Jump to content

edwardavern

Members
  • Content Count

    400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About edwardavern

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 06/16/1988

Profile Information

  • Location
    London

Recent Profile Visitors

907 profile views
  1. This is a good point - I feel like she selected a motivation from the CR list (can't remember it off the top of my head), but hasn't really thought about it at all. I'll push her on this and see what she says. Yes. I'm working on this - it's definitely the most interesting aspect of the character so far. Going to be building on that. I agree in principle, but in practice I can't seem to help making the effort. #noyouredesperatetopleaseeveryone This is a great idea. Totally going to do this. Yes, that's also a good idea. Thanks all. Really helpful stuff.
  2. One of my players recently told me that, although she's enjoying the game, she feels a bit like a passenger - that she reacts to stuff, rather than ever making decisions. She accepts that part of this is because she's never really taken the time to flesh out her character (so, in her own words, her character is "plot-driven" rather than "character-driven"), and also is aware that it's partly because her character is quite a quiet, sneaky sort of dug, who isn't instinctively at the forefront of what the party decides to do. I'm talking to her to see if we can find ways for her to feel more involved in the decision-making, but I just wondered if other GMs out there had had similar issues, and (if so) how did you address them? Thanks in advance.
  3. One of my PCs was blinded, so I gave him an invisible lightsaber crystal - now he can't see the blade, but neither can anyone else...
  4. I trialled the new system the other day, with component strain instead of universal system strain. Worked OK - a few kinks, but TBH the main issue was that I had forgotten how good the ship's mechanic is. I swear she doesn't even have that much XP, but she managed to get the ship out of the encounter in better condition than it went in. Next trial I'll be hitting them with some heavy ion weapons.
  5. I use Resilience checks when PCs exceed their Wound Threshold. Instead of instantly becoming incapacitated, I let them make a check to see if they can limp on to the end of the Encounter (although they still suffer the crit, of course). Makes them slightly less glass cannon-y, and brings the skill into more prominence.
  6. My players want more space encounters, and I've already used "ship graveyard". I'm thinking space minefield could be fun, but it would be great to have some other cool space environments in which to set encounters.
  7. ... er, why? Isn't "hull trauma", you know, trauma to the hull? Or, to be less facetious, I suppose I always interpreted HT as actual damage, while SST was more... electronic damage, or overheating, and stuff. In fact... *goes to check book* ... the CR says "the strength of a capital ship's keel, the studiness of a speeder truck's chassis, or the general spaceworthiness of a starfighter's spaceframe are all measured by hull trauma threshold", while "System strain... is an aggregate of the efficiency and status of computer and navigation systems, engines and hyperspace drives, power generators, and a host of other delicate systems necessary to ensure peak performance". Obviously I'm not wedded to RAW, given that this whole post is about a HR, but I feel that it's not unreasonable to break SST down and not HT. Actually, reading your comment back, I feel like there may have been some crossed wires. I'm not suggested that SST can be "soaked" by temporarily shorting out a system. I'm suggesting that I do away with shipwide SST, and instead break it down into constituent System STs of considerably lower value. The aggregate of these is equivalent to RAW SST; taken individually, however, they short out specific systems if thresholds are exceeded. Does that make more sense? (Apologies for confusion.)
  8. I wouldn’t make it so that the components had be disabled before a kill can be made! This is to replace System Strain, not Hull Trauma. So even if I do it for NPCs as well, the PCs can still just blast them from the sky.
  9. Hmm. I don’t mind a little bit extra book-keeping, and I don’t anticipate the “only worried about Main body”’problem with the way I’m going to break it down. However, you’re right that I haven’t thought about how I’m going to extend this to NPCs, or multiple PC ships. Good point. Will think. Yeah, it could slow things down a bit, but I want to give the engineer some actual decisions - I would keep it simple enough that “puzzling out” wouldn’t necessarily take too long, but while I really like your narrative suggestions, they don’t actually give the engineer any decision to make: it’s just the GM saying what happens, and the engineer having no real choice but to fix it. Does that make sense?
  10. Been working on sprucing up ship combat with a load of house rules, including plenty of stuff from these forums (thanks to all, BTW). One of the things I want to do is to bring the party mechanic into space combat a bit more. I'm thinking of Han Solo running around the Millennium Falcon trying to fix the hyperdrive while dodging TIE fighter blasts, or Kaylee setting Serenity up for a crazy ivan - trying to capture that slightly mad feeling of being down in engineering, rewiring things and putting out fires and staggering around in a Star Trek way when the ship gets hit. I was playing Captain Sonar recently, and one thing I quite liked was the way different components went offline and had to be repaired in order to be used (albeit in a somewhat abstract way). I was thinking that instead of each ship having System Strain, each system (e.g. shields, hyperdrive, sublight engines, etc.) would have System Strain. Over the course of a combat, the ship's mechanic would have to work to keep different systems operational, either by repairing the System Strain or simply redistributing it, deciding which system was most important. If a system exceeded its threshold, it would go offline; maybe if it exceeded its threshold, it would suffer a Component Critical hit. This would give the mechanic some actual decisions to make, rather than simply "make a generic Mechanics check". Anyone have any thoughts on how that might work/not work?
  11. I obviously meant Tatooine. No idea what happened there...! I somehow missed the post originally. That's awesome. I mean, it's literally the exact opposite of what I'm trying to do... but it's still awesome. Oooh, wow, I somehow missed this one as well. That's... interesting! I have no idea if it would work, or if I even like it - why is there a random element, after all? - but it's a really interesting way of thinking about it. Fuel and docking fees are two things I started doing and then instantly regretted. It became so unnecessarily fiddly, and I never could get the amounts to work - either they were too harsh, or just not large enough to be interesting. It was fun crunching the numbers as an exercise, but in-game it just became a chore. I'm kind of intrigued by an idea where players have an abstract amount of resources (X units), but those resources have to be committed to things. Maybe ship maintenance/fuel requires 4 units to be committed, for example; the players can take resources out of that pot, but as soon as they go below the threshold the starts to break down. Maybe, as with VtM, players can commit X units to lifestyle, or to weapon maintenance, or something. Buying small things is handwaved; larger things maybe reduce the player's available pool... ...although TBH, now that I write that down, it doesn't feel like it's going to be any less book-keepy. Hmm.
  12. Hmm, yes, removing a fiddly system to replace it with a fiddly system is a bit pointless.
  13. This feels like the sort of thing that I could spend days getting sucked into. I'm kind of intrigued by the idea of Resources=green dice, but I can also see that being an unnecessarily complicated system. Like you said, there's some decisions to be made there about how that works. Will think on it. Ooh, that's interesting! Yes, I'm very intrigued by that possibility. Essentially creating an abstract Wealth tracker. You're right that the maths needs a bit of thinking about... maybe it's more like Silhouette, a kind of exponential chart...? Things like "payment in advance" is a good point to consider. That is something my players often go for, and hand-waving it potentially robs them of that. So I'll have to give it some thought. Good point. My players pretend to like getting stuff, but actually haven't accumulated much in the way of "gear". Occasionally one of them will decide to buy a better weapon, but since they're based on Coruscant it always feels like a let-down. "Yes, you find a weapons dealer easily. Yes, they have a marginally superior weapon. It costs 1000 credits. Well done." Players don't remember that stuff. But they absolutely remember the weapon they took from the Wookiee gladiator, or the blunderblasters they confiscated from illegal arms-runners. Narrative weapons are interesting. This is a valid point. Fortunately, none of my players current has these specs, and I'd probably just ask them not to take them. If they really want to I'll have to rework all the talents, of course...
  14. Yeah, I don't know Shadowrun, but the description that @the mercenary posted didn't fill me with confidence that that would be less book-keeping-y. I sort of see what you're saying. But does it have to be a "number indicator". Could you not just have, for example, something similar to the way range bands work? "Broke", "Poor", "Comfortable", "Well-off", "Wealthy", "Stupidly Rich", and "JK Rowling", or something? That way you're not just handwaving it, but you're also not bogged down with 5 credits at a time, or whatever. Yeah, that's sort of what I do. But then I just wondered whether I actually care how much a blaster rifle costs. Like, does that matter? If the players have to do a job before they can afford it, then just do that. Or just let them have it, if it's not narratively significant. It's not gonna break the game. Am I wrong?
×
×
  • Create New...