• 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 stararmy@gmail.com 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

Feedback Needed: DR v3

Should we approve and use Star Army Damage Rating System v3?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 69.6%

  • No

    Votes: 7 30.4%
  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .
Part of building a quality system is not having issues where the system has to be discarded. D20 and FATE are both very good examples of that though they approach the problem from different directions.

FATE lets you do whatever, but applies penalties when it doesn't conform to what fits for your character.

D20 tends to simulate everything, down to the hardness of the bottle of alchemists fire that you threw (to determine if it breaks when it hits the troll's head).

Largely the problem with V2 is that some rules weren't written down. (like ADR 4 not hurting starships) Ok, easy fix. The other big problem is so few people read the V2 rules. Approval mods didn't know the rules so the NTSE is constantly having problems with them. I don't think adding several paragraphs of text is going to help with that and a large number of the people in this thread already said they voted without even reading the V3 rules. The people who do want to read the V3 rules are stuck trying to rush through it on a holiday. Based on how many times we've had to shoot down this idea in the past it certainly looks like a case of cheesing the vote until it passes.


I don't think we'll be using these rules at all. Nor do I really see Wes removing all but the main cannon and one anti-ship turret from the Plumeria gunship. If the creator of the rules has put forward ignoring the rules when they don't work for you, that is what we'll be doing.
 
Firstly as an avid RPer I can tell you right off the bat both of those systems have a custom of 'home-brew' and 'house-rules' to handle things and situations they straight up don't cover. That's the same as GMs taking liberties.

As for people not reading the rules. I'ma say this straight, if they choose not to read the rules that's on them, not on the rule makers. These rules are simple enough that it they can be understood in about an hour enough to RP at least. Only GMs would have to have a good understanding of the rules, and they could get by without.

If you're going to say that these rules shouldn't be in place simply because people are choosing not to read it than that is foolish. So much you have been saying with regard to this is just factually incorrect, and it's just really annoying. Even that this is 'cheesing' the vote is outright wrong. The system underwent massive revisions and alterations to make it something people actually like. And that was in the open, anyone could've taken part int eh discussion. Fred is not just throwing the same system at the people over and over.
 
A comparison: Using their V2 stats, the Warding Rune autocannons so common on Freespacer vessels can quickly shred powered armour. This is what they're for. V2 doesn't say what effect they have on personal scale targets.... a messy one, probably? It's undefined. A single Phantasm gunship could destroy an unarmoured corvette instantly--using only its point defense guns!--if its shields were down. Even against a Sharie battleship, 13 of these gunships, each with four Warding Rune autocannons, could tear through its Yamataium hull and destroy it instantly. This does not make any sense.

In V3, Warding Rune autocannons are a medium (maybe heavy) anti-armour weapon. They have the same effect on powered armour as before, though it's not as rigidly defined. They're not meant to be used against starships, and their 2 cm gauss rounds do negligible harm even to an unarmoured corvette (as seen in the RP). Against a Sharie, they do not even tickle. On the other hand, they can shred powered armour. That's the sort of target they're meant to have. They're overkill against personal-scale targets, and the consequences of using them against them are described in V3.
 
Tom said:
But SARP isn't a gaming system. It's a storytelling system. Again, don't let numbers hold you hostage from telling or being part of a GOOD story.
Click to expand...
That's true. I don't think anyone's disagreeing with that. But v2's numbers don't get in the way or hold anything hostage. They serve as an optional basis of comparison for SARP's technology and are an OOC tool with as much impact on IC interactions as the GM allows. And, as an OOC tool that can inform our IC interactions, v2 is more effective than the new version.
 
Pretty much everything that you just said applies to V3 as well. The only thing that -has- to absolutely use the system, is just like before, tech submissions.
 
Syaoran said:
Pretty much everything that you just said applies to V3 as well. The only thing that -has- to absolutely use the system, is just like before, tech submissions.
Click to expand...
Okay. Version 2 still does it better. You can sit around all day saying "same thing with version 3!" but it doesn't really change how much more effective version 2 is at its intended job.

The new system doesn't give GMs or players a tool they don't already inherently possess: their own creativity, imagination, and writing skill.

Version 2 is actually useful and serves as an excellent basis from which GMs and players can come up with a vision of what happens in combat after abstracting their ideas from DR values.
 
I just explained in my immediately preceding post how V2 is the opposite of more effective for informing IC interactions than V3. As for 'I don't think anyone's disagreeing with that', the examples you gave earlier, Raz, in an attempt to paint V2 as superior, made it out to look superior because they provided a better gaming system, that would allow players to make decisions (and by implication, prohibit GMs from exercising their discretion) based on the number of hit points they had remaining.
 
Last edited:
Navian said:
the examples you gave earlier, Raz, in an attempt to paint V2 as superior, made it out to look superior because they provided a better gaming system
Click to expand...
If that's what you want to take from what I posted, then there's no convincing you. Because you obviously want to see anything with numbers associated to it as some sort of "game." Weird.
 
What specific things does version 2 do better? Because as was already listed, Version 3 is much clearer in cross class weapon damage. Also Version 3 is actually clear about what constitutes the DR potential of a weapon. There was actually a big hoopla about version 2 because no one was sure if it's DR was per shot, per 'burst' or based on over time. Simply put version 2 wasn't clearly written. A lot of the vets and long time GMs actually got together and worked this out with the intent of covering a lot of the problems version 2 had.

Lots say "Version 2 is better" but no one has actually provided a single example of it doing something -better-. They have only provided things that are preference, like they want mecha to be able to hurt star ships. Or they don't like the idea of potential 1 shot kills. But can anyone actually put to words, a clear explanation of something that Version 2 objectively does better than Version 3?
 
The poll has closed and it looks like most of us want to use the new system. We'll start using the v3 system on wiki pages soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…