Designing Space Battle in RPG

[Laurefindel]

Sounds like you just want to play D&D. If you're designing a game, not a module, it might help to throw out some assumptions. Like "D&D would do it this way."

Nah, the D&D analogy was used as a common reference. The system used has no class as D&D defines them, no levels, and no magic. Also, characters in D&D cannot change class halfway through combat like they could change positions on a ship.

I meant to use the old-school D&D party analogy to express that...

• I don't want a system where the pilot and the gunner are the only ones doing meaningful things. Like the D&D party, each member needs to contribute equally with different abilities.
• I want a system where different positions on board a ship do different things and play different roles, like the dynamics of a D&D party.
• I want a system where everyone is fighting the enemy(ies), like a D&D party; not one where the gunner shoots and the three remaining characters are stuck to find something else to contribute.
• I want a system where positions play differently, like how a fighter plays differently from a wizard. One has good and consistent laser cannons attacks and high armour plating, the other has a limited amount of nuclear torpedoes and countermeasures but otherwise has less effective point-defence cannons.
• I want a system where everyone can be an efficient pilot, but one with a high piloting skill can focus on actions that require piloting rolls. Another could rely more on strategy, or another more on artillery.

With all the comments above, I'm not very close to what I want. I should have something to playtest by the weekend

[edit] I believe I misread your post. Yes, I'm throwing part of a game at you guys without giving you the rest, so there is no way for you to refer to anything but to that D&D party. I wouldn't know where to begin but in a nutshell, it's Cubicle 7's The One Ring system converted to sci-fi. Not that this helps you much...

 

[atanakar]

• I want a system where everyone is fighting the enemy(ies), like a D&D party; not one where the gunner shoots and the three remaining characters are stuck to find something else to contribute.
• I want a system where positions play differently, like how a fighter plays differently from a wizard. One has good and consistent laser cannons attacks and high armour plating, the other has a limited amount of nuclear torpedoes and countermeasures but otherwise has less effective point-defence cannons.
• I want a system where everyone can be an efficient pilot, but one with a high piloting skill score can focus on piloting actions that require piloting rolls.

Again, Coriolis, does all that. The Captain gives orders*. The Engineer distributes energy points to systems, the Pilot moves the ship closer or disengages to fight from a better position, the Sensor guy tries to lock on targets and finally shooting occurs against locked on target. The engineer can make repair test during battle. No player is sleeping during the fights.

Also the combat area is a rectangular field with 9 zones from left to right. Ships enter at each end. Each turn you move the ship apart or closer during the maneuver phase. When ships are within range they can shoot if the target was acquired by sensors.

(*Captain is an elected post. Other members do not have to follow this/her orders as in tv series.)

 

[Laurefindel]

Again, Coriolis, does all that. The Captain gives orders*. The Engineer distributes energy points to systems, the Pilot moves the ship closer or disengages to fight from a better position, the Sensor guy tries to lock on targets and finally shooting occurs against locked on target. The engineer can make repair test during battle. No player is sleeping during the fights.

Also the combat area is a rectangular field with 9 zones from left to right. Ships enter at each end. Each turn you move the ship apart or closer during the maneuver phase. When ships are within range they can shoot if the target was acquired by sensors.

(*Captain is an elected post. Other members do not have to follow this/her orders as in tv series.)

Yes, Corriolis is a good one; the RPG take on space battle that sparked this whole thing for me, and that says a lot!

Now, it has been a long time (I actually meant to revisit Corriolis after your first post) but I wanted to add a few thing from Corriolis: The "everyone can make an attack roll if they want to", bigger ships with large complements, different ways to approach each roles, and keeping the "individuality" of each role despite being all together in the same ship (basically, "kill" a position without blowing up the whole ship, like one character can be killed in D&D without a TPK).

 

[The Monster]

Again, Coriolis, does all that. The Captain gives orders*. The Engineer distributes energy points to systems, the Pilot moves the ship closer or disengages to fight from a better position, the Sensor guy tries to lock on targets and finally shooting occurs against locked on target. The engineer can make repair test during battle. No player is sleeping during the fights.

Also the combat area is a rectangular field with 9 zones from left to right. Ships enter at each end. Each turn you move the ship apart or closer during the maneuver phase. When ships are within range they can shoot if the target was acquired by sensors.

(*Captain is an elected post. Other members do not have to follow this/her orders as in tv series.)

Last year I had a chance to play Artemis Bridge Simulator, which does some very similar things. It being a LAN game, each station had constant real-time interaction - but unless each station actually did their job, the whole team would fail. I only played as the engineer, but there were always decisions to be made about allocating energy between shields, weapons, propulsion, reserves and repair (the most amusing moment was when I was focusing on repair and reserves after a battle, when I heard the helmsman whining about 'why aren't we moving?' I finally pointed out loud that I had not received any orders from the Captain about moving, hehe)
Anyway, a key point about player actions is IMO that to be worth playing, it has to involve real choices, not just 'ok, make your skill roll, and you're done for this round.' The stereotypical complaint about old D&D fighters is/was they just swing their sword again and again while everyone else gets to to different things and exercise different options. If you don't have at least three or four valid and important options - that all have distinct and desirable effects - every round, any ship role will get boring fast.

 

[TheDelphian]

I designed a sci fi game and hit some of the same obstacles. I think I solved them as best I could.

One issue is. Despite everything you do, In some groups, I have found that players will not engage or don't give a flip about space combat. In my experience only half the table wants to do space combat. I have tried to figure out why. maybe I don't see because I like that aspect but that is my experience. No matter how much they have to do, even if everyone has a "Job". I just think they don't engage with it like they do a Character, even if the ship is a character its not their character. This in no way helps you so let me get on to the hopefully more useful part.

My system had a hierarchy of roles based on size of the ship and therefore control systems. Not sure I remember the exact order but more or less was - Pilot, Gunner and/or engineer, then captain/tactical.

you could have multiples doing the job which I will explain.

Pilot - well you gotta have a driver. They handled maneuvering and active defense ie dodging.

Gunner - well they shot stuff but with several types of weapons this had a tactical component and deciding when to shoot mattered as I used a space map to track range and distance. I made it simple and tracked only relative distance so they didn't by necessity move across the map but relative to each ship involved.

Engineer - handle repairs, made rolls to resist damage, gave boost to systems that affected the weapons, piloting etc.

Captain/ Tactical - They were not necessarily in charge but more coordinated between stations and provided tactical help. This was simulated by using a command and/or tactics skill to aid others. Think D&D bard to use your framework.

Now if you had enough stations you could have co-pilots, co-gunner, co-engineer that basically aided the main station. Two gunners may have control over some of the same weapons or different ones only thing was each weapon was usable basically once a round. The ship, as a stat had its actions. this also allows everyone to act not constrained by their individual builds/designs

Stations may serve multiple purposes - in a one man fighter it was pilot, gunner, engineering station bigger ships of course had more. this made ships different. also made big ships scray with more crew more things they could do. Yeah a huge battle cruiser had two actions but enough crew to dump everything in those two actions.

The captain needed only a means to communicate to be useful though you could design a comms/sensor/ tactical board for them if ya wanted.

this still leaves open the possibility of individuals doing things like medics for injured characters and repelling borders by security teams.

hope that helps.

 

[aramis erak]

I'm making a sci fi (space opera) RPG, because making RPGs is fun.

Thoughts, advice, experience with other games?

From a simulationist perspective, you've got your trek-based positions. It's obvious that it's trek-based. How you handle them is more important than dividing them up.

Also, more important is that all characters have meaningful actions to take. Not of need in the roles defined.

Especially in a trek-style setting. You need the ability for the Counselors and science geeks to impact the combat story.

 

[Imaculata]

One of the biggest challenges I feel, is making every role on board the ship equally exciting. Being the pilot is only fun if there is more to do than making pilot checks (such as strategic maneuvres and stunts). Being the gunner is always fun.... but what if you are neither of these two?

I think the show The Expanse does a great job at showing different takes on space combat. I like how in that show someone may have to fix a leak in the hull of the ship, while the pilot is making dangerous stunts mid space combat. And how tools may start flying around in zero gravity like deadly projectiles.

So what if you're the doctor, or the engineer? How can a DM make that role exciting? Having to navigate the ship to fix things, while you're being flung about by the pilot's stunts, can be plenty exciting. And what if things catch fire in zero G, and you need to contain and vent a room? These are the sorts of decissions that make for exciting roleplaying I think. You want to get beyond just rolling repair checks.

Lastly there's the rules for space combat. I haven't found a system that I really like, but that really has a big impact on how exciting space combat in general really is. Most systems do a really poor job at it. I'm half inclined to design my own system for it frankly.

 

[Fenris-77]

Managing battle damage and other possibly fatal levels of ship damage is an underused option in a lot of games IMO. I can think of a bunch of ways to make at at least as tense and exciting as the actual combat part. Also, if the the players themselves take damage from being flung about, burnt, shocked or what have you, that also opens up a whole other avenue of tasks and obstacles. Finally, the crew is probably in space for a reason, so if that's prisoners, a cargo, loot, or whatever that can be put in jeopardy as well which would require player action.

 

[dragoner]

I use the old space combat from Traveller, often called Book 2 or The Traveller Book style. I like it because it is pseudo-Newtonian movement, which is a good representation of 3D space, originally it was set up for table top with string, and I convert that to theater of the mind with km. I don't do long passes, like days long, or burn budgets, as that just loads the math on me.

I try to have all positions on the bridge, this serves to be able to have the bridge be jettisoned as well if everything goes wrong. Positions are pilot, gunner, engineer, and electronic warfare. Gunner and E-dub are the easiest to make up rolls for, engineer is easier after hits accrue, pilot is sort of difficult.

 

[Laurefindel]

Thanks for all the replies everyone, they have been - and still are - very helpful.

I think I managed to make something to playtest with. The game I'm making uses the mechanics from Cubicle 7's The One Ring. I guess I should have noted that in the OP but on the other hand, I appreciate the comments outside the context the rules.

Spoiler: TOR in a nutshell...

Combat is more narrative and abstract than many games. It's an asymmetrical system revolving around the selection of combat stance on each round, determining how easy it is for others to hit you and for you to attack others. In lieu of an attack, each stance offers different choices of combat tasks (rally allies, intimidate foes, etc).

Weapons deal basic damage and can cause an injury on a "critical hit", killing an enemy in 1 hit (PCs and strong/important villains need 2 injuries to do down), with armor acting as a saving throw against such critical hits. Depending on your roll, weapons can deal more damage or use a special ability (disarm, bash shield, etc)

Characters have hope points they can spend to trigger special abilities or gain bonuses on a failed check, otherwise it's a skill-based system with several conditions and health levels. Combat sounds simple at first but can be surprisingly strategic.

My version copies TOR in a sci-fi setting. This changes a few options and definitions of things (like how the "close-combat/ranged" stances become "engaged/disengaged" stances) but in essence the system remains unchanged.

I tried to align space battles with the ground combat rules as much as possible without losing the spirit of space combat. Players play their part of the ship like they play their character in combat by selecting a battlestation between Helm, Comms, Engineering, and Tactical. Main Gun and Fighter Squadron are other possible battlestations for players to choose. This way, space combat meshes seamlessly with characters doing ground combat on the ship (repelling boarders and whatnot).

• The Helm moves the ship and chooses the ship's combat stance, determining which tasks will be available to other battlesatitons 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.

Each battlestation can be hit, wounded, and healed individually, and all make an attack or take a combat task individually. Battlestation can be "killed" or "knocked out" individually, each with a different impact on the ship.

There are rules for "empty" battlestations and characters changing battlestation, but first I want to focus on that phase of playtest.

I'll post results when I get some playtest done. Steady as she goes!