Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
EN Publishing
Playtest Feedback: Ship Combat
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6256963" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Abstract combat works better IMO if and only if you are approaching the campaign from a ruler/director perspective. If your character is managing some sort of empire, then managing mass combat on a tactical level is usually going to be too burdensome and doing all of it at that level grinds the campaign to a halt and prevents you achieving the larger goals of the narrative.</p><p></p><p>But if the scale of combat is personal, then tactical combat is better than abstract combat. If you are emulating something like Luke Skywalker flying an X-Wing, or the crew of the Starship Enterprise fighting some foe, then you want to have a very concrete very personal feel to it. Ideally, you create the sense that the ship is the player's character, and that his actions in control of the ship are therefore very meaningful. </p><p></p><p>The play testing I've been seeing are lending themselves to this later scale. </p><p></p><p>I'm seeing some interesting ideas in the starship combat rules. I'm still not fully convinced that the rules are offering enough opportunity for character and player skill to shine, but I'm inclined to agree with what seems to be Morrus's stance, that such rules are better left to an advanced supplement focused on Starship Combat for those that actually care enough to want such a thing. There is no sense adding that burden of complexity to the base rules.</p><p></p><p>Likewise, the empire management focus and consequent abstract mass combat rules is a rules extension that you probably should leave to an advanced campaign supplement of some sort IMO.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6256963, member: 4937"] Abstract combat works better IMO if and only if you are approaching the campaign from a ruler/director perspective. If your character is managing some sort of empire, then managing mass combat on a tactical level is usually going to be too burdensome and doing all of it at that level grinds the campaign to a halt and prevents you achieving the larger goals of the narrative. But if the scale of combat is personal, then tactical combat is better than abstract combat. If you are emulating something like Luke Skywalker flying an X-Wing, or the crew of the Starship Enterprise fighting some foe, then you want to have a very concrete very personal feel to it. Ideally, you create the sense that the ship is the player's character, and that his actions in control of the ship are therefore very meaningful. The play testing I've been seeing are lending themselves to this later scale. I'm seeing some interesting ideas in the starship combat rules. I'm still not fully convinced that the rules are offering enough opportunity for character and player skill to shine, but I'm inclined to agree with what seems to be Morrus's stance, that such rules are better left to an advanced supplement focused on Starship Combat for those that actually care enough to want such a thing. There is no sense adding that burden of complexity to the base rules. Likewise, the empire management focus and consequent abstract mass combat rules is a rules extension that you probably should leave to an advanced campaign supplement of some sort IMO. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
EN Publishing
Playtest Feedback: Ship Combat
Top