Quote from: RPGPunditHow do you do space (ship-to-ship) combat in a way that:

a) doesn't bore everyone else in the party aside from the gunner and the pilot?
b) doesn't just amount to the biggest fucking potential Total Party Kill due to Bad Rolls of any sci-fi game?
c) Isn't boring?
d) actually feels like what starship combats LOOK like in movies like Star Wars or Star Trek?

Virtually every system I've ever seen for this is pathetic at it.  Most of them are ultra-complex, and usually are NOTHING like what they're attempting to emulate.

RPGPundit

I'm not a big fan of mook rules or meta-game rules, but if you've got PC's in tie-fighters (or even x-wings) where there's a decent chance of the whole thing going up, then you need some kind of special-character-rule to prevent Darth Vader from being blown up in his tie-fighter.

Another possibility: make skill (and skill *differences*) very important. Luke and the other Star Wars main characters (And the Star Trek bridge crew) are all exceptional. In D20, this gives them, maybe, and extra 20% edge of your average crew -- not enough to risk life and game on.

If the system amplifies skill differences and the PCs are significantly better than the average competition then you'd have a game where PC-grade characters are unlikely to be killed by average characters.

My completely inexpert understanding of modern-day fighter combat suggests it works this way ("aces" are way, way, way better than average pilots and unlikely to be shot down by them -- although I suspect modern weaponry makes skill less of a factor these days).

In terms of boredom, I think someone mentioned giving everyone a role in battles (engineering roles, shield operations roles, sensor ops roles, etc.)

That does star trek pretty well. In starwars, didn't everyone have their own gun?

For me the big question is "how abstract should the system be" -- on one end of the scale would be a tactical war game like SFB with rules for all kinds of things, and on the other end would be a completely abstract system that didn't even require a map...

IME I see a huge range of space combat situations -- ones I'd prefer to resolve without a specific battle map and others (often in the same game) where having an Star Fleet Battles style system would be really useful.

Having a system that somehow scaled between very abstract and very specific without significantly changing the odds of the outcome would be really useful. I have no idea how practical that would be though.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.My completely inexpert understanding of modern-day fighter combat suggests it works this way ("aces" are way, way, way better than average pilots and unlikely to be shot down by them -- although I suspect modern weaponry makes skill less of a factor these days).

Sorry, this digression I'm embarking on has little to do with improving games per se, but I believe the the current wisdom is that training is overwhelmingly important, even beyond combat experience. I'd speculate that the importance of experience to early aerial combat (WW I) is possibly because actual training in simulated combat was rare.

I happened across a RAND study that supports this view, if anyone'd care to look: http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD147/RGSD147.chap6.pdf

Quote from: RPGPunditI'd agree that hacking is the one thing that I think is the most obvious case where RPGs have fucked up even worse than starship combat.

And this is NOT a D20 issue, Ian. I haven't seen any RPG anywhere that handles starship combat well. Either it is too deadly, or not deadly at all, it fails to involve the pcs, and it fails to emulate the tv/movie feel that one wants.

Of course, when I run a starship battle its not any of these things. But that's because I cheat. Rampantly. I lie, I utterly ignore the rules, I make the dice mean whatever the fuck I want them to mean, so basically there is no "system" I use. I just make it all up as I go along. But really, that sort of sucks that I have to be put in the position where I feel I must do that.

RPGPundit

I agree with you here, and it's definitely not just D20 because I had the same trouble in my Stardrive Alternity game. I was a disapointed enough that I stopped running Stardrive comepletely and only ran Dark Matter.

When we played Star Wars D20, we never got involved with ship-to-ship combat. which I feel was the only way to handle it. If I were to run a sci-fi game again I would treat space combat like I treat army combat in DnD. The characters might hear about it, see it happen, try in a small and peripheral way to contribute, but wouldn't get directly involved. I prefer sci-fi games that don't feature space combat these days, either because they aren't advanced enough (pick a cyberpunk title), it isn't part of the story (like Blue Planet), or the game focuses on espionage/intrigue (the last Traveller campaign I played).

Quote from: Elliot WilenSorry, this digression I'm embarking on has little to do with improving games per se, but I believe the the current wisdom is that training is overwhelmingly important, even beyond combat experience. I'd speculate that the importance of experience to early aerial combat (WW I) is possibly because actual training in simulated combat was rare.

I happened across a RAND study that supports this view, if anyone'd care to look: http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD147/RGSD147.chap6.pdf

Well, that would support the "make skill *really* important approach.

What's interesting is that skill is important both offensively and defensively. It's gotta be a good defense or you still have the TIE fighter =  Flying Coffin issue.

Cheers,
-E.

Well a general rule of aerial combat is that seeing the other guy before he sees you is the best way for you to live and him to die. Avoiding a dogfight is the best thing you can do defensively; failing that you need to do your best to stay aware of everything around you (i.e., don't fall victim to tunnel vision while lining up a target).

In a one-on-one situation the importance of pure skill is important for both offense and defense mostly because the best offensive position (right behind the other guy) is also the position where you're relatively invulnerable (unless he's got a tailgunner). So maneuver factors in heavily compared to forms of combat that emphasize pure offense. (Not to say that any combat does so completely, but a tank duel in open ground, for example, will be decided more by gunnery than maneuver, assuming both sides are aware of each other.)

So to bring it back to games I'd say that for fighter combat, some kind of positioning test is called for, with the winner getting progressive levels of advantage (up to riding the other guy's tail) with higher & higher bonuses "to hit", while the disadvantaged combatant wouldn't be able to shoot at all. The "skill" bonus would figure very highly in the positioning test.

With multiple opponents on each side, each one could probably designate a "target". A single die roll would be made for each combatant in the positioning test; however a negative modifier would apply to the roll of your target unless he was targeting you back. Something like that. The general principle is that higher skill generally improves your maneuver performance, which in turn increases your ability to shoot without being shot at.

I've seen a clever system of abstract positioning/maneuver, which also incorporates types of maneuver and aircraft characteristics, in a wargame called Down in Flames. Something like that could be brought in.

An advantage of this general approach from a gameplay standpoint is that you can "give aid" to a hard-pressed ally by targeting his attacker and forcing him to break off or be hit. As a result, individual random death is less likely. An overmatched party, though, will have trouble fleeing unless you include some sort of fuel limitations, an "emergency jump" to bug out, or a concept of "friendly lines" so that even a faster enemy won't be able to pursue indefinitely.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo to bring it back to games I'd say that for fighter combat, some kind of positioning test is called for, with the winner getting progressive levels of advantage...

Sounds a lot like the great rules they had in the original Star Wars D20, until the tactical-miniature based gaming lobby demanded that they use a battlemat for space combat.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell a general rule of aerial combat is that seeing the other guy before he sees you is the best way for you to live and him to die. Avoiding a dogfight is the best thing you can do defensively; failing that you need to do your best to stay aware of everything around you (i.e., don't fall victim to tunnel vision while lining up a target).

In a one-on-one situation the importance of pure skill is important for both offense and defense mostly because the best offensive position (right behind the other guy) is also the position where you're relatively invulnerable (unless he's got a tailgunner). So maneuver factors in heavily compared to forms of combat that emphasize pure offense. (Not to say that any combat does so completely, but a tank duel in open ground, for example, will be decided more by gunnery than maneuver, assuming both sides are aware of each other.)

So to bring it back to games I'd say that for fighter combat, some kind of positioning test is called for, with the winner getting progressive levels of advantage (up to riding the other guy's tail) with higher & higher bonuses "to hit", while the disadvantaged combatant wouldn't be able to shoot at all. The "skill" bonus would figure very highly in the positioning test.

With multiple opponents on each side, each one could probably designate a "target". A single die roll would be made for each combatant in the positioning test; however a negative modifier would apply to the roll of your target unless he was targeting you back. Something like that. The general principle is that higher skill generally improves your maneuver performance, which in turn increases your ability to shoot without being shot at.

I've seen a clever system of abstract positioning/maneuver, which also incorporates types of maneuver and aircraft characteristics, in a wargame called Down in Flames. Something like that could be brought in.

An advantage of this general approach from a gameplay standpoint is that you can "give aid" to a hard-pressed ally by targeting his attacker and forcing him to break off or be hit. As a result, individual random death is less likely. An overmatched party, though, will have trouble fleeing unless you include some sort of fuel limitations, an "emergency jump" to bug out, or a concept of "friendly lines" so that even a faster enemy won't be able to pursue indefinitely.

Those kinds of systems are hard to do in multi-ship combat -- you have to allow for "A is behind B who is behind C" and then what happens when C tries to fire on A, and so on.

If you have a map, manuver is simple (if, usually, 2-dimensional).

Fighter combat and naval combat are the most common paradigms for space combat but there are others -- and I'd think anything approaching the more-realistic end of the spectrum would care far less about facing and firing arcs than last-generation weapons systems do.

Again: I think manuver and skill *have* to be critically important (I'd include the quality of weapons-systems for essentially post-human worlds, but the concept's the same: a "better" opponent is way-dominant over lesser combatants).

But the devil's in how you make those things pay off in complex rpg scenarios...

I'm putting together a generic system in my head, reading through this... if it congeals into anything I'll post it.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Fighter combat and naval combat are the most common paradigms for space combat but there are others -- and I'd think anything approaching the more-realistic end of the spectrum would care far less about facing and firing arcs than last-generation weapons systems do.

Oh, yes, definitely. If you want realistic, I'd expect that space combat would look something like modern surface combat, with an emphasis on detection, ECM, and fleet formations based on dispersal and interlocking defensive zones.

There skill would mostly apply to effective use of "the terrain" (hiding behind planets and stars, if possible, and obtaining optimal range) and overall ability to integrate systems such as ECM. Unless you used a map, it would have to be very abstract.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOh, yes, definitely. If you want realistic, I'd expect that space combat would look something like modern surface combat, with an emphasis on detection, ECM, and fleet formations based on dispersal and interlocking defensive zones.

There skill would mostly apply to effective use of "the terrain" (hiding behind planets and stars, if possible, and obtaining optimal range) and overall ability to integrate systems such as ECM. Unless you used a map, it would have to be very abstract.

Building on this --

There's a lot of "terrainless" space out there -- but I agree. I think a substantial number of RPG-scenarios would take place near interesting terrain features.

In terms of scenarios a space-combat RPG should do reasonably well, I think star-trek-esque duels in deep space would be a major, but not-complete part of the solution. I think the game should also handle

* Ambush (presumably space pirates ambush their targets... maybe like submarine wolf packs? With space-stealth technology to let them get close enough)

* Blocadeing / blockade running: IME the good guys will want to get through a "screen" of ships (like X-Wings attacking the Death Star have to get through the cloud of TIE fighters or like the climactic scene in Serinity). The rules should allow ships to effectively prevent enemies for progressing / escaping.

Both of these call for a relatively sophisticated set of range rules (how does one "out run" an ambush? When is a ship considered "through" a blockade").

That makes it a bit harder to be purely abstract, IME.

Cheers,
-E.

The Shatterzone RPG, brought to you by WEG (who also did Star Wars) had a sidebar in the rule book about trying to avoid space combat, since it's mainly just rolling to move, rolling to shoot, rolling to resist damage, rolling to fix,  on to next round.

The Decipher Star Trek, using their in-house system which is pretty much D20 with 2d6 swapped in for the d20, had a pretty neat system where each person is in a Star Trek bridge position, with their own thing to do.

(FASA's Star Trek had a similar thing, where each bridge officer even got their own 'console' - a paper sheet to handle whatever it was each person was in charge of.  Helm got moving, navigation got shields I think, etc.  I remember that communications was in charge of keeping track of how many people got wounded/killed on board with each hit.)

The neat thing about the Decipher Star Trek ship combat system is that you can shift power from one system (like drive) to boost another system (like shields) easily, where the drive system takes one hit and the shields system moves up one rank.


With Star Trek-style combat, what you really need is players who can really get into it.  When there's a hit, the GM figures out which system, then tells that player controlling that system, who rolls the damage and tells the 'captain,' instead of the GM just telling everybody what got damaged.  So, instead of the GM just going 'another hit to your engine room, you take another rank off engine power,' the player can shout "our engines got hit again!  We can't take another shot like that!"

I would LOVE to play in that kind of game.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell a general rule of aerial combat is that seeing the other guy before he sees you is the best way for you to live and him to die. Avoiding a dogfight is the best thing you can do defensively; failing that you need to do your best to stay aware of everything around you (i.e., don't fall victim to tunnel vision while lining up a target).

In a one-on-one situation the importance of pure skill is important for both offense and defense mostly because the best offensive position (right behind the other guy) is also the position where you're relatively invulnerable (unless he's got a tailgunner). So maneuver factors in heavily compared to forms of combat that emphasize pure offense. (Not to say that any combat does so completely, but a tank duel in open ground, for example, will be decided more by gunnery than maneuver, assuming both sides are aware of each other.)

So to bring it back to games I'd say that for fighter combat, some kind of positioning test is called for, with the winner getting progressive levels of advantage (up to riding the other guy's tail) with higher & higher bonuses "to hit", while the disadvantaged combatant wouldn't be able to shoot at all. The "skill" bonus would figure very highly in the positioning test.

With multiple opponents on each side, each one could probably designate a "target". A single die roll would be made for each combatant in the positioning test; however a negative modifier would apply to the roll of your target unless he was targeting you back. Something like that. The general principle is that higher skill generally improves your maneuver performance, which in turn increases your ability to shoot without being shot at.

I've seen a clever system of abstract positioning/maneuver, which also incorporates types of maneuver and aircraft characteristics, in a wargame called Down in Flames. Something like that could be brought in.

An advantage of this general approach from a gameplay standpoint is that you can "give aid" to a hard-pressed ally by targeting his attacker and forcing him to break off or be hit. As a result, individual random death is less likely. An overmatched party, though, will have trouble fleeing unless you include some sort of fuel limitations, an "emergency jump" to bug out, or a concept of "friendly lines" so that even a faster enemy won't be able to pursue indefinitely.

In a setting with fairly realistic tech a scenario like this can lead to a ship musing 'silent running' mode where it runs as "quiet" as possible while listening for active emissions from firecontrol systems from ships 'on the prowl". Since in a realistic campaign a ship using active fire control will be detectable before it spots a ship without AFC running the PCs can choose to avoid a fight if they can outrun/maneuver the ship with AFC running.

This can lead to various deciscions being made, like do we run with active sensors going and announcing our presence, or without them and maybe risk smacking an asteroid or meteor?