How about starship design rules? Star wars the first d20 version had an awesome book for designing and modifying starships. I even used it as a base for one of my earlier starship minis games.
Okay, yeah - going off of that idea - what if you could build a starship sort of like you'd build a character. You pick out a base ship, and it has a small stat-block to replace the standards STR,DEX,CON,INT,WIS,CHA - with stats like POWER, REACTION, HULL, PROCESSING - etc - as well as a number of open 'slots' based on its shape and size.
Modules can then be installed into these slots. Four or five open slots, with only ten - fifteen module options would still leave thousands and thousands of combinations available for how you equip your ship, while keeping the rulebook somewhat light.
If you made each module unique and 'operable' by PCs, then you can have a party that purchases and controls elements of their own ship.
...It's pretty much the same issue focused when characters are on a sailing ship. Each character can fulfill a different role, or each player can be given something else to do or dice to roll for a specific task. The "Ship as one giant PC, with players working as a team" is generally how ships WORK.
If you want it to be 'smoother' or 'faster' or whatever, you have to give a specific goal. What do those terms mean to you?
You'll find in most SciFi / Space Opera shows, most of the crew isn't directly contributing to the fight. Oh, sure, Ensign Snuffy is making sure the hyperspace capacitors are properly charged and not damaged, and Sgt Shootem has a marine crew ready to repel boarders, but we don't see that very much. Even the main characters often aren't all directly contributing. What are Princess Leia and C-3PO doing on the Millenium Falcon in a fight? Not much, that's for sure.
So if you're running the game or wanting one that meets your requirements, you'll have to be a bit more specific.
Personally, I'd talk with the players and find out how they would be interested in working together for it.
If everyone wants a specific role, such as engineer and pilot and gunner and whatnot, then the "Giant Team PC" that is the default works fine (though you MIGHT want to add more options. Personally I take the D20 Future AND Star Wars D20 character spaceship roles options and smush them together, so all the side roles have plenty ways to help).
On the other hand, if EVERYONE wants to fight and shoot guns, the DM should consider them getting some type of Drone Ship (small party) or Carrier (large party) and the players planning out their characters accordingly. This way, each person gets to control a ship, even though it isn't THE ship, and everyone gets to fight as normal on the battlemap. Of course, this will slow things down, just as more PC's cause combats to take longer.
This Starfinder reminds me a LOT of the old Dragonstar. I hope
Drone ships are a fantastic idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic has already been shown to pretty heavily flaunt the known rules of energy conservation though so it would make plenty of sense in universe to use it to pull in extra dimensional matter or generate motive force through magical shenanigans. Heck, if a cantrip can create water wholesale then why not split the water for hydrogen and use that in your onboard fusion generator? Attach a decanter of endless water and have infinite energy. Or, it would be hilarious of the abuse of magic up to this point has actually depleted a previously unkown and limited source of magic so that a lot of these kinds of spells dont exist anymore or using them is considered contraband. We are slowly approaching the magic-heat death of the universe...
Please, no. Don't do the 'dying universe because we overused our resources' thing.
We have enough things like that IRL.
I saw an argument once for using a flaming dagger fixed into a barrel of water as a steam generator to power devices once. the best counter argument seemed to be that no one is the setting had the proper knowledge to know how to put all the pieces together to create that kind of effect.
That even as justification then is really flimsy, as that mechanism was known back in the classical world
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic has already been shown to pretty heavily flaunt the known rules of energy conservation though so it would make plenty of sense in universe to use it to pull in extra dimensional matter or generate motive force through magical shenanigans. Heck, if a cantrip can create water wholesale then why not split the water for hydrogen and use that in your onboard fusion generator? Attach a decanter of endless water and have infinite energy. Or, it would be hilarious of the abuse of magic up to this point has actually depleted a previously unkown and limited source of magic so that a lot of these kinds of spells dont exist anymore or using them is considered contraband. We are slowly approaching the magic-heat death of the universe...Please, no. Don't do the 'dying universe because we overused our resources' thing.
We have enough things like that IRL.
Well there is a potential problem when you introduce technology and magic into the same setting, namely perpetual motion machines become extremely cheap by the regular magic item creation guidelines. Magic heat death or not it would be good for the core book to nip these issues in the bud right out of the gate.
If we have anything dealing with that - actually have this be part of the history. Steam power came by something like that.
Personally (not that you suggested this), but Science vs Magic is very old trope and I am tired, tired, tired of it. I'd much rather see magic and tech working together in interesting ways. Flaming dagger steam engine (a concept I love), the whole PDA spellbooks from Dragonstar, the "cathedral ship plane shift hyperdrive". Magic and science/technology working together hand in hand - not against each other. That is what I want to see for starships, and for Starfinder as a whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Personally (not that you suggested this), but Science vs Magic is very old trope and I am tired, tired, tired of it. I'd much rather see magic and tech working together in interesting ways."
See, I agree, that is why in my setting technology runs on magic, i.e. computers are mana matrices rather than electronic, though I admit in my setting magic, while widely available even more than Golarion, is limited in functional scope and treated more sci-fi like.
No clue actually. I've only seen the movies, kingdom hearts, amd a bit of ff tactics, so I don't really know much, though the visuals certainly imply a far more steampunkish feel than my setting and at least looks like non-magical technology.
The fiery dagger trick won't work in Pathfinder, as someone has to wield it, activate it, and continue to wield it before it goes out. Plus, it's only 1D6 fire, roughly equivalent to a torch. Would take awhile. Plus, you'd still need supplies of water and parts to repair the thing.
The Decanter of Endless Water on the other hand, is a perfect physical space drive, as it has an unlimited supply of reaction mass and projects it on its own. Strap lots together and you have a good engine, or use individual ones as 'maneuvering thrusters'. There's no moving parts, nothing to maintain. You just activate it and let it rip. Well, obviously you have to anchor it and whatnot.
The thing is, if you're going that route, you have to make sense with the magical and technological worlds. Older D&D editions, there were no 'elements' as we know them. Everything was made up of some mix of 'classical' elements such as Air, Earth, Fire, and Water in different proportions. So... how do you do electrolysis in such a system where Oxygen and Hydrogen don't exist? You have to make decisions as to what works and what doesn't.
To be fair, with the Decanter, you don't even have to electrolyze it. You just make a turbine and point the Decanter at one side and watch it spin. That just shows that the cheap Magic stuff would easily alter a technological world in crazy, crazy ways.
Drone ships are a fantastic idea.
Thank you.
To be fair, one doesn't have to go entirely with one idea or the other, either.
You can easily do both at the same time. If a person doesn't want to control a drone/fighter, and would prefer to do the Main Engineer thing, you can totally let them. Or if they don't want it to be that complicated, they can easily be a turret gunner. Works better on small ships that only have one or two, since you can assign the turrets specific targeting stats and even have enemies attack them directly. Thus, its functionally a 'drone', just one that's 'attached' to the main ship.
This should give the players some variety, too. Maybe the beatstick Fighter or Sneak Attacking Rogue/Assassin doesn't want to do melee combat anymore, and wants to do the ranged thing. Cool, he can be a Drone for the fight. Maybe the Archer/Gunslinger has a pile of ranged feats and wants to show off his abilities in the main ship. Cool, he can push one of the NPC's out of the gunner's turret and take over. This works better if there's a Ship Weapon Proficiency feat or class ability that lets them apply their 'normal' feats to these upscaled weapons. Oh, guy took Rapid Shot and Point-Blank Shot and all that? Let him be in the rapid-fire blaster turret. Or perhaps he took the Vital Strike style of feats? Let him hop in that high-damage railgun on the ship and smash things with a vengeance.
|
I don't want a design system where you can build a ship from absolute scratch, partially because it is a min/max'ers dream and as a GM I don't want to have to try to break out spreadsheets to have to microanalyze what my players are trying to pull over on me. I'd much rather have a collection of base ships that can be modified, maybe kind of like the Unleashed Eidolons - a base chassis (combat, hauler, mid-range, racer), a size template, and then a pool of available points to purchase upgrades with (along with cash expenditures for the parts and labor). A new ship might not come fully kitted out and have some points "free" for players to add new components, on others they may have to remove equipment in order to fit in other toys. You could even allow for the ships to "level" allowing more points of equipment to be added to the ship (not so much that the ship all of a sudden gets more room, but maybe some of the old gear manages to get streamlined to take up less effective space).
|
How about starship design rules? Star wars the first d20 version had an awesome book for designing and modifying starships. I even used it as a base for one of my earlier starship minis games.Thanks! Glad you liked it.
Were you the one who went about the grueling task of writing all the Living Force starship certs for Winter Fantasy 2003?
If so, Tonii-Kai and his Citadel Cruiser thank you.
I don't want a design system where you can build a ship from absolute scratch, partially because it is a min/max'ers dream and as a GM I don't want to have to try to break out spreadsheets to have to microanalyze what my players are trying to pull over on me. I'd much rather have a collection of base ships that can be modified, maybe kind of like the Unleashed Eidolons - a base chassis (combat, hauler, mid-range, racer), a size template, and then a pool of available points to purchase upgrades with (along with cash expenditures for the parts and labor). A new ship might not come fully kitted out and have some points "free" for players to add new components, on others they may have to remove equipment in order to fit in other toys. You could even allow for the ships to "level" allowing more points of equipment to be added to the ship (not so much that the ship all of a sudden gets more room, but maybe some of the old gear manages to get streamlined to take up less effective space).
That assumes lots of output options that might be stacked in creative ways, something that is not required to build from scratch.
I wouldn't mind a build from scratch ship system... just not in the core rule book please.
I wouldn't mind a build from scratch ship system... just not in the core rule book please.
If they have one, it is best done to begin with so the first ships are consistent and without causing legacy issues in designing a system that needs to fit with existing ship designs that weren't designed under the same conditions.
Also, why not the core, aside from obvious money making tactics.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Each race should have giant generational type ships they maintain. Elves with giant biome domes growing forests unhindered by gravity (Silent Runner). Orcs living in giant asteroids with tunnels cut throughout (sci fi trope). Dwarves in giant carved spaceships (Martian ship from Futurama). Humans would create metal vessels (at least the majority). Gnomes would live in all sorts of weird things. Halflings would subsist with other races of course, since they usually come off as social parasites, even if they are beneficial ones.
Why have races split like that? It makes no sense and is one of the more irritating idiocies of fantasy stereotypes.
Especially in the far distant future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind a build from scratch ship system... just not in the core rule book please.
If they have one, it is best done to begin with so the first ships are consistent and without causing legacy issues in designing a system that needs to fit with existing ship designs that weren't designed under the same conditions.
Also, why not the core, aside from obvious money making tactics.
Because space is needed to do such a system justice. And they could find better uses for the pages at the start of the game. After all this isn't a ship combat game, it's a role playing game.
That's absolutely silly. You can have ship combat in a roleplaying, just like you can have regular combat in a roleplaying game. Combat doesn't remove roleplaying. And most sci fi games out there have space combat in them. Savage Worlds, White Star, Traveller, Star Wars... Not to mention that ship battles are big in pretty much most sci fi stories. SKipping out on starship combat would make no sense, especially if they want to compete with other sci fi games. Starfinder may have the Paizo brand, but if they don't even come close to more established sci fi rpgs out there, then people aren't going to stick with the brand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We better get some Cosmic Horrors vs. Spaceships, a la Lovecraft.
Anyone else hoping for grappler ships, like in Outlaw Star?
I just like the visual of a spaceship wielding an axe and pistol sized for it, ridiculous as it may be.
Anyone else hoping for grappler ships, like in Outlaw Star?
we should absolutely incorporate grapple rules, since the cosmic horrors out there are so much bigger.
Small size should be the standard for any common ship on a 1 inch grid.
Frigates and captital size ships could be medium.
That leaves 4 size categories larger than the biggest ships for the use of monsters and the like.
I wouldn't mind a build from scratch ship system... just not in the core rule book please.
If they have one, it is best done to begin with so the first ships are consistent and without causing legacy issues in designing a system that needs to fit with existing ship designs that weren't designed under the same conditions.
Also, why not the core, aside from obvious money making tactics.
Because space is needed to do such a system justice. And they could find better uses for the pages at the start of the game. After all this isn't a ship combat game, it's a role playing game.
Even if they wait and print as a supplement, those rules should still be done initially and the core book ship examples be built on those rules for consistency and to prevent issues later.
However, I'd rather a large book (or set like dnd's phb, mm, and dmg) done right, than a core with supplements that are disjointed and suffer the issues of designing around fitting the implied constraints of the initial core. Or worse, supplements that feel like their entire purpose is to be padded just so they can be sold.
Why have races split like that? It makes no sense and is one of the more irritating idiocies of fantasy stereotypes.
Especially in the far distant future.
Idiocy? You really think so? You must not know much about design philosophy. Different cultural groups tend to have unique design ideas (e.g. colors, shapes, decorations, patterns, etc.) they find comforting. Even in pyramid design, the Aztecs, Babylonians, and Egyptians all had different designs when they replicated the ancient alien spaceships that visited Earth.
Even the first two Earthican nations to build spaceships used different designs and embraced different philosophies. And in space with no gravity, even crazier designs can be used. Maybe you find it irritating, but it has been a staple in sci-fi for nearly a century for a reason. And in the real world, they grays use totally different spaceships designs compared to the tentacle monsters.
Why have races split like that? It makes no sense and is one of the more irritating idiocies of fantasy stereotypes.
Especially in the far distant future.
Idiocy? You really think so? You must not know much about design philosophy. Different cultural groups tend to have unique design ideas (e.g. colors, shapes, decorations, patterns, etc.) they find comforting. Even in pyramid design, the Aztecs, Babylonians, and Egyptians all had different designs when they replicated the ancient alien spaceships that visited Earth.
Even the first two Earthican nations to build spaceships used different designs and embraced different philosophies. And in space with no gravity, even crazier designs can be used. Maybe you find it irritating, but it has been a staple in sci-fi for nearly a century for a reason. And in the real world, they grays use totally different spaceships designs compared to the tentacle monsters.
Earthican??? Really??
Actually both the U.S.and the Soviet Union were using variations on the same designs by Robert Goddard. The only real difference between their design philosophies is that the U.S. insisted on a male/female approach to docking whereas the Soviets developed a superior androgynous system that would have allowed two Soyuzs to dock with each other.
"Different cultural groups"
This is the problem right here. You are arguing culture groups, not racial groups.
Race does not equal culture. Games don't seem to get though. Games don't have factions that have integration of multiple races. Sure sometimes you token gestures, comments about the people in a town being from a minority race, but for all mechanics, culture comes with race.
An analogy would be to compare different game races with different races in real life. How would america be handled? America with whites and blacks having basically the same culture (obviously a handful of each side separate themselves into subcultures based on race, but those are small groups thankfully).
But even within a race, we can multiple cultures which have different values and ways of doing things that would be represented by different stats.
So why attach culture to race? It is idiocy.
The only decent answer I ever got was to make more obvious differences between the races. Better hearing for example isn't overly obvious, but wearing clothes that look like leaves and bark is obvious. Frankly, I can understand that, but I think it does nothing but reinforce bad stereotyping.
"Earthican"
Proper term here is Terran.
You are forgetting the language.
When speaking english the term is Terran. Now if they take and make a word in their own language with a root based on the word "Earth" with whatever affixes or changes according to their own linguistic rules, that is something quite different.
"Different cultural groups"
This is the problem right here. You are arguing culture groups, not racial groups.
Race does not equal culture. Games don't seem to get though. Games don't have factions that have integration of multiple races. Sure sometimes you token gestures, comments about the people in a town being from a minority race, but for all mechanics, culture comes with race.
An analogy would be to compare different game races with different races in real life. How would america be handled? America with whites and blacks having basically the same culture (obviously a handful of each side separate themselves into subcultures based on race, but those are small groups thankfully).
But even within a race, we can multiple cultures which have different values and ways of doing things that would be represented by different stats.
So why attach culture to race? It is idiocy.
The only decent answer I ever got was to make more obvious differences between the races. Better hearing for example isn't overly obvious, but wearing clothes that look like leaves and bark is obvious. Frankly, I can understand that, but I think it does nothing but reinforce bad stereotyping.
Some people value simplicity. Also tradition. They may not be important to you, but I think those are valid reasons for sticking with it, depending on who you're designing your game for.
I would personally prefer it if the early days of RPGs they'd decided on a class-race-culture paradigm (I believe Rolemaster did that at one point in its evolution) but it seems to me the more limited class-race thing has kind of stuck in the collective subconscious.
I don't see how it can be called simple. As for tradition, some traditions deserve or need to be toppled, some with respect, some with a big boot stomping on it repeatedly while cursing the very name with all the worst expletives you can think of. I'd put this tradition as leaning heavily towards the second.
We are animals, but with an understanding of ourselves, we can shape ourselves. Therefore we should shape ourselves for the better, rather than holding on to bad habits just because they are traditional.
I don't see how it can be called simple. As for tradition, some traditions deserve or need to be toppled, some with respect, some with a big boot stomping on it repeatedly while cursing the very name with all the worst expletives you can think of. I'd put this tradition as leaning heavily towards the second.
We are animals, but with an understanding of ourselves, we can shape ourselves. Therefore we should shape ourselves for the better, rather than holding on to bad habits just because they are traditional.
In terms of being simple: two parameters is inherently simpler than three parameters.
In terms of the value of tradition: some people like different things than you do. Games that suit them aren't going to suit you. Why declare one set of preferences bad and another better?
"I'd like x" is just as persuasive (probably more) than "People who don't like x are wrong and have bad habits they need to improve".
But some people prefer to be selfish and screw everyone else over for their personal gain. Is that to be simply dismissed as equally acceptable as a preference for generousity?
Some aspects, such as stereotyping, reach far into our real world lives and habits. Not all such habits are good ones, and games can play into our existing habits, both building on and reinforcing them. Or a game can be built to challange those habits and make them ripe to be changed.
WoW's choice of making armors that all hhave a unique silhouette based on class and build reinforces judging others by sight. Sure people know in their conscious mind that it is wrong, but until it becomes an unconscious habit to judge by other factors (or even reserve judgement) they will still do it, at least till their conscious mind can override it, but their conscious mind won't always realize it is happening.
Edit; thus a game can reinforce these bad subconcious habits, or they can not. Some will have a subconscious preference for reinforcement over being challanged (the brain doesn't like being told it is wrong, but it can be taught to overcome that).
Edit again; having race and culture be separate fails to reinforce stereotyping mechanically, but of course, the gm can still use it to stereotype if desired.
But some people prefer to be selfish and screw everyone else over for their personal gain. Is that to be simply dismissed as equally acceptable as a preference for generousity?
A selfish preference is not as acceptable as a generous one.
Preferring things remain as they always have is not selfish. Neither is preferring a simple game to a more complicated one. Nor not caring how "realistic" an RPG is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Games affect our real world lives. I see that as a responsibility to make games that at least don't reinforce negativity, but even better to make the world a better place.
Games can, and are, be used as a form of control. The world sucks. I have two choices, do what I can to change it for the better, or screw everyone over by ignoring it and hiding my head in the sand (or thirdly, I could really screw everyone by taking advantage of their unwillingness to change things, and change things for purely my benefit).
I refuse to be the one "waiting on the world to change." How can the world change if everyone just waits for it to change, just as though they expect some hero or god to drop by, wave a hand, and suddenly improve everything.
Everything we do that involves others is a chance to do better, to improve things. Those whose work reaches many people are the best positioned to improve the world.