additional:
Maybe we need to develop what the possibilities are for starship combat in gurps. What type of starship combat to we want to accomplish: character or ship orientated?
Maybe what is needed is a thought process as such as a development statement such as this:
"Starship combat can be accomplished in GURPS PD either by using a 'special set of FC rules' or can be done via the rules set out by the GURPS rulebook." Here, we are giving only 2 ways starship combat can be done: a character based starship combat scene (most likely the bridge scene), or a more tactical 'your ship vs my ship' (converting the Gurps ship stats to FC ship?).
Sorry, late night, goofy thoughts...

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 11:36 pm: Edit

I am concerned with adopting FC as the defacto system for which RPG uses for starship combat.

SFB is the primary represenative of the Star Fleet Universe. For 26 years it has define the SFU on its level. F&E also contributes to defining the SFU but, for now, it has no competitor. If I write fiction that contradicts either SFB or F&E rules then it can't be published.

But what happens when I write fiction that has something allowed in FC but not in SFB? For instance, repairing unlimited systems during combat.

So what happens when we allow FC things to happen in Prime Directive? Since PD also defines the SFU on it's level will this make the FC rule set THE way the SFU is run (since PD is really the finest resolution in which the SFU is defined)? When you have two game systems vs. one using a particular rule set I think this can and will shift the OFFICIAL way the universe is understood by the future fan base(and the creator may want it otherwise but readers/players will see it their own way and two simple systems vs. one complex system will support that view).

I think it is critical to the integretiy of the SFU that this NOT happen.

A third combat system (RPG style) would not cause this shift, IMO, and the third system woudl be based on what is allowed in SFB. I'm sorry but FC should not be moved to the top tier of what the SFU is based on. Making it the system that PD uses will do that and damage the SFU's integrity.

The SFU's integrity is THE PRIMARY REASON it is still around and THE reason I love it so much.

I hope I'm able to make my point clear. I'm not sure I am.

I can see the attraction of using FC as a simple system but I have serious "down the road" concerns. Prime Directive is developing the entire SFU in detail and so far it has only been constructive to SFB. Using FC will fracture PD from SFB, IMO.

And I cannot help but feel that using FC will being pushing SFB aside. I've not yet been concerned that ADB would forget SFB since they promised not to. But how can SFB continue to define the SFU if PD uses FC since PD also define the SFU officially and in great(er) detail? How are we to explain to people that "No your ship can't have unlimited repairs even though in FC you can."?

Are we to see things allowed in PD that aren't in fiction writing? Aren't fiction works and PD closely related? Isn't the fiction a major resource for PD?

Anyone see what I'm concerned about?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 04:27 am: Edit

On FC Vs SFB. Nobody should be top dog.
Think of a standard roleplaying game combat and standard optional rule...say hit location rolls and critical hit rolls associated with hits to varrious locations in a James Bonds styled universe.

If you've got a bunch of rookie MI6 agents skiing down a hill being followed by goons and firing back and forth with their fire-arms, you could take a very long time to resolve the battle and that's not good because you've got so many other gunfights and scuffles to get through to complete the adventure.
Alternately when a "double oh" agent squares off against Odd-job or Jaws, you want the battle to be more detailed because you want the player(s) to really get stuck into trying to win this fight.
So one battle is best if you skip the hit location table and the other is best if you apply it.

The same is true of PD.
Some battles are best played under SFB, others are a little faster ( or larger scaled ) and should be played under FC, some are so inconsequentuial as to be able to played under the roleplaying game mechanics.

Sometimes it's good when a battle takes almost an entire RPG session (especially if it is the final climatic (is that a tautology??) battle) and sometimes a quarter of an hour is three times too long.

Net result, give the Referees several systems to choose from so he can choose one that suits his players and his style and the situation the players are currently presented with.

By Sean Bartholome (Kana) on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 06:47 am: Edit

Was there any ship stuff in Interstellar Wars?

The 3rd ED Gurps Traveller ship construction by module, and the combat rules are simple, and very adventure friendly, I'm sure some form of this adapted to SFU/SFB terms will work out just wonderful. Of course using any possible changes the 4th ED rules might make to the Traveller rules set.

Edit: I went to gurps website, and found the table of contents for GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars.

http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/traveller/interstellarwars/ISWtoc.pdf

As listed in Chapters 9 and 10, there are ships construction, and Space combat rules for GURPS Traveller, and as this is a 4th Ed product, one would assume it's 4th Ed legal. But of course its Traveller space combat.

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 07:45 am: Edit

Loren: I see your viewpoint on this.
Sean: I think looking into the Traveller system might be worth while. Use it as the BASE templet to work from, then adding and modifying for the SFU.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 08:10 am: Edit

you won't like it, at least I didn't like it. there is so little there the pages may as well been fancy toliet paper. no explanations either, how hit points are determined or any conversions from 3e to 4e ships and so on. NADA

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 02:11 pm: Edit

The new traveller has construction by prebuilt modules (quarters, labs, engines, bridge, and so on). And then has combat rules for ships built with this system.

Hit points are determined by a chart, plug in the ship's mass and out comes the hit points. Very simple.

It is complete enough for building traveller ships, and running combat with them. You would have to create your own "modules" that use SFB technology, and guess at the stats for mass and so on. The combat would have to be modified to match SFU warp speed combat, but could be down with work. There is no energy allocation system as you install enough power systems to run everything, but you don't have do to that. You could require massive energy for SFU systems, and have limited power systems, and presto, you have to choose what you use at any given time in combat.

The old GURPS Space had a construction set that was a subset of the vehicle rules. It was based on/built from the full rules without giving you the real rules.

The Traveler Interstellar Wars book is the same way, it has a subset of info for a specific setting, and could be used for SFU but would need to be modified.

By Jonathan Lang (Dataweaver) on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 10:14 am: Edit

See my message from March 24, 2006 (two messages before Steve's announcement) for my take on what needs to be done to get a GURPS-compatable starship combat system.

We don't really need a starship construction system; and (IMHO) those who want one for GPD tend to be in the same category for those who want one for SFB itself. What we need first is a way to convert SFB stats into GURPSy stats; it was this point to which my last message was directed.

Once we have this, we need a way to resolve a starship duel (using GURPS stats) relatively quickly: the worst problem with breaking out SFB to resolve a starship duel is that a game of SFB can take a night or two of gaming in and of itself; we need something fast enough that it can be embedded within a one-night roleplaying session.

My own candidate for a starting point would be the "Space Opera Combat System", written for 3e (and available in CII) but adaptable to 4e standards; if there's interest in this, I could give my thoughts as to what would be required to achieve 4e compatability. Once you've got a 4e-compatable system, the next step would be to tweak it to more accurately reflect the feel of SFU space battles; this step would require someone a bit more familiar with SFB tactics than myself.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 11:26 am: Edit

Finally back from Idaho -- I am NOT bidding on that contract again! Comments on the above while I get back up to speed:

IMHO. there wasn't much we could use in the new SPACE4 book, because what we need are ship design rules so we can generate our own unique items. Unless/until the PDF with the design rules is released, there isn't much we can do unless we design our own system. And as SVC pointed out, that's NOT what we need to do, so that's out. I'd really like to see that document ASAP, if it can be gotten from SJ Games.

I don't think we can use the TRAVELLER system at all. The reason "why" has to do with licensing; ADB is licensed to use SJ Games GURPS stuff, but TRAVELLER is a diffferent line within SJ Games, and I do not know if our license to use GURPS also allows us to use material from TRAVELLER. Maybe SVC can get Owen to clarify this? Until that is done, I'd prefer to stay away from TRAVELLER (and for much the same reason, also stay away from other systems like SPACE OPERA).

Re SFB vs FC, I think that is something that should be considered. Do we need to use the complex SFB system, or is the simplified FC system adequate? I hear Loren's comments, and agree that this needs to be considered.

OK, enough on comments, now for my own thoughts on the matter. I think that the product we need to be thinking about is:
(1) Includes as much of the SJG design PDF as possible, plus our revisions and additions to it for our unique items like webcasters and photon torps.
(2) Fully explains the procedure to convert a SSD into SPACE4 specs as modified by (1).
(3) As a minimum, includes example conversions of every race's basic CA and DD, maybe the DN and FFs, and all of the civilian multirace (R1) ships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 11:42 am: Edit

Gary, do you see what I mean by the danger of making FC the official space combat system for PD?

Alternatively, I don't have a problem with FC being one of three ways to play space combat so long as it comes with a disclaimer that FC does not reflect all the intrequacies of the official capabilities of SFU starships. I still would like to see a PD RPG style system.

By Jonathan Lang (Dataweaver) on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 01:22 pm: Edit

For the record, the "Space Opera Combat System" has nothing to do with the Space Opera RPG; it originated in a GURPS supplement (GURPS Lensman) and was then reprinted in Compendium II without any setting-specific material included. There are no licensing issues beyond the minimal "will SJG let us use this?"

SJG's vehicle design PDF is going to have far more in it than you're going to need. If you're set on providing a starship design system for GPD, you'll want to pick and choose what you use. I'd recommend a modular design process (similar to what appeared in GURPS Space 3e), with the bulk of the modules corresponding directly to boxes that can be found on an SSD. This incorporates the bulk of SSD-to-GURPS conversion directly into the starship design process.

I'd rather see police corvettes than frigates, and I'd rather see survey cruisers than dreadnaughts. And I _definitely_ want to see stats for the Prime Trader.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 01:37 pm: Edit

So this ship-combat for GPD (or D20-PD, or D6-PD) should be the version that you can whip out play in the middle of a RPG session without a hex-map (ie use ship minis to get general facing/range), ranges (besides short, medium, long, no inches/hex ranges), no EAF, etc. 10-15 minutes of 1-to-1 battle (F-DDG vs. K-F5B)

Right?

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Greetings Gary,
I like your thoughts and the ones that follow. FC is less compliated than SFB. Loren is right, a disclaimer about what it represents would be nice.

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 02:48 pm: Edit

You know, if a new system is created for GPD, does that mean that a new one will be created for PD6 and PDd20??? or will they just use existing rules that are found in the game systems themselves? I say this becuase if one designates a form of FC to handle combat, you could make is universal to all systems with rules how to convert form each system.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 06:16 pm: Edit

First off, SVC has decided that we are not going to create our own system from scratch, so that's out.

What I believe we need to do is take that current SPACE4pdf file that has the design specs, and modify/customize it. Obviously, we delete sections that are not applicable (for example, bay weapons, turrets, sandcasters, etc) and create new specs for things like photon torps and warp drive.

We have to pick one system to work from, and SPACE4 is the obvious one. Maybe we can do SOCS at some point in time, but not now.

For the same reason, we have to decide whether the other end of the project is SFB or FC. While FC is attractive for a number of reasons, it is still an immature product, plus it is a subset of SFB. If we do this for SFB, we can easily rip it down for FC players to use. BUT, if we do it for FC then SFB players will be missing a lot of the pieces. I think that for that reason alone, we've gotta do it for SFB and not FC.

Jonathan: we'll probably argue endlessly over what ships will be in this, but keep in mind that once we've printed the conversion rules, players can do the others themselves. Not to mention that if the product is successful, we can do a Volume II with all the EY, CLs and BBs, Volume III with Anarchists, etc. But I do agree that ALL of the multirace civilian ships -- FS, PT, APT, etc -- should be in the first book.

Scott: correct. This is intended to give players the ability to game out ship-to-ship combat in the middle of an RPG session. It will do a LOT of other things, not the least of which is that people will be able to design their own ships for use in their own games. They won't be official SFB ships, but GMs will have a ship creation system.

Darren: this will be a ruleset for GURPS. I don't think we will create a separate book for D20 and D6 or whatever other game systems. IMHO we can have a page on how D20 players use it, for example, translating a D20 skill into it's GURPS equivalent. But please note that is just a comment off the top of my head and definitely NOT official policy -- and if anyone has a better idea, that's great.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 06:59 pm: Edit

D6 has its own space combat system and isn't interested in another one.

D20 may or may not have one (I'm just not sure) but if there is a way for the GURPS one to work for d20, we'll consider that.

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 07:40 pm: Edit

I think this sounds like a good plan. It's nice to have this forum do designers and those who play the games these designs create have a place to talk, brainstorm, etc.

Gary, as you said before, please keep me in mind when you run playtesting for this and d6.
D

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 10:48 am: Edit

Some of you guys have mentioned some kind of PDF ship design document available from SJG. The problem is that SJG doesn't know what this is. More definition on where you heard they had this and what it's called (including a specific link/url to something on the SJG web site mentioning this) would help.

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 11:43 am: Edit

Steve,
I saw this on another posting on this board so I am just copying and pasting....

http://mail.sjgames.com/pipermail/e23-announce/2006-February/000147.html

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 11:49 am: Edit

Thanks.

By Jonathan Lang (Dataweaver) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Gary: "What I believe we need to do is take that current SPACE4pdf file that has the design specs, and modify/customize it."

The only starship design system for 4e that I'm aware of is the one found in "GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars". Is this the one you're referring to? Or are you referring to the VDS that Darren pointed to? (The reference to "bay weapons" and "sandcasters", arguably Traveller-centric terms, is what's throwing me, especially given your earlier statement about not using Traveller-related material.)

If you're pointing to the latter, note that the VDS isn't going to include any vehicle combat rules to the best of my knowledge; that's being reserved for GURPS Vehicles, which will be a separate product. If not, I can't really comment further, as I don't (yet) have access to Interstellar Wars.

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 08:58 pm: Edit

Ok, this was on another post at SJG forums, so here it is so you can read it:

The philosophy of GURPS Fourth Edition is to get you into the game as quickly as possible, then provide the details needed to build and customize the bejeezus out of stuff. With that in mind, here's how we're doing vehicles.

1. We're hammering out internal guidelines first. This means all our writers will be able to build vehicles that are consistent with GURPS rules and make sense, in the game and in comparison with the real world. Once that job is done, writing good Vehicles material gets much easier.

2. When you open a printed Vehicles book, you're going to see a book focused on describing vehicles rather than giving rules to build them. There will also be guidelines showing you how to customize vehicles and build your own, but they're going to be a small part of the book and not a big part. If you want to create good stats fast, these are the rules you use.

3. We also know that folks want to play with the design toys, and we think that's cool. The full design system will become an e23 supplement. It'll have all the crunch anybody could want, and -- if we're really on the ball -- useful tools that you just can't put into a printed book.

When is all this happening? I don't know yet. We've got a lot of ground to make up, and the schedule is still in flux.

I can tell you that there is a lot of work to be done, and it's going to take some time. Sean and David know exactly what they want to do, though, so all we have to do is give them some breathing space in which to do it.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 09:29 pm: Edit

eh you left out some of that

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 09:31 pm: Edit

I might cough up something of a version to submit after my copy of GURPS Space gets here and I give it a read.

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 10:17 pm: Edit

"eh you left out some of that"

I just copied and pasted. Not sure what I left out??