CosmicGamer
Mongoose
Out of curiosity, for those that have the formulas memorized so that I don't have to look it up, could a 100t cylinder fit in a 160t square?Reynard said:
Rules clarifications for a new guy
- Thread starter Sevain
- Start date
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
I take it each ship must have deck plans so the players and/or referee can eyeball whether a vessel can fit inside another vessel? I notice a 100 to scout is actually small enough to fit with a square or two on each side while the pinnace and cutter are either too wide or too long to fit.
Design ships long and wide and you aren't going to have it captured that way.
Design ships long and wide and you aren't going to have it captured that way.
GypsyComet
Emperor Mongoose
CosmicGamer said:
The ratio needed is 4-to-pi (or 1.2733), or a little more (so you aren't scraping paint). If the bay's ratios are right, a 130 ton rectangular bay could just hold a no-protrusions 100-ton cylinder. It would not be a convenient bay for handling that cylinder, and a cylinder of the same volume but a different diameter would not fit, being either too wide or too long.
How do you balance characters that were very lucky in character creation with those that were unlucky?
One of my players always seems extremely lucky. In both of my (small) Traveller games his 3rd term characters ended with multiple ~12 stats and skill totals of 11 and 12. In a third naval game his character got into High Command as a Daredevil by age 38.
On the other hand one of my players is extermely unlucky. For my second game he created an Aslan who failed every survival roll, lost a total of 8 Endurance and all he got from character creation was a mountain of medical debt. Having failed so thoroughly in life, the character hung himself as his first action in the game. The replacement character managed to gather one benefit roll and a skill total of 6.
It seems a bit...unfair to pretend they are both equally competent when they clearly are not. On the other hand I would prefer not to arbitrarily hand out bonuses or penalties.
One of my players always seems extremely lucky. In both of my (small) Traveller games his 3rd term characters ended with multiple ~12 stats and skill totals of 11 and 12. In a third naval game his character got into High Command as a Daredevil by age 38.
On the other hand one of my players is extermely unlucky. For my second game he created an Aslan who failed every survival roll, lost a total of 8 Endurance and all he got from character creation was a mountain of medical debt. Having failed so thoroughly in life, the character hung himself as his first action in the game. The replacement character managed to gather one benefit roll and a skill total of 6.
It seems a bit...unfair to pretend they are both equally competent when they clearly are not. On the other hand I would prefer not to arbitrarily hand out bonuses or penalties.
IanBruntlett
Emperor Mongoose
Characters are generated with my help.
In general, if a player rolls any 1s or possibly 2s for a characteristic, I do one of two things:-
* Roll again. Until a better die roll is done.
* Overrule the dice and state that a higher roll will be recorded.
In general, if a player rolls any 1s or possibly 2s for a characteristic, I do one of two things:-
* Roll again. Until a better die roll is done.
* Overrule the dice and state that a higher roll will be recorded.
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
Most games, from cards, to board games, sports and so on, are competitive. People in general are competitive. This natural competitiveness sometimes comes out in RPGs too but in most games it should not be directed at other players. But people are people. Even if players don't actively have their characters conflicting with each other, there can be competition to "steal the scene". During chargen there can be competition to see "who gets the best part in the show" (best DMs or most skills). Some games seam to be players vs the GM.Sevain said:
It's understandable for various reasons that one may want to help "balance" things.
For real balance, each character has identical characteristics and skills. I don't think this is what people want.
Some people feel that players should be able to play what they are given no matter what it is and have fun with it. Just like actors, some players are more skilled playing certain roles. Just like actors that need not audition for or can quit a job if it doesn't suit them, players feel they shouldn't need to be forced to play a role they won't enjoy.
It is understandable that not everyone can, or wants to play every character they generate.
One may need a push to try something new. Playing a character with deficiencies which one is trepid about can turn into a very fun game for all with the so called unbalanced character being the "headliner" and most memorable.
One playing the naive, young, one term character and another playing their much older and experienced mentor.
Luke Skywalker and Obi Wan Kenobi.
Frodo the Hobbit wouldn't have looked like much on ones sheet at the end of chargen.
So I'll first point out some things built into the rules for "balance".
Using the simple skill learning system in the book allows the less skilled character to gain skills at a much faster rate to help "balance" things.
Another thing allowed via the rules is limiting terms to help keep "balance".
Along the lines of not needing to "balance" things artificially, I think once chargen is done the connection skills and skill package skills provides the "balance" some are looking for. It will not correct an imbalance in characteristics or total # of skills but it should help a character have at least one skill that they are superior at vs others. They could very well be the most important character in certain situations even saving everyone elses bacon.
You could let the person who seams to need it, have first pick in the skill package.
Using the point buy chargen system gives lots of "balance".
Need to consult with some rules lawyers, but I believe the following two don't "break" any rules.
Some GMs hand out pregen characters.
Personally I think it waists a lot of time and promotes less attachment and getting into character, but some people allow rolling up multiple characters and taking the one you like best.
Moving on to things that are more in the realm of house rules.
You have the suggestion of re rolling low values.
Roll 7 sets and keep 6. Roll 12 dice and pair them up any way you want. Lots of individuals have house rules for characteristics.
I recognize that a few poor rolls for characteristics has huge ramifications through chargen (qualifying, survival, advancement...) and throughout game play. So to help limit some bad luck, my personal policy is to allow one reroll if your characteristics are below average: If the total of STR DEX END INT EDU and SOC are less than 40 I will allow a single reroll and you can keep whichever set of rolls you prefer.
I recently had a GM who allowed any one die rolled for characteristics to be replaced with a 5. Lot's of variation allowed with this concept such as allowing a change to any roll in chargen such as qualifying or survival. So do you use it in chargen or save it for later? Allowing more than one 5. Allowing one 6 one 5 one 4...
We have one person I play with that has historically always been great at 2d6 roll high systems. His dice, someone elses dice, big fuzzy dice that hang off the car mirror. Doesn't matter. Any two dice and this guy throws high. A normal game session with him and he throws more boxcars than everyone else combined.Sevain said:
We don't have that guy in our group but we do have one that has statistically long hot and cold streaks with snake eyes and boxcars.Sevain said:
Next time, instead of him committing suicide to "balance" things, they perhaps could improve their lot in life by poisoning the other characters meal.Sevain said:
I had not considered the point buy option, since in my experience it pidgeonholes characters very strongly ("as a class X you must have these attributes high and choose whether to dump this attribute or that attribute to pay for it "). I'm not interested in forcibly handing out each player an equal number of gummi bears. I would just prefer to reduce the gap between the Most Able and Least Able since my players seem frustrated by it.
So far I have enforced a limit of maximum 3 terms as recommended by the core rulebook and none of my players have wanted to quit before their 3rd term.
Providing for more skill training time in-game sounds like a good and somewhat subtle way to give the less skilled characters a hand. Everybody is progressing, but some are progressing faster than the others.
Rolling 12 dice to arrange into pairs for attributes is another intrigueing idea. I also like the option to turn one roll to 5 during career terms. Any other house rules for character creation?
So far I have enforced a limit of maximum 3 terms as recommended by the core rulebook and none of my players have wanted to quit before their 3rd term.
Providing for more skill training time in-game sounds like a good and somewhat subtle way to give the less skilled characters a hand. Everybody is progressing, but some are progressing faster than the others.
Rolling 12 dice to arrange into pairs for attributes is another intrigueing idea. I also like the option to turn one roll to 5 during career terms. Any other house rules for character creation?
Another suggestion (similar to one already posted) - let everyone roll up two characters and choose one they like. The other one will be a NPC 
.
So they have invested also in crating NPC; and they have chosen a character to play (so they are not too negative about blaming luck... choice has now also played a part).
This suggestion may happen to take out too negative characters while allowing for some randomness, variety and better than average joe.
.So they have invested also in crating NPC; and they have chosen a character to play (so they are not too negative about blaming luck... choice has now also played a part).
This suggestion may happen to take out too negative characters while allowing for some randomness, variety and better than average joe.
Balfuset790
Mongoose
I've always assumed not, as the idea is that the sand disperses the light of a laser, thus reducing the focus of the energy.
Because a particle beam is accelerated subatomics rather than pure energy it 'technically' has mass, which means it would interact with sand differently, That said, though, it's entirely possible that the consitituent particles of a particle beam could hit the sand, but I suspect the energies involved would vaporise the sand with little impact on the strength of the beam itself.
Because a particle beam is accelerated subatomics rather than pure energy it 'technically' has mass, which means it would interact with sand differently, That said, though, it's entirely possible that the consitituent particles of a particle beam could hit the sand, but I suspect the energies involved would vaporise the sand with little impact on the strength of the beam itself.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Sandcasters are probably under appreciated.
Throw out the correct material that can interact with particle beams, or even mesons.
Or cluster munitions.
I don't think the possibilities have ever really been explored, beyond in Mongoose's pellets and chaff.
Another aspect has to be the per unit cost that commercial and/or mercenary entities would find appetizing.
Throw out the correct material that can interact with particle beams, or even mesons.
Or cluster munitions.
I don't think the possibilities have ever really been explored, beyond in Mongoose's pellets and chaff.
Another aspect has to be the per unit cost that commercial and/or mercenary entities would find appetizing.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
In theory, x-ray lasers being non-visible, aren't affected.
Particle acceleratored beams may just push aside a canister of sand.
Particle acceleratored beams may just push aside a canister of sand.
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
In the Core Book, they seem to specifically use the descriptor 'beam' to point out which weapons are affected by sand, in this case , beam lasers and particle beams. A two meson streams will pass through sand unheeded until they meet at the designated target while fusion (and plasma) burn through a sand cloud. Problem is, if you look in High Guard, they say sand only effects lasers and missiles. Odd. One of those clarification moments.
By the way, a rail gun fires a projectile a hyper speeds and most likely is dense and fast enough to pass with minimal damage.
By the way, a rail gun fires a projectile a hyper speeds and most likely is dense and fast enough to pass with minimal damage.
Condottiere said:
I like to imagine the 'sand' is made from materials which scatter more than just visible light.
Of course, finding one substance that's opaque to all wavelengths and high-energy particles is hard, but there's no reason why a sand canister can't contain several different materials which between them scatter all useful laser wavelengths as well as particle beams.
I can see the adverts now...
Ling-Standard Products ScattreX brand (TM) Sand blocks 10% more x-rays than the nearest competitor.
Delgado guarantees twice as much anti-particle sand per canister than any other brand!
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
... and now, with more lead content for that refreshing effect.
I don't quite see how sand can affect missiles, unless it clouds it's sensors or interferes with the electronics. If they're ballbearings, maybe depleted uranium, would put a dent in them, possibly even torpedoes.
I don't quite see how sand can affect missiles, unless it clouds it's sensors or interferes with the electronics. If they're ballbearings, maybe depleted uranium, would put a dent in them, possibly even torpedoes.
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
Not just a sand cloud but a shotgun blast sending high speed particles to tear at a solid object, missiles and people (see page 149 under Fire sand). The canister probably contains an explosive charge to eject it. Remember that missiles aren't armored to keep such an expendable weapon as fast and cheap as possible. This is similar to modern aircraft with flak or missiles proximity exploding and ripping through the unarmored surface.
