A few people mentioned that they didn't like this article in some other threads.
Should the Weapon Limitations article be removed from use in future submissions?
Should the Weapon Limitations article be removed from use in future submissions?
Star Army
Star ArmyⓇ is a landmark of forum roleplaying. Opened in 2002, Star Army is like an internet clubhouse for people who love roleplaying, art, and worldbuilding. Anyone 18 or older may join for free. New members are welcome! Use the "Register" button below.
Note: This is a play-by-post RPG site. If you're looking for the tabletop miniatures wargame "5150: Star Army" instead, see Two Hour Wargames.
-
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
Closed Stop using the Weapon Limitations guide
- Thread starter raz
- Start date
These suggestions have been dropped by the suggestor or rejected by staff.
Charmaylarg Dufrain
🎖️ Game Master
Removed, no.
I would like it if every single ship submitted to SARP in the future isn't a Primus and is instead continued to be specialized with less weapons instead of just gunboats with as many weapons as we can cram on them.
I think in these changing times of wanting to change everything from the MBL and DRv3 to this should be considered guidelines and not hard rules. So when someone decides on a hill to die on the NTSE can choose that the weapon limitations guidelines should apply when a ship is simply too obscene in its power and should have an example to adhere to when a submitter claims theres no rules against it.
I would like it if every single ship submitted to SARP in the future isn't a Primus and is instead continued to be specialized with less weapons instead of just gunboats with as many weapons as we can cram on them.
I think in these changing times of wanting to change everything from the MBL and DRv3 to this should be considered guidelines and not hard rules. So when someone decides on a hill to die on the NTSE can choose that the weapon limitations guidelines should apply when a ship is simply too obscene in its power and should have an example to adhere to when a submitter claims theres no rules against it.
Honestly, I think ship weapon limitations should be replaced with a rule that says ships/armors/tech with multiple weapons must come with art or a quality visual depiction of some kind that fits in with the setting. What we have currently is a barrier to creativity. A visual requirement for certain tech elements only enhances creativity but still remains a barrier to ridiculous stuff.
But the Ideas & Suggestions format isn't good at gauging the popularity of alternatives. So the opening question is what the question's going to be. Perhaps alternatives will catch on and be subsequently submitted
But the Ideas & Suggestions format isn't good at gauging the popularity of alternatives. So the opening question is what the question's going to be. Perhaps alternatives will catch on and be subsequently submitted
Primitive Polygon
Well-Known Member
Why not implement a system of pros and cons? As in, every good feature needs a bad feature? That's generally a balanced way of doing characters, at least...
Soban
Convention Veteran
I think we should keep it, it's a rough guideline for how much a ship should be able to do. However, it's not an absolute rule, it's a guideline below which you are very likely not to be questioned, and above you might have to do some justification, but it isn't a hard bar to being approved. While we don't have many now, the time will come again when we have more litigious power-gamer type people do need to reject someone's doomboat idea and this gives us a good reason to look askance at it.
I would be in favor of changing the language in it to better fit the intention as a guideline rather than a hard rule.
I would be in favor of changing the language in it to better fit the intention as a guideline rather than a hard rule.
I mostly made this suggestion because Wes said "I think we should remove the weapons limitations rule entirely" and that post received positive reception, so thought it deserved a thread of its own. It doesn't particularly bother me either way. It has helped some players and confused others while they were making tech for SARP. Still, it is used as a hard rule rather than guideline, so maybe specifically relegating it to guideline status in its text is the best option depending on the vote (and ultimately Wes's decision).
Then again, we got along fine in DRv3 before the Weapon Limitations article existed at all. That fact combined with the fact that Wes doesn't even want it as a rule anymore may indicate that it's a good idea to have something other than the status quo.
Then again, we got along fine in DRv3 before the Weapon Limitations article existed at all. That fact combined with the fact that Wes doesn't even want it as a rule anymore may indicate that it's a good idea to have something other than the status quo.
