Quote:
Originally Posted by Atgxtg
<snip?
Differentiating scales is easy. For instance, in my example above if we divided the starfighter's stats by 6, it would be at x6 scale. That means that it would do (1d10+1)x6 damage to a PC, or the original 6d10+6 for the energy cannon.
For really big guns (ships main phasers, turbolasers, etc) we could just keep the multiplier, rather than rolling a ton of dice. While 2d6x10 doesn't have the bell curve of 20D6, there are few PCs who would be alive to notice the difference.
|
I've used scaling multipliers for years (having played Traveller for over a couple decades now) and they work extremely well. And the two foolish PCs who tried to walk through ship-mounted laser fire did indeed not notice the difference. The biggest problem I've seen with scifi RPG equipment design systems is the ones that fail to be used are those that try to simulate, rather than emulate, reality. Most gamers want to play the game, not go through a self-study program for mechanical/electrical engineers and far too many games have been ruined by game designers who insist their game be "hard science" without understanding that science will make such games obsolete within a few years (or sooner).
IMO, a successful gear/vehicle/ship design system should be modular in nature, easily scalable (i.e. the same rules framework used to design a handgun or motorcycle is used to build a starship planetary defense emplacements) and allow tweaks and improvements to come from successful PC skill rolls. In other words, it has the simplified intuitiveness that's the winning characteristic of BRP. That's when a game gets "buy-in" from players.
Make it overcomplicated and players,
and their money, walk away and never look at it again.