Hi everyone! D&D 5E has brought me back into gaming after a short hiatus. While I'm working on two big projects, I like to keep my busy mind occupied with other things. Reading Tensen01's thread on a D&D inspired sci-fi setting got me thinking about science fiction again. I've always wanted to make a Star Trek esque setting, but I'm at a loss for how to deal with starship combat.
Star Wars Saga treated space ships as creatures, and your pilot skill and bab were used. I love that for fighters, but not whole ships.
One thought I had would be to have each position making choices and rolls to grant the ship bonuses. The engineer handles shields and acts as the ship's healer, for instance. How do you think that would work out?
Another thought I had was how to handle the captain. One thought would be to have the captain be an NPC in the standard guidelines. But the captain would be very passive, looking to the officers (the players) for advice on the course of action. If there's conflict amongst the PCs on what's best to do (especially if the system has goals and flaws that would reward the pcs for certain things), then they'd be using their skills to sway the captain to follow their advice over the others. Such a system would allow a typical group to stay on task. An advanced group could have one player play the captain if they're cool with having a chain of command within the party.
I'd probably use a very basic class system like d20 modern, or even a classless system with skills, feats, and talent trees.
The Decipher rpg of Star Trek, which is heavily d20-inspired, has characters manning various stations and taking actions "for" the ship, in a way that sounds similar to what you're describing. I've played the game and it worked well at simulating the rather slow, ponderous starship combat you usually see in Star Trek, where two ships pretty much hang in space and trade shots. I'm not sure it'd be as good at capturing a more frenetic style of space-battle, but maybe if it was presented in the right way.
When I've done starship stuff, I've always taken the NPC captain approach, too. I did it slightly differently from your plan, though, with more reliance on meta-mechanics and less on a passive captain. The captain asked for advice and the PCs gave information and advice in character, but then the players decided amongst themselves what they wanted to do, and the results of that decision are what I had the captain order. Some of the player deliberation took place out of character as opposed to in character so people who are big on immersion might not like it, but there's also an advantage because in the story the captain doesn't have to seem passive and can instead be played as decisive, without reducing player empowerment.
Starship combat in Asura is more of the frenetic sort, usually taking place between smaller ships that hold 3-5 people, so it might not be as applicable, but my answer for how I handle it is... basically the same as any other combat. I've always just used the standard combat system, treating each ship as a combatant, and using the players' piloting and engineering skills as combat skills. The Fate-like combat system used by Asura is abstract enough that the system of advantages, aspects, and consequences that show the abilities and circumstances of individuals scale up pretty nicely to reflect each ship's capabilities and damage it might have taken. This approach probably wouldn't work for a system that was less abstract, but in general I rather like and would advocate a minimalist approach of changing the game's basic combat system (whatever that may be) as little as possible; that way it keeps things consistent and the players can jump into ship combat with a minimum of explanation.
I might add that I'm not sure d20 is that great a fit for Star Trek style SF without a lot of modification - science fantasy/space opera, sure, but so many of the assumptions of d20 kinda clash with the way stuff like Star Trek works. In my mind the question becomes why d20 needs to be adapted when so many other SF roleplaying games already exist.
For example, Mongoose's version of Traveller (SRD (http://www.travellersrd.com/content/official/mongoose_traveller_srd/mongoose_traveller_srd_index.html)) has been rather well-reviewed and is said to compare quite well with the much-adored Classic Traveller, the absolutely seminal SF roleplaying game. Personally, I'd rather houserule something like Traveller than try to retro-fit d20 to run something it's not really that well-suited to, IMO.
I always fall to d20 because it's a system I'm familiar with. Really, the base system of d20+mods vs. DC is very adaptable to a lot; hp, skills, feats, classes, levels ... all of that can be modified. M&M is technically a d20 system, and it has a ton of original mechanics.
And yes, I'm thinking more the Star Trek style combat, though they got a little more dynamic in DS9 and Voyager (probably because they were small ships, not big ole Galaxy Class ships).
Sparkle, how did your players like only contributing a single/a few skills to the ship's stats? I mean, as long as everyone gets an action, right? There could be multiple gunners (ala the Millennium Falcon) if multiple people want to be "fighters" I suppose.
I'm not saying d20 couldn't be modified, I'm just wondering whether the effort to do so would be less than the effort to learn and retweak a different system - but I know you enjoy tinkering for its own sake in a way I generally don't.
One thing that strikes me as tricky with ship-to-ship combat is that the skill of the crew is probably significantly less important than ship types and armaments - so, like, you can have an exceptionally skilled crew, but if they're facing a ship with superior firepower, there's only so much they can do. This could complicate the scaling encounter difficulty of the sort usually found in d20 games, along with any kind of "balanced" approach to space combat. One could imagine ships kind of like magic items - as players level they get better and better ships, or upgrade their existing one - but I think it could be more extreme, depending on how diverse in terms of size and capabality ships are in the setting.
Quote from: XeviatSparkle, how did your players like only contributing a single/a few skills to the ship's stats? I mean, as long as everyone gets an action, right? There could be multiple gunners (ala the Millennium Falcon) if multiple people want to be "fighters" I suppose.
They didn't mind, and I think part of the way I was able to make it work was that I focused the action on what they were doing and what they perceived-- to use an analogy from sci-fi movies, there was no cutaway to the external view of the ship, the camera remained focused on the bridge. This meant there wasn't really a sense of "only contributing one skill," rather, they were each busy with their task and trying to keep the ship together.
Quote from: SteerpikeOne thing that strikes me as tricky with ship-to-ship combat is that the skill of the crew is probably significantly less important than ship types and armaments
This can be true. What I typically do is base the ship's performance to a perhaps somewhat "unrealistic" degree on the characters' skill rolls-- the main determination of whether or not your ship could dodge an attack would be the Piloting skill of the pilot, with superior engines or whatever contributing a +2 bonus (a bonus of +2 has more impact in Asura than in d20, being about +22% in the best case, but it's still not insurmountable) to the roll but not being the determining factor. This allows a superior ship's effect to definitely be noticed, but doesn't take away from the impact that characters (in particular, the player characters, of course) are able to have. This is perhaps similar to the "ships as magic items" approach.
sparkletwist, how would you handle very uneven match-ups in terms of ship class - so, like, the Millennium Falcon vs. a Star Destroyer (https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2947/15512214661_591f0b37d3_b.jpg), or a Super Star Destroyer? Or Serenity vs. an Alliance Cruiser? One's a ship with a small crew and armaments, the other has hundreds of crew and dozens of weapons. Would you just avoid such extreme differences of scale, or can the little ship take the big ship on if the crew are seasoned enough?
Quote from: SteerpikeOne's a ship with a small crew and armaments, the other has hundreds of crew and dozens of weapons. Would you just avoid such extreme differences of scale, or can the little ship take the big ship on if the crew are seasoned enough?
Based on the size difference, I would treat the big ship as less of an adversary for the small ship, and more of a combat environment. The little ship would be able to individually attack components of the big ship, and the big ship would have a very difficult time avoiding getting hit. Of course, the downside is the big ship's different sections would each get a turn; each weapon system would get to fire on the little ship individually, reflecting the amount of firepower the big ship has available.
This seems like it would work, but unfortunately I've never gotten to see it in practice. The one time in an Asura campaign that I came close was a small smuggling vessel that had gotten caught by a Progenitor Alliance cruiser. However, the PCs wisely surrendered to the big ship, and the action instead focused on them breaking out of the brig and sabotaging the cruiser from within.
I like the component approach a lot! Would be especially interesting in complex combats with multiple ships.
Components definitely work. I've been thinkin. Of designing "solo" encounters in D&D like that too, like a five headed dragon.
My thought for keeping the ship relevant would be to have the players' skill checks functioning in the vein of "aid another" on the ship. But as for clearly uneven matchups, either you want the players to win but have to fight for it, or you want them to flee. The players are the protagonists, so throwing them against something they can't beat with a goal of beat it doesn't help further the story, unless the players actions and improvisations can give them an edge the enemy can't use ("what if I rerout the power from the holodecks to create a holographic ship coming out of warp to scare them off?")
Oh, and I definitely want to have guidelines for technobabble.
I can't recall many scenes in ST that actually featured combat between two ships of major size/power disparity. The Enterprise encountering a Borg cube comes to mind -- and that didn't go well at all for the former. There should not be any need for such battles from a strictly genre POV.
Quote from: GhostmanI can't recall many scenes in ST that actually featured combat between two ships of major size/power disparity. The Enterprise encountering a Borg cube comes to mind -- and that didn't go well at all for the former. There should not be any need for such battles from a strictly genre POV.
This happens a fair number of times in DS9, where its effectiveness seems to vary based on the weaponry and plot-centrality of the aggressor. Federation fighters, which are tiny, go up against Cardassian/Dominion capital ships in "Operation Return," but they're specifically acting as an annoyance or diversion and don't seem to be capable of taking on those ships on their own. For the most part smaller ships - runabouts, cargo vessels, sublight interceptors, whatever - are portrayed as basically helpless against large warships and the only times they win are through a ruse or with the aid of technobabble engineering dickery.
In contrast, the Defiant is a lot smaller than the big Dominion capital ships, but this seems to work to its advantage as they frequently portray it as flying so close to an opponent that the opponent can't get its weapons to bear on the Defiant. "The Defiant skimming along the surface of a much larger enemy ship firing into it at point blank range along its whole length, flying away just as the big ship explodes behind it" is a scene repeated numerous times in the series. (The Defiant, however, is probably not the best comparison, because while its profile is small it has the combat capabilities of much larger ships.)
Certainly Star Wars uses "small vs. large" much more than Star Trek, to the point where Sparkletwist's advice to use the larger ship as a "combat environment" makes perfect sense. I mean, the Death Star is basically
terrain from the point of view of an X-wing, complete with canyons, stationary gun platforms, and patrolling enemy fighters.
Wasn't the Defiant pretty much a state-of-the-art premium spacecraft specifically built for operations the standard fare Federation starships weren't suitable for, though?
As for Star Wars, those were large scale battles featuring whole fleets of the small fighters (on both sides), with the rebels also bringing some larger ships along for support. Blowing up the Death Stars were "surgical" strikes that relied on exploiting a known weak spot, and the sacrifice of many fighter pilots just to slip ONE of them past the defenses. That's an entirely different kind of scenario from a single small spacecraft taking on a capital ship alone.
Quote from: XeviatThe players are the protagonists, so throwing them against something they can't beat with a goal of beat it doesn't help further the story...
I was thinking more if the players got
themselves into trouble, as players sometimes do. Like if you've established that enemy battlecruiser X is in sector Y and the players decide to go there anyway for some reason you didn't expect.
Quote from: GhostmanWasn't the Defiant pretty much a state-of-the-art premium spacecraft specifically built for operations the standard fare Federation starships weren't suitable for, though?
Pretty much, which is why I admitted it probably wasn't the best comparison. There are, as I mentioned, at least some other examples of small vs. large in DS9, though they're not common.
QuoteAs for Star Wars, those were large scale battles featuring whole fleets of the small fighters (on both sides), with the rebels also bringing some larger ships along for support. Blowing up the Death Stars were "surgical" strikes that relied on exploiting a known weak spot, and the sacrifice of many fighter pilots just to slip ONE of them past the defenses. That's an entirely different kind of scenario from a single small spacecraft taking on a capital ship alone.
Point taken, but it does at least recommend ways to play small vs. huge encounters. While Luke may not have been able to reach the Death Star alone, once he
had reached it the Death Star's ability to "fight back" on its own was extremely limited. Far from being able to bring all its weapons systems to bear on the smaller craft, it seems like it could hardly use any of them even had its commander been aware of the danger Luke posed, and it relied primarily on its fighters for close-in defense. On the flip side, however, Luke's ability to harm the "terrain" was negligible, apart from the plot-central vulnerability. The sequence, in game terms, looks more like a PC (Luke) fighting opponents (Darth and other fighter pilots) in hostile terrain (the Death Star) in order to attack/damage a specific objective on the capital ship (the exhaust port). The larger ship gets "attacks" in the form of any weapons systems it can bring to bear, but it's not really the primary opponent even if its destruction is the ultimate objective. We're not actually comparing the stats of the Death Star and Luke's X-wing as if they were opponents; the Death Star is treated as if it were a backdrop, not a foe.