Subject:
|
Re: Rules Talk: JumpShip Ideas
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming.starship
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 May 2003 15:00:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2137 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.gaming.starship, Richard Parsons wrote:
> In lugnet.gaming.starship, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote:
> > If I may interject, as someone who's mulling over
> > joining up (unless my lack of any actual Brick at
> > the moment is an intent-killer) and has read the
> > rules as a fresh outsider:
>
> Heck no! Get in here :-)
Oooh! A thread with colors, and HEY! .starship has over 100 posts now! :)
Oh, and Lindsay, as for lack of brick, ABS-related CAD are allowed. You may use
any scale you like (mini-fig-, micro-, nano-, macro-, etc.). As for your
interjections, every rule in this game was discussed publically and by whatever
participants were interested at the time. The more who join the discussion the
better (IMO), and if we reach an impass, we do what we did when first developing
things: we vote. Just by showing up, your vote counts as much as anyone elses.
:)
> > I'd suggest close the door on Ferries with gating
> > capability that can carry more than one pre-designated
> > ship (like K-T drives in BattleTech's, well, "JumpShips").
> > But, of course, as an outsider, feel free to tell
> > me to go soak my head. ;)
>
> I agree completely.
Although I agree this could work, there is one small problem that we as a
community may need to concern ourselves with: There is one player who
registered a JumpShip several weeks ago. He wished to use it as a Ferry because
one of his other "Ships" is actually an immobile base that can be towed,
although he also uses it to carry a second ship. Because the concepts of
JumpShips and Ferries had not been thoroughly discussed, I did open some topics
up on the old board when he first registered (most of what was said I quoted in
the first post of this thread). But no one ever said to the player that he
could not go ahead with his plan. Thus, we already have a Ferry that is a
JumpShip (currently following the old 3-week rule, but presumably it is a Full),
and it can carry at least two ships. It recently carried two ships to the Outer
Rim. Note, he is also only a few pics short of registering several more
JumpShips...
This is the ship:
http://www.valyance.com/starship/registry/ships.htm#Europa
When he joined, I did mention that his was the first and that it was kind of an
experiment, so it might be reasonable to force some modification on him even
after he has been playing for a bit. However, at the same time, I don't want to
offend people by changing the rules half-way through the game. If we want to
limit Ferries by reducing their Jump ability or limiting how many ships they can
carry, then we need to agree on any such change as a community. (Dave, if you
are reading this, post to the old board with your thoughts if you can't post
here.)
> > I presume there is no classification or limit on
> > "ship sizes"--that these are fully subsumed into
> > the three-tier qualitative system? (e.g., you can
> > make that Death Star, but it's no better than any
> > other HQ-stat in the galaxy, and just looks all the
> > more ridiculous when it gets blown up by a flagship
> > fighter?)
>
> The tiers are more a guide to the GM and SMs, and other players.
Yup. Just a guide. When you look quickly at a ship's stats you get a general
idea of how it is constructed. You can see that its weak-point might be
defenses, while its strong-point might be speed (or whatever). It doesn't
really mean that two ships with HQ in weapons are equally powerful (although it
could mean that, depending on storytelling). Some players give ships weaker
stats because they want a large fleet and the rules limit them. Other players
give ships weaker stats just for fun, storytelling, or variety.
> The propulsion tiers impact on galactic movement, but not much on in-sector
> movement (GM monitors and administers)
Yes, Propulsion is used mostly by the GM. Although an SM may choose to use it,
allowing it to effect a chase, or whatever. In my adventure in the Grave Belt,
as SM, I actually modify my action emails based on what the ship's propulsion
is. If they are a fast ship, they have the option of moving five sub-sectors,
but a medium speed ship only has the option for three sub-sectors, and a slow
only one. Of course, as the map indicates, some sub-sectors in the Grave Belt
have asteroids and others have uncharted debris. As some players have
discovered, moving at max-possible speed in my adventure is not always the
wisest thing to do...
> Sensors impact on the quality of in sector sensor detail and range (SMs
> administer)
Again, just a guide, but this is definitely more for SMs. They might allow a
ship with better sensors to see beyond the current sub-sector, or maybe see more
detail when scanning a planet.
> Weapons and armour impact on combat outcomes (SMs wield reality)
Naturally, and again this is indeed mostly for SMs.
> > > Otherwise, I like
> > > your revised proposal.
> >
> > Or, perhaps, have it require two weeks in JumpSpace,
> > irrespective of destination. That would still confer a
> > benefit for the investment, without making it overpowering.
>
> I dealt with the administration burden in a previous post. I guess I see
> gameplay in the two different options, and would probably recommend keeping the
> distinction. I'd be happy to write a treatise attachment to the rules on
> JumpSpace, with worked examples to help out newbie galactic navigators :-)
I am leaning towards favoring the Full JumpShip as 1 Week and the Medium
JumpShip as chosing-per-use between 1 Week with Gate or 3 Weeks without. Not
that I disagree with the other comments so far, but simply that I am finding it
easier to grasp, retain, and explain.
> > > With the number of ships flying about, it would be too much work for the GM
> > > (IMO) to actually roll on a chart for every ship. But with JumpShips, and
> > > there being never more than 5 per player, it would be easier to manage. As
> > > current GM, I would be willing to put together a chart especially catered
> > > to JumpSpace travel. The possibility of the unexpected actually would be
> > > yet another way to prevent over-usage of JumpShips.
> >
> > If it can be made wieldy for the GM, then that sounds like
> > a very neat idea.
After reading Richard's other post on the matter, I must agree that allowing GM
random thoughts rather than a fixed chart would be more in-tune with the
'culture' of Starship. I will go ahead with this plan once we firm up the rules
on JumpShips in general. Not to worry, I won't abuse this too much (not if I
have any intention of running for GM again next year anyway). (grins)
> > It's very easy to understand the basics. I will
> > of course have questions about the specifics in
> > due time, but I'm not at all in doubt that I can
> > grok the Way Things Are™.
>
> Grok on.
>
> > Time to break out the MLCAD...o je.
Rock on! Oh, I mean... Oh nevermind... :)
-GM Hendo
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Rules Talk: JumpShip Ideas
|
| (snipped all non-Hendo text) (...) Yes. We are all treated as equals, except Hendo. :). He's the Grand Galactic Mediator Dude. Make him mad and you'll know it. :) (...) Well, I have no problems with ferries with JumpDrives©. :), love doing that (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.gaming.starship, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rules Talk: JumpShip Ideas
|
| (...) Heck no! Get in here :-) (...) I agree completely. (...) The tiers are more a guide to the GM and SMs, and other players. The propulsion tiers impact on galactic movement, but not much on in-sector movement (GM monitors and administers) (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.gaming.starship)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
