maeel
Aug 24 2005, 04:01 AM
Well, many have already voiced the opinion that the lower power setting doesn't suit the gaming style they're used to. The lower power setting also includes vehicles, where the citymaster becomes the topic of your riggers wet dreams...
However the overall powersetting can be easily adjusted by giving players more BP to deal with.
With vehicles it is not that simple. I for myself found the vehicle design rules awesome, and they actually were the reason for me to try to play a rigger, which i still do and enjoy.
Unfortunately i have to admit that riggers have not one of the vehicles in their arsenal that can be found in the books, simply because those just fit for the needs of your Runner/Smuggler/Merc or pirate and that is an understatement.
People especially RPG players and among these especially shadowrun players want to be creative. There is no better feeling than finally bringing that new weapon, cyberdeck, drone or whatever into play and see how it performs.
The plastic warriors and other resources on the internet even on dumpshock are a good example how creative people can be, and how much fun it is for them.
Our beloved developers should know and understand the satisfaction of creating something new......
So i employ you, unless you want shadowrun to become a game of technomancers, mages and adepts only, please reconsider your decision.
Everybody feel free to post his or her thoughts.....
Bandwidthoracle
Aug 24 2005, 04:13 AM
Honestly, I'd really have to see more of the game to say if we need this, are we meaning riggers built their own, or rules for GM's to make their own?
Kagetenshi
Aug 24 2005, 04:15 AM
There's always the SR3 method, in which it allows players to design their own vehicles but is explicit that it is outside of the means of characters to build their own.
~J
apple
Aug 24 2005, 06:02 AM
Exactly this is the problem: players and gamemasters do not need rules to design vehicles.
- Real vehicles can be converted on the fly, just the handling (and the new name) must be decided (yes, and some other values, but in many cases, range is not that important).
- Exotic vehicles are a problem, if no template exists or if they go into extreme levels, because the design rules are, like every other design system (even the character design system) problematic, when it comes to extreme values.
- Variants? Just use an existing vehicle and talk with your GM about changing some values.
Some for guns. Give us a very large list of usable and well-designed vehicles in the arsenal, give us some good customization rules and I will be very glad.
SYL
maeel
Aug 24 2005, 12:53 PM
The problem i see is that we will not see freight submarines, freighters and alike, which you need if you wanna play a pirate campaign.
It is, of course, out of the question that a character designs and builds his own vehicle. But if you take the Rigger3 for example, most of the vehicles in there are, and i apologize for my rude tone, fuck-ups.
Our gaming group has agreed that if a player designs a weapon, vehicle or spell that he can choose wether his creation is something available to the world, meaning that at some point npcs will use it against us, or only the character can have it, which makes the item extremely expensive, with weapons costing several hundred-thousand and vehicles being unpayable.
So most of my creations are actually vehicles that have entered mass production.
And since the devs. havn't shown much talent in designing vehicles (sorry for my honesty
![nyahnyah.gif](http://forums.dumpshock.com/html/emoticons/nyahnyah.gif)
) , i think it would be better, if they include more than just customization rules. The design rules took up about 20 pages in the book, that's not much to do for the players freedom.....
Converting SR3 vehicles might be an option, and should they offer a conversion guide, i'd be happy about it, allthough this might be problematic, since many attributes have been changed.
the_dunner
Aug 24 2005, 01:17 PM
QUOTE (maeel) |
The design rules took up about 20 pages in the book, that's not much to do for the players freedom..... |
Vehicle design rules are just about the most difficult things to write for any game system. If they are to bear any semblance of reality, then you'll need to have a couple of R.L. engineers on the design team. Otherwise, you'll soon find yourself violating the laws of physics in countless ways.
Once you've found your engineers who, somehow, not only have time that they're willing to work for a game designers paycheck, but can also write in a sufficiently non-technical manner that the writing style appeals to gamers, you then need to get them to accept the *changes* to real world physics that your science fiction setting allows. (e.g. Optical computing in Shadowrun)
Then, once you get your team together (It'll need to be a team. Even if you manage to find one engineer who has the time and the willingness to "speak geek" he won't know both automotive and aeronautic engineering), they have to agree on everything. Then, they'll have to come to understand how the relevant game system models reality. Then, they'll have to come up with a way to translate what they know into the game engine.
Then, they'll have to be willing to re-write everything after playtesters min-max the hell out of it and completely break the model. Repeatedly.
There aren't many people who are capable of designing a system like this. This is an enormous task, especially for only 20 pages of a book. Honestly, it's probably better to just let players free-form design things, and let the GM choose to approve them.
Kagetenshi
Aug 24 2005, 02:39 PM
It may be the only practical solution, but the "free-form the design" option is a bad solution. It defeats part of the purpose of buying a game in the first place.
~J
nezumi
Aug 24 2005, 02:45 PM
I think the poll is a bit biased, but...
I don't think we need the ability to design and built vehicles. It takes up a ton of space and its really confusing. I've only used it once, and that was as a GM.
We DO need rules to customize vehicles. That's different, and keeping it sane (like just prices instead of design points with no idnication of the conversion costs) would be nice.
Design *guidelines* for GMs wouldn't be bad, but since it's the GM, simplicity is preferred. There's no reason to make a huge calculation of it.
Kagetenshi
Aug 24 2005, 03:20 PM
Do you play Riggers or other vehicle-oriented characters?
I've used those rules dozens of times thus far, and I expect that number to only increase. The spell design rules, meanwhile, are so much wasted space for me (and, some might be surprised to hear, the deck-building rules—I am a lamer and buy pre-made), but I'd rather they exist than "just free-form it" be the suggestion.
~J
Bandwidthoracle
Aug 24 2005, 03:23 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
Do you play Riggers or other vehicle-oriented characters?
I've used those rules dozens of times thus far, and I expect that number to only increase. The spell design rules, meanwhile, are so much wasted space for me (and, some might be surprised to hear, the deck-building rules--I am a lamer and buy pre-made), but I'd rather they exist than "just free-form it" be the suggestion.
~J |
Well we've had two spells and countless decks designed in our group. Due to the cost (Or risk of hijacking a nano-factory) no one has attempted to make a vehicle from scratch.
blakkie
Aug 24 2005, 03:27 PM
The poll is extremely biased.
![nyahnyah.gif](http://forums.dumpshock.com/html/emoticons/nyahnyah.gif)
So much so that i'm not going to even vote in it.
Instead i'm going to write in my own answer in long form.
A wide selection of stock vehicles, at least a basic one of each appropriate size for each vehicle catagory. Then a wide selection of aftermarket items that a mechanic can apply to the vehicles.
For example 4 or so optional levels of performance/economy ignition control modules that you can use to replace the stock one to increase vehicle acceleration/speed but using more fuel, or use less fuel but lower acceleration/speed. There is a fixed cost for each of the modules, and you can just go buy one like you were buying a lamp for your house. It would have a Threshhold associated for the B/R test for installing it. You install each piece at a time, or i guess if you were adding a bunch of things to the vehicle at once you could total up all the Threshholds and do it that way. That makes it more risky that you have a Glitch or Critical Glitch on the whole project, so you'd have to handle that somehow.
The goal would be to have something approaching the R3 rules flexibility, but in about 1/5 the pages. EDIT: And something that doesn't scream out for a custom computer program or large moderately complex spreadsheet to try track all the variables involved.
Darkness
Aug 24 2005, 03:51 PM
Mmh. That strongly reminds me of the rules in ye olde Rigger Black Book waaaay back in SR1. And i remember that someone posted *somewhere here* that Rob Doyle himself had stated, that such a system similar to what you described here, was to be used for advanced customizations and such.
Is there any confirmation for this?
Kagetenshi
Aug 24 2005, 03:56 PM
QUOTE (Bandwidthoracle @ Aug 24 2005, 10:23 AM) |
Well we've had two spells and countless decks designed in our group. Due to the cost (Or risk of hijacking a nano-factory) no one has attempted to make a vehicle from scratch. |
Please tell me I read that wrong and that you aren't trying to claim that the rules are for characters to build vehicles from scratch.
~J
blakkie
Aug 24 2005, 04:08 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Aug 24 2005, 09:56 AM) |
QUOTE (Bandwidthoracle @ Aug 24 2005, 10:23 AM) | Well we've had two spells and countless decks designed in our group. Due to the cost (Or risk of hijacking a nano-factory) no one has attempted to make a vehicle from scratch. |
Please tell me I read that wrong and that you aren't trying to claim that the rules are for characters to build vehicles from scratch.
~J
|
Parts of those rules read as something a character would either special order or pick as a predesigned vehicle out of a catalog. However the way i read it was that most of the options are available as post-manufacturing modifications, with the ones that aren't specifically indicated (can't name any examples off the top of my head though).
I think that is an issue with the R3 rules. They are trying to cover off both those options, to different extents. The result is confusion about what the rules are trying to accomplish.
EDIT: In some ways the rules also give the impression that a PC might be able to assemble these vehicles in a kit form, customizing as they go. The quality cost factors and a few other things kinda give that impression. But i don't remember it ever it explicitly stating that, so once again purpose is vague.
Kagetenshi
Aug 24 2005, 04:17 PM
Rigger 3, page 102, first page of Vehicle Design:
QUOTE |
The intent of these design rules is to assign attributes and ratings to mass-produced vehicles, both large and small. Produced in mass quantities by large automotive, aerospace, and other heavy industrial companies, these kinds of vehicles are by far the most common encountered worldwide. They are NOT intended to be used as guidelines for allowing individual characters (either player characters or NPCs) to design or build vehicles from scratch. |
Perhaps one of the least-vague sections of the rules I've seen, and yet people still fuck it up.
~J
Cynic project
Aug 24 2005, 04:20 PM
QUOTE (maeel) |
The problem i see is that we will not see freight submarines, freighters and alike, which you need if you wanna play a pirate campaign.
|
Um you can tottally be pirate out of a glorrfied speed boat, an old freighter, hell something tht look like a yatch. The boat you use doesn't really matter in if you can or can't be a pirate. It just changes what type of pirating you are going to be doing and the scale.
If you have a small boat you go for high pay for valume if you have a large boat you can go for more targets. Subs aren't any harder to be stopped than sufrace boats. At least the sun any runner should be getting their hands on.
apple
Aug 24 2005, 04:27 PM
QUOTE (maeel @ Aug 24 2005, 07:53 AM) |
The problem i see is that we will not see freight submarines, freighters and alike, which you need if you wanna play a pirate campaign. |
Do you really need values which you have to design in a complex process or do you just need descriptions for them and some reallife relations (like price ranges or monthly maintenance costs etc)? Why would a player need to design a freighter? Couldn´t he just say "Freighter, the name is "Marco Polo", 10 Man, autonav/pilot 4, 3000 BRTs" while the GM estimates the price? etc?
SYL
mintcar
Aug 24 2005, 04:32 PM
I don´t care about vehicle design rules. Riggers are cool. Lets have lots of customization options instead.
Kagetenshi
Aug 24 2005, 04:32 PM
Because once you start making things up on a grand scale like that you may as well have saved your money on the game in the first place.
~J
apple
Aug 24 2005, 04:35 PM
QUOTE (mintcar) |
Lets have lots of customization options instead. |
Yes!
SYL
Blacken
Aug 24 2005, 04:52 PM
If the rules aren't written in, I'm going to convert SR2's rules to SR4 (they're better than SR3's) for my and my MUD's own use.
blakkie
Aug 24 2005, 05:01 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
Rigger 3, page 102, first page of Vehicle Design:
QUOTE | The intent of these design rules is to assign attributes and ratings to mass-produced vehicles, both large and small. Produced in mass quantities by large automotive, aerospace, and other heavy industrial companies, these kinds of vehicles are by far the most common encountered worldwide. They are NOT intended to be used as guidelines for allowing individual characters (either player characters or NPCs) to design or build vehicles from scratch. |
Perhaps one of the least-vague sections of the rules I've seen, and yet people still fuck it up.
~J
|
.... and yet only some items are expressly confined to manufactering phase, and rules for non-manufactering additions, strongly suggests other intents. Some mods not stated or statted as limited to manufacturers are so extensive that you basically are stripping down to the frame.
Kagetenshi
Aug 24 2005, 05:03 PM
Items added in customization are expressly allowed to be done by characters. There's no vagueness there either.
~J
blakkie
Aug 24 2005, 05:07 PM
QUOTE (Cynic project @ Aug 24 2005, 10:20 AM) |
QUOTE (maeel @ Aug 24 2005, 07:53 AM) | The problem i see is that we will not see freight submarines, freighters and alike, which you need if you wanna play a pirate campaign.
|
Um you can tottally be pirate out of a glorrfied speed boat, an old freighter, hell something tht look like a yatch. The boat you use doesn't really matter in if you can or can't be a pirate. It just changes what type of pirating you are going to be doing and the scale.
If you have a small boat you go for high pay for valume if you have a large boat you can go for more targets. Subs aren't any harder to be stopped than sufrace boats. At least the sun any runner should be getting their hands on.
|
But are you going to limit yourself to smallish craft for boarding and such? At least a couple for guidelines to extrapolate from.
But no special rules for "Naval" armor, body, and weapons. The new condition monitor rules seem like just using a large body & armor for the boat and a large DV and AP for the weapon should be sufficent.
nezumi
Aug 24 2005, 05:10 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
Do you play Riggers or other vehicle-oriented characters? |
No, I GM. But I currently have two riggers in my group, have run as a rigger twice, and never have seen a player use them. As a GM, I don't feel the calculations need to be quite as precise as listed, and more of the options should simply be 'customized add-ons' with a price for parts and time for labor.
Design rules as they are are just too complex. I'd prefer a 5-page section on 'vehicle design' and 15 pages on vehicle customization, perhaps mentioning a discount when the customizations are added onto the design over the current system.
Kagetenshi
Aug 24 2005, 05:16 PM
Each to their own, I suppose. In my experience the design rules really aren't complex—finding everything is the most difficult part (that and figuring out what I want).
~J
blakkie
Aug 24 2005, 05:21 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
Items added in customization are expressly allowed to be done by characters. There's no vagueness there either.
~J |
That's what i mean by kit. You can basically order the custom modules for the vehicle and assemble them with a bunch of modifications.
So yes, those vehicle rules as a whole have multiple intents, and they mix the different kinds of options in side by side, and many of the options serve multiple intents.
P.S. That isn't to say that somehow envisioning a nano-factory as a requirement made any sort of sense at all.
maeel
Aug 24 2005, 06:17 PM
the design rules are not complex, its simply choose a chassis, choose an engine, add some options and add some customizations and you're done....
i think what scares most people away are the many values you have to deal with. FP for example is defined as 0,125 cubic meters, why didn't they just use cubic meters or cubic centimeters ?
Basically i don't wanna say that we need completely new design rules, actually we only need new tables with adjusted values, which btw make up 11 of the 20 pages of the sr3 design rules, and a few adjusted design options nothing more.
I am not saying that you can't play pirate with a boat, but as i stated before, it basically limits the players powerlevel. You can add more BP at char creation but if some criscraft otter is everything there is you are very limited.
rpg player without proper rules to limit their imagination? common, not seriously...
and customization rules only???? how realistic would it be, if every car on the street is a fuckin nissan jackrabbit, even if they are all customized....
Aristotle
Aug 24 2005, 06:30 PM
QUOTE (maeel) |
and customization rules only???? how realistic would it be, if every car on the street is a fuckin nissan jackrabbit, even if they are all customized.... |
Get past the name. Every car on the street is not a nissan jackrabit, but lots of cars on the street are in the same vehicle class as that car and will have (for the purpose of a game) nearly identical overall stats. Add a couple of customizations to increase handling and overall speed and you suddenly have the sport class associated with that vehicle class. Add a few customizations to increase durability and offroad ability and you have the offroad version. I don't get why that is so hard to swallow...
Design rules are great, but if I get a nice sized list of vehicles and a laundry list of customizations my characters can purchase or perform themselves. I'll be more than happy.
nezumi
Aug 24 2005, 06:35 PM
QUOTE (maeel) |
and customization rules only???? how realistic would it be, if every car on the street is a fuckin nissan jackrabbit, even if they are all customized.... |
Perhaps you should have read my whole post?
I suggest complex rules for customization, since the players do that. General guidelines for vehicle design, since generally the GM's do that (or at least, it seems to be rare for players to do that). I don't believe either would preclude making up new names for something that's somehow different in the factory (a jackrabbit with +1 to handling and accel probably isn't a jackrabbit any more).
Approximately how much shold be charged for each point of handling? How much per... Simplier is better. There were a lot of numbers to keep track of and no indication of what they mean without reading most of the chapter (discounting the actual inventory. It's still about 5 pages of rules for a GM to wade through if he just wants to make 'a big, old, Russian made truck' or something else silly.)
blakkie
Aug 24 2005, 07:04 PM
The R3 rules are complex through bulk. It isn't that a CF is an 1/8 m3 (50cmx50cmx50cm). It is tracking the CF, along with lots of other variables, up and down through the mods.
Then at the end of it have to run the damn thing through a reality filter anyway if i want to avoid a likely perversion.
An analogy. I can also raise a cow in my backyard and milk and then churn that into butter for my bread. But unless farming is my hobby i'm more likely to just buy the butter when i'm grocery shopping.
apple
Aug 24 2005, 07:49 PM
QUOTE (maeel) |
the design rules are not complex, its simply choose a chassis, choose an engine, add some options and add some customizations
and customization rules only???? how realistic would it be, if every car on the street is a fuckin nissan jackrabbit, even if they are all customized.... |
... get a calculator, get pain in the head because of several rules, get finally something like a usable vehicle ... and then get the GMs approval. If no, GOTO 10.
To be honest: I would prefer a large list of interesting and well-thought vehicles and some customizations, which give me a certain sense and feeling about the sixth world. But for that, I need examples, not site-long rules. Instead of the design rules, they could have includes dozens of new vehicles and modifications ... something I consider much more useful for players and GMs.
Btw: I consider large ships like freighters, submarines, frigates or aircraft-carrier as plot devices ...
SYL
apple
Aug 24 2005, 07:55 PM
QUOTE (maeel) |
And customization rules only???? how realistic would it be, if every car on the street is a fuckin nissan jackrabbit, even if they are all customized.... |
Jackrabbit => similar models include the Ztana, Swift, Glow, Squirrel.
Note: similar models does not mean, that every stat is the same.
Don´t tell me that you need rules to invent a new name, a new producing company or to change the speed vom 90 to 95, while the price goes up from 15500¥ to 15999¥.
SYL
blakkie
Aug 24 2005, 07:55 PM
I consider plot devices within range of a TOW or a demolition specialist w/explosives to be sinkable.
![wink.gif](http://forums.dumpshock.com/html/emoticons/wink.gif)
Hey, i play with people that 'on occasion' leave a trail of destruction.
apple
Aug 24 2005, 08:04 PM
And? A normal house is also destructible by the hands of a demolition expert. Where are my house construction rules? I can´t handle situations like exploding/burning/collapsing flats, doors, skycrapers (I mean, we have design rules for 5-billion ¥ nuclear aircraft carriers), houses, bridges or dogs without building them with proper design/construction rules in the first place.
SYL
maeel
Aug 24 2005, 08:07 PM
QUOTE |
nezumi Posted on Aug 24 2005, 01:35 PM QUOTE | (maeel) and customization rules only???? how realistic would it be, if every car on the street is a fuckin nissan jackrabbit, even if they are all customized....
|
Perhaps you should have read my whole post?
I suggest complex rules for customization, since the players do that. General guidelines for vehicle design, since generally the GM's do that (or at least, it seems to be rare for players to do that). I don't believe either would preclude making up new names for something that's somehow different in the factory (a jackrabbit with +1 to handling and accel probably isn't a jackrabbit any more).
Approximately how much should be charged for each point of handling? How much per... simpler is better. There were a lot of numbers to keep track of and no indication of what they mean without reading most of the chapter (discounting the actual inventory. It's still about 5 pages of rules for a GM to wade through if he just wants to make 'a big, old, Russian made truck' or something else silly.)
|
my point is the following, there are for example no fuel cell based tbirds among the example vehicles, but with the design rules, i created one.
it is not that many numbers, the rules for vehicle design easily fit on 5 pages, if you put the design options to the customizations.
I also know, that GMs rarely design new vehicles. They simply change a few stats, unless they want to create a very special vehicle with plot importance. rigger players build vehicles more often and put a lot detail in it, because its their baby and they are paying for it....
the point is, when the GM changes a few stats for an npc vehicle its completely different from the GM setting the prize for PC vehicle as he sees fit. you can bet your ass that the player will argue about the prize.
and about tracking the FP that was more with customizations than with design.
in the end my point is if there is vehicle design or a SR3 vehicle conversion guide, nobody is going to be pissed off, the ones, who like and need it, will use it, while the others will simply play without it. Everbody's happy!
Leave it out of the arsenal, and a major or minor fraction is going to be pissed, because they feel ignored.....
Bandwidthoracle
Aug 24 2005, 08:08 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
QUOTE (Bandwidthoracle @ Aug 24 2005, 10:23 AM) | Well we've had two spells and countless decks designed in our group. Due to the cost (Or risk of hijacking a nano-factory) no one has attempted to make a vehicle from scratch. |
Please tell me I read that wrong and that you aren't trying to claim that the rules are for characters to build vehicles from scratch.
~J
|
Not kidding, I told my group that should someone survive B&E into a state of the art nano-facotry, roll good enough to use the equipment, and get the vehicle out of there, they could have it...(It was a death trap that everyone wisely avoided)
Kesh
Aug 24 2005, 08:22 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
Because once you start making things up on a grand scale like that you may as well have saved your money on the game in the first place.
~J |
I can agree, but only to a certain point. The rules can't cover everything, and some things either don't make sense as explicit rules, or would take so much effort to
make coherent rules that it's impractical.
That said, if someone could develop a system similar to the old
Classic Battletech rules for vehicle creation, that would be cool.
Sabosect
Aug 24 2005, 08:31 PM
QUOTE (apple) |
And? A normal house is also destructible by the hands of a demolition expert. Where are my house construction rules? I can´t handle situations like exploding/burning/collapsing flats, doors, skycrapers (I mean, we have design rules for 5-billion ¥ nuclear aircraft carriers), houses, bridges or dogs without building them with proper design/construction rules in the first place.
SYL |
Actually, I was kinda hoping for those. My players like to build their own houses after about six months.
blakkie
Aug 24 2005, 08:40 PM
QUOTE (apple) |
And? A normal house is also destructible by the hands of a demolition expert. Where are my house construction rules? I can´t handle situations like exploding/burning/collapsing flats, doors, skycrapers (I mean, we have design rules for 5-billion ¥ nuclear aircraft carriers), houses, bridges or dogs without building them with proper design/construction rules in the first place.
SYL |
Page 157.
I'm not sure where the Speed, Accel, and Handling values for houses are though.
![wink.gif](http://forums.dumpshock.com/html/emoticons/wink.gif)
As i said it would be a nice to have. I don't want the big mass of crud that came with them in R3. Everything i'm looking for would fit into about a 1/2 page, maybe less.
apple
Aug 24 2005, 08:47 PM
Well, I have to admit, something like 1/2 page could be acceptable.
SYL
Kyoto Kid
Aug 24 2005, 09:04 PM
QUOTE (nezumi) |
I think the poll is a bit biased, but...
I don't think we need the ability to design and built vehicles. It takes up a ton of space and its really confusing. I've only used it once, and that was as a GM.
We DO need rules to customize vehicles. That's different, and keeping it sane (like just prices instead of design points with no idnication of the conversion costs) would be nice.
Design *guidelines* for GMs wouldn't be bad, but since it's the GM, simplicity is preferred. There's no reason to make a huge calculation of it. |
I've actually found the vehicle design rules in Rigger 3 to be quite comprehensible. I have written up a large compendium of additional cars, bikes, military/security vehicles, planes, and ships to flesh out the world I run. Usually takes me about 15 to 20 min or so to whip up a concept from a basic framework including cost. I would like to see how this is handled in SR4.
Cynic project
Aug 24 2005, 09:11 PM
QUOTE (blakkie) |
QUOTE (Cynic project @ Aug 24 2005, 10:20 AM) | QUOTE (maeel @ Aug 24 2005, 07:53 AM) | The problem i see is that we will not see freight submarines, freighters and alike, which you need if you wanna play a pirate campaign.
|
Um you can tottally be pirate out of a glorrfied speed boat, an old freighter, hell something tht look like a yatch. The boat you use doesn't really matter in if you can or can't be a pirate. It just changes what type of pirating you are going to be doing and the scale.
If you have a small boat you go for high pay for valume if you have a large boat you can go for more targets. Subs aren't any harder to be stopped than sufrace boats. At least the sun any runner should be getting their hands on.
|
But are you going to limit yourself to smallish craft for boarding and such? At least a couple for guidelines to extrapolate from.
But no special rules for "Naval" armor, body, and weapons. The new condition monitor rules seem like just using a large body & armor for the boat and a large DV and AP for the weapon should be sufficent.
|
Read my post again, I said you can do it iwht many type of boats, and soem of those boatas abtter than tohers. I was saying you didn't need a sub to do it. I did nto say you had to have a small boat,I was saying you could do it in a small boat. If you think those ar eth same, then bye.
blakkie
Aug 24 2005, 09:18 PM
QUOTE (Cynic project @ Aug 24 2005, 03:11 PM) |
QUOTE (blakkie @ Aug 24 2005, 12:07 PM) | QUOTE (Cynic project @ Aug 24 2005, 10:20 AM) | QUOTE (maeel @ Aug 24 2005, 07:53 AM) | The problem i see is that we will not see freight submarines, freighters and alike, which you need if you wanna play a pirate campaign.
|
Um you can tottally be pirate out of a glorrfied speed boat, an old freighter, hell something tht look like a yatch. The boat you use doesn't really matter in if you can or can't be a pirate. It just changes what type of pirating you are going to be doing and the scale.
If you have a small boat you go for high pay for valume if you have a large boat you can go for more targets. Subs aren't any harder to be stopped than sufrace boats. At least the sun any runner should be getting their hands on.
|
But are you going to limit yourself to smallish craft for boarding and such? At least a couple for guidelines to extrapolate from.
But no special rules for "Naval" armor, body, and weapons. The new condition monitor rules seem like just using a large body & armor for the boat and a large DV and AP for the weapon should be sufficent.
|
Read my post again, I said you can do it iwht many type of boats, and soem of those boatas abtter than tohers. I was saying you didn't need a sub to do it. I did nto say you had to have a small boat,I was saying you could do it in a small boat. If you think those ar eth same, then bye.
|
Sorry, misunderstood that part about the larger ships.
Still why not subs? Or a battleship/cruiser/aircraft carrier? Though the later is more for noting it's speed, sinking smaller ships, and leveling near coast targets via jet/artilery, the former is applicable to a modern 'pirate' and very applicable to a smuggler.
P.S. Definately a ship somewhere in the Coast Guard cutter range. Something with a helipad too, maybe a larger yacht?
blakkie
Aug 24 2005, 09:30 PM
QUOTE (apple @ Aug 24 2005, 02:47 PM) |
Well, I have to admit, something like 1/2 page could be acceptable.
SYL |
How about a 3/4 page then?
![cool.gif](http://forums.dumpshock.com/html/emoticons/cool.gif)
I got to thinking about it a bit more, and the descriptions should fit in 1/2. But they tend to like putting the vehicles in a stat table too, so that's another 1/4 page or so.
maeel
Aug 24 2005, 11:37 PM
but you have to agree that the vehicles in SR3 core and Rigger 3 are not of the most intelligent design. i created a fuel cell based light freighter submarine for about 5.9 bill NuY.
Our group hasn't purchased it yet, but we've thought about capturing one. We want to modify it, to become a mobile base of operations.
I've also created a medium minisub on fuelcell base that leeches onto bigger ships and cuts through their hull, so that the crew can board the target.
btw: did you ever realize that there is not one submarine with fuelcell engine in the books. Although todays modern submarines are either nuclear or fuelcell driven.
and thats just a few examples from my group....
why should only players of mages or hackers be allowed to design their new own fancy stuff..?
hahnsoo
Aug 24 2005, 11:39 PM
QUOTE (maeel) |
why should only players of mages or hackers be allowed to design their new own fancy stuff..? |
Umm, I'd like to note that there are no Spell Design rules in SR4 and the Programming rules are very VERY bare bones.
maeel
Aug 24 2005, 11:41 PM
i know, but i am talkin about the books to come. Complaining about SR4 corebook is pointless...
maeel
Aug 25 2005, 08:39 AM
still, nobody has so far told us, which vehicles ( how many, what type???) there are in the SR4 corebook.....
so please, pleeeeaaaaaassseee, sombody tell us...
nezumi
Aug 25 2005, 06:02 PM
QUOTE ( mael) |
my point is the following, there are for example no fuel cell based tbirds among the example vehicles, but with the design rules, i created one. it is not that many numbers, the rules for vehicle design easily fit on 5 pages, if you put the design options to the customizations. |
Alright, so as it stands you'd choose the chasis, choose the options to alter the handling, choose the seats, choose the hardpoints, choose the armor... And FINALLY you have a craft. You multiply the design points by something based on the chasis and get a monetary cost.
Wouldn't it be easier if the rules said 'to change a vehicle's power source to fuel cells, you get the cost of the original power source (some amount * a simple number in nuyen) and add on the cost of the new source (some amount * a simple number in nuyen).
Make each step compartamentalized and independent so those who just want a quick tweak, like your example, can do it without giving yourself a headache or reading 5 pages of rules and 15 pages of odd doodads you want, and people like Kage who really love this can just step through each change without needing too much explanation, and just has to adjust a few numbers at the end if anything is unreasonable.