High Guarding again

[Dragoner]

Last time I ran HG for the players, they weren't interested, it was a no go.

 

[RossWinn]

Help gen explanation for craft to go impossible fast and results if it goes wrong.

Reasons to have to slow down cause accel can’t get the ship out of the way of uncharted just detected rocks/showers in time.

Generate lift in dangerous ways beyond safe use of mdrive.

Yes, but none of these reasons are story reasons. These are simulation reasons, or wargame reasons. To phrase that question differently, how does it shape the narrative to tell more entertaining stories for the crew? Maybe the MDrive "field" obviates the need for any defense of micrometeorites because they just disintegrate -- so the players can get to the story. Maybe simulating everything that could be slows the story to the point that it isn't entertaining for the players.

 

[kilemall]

In my experience the streamlined nature of HG combat makes is superior to e.g. LBB2 as an RPG system, as you can actually fight a simple combat in half an hour...

A detailed space combat system that takes the entire session to play out an encounter just takes too much time.

My crew are experienced SFB guys so actual movement, allocation, and inertia vector fights that say we’re not in Kansas anymore have value.

YUMV, and more to the point the entertainment interests of the table.

 

[mike wightman]

The hulls of Traveller starships have the equivalent armour protection of a modern tank, armoured warships even greater.

 

[kilemall]

Yes, but none of these reasons are story reasons. These are simulation reasons, or wargame reasons. To phrase that question differently, how does it shape the narrative to tell more entertaining stories for the crew? Maybe the MDrive "field" obviates the need for any defense of micrometeorites because they just disintegrate -- so the players can get to the story. Maybe simulating everything that could be slows the story to the point that it isn't entertaining for the players.

For me anything that can create hard choices and player agency helps, but not to the point of say rolling for every routine action.

So deflectors eliminate the worry of micrometeorites most of the time, so no rolls no worries and you have a ready explanation for players that ask. But if the plot requires some drama or slowdown there can be excessive rocks beyond safety parameters and you got the option.

The topic came up for me when figuring out detection of cold small rocks at x range and how much lead time ships had to evade said rocks and thus an upper safe speed limit for delta vee.

Better sensors or more G rating means less time and higher safe delta veer. Higher densities like an uncharted meteor shower, ice ring or deliberately placed rocks around a pirate base means go slow or run risks.

For people running narrative movements it probably wouldn’t be conceived of, but in both move styles rocks shouldn’t be an issue until they need to be.

Side note, Auto Evade to handle rock avoidance is a key program to be running if one is inclined to tracking computer programs. I’d even put it in the Mongoose system.

 

[kilemall]

The hulls of Traveller starships have the equivalent armour protection of a modern tank, armoured warships even greater.

Yes and according to the boom table hits by our missiles get into battleship shell joules. Smaller objects will hit as hard at higher speeds.

Vast majority of time space is empty until we get into C fraction speeds so that alone makes it moot most of the time. But, not all the time.

It’s an entertainment choice, I like space is hard stuff.

 

[bookwyrm]

Where is the detail, or even a scant summary, on what vessels in Traveller use to prevent striking small items such as debris or micrometeorites, etc, as they move through interplanetary space?

Half of my brain feels like it's read of this somewhere in Traveller materiel while the other half hasn't read about this anywhere in Traveller, and both halves are somewhat worried about this.

I decided that a ships hull is robust enough to shrug off some/most of this. An incident of this nature could be rolled as a possible event, the GM might be thinking the Players are bored and need a little excitement, or the ship goes to/ends up somewhere where the possibility for an incident is a lot higher, like a designated Red Zone in an old Battle location or an area of space where something collided with something else and created a 'thick' cloud of debris.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

OTOH, LLB2 ship combat rules give more importance to characters' skills and capacities, and is, IMHO, more rewarding as RPG experience than just the HG system, that can be more useful for fleet combat, but gives no importance to specific persons (the PCs' team) unless hey have high skill levels.

Yes, you get to use your full skill in LBB2, if you have a big computer and a lot of software. Your standard Scout or Free Trader, not so much...

In LBB5 you always get your skill/2 (with 1 already baked into the tables), regardless of computer or software.

Advantage LBB5.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Half of my brain feels like it's read of this somewhere in Traveller materiel while the other half hasn't read about this anywhere in Traveller, and both halves are somewhat worried about this.

Beltstrike?

This gives extensive natural shielding against the dangerous radiation which is found this close to Bowman Prime.
(Ships under power are not affected—part of the M-drive generates a low-power screen against radiation and meteorite impact—but a power failure during approach within a half million kilometers of the gas giant would be fatal.)

 

[McPerth]

I decided that a ships hull is robust enough to shrug off some/most of this.

In MT the hulls need a minimum armor 40 just because of this. You can make less armored ships (IIRC armor 8) on modules not thought to land (moslty, on non-rehusable boosters, and so on)

Yes, you get to use your full skill in LBB2, if you have a big computer and a lot of software. Your standard Scout or Free Trader, not so much...

Even so, you have better control on what players do, and it's more cinematic, and so, more rewarding as RPG experience.

In LBB5 you always get your skill/2 (with 1 already baked into the tables), regardless of computer or software.

Only for Ship's Tactics and Pilot, other skills being irrelevant, while in LBB2, computer allowing, Gunnery may also affect, and Engineering (or Mechanical, or Electronics) may affect regardless your computer, just to give you some examples.

What uses more the pilot skill? beign able to use it (at full or recuded rate, depending on your software) to avoid damge, or by giving you the +(skill-1)/2 to your agility?

Even the 1bis computer of your scout (capacity 4 allows youe for Maneyver/evasion 5 (2 slots), Target and gunner interact (1 slot each), allowing you full use of your pilot and gunnery skill

Advantage LBB5.

I guess we don't play in the same style (and both are equally respectable). I prefer, in RPG, to calculate the vectors, decide wich software to use to be more aggfresive (gunner interact, predict, etc) or defensive (maneuver/evasion, ECM, etc), knowing wich character uses each weapon, or makes damage control, etc... In general, giving the characters, not the ship, the protagonism.

IMHO (and yours is as bit as repectable as mine if you disagree), using HG for RPG is like using the streamed LBB4 table for ground combat, using your team as a fire team or squad, depending on numbers. Would anyone do it?

And that does not mean they are useless, just they are for other kind of game, not for RPG (as said, IMHO)

 

[Ulsyus]

Beltstrike?

This gives extensive natural shielding against the dangerous radiation which is found this close to Bowman Prime.
(Ships under power are not affected—part of the M-drive generates a low-power screen against radiation and meteorite impact—but a power failure during approach within a half million kilometers of the gas giant would be fatal.)

That's what I was after! It doesn't fix everything, but some sort of canonical reference is better than none.

The hulls of Traveller starships have the equivalent armour protection of a modern tank, armoured warships even greater.

Yes but... There'd still be the issue of having to regularly patch up or repair damage to armour from strikes occurring at rather high velocities. This might be an option before screens of some sort were available, though after the availability of gravitic manipulation there'd surely be some clear alternatives using this?

I suppose this might have to stay an IMTU issue. But what you found AnotherDilbert is great nonetheless.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Even so, you have better control on what players do, and it's more cinematic, and so, more rewarding as RPG experience.

You do exactly the same thing, minus the vector movement. Pilots evade, gunners shoot...

Only for Ship's Tactics and Pilot, other skills being irrelevant, while in LBB2, computer allowing, Gunnery may also affect, and Engineering (or Mechanical, or Electronics) may affect regardless your computer, just to give you some examples.

OK, it's a house rule, but you can extend the same system to gunners and engineers. Then you have the same to hit rolls, by the same characters, with the same skills, as LBB2.

What uses more the pilot skill? beign able to use it (at full or recuded rate, depending on your software) to avoid damge, or by giving you the +(skill-1)/2 to your agility?

Using your skill as a negative DM to hit or using your skill as a negative DM to hit? Isn't that the same?

Even the 1bis computer of your scout (capacity 4 allows youe for Maneyver/evasion 5 (2 slots), Target and gunner interact (1 slot each), allowing you full use of your pilot and gunnery skill

Sure, if you find MCr 7 between the couch cushions... The standard package for a m/1 includes none of them.
You can write it yourself, only needing Computer-3 and Pilot-6...

You still do not have the capability of say Launch, Return Fire, ECM, Anti-Missile, or Multi-target. Better not be any missiles in that fight...

I guess we don't play in the same style (and both are equally respectable). I prefer, in RPG, to calculate the vectors, decide wich software to use to be more aggfresive (gunner interact, predict, etc) or defensive (maneuver/evasion, ECM, etc), knowing wich character uses each weapon, or makes damage control, etc...

Sure, but that is just a preference for detailed over fast. In both systems you have the same characters doing the exact same thing with the same hardware.

IMHO (and yours is as bit as repectable as mine if you disagree), using HG for RPG is like using the streamed LBB4 table for ground combat, using your team as a fire team or squad, depending on numbers. Would anyone do it?

That is not a fair comparison. In both LBB2 and LBB5 you have the same characters doing the same rolls, at least for small ships. For large ships LBB2 degenerates into an unplayable mess, unlike LBB5.

A more resonable comparison is LBB1 combat vs. Striker combat. Striker is more streamlined, but basically the same characters rolling the same to hit rolls, but without all the pages and pages of tables.

And yes, I prefer faster Striker rules over the silly LBB1 rules.