Running a starship combat

[Morrus]

This is a quick peek at the upcoming section of advice on running starship combats and making sure they are fun and interesting. Each of the terrain/environment pieces mentioned will be described in detail so you can drop them into a starship combat easily. There will also be some examples and templates to make things even easier.

 

[Morrus]

Updated version. I'm hoping this will help folks run exciting starship encounters!

 

[GMMichael]

Cool beans! Besides spotting Cid and wondering why space creatures are so ini--iative, I have a couple observations:

1) There are good suggestions for what each character's starship role can be, and what a character might be doing in those roles, but I would like to see a good GM section on what a complex (Star Trek) encounter looks like. For example:

During a complex encounter, each role can perform the following tasks:
Commander: command pilot, command gunner, command engineer, or communicate intership
Pilot: change heading, change power, prepare FTL, or influence commander
Science officer: gather info, influence commander, relieve commander, . . .

And each of these actions should have a concrete result on how the encounter plays out. Call this the Voltron theory: each player can play part of the whole, as long as his actions are felt by everyone.

2) Give the shipboard computers a little more credit. The gunner really shouldn't have to do any aiming. His job (without enemy countermeasure interference) shouldn't be harder than "tap next target on your screen," after which the AI gunners fire perfectly-aimed projectiles or beams. The pilot really doesn't need a yoke. He could just tap around on a Microsoft Surface. So maybe the "gunner" position is a little more unconventional, or (thanks Mr. Addams) the gunner's job is to use psychological techniques to persuade the gunning-artificial-intelligence that the commander really does want a certain target hit, and that it's in the GAI's best interest to engage those targets in a timely fashion.

 

[Sniperfox47]

1) There are good suggestions for what each character's starship role can be, and what a character might be doing in those roles, but I would like to see a good GM section on what a complex (Star Trek) encounter looks like. For example:

During a complex encounter, each role can perform the following tasks:
Commander: command pilot, command gunner, command engineer, or communicate intership
Pilot: change heading, change power, prepare FTL, or influence commander
Science officer: gather info, influence commander, relieve commander, . . .

If I read it correctly then its not an issue of a limited number of things they they can do in a complex encounter. They can do anything they could do in a regular "land" encounter. Its just that their actions determine how the ship (an NPC) acts. You basically break it into two encounters. A regular "land" encounter with the players on one of the ships, and a "space" encounter between several NPCs.

With regards to ship AI gunning though, even with an amazing AI you still need someone in charge of the AI. If the AI was smart enough to handle itself completely then you wouldn't even need crew members to man your ship in the first place. Everything it recommends for the gunner, from artillery patterns to physics, he needs regardless of whether he's aiming or the computer is.

 

[Morrus]

If I read it correctly then its not an issue of a limited number of things they they can do in a complex encounter. They can do anything they could do in a regular "land" encounter. Its just that their actions determine how the ship (an NPC) acts. You basically break it into two encounters. A regular "land" encounter with the players on one of the ships, and a "space" encounter between several NPCs.

Yep. It's complex in that the GM is running two encounters simultaneously. Luckily the ship itself (as a sort of "NPC") is fairly quick to take its turn.

 

[Morrus]

2) Give the shipboard computers a little more credit. The gunner really shouldn't have to do any aiming. His job (without enemy countermeasure interference) shouldn't be harder than "tap next target on your screen," after which the AI gunners fire perfectly-aimed projectiles or beams. The pilot really doesn't need a yoke. He could just tap around on a Microsoft Surface. So maybe the "gunner" position is a little more unconventional, or (thanks Mr. Addams) the gunner's job is to use psychological techniques to persuade the gunning-artificial-intelligence that the commander really does want a certain target hit, and that it's in the GAI's best interest to engage those targets in a timely fashion.

Characters arguing with ships computers about who to shoot sounds very setting-specific. Certainly doesn't happen in Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, BSG! If that's to your taste, though, you could always sub a CHA check for the INT check.

 

[Tigerlil]

This is good stuff. I like the "terrain" ideas to spice up combat, and to make sure that there is a goal. The goal bit is a bit of a through line to most RPG combats though isn't it

 

[Morrus]

This is good stuff. I like the "terrain" ideas to spice up combat, and to make sure that there is a goal. The goal bit is a bit of a through line to most RPG combats though isn't it

Yep. But I keep getting reports of boring starship combats with no goals. Rulebooks need advice as well as rules.

 

[Sniperfox47]

To be fair, isn't starship vs starship combat just a lot like army vs army combat? Each person or groups does small missions that add up to the results of the whole.

Would an alternative option not work of using the extended encounter rules and just have the DM narrate out the results? Its obviously not robust enough for all encounters but would give a bit of a middle ground between quick and complex.

 

[Morrus]

To be fair, isn't starship vs starship combat just a lot like army vs army combat? Each person or groups does small missions that add up to the results of the whole.

Would an alternative option not work of using the extended encounter rules and just have the DM narrate out the results? Its obviously not robust enough for all encounters but would give a bit of a middle ground between quick and complex.

I'm sure we could conjure up a thousand such interim positions, but I feel the three existing types work very well. I'd recommend trying 'em before recommending alternatives.