TIPS Sought for Sustainable Sci-Fi (not Star Wars) Gaming

[The Green Adam]

I think the main problem occurs when you have to split player character resources between space combat abilities and regular combat abilities (and possibly other abilities not related to combat). You have the Top Ace Pilot that flies the ship and fires the guns and all that, and the melee guy that ... hates space combat because he can't swing his plasma sword at anyone.

Ah but that's why Melee Guy needs to either have a starfighter of his own or some other skill that helps in space combat.

In my Star Wars (D6) campaigns is was common for the Merc/Soldier types to have a higher Starship Gunnery then the Smuggler who Pilots the ship. The Smuggler gets to do all kinds of fancy flying while the fighter type fights by shooting the guns. Co-pilot switches between Shields, Sensors (got to find the enemy's weak spot) and repairing damage from shots that did get through.

Actually for me this is RPG Space Combat 101 since I've spent so many years gaming Star Trek and Star Wars. Traveller can work this way as well.

Thing is, if everyone in the group is a ground pounding future soldier space combat will indeed be boring. I would have it occur rarely and become more of a background atmosphere element. The trick to good SF gaming is that vary same thing that Fantasy tells you not to do...split the party. If you can develop good timing and staging skills as a GM the players in a SF campaign are in for a real treat. The melee characters can be duking it out in the corridors with boarding pirates or down on the surface of a world while the ship's crew battle swarms of starfighters and try to repair the hyperwarp drive at the same time.

AD
Barking Alien

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ah but that's why Melee Guy needs to either have a starfighter of his own or some other skill that helps in space combat.

Yes. But if that will cost him in another area, why should he do it, aside from the fact that it's more fun that way?

In my Star Wars (D6) campaigns is was common for the Merc/Soldier types to have a higher Starship Gunnery then the Smuggler who Pilots the ship. The Smuggler gets to do all kinds of fancy flying while the fighter type fights by shooting the guns. Co-pilot switches between Shields, Sensors (got to find the enemy's weak spot) and repairing damage from shots that did get through.

I think it would work even better if "Gunnery" (or a simlar named skill) was to be used for both spacecraft and regular weapons. Now at least you don't have to worry about personal vs space combat.

The trick to good SF gaming is that vary same thing that Fantasy tells you not to do...split the party. If you can develop good timing and staging skills as a GM the players in a SF campaign are in for a real treat. time.

I would love to hear more about tricks in that area you or others have developed, because it seems a common problem in many "modern" or "sci-fi" games. Matrix/Hacking, Space Combat, Astral Combat, regular combat...

In fantasy, the tip is usually given because the party is weaker if split up, but another gameplay reason that applies even in modern games is that some players are relegated to a passive role as they watch the dedicated pilot/decker/astral explorer do their thing.

 

[Votan]

I would love to hear more about tricks in that area you or others have developed, because it seems a common problem in many "modern" or "sci-fi" games. Matrix/Hacking, Space Combat, Astral Combat, regular combat...

I suspect part of this is a result of making hyper-specialist characters. One option is a system of character generation like Traveller. Between "Service Skills" and the rolling on random tables, characters are likely to have a more organic smattering of expertise.

Another option is something like Cortex where it is cheap to get enough expertise to participate but darn expensive to get enough expertise to be massively superior. It still doesn't remove the possibility of a deliberately designed specialist but it makes having enough skill to participate in many activities more reasonable.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I suspect part of this is a result of making hyper-specialist characters. One option is a system of character generation like Traveller. Between "Service Skills" and the rolling on random tables, characters are likely to have a more organic smattering of expertise.

Another option is something like Cortex where it is cheap to get enough expertise to participate but darn expensive to get enough expertise to be massively superior. It still doesn't remove the possibility of a deliberately designed specialist but it makes having enough skill to participate in many activities more reasonable.

Another option is to do something akin to Saga Edition, where heroic characters always have some capability with various skills, even if it is greatly less than the specialists.

From a narative standpoint, I prefer this model. It allows everyone to participate (because they are the central characters and central characters do stuff) while still leaving room to specialize and differentiate.

 

[The Green Adam]

Another option is to do something akin to Saga Edition, where heroic characters always have some capability with various skills, even if it is greatly less than the specialists.

From a narative standpoint, I prefer this model. It allows everyone to participate (because they are the central characters and central characters do stuff) while still leaving room to specialize and differentiate.

This is true of the later Star Trek games as well and certainly seen on screen from The Next Generation foward.

Everyone has his, her or its own specialty but everyone also have certain skills that could perform the same task (or a similar one) at a reduced level.

Say the bridge of the U.S.S. Discovery is hit by distruptors in a battle against the Romulans. NPC crewperson Lt. Jenkins is injured and removed from the Operations (Ops.) station and sent to Sick Bay. Ok now, the ship's Astrometrics Specialist, a PC named Ensign Sorock, sits down at Ops.

Lt. Jenkins had the skill Shipboard Systems (Ops.) 2 (3).
That's a skill of 2 with all Shipboard Systems but 3 if using Ops.

Ensign Sorock has Shipboard Systems (Navigational Deflector) 2 (3).
That's a skill of 2 but a 3 if using the ship's Navigational Deflector (big blue glowy thing in the front).

So Sorock, who might not have anything to do normally during space combat, is now using the Ops. station with only a 1 point difference from the specialist.

This is a very particular and precise example I'll grant you but its these kinds of ideas you need to look at. There is always something to do aboard a starship

AD
Barking Alien

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Let us not forget ST:NG episodes in which we saw that certain characters were revealed to have espionage skills and/or command rank...and not all of them were in the more militarized branches, either.

 

[Votan]

Another option is to do something akin to Saga Edition, where heroic characters always have some capability with various skills, even if it is greatly less than the specialists.

From a narative standpoint, I prefer this model. It allows everyone to participate (because they are the central characters and central characters do stuff) while still leaving room to specialize and differentiate.

This was one of the nice parts of Star Wars Saga Edition; unlike 3.5 E D&D you did not have the rogue with a +30 spot and the fighter with a +2 spot --> meaning if the rogue failed not even a twenty would enable the fighter to make the spot check.

I think the real problems will emerge with strict point buy systems that reward hyper-optimization or system that make options exclusive (*cough* Shadowrun *cough*). It can help a lot if you make it clear that the party will be doing tasks X, Y and Z routinely and recruits generalists who can particpate in all team functions.

For example, a Q-ship might require all members to have some shipboard skill (as all hands are needed during battle) and all members need to be able to handle themselves on the docks (if not actually function as spies) to make it hard for opponents to simply grab a crew-member.

For less structured scenarios this is harder to enforce.

 

[shocklee]

The problem I always had in most of the Traveller style games (with people who had prior D&D experience) was that they always viewed the ship as a treasure to try and take away from the owners. I always though that borrowing the troope style of play from Ars Magica would be a way to setup a sustainable campaign, meaning that the players would each create a ship-owning character and a supporting character.

Has anyone else had this problem (players constantly trying to steal the ship), and if so, what did you do about it?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Taking the ship they're on should either be ridiculously difficult or simply not worth it.

Command, Engineering & Life Support sections, for instance, might be protected by exterior-wall strength bulkheads. IOW, unless you have a pass, can trick your way in, or you have hand tools as powerful as ship weapons, you're not getting in. In the absence of that, those areas might have permanent installations of Marines (or robotic defenses) to guard them.

Or, perhaps the crew is under orders to not to resist brigands, but just press the "Big Red Panic Button" which just arms the "We've been commandeered" emergency beacon, located on the outer hull. Once the ship is taken, its effectively marked as a rogue, stolen ship. Disarming that is possible, but it takes time.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think the real problems will emerge with strict point buy systems that reward hyper-optimization or system that make options exclusive (*cough* Shadowrun *cough*). It can help a lot if you make it clear that the party will be doing tasks X, Y and Z routinely and recruits generalists who can particpate in all team functions.

Did shadowrun radically change or something? When I played it, the expense of hyper-specialising was really not worth it...

Or did you just mean "magic vs cybertechnology"?