Roy_The_Ruthles
-
Posts
1,556 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
News
Store
Forums
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Roy_The_Ruthles
-
-
Re: Superheat metal
Damage over time, with the limitation that it only affects people holding metal items
-
Re: Poisonbrewing
Is the game heroic or super heroic? if it is super heroic, tell them they need to buy posion with CP and brewing is the explination for the power. If it is heroic, it shouldn't be a problem, just charge a % of the cost for the poison
-
Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.
RE: TH
I didn’t miss your point, I was pointing out that justification is what you do after you decide how much fighter craft you want, rather than letting it decide how much fighter craft you have.
Why can drones not respond with the speed and efficiency of a human pilot? Space combat is all about rapid calculations and determining how to best attack your enemies. Plus they wouldn’t need to worry about survival. We seem to be talking about different things. I say that small unmanned vehicles have uses, you say small manned vehicles have uses, and we should stop talking about the uses of these vehicles but rather if adding a pilot is useful.
We are literally talking about two separate things. One we agree on: fighter craft are awesome, one we disagree on (hard sci fi space fighters). I won’t disagree with “in role playing games, PCs are awesome” thus justifying space fighters, but if we are talking about a possible real space combat, I think having pilots is unnecessary.
TTGL: Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann (A mecha Anime where mecha are powered by “being awesome”)
RE: Sundog
Turrets and fighters have different mission parameters. Turrets are probably best used for point defense, whereas I would compare a fighter to a missile. A missile is pound for pound better than a fighter, and cheaper too. The reason you want a battleship is so that you can perform deep space missions other than “limited endurance fighting”. If you just want that, use a missile. Battleships would be useful for -> Customs, Exploration, Diplomatic Envoys, etc.
If you are loading your fighters with turrets then they are also weighted down. Nothing says fighters or battleships need to have turrets. I also can spend the money I didn’t spend on fighter craft on more engines to make up the mass difference. My point was that if you are comparing the fighter to a turret, then the turret is more effective, but now I will edit that point to say that a missile is a more reasonable comparison in terms of roles.
As far as throw weight, unless I have to defend a planet, I can always deny combat because we will see each other coming from far enough away for me to make that decision. Or I can accelerate towards you, minimizing our combat time. Your 10 fighters need to compete with my larger and thus longer range missiles too. And nothing says I can’t carry my own drones to intercept your fighters.
I assume computer controlled fighters would be better, as fighting in space is probably a game of missile tag. We have computers which can locate, identify, and collide with targets today. Nothing says in the future we will not have them.
(By battleship I really mean cruiser, as in a ship which can operate on its own)
-
Re: Campaign Setting: Age of Avarice
What do PCs do? What is a standard adventure?
-
Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.
I totally agree TH about fighter craft being super cool in sci-fi games. Look at something like Cowboy Bebop where each character has a unique fighter craft based around their personality.
As far as addressing your “it doesn’t make sense” points, Taking another look at it from a hard sci-fi perspective (and only from a hard sci-fi point of view) (I was also assuming you meant manned craft, my points are not valid if you meant unmanned craft):
* A turret is much cheaper, and you can have many many turrets for the price of a ship (no need for extraneous systems like engines, life support, individual sensors)
* The torpedo tubes thing is an argument for larger ships. If I can have larger ships hang back, then in theory they would be even more effective. If you want to talk price, an unmanned drone could do the same thing and still be more effective than a manned fighter
* Once You deploy fighters/bombers, why must I care about interceptors? It’s not like in a hard sci fi environ, they have any inherent maneuverability advantage over a larger ship (with proportional engines). Besides I can pick them off with missiles or point defense, the same as I would with a larger ship or missile. I can also deploy drones to engage them which would be cheaper.
* A computer program would be faster and better than a flesh and blood pilot. Think about if you had equal value on fightercraft and I had an equal value of missiles. Missiles are cheap and expendable.
I do agree that fighter craft are inherently awesome. What GMs should do, is decide how much they want fighter crafts to be a part of their game, and then base the setting on that. It doesn’t matter how much sense they make, it’s about the game that everyone wants to play. No one will question if mecha make sense in TTGL HERO, because TTGL HERO is inherently awesome.
-
Re: AP limits on frameworks
Watch out for VPPs at the AP cap, with a larger real point cost. Characters gain a huge amount of flexibility by putting points spent on non-special powers into buying up the real point cap for a VPP.
-
Re: Cybernetics
For psychological and social problems, use complications. For building the arm, just buy the characteristic up with "only for X limb", and No END. OIF may qualify, but how is the arm OIF anymore than your actual arm is OIF? Just my $.02
-
Re: Detecting a Continuing effect mental power
Mental Awareness only detects the use of mental powers. A mental power that has long term effects like Mental Transform or Mind Control are only active when first used. I'm not sure if you can detect them if the mentalist is still feeding END into them to prevent Breakout Roll increases though.
-
Re: Well, hello there, HERO System! (New Guy)
Welcome!
-
Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.
That type of acceleration is going to take a while' date=' assuming a hard sci-fi setting. In that case it's just a matter of detecting the launch, even from very far away, and launching your point defense counter measures. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that is where the tactics come in play. Every offense will have a suitable defense.[/quote']First I want to completely agree with you about Space Operas.
As far as the section of material you quoted, i was referencing velocity, not acceleration. I then went on to reference ion engines as an example of a low acceleration but reasonably long distance propulsion system. While there is no stealth in space, and thus your target will know your missiles are incoming (unless you launch it fantastically far away, so the heat bloom is not noticed)
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacewardefense.php#Point_Defense~Missile_PD
Clearly it is possible to intercept one missile with another, especially as a .99c missile will not be "dodging". It's going to come in a straight line, especially if you use a missile with a higher acceleration (which would be practical for short range interception).
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacewardetect.php#Why_Not?~Thrifty_Engine_Burns
OTOH if you have years of time to wait for the missile to travel, you can boost before and coast in. If they don't detect the initial heat bloom, a post acceleration missile will be traveling almost as fast as the information about the missile, minimizing defenders reaction times.
I may be misunderstanding something here, if I am please tell me.
-
Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.
Doesn't reduce the amount of energy required to accellerate something to near the speed of light. It would be more effective to use anti-matter bombshttp://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunexotic.php#Antimatter~Efficiency
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunexotic.php#Relativistic_Weapons
At .86c, the KE of a missile is equal to the rest mass, which means it contains as many joules of energy as an equivalent amount of antimatter. KE = .5( m*v^2). Also, this comes down to the efficiency of engines vs. anti-mater as a weapon. In a hard sci-fi setting, engines are at least a given.
Not really. You have your technology and tactics protecting you. Cracking open their planet is counterproductive UNLESS you for some reason don't need that planet (so either it's completely uninhabitable for your species, or the cost of taking it in a manner that it is still useful afterwards is too high).Assuming the other species is automatically antithetical to your way of life (perhaps they're religious zealots out to kill all life unlike their own, even if you share completely different atmospheres and thus have very LITTLE reason to go to war and almost every reason to cooperate economically), planets can still be useful bits of real estate to set up biodomes and such on.
Besides, do you really want to be the kid in the interstellar club who used relativistic weapons? Because that's the sort of thing that would make your neighbors leery, and probably incline them to treat you in turn before you could possibly do it again.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/aliens.php
Invading a planet is counter productive. You would need to spacelift enough troops and equipment to fight an entire world. Unless your suggestion is to use smaller scale “conventional” munitions to try and demolish infrastructure after taking dominance of the high orbitals. I can see that being an option but a very wasteful one. Remember there should be more habitable worlds than there are species to inhabit them (due to terraforming).
I would rather be the survivor in the interstellar club than the one who goes extinct. If you can’t communicate, how can you trust them? And why would you trust them? They have no reason to trust or value humans.
If you are talking about fighting another human planet, then I can see reasons not to KE kill (space Geneva conventions), but why not for aliens?
Again, i'm talking from a hard sci-fi setting, because we've already established anything goes in soft sci-fi and you can have your space fighters.
-
Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.
No' date=' they're HOME. Prime real estate. The stuff that you fight over. The "if I hit this with an object going .99c then I lose" noncombatants.[/quote']I agree in a limited warfare scenario. OTOH if you have no way of communicating with the enemy (say they are aliens), you may need to go for the KE kill. It's important to remember that you only have the enemy's sensibilities protecting you.
-
Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.
that would take a LOT of fuelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
Low acceleration doesn't matter because you have a vast region of space to accelerate because they cannot dodge
-
Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.
I agree. The real trick is getting the 3' date='000 super-fast homing nuclear drones within range before the base's point defense can destroy them.[/quote']If the habitat can't dodge, you can just accelerate them to near light speed from very far away. If the hab. isn't using laser-based point defense it will need to hit a .99c object with a much slower one. Not only that, but the drones are much cheaper than the habitat. Planets are of course, death traps (unless they can move).
-
Re: Undead Labor: why not?
I played in a D&D game where the magical university had a cafeteria staffed by skeletons. They referred to it as being "automated".D&D that makes sense, because nothing in D&D makes sense. I will point out that it might be harder to disenfect the skeletons and make sure they properly wash hands, than for example: just have a cleric cast create food and water each day.
-
Re: How to balance equipment users vs. spell casters
Games where one person uses money to buy attacks, and one person uses character points are inherently problematic to balance. In fact my group is working on an urban fantasy game that tries to do just that.
Thoughts:
1) You buy magical spells with money
2) Some enemies can only be hurt with magic, all PCs need to have at least some magic (or have DR/DN vs. non-magical attacks).
3) Spellcasters get more character points
4) Everyone uses equipment to attack and defend, and magic is used for misc effects (extra senses, mental powers) that cannot be duplicated with equipment
We are currently working on adapting the resource point system from Dark Champions along with idea 2.
-
Re: Bulletproof. How would you build this?
I'd build it as Damage Negation, only vs. Bullets. Something like 20 DCs of Damage Negation should do you. That way even armor piercing or penetrating bullets get stopped. Bullet resistant would be DEF (you could do bullet proof with DEF, but that seems like the kind of thing DN was made for).
-
Re: PC that can see death on people
The character should buy precog, danger sense, and a detect (since the detect should be used through the precog). Add in some combat luck if you want him to be able to use his power for actively defending against death.
-
Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.
That is an argument to have multiple ships, which in a hard sci-fi setting means drones. In a soft sci-fi setting it means fighters with PCs
-
Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.
I'd call that an assumption. I could see fighter-type craft being deployed in hard settings for a variety of reasons' date=' from technological advantages to there being small craft in battle to purely economic reasons.[/quote']To be clear, we are talking about: http://www.rocketpunk-observatory.com/spaceguideS-Z.htm#space_fighters right?
Another link for your perusal:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunexotic.php#Space_Fighters
In a space war, why deploy a manned fighter craft instead of an unpiloted drone? And said drone doesn't need to be light speed lag controlled by a mothership, you can have an advanced algorithm for piloting it. If you don't want to have it be just one missile, have the AI (really an advance algorithm, no need for it to be sentient) deploy smaller missiles then return to base.
The fleshy bag of meat-water that is a PC has no place on unmanned space drones. If your PC is a massless AI I can see a reason though.
There’s my economic reason against fighter-type craft in a hard sci-fi game.
Tech-wise, I cannot imagine a hard reason you could not scale up the tech for a larger ship, and you’d be better off with a ship that can perform deep space operations by itself.
-
Re: Undead Labor: why not?
Undead labor in the food industry would be fairly unsanitary
-
Re: Roll With The Punch: Martial Arts?
Normally RwtP is -2 OCV block that you can do after you have been hit (and before damage). Martial RwtP should probably be 0 OCV and cost 3 points
-
Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.
This depends on the genre. In a hard sci fi game, there will be no star fighters for PCs. In a space opera? totally.
-
Re: Looking for ideas for a game in the Scott Pilgrim universe
Comic or Movie Scott Pilgrim? In the Comic the fights are often just extensions of his relationship with Ramona.
Other Ideas:
OIF for a bag of infinite weapons
Teleport (see book 5)
Follow the standard practice of: acknowledge a character flaw.
Resolve to fix said flaw
Fight an enemy who embodies said flaw
Get the girl and realize you have overcome the flaw.
Eclipse Phase conversions to Hero
in Star Hero
Posted
Re: Eclipse Phase conversions to Hero
I've played Eclipse Phase. I think that translating it into HERO is the right move and am very interested in your results. I would build each PC as a computer (AI with EGO score) and each morph as a vehicle. That way you can change from one body to another, and bodies are fairly disposable.
The two most important setting issues to me are (i.e. things you want to be on the same page as your players)
Forking: Some places (anarchs, outer rim) are cool with multiple forks. Or rather, have no reason not to be cool with it. Players will want to do it unless you tell them running multiple alpha forks won't be happening for NPCs either.
Cornicopia Machines: Figure out what they can and can't do. How closely can they replicate stuff? Do PCs have access to them? Is gear bought with "energy" or super heroically?