Most notable sources of setting/mechanics dissonance?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm thinking through some setting design things and would like input. A common complaint/issue brought up on these forums is dissonance between setting and mechanics. What forms of this have you seen and how annoying were they?

Please mention the setting name and the system, as I'm sure most of them are unknown to me. The more specificity you use, the more useful it will be to me. Thanks!

[Cluedrew]

D&D always had an issue with escalation for me. Reading story and similar that had power escalation there is always a matter of "where did these people come from?" as the power increases. What were they doing before? Why haven't we heard of them? I've gotten a similar feeling from some of the D&D games, although the have some explanation for it, it isn't quite enough.

[PhoenixPhyre]

D&D always had an issue with escalation for me. Reading story and similar that had power escalation there is always a matter of "where did these people come from?" as the power increases. What were they doing before? Why haven't we heard of them? I've gotten a similar feeling from some of the D&D games, although the have some explanation for it, it isn't quite enough.

Is this less of an issue if the play area widens strongly as play continues? That is, if you're at Local McLocalTown (a town in the sticks) for the early levels, then it makes some sense to me that the major players aren't well known (except maybe through rumor and myth). I can see this as a major problem if you start out in say Baldur's Gate and then stay there, but what about an outward spiral of locations?

[Telok]

"Magic is dangerous, difficult, and takes years to master."

WotC D&Ds blow that away with their 3 to 8 encounters a day and 10 to 15 encounters per level. In theory in a large city chatacters could zip from 1 to 20 in under six months. Then the magic gets easier and safer to use with every edition. It's to the point now where even if a wizard is wrestling three people, on fire, and being stabbed every time he opens his mouth, you can't make him fail to cast a spell. Even creatures that were resistant or immune to magic have been reduced to just being somewhat better at making saving throws.

[AMFV]

D&D always had an issue with escalation for me. Reading story and similar that had power escalation there is always a matter of "where did these people come from?" as the power increases. What were they doing before? Why haven't we heard of them? I've gotten a similar feeling from some of the D&D games, although the have some explanation for it, it isn't quite enough.

That can be a big problem... if the DM didn't do proper foreshadowing. Like when you're the low level people investigating a setting then it's important to note that the DM should be hinting at more powerful things you'll be encountring throughout that you just aren't either because you're below their notice or because you haven't gotten to them yet.

"Magic is dangerous, difficult, and takes years to master."

WotC D&Ds blow that away with their 3 to 8 encounters a day and 10 to 15 encounters per level. In theory in a large city chatacters could zip from 1 to 20 in under six months. Then the magic gets easier and safer to use with every edition. It's to the point now where even if a wizard is wrestling three people, on fire, and being stabbed every time he opens his mouth, you can't make him fail to cast a spell. Even creatures that were resistant or immune to magic have been reduced to just being somewhat better at making saving throws.

I think that's one of the reasons why system awareness is critical. Also it's important to note that PC experience isn't representative of experiences on the whole, in 3.5 at least. I like to consider it that players are the main characters in a story about developing heroes, I mean compare and contrast how much the young boys in Wheel of Time developed and how rapidly to the more static older characters in the story. That's the kind of story I think that 3.5 is best at representing. But you are correct it isn't always the sort of story you want.

[NichG]

In general, anything that makes me ask the question 'should fluff trump mechanics here?' or vice versa is annoying. Vampires in D&D 3.5ed not actually needing or feeling any compulsion to consume blood, for example (though that matters mostly when a PC wants to play one).

In general, my preference is something like 'fluff with teeth' - systems where if you consider the fluff to be mechanically binding (as in, any mechanic or lack of mechanic which would end up rendering the fluff false would be overriden), the result is reasonable and still runs okay.

[Zombimode]

Vampires in D&D 3.5ed not actually needing or feeling any compulsion to consume blood, for example (though that matters mostly when a PC wants to play one)

3.5 Vamires have an Inescapable Craving for life force and are Diet Dependent on blood.

[oxybe]

3.5 Vamires have an Inescapable Craving for life force and are Diet Dependent on blood.

not in my monster manual

[AMFV]

In general, anything that makes me ask the question 'should fluff trump mechanics here?' or vice versa is annoying. Vampires in D&D 3.5ed not actually needing or feeling any compulsion to consume blood, for example (though that matters mostly when a PC wants to play one).

In general, my preference is something like 'fluff with teeth' - systems where if you consider the fluff to be mechanically binding (as in, any mechanic or lack of mechanic which would end up rendering the fluff false would be overriden), the result is reasonable and still runs okay.

Well the mechanics are also abstractions, so it's worth noting that every part of how the world works would be represented by the rules. And once you make that assumption it helps a lot. Like since PCs aren't vampires, the game doesn't to worry about how often they need to consume blood, and presumably the DM will incorporate their dietary needs when he's putting them in the game. Or he'll decide that they don't often need to consume blood, because like Strahd, they're horrible brooding people.

I think that once you start doing things the rules don't expect (PC vamps) for example, then you have to look into how the fluff and rules interact and add houserules as needed.

Note: I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm more expositing on my opinions about that particular thing.

[NichG]

Well the mechanics are also abstractions, so it's worth noting that every part of how the world works would be represented by the rules. And once you make that assumption it helps a lot. Like since PCs aren't vampires, the game doesn't to worry about how often they need to consume blood, and presumably the DM will incorporate their dietary needs when he's putting them in the game. Or he'll decide that they don't often need to consume blood, because like Strahd, they're horrible brooding people.

I think that once you start doing things the rules don't expect (PC vamps) for example, then you have to look into how the fluff and rules interact and add houserules as needed.

Note: I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm more expositing on my opinions about that particular thing.

Yeah.

I think, in my mental model, the most valuable thing rules can provide is to act as a promise about how certain things will render out. That lets players attempt to correctly reason about things like the feasibility of plans without having to be in communication with the DM about each stage of planning. So when things are contradictory to how they will be run, that's bad since even if you house-rule it, it's something you're going to have to find the time to clarify in advance of when it could be relevant.

This is a lot easier for rules the characters would not know yet, since then an inconsistency is just a character making a wrong assumption.

[Anonymouswizard]

The one that annoys me is when spaceships are assumed to have infinite fuel, even when they're described as rockets (and the associated 'arbitrary top speed for spaceships').

I mean, I know it applies to most vehicles, but with spaceships it's the most annoying for me.

I get why some things that should exist in setting aren't including, such as limited acceleration for spacecraft, but it can be annoying when they do it to 'make things more fun' and forget that it can be fun doing it the opposite way. A different type of fun, but still fun. I get why it's done, less bookkeeping, but it still makes me sad.

I've come across others, but can't remember them right now. I'll post them if I remember them in the morning.

[AMFV]

The one that annoys me is when spaceships are assumed to have infinite fuel, even when they're described as rockets (and the associated 'arbitrary top speed for spaceships').

Probably because spaceships running out of a fuel has been a plot point in multiple science fiction series. In Star Trek they've had multiple issues with dilithium crystals and trilithium crystals breaking or needing to be found (particularly in Voyager). The Firefly episode "Out of Gas" isn't strictly running out of fuel but it's a close example. I would definitely support rules for including that.

Also many settings have space derelicts and without fuel to run out of, that doesn't always make as much sense.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Magic is dangerous, difficult, and takes years to master."

WotC D&Ds blow that away with their 3 to 8 encounters a day and 10 to 15 encounters per level. In theory in a large city chatacters could zip from 1 to 20 in under six months. Then the magic gets easier and safer to use with every edition. It's to the point now where even if a wizard is wrestling three people, on fire, and being stabbed every time he opens his mouth, you can't make him fail to cast a spell. Even creatures that were resistant or immune to magic have been reduced to just being somewhat better at making saving throws.

I don't see current versions of D&D making that claim (that magic takes years to master). I may be missing things. I find that settings that have persisted between editions of D&D (especially) suffer from dissonance--each new version is different enough that normal things from one are abnormal (or dissonant) in another.

In general, anything that makes me ask the question 'should fluff trump mechanics here?' or vice versa is annoying. Vampires in D&D 3.5ed not actually needing or feeling any compulsion to consume blood, for example (though that matters mostly when a PC wants to play one).

In general, my preference is something like 'fluff with teeth' - systems where if you consider the fluff to be mechanically binding (as in, any mechanic or lack of mechanic which would end up rendering the fluff false would be overriden), the result is reasonable and still runs okay.

I'm curious, do you have examples of systems/settings that do the 'fluff with teeth' thing?

The one that annoys me is when spaceships are assumed to have infinite fuel, even when they're described as rockets (and the associated 'arbitrary top speed for spaceships').

I mean, I know it applies to most vehicles, but with spaceships it's the most annoying for me.

I get why some things that should exist in setting aren't including, such as limited acceleration for spacecraft, but it can be annoying when they do it to 'make things more fun' and forget that it can be fun doing it the opposite way. A different type of fun, but still fun. I get why it's done, less bookkeeping, but it still makes me sad.

I've come across others, but can't remember them right now. I'll post them if I remember them in the morning.

I understand this one, especially if they're trying to be "hard science" types of settings. I'm fine with handwaved explanations if the system isn't about the technical stuff. If it's all about the technical stuff, and then you do stupid crap like this, it irks me.

[Cluedrew]

Is this less of an issue if the play area widens strongly as play continues?

It helps yes, but you also need reasons why there aren't stronger people from the other areas wandering through. It can be done, but often is not. I know a few areas that explicately had "off the map" areas for some time before the heroes travelled to them (which they did when they became the strongest of the mapped area of the setting).

[tensai_oni]

All cyberpunk systems I can think of (Cyberpunk 2020, Shadowrun, etc).

Setting: lightly armed, mobile protagonists sneak through corporate facilities to sabotage or steal The Man's secrets. Shootouts are an inevitability but also the last resort because the corporations are simply more heavily armed. Act fast, think even faster, or you'll be dead. Cybernetics are useful but beware not to lose your humanity!

Mechanics: players are walking tanks, armed and armored with the heaviest, most conspicuous weapons and implants they can get their hands on. Forget subtlety, sneaking around, or non-combat options in general, it's simply more efficient to level the whole building block with your 60d6 damage missile launchers and then dig through the ruins. If you didn't replace 90% of your body with cybernetics yet it's not because you are afraid of becoming less than human, you simply didn't have the money (yet), or are playing a character whose skills mesh poorly with augmentations, usually the one with magic/psionics-equivalent.

All White Wolf systems are extremely poorly designed and balanced as far as character creation/advancement options go.

Setting: you're playing a powerful supernatural being. Even a starting character stands higher than any normal mortal can accomplish, and it only goes up from there.

Mechanics: as a starting character you have two options. You're more or less well rounded but not extraordinary in anything, just an average human being with a supernatural cantrip or two. OR, you are good at one, two things, and extremely inept at everything else. Especially visible in Exalted, where your character is supposed to be hero material even before their exaltation.

For extra points, mundane or mechanically useless but flavorful options are more expensive than outright supernatural ones.

[Anonymouswizard]

Probably because spaceships running out of a fuel has been a plot point in multiple science fiction series. In Star Trek they've had multiple issues with dilithium crystals and trilithium crystals breaking or needing to be found (particularly in Voyager). The Firefly episode "Out of Gas" isn't strictly running out of fuel but it's a close example. I would definitely support rules for including that.

Also many settings have space derelicts and without fuel to run out of, that doesn't always make as much sense.

Yeah, this is why Mongoose Traveller has one of my favourite shipbuilding systems. Simple enough to use, but it includes everything that I want including limited fuel (even moreso if you use reaction engines, which I am as a spaceship isn't a spaceship without a rocket exhaust). The standard reaction drive rules use a simple formula of 2.5% of your ship's mass per hour of acceleration at 1g, ships are always assumed to thrust in full multiples of g (which is easy to adjust, you'll really be tracking the burn points of six minutes at 1g, and you can just divide if you want half a g or something).

[NichG]

I'm curious, do you have examples of systems/settings that do the 'fluff with teeth' thing?

Nobilis is the extreme example, where its almost at the level where the mechanics are actually written as 1st person point of view fluff. Most systems have some degree of this, usually when the designers want to specify something that isn't really easy to represent with numbers - for example right now I'm in a Changeling: the Lost campaign, and there are a number of Contracts (spells) which do things like 'reveal what the target fears most'. So in that case, there isn't a set of mechanics to e.g. decide what NPCs fear and what knowing an NPC's fear would let you do, but the Contract certainly does't do nothing just because it isn't mechanically formalized.

Or, similarly, there's a merit in that system that lets you be on a first name basis with some minor aspect of nature and so you can make promises to it in exchange for favors. While there are some mechanical boons you can get with this kind of thing, its also much more open-ended, as long as its consistent with the fluff - if you're making a deal with the New Moon, it might e.g. let you perform a ritual that works on the night of the new moon even at a different time even if there isn't an explicit mechanic for it, because the merit means that the New Moon essentially almost becomes an NPC for you, which you can (sorta) interact with in limited ways. And in the same system, there's a merit for running a stall at Goblin Markets, which in turn lets you trade things that normally can't be physically grasped such as someone's luck or the sound of their voice. Even though its just specified in terms of fluff, it definitely 'does something'.

In 7th Sea, the Sorte stuff is so abstract (manipulating general fortunes of wealth/love/etc of NPCs) that it tends to be run more as fluff than specific crunch (though again there are more concrete mechanical uses of the abilities like conferring bonus dice and so on).

Good 'fluff with teeth' manages to set boundaries and provides the relevant information to run it while still maintaining the kind of flexibility that you can't get with a formal rules-based system. Where it can go wrong is if the fluff itself doesn't do a good job of establishing where those boundaries should be. For example, the contracts-with-natural-forces in Changeling does have the potential issue that outside of a rough scheme of rating how big different favors are, it doesn't really bound how crazy the deals could get. My character has a contract with the tides - with the idea of mostly using it to mess with runs of luck. But, if I promised something that the tides really really wanted, would they drown a city for me? It's hard to say what the answer should be - yes is interesting, no would be completely reasonable. Probably the GM should actually render out the tides as an NPC and have the answer depend on how good our past deals have gone for it, but the section on these things doesn't quite go into describing how the other side of these deals benefits or thinks or whatever so there isn't much guidance.

It's also a GM-dependent thing in some ways. For example, if I had two GMs running FATE, one might interpret the Aspect 'Can Fly' to mean something like e.g. if the character is trying to get up a wall to a high place they can tag 'Can Fly' and get a bonus on that activity, whereas another GM might interpret the situation as 'well you have an aspect that says you can fly, so you just go up there'. The second GM is running in a fluff-with-teeth style.

[RazorChain]

All cyberpunk systems I can think of (Cyberpunk 2020, Shadowrun, etc).

Setting: lightly armed, mobile protagonists sneak through corporate facilities to sabotage or steal The Man's secrets. Shootouts are an inevitability but also the last resort because the corporations are simply more heavily armed. Act fast, think even faster, or you'll be dead. Cybernetics are useful but beware not to lose your humanity!

Mechanics: players are walking tanks, armed and armored with the heaviest, most conspicuous weapons and implants they can get their hands on. Forget subtlety, sneaking around, or non-combat options in general, it's simply more efficient to level the whole building block with your 60d6 damage missile launchers and then dig through the ruins. If you didn't replace 90% of your body with cybernetics yet it's not because you are afraid of becoming less than human, you simply didn't have the money (yet), or are playing a character whose skills mesh poorly with augmentations, usually the one with magic/psionics-equivalent.

Cyberpunk like many systems have a lot to do with restrictions. Just because there exists a 12.7 mm machine gun doesn't mean you can have one. But ultimately I have to agree with you because in the end Cyberpunk didn't try to impose any restrictions and that could clearly be seen in the Night City source book where the typical poserganger had 9 or 10 in reflexes and a ridicilous gun skills and equipment.

But when run by a good referee and some common sense the setting gets better. I sometimes think they at R.Talsorian just had to make everything bigger, guns and all.

[Arbane]

White Wolf's Vampire: The Masquerade was a notable offender for this: The game was supposed to be personal horror about your doomed character's slide into inhumanity just to survive, but in practice it often ended up being 'Superheroes with Fangs'.

Exalted has the opposite problem: the PCs are supposed to be the Returned God-Kings that will change the destiny of Creation... which is filled with established ubercharacters who could squash even an experienced PC like a bug.

IIRC, the old West End Star Wars Game had a distinct problem if you wanted to play big heroes like the movie characters, as they were built on so many points that your characters could play for years and still not be as skilled as them.

[Floret]

A rather easily fixed, but nonetheless annoying one:
Poorly made sample-NPC statblocks. Shadowrun 5th edition is the worst offender I can think of here.

Basically, when you stat out part of your setting (Corporate security, City watchmen, the high mage of whatever), that should represent a certain level of strength... and a well-made PC (or even an averagely made one) wipes the floor with the supposed elite in terms of efficiency. When the NPCs seem to lack options that PCs have easy access to (see: why would the mafia not have basic ware in their muscle goons?).
In short, know your system, know how to build efficiently within, and make sure statblocks intended to be threats are actually threats.
(The reverse, a supposed weakling that'll wipe out PCs would be just as bad, but i've never met that. Some of the same considerations should also apply to making sure sample PCs for quick starts hold up against what can be done in the system- again, SR5 takes the cake in terms of "What were they thinking")

[hymer]

I understand this one, especially if they're trying to be "hard science" types of settings. I'm fine with handwaved explanations if the system isn't about the technical stuff. If it's all about the technical stuff, and then you do stupid crap like this, it irks me.

I don't know if you're talking sublight rockets here, or if there's some sort of warp speed involved. Because once you move faster than light, you'll start getting more and more drag from whatever particles are moving at the speed of light. Much like how a car standing still in the rain makes it easy for the windshield wipers to let you see, but once you start driving faster and faster, you get more and more water. And you'll tend to move many, many times the speed of light, meaning a maximum sustainable speed makes sense. Maybe the hull can only take so much stress, or your shields can only withstand a certain amount of particles, or simply the engines can only overcome so much drag.
But once we're into hyperspeed, nothing really needs to make sense according to current physical theory, so I'm not so sure that's what you're annoyed about.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't know if you're talking sublight rockets here, or if there's some sort of warp speed involved. Because once you move faster than light, you'll start getting more and more drag from whatever particles are moving at the speed of light. Much like how a car standing still in the rain makes it easy for the windshield wipers to let you see, but once you start driving faster and faster, you get more and more water. And you'll tend to move many, many times the speed of light, meaning a maximum sustainable speed makes sense. Maybe the hull can only take so much stress, or your shields can only withstand a certain amount of particles, or simply the engines can only overcome so much drag.
But once we're into hyperspeed, nothing really needs to make sense according to current physical theory, so I'm not so sure that's what you're annoyed about.

Eh, if you've solved the impact energy problem interstellar hydrogen is dense enough to cause problems at relativistic speeds, it comes up in Revelation Space at least. Although I was mainly referring to subrelativistic reaction drives (i.e. no theoretical maximum, but you can't hold enough fuel to get there).

If we're talking about FTL, then it depends on the variation used. I have a setting I'm developing which uses the 'distances are shorter in hyperspace' variation, but hyperspace is filled with a gaseous substance that absorbs all light, thus giving the friction require for 'constant thrust will achieve a constant velocity'. Newtonian acceleration to past lightspeed will give you massive problems with interstellar hydrogen, while an inertia and relativity cancelling Bergenholm will have a top speed of roughly 'how long can you accelerate before interstellar hydrogen stops you dead'. For Warp Drives there's a couple of variations, but you're generally travelling at subrelativistic velocities within your warp bubble. For jump drives, wormhole drives, and similar devices you're not actually moving through the in between space.

Generally a spaceship's maximum velocity is a factor of it's acceleration and fuel capacity, which means once you've hit top speed you'll want all your remaining fuel to slow down to a stop at your destination. In some cases it might be limited by your hull's ability to withstand damage, in which case you will have extra fuel for manoeuvres, but that's assuming you can carry the fuel to get to the point where that's a problem.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't know if you're talking sublight rockets here, or if there's some sort of warp speed involved. Because once you move faster than light, you'll start getting more and more drag from whatever particles are moving at the speed of light. Much like how a car standing still in the rain makes it easy for the windshield wipers to let you see, but once you start driving faster and faster, you get more and more water. And you'll tend to move many, many times the speed of light, meaning a maximum sustainable speed makes sense. Maybe the hull can only take so much stress, or your shields can only withstand a certain amount of particles, or simply the engines can only overcome so much drag.
But once we're into hyperspeed, nothing really needs to make sense according to current physical theory, so I'm not so sure that's what you're annoyed about.

I was more concerned with the "infinite fuel" problem (especially for reaction rockets). I'm ok with FTL drives doing funky things, but I've started to prefer jump-point/tram-line style (each system is connected to 1 or more other systems by jump points which take minimal time/energy to transit between. No other interstellar travel (except the slow way) is possible). That's a soft preference though.

One method I thought of (probably based on some book) was that going FTL puts light-speed (and the transition to normal space) as the thing that requires significant energy expenditure. You can go effectively infinitely fast, but the faster you go the more fuel/engine capacity is required to slow down so you can transition back to normal space. This puts a maximum speed based on braking capacity (fuel + thrust/mass ratio, etc), rather than being an intrinsic part of the interstellar medium. Basically any FTL (or even high-relativistic) drive would require some kind of shielding--a grain of sand is really really bad even at 0.5c.

[Psyren]

"Magic is dangerous, difficult, and takes years to master."

WotC D&Ds blow that away with their 3 to 8 encounters a day and 10 to 15 encounters per level. In theory in a large city chatacters could zip from 1 to 20 in under six months. Then the magic gets easier and safer to use with every edition. It's to the point now where even if a wizard is wrestling three people, on fire, and being stabbed every time he opens his mouth, you can't make him fail to cast a spell. Even creatures that were resistant or immune to magic have been reduced to just being somewhat better at making saving throws.

I agree.

However, it's possible in D&D (at least 3e/PF) to reintroduce some of this hazard/unpredictability to magic. They just don't make it baseline for fear of turning off new players; spellcasters can be complicated enough without mechanics like this. By all means, for an experienced group you should consider reactivating this.

not in my monster manual

Eh, it's not relevant in core because Vampires are NPCs there, so they get thirsty when the plot demands.

[Anonymouswizard]

I was more concerned with the "infinite fuel" problem (especially for reaction rockets). I'm ok with FTL drives doing funky things, but I've started to prefer jump-point/tram-line style (each system is connected to 1 or more other systems by jump points which take minimal time/energy to transit between. No other interstellar travel (except the slow way) is possible). That's a soft preference though.

My soft preference is 'instantly jump a certain distance along your current vector' jump drives, like ZTT drives from the Night's Dawn Trilogy, but I also have a soft spot for hyperspace. I am more than willing to deal with jump point/gate systems that limit your ability to depart or arrive in a system by physical location as well. What I'm absolutely not willing to deal with is 'FTL in realspace' methods, I just don't like them at all.

Heck, my next Traveller game is using 'spend a burn point and make a difficult piloting roll to line up your vector, then you can jump for free'. Your Astrogation check tells you how accurate your vector was, your piloting check tells you how closely you stuck to it. Jump up to once a day without damaging anything, with the highest rating available being Jump-6 (the PCs will begin in a standard Jump-1 ship), and it takes 2d6 minutes to charge up.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My soft preference is 'instantly jump a certain distance along your current vector' jump drives, like ZTT drives from the Night's Dawn Trilogy, but I also have a soft spot for hyperspace. I am more than willing to deal with jump point/gate systems that limit your ability to depart or arrive in a system by physical location as well. What I'm absolutely not willing to deal with is 'FTL in realspace' methods, I just don't like them at all.

Heck, my next Traveller game is using 'spend a burn point and make a difficult piloting roll to line up your vector, then you can jump for free'. Your Astrogation check tells you how accurate your vector was, your piloting check tells you how closely you stuck to it. Jump up to once a day without damaging anything, with the highest rating available being Jump-6 (the PCs will begin in a standard Jump-1 ship), and it takes 2d6 minutes to charge up.

I'm not sure what qualifies as 'FTL in realspace.' Would that be the equivalent of Star Trek warp drive (where you're not really in a separate universe, just distorting space around you)? I like the Honorverse "hyper bands + fixed currents" idea (so you can control your speed and smaller craft can go faster than larger ones but arbitrary travel is slower than following fixed routes).

As game mechanics, I don't play much sci-fi RPGs. I feel like allowing arbitrary FTL travel ends up making things like ambushes really hard to set up (if they can come from anywhere, anywhen). This makes pirates (a staple of such fiction) basically impossible. That's a reason I like the jump point idea. Allows fortifying a star system against incursion--blockade the jump points. Or, you know where the merchants will come from, so you can lie in wait. That, or have a hyper-limit--can't jump from within X distance (possibly depending on the size of the gravity well) of a star/planet. Too much crunch can get annoying, I'm sure.

[LordCdrMilitant]

With regards to spacecraft navigation and operation...


I one time thought it would be creative to plot the transfers. Then I realized 2 things:
1: It looked like my homework. I don't want to be doing more homework.
2: Nobody else can do it, and/or nobody else wants to read my textbooks to learn how do it.


In the end, it's not really setting dissonance if you don't describe it at all, so "you go from Planet 1 to Planet 2" works just fine.




With traveller, I think what struck me most was a line about the nuclear damper projecting a "series of nodes and antinodes that cancels out the nuclear strong force." My immediate reaction was "what does that even mean?"

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm not sure what qualifies as 'FTL in realspace.' Would that be the equivalent of Star Trek warp drive (where you're not really in a separate universe, just distorting space around you)? I like the Honorverse "hyper bands + fixed currents" idea (so you can control your speed and smaller craft can go faster than larger ones but arbitrary travel is slower than following fixed routes).

Star Trek and other Warp Drives (which, even if they don't harm the ship, have massive side effects for their destination if you're not careful), as well as things like EE Smith style interstellar travel.

Not read any Honorverse stuff yet, it's on my list though.

As game mechanics, I don't play much sci-fi RPGs. I feel like allowing arbitrary FTL travel ends up making things like ambushes really hard to set up (if they can come from anywhere, anywhen). This makes pirates (a staple of such fiction) basically impossible. That's a reason I like the jump point idea. Allows fortifying a star system against incursion--blockade the jump points. Or, you know where the merchants will come from, so you can lie in wait. That, or have a hyper-limit--can't jump from within X distance (possibly depending on the size of the gravity well) of a star/planet. Too much crunch can get annoying, I'm sure.

I'm not a massive fan of space pirates, although they are possible in the universe I'm running next (just, you have to be a long way from a planet or star in order to jump), although that game's also using Fate so I'm more concerned with drama and story than realism.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I'm not sure what qualifies as 'FTL in realspace.' Would that be the equivalent of Star Trek warp drive (where you're not really in a separate universe, just distorting space around you)? I like the Honorverse "hyper bands + fixed currents" idea (so you can control your speed and smaller craft can go faster than larger ones but arbitrary travel is slower than following fixed routes).

As game mechanics, I don't play much sci-fi RPGs. I feel like allowing arbitrary FTL travel ends up making things like ambushes really hard to set up (if they can come from anywhere, anywhen). This makes pirates (a staple of such fiction) basically impossible. That's a reason I like the jump point idea. Allows fortifying a star system against incursion--blockade the jump points. Or, you know where the merchants will come from, so you can lie in wait. That, or have a hyper-limit--can't jump from within X distance (possibly depending on the size of the gravity well) of a star/planet. Too much crunch can get annoying, I'm sure.

I've justified convoy raiders as having a devices which causes ships to drop out of Warp. I think it's mentioned in Sanctus Reach as being utilized by Kaptin Badrukk.



I've been thinking of how to set up a combat-time system for controlling spacecraft.

I was thinking that the best way might be to have a ship accumulate changes in velocity, and track it's velocity as the sum of all the delta-v's it's accumulated each turn. However, this seems both needlessly complex and cannot support more than maybe a dozen turns, after which you have a dozen little delta-v vectors taped together and it's become incredibly unwieldly.

[JeenLeen]

What bugs me most is when mechanics make things that would make sense IC to be detrimental.

For example, in oWoD Mage, we used the standard rule that getting backgrounds costs xp. This meant that it was actively detrimental to us to get a weak talisman, since it would cost xp to have, but IC there was no good reason not to keep it. We wound up having one time when, OOC, we were debating who should get the penalty of keeping our artifact. This led to a fluff change below:

We eventually agreed with the DM that, although mages don't know why, they realize that there is something about having multiple magic artifacts that tends to make your progress slower in other areas. Maybe magical energies interact, or something with the soul? Who knows. But it gave an IC reason to justify not wanting to collect artifacts.

DM also ruled we could have talismans at base, for later trade or use, without paying xp for them. I think we had a weak Forces 2 shielding talisman that we basically used to store extra Tass.

---
One thing I disliked about D&D, especially 3.5, was that it was hard to be really competent at skills at low-level, due to how swingy d20 rolls can be.