SF BRP

I thought it about time to resurrect this topic again. From Jason's comments elsewhere, the rulebook should be about to go into production. The need for a generic set of SF rules will imminently become VERY REAL.

Contrary to my earliest reaction to the idea, GURPS Space makes a fine model for the kind of content which is needed. I feel that, whether or not actual systems for designing gear are published, there should *be* a system so that the goodies which would be in the supplement (weapons, spacesuits, starship components, sonic toothbrushes) are consistent and can be easily expanded upon.

I know just the person to ask about world generation. That still leaves ship/vehicle building and general gearheading.

[Atgxtg]

I've been working on some vehicle rules and a Sci-Fi setting for a few weeks. Some of it could be useful for generic use.

I did up some maneuvers for a sort of abstract space combat system. Rather than moving on a map, it uses "range bands". I am considering using some sort of scaling system so we don't have to roll a handful of dice. Something like dividing ship's APs and HP by 5 or 10 and doing the same with damages. So that way a "space battleship's" main laser batteries might be rolling 2d8s or so instead of 20d8s, or even 200d8.

As a sample, if we just divided by 6, the Starfighter could had 3APs, and 25 HP and Energy Cannons could do 1d10+1. Approximately the same effect, but a bit simpler to handle.

[Zane]

If doing up my own campaign, for world Generation, I'd be tempted to look at the old World Builders handbook from DGP. Of course anyone not having a copy, will have "fun" finding one should they want to. The CORPS VDS (Vehicle Design System) claims to be capable of designing vehicles for just about any system. I just picked up a used copy cheap, even though it looks more complicated than I want to deal with.

Personally for starship design, I would like to take a page from the old FASA wargames, specifically Battletech and the Star Trek Starship Tactical Combat Simulator design systems. Have lists, buy a hull from a list, buy a powerplant to put in it from a list, add engines from a list, etc., etc. One guess as to what I played a lot of in the 80's! Of course as much as I like this system, I'm thinking of going more towards a modular approach (think lego's) for a Sci-Fi game I might do. No real hulls, just clip the various components together. For example, take an engine module, add fuel tanks around it, then a cargo module in front of the engine, followed by a crew module, and finally control module. Each module has its own environmental control systems, each is self contained.

I think someone mentioned writing up starships like you would characters. I believe this is how it is done in the D20 modern system. I also think it makes a lot of sense, just use the same basic combat rules. However, I think that you need a way for crew members to effect how the ship performs. For example, a skilled gunner will increase the likely hood of hitting enemy ships, a skilled pilot will decrease the likely hood you'll get hit. Using such a system needs a way to differentiate between scales. A laser carried by a person might kill another person, but not scratch a starship. A starship laser on the other hand is likely to vaporize a person, and damage another starship.

Zane

Originally Posted by Zane

Personally for starship design, I would like to take a page from the old FASA wargames, specifically Battletech and the Star Trek Starship Tactical Combat Simulator design systems. Have lists, buy a hull from a list, buy a powerplant to put in it from a list, add engines from a list, etc., etc.

I agree entirely. Not many people actually enjoy designing stuff from scratch. However, I would want to have such a system in place "behind the scenes" to make sure all those modules fit together and can be retro-engineered. It wouldn't make it into the actual SF BRP book.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Zane

The CORPS VDS (Vehicle Design System) claims to be capable of designing vehicles for just about any system. I just picked up a used copy cheap, even though it looks more complicated than I want to deal with.

Zane, I got VDS. Yeah you can write up just about any sort of vehicle with it. Good news is that the results will be pretty close to real world results, at least as close as you can get in an RPG. I once brought the thing into work along with a copy of a sports car magazine and using the real world data and the real world Coefficient of drag, was able to estimate the top speed on every car I tired to within 2 kph of the actual value.

What I would recommend in VDS's sister system Stuff! It is a lot simpler. You can work up stats for a vehicle in a lot less time, and Stuff! has rules for designing weapons, gadgets (anything other than a weapon or a vehicle), creatures, and even civilizations. All for around $13 in pdf format.

All in a make it in 5 minutes approach. And there are optional rules that add more detail if you want it. Stuff! also has some rules for designing FTL drives and antigravity devices.

Originally Posted by Zane

Personally for starship design, I would like to take a page from the old FASA wargames, specifically Battletech and the Star Trek Starship Tactical Combat Simulator design systems. Have lists, buy a hull from a list, buy a powerplant to put in it from a list, add engines from a list, etc., etc. One guess as to what I played a lot of in the 80's! Of course as much as I like this system, I'm thinking of going more towards a modular approach (think lego's) for a Sci-Fi game I might do. No real hulls, just clip the various components together. For example, take an engine module, add fuel tanks around it, then a cargo module in front of the engine, followed by a crew module, and finally control module. Each module has its own environmental control systems, each is self contained.

That sort of the approach I was thinking too. Did you ever see the old Universe RPG or the CODA version of Star Trek? You get a hull and it has a certain number of spaces that you fill up with components.

Originally Posted by Zane

I think someone mentioned writing up starships like you would characters. I believe this is how it is done in the D20 modern system. I also think it makes a lot of sense, just use the same basic combat rules. However, I think that you need a way for crew members to effect how the ship performs. For example, a skilled gunner will increase the likely hood of hitting enemy ships, a skilled pilot will decrease the likely hood you'll get hit. Using such a system needs a way to differentiate between scales. A laser carried by a person might kill another person, but not scratch a starship. A starship laser on the other hand is likely to vaporize a person, and damage another starship.
Zane

D20 actually does it a bit differernt. Not STR, CON, DEX for ships, More like a monster writeup without the stats. And then you plug in the pilot and crew.

For BRP I would assume that gunners and such would use their own skill to hit, with perhaps a modifer for the ship's tactical/targeting system. A gunner could take careful aim like a character, too.

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.

[Daefaroth]

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.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Daefaroth

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.

Some truth there. On the other hand, make it too simple and everyone walks away with their money too. I've seen a lot of Sci-Fi games end up on the dust pile with very simple, but poorly designed, senseless, and inconsistent data.

The tricky bit is finding the happy medium.

I like VDS. Its good to have something that gives detailed results. But most of those details aren't really important, or even applicable in a Sci-Fi game.

I really like Stuff!. In part because it does have a modular design system and uses the same basic framework to build things. It also does allow for player tweaks, and scales the technology by era. A modern, c. 2008, late atomic era, radio will end up being more powerful and smaller that one from a century ago (Industrial Era). Likewise, future radios can be even smaller, more powerful, and have more capabilities.


Since Stuff! uses STR (power of motors and such) and SIZE (you can only fit so much into a space) as forms of currency when creating things, it translates well to BRP.


I tend to believe that some "crunch" is important in RPGs, just to keep thing internally consistent, but that most of the "crunch" can and should be transparent in play. For example, a game could have a formula that is used to calculate weapon damage dice, APs, Hit Points, ship's performance stats and whatever, but the players don't need to know them. They just need to know the final numbers and what dice they need to roll.

It doesn't hurt if you can have the guys at NASA design the ships just as long as the rest of us can run the ships in play.


The only real tricks with scaling are to make it consistent, sensible, and some slight problems with the bell curve. 2D6x10 gives the same range as 20D6, but has a wider spread of damage. Someone taking only 30-40 points or over 150 points is much less likely with 20D6.

Typically you do reach a point where the damage is sheer overkill for most PCs anyway. A SIZ 6450 Heavy Cruiser with, say 13,000 Hit Points and armed with banks of energy weapons designed to fight a similar ship from a rival power can probably dish over hundred or even thousands of points of damage in a round. So a PC who gets lucky and only takes 200 points of damage won't feel lucky (or anything else, ever again).

[Daefaroth]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I really like Stuff!. In part because it does have a modular design system and uses the same basic framework to build things. It also does allow for player tweaks, and scales the technology by era. A modern, c. 2008, late atomic era, radio will end up being more powerful and smaller that one from a century ago (Industrial Era). Likewise, future radios can be even smaller, more powerful, and have more capabilities.


Since Stuff! uses STR (power of motors and such) and SIZE (you can only fit so much into a space) as forms of currency when creating things, it translates well to BRP.

Whoops! Sounds like I missed something darned useful. And Google isn't being helpful. Could you provide some details on "Stuff!"? I'm having trouble finding anything on it.

[jarulf]

Originally Posted by Daefaroth

Could you provide some details on "Stuff!"? I'm having trouble finding anything on it.

This might be useful. They have a 25p preview for download.
e23: EABA: Stuff!

And their site is at Blacksburg Tactical Research Center

[Daefaroth]

Ah! Ok, I've seen it then though it's been quite awhile. Thank you.