Simple as we have played semi-role playing is SFB many times. Use SFB but have the game master there. This facilitates additional options that don't work in straight SFB. Bluffing, mines, probes, personel placement, and a host of other RPG things. If SFB is too complicated for indirect occurances then use the F&E system for those.(I.E. The battle on long range sensors)

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 04:18 pm: Edit

This is fine, so long as you have rules for how/when a PC in the bowling alley is injured on a Hull hit. And where (on the SSD) is Sick Bay? Which is the Bio lab with the samples of virus? If your engineer PC is inside that destroyed P3 box he's repairing, can he be hurt?

In SFB, F Hull = F Hull = F Hull. In an RPG, life isn't so simple. The GM can obviously fudge his way through it, but it'd be nice to have rules.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 05:46 pm: Edit

Good point, Jim. Not a problem.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Not a problem if somebody other than me does the required chart by thursday.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Are there rules for how a PC's Pilot or Gunner skill affects the ship, or do we assume that any character who doesn't qualify as Legendary is unworthy of notice? Likewise for pilots: I expect a lot more Green F-18 pilots than Legendary Engineers.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 04:27 pm: Edit

"Are there rules...."

If using Space-3, then you use Space-3, which accounts for such things. As for using SFB, it's considerably simpler as these things go, and until we do a module for it LATER you can assume a gunner is a gunner if not a legend. I guess we could do a quick rule that "If your skill is between A and B, use the SFB rules. If below A, assume a penalty of one on the die roll, if above B, assume a bonus of one."

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 03:38 am: Edit

Jim: yes.

They're called "skills". Gunner/TL (shipboard phasers), Gunner/TL (Photon Torps), Electronics Operation/TL (ESG), etc etc etc

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 11:17 pm: Edit

If a specific placement is called for then place it. From game to game it wont matter which hull box its in. Just designate one. The same with lab or shuttle or impulse or.....

You might say that no two playable areas can be in the same hull box unless all boxs become specific playable areas. Designate a number of impulses it takes to travel from one box to another, then double that time if the ship reaches crippled status.

By Aaron Hendricks (Aar0n) on Wednesday, May 01, 2002 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Unless things have changed, ship2ship works on the GURPS space rules.

You will not be able to play out every SFB situation with these rules. You will not be able to recreate the exact same results with both systems. But you should be able to come close. Remember, one is abstact, then other is precise down to the 1/32 sec (or more).

It would take a book the size of the current SFB's rules to work everything in. And you might as well just play SFB.

I love the idea of seeing SFB ships use the GURPS rules. It really great to watch.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 02, 2002 - 01:01 am: Edit

There are actually four space combat systems in GPD....

1. SFB
2. Space 3rd Edition
3. Space Opera (to be in a future module)
4. Clever GMs just avoid space combat.

By Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (Schoon) on Friday, May 03, 2002 - 12:09 am: Edit

I can see how SFB might not be the first choice for character-oriented players. As was pointed out earlier: you're legendary or you're not. Most RPG players like to have some effect on the outcome.

What is "Space Opera," pray tell?

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Friday, May 03, 2002 - 12:23 am: Edit

Space Opera is a game that came out in the early 80's. It's ship-to-ship combat system was used in GURPS LENSMAN and later CII.

Very Cinematic. Nothing like Traveler or Space3.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, May 03, 2002 - 02:01 am: Edit

Gary, GURPS Space Opera Combat System has absolutely nothing in common with FGU's Space Opera combat system. GURPS SOCS is light and fast and only slightly more complex than resolving everything through quick contests. FGU's SO space combat mechanics are more complex than any of the GURPS systems and strictly defined for FGU's universe.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Friday, May 03, 2002 - 05:08 am: Edit

Well, it's been about 20 years since I last played it, so you'll have to forgive me.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, May 03, 2002 - 10:21 am: Edit

Using SFB as a combat system is not a big deal. Basically, you take your skill and if it's in the "normal professional range" you just do the SFB die rolls. If it's outside that range, you do plus or minus one. No biggie.

By Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (Schoon) on Friday, May 03, 2002 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Of course we would all rather that everyone use SFB for resolution, as it's better for our cherished hobby

I like the idea of simply mod-ing the roll by one to allow for "character" interaction on the SFB scale.

By Matthew J. Francois (Francois42) on Friday, May 03, 2002 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Ever since I got hooked on PD earlier this week (and really want it to come out now... I think it's a disease...), I've been working out campaigns. And, of course, space combat is always a part of that, so, I can think of two options (that don't involve breaking out the SFB rulebook and just playing a scenario):

1.) Use SFB in the "background" to allocate damage to ships, determine weapon hits and misses, and to control manuvers. The players simply tell the GM what they're doing ("Turn right for another pass!") and the GM thinks it through on the SFB board... Players' skills can adjust the SFB weapon die rolls accordingly.

2.) And this is the cool one (which works especially well if the players aren't in control of the ship): *BEFORE* your PD game session, run and record a scenario in SFB (maybe by yourself as the GM). Then, as they roleplay, you have critical events from the scenario you played happen. It provides a logical, "larger universe" feel to your game.

-Francois
francois@prudue.edu

By Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (Schoon) on Friday, May 03, 2002 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Francois: Your (2) is an outstanding idea, and also allows the GM to fudge die rolls as necessary for dramatic events to happen when you want them to.

I would think that running an SFB game in the background (regardless of how familiar you are with SFB) would slow things to an unacceptable level for the players.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Friday, May 03, 2002 - 07:22 pm: Edit

One of the things that has been on my to-do list for a while is to look at using STAR FLEET BATTLE FORCE to resolve ship-to-ship combat.

It's a card game, it's quick and easy to learn, and it should be flexible enough to handle the job.

Any comments? Pro OR con.

By Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (Schoon) on Friday, May 03, 2002 - 09:33 pm: Edit

Pro: Quick, simple, and easy for the non-rules-inclined to learn.

Con: May not generate enough detail, luck-of-the-draw (literally), may not satidfy the more-rules-inclined.

Good idea, though I think I'll stick to SFB, and will most probably "wing it" if pressed for time.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Saturday, May 04, 2002 - 04:53 am: Edit

IMHO, SFBF won't work very well. First, it is designed for LARGE (for an RPG) fleets (5 ships/side is about the minimum, and I find that it really needs 8 to 10, unless just teaching the game). Furthermore, as currently designed, it almost requires mixed fleets on each side (to use the variety of weapon cards). Custom building decks to eliminate the problem tends to eliminate the balance.

Furthermore, I don't see how PCs would influence the game in a meaningful way.

Probably the biggest problem is that it is very lethal to ships. Generally, a ship goes from whole to mostly damaged to dead (even in a 2 player game), over a 2 to 4 turn interval. And half the time, the intermediate step is skipped.

I might work for a party that were all the captains of their own ships (ie all the players on one side versus the GM on the other). But its going to have horrid attrition among the players (and either the GM is playing randomly or there would likely be massive complaints of favoritism). But even here, with the one ship firing/one ships targeted at a time mechanism, most of the time the players wouldn't have much to do...

I could see using the ship cards with a completely different mechanic (ie for tracking damage and available weapons). But at that point you're almost designing a whole new game. Now maybe someone has a neat way to do it, but I haven't thought of anything.

By Matthew J. Francois (Francois42) on Saturday, May 04, 2002 - 08:11 am: Edit

Remember one of the "rules" of being a good GM:

Your players don't have to influence the outcome of the adventure. You just have to make them think they did.

-Francois
francois@purdue.edu

PS: If I can find the other rules, I'll post 'em... Some are pretty funny.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Saturday, May 04, 2002 - 02:58 pm: Edit

David:

Assuming that large battles won't occur in (or won't be relevant for) an RPG campaign is very short-sighted. The underlying assumptions are:

1. The PCs will never become 'movers and shakers' in the campaign universe; or, if they do, they will either retire from play, or their 'moving and shaking' activities will occur off-screen, and will not affect the play of the game, or the overall campaign setting.

2. PC activities are entirely 'tactical'; i.e. at the scale of a tactical wargame (even if said activities are non-combat/'roleplaying' in nature), and do not have significant effects beyond the immediate context unless the adventure is designed for a specific (GM-intended) effect to occur (or not occur).

I consider it a failing of most modern RPGs that these assumptions are accepted almost without challenge. I also find it interesting that one prominent exception is a much-maligned game system, d20/D&D (I reference the upcoming Epic Level Handbook and the currently available Stronghold Builder's Guidebook and Deities and Demigods).

It is certainly a different style of gaming to have PCs that can cause large-scale (in the context of the campaign) effects by their actions. What it requires is power-sharing by the GM, as the GM no longer has absolute control over the campaign setting in toto, but shares that power with the players, who, through their characters, can change the course and structure of the campaign setting.

By Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (Schoon) on Sunday, May 05, 2002 - 01:46 am: Edit

I think that what David might have been saying is that a system needs to be able to work for small and large battles, not just one or the other.

And as players tend not to like using two different systems to resolve such actions...

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Sunday, May 05, 2002 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Sean:

Good point. I apologize if I came off as ranting at David. I took the opportunity to bring up an issue which has been on my mind as of late.