Designing Space Battle in RPG

[Morrus]

With all due respect, that sounds pretty standard fare.

 

[Laurefindel]

With all due respect, that sounds pretty standard fare.

Perhaps,

Complexity / number of options vs playability was a concern, so was ground combat/space combat overlay; I may have gone too shy on complex and unique options.

However, most of the « standard fare » space combat rules I’ve read so far consider spaceships as a single entity, with a single pool of hp (or equivalent), and where only gunners can make attack rolls. When they have special component / department damage, they are rolled at random, and most systems are symmetrical; i.e. enemies play by the same rules as players.

I don’t pretend to be reinventing the wheel - heck this is not even my own game design - but I’m looking forward to playtest and see if it provides what I failed to find in other games.

 

[Imaculata]

• The Helm moves the ship and chooses the ship's combat stance, determining which tasks will be available to other battlestations this round. Keeps track of thrusters' "hit points", "health", and conditions.
• Comms "sees" enemies, allowing others to target them. Keeps track of sensors' "hit points", "health", and conditions.
• Engineering distributes energy to others, essentially giving them weapons. Keeps track of engineering's "hit points", "health", and conditions.
• Tactical assigns engagement and keeps track of weapon array's "hit points", "health", and conditions.

Honestly, it sounds like Comms and Engineering are the most boring jobs, which is usually the case. I think all roles should be equally exciting. Keeping track of statistics and distributing energy to others so they can do the fun things, is no fun if you're the one providing the energy.

This all sounds very similar to the boardgame Battlestations. It suffers from the same problem where most jobs on board a spaceship are boring, especially engineering. I think what you need is a system of rules where each job has various exciting strategic choices to make each round, and where engineers are forced to leave their station and go repair things manually, while their ship is tranformed into a hazardous gauntlet mid-battle.

But lets also not neglect the helm. The pilot needs to have access to interesting maneuvres. There has to be more to flying a spaceship than making a pilot check every round and moving the ship forward a few tiles. Spycraft actually has a couple of great rules for vehicle maneuvres during chases, that may serve as some inspiration.

 

[Laurefindel]

Honestly, it sounds like Comms and Engineering are the most boring jobs, which is usually the case. I think all roles should be equally exciting.

Yeah, everything except gunner and - to a lesser extent, pilot - is usually boring. I’ll soon see if what my players will think of it all.

In my defence, tracking enemies and distributing arsenals are what comms and engineering do at the top of the round; like all other positions when their own turn comes, they can take their gun/missiles and shoot enemies or take a combat task (i.e. use a special ability of that battle station, like saturating enemy sensors with electronic attack, or dispatching repair crews to different sections of the ship). Characters may also possess special abilities of their own; everyone can be at the helm, but the captain may have skills and abilities that make them better in that particular battlestation.

And like Morrus said, mobility between battlestation is key. I need to expand on that.

This all sounds very similar to the boardgame Battlestations. It suffers from the same problem where most jobs on board a spaceship are boring, especially engineering.
(...)
Spycraft actually has a couple of great rules for vehicle maneuvres during chases, that may serve as some inspiration.

gotta look into those, if only to see how battlestation fails at making all positions interesting.

Thanks for commenting

 

[Morrus]

And like Morrus said, mobility between battlestation is key. I need to expand on that.

I'd even go so far as to remove the idea of a battle station. You don't have those in ground combat. Just let anybody do whatever they like each turn. Much more fun!

 

[Laurefindel]

I'd even go so far as to remove the idea of a battle station. You don't have those in ground combat. Just let anybody do whatever they like each turn. Much more fun!

...but we do have « battlestations » in ground combat, at least in many games. We call them character classes, each providing a set of common and unique abilities.

But aside the class-battlestation allegory, I get what you mean: characters should be able do do what their players wants them to do, and I don’t disagree with that.

Besides, the original game I’m modelling this version on has a very loose definition of character class. For consistency, battlestation should receive an equally loose definition.

 

[Morrus]

...but we do have « battlestations in ground combat, at least in many games. We call them character classes, each providing a set of common and unique abilities.

But aside the class-battlestation allegory, I get what you mean: characters should be able do do what their players wants them to do, and I don’t disagree with that.

In ground combat it’s more about roles - tank, artillery, etc. Your barbarian can use a bow if he wants and your wizard can tank. The knight can certainly try to to sneak up on somebody. It’s not the optimal decision, but PCs can do anything they like in combat. Nobody can say “you’re in the tank role; you can’t use that bow!”

 

[Laurefindel]

In ground combat it’s more about roles - tank, artillery, etc. Your barbarian can use a bow if he wants and your wizard can tank. The knight can certainly try to to sneak up on somebody. It’s not the optimal decision, but PCs can do anything they like in combat. Nobody can say “you’re in the tank role; you can’t use that bow!”

The intention was more like « you are the barbarian; you can use healing to stabilise, but you can’t cast healing spells. On the other hand only you can rage »

 

[Morrus]

The intention was more like « you are the barbarian; you can use healing to stabilise, but you can’t cast healing spells. On the other hand only you can rage »

Yes, I understood. I was trying to say that the analogy is more to roles in combat than to specific abilities.

 

[Imaculata]

In my defence, tracking enemies and distributing arsenals are what comms and engineering do at the top of the round; like all other positions when their own turn comes, they can take their gun/missiles and shoot enemies or take a combat task (i.e. use a special ability of that battle station, like saturating enemy sensors with electronic attack, or dispatching repair crews to different sections of the ship).

That sounds like a good way to go.

gotta look into those, if only to see how battlestation fails at making all positions interesting.

What you are trying to do is a lofty goal, and I hope you can find a way to make it succeed where a lot of other boardgames and roleplaying systems have failed. It certainly doesn't seem impossible to me, so keep it up. I'm running a campaign that has naval combat, and I'm playing in a campaign that has space combat, so this is a problem that I'm trying to solve as well.