| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I have run two starship combats. The first was fun, tense, and enjoyable. The second was a bit of a slog, with the party falling into set patterns trying to bludgeon the enemy into submission before they got disabled. I'm not sure why the difference.
Any suggestions on running space ship combat effectively? At-the-table procedures that might help?
Add environmental elements to the battle mat. Impassible asteroids, dangerous areas with radiation storms, etc.
Anything at all that might restrict ship movement, create total cover/blind spots, etc.
One simple adjustment as one of those can make starship combat WAY more interesting.
I had one GM doodle some random asteroids on the map, and the entire battle dynamic suddenly changed, as we had to get around obstacles to open up a firing line, and we started using the asteroids to cover our weaker arcs from incoming fire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I have run two starship combats. The first was fun, tense, and enjoyable. The second was a bit of a slog, with the party falling into set patterns trying to bludgeon the enemy into submission before they got disabled. I'm not sure why the difference.
Any suggestions on running space ship combat effectively? At-the-table procedures that might help?
Things that have made it easier or more fun for me:
I have incorporated the updated DC's into custom "action cards" in-game to minimize flipping back and forth between the errata and the CRB. I believe Jimbles has a calculator set up for this as well, which I think is posted somewhere on the Starfinder server in Discord.
Having complications to starship combat is also useful. Navigation hazards that both ships have to work around is a good one. (I see Raving beat me to mentioning this.) I'm keen to try running a session where the players have to cope with a hostile running around on their ship while they're in starship combat... not totally sure how to make that work yet but I will figure something out.
We run on a virtual tabletop and I've customized initiative rolls, with help of one of my players, to automate the process of doing the piloting contest each round while keeping ourselves reminded of how the turn order works. (Basically it just puts up Engineering and Gunnery as 1500 and 3500 in the turn order and adds the Piloting checks to 2500; sort Ascending in Roll20 et voila, you have an easy-to-grasp turn order.)
This some times crops up, specially in the Rules subforum, on gunners and how they handle different weapons - you don't need to choose a arc each turn, you can fire from any arc when attacking (just like the Enterprise, and nothing like the Millennium Falcon).
The artwork on the Character Creation chapter of the CRB depicts this perfectly (while also having a mysterious ponytail character replacing the usual mystic shirren).
I still haven't really warmed to starship combat (but to be fair I've only handled them in SFS scenarios). They come off as grueling exercises in attrition, with little danger posed to the PC ship. I also don't really like how it's almost a separate mini-game. I far preferred how space combat was in Star Wars Saga Edition, where characters still acted individually on their initiative and had the usual array of actions: standard, move, etc.
I do have a question about GMing Starship Combat.
Do you aware XP based on the Actual CR of the opposing ship(s)?
Or, do you use the effect CR of the encounter (Starfinder Core p. 326)?
Add environmental elements to the battle mat. Impassible asteroids, dangerous areas with radiation storms, etc.
Great idea, thank you. I have a substantial collection of X-Wing miniatures and custom "terrain" that should do nicely for this.
I do have a question about GMing Starship Combat.
Do you aware XP based on the Actual CR of the opposing ship(s)?
Or, do you use the effect CR of the encounter (Starfinder Core p. 326)?
I haven't looked at awarding XP too closely in Starfinder yet, but if it's anything like Pathfinder, you give XP based on the component creatures (or ships in this case), not the total effective challenge. The total effective challenge is just meant to help you decide if it is an appropriate encounter for the PCs, not for awarding XP.
I have incorporated the updated DC's into custom "action cards" in-game to minimize flipping back and forth between the errata and the CRB. I believe Jimbles has a calculator set up for this as well, which I think is posted somewhere on the Starfinder server in Discord.
I need to put short-play cards together. I think there was too much confusion about the rules that I - as the GM - should really have a handle on. I think that, combined with a clear initiative track, should help speed things up.
My players love it, as a GM it is... taxing, but I take shortcuts with enemy ships to make things a little faster on my side. I at least have the appearance of a person that has everything under control, and that's what matters.
The thing about it that initially threw me for a loop was the very different action economy. In normal combat, as with PF, I have a pretty good mental schema of how difficult X number of CR Y would be to fight, but with starships it's a bit different, isn't it? A lot more RNG is involved when the party only gets 1-2 huge attacks in a turn, as opposed to making 4-6 small attacks in a normal combat rounds.
Anyone else think only d-bag pirates and associated scum would use weapons like x-ray lasers that have the line effect? Heh, in general I have a hard time figuring out who would use such weapons, since in a fleet battle they could be just as dangerous to your allies as others.
I mean I can see the visual, kinda like Babylon 5 fights with particle beam weapons that cleave through ships.
I could see the use if you're a static defender being attacked by a fleet or something tho. Potentially not something you want to use if there aren't distinct battle lines tho. Shoot through a badguy and shoot your ally kind of stuff...
I take shortcuts with enemy ships to make things a little faster on my side. I at least have the appearance of a person that has everything under control, and that's what matters.
I pre-roll all my NPC actions except gunnery checks. I tried pre-rolling those also, but the players would have none of that. How dare them.
But having everything pre-rolled, and just adjusting the results to the needed action saves up precious seconds. And roles like science officer and captain you can pretty much program how all rounds will go - scan everything then boost guns; taunt, then the bigger buffs, then aid another till the very end.
|
question about groups/players who have run starship combat:
How to make it more fun?
Our group tends to do this kinda collaboration/meta stuff and it just takes FOREVER.
my suggestion to our group was that players need to speak completely in character when in starship combat. No suggestions regarding hexes, turn radii, etc., to the pilot, no discussion about what to do to the engineer, just barked orders from the Captain, and combat appropriate stuff, like in Star Wars (or if people were actually role playing).
It's not that starship combat is not fun, but our group tends to bog down in minutiae and getting overly detailed. Maybe only the captain can suggest actions to each player?
Any thoughts, either on my suggestion, or on what's worked for your groups?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
question about groups/players who have run starship combat:
How to make it more fun?
This is how:
Add environmental elements to the battle mat. Impassible asteroids, dangerous areas with radiation storms, etc.
Anything at all that might restrict ship movement, create total cover/blind spots, etc.
One simple adjustment as one of those can make starship combat WAY more interesting.
I had one GM doodle some random asteroids on the map, and the entire battle dynamic suddenly changed, as we had to get around obstacles to open up a firing line, and we started using the asteroids to cover our weaker arcs from incoming fire.
Our group tends to do this kinda collaboration/meta stuff and it just takes FOREVER.
my suggestion to our group was that players need to speak completely in character when in starship combat. No suggestions regarding hexes, turn radii, etc., to the pilot, no discussion about what to do to the engineer, just barked orders from the Captain, and combat appropriate stuff, like in Star Wars (or if people were actually role playing).
It's not that starship combat is not fun, but our group tends to bog down in minutiae and getting overly detailed. Maybe only the captain can suggest actions to each player?
Any thoughts, either on my suggestion, or on what's worked for your groups?
Upgrade your ship. Use a bunch of twinned weapons. Get that DPR up. Weapons and shields should be your first priority when assigning BP. If the enemy can't hurt you, and you can punch big holes in them, battles will be much shorter.
If a science officer or engineer is not needed for the round, have them fire a gun. More attacks means more damage, and a quicker end to the battle.
question about groups/players who have run starship combat:
How to make it more fun?
Your group might just flat not find it fun. Not all groups have. Mine hasn't even with the RPing we do and the addition of dynamic battlefields like ravingdork mentions.
I have run my first starship combat last session, it was.. hard to manage. But once you understand how it works, it's really fun.
Nevertheless wrote a massive roll20 script to aid me in starship combat :D
Our group tends to do this kinda collaboration/meta stuff and it just takes FOREVER.
I had a similar issue a while ago with my pathfinder round (more talking tactics then actual doing something in combat).
We solved it by reminding everyone that a combat round is only a few seconds (so no long discussion possible) and then simply use a counter.So every player has ~10 seconds to ANNOUNCE his action this round (the actual movement, rolls etc. can take longer).
If he didn't announce it in time, his character is undecided and skip this round.
We did this for a few combats and it really speeds up the combat and made it more interesting and fun (simply because mistakes happened and not every move is 100% perfect).
It also had the side effect that my players take more time in learning what their characters actually can do.
After a while we could simply "fade out" the enforcement of this system because with better character knowledge and the knowledge that not every move has to be perfect they stated doing their action more quickly and naturally (more like "what would my character do?" instead of "what is the optimal, meta-gaming correct move").
I could imagine that such a system also works for ship combat.
|
|
Our group tends to do this kinda collaboration/meta stuff and it just takes FOREVER.
I had a similar issue a while ago with my pathfinder round (more talking tactics then actual doing something in combat).
We solved it by reminding everyone that a combat round is only a few seconds (so no long discussion possible) and then simply use a counter.
So every player has ~10 seconds to ANNOUNCE his action this round (the actual movement, rolls etc. can take longer).
If he didn't announce it in time, his character is undecided and skip this round.
We did this for a few combats and it really speeds up the combat and made it more interesting and fun (simply because mistakes happened and not every move is 100% perfect).
It also had the side effect that my players take more time in learning what their characters actually can do.After a while we could simply "fade out" the enforcement of this system because with better character knowledge and the knowledge that not every move has to be perfect they stated doing their action more quickly and naturally (more like "what would my character do?" instead of "what is the optimal, meta-gaming correct move").
I could imagine that such a system also works for ship combat.
while i don't think a timer would work for my group in starship combat this is a good idea. i would guess that it makes combat feel frenetic and a bit off kilter, as people are just reacting quickly and not coordinating perfectly.
Two linked masers on the turret space. Most NPCs will want to parlay.
I am just so happy they included starship combat and with such depth and detail.
I've just started playing and so far I have only tried out the first starship clash near the beginning of Dead Suns: Incident at Absalom Station, and it was SO. MUCH. FUN.
Can't wait to do more. The only thing I find slightly frustrating is the fact that they corrected the DCs for almost every starship crew action and the new version has this 1 + 1/2 (yes that's how it should have been written IMO) parameter which is not very quick to apply, but I gues the need to balance the math was too important. So I'm okay with that.
Our group tends to do this kinda collaboration/meta stuff and it just takes FOREVER.
I had a similar issue a while ago with my pathfinder round (more talking tactics then actual doing something in combat).
We solved it by reminding everyone that a combat round is only a few seconds (so no long discussion possible) and then simply use a counter.
So every player has ~10 seconds to ANNOUNCE his action this round (the actual movement, rolls etc. can take longer).
If he didn't announce it in time, his character is undecided and skip this round.
We did this for a few combats and it really speeds up the combat and made it more interesting and fun (simply because mistakes happened and not every move is 100% perfect).
It also had the side effect that my players take more time in learning what their characters actually can do.After a while we could simply "fade out" the enforcement of this system because with better character knowledge and the knowledge that not every move has to be perfect they stated doing their action more quickly and naturally (more like "what would my character do?" instead of "what is the optimal, meta-gaming correct move").
I could imagine that such a system also works for ship combat.
That sounds like a great idea. I will try that out, but only after every player has grown accustomed to what actions exist that they can do, otherwise I fear they might just get frustrated prematurely and end up hating it. And boy I don't want that!
That sounds like a great idea. I will try that out, but only after every player has grown accustomed to what actions exist that they can do, otherwise I fear they might just get frustrated prematurely and end up hating it. And boy I don't want that!
I have the handouts for starship combat from the early free starfinder society scenario. I leave them on the table for my players to grab and reference, and I have another copy behind my screen. Edited for the 1.5 x tier DCs of course.
|
starship combat is pretty different then how anything else works in the game and some people have a hard time making that cognitive shift. The people in my area who regularly play starfinder are enjoying starship combat but good rule familiarity and quality player handouts have helped keep starship combat moving, interactive, and enjoyable.
People who stopped after the first time because of rule unfamiliarity on all parts, the old math, or not just giving it a second to sink in tend to still hold starship combat against the system as a whole. It is a real bummer as it is a top quality aspect of the game if everyone gets it down.
Using the excellent role cards for quick reference, I've never had a group that didn't *love* starship combat. My current campaign, they actually enjoy it the most. One thing that I think helps is that I gave them two ships early on; this ensures that everyone is working a critical role every single round, with some real tough decisions.
I have the handouts for starship combat from the early free starfinder society scenario. I leave them on the table for my players to grab and reference, and I have another copy behind my screen. Edited for the 1.5 x tier DCs of course.
That sounds like a great idea. I will try that out, but only after every player has grown accustomed to what actions exist that they can do, otherwise I fear they might just get frustrated prematurely and end up hating it. And boy I don't want that!
I did this too, and consider it crucial for new starfighter pilots.
lol.
Correction, Target System also helps if you hit a critical threshold via normal damage - it lets you specify the targeted system of your next crit regardless of source.
@kevsurp
both those abilities require the same DC computers check to succeed...
That doesn't seem to be correct. Target System roll is:
Computers + Sensor Bonus vs DC 5 + 1.5 x Tier
And Lock On roll is:
Computers vs DC 5 + 1.5 x Tier
The DC is the same, but Lock On does NOT say to add your ship's Sensors bonus.
I wonder if this is an error.
These things come up over and over because Starship combat, while it can be entertaining if the GM spices it up, is a complete mess at the moment with lots of polish needed. I had hoped we would see a ship book before now that would expand and clean it more than it is currently.