What's new
  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 May and June 2024 are YE 46.4 in the RP.

Damage Rating Conversion Chart

Status
Not open for further replies.
Besides being too vague at some points, I've also said that it's been too restrictive at others as well.

It's not so much a black-and-white thing of being one or the other, but more about being each, but in the right places where it'd benefit us the most. In the case of the percentages, they're hard numbers which limit interpretation. Not only that, but when taking the system and pushing it, they're the weakest point for exploitation. Though their removal would mean not having a clear and unambiguous relative effectiveness between Classes, it would mean getting rid of the aforementioned weak-point. In place, it will also allow GMs more flexibility when it comes to Cross-Class interactions.
 
Loose wording such as "Generally X% of normal damage" Seems like a pretty easy fix there. Changes the hard limit to a firm guideline.
 
Referencing what I mentioned in my post in which Class weapons are potentially lethal to their intended Class, I would believe that the same would apply here with the percentages functioning as a general guideline to give players and GMs an idea of how a weapon of a higher or lower class might function when interacting. I don't believe that any of the values should be applied in character as a hard value but should rather be used as a general marker post to give GMs a rough idea of how a weapon and a unit would interact.

These should be guidelines not hard values. The only hard values should be ones decided by GMs for their plots. Everything else is just to give Players and GMs a general idea of what they can expect a weapon or unit to do. This is because when it comes down to it, the GM is the one who is the final arbiter and who makes the decision as to how a weapon functions and how armour defends in their plot.

Beyond how this works in relation to the roleplay I've also considered it for the purposes of setting submissions giving tech mods a loose frame to help them figure out what sometimes obscure weapons systems are intended to do. Again I stress that I do not believe that we should treat this system as hard values and instead use it as a narrative framing device to aid the GM when they make their decisions.

When it comes to implementation in a plot the GM is the ultimate power. So long as a GM isn't acting in a way that is massively contrary to the setting element this should never be an issue.
 
Though I agree that they should be guidelines, right now they're hard numbers without ambiguity. If the system is pushed to its limits and used as stats, it won' fare as well. At the same time, if someone tries to game it and take advantage of the system, the percentages make it easier to do so. Taking Archander's suggestion, adding in some looser wording would do the trick, and cement it firmly as a guideline. Certain kinds of abuse can't be so easily stopped by peer-review, and making weapons that are optimized to take advantage of the DR system has happened before.

Still, does the suggested change sound ok?
 
That is fair, along with that edit it would also probably be wise to write into the opening section of the system's page that these are guidelines. Just to further avoid any ambiguity, we might as well write to leave nothing in question even if it is a little redundant.
 
It's a change that makes the table informative rather than definitive information. I've nothing against it.

I also implemented a change. On the lethality table, Outcome was changed to Approximate Outcome, and I've added the word "around" in front of every percentile value given.

Added a short paragraph in the opening to signifiy how it's a guideline to help players figure out how good the tools they use are while narrative power and interpretation is still left in the GM's hands. I don't swear by the wording, but there's something about that now.
 
Moved the LASR from Class 4 to Class 3 because it was bugging me.

Also added about four paragraphs attempting to explain the purpose of the class table. I attempted to write it in such a way as to not assume any previous knowledge of the site or the DR system to help new members, as well as make it easier for those who might not be familiar with the discussion we've had to pick it up.

Edit: Tried to make it clear which section I added to ease editing or removal as needed.
 
With recent events IRL, I haven't been able to contribute as much as I would like to this, but there is another point of concern that I have. With the current DR system we're trying to replace, the unlisted rule is that a platform - PA, Ship, etc. - cannot have weapons that give it a DR that is twice its own SP. This was to keep some semblance of balance, but what will this new system go by in its place?
 
I believe the intention is to apply some form of common sense to this. Such as expecting a rocket launcher that fires an anti-tank missile to kill a tank. The limitation however would be that the missile and launcher would probably be heavy and cumbersome so while a soldier might be able to carry something that can hit well above their class, it has limits.

For example, say a soldier out of armour wants to shoot down a shuttle. Their best bet is going to be a missile system, however since they don't have the benefits of a PA, the best they're probably going to get is a single shot launcher. So they have to carry the weapon out to a vantage point, aim at the shuttle they intend to down, and fire. This is where the GM's discretion would come in, the GM has to decide whether the shuttle is capable of defending against a missile that could theoretically down it, does it have good shields? Perhaps a point defence system exists on the shuttle, or maybe the pilot is good enough to out manoeuvre the missile. Either way it comes down to the problem that while the lone soldier might possibly shoot down the shuttle with his one missile, he only has the one chance. Given that a shuttle probably carries a PA grade weapon fed by the vessel's power plant, chances are that the lone soldier won't last long.

More or less what I've said in a long winded way is that weapons that can hurt larger targets will probably have drawbacks that prevent them from breaking balance. Additionally I believe that what makes a larger platform more dangerous isn't necessarily bigger guns, but rather more diverse and more effective options like sensors, speed, and other tertiary systems. We should take into consideration how the weapon will be employed as much, if not more than what it will kill if you line up a shot.
 
Er, not quite what I had in mind. What I'm asking is, what's to stop someone from slapping on an absurd amount of weapons onto a ship for an example? We previously had some hard numbers to go by, but what now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wes
Well, I suppose this would also come down to common sense. If you look at a ship submission and it is bristling with a ridiculous amount of weapons with no drawbacks then there is something that needs to be addressed. The intention is to write good tech articles that provide interesting and fun props for players and GMs to employ to write a good story. If there isn't a feeling that the subject of an article can be used productively then changes need to be made (IE something that is so ridiculously powerful that nothing would challenge it).

On the other hand if the individual submitting the article can make a good sell for how it could be employed in a way that is enjoyable I think that exceptions to the rule could occur, but only if it is made clear how they're intended to be used to prevent future confusion. We should endeavour to write and accept setting elements that are fun and interesting, how they function mechanically should be secondary to that in my opinion.

Given that I realize that I haven't presented a good metric for handling this and making the approval process less of a burden and that a metric to help out may be desired I invite the others participating in this thread or watching it to suggest possible options to help with this, after all this is only my opinion and I don't claim to be right all the time.
 
Last edited:
Precedent is an easy friend, but also an incorrigible and dependent one.

Tech reviewers need to be on the lookout for submissions that are OP. That's part of our job. But context also is vital -- if there is a particularly powerful thing being submitted, it behooves us to ask what's up and drill down to the submission's purpose, where it fits in the setting, so on.

We can't rely on precedent to get us through. No crutches when it comes to tech review. However, it can be a factor.

Independent submissions need different -- not less or more -- scrutiny than those coming from a faction.

And we should listen to the sell. Really listen and consider it. If need be, ask that parts of it be added to the article somewhere.
 
Perhaps it should be encouraged to have an OOC section on tech with a bit of explanation of the intention of the article? That way we have a reference as to what was intended when the article was written that we can look at months or years later.

Edit: I say this because sometimes it isn't always clear how something was intended to be used just by looking at the fluff of an article.
 
Last edited:
My answer to this doesn't really differ to Eistheid.

Is there any balance reason why a human cannot carry a bazooka? Not really. Can he wield two at the same time? It's only common sense that dictates to us that no, a human can't effectively use two bazookas at the same time. Another case are starfighters. If one is meant to be an anti-starship bomber, we can expect it to carry anti-starship torpedoes. How much? We'll have to compare the scale of the torpedo used with the feasible carrying capacity of the proposed craft itself.

To be quite honest, I don't see anyway of pacifying Cadetnewb's concern if "common sense" doesn't apply unless we significantly broaden the examples given and establish ahead of time what we expect and where. That may settle down any NTSE mod insecurities, promote more consistency, but at the price of flexibility.
 
Last edited:
Flexibility is best. Common sense isn't, but we can get there if we each apply our own "sense" to an article, with an NTSE mod watching over it. We already have classes for the new chart, after all ...

An OOC section I think is valuable only if it isn't made clear by the tech/fluff itself. If it really takes an OOC explanation to get us to understand what's up with an article, that might also be a sign to the submitter that their article needs tooling.
 
I'm with Doshii. Explanation of the proper function should be something the article does already. If it doesn't, fix it. If new ways of using it come up down the road, append them on there! RP will bring unintended functions out of anything we can think of, so don't assume you know everything about how it will be used, but explain what we DO know up front.
 
Regarding the current DR system: I was thinking we should stop asking for DR ratings on submissions and just let the NTSE mods add them, or have them added on request. The reason is we're seeing submissions based on a rating, instead of ratings based on the submission. In other words, I'd like to see article writers focus on making great articles and not distracted by trying to game the system for extra points in an optional combat system. Having a central point for DR assignments would also create more consistent stats.

Regarding Fred's update: I would like to see this style of descriptive stats. Things are coming along nicely in this thread.

Tabletop: This is a side note, but I also have interest in an additional "hard" numbers system in place eventually to co-exist with our normal ratings, with stats usable in some major roleplaying game system, so you could play Star Army vehicles in, say, D20 or Palladium RIFTS or something, but there are licensing considerations that need to be sorted before we can make any conversion stats to tabletop RPGs.
 
You do realize the two systems are mutually exclusive, right, Wes? Hard rules systems like D20 don't coexist well with narrative based system's like Fred's. If you go too far in the numbers, you lose the whole point of the narrative, and the narrative by it's very nature excludes numbers as much as possible. If you DO restart work on the tabletop system that we talked about in the past, it would make far more sense to have it use its own, separate system of rule, rather than trying to match up the RP rules with the tabletop system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top