be the same!
I think the rules can be split in two. In the basic set you give the GM and players a good assortment of ships, vehicles and equipment, everything you need to just get on and play.
In the second, advanced set you give people the tools to make more of the stuff you gave them in the basic set.
You do not need the advanced rules to play the game and everything in the basic set was created with the same tools that you can if you so choose, buy and use. You don't have to spend more money unless you want to design stuff. Everything is consistent no matter who designed it - the players, the gm, your auntie Ethel or the authors of the game.
With one set of rules to create consistent designs we pool our resources and all become scavengers and share stuff, open source, knowing that we can slot the gear into our game cos we use the same rule set.
It's obvious but has anyone actually executed it elegantly? Traveller has how many generations now and how compatible is each to the next? Not enough is my answer to that, I know others disagree!
Something that would keep the gear freaks like me happy and the role players like Shawn happy? Now Shawn might say he doesn't need it and I think he'd be right so maybe you can't make everyone happy!
hahaha
:mrgreen:
I think the rules can be split in two. In the basic set you give the GM and players a good assortment of ships, vehicles and equipment, everything you need to just get on and play.
In the second, advanced set you give people the tools to make more of the stuff you gave them in the basic set.
You do not need the advanced rules to play the game and everything in the basic set was created with the same tools that you can if you so choose, buy and use. You don't have to spend more money unless you want to design stuff. Everything is consistent no matter who designed it - the players, the gm, your auntie Ethel or the authors of the game.
With one set of rules to create consistent designs we pool our resources and all become scavengers and share stuff, open source, knowing that we can slot the gear into our game cos we use the same rule set.
It's obvious but has anyone actually executed it elegantly? Traveller has how many generations now and how compatible is each to the next? Not enough is my answer to that, I know others disagree!
Something that would keep the gear freaks like me happy and the role players like Shawn happy? Now Shawn might say he doesn't need it and I think he'd be right so maybe you can't make everyone happy!
hahaha
:mrgreen:
A
Anonymous
Guest
And yeah, DEATH to the Free Trader Campaign, its been done to death!
And yes, I hear ya on the "oh shit, not another design sequence/thread"
Now if someone had published one that worked for most...
Or is it just the holy grail and can't ever exist?
And yes, I hear ya on the "oh shit, not another design sequence/thread"
Now if someone had published one that worked for most...
Or is it just the holy grail and can't ever exist?
As a ref, Free Trader usually means they get an NPC (me) to do the accounting, bleh. Right now, the players have a secret mission: Find lost Zho prototype ship for big bonus, and cover mission: Wander about and blow stuff up. Seems to work.
It might be the holy grail to find a design system that satisfies everyone. The tyranny of the majority would be CT and then Mong, by users. Mong's rules are all in the SRD afaik, which is cool. I post my designs here and there, people are free to use them, I know I use other's designs too.
It might be the holy grail to find a design system that satisfies everyone. The tyranny of the majority would be CT and then Mong, by users. Mong's rules are all in the SRD afaik, which is cool. I post my designs here and there, people are free to use them, I know I use other's designs too.