More Walk-thrus of...

[robject]

What do we most need?

(WAIT on combat until I get an update)

More chargen walkthrus?
Genetics/Chimera walkthrus?
More starship walkthrus?
Vehicle walkthrus?
GunMaker/ArmorMaker walkthrus?
Star system generation walkthrus?
Robot creation?
Beast creation?
Thing creation?
Something else?

 

[navywarlord]

How about ALL of these above?

 

[Drakon]

The one thing I need right now is working out some of the details for equipment and facilities. Such as, how to design floaty islands a la Firefly's Beleraphon palaces in the episode "Trash" That is one example.

 

[Dagrill]

What do we most need?

(WAIT on combat until I get an update)

More chargen walkthrus?
Genetics/Chimera walkthrus?
More starship walkthrus?
Vehicle walkthrus?
GunMaker/ArmorMaker walkthrus?
Star system generation walkthrus?
Robot creation?
Beast creation?
Thing creation?
Something else?

Hi,

I voted for vehicles (as it was first), but I would have added Star system generation, beast creation & item creation as well (I can live without robots)
and small craft please. I think I've mastered ship creation thanks to your massed examples and assistance

Thank you

David

 

[robject]

The one thing I need right now is working out some of the details for equipment and facilities. Such as, how to design floaty islands a la Firefly's Beleraphon palaces in the episode "Trash" That is one example.

THAT is interesting. How to design facilities?!

My first reaction is that installations or facilities are more like events than craft: they exist, in the same way cities exist, and how they are designed is nowhere near as important as the fact that they exist.

Of course, lifters is the key, and after that it's only the superstructure. All of that is less "design" required, and more of: plenty of cash, and plenty of professionals with Designer and Gravitics skill, and of course time to build it right.

Equipment Design, on the other hand, has support in T5. Some equipment in particular interests you?

 

[robject]

Hi,

I voted for vehicles (as it was first), but I would have added Star system generation, beast creation & item creation as well (I can live without robots)
and small craft please. I think I've mastered ship creation thanks to your massed examples and assistance

Thank you

David

Thanks, David.

Hopefully Drakon will suggest a couple pieces of Equipment. Equipment can be fun to make! Then, I'll queue up vehicles, star systems, then beasts.

NOTE 1. I want to hold off on small craft until I know what design process Marc wants to use -- whether to go the *Maker route, or to use ACS Pod hulls. If the former, then I have suggestions for him. If the latter, then I have questions for him. Either way there is consideration to do.

NOTE 2. Equipment design is relatively simple (and fluffy) when compared to the other Makers, because you're not designing the function, but rather designing its construction constraints (is that the right way to put it?)

Presumably, the Technological Progression chart limits the function of equipment. And, of course, the equipment list itself has lots of implicit thoughts about how far you can go with item design.

 

[robject]

Here's what I'm thinking. I'm currently running a game in the Tuglikki Sector, and I can always use stuff for the game, so I will generate things that I want my players to have access to.

A couple pieces of equipment (suggested by Drakon)
A couple of star systems in Tuglikki Sector.
A couple of vehicles used by vargr.
A couple of beasts likely to be encountered on those mainworlds.

 

[Supplement Four]

All of the above.

 

[pendragonman]

I would also hope that the current owners of T5 might get a combined pdf distributed to them of all of these walk thrus...

But I am likely dreaming.

 

[dalthor]

I'm interested in items at the moment. Idea mining, ya know.

Also, will be doing sophont generation for a couple of planets. Sophont generation looks straightforward from the little I've seen, but examples are always welcome.

Pendragonman, I'd also like to see a consolidated PDF of some of the walkthrus we've got on CotI; there are some GREAT things around here! With some cleanup, formatting, and basic editing, I see a possible HowTo guide. I'm paging thru stuff looking, but real world gets in my way.

Kudos to those that have taken the time to give us the benefit of their trials, tribulations, and triumphs, their ideas and comments, and most of all their TIME!

 

[cym0k]

A vote for Starships. At the moment it seems a bit backward in my head.

Brain says: "design a craft for a purpose" but I go into craft design and it begins with total tonnage. Why does my head tell me that this should be a result and not a beginning?

I want to design ships like this:
Define purpose
Assign essentials
negotiate wish-list
Look at overall size
Adjust till you get something that works. From this point you develop the framework for ship design.

Closer reading of the rules will probably show that I have this all upside down.

And personal combat and ship to ship combat. #wishlist

 

[Spaceresearcher]

I'm still amazed that so many pages of T5 were wasted going on about Dice roles and probabilities of dice rolling instead of providing walkthroughs?????

It's like it started off being detailed then went crazy.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm still amazed that so many pages of T5 were wasted going on about Dice roles and probabilities of dice rolling instead of providing walkthroughs?????

I'm a big fan of those dice tables. For that task system, I think the dice tables are a huge boon for a T5 GM.

The tables didn't need to be in the front of the book. I don't care where they are placed. But, I think that they are highly useful for a T5 GM.



And, instead of just saying that, let me show you why I think that they're a great T5 GM tool.

T5 is not a traditional game where things are just given to the GM. There's a system to create weapons. There's a system to create vehicles. There's a system to create beasts.

The tables are there to help a T5 GM create his world.

Let's say I've got a fortress on a mountain, when designing a scenario, and I know the PCs will probably scale the side of the mountain to get the drop on the bad guys during the next game session.

As GM, I want the climb to be a challenge, but I don't want destroy the PCs, having them fall off the side of the mountain.

The dice tables help me appropriately set a difficulty for the climb.

Sure, I could just pick 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D or more difficulty, but that really doesn't tell me anything. With the dice tables, I can look a the PC's skills, and I can look at the tables and pick just the right challenge level I want in the scenario.

Without the tables, if I set the difficulty too high, then the climb becomes too deadly and not what I'm going for in the scenario. I may be trying to set up a minor hindrance for the PCs to overcome. I may not wish the scenario to be about the climb, but, rather, what happens once the PCs get to the top of the climb.

OTOH, if I set the difficulty too easy, then the climb has no drama. It's boring. The players' don't take it seriously and probably wonder why it's in the game to begin with.

With the dice tables, I can set the challenge exactly where I think it should be, based on my needs for the scenario and the skills of the PCs.




This is just one example of how a GM can use the dice tables. I think that they're quite an important tool in the GM's arsenal for T5 games.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

I have a suggestion...

While I did just get hoisted by my own petard just now (I Voted, then found I had indeed wished I had Voted something else. *shrugs* It is still a valid vote, I do want to see Genetics/Chimera explored, but the Mail & Freight thread in this forum made realize, that I really would rather see less Maker oriented walk-throughs and more how to play with things like Trade & Commerce. Mostly because I am a smidge fuzzy on T&C myself.

 

[Draconian]

If you can identify the innovations and strengths of the T5 game, some worked-out examples of those strengths would be nice.

I picked Starships because I was just seeing the standard types from back in Classic mentioned in the pages.

If there are Maker systems, then presumably different Referees will make a suite of Starships, Guns, Armor or Things differently. How differently? I'd like to see if they can come up with two different suites of things made. What happens if one culture doesn't have a new technology concerning sound-recording, but is forced to extend the old technology to extremes? What if they have Ultimate cassette-tape decks but the culture next to them has Basic CD-players? This is a powerful plot device for Trade.

Sometimes it is inevitable that blade-weapons will all boil down to the Mark 11 2D-Damage Delivery Device. But I'd like to see some marvellous Weapon, Armor and Thing differences that strike the players as they move from culture to culture.

 

[robject]

What if they have Ultimate cassette-tape decks but the culture next to them has Basic CD-players? This is a powerful plot device for Trade.

Let's roll with that. I'll start an Equipment thread.

 

[Supplement Four]

I know Rob isn't talking about Combat yet, but I will say that Hemdian put together a pretty impressive video that I think should be required viewing for any T5 player or Ref.

Hemdian's YouTube Vids

Hemidan's YouTube Combat Vid

 

[ken at sunrise]

For me I would like Character creation followed by System Creation.

That way we could have fully developed environments for our characters.

We don't usually create our own items, (ships, weapons) since we use what exist.

 

[dalthor]

A vote for Starships. At the moment it seems a bit backward in my head.

cym0k, I agree with your thinking. I built my first ship "by the book" so to speak, to learn the system, and was not satisfied with the results.

I then sat down and tried to create a purpose-built hull. I designed all the internals - cargo space, quarters, passenger and lounge space, and so on; I expected that adding the M-, J-, and P-plant would be simple.

NOT!!!!! Once I got my basic functions designed, when I tried to "insert" the drives, I had to keep tweaking those three sizes to get what I wanted. It took me several iterations to TRY and get J-4, M-4 and P-4 on the ship, have space for the proper number of turrets, and not compromise on the standards I'd set for everything else. Fuel was a big pain, too, because it also changed when the J- and P-sizes changed, since that also affected hull size.

I gave up due to lack of time and patience. (Note that I probably made it too complicated by trying to factor in stage effects, instead of getting base numbers, and only then including the stage effects. )

I'm contemplating trying to come up with "packages" that include those three items in standard kits. I just haven't had time to do the work.

I want to write a program that will accept 4 things: Jump-#, Maneuver-#, and Power-#, along with the "designed" tonnage, which would tweak hull size, J/M/P size and fuel accordingly.

For example, say I have a 643-ton basic design before turrets, including everything I want except J/M/P; I want it to do Jump-4, Maneuver-4, and therefore it needs Plant-4. Plug those numbers (643,4,4,4) in, and have the program do the calculations, round UP to the next hull size (my preference - gives me more space to play with, and gives room for turrets), and pop out the tonnage for J-drive and fuel, M-drive, and Plant with fuel.

Hmmm...for that matter, give me two outputs - values for next hull size up, and values for the next hull size that would include space for the full turret allocation IF the two would be different. I don't like under-powered ships; over-tonnage just bothers me!

Real world intrusion alert! Ah, well...as time permits.

C u l8r!

 

[dalthor]

OK, I just pseudo-coded my own version of my prior thoughts. This may belong in another thread, we can move it later. Note that this assumes only ONE type of power plant. If you choose to install multiple power plants, that is a whole different can of worms.

Get the base hull size (pre-built components) and list of TYPEs with ratings

Round up to next tonnage (for example, 643 up to 700 tons) as the BASE

do each hull size starting at the BASE tonnage in increments of 100
   TOTAL = BASE tonnage

   calculate power plant and operations fuel tonnages (this affects drive fuel)
   add those amounts to TOTAL tonnage

   For each drive TYPE (Maneuver, Jump, etc.) 
     calculate size and fuel tons based on rating, hull size, and fuel type
     add those amounts to TOTAL tonnage
   next TYPE

   add (hull/100) tons for turrets to TOTAL
until TOTAL <= hull size

we are done, print the results

Does this make sense to ye programmer types out there - i.e. would it work to correctly determine the correct final hull size??