Ship is destroyed, now what?

Some systems say that there is a distinction between completely disabled and completely destroyed.

For example, one might say that zero hull means armor is destroyed and bits of the ship's surface are drifting away in assorted directions, and atmosphere is leaking fast enough that everyone has one turn to get into vacc suits, rescue balls, launches, or self-powered emergency low berths. Zero structure means decks are broken messes, artificial gravity is out, and nothing works unless it's intact system with its own power. Hull and structure zero means the ship is breaking up, and each intact piece is floating away from the wreckage independently. Keep shooting at a ship that's already zero hull or structure and before long it will be zero both. After it breaks up, each piece is an independent target, defenseless.

But if the shot that finishes off a ship is huge, maybe enough to take it to negative its original value, the ship is blasted to bits, with the excess damage applied to destroying every system within the ship, including crew hits. A dreadnought spinal hit on the Scout ship that the Ine Givar planetary leadership are trying to use to escape might leave nothing but a cloud of plasma.

In a classic book, there was a critical hit table that included "2 Ship vaporized" as a worst case. Or maybe it was a one or zero result, reachable only with die modifiers. That should be an option in extreme cases, but that's not what a simple zero hull, zero structure means.

Finally, there's the matter of player casualties. I agree with the general idea that bad dice shouldn't kill player characters. If you're the last one conscious, and there's a crew hit, you wake up in a hospital if allied ships won the battle, or maybe an enemy hospital as a prisoner if your side lost. But if you decided to kamikaze your Scout ship into the enemy cruiser after loading your wounded friends into rescue balls and shoving them out the cargo door, yeah, your character is dead. With a posthumous medal.
 
hero death isn't the mark of a bad or un-fun story.

No, but it is the mark of the end of the campaign. And if your players don't see the artistic beauty in the no-win situation you as referee put them in, there won't be another one.
 
steve98052 said:
For example, one might say that zero hull means armor is destroyed and ...
Zero structure means decks are broken messes, ...
MgT2 does not have Hull and Structure, only Hull representing both.

Reduced to 0 Hull the ship is completely inoperable and irreparable.
 
That's why I wasn't so thrilled with Rogue One and oh cool, everyone had to die routine. I've been in games the GMs decided it would be awesome everyone dies yet the players were not happy. You feel all the work you did was for nothing. Often how game groups break up.
 
89%2B-%2BBookends.jpg
 
I think we get carried away with movie and tv cinematics in which vehicles and vessels explode in massive fireballs (if only because a gunshot hit a gas tank) and expect total kills. In the real would, ships, tanks and cars are considered totaled when they can no longer function and need to be abandoned. Not all naval battles end with ships exploding to bits. For many, their drives and power go out, the majority of their offensive capacity is eliminated or they're taking on water which may or may not sink them. They are considered destroyed because they are useless in a fight. All but the most fanatic surrender and leave the craft. If it's a naval vessel still afloat, a few more shots sink it so it's not a hazard. If I remember correctly, German sailors abandoned the Bismarck and English sailors did NOT gun then down in the water.

Zero hull should be a totaled wreck unable to be restored and what salvagers go looking for. It's scrap quality with possible intact sellable parts. We've seen enough war movies featuring the bad guys unloading into it for a total kill so we hate them even more. That should have to be part of a game. That would be something the PCs hear about and make them more resolved to bring justice and revenge when they hunt those people.
 
Sucks to be you? ;)

So, we're talking a game in which the PCs are the bad guys with no conscience? Regretfully, I have seen that too often in D&D when a player or two think it's funny playing evil pretty much taunting the DM and even other players to do anything about it. I must admit we had a campaign setting as monster races whose goal was to commit evil acts. Usually the first instance lead to the game crashing but the monster game did mean we would be hunted for destruction. We knew it could get nasty and we had to defend ourselves and survive even if it meant running away.

If player WANT to be the bad guys, they and the ref should establish rule how serious it gets and if it's going to be Ironman - death is an option. They do that in enough video games and some accept the challenge. If a play group is up to the challenge then it can be exciting as they stand in the vacuum of the derelict ship waiting for the last flight of missiles bearing down on them giving the players a story to tell.
 
Old School said:
I agree with everything in the post above, but what if the PCs are “those people”? :D

Well,you know how lawful evil people roll... killing villagers, raping bunnies, not paying their taxes to their liegelords. Truly evil people!

And you know the other adages... those who kill the bunnies and annoy the powers that be tend to be on the receiving end of nuclear-tipped missiles and enhanced-radiation trait weaponry. Really, it's all in the dice rolls! It's not an evil game master showing their annoyance at how the PC's are wrecking their painstakingly-created universe!!!
 
Back
Top