Feedback Needed: DR v3

[Wes]

After intense debate and dozens of revisions, and feedback from dozens of users, we, the Star Army staff, feel that the new damage rating system, which Fred has created and put an enormous amount of work into, is finally ready for implementation.

The new system includes several improvements, mainly being more clear and actually including a scale for mecha.

This poll is here to get a vote from the Star Army membership to officially move to DR v3 as our "main" system for estimating damage in combat, instead of DR v2, the current system. If we vote yes, articles will be gradually transitioned to also include DR v3 ratings, and eventually the DR v2 ratings will be removed once everything has the new stats.

All SARP members are encouraged to vote! The poll will be open for 3 days.

 

[Legix]

Just as a quiiiiiick note, can we expand the Mecha section to include large ground craft in general, such as tanks? Seems like it's the one gap in this (since I assume most fighters even in planetary standards would be on the starship rating at 1).

 

[Wes]

Just as a quiiiiiick note, can we expand the Mecha section to include large ground craft in general, such as tanks? Seems like it's the one gap in this (since I assume most fighters even in planetary standards would be on the starship rating at 1).

Please discuss the DR system in the actual submission thread, not here in the poll.

 

[Syaoran]

Don't see any reason not to move really. Skimmed it over and it looks good to me. The old system had holes in it and this patches a lot of them.

 

[Edto Xar'Sivaree]

So long as the rules remain "Optional" for GM's to use in threads specifically ((Still need to make sure submissions abide by these new submission rules)) then I see no problem or complaints rising. Number are good to have, especially if there are disputes.

 

[Legix]

Dropped the vote for yes. Cuz wynaut

 

[Zack]

I still see this as a step backward.

We are getting a combination of both more numbers and less clarity.

SARP moves to a high-lethality setting where players can expect one shot kills (in both directions)

The armor speed changes don't seem to be well integrated into the current speed rules, granting much greater bonuses for low tech species.

Missiles have either been nerfed into the ground (Due to the per-shot rule limiting the amount you can take), or made overpowered (due to the increase in weapon restrictions assuming the pershot rule doesn't apply to missiles). The rules are unclear.

Its unclear what successive weapon strikes due to a target.

It is unclear how these rules interact with the star-ship construction guidelines for factions.

This makes the average star-ship immune to Fighters and Mecha, which makes mecha and fighter RP very difficult.

This also further ties 'size' to 'armor' making large civilian transport freighters more heavily armed and armored than small gunships. Granted that problem already exists but there was at least some accounting for 'armor' through the shield threshold value so we can say that this current system is a step back in that regard even if it is a small one.

 

[Navian]

Unarmoured civilian ships count as a class smaller, that's a pretty big difference... and it does make sense for an unarmoured ship weighing 20000 tons to be harder to destroy than a 200 ton gunship. These rules require some creativity for smaller vessels to cause damage to larger ones, essentially you need to find a way for 'light damage' to have potent effects. For example, destroying a turret is much easier than shooting through one side of a ship's hull and out the other, but if every turret on a ship is disabled, it might actually be in worse shape, as far as battle-readiness goes, than one that has a hole clean through it.

This system also brings in something else that I think we desperately needed--A ship with a hole clean through it might be dead, or it might actually have suffered no significant damage. The same weapon is required to do it, either way, the difference is what gets hit. That's what the 'potentially lethal' column is for, a weapon does enough damage to kill a ship, but it might hit the power plant or bridge... or it might hit the swimming pool, or a cargo bay filled with stuffed animals. Not every hit should do meaningful damage even if it does enough damage that it could kill the target in one shot.

It looks like barrier shields still keep the lethality down, so we don't have to worry about that, except in cases where we don't have them, which is pretty much just the personal scale, or for real junk-heap ships, both of which are cases where high lethality has already been the standard.

This system has no special rules for what happens on successive strikes, a damaged target is a different target. If a ship already has a hole through it, it might be possible to tear it in half with another shot, but that's GM discretion now instead of being based on SP (which was a bit weird... damage to a ship's front doesn't make damage to a ship's rear more serious, really.)

I don't know about missiles, but everything else seems like a step up, to me. The old DR system was so unclear that you made stuff up that wasn't on the guide page and took it for granted just to make sense of it. We'll probably do that with this, too (it doesn't say what happens when a shot hits a ship's open hangar bay, or any other specific system, so we still have to make stuff up), but it doesn't look like a step down.

 

[Syaoran]

I still see this as a step backward.

We are getting a combination of both more numbers and less clarity.

SARP moves to a high-lethality setting where players can expect one shot kills (in both directions)

The armor speed changes don't seem to be well integrated into the current speed rules, granting much greater bonuses for low tech species.

Missiles have either been nerfed into the ground (Due to the per-shot rule limiting the amount you can take), or made overpowered (due to the increase in weapon restrictions assuming the pershot rule doesn't apply to missiles). The rules are unclear.

Its unclear what successive weapon strikes due to a target.

It is unclear how these rules interact with the star-ship construction guidelines for factions.

This makes the average star-ship immune to Fighters and Mecha, which makes mecha and fighter RP very difficult.

This also further ties 'size' to 'armor' making large civilian transport freighters more heavily armed and armored than small gunships. Granted that problem already exists but there was at least some accounting for 'armor' through the shield threshold value so we can say that this current system is a step back in that regard even if it is a small one.

We're supposed to discuss in the thread. But quick answers to those I got just from glancing at it. Successive weapon strikes are pretty clear.

The chart is designed for one 'attack' so I think the only thing confusing would be burst weapons. But if you hit them twice with a weapon that in 1 hit does DR X you apply that damage twice, seems pretty clear.

Rather than the rules 'interacting' with the guide lines it'd more so be the guide lines need to be updated for the new rules. It wasn't their job to make new guidelines, they were just coming up with a new damage system.

For something to be 'immune' it has to be 4 classes different. And that would mean a Nodachi would have to be attacking an Ookami. That seems reasonable. And missiles on fighter craft even today are meant for taking out things stronger than the platform launching them. Which is why if you get a solid hit with a missile on a jet, it's going down. So having missiles above size on a fighter isn't weird.

And I'm pretty sure those size and armor things are -examples- you can always have something made that is specifically "Abnormally armored for it's size" but when you start making outliers, they'd have to sacrifice something else likely.

Anything else though should be brought up in the topic.

 

[Edto Xar'Sivaree]

And I'm pretty sure those size and armor things are -examples- you can always have something made that is specifically "Abnormally armored for it's size" but when you start making outliers, they'd have to sacrifice something else likely.

Carrying on in this point, at the end of the day, your GM is the one who makes the final decision. The GM is god in regards to the thread. If the GM decides "Hey, that shot didn't do anything" but the system says it would, well the GM takes presidency over the system regardless. The system can in theory be ignored by the GM for the sake of a story, and if Wes's like on my comment previous is any indication, the GM could just throw the system out the damned door.

 

[Zack]

Barrier shields just mean it takes two shots to hit, which means under current rules a ship of the same size would be able to kill two similar ships on the same turn at medium range, or 1 at maximum range.

This system does not include anything the old system didn't have regarding 'potentially lethal' hits. As it is still up to the GM what gets hit. Good gaming systems use crit tables or some other crit mechanism for tracking this kind of damage. This system just has the same 'use your judgement' as the previous systems.

There is also a difference between harder to kill and harder to damage. Under this system a small, heavily armored ship is much easier to damage than a large unarmored ship. Since we're using space ships I'd rather see the armor top-out at starships (since armor wouldn't really help you at this scale anyways) but a good system would use independent values for HP (How much damage a ship can take) and armor (what hits a ship can shrug off)

With the lethality rating, 4 size classes different means that fighters are unable to hit the standard star ships (SP-20 and SP50 ships, so light gunships and battleships as the current rules encourage building those over other ship types). And again due to the high lethality, fighters and other small craft are going to be insta-gibbed very quickly.At best they can be used to absorb a hit for a larger ship.

To build on that, it seems pretty clear that multiple strikes from a weapon 2 ranks lower basically deals no damage and can be stacked on repeatedly with no ill effects.

Finally: Using the 'its up to the GM' argument is kinda pointless. Why have the rules in the first place if you aren't going to use them?

 

[Syaoran]

Take it to the actual discussion channel

 

[Edto Xar'Sivaree]

Because it gives a clear standard Zack. If the GM does not know how such and such would realistically attack, if gives a set example to begin with. IF you are going to go into details like this, then we need to broaden how the weapons interact with each other. There is having a system that can be used as reference, but not as hardcore rules. Otherwise we need to implement initiative, variable AC, player stats, skills ect ect ect.

 

[Zack]

It isn't a clear standard.

A clear standard would mean that multiple people using the system would end up getting the same results.

This is not the case for this system.

 

[Fred]

I really wish you guys wouldn't debate in here. You can let Zack air his opinion without replying to it or try to defuse it. His position is clear - you don't have to change it. Just make your own views clear and move on.

 

[Navian]

I'd like to make a guide to systems hits that builds on rather than replaces this new DR system, and gives players suggestions for what might be hit, and an idea of how to gauge the effects of a hit to something like armour or a cargo bay, which might be less intuitive than a shot to the heart (or the hat).

 

[Zack]

We tried this once sorta with stat-tables.

I still think an elegant solution is for ships to have HP.

You then assign that HP to different systems IE: a ship with 30HP would get 10 assigned to weapons, 10 assigned to engines, 10 assigned to shields.

Then when you take a hit, the HP you lose has to come from somewhere, and a ship's effectiveness gets reduced accordingly.

It's basically the same system that Warmachine uses for warjack damage. The latest version of those rules are pretty popular and you may want to go look up their latest rulebook if you're interested in game-design.

 

[Alex Hart]

I accidentally voted yes, can someone fix it?

 

[Doshii Jun]

Voted.

 

[Wes]

I accidentally voted yes, can someone fix it?

I changed the settings so you can change your vote if you want to.