Jump to content

Crimson_red

Members
  • Content Count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Crimson_red

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lake Country, British Columbia, Canada
  1. It's funny that it is the initiative system that has elicited the most passionate response because it is the 1e system I most want to see played out around the table. It feels so intuitive and makes sense that a person's skill at a task would be a significant factor in the speed they can perform it . . . and it certainly seems to play out that way at player3412539's table, but AK_Aramis has been quick to point out the potential struggles that can bog the system down; how will the system flow when long strings of conflicts begin to chain together in nonlinear or convoluted ways? If I am able to run a 1e game, it should work to my advantage that I will most likely have maybe one or two players, so things should remain relatively simple while I am learning and growing accustom to the system. . . unless I use it for running a one shot game (Like Starfell as a new years eve game; I did that using R&E once, lots of fun), which I think 1e is particularly well suited. Anyway, I still want to give the initiative system a try because I may have a solid idea how a system plays out after reading, I never truly know how it will play out at my table until it has.
  2. I am seriously tempted to run this for some friends. I too, was surprised by the differences between 1st edition and the later ones, as I had only played later editions (Trivial anecdote, I had been playing SWD6 for almost 8 years before I ever saw a core rulebook, and it would be close to another 8 years before I managed to secure my own first copy of a core book, Revised and Expanded. To say the least, by the time I finally saw a core rulebook for the first time, we had some pretty extensive houserules going on, lol). I've always like the simplicity of D6, so 1st edition has really captivated my attention and I want to see how it plays out in person.
  3. I might be missing the point of the discussion, but FFG did make the Character Sheet, Templates, & Tables from the back of the book available online as PDF in August: https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/af/56/af562e17-0396-45bb-9153-e705cbd66276/sww01_character_sheetsv2.pdf
  4. Ah, thank you, I now see where it says that in the main Assessment section. So that works well If Iaijutsu added a support action to the Assessment that would be the place to put.
  5. They need not be mutually exclusive, a Kakita specific technique would likely be an action and use successes or offer it as an opportunity spend, but could be limited to the use of the fire ring, and only apply under certain circumstances, like a duel. Fire can be used anytime you use the fire ring and works with opportunity. I would expect other clans to have their own proprietary techniques, some may very well perform a similar task.
  6. Since we can ready a weapon when we take our stance, the draw and strike part of the technique largely feels redundant, not that this is a poor redundancy, but the kata generally fails to make us any more proficient at Iaijutsu, or meaningfully effect our ability to perform in a Iaijutsu duel or tournament, an important aspect of Rokugani culture. I don’t mind that anybody, even without the Kata, can participate in an Iaijutsu duel, in fact I prefer it, but I do feel like the technique should meaningfully impact such conflicts for those who take the time to really learn it. I’d say master it, but I feel mastery would be a result of learning and combining multiple techniques and abilities. So I’d prefer the base Iaijutsu technique to impact initiative or the assessment phase, allowing us to react with greater alacrity. Alternatively, Iaijutsu could offer greater agency instead, perhaps allowing an extra support action (Center, Provoke, etc) taken during the Assesment Phase or once during the Turn Phase, perhaps while taking their stance, with an altered TN for balance. Adding a free support action to the Assessment Phase could make Iaijutsu duels feel a little more tactical, altering the outcome regardless of a single initiative roll. It doesn’t encourage rocket tag by offering a straight bonus to initiative, while encouraging us to tailor our approach to our opponent, ‘is she faster than me? I’ll Center in hopes that she cannot land a strike before me,’ or alternatively, ‘I think I’m faster so I’ll Provoke in hopes of throwing him off balance and create an opening for myself.’ School specific Support actions could be introduced through school abilities and techniques. Like others have suggested, perhaps the Kakita have a technique that can cause their opponent to suffer strife, increasing the chance of an outburst and thus the Finishing Blow, which would work nicely alongside their Way of the Crane ability (which I like). EDIT: I think it needs to be clarified when characters can enter their Stance, I would think a duel doesn’t legally begin until both combatants have entered their stance, but if it happens at the start of each of our turns then that will be too late for the second person to act. We would likely lose some nuance to duels if this is the case, because why wouldn’t we strike if failing to do so means our opponent will both be able to take a stance and then strike us. Rocket tag. I likely deadly and dangerous combat, but it needs room for nuance and agency. 2nd EDIT: Divorcing the Kata from the strike also removes the the need to limit it to one hand.
  7. Most of my experience is in Solo/Duo games. I'd recommend generalizing is the better choice, to give the greatest chance of succeeding in the broadest array of challenges. That said, in Solo/Duo games I tend to let the PC(s) stretch the rules for Additional Obligation, allowing them to select the same options multiple times, for example, selecting '+10 Starting XP' twice. In Solo games I've also raised Starting Obligation per player, or allowed the player exceed starting XP when selecting Additional Obligation options. Note, none of this is by-the-book, but can give a Solo/Duo the option to specialize without leaving too many holes in their competence. This can change the tone of the narrative though.
  8. I always liked to picture Kyle Katarn's ship from Jedi Outcast/Jedi Acadamy as the HWK-1000 despite the description given in the book. It appears to be from a similar line as the HWK-290 and looks to be all engine which justifies the speed nicely while out-massing most starfighters, something I feel a number of Silhouette 4 ships fail to do. Edit: Ah, its called the Raven's Claw
  9. I think folks have done a good job discussing the Gain the Advantage as it is written and I have little to add there, but I have been experimenting with it recently and can share my experiences and how this action has evolved for us with use. Probably the part we fiddled with the most was, "his check is one step more difficult for each time he or his opponent has successfully Gained the Advantage against the other." We first tried it assuming your own successes counted against you too, and as others have noted it is counter-intuitive as you can become a victim of your own success. For characters and minion groups with large dice pools, this wasn't a big deal as GtA rolls often started trivially low, but for low or moderate dice pools or slower ships regaining GtA could become effectively impossible by the second roll even against equivalent opponents. After that we experimented with only the opponent's successful attempt increasing the difficulty, we even eventually went back redid some of the previous encounters to get a feel for how they might have change. Here we found equivalent pilots, and ships had a fighting chance when their second roll came up. For advanced pilots with big dice pools (though not necessarily limited to just them) spending Advantage and Threat became a more salient factor on how challenging the next roll would be, and the give and take was often more variable and exciting. We have since settled on using the latter style at our table, as it plays out in a way we find more enjoyable, but we did also agree the former was more likely the closer interpretation to RAW. We also see the former as a better stylistic choice if you are going for a more sudden and cutthroat feel to your dogfights. Now how long Gain the Advantage lasts also has a baring on the options above. If you stick to the first option, but have the difficulty increase end after the end of the following round, like GtA's primary benefits, then the difficulty shouldn't increase by more than two steps, keeping it somewhat in check. Unfortunately two steps can be enough to make it effectively impossible to succeed again, particularly if your ship is slower than your opponent's. Despite succeeding on the first roll, and almost because of it, failure becomes the most likely outcome on the next. You might find yourself questioning why you'd even bother with GtA in the first place if it means you're nearly guaranteed to lose it before a shot is fired. Without limiting the increased dificulty by the end of the following round will eventually lock out GtA as an option for both parties. These were additional factors for us settling on the second option, believing it gives pilots an incentive to be pilots instead of just gunners. Getting back on the time limit, though the primary benefits only last until the end of the following round, my group hasn't bothered capping how long the difficulty increases lasts. You could say we play it lasting until the end of the encounter, but that would be deceptive. It would be more accurate to say it lasts until the opponents mutually move on, or it makes sense to end it in the narrative. As long as they are scrapping their successful attempts continue to add up until they reach a conclusion, whether that is one defeating the other or disengaging to deal with other threats or objectives. If they re-engage at a later time in the encounter then they would start at again at zero. For some reason doing it this way hasn't felt like we're tracking much of anything, the increase is there as long as we're dogfighting, then it is gone when we're not. Similarly with the primary benefits of GtA, if we have the advantage then on the following round can we apply them, then they're gone. I'm not sure if that observation makes any sense or not. . . Another area we have experimented has been, "Once the advantage has been gained, on the following turn the opponent may attempt to cancel out the advantage by using Gain the Advantage as well." If successful do they merely cancel out your advantage or do they cancel your advantage and gain it themselves. In the beginning we were inclined to say in merely negates your advantage, leaving neither party with advantage, but we found it drew the duel out more than we liked, or at least in a way that created spaces of ineffectiveness. These times of ineffectiveness felt intolerable when our own successful attempts counted against our future rolls, and when our successful attempts didn't count against us, these dogfights didn't need stretching out. So having advantage trading hands made for a swifter encounter, and we generally agreed it felt more exciting. Though we haven't used it yet, I felt Koiogran Turn remains a little more unique when counter-rolls of GtA don't just merely negate advantage, but swaps it instead. One problem I think people have with actions like Gain the Advantage is it is very easy to look at the basic benefits and costs and come to the conclusion that it is a sub-optimal choice, and discount it. Admittedly, ignoring an instance or two of Evasive Maneuvers and choosing which facing to hit on a fighter likely sporting relatively weak shields isn't all that impressive. Its for this reason I so strongly remind and emphasize the use of excess advantage/threat/triumph/despair. Spending these resources are what helps you maintain your advantage, let the boost and setback dice fly, and as Jegergryte says, use Gain the Advantage creatively! For me, that last point is much of the point of this whole system to begin with! With that in mind, we've codified a variable or two we found make Gain the Advantage more interesting: One part of Gain the Advantage that hasn't really been discussed here is when multiple opponent's have advantage against you. With the rules as written it doesn't appear to explicitly be a factor, you pick one opponent, then try to counter their advantage with a roll of your own. And of course Koiogran Turn allows you to negate all their advantage with a maneuver. One thing we started doing after we stopped counting our own successful attempts against our future rolls of GtA, was to increase the difficulty for each opponent with advantage over us. For example, I'm about to counter TIE/ln Alpha 1's advantage over me with a GtA roll of my own, but Alpha 3 has advantage too, assuming we're all moving at speed 5, the base difficulty is 2, and I increase it two more steps for a new difficulty of 4. If I succeed I break Alpha 1's advantage, gaining advantage of my own, while Alpha 3 still has advantage over me. The logic behind this choice was simply that the more opponents with advantage over you the more difficult it would be to escape any one instance (I need to break left, but if I do I'll fly right into Alpha 3's line of fire - if I roll a despair, that is probably exactly what happens). I'm interesting in using more Challenge dice, we might try Upgrading instead of Increasing Difficulty. Admittedly, I don't consider this so much of a house-rule as, like I said, merely codifying one potential variable influencing a character's dice pool, though I doubt everyone would agree with me there. Another area I'm 'codifying' a little (okay, so this is more of a house-rule, and still untested) is allowing a character to spend additional successes with Gain the Advantage rolls (and potentially other pilot checks), rewarding those pilots with more skill or an impressive roll. I've found a character can succeed at a Gain the Advantage roll spectacularly, but since excess successes are not usually counted, the opponent can very easily counter advantage on their next roll, so we're letting the character upgrade their opponent's next pilot or gunnery check once for every two excess successes they rolled. Say I'm playing a highly skilled pilot who nets six Successes and two Advantage on their Gain the Advantage roll. With a positive result, she successfully gains the advantage over her opponent and with five excess successes she get to upgrade the opponent's next pilot or gunnery roll twice and chooses to spend the 2 Advantage to apply a Setback die on their next pilot or gunnery check. If the opponent chooses to counter her advantage, the base difficulty is increased one step for the successful roll, then upgraded twice for the excess successes, and they suffer a Setback die as well. The aim of such a ruling is to reward skilled pilots by giving them an additional means of influencing dice pools and their own survival with said skill, while generally increasing the number of Challenge dice rolled in space combat. It may be that these upgrades are too fiddly to track, or that they are too dangerous or destabilizing, that is one reason I decided to use two excess successes instead of one per upgrade. Regardless of what you think of my little, er, codification. I'd like to emphasize that Gain the Advantage is a means for a pilot to really use their piloting skill in aerial/space combat instead of relying almost solely on the gunnery skill, proving they are indeed the superior pilot. Don't be afraid to use it creatively, Jegergryte, for example, pointed out some interesting alternative aims and goals that GtA could be used for. Oh, and don't forget to apply Advantage/Treat and Triumph/Despair! They are game changers and narrative gold! To summarize how Gain the Advantage has come to be used at our table, at least for the moment: Gain the Advantage (Pilot-only Action; Silhouette 1-5; Speed 4+; Difficulty determined by relative Speed) Ignore any penalties imposed from the Evasive Maneuver starship maneuvers until the end of the following round. You may choose what defense zone you hit with your attack until the end of the following round. If an opponent has advantage over you, you may counter it by making a Gain the Advantage action on your turn. Increase the Difficulty by one step for every time your opponent has successfully Gained the Advantage against you. If successful, you have advantage now. House Ruling: Increase the difficulty for every opponent beyond the first holding advantage over you. House Ruling: For each pair of successes beyond the first Upgrade your opponent's next Piloting or Gunnery check once.
  10. We typically aim for about 4 hours a session now-a-days since we can rarely schedule more than a half a day at a time together, but we live too far apart to justify shorter sessions (if we are getting together for other reasons we've been know to squeeze in a quicky before or after). We reward experience for accomplishments and story reasons only. If the story doesn't advance, neither does experience. . . except that has never happened. As GM, I aim for 5xp per hour of play. That said, when it is just my old high-school buddies, we've never earned less than that, and more often than not, we exceed it - after years of squeezing games into any little break has made us a very efficient bunch. When we play with our college buddies, we tend to hold a more laid-back pace, and tend to hover right on the 5 xp mark, but fluctuate both high and low. If we expect a game to have a limited number of sessions, we will accelerate the pace of xp earnings, doubling or tripling the expected rewards. . . though the last time that happened was a d6 game, a half dozen years ago (in other words, I haven't done that with FFG's system yet).
  11. Don't forget about spending Advantage/Threat and Triumph/Despair, and by extension, using pilot checks. Look at the available actions and maneuvers. A single fighter isn't that hard to hit, and cannot take much of a hit, but you can significantly increase your survival by performing actions and spending Advantage/Threat and Triumph/Despair. A pair of Advantage on your Gain the Advantage check can mean a Setback die on your opponent's next Pilot or Gunnery Check. A pair of Advantage/Threat can mean a free Maneuver (A second Pilot-Only does still inflict 2 System Strain). A Threat on your opponent's check can mean a loss of speed or the build up of System Strain. Letting System Strain build up can be deadly, especially when everyone is making the most of their Maneuvers (Second Maneuvers, Increase Power, etc.). Speed should not be discounted either. Speed affects the difficulty of Gain the Advantage, where a speed advantage will mean easier Checks which can mean more successes (Each time you successfully GtA you increase your opponent's difficulty one step) and potentially earn you more Advantage/Triumph. If you're in danger, a high speed can quickly move you out of a starfighter's sensor range potentially giving you a chance to escape, hide, or recover, depending on the variables of battle. . . or start a chase scene! With enough Triumph or Despair, vital ship components can be disabled or destroyed, shifting the course of the battle. This is where a pilot's skill points really pay off. More skill maximizes Success/Advantage/Triumph while minimizing Failure/Threat/Despair, all of which will mold the battlefield and hopefully give a talented pilot the resources they need to survive. Edit: Here is a small selection of options: Spending Advantage/Triumph 2 Advantage: 1 Boost on next Pilot/Gunnery Check 2 Advantage: 1 Setback on opponent’s next Pilot/Gunnery Check. 3 Advantage: Free 2nd Maneuver. 1 Triumph: Disable ship component of choice. 2 Triumph: Destroy ship component of Choice. Spending Threat/Despair 1 Threat: Ship Speed slowed by 1 1 Threat: Lose benefits of prior Maneuver. 1+ Threat: Suffers 1 System Strain per Threat. 2 Threat: Opponent gets 1 free Maneuver. 2 Threat: 1 Boost on opponent’s next Pilot/Gunnery Check. 2 Threat: 1 Setback on next Pilot/Gunnery Check. 3 Threat: Initiative slot moves to the bottom of the Initiative Order for rest of Encounter. 3 Threat: Decrease Difficulty of opponent’s next action once. 1 Despair: Component Disabled. 1 Despair: Minor Collision. 1 Despair and Failure: Major Collision.
  12. The 'Fancy Paint Job' talent would be perfect for a Hutt, and if you went Rigger instead, 'Black Market Contacts' would fit pretty good too. The thought of a twisted Hutt in some sort of automated hover-harness could certainly be frightening . . . and fun!
  13. As far as dealing System Strain in Starfighters specifically - to stay on topic - Both the pilot and the astromech (if you have one) should be able to perform the Damage Control Action in and out of combat. I like to think of it as Systems Management; redirecting power, transferring coolant/heat, discharging static buildup, disconnecting inoperative systems, etc.. For example, an A-Wing pilot just survived a dogfight with a TIE/In, but is suffering some Heavy System Strain, so for his next turn, instead of seeking out a new target he takes an Evasive Maneuver, and a Average Difficulty Damage Control Action. Assuming nothing goes wrong, he is free to dive back into the fray on the following round. If he is travelling from one fight to another, I'd be fine letting him use that time to continue recovering System Strain. Edit: To take it further, maybe he pushed his A-Wing too far and his systems shut down leaving him disabled and an easy target. He immediately uses a Hard Difficulty Damage Control Action to restart his ship systems, He succeeds, surprisingly well in fact! Spending two Advantage to take two Maneuvers, he Punches It, negating enough of the new System Strain with his ranks of High-G Training to keep the A-wing flying, then takes Evasive Maneuvers in hopes of surviving the until the next round (again resorting to High-G Training)! He is seriously stressed out, but he is back in the game for the moment!
  14. Admittedly, our starfighter game is small, and only a few sessions in. I have been taking notes, and working on write-ups, that I plan on sharing when I get further along (I'm a very slow writer, so it may take awhile). I've found reading and rereading the starship chapters of the core rulebooks (and any other relevant books like Stay on Target), then using what we find there makes a big difference. I didn't realize before hand how important System Strain would be for starfighter combat until considering how small a starfighter's Threshold is and the different options for suffering it like Boost Shields, Increase Power (Astromech only), Punch It, Talents, Threat (remember, it affects you opponents too), and second Pilot-only Maneuvers. All of these can shift the balance of a dogfight, for instance, you find your self at Speed 1 or 2 and about to engage a TIE racing at 5, Punching It to get your speed up would be wise before you or them Gains the Advantage. Don't forget your Astromech, if you have one, they can help manage System Strain if you're suffering or assist your piloting to help prevent it. They can be a HUGE advantage. Use your Advantage, Triumph, and opponent's Threat as often as you can, this is part of what makes a dogfight interesting and adds twists to the narrative. Find ways to generate Advantage, Triumph, and opponent's Threat. This is why you use Gain the Advantage instead of 'he who shoots first, wins!' (We have found this is a bit of a mindset thing, you might find both players and GM need to mutually agree to avoid deadly slug-fests to make space combat more interesting). Any Advantage, Triumph, and opponent's Threat you generate can be spent to shield you from incoming attacks and help out-fly your opponents. Sensor Ranges are relevant! Most starfighters have small sensor ranges (Close or Short), even when they use active sensors, and move very fast, meaning most fighters encounter each other right on top of each other. Instead of wasting maneuvers and actions on closing, they can often get right to dogfighting. This does give a big advantage to those fighters who have longer sensor ranges or bigger ships relaying sensor information, especially if they are armed with longer ranged weapons. This can can generate means and methods to significantly alter the shape of the battlefield ("Interceptors, take out those support ships!"). That said, don't be afraid to start combat at a distance, using the terrain to create interesting and challenging ways of closing and using talents like Shortcut. This can also help reduce the significance of the initiative check (and thus the 'he who shoots first, wins!' approach). I'm sure I'm missing something, but I'm suffering mental overload considering all the variables... hence why I'm a slow writer
  15. I noticed, no one has mentioned that Damage Control errata (and printed in F&D) changes repairing System Strain to “Using this action, any Player Character who makes a successful Mechanics check recovers one point of system strain per success.” Although that could just be because it's not really relevant to the conversation. I've generally used System Strain as an. . . encounter/scenario resource. If the crew HAVE THE TIME to scour the ship, removing System Strain, and it will have little narrative impact on the story going forward, then I generally allow it. The single point a day I consider the result of mere system self-diagnostics, regular maintenance, and rest, particularly for the smaller ships that the PCs are more likely to be working on. On truly immense or complicated ships, this might be about the best they can hope for even with crews working every hour of the day. Now if time is tight or the PCs are going straight from one scenario to another I might not allow them to recover System Strain, or preferably, make a challenge of it (time for a montage!), making how much SS they recover the result of the crew's scramble to get the ship ready for the next scene. As for System Strain and instances like an Astrogation check, I find circumstances make a big difference. If the ship is free and clear after it jumps, System Strain may just not be a valid choice for spending Disadvantage. If the crew has to wait a few rounds before it is clear to jump, then it may be a good opportunity to suffer system strain immediately. Another good opportunity to inflict System Strain would be as the ship suffers complications while exiting hyperspace, meaning the crew wont be able to deal with it until they arrive at their destination, and thus also have to deal with what ever other trouble might be waiting for them. I've started playing in a small starfighter campaign (mostly to help us familiarize and experiment with the starship rules), and I found how I manage System Strain has a BIG impact on how starfighters perform in a scenario. Spending SS can give you a leg up on your opponents, but at the risk of pushing your ship too close to the edge. It has become one of the more interest parts of space combat, especial for my Hotshot Ace.
×
×
  • Create New...