Ship Building questions: Handling is all wrong!!!

[pasuuli]

Re: Self-Replicating. To me, this means that the ship is organic, possibly alive, and its natural habitat is space or nearly space. It therefore can undergo mitosis or budding or twinning or some sort of act where it splits into two craft. Now, the question in my mind is "does it grow?"

Re: inferior designs. It seems to me that it would be better if there were design rules that governed all ships, so that players could prove their own designs against fair standards. (Presumably, a "new commission" could launch an entirely new line of ships which would be under the same build circumstances as known lines, but that's neither here nor there.)

 

[Mick]

It never ceases to amuse me, when people make real life comparisons to RPG game issues.. "Why would X work in the game when it doesnt in real life"..

The "Why", is because it IS a game and therefore not bound by our own earthly limits, laws and strictures.

Suspend disbelief my friends... RPGs are not based on our realities finite limitations, but is instead bound only by what imagination and and a healthy dose of blue tack can weld together under the veil of tenuous fluffage for cover.

And for some of us at least... that is enough lol

and now we known how the rules are so mess up if your one the so call play testers,

Next time use the following rules

1) always use real world were you can in RPG
2) never put in in the game if you do not what the players to have it
3) the rules are interface between you and the players

I found them to work

 

[pasuuli]

1) always use real world where you can in RPG
2) never put in in the game if you do not what the players to have it
3) the rules are interface between you and the players

#1 Has qualifications up the wazuu. "Where you can" begs the question; the answer is "playability trumps reality", aka "the game's the thing". A game ought to only model reality in as much as playability allows.

#2 and #3 sound okay to me.

 

[Gabriel_Luna]

Use the real world...or alternately use the FICTIONAL SETTING the RPG is based on. I know B5 tries for physics now and then, but come on. It has living ships, telepaths, techno-wizards, monsters that live in space (HYPERspace even!) and you're trying to say the rules should mirror the real world? I'd be happy if the rules gave a decent impression of the setting. And they do.

That to say: Good on you Neo. Keep up the good work.

 

[pasuuli]

Agreed -- the real world doesn't intrude far into RPGs. It follows some principles of least surprise (getting shot can kill you), but I don't want to use spreadsheets or calculators.

RPG rules shouldn't restrict you without good reason -- playability being a very good reason. Game requirements are another good reason.

Starship build rules are obviously not a setting requirement; where little is required, little is given.

 

[Mick]

Playability I find can just be a name for weak minded thinking,

But on the hold I just think Mongoose was being push to have the rules out before they were fully tested

 

[pasuuli]

Playability I find can just be a name for weak minded thinking,

But on the hold I just think Mongoose was being push to have the rules out before they were fully tested

There are extremes on both sides; for example, simulation is often for its own sake.

It is quite possible that Mongoose was up against a deadline.

 

[Neo]

1) As is often the case in such books, the production model ships are better than the players can make using the construction rules. Same was true of Meks in A:2089

LBH

have work in a shipyard I have never seen a one off that was not better then a production model.

Basicly find a copy of D20 mech and use that

Mick, I do not know you and you do not know me, but ill forgive both your ignorance and sleight in view of the fact you dont actually know squat about the playtesting procedure, what is involved or how or even if standards are maintained in testing etc...if any.

I stand by every book me and my playtest team have playtested for Mongoose and given our stamp and feedback too.. but do not for a second confuse playtesting with one of the two following, cold hard facts.

1) The Playtest comments have to or even are always viewed/listened too and changes occur as a result

and

2) That 99% of the things people raise as issue on the forums post release were already raised in playtest by the group(s) involved... but again see point 1.

As playtesters we are required to focus on the mechanics, not the crunch, it isnt our place to comment on the content only point out flaws, suggest fixes and occasionally suggest alternatives, but considering the deadlines we personally deal with (Mongoose has a faster turnout than almost ANY company in the industry, therefore playtest time is very short by most industry standards) it is inevitable that some mistakes will happen either because they were not spotted, or they were overlooked post playtest by the company/authors.. and when that happens there is almost alwasy some suggested fix etc.. provided on the forums where possible.

denigrating me personally for something that was not my fault and makign comments about the quality of my testing when you know nothing about either me or the process, shows a lack of maturity and good sense, but as stated I'll forgive those facts as you didnt know... now you do, so i suggest a bit of restraint tempered by wisdom before posting so rashly in future.

 

[Mick]

Bad news Neo, I been play wargames and RPG for over 40 years so I known about playtesting procedure and most points about the armour to weapons and the ship build would not had got pass me or any of groups I been with basically the ball was drop

This can only mean that
1> The play tests were too in house and did what to cause any trouble.
2> The playtesting data was not used

So the only way out going to be a "The Lurker's Guide to Ship building" or a total rewrite if one in the wind for D20 4th or a port over to rune quest

And last was not flame you in person but you have flame me.

Which come down to what forums are about, their pass information around, help out and of fluff and rules, not ego support

 

[Neo]

Bad news Neo, I been play wargames and RPG for over 40 years so I known about playtesting procedure and most points about the armour to weapons and the ship build would not had got pass me or any of groups I been with basically the ball was drop

Okay Mick..newsflash... playing Wargames and RPGs...does not make you a playtester (it would certainly help as a skill if you applied to become one..but is by no means the only prerequisite), nor does it mean you have ANYidea as to how playtesting works or specifically how it works with Mongoose. So please do not make comments with regards to our playtesting as it is something you have no knowledge regarding.

I myself have been playing and running both RPGs and Wargames for 27 years... but it didnt automatically qualify me to be a playtester I still had to get quality tested as it were not just by Mongoose, but the other companies I playtest and have playtested for for many years also.

If you ask I would/will be more than happy to tell you how it works but instead you just attacked the playtesters, of which I am one, and specifically, one for that book... so yes it was a flame at me because it was a flame at the playtesters of that book, which includes me.

This can only mean that
1> The play tests were too in house and did what to cause any trouble.
2> The playtesting data was not used

1 . nonsense and totally not the case there are in house playtests but they also go through the usual mongoose playtest channels with its regular and test playtest groups playtesting them as well.
2. 9 times out of 10 when people point fingers and say the playtesters dropped the ball... it isnt true, this (number 2 of your reasons) is in those instances the case. As I said previously we can only put the reports in, but doing so in no way garuntees that anything on them is read or heeded in anyway shape or form. It is sometimes, it isnt others..thats down to a multitude of factors that are not in ours (the playtesters) control or ability to influence.

So the only way out going to be a "The Lurker's Guide to Ship building" or a total rewrite if one in the wind for D20 4th or a port over to rune quest

ridiculous comment, you dont like how something in the book works, which you consider broken.. some agree, some dont, the author and mongoose gave reasoning as to why thier is a variation in this regard, but you choose not to accept it. I actually sympathise, i really do, I have taken much a similar stance with regard to Mongooses decision to drop SST d20 when they gave an explanation.. but you are unlikely to get any further alteration to thier answer by getting upset and pointing the finger at those who arent responsible (the playtesters in this instance).

And last was not flame you in person but you have flame me.

Actually it was, you flamed the playtesters and I am one, and I was one on the book in question... so yes it was a flame against me (as previously stated). And my response was not a flame of you, it was a simple statement of facts that you do not have any idea of how playtesting works with Mongoose and you dont. That isnt an attack, it is simply the truth. And the truth may be inconvenient to you with regard to your argument here, but it still doesnt make it a flame against you.

Which come down to what forums are about, their pass information around, help out and of fluff and rules, not ego support

But you were not passing information about, trying to help out with fluff and rules etc... Mick, you were attacking the playtesters for something you percieve as wrong. You offered no constructive alternative to the rule you consider broken, you were not attempting to engage a conversation in order to engender such a creative to and fro here... you were pointing fingers and making aggressive noises.

Hence I felt obliged (being one of the group you were growling and pointing fingers at) to correct your error, and ignorance in the procedure involved. It has nothing to do with ego, it has everything to do with knowing what your talking about, when you speak about it.

Now if you actually want to start a constructive conversation about some suggested fixes for what you think is wrong, i'll support you wholeheartedly and even most likely offer my two cents worth for some suggested fixes... but if you persist with this nonsensical attack against the playtesters again, when they simply arent to blame i'm afraid this topic will just end up swerving even further off point.

peace

 

[Mick]

Neo you just going to have work out no one 100% all the time, there parts of the 2nd Gen B-5 that are first class new ideas (which I port over into other games), other the ball was drop, so it happens get over it.

Anyway back to the point have a look what zalen has come up with, you create a "The Lurker's Guide to Ship building" from that or a "The Lurker's Guide to technology" there was some work on this in the 1st Gen B-5 books

 

[Neo]

Neo you just going to have work out no one 100% all the time, there parts of the 2nd Gen B-5 that are first class new ideas (which I port over into other games), other the ball was drop, so it happens get over it.

Im assuming (correct me if im wrong) but your not English? I only query this as you do not seem to understand or take in what i am saying most of the time..so i assume some of it is lost in translation as it were.

Either way you seem to have missed the point once again and just gone on harping about the same old tired point that is completely wrong...

I guess ignorance REALLY is bliss...for some people.

Maybe you shoudl try some of that "Suggesting new ideas and working on house ruling the parts you dont like bit you intimated at in your post-before-last, I suspect you'll have more luck with that line of thinking.