Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • GM Points


Everything posted by tetrasodium

  1. a round is 6 seconds & move speed is 6m/round. are you trying to claim that someone moving at a brisk 1m/second can easily fire accurately at targets 350m away?
  2. Likely deliberate. the stock 5e hp recovery by going to sleep after a full day instead of going for forced march type penalties is a mess for any kind of plot or story other than dungeon crawls.
  3. It's your strawman. You brought up the idea that it was bad, own it rather than claiming your bad argument is a strawman. Yes the sg team uses those things on tv where the format is focused on something other than the mechanics like a ttrpg, you might as well point at the novels and use the lack of sfx & costume design teams as an excuse for why those should also not be involved when shifting format to movie or tv show. Continuing with the tv show however, on that tv show a p90 does not get used with pinpoint accuracy from nearly two kilometers away as if shooter & target were standing in a small bathroom or closet rather than both running around at a good speed at a distance that is well into the realm of incredible skill for a stationary sniper calculating wind distance with a spotter & so on. As to your confusion over the words "elsewhere in the system", the fact that traveler has simple equipment is ok because the system has depth elsewhere, I linked that up to avoid continuation of the confusion you are demonstrating by expanding in the equipment in traveler. Yes sgp has a lot of feats and such, but the vast majority of those apply to combat & in some cases social interaction. D&D is generally a terrible system for social interactions compared to systems with a greater focus there & sgp has some added structure to help there making the social feats fit some other topic. As to combat, sgp manages to take the already weaksauce tactical combat component of 5e & crank the problems to eleven by making it so a lot of fights the players won't even need to move. Traveler however has an very very different focus such as the lethality & combat rules that include things like parabolic fire, blind fire, panic fire, shotgun spread, suppression fire, & much more. Traveler doesn't need the added design space in the weapons themselves because that design space to make combat more than "I shoot my gun again" over & over again while sgp is lacking in both. @1001100x02 as to you?... still waiting for you to expand onyour comments in the thread you ran away from when asked for details & you aren't exactly adding anything here.
  4. a book of guns is an example because it was frequently raised as a probable extra book in discord to shut down arguments about the asburd ranges & overly simplistic weapons with stats that are largely irrelevant in many cases. You are oversimplifying things to make your point free from half the problem. All of those systems you list are significantly higher on crunch in so many other ways that allow depth elsewhere in the system also. It might be reasonable to make a case for why the magic item cycle is a bad thing, but you aren't even attempting to do that either.
  5. You seem to have misunderstood the problem. Look at it from the perspective of a companion book of weapons, open up a spreadsheet & start filling in values to make a simple collection of 5-10 pistols shotguns longarms & so on. The base ones in core have range ammo & so on of "enough to not matter", "absurdly more than needed", & so on. Imagine a game of d&d as an ongoing campaign where all of this does not exist because there is nothing to hang it on & the gear the party started with is as good as it will ever get. As to your odd choice to jump to a completely different topic by bringing up "weapon creation as a part of the rules"... That is in core, just not in a way that does much other than the not in my game thing you note.
  6. in other words your solution is little more than "why doesn't the gm just build the rest of the system so it doesn't need to be part of core"? It's not at all controversial to say that most people buying a system expect it to reach a level of completeness that requires a bit more than "fix it yourself" or "design the rest on your own." Even if one were to accept your suggestion as acceptable it adds "redesign the character sheet to include room for anything new you add to the weapon/armor designspace", which is a significant leap of efforteven for people who own one or more programs capable of making a (fillable) pdf & says nothing for needing to build digital sheets in various VTTS that require understanding & use of various languages like CSS. As to "The minutae of PCs customising weapons that people here are talking about belongs in an expansion book", there is no room baked in the system's designspace to support such a book. The number of gamers who are itching to buy a book with ten or so weapons $weaponName, Range:plenty, Ammo:Plenty 1d6/1d8/1d10/etc is going to be vanishingly small because they already have exactly that. Needing a 1.5 release to support something as mundane as an expanded weapons book is absurd.
  7. That clears up intent a bit but still misses the scale problem 100x100 encoutnter maps are still more than a lot of dungeon crawls. CoS argenvostholt: 2 floors ~26x26 & 18x14 CoS Amber Temple: blank 27x9 & dungeon 28x24 CoS van richtens tower. 4 6x6 floorsplus small outside & 1x2 wagon. CoS wizard of wines: 3 floors, 11x20, 11x20 plus small outside, & 7x13 basement The only maps that have scales capable of even modeling the weapon ranges in sgp are towns & yester hill where they are 50ft/square. LMoP Goblin Ambush: They attack from the trees, not even a map. LMoP Cragmaw hideout you chase the goblins to is 31x20 mostly of tunnels LMoP town of phandain probably about 500x1000 but they just have a bar showing scale rather than sqares. LMoP Cragmaw Hideout: ~29x17 LMoP Ruins of thundertree (a town sized encounter map) ~28x20 LMoP Wyvern Tor ~25x15 LMoP Wave Echo Cave ~33x44 I could continue but the point is made. A GM puts a lot of work into making a map for a dungeon crawl because of how large it is & even those are likely to be only a fraction of a 100x100 encounter map made with a mere "modicum" of effort. Your last paragraph underscores a problem you are treating as a feature that handles a design issue rather than an option. If the assumption is that the bad guys will always be inside limiting weapon ranges to the size of rooms, then weapon ranges should be constrained to something at least close to the size of a large room rather than ranges closer to seeing the building containing that room on the horizon. Not having that limit or some easily applied secondary rule with vision causes all of the problems noted in the OP, requires boatloads of extra effort for encounter maps, & says anything but a dungeon crawl is probably badwrongfun. It may have been a few years since I watched any of the stargates on tv, but I don't remember dungeon crawls being the norm even if there were a decent number of encounters that took place on gouald ships.
  8. 100m in every direction is a freaking gigantic map that makes return to undermountain & other mega dungeons look positively cozy. Having to prep maps of that scale for every possible place the players might need is a gigantic hurdle. Using your own example you call in the quantum ogre with gliders & backup called in. If it doesn't matter what tactic they use the tactic becomes "shoot down the gliders screw the hostages" or "where are the reinforcements, lets target there first"... you have gigantic maps ready for both of those situations right?.. What about if they setup a diversion elsewhere in order to target the reinforcements coming in to handle the diversion?... Alternately are the players not allowed to do those things because the rail is not wide enough to allow or are they not allowed because the quantum jaffa/quantum deathgliders don't exist yet? By comparison, the entire map of undermountain is only about 170x400 squares . Battle maps for encounters on that scale is not a mere "modicum of effort". You even admit these maps made with a mere "modicum" of effort take over a hundred rounds to cross. Simply filling in a map of that scale edges deep into making territory where techniques normally reserved for making world maps called for to make encounter maps
  9. I've been going back & forth on how to respond to this for a few days now, it's quite a bit more than a "modicum of effort" without making a couple problematic elements the core of one's GM style. It's a trivial amount of effort if you rob players of any sort of agency and go hardcore railroad "so your making your way into town from the east">"wait what? when did we decide that?">"I did", but that's pretty universally accepted as a bad thing to avoid as a GM. The other thing is over use of the quantum ogre which is sometimes ok& good but it's a toxic slide that breaks down the motivations for your players to care about your game. If every approach is the same with the same quantum ogre reinforced defense force all the time & the jaffa always magically have handy quantum ogres to hide behind they will gradually start to notice that their decisions don't matter ever. It leaves the players slowly coming to the conclusion that they are just life support for your storytelling sessions.
  10. You misunderstand. Right now you can look at the value we place on gasoline, a bar of naquadah, various precious metals & gemstones, rare elements used in high tech production, advanced alloys , grain prices, & so forth to make a simple chart saying an average civilization of our tech level puts a value of X pounds of gems & rare metals for Y pounds of advanced alloys & has such a low value on grain that the price for Z pounds of rare elements would be measured in tons. Commodities are useful for trade because pretty much everyone needs them provided they are advanced enough to use them.
  11. Yea it's not a bad currency, just there's a big difference between baking in a currency & having the gm need to make something up. If it's baked in then the players can look at a list & get a vague estimation for what some basics might cost if supply & conditions were not influencing it. It's fine to do a resources ability or something instead, just they should pick something & bake it in
  12. I don't think that stargate ever introduced any form of currency including worlds that were advanced enough to make its development an absolute certainty.Most worlds were still in barter phases of trade, I think the closest they came to touching on it was when they found an outpost with a holigraphic display in ancient/asgard/1-2 others that showed all the known elements plus a few more that they figured was used in trade between those civilizations in the episode Torment of Tantalus Edit: With that said it's probably a good idea to introduce some form of currency, probably by tech level. A TL 0/1 civilization probably doesn't have as much vlue for naquadah or advanced metal alloys but puts a lot of value in bags of grain (ie corn/wheat/barley/rice/flour/etc) while a stable TL2/3++ civ is likely able to source their own staple foods like grains but has a lot of use for raw materials & rare elements. That sort of table might be useful for conversion of trade goods between civs.
  13. Some of us were talking in discord yesterday about how the mechanics of d&d/5e make things like the tactical retreat commonly used in the tv series difficult with slaughter to a man kind of being the default as a result & how other ttrpgs with a clear & simple "this combat is going to obviously end in one way, lets discuss that & launch from there on to doing cool stuff" mechanics for lets agree to win/lose like fate's conceed. Since the closest fit for a mechanic like that might be the encounters chapter & that is a harder to explain gem in the sgp rules that doesn't get enough attention I decided to give it an in depth review/critique as an easy "no man I'm serious it really improves a lot, look how improved it is over 5e" reference if nothing else. This is based on my reading of version 061320 so barring any crossed wires on my part any criticisms or praise may fit oddly with versions. Encounter Pacing: Right away on Page 138 in the first sentence of the first paragraph in the chapter there is a massive improvement in going from the standard 5e 6-8 encounters per day to more manageable 3-5. Since the average encounter s going to be a few baddies those numbers get multiplied & 6-8/day translates to the party massacring hundreds of people in a small sleepy town every week if they aren't engaged in dungeon crawls where they move from room to room slaughtering bad guys because they are bad. It's a subtle difference that takes a certain level of experience to grasp how significant this little improvement is, but in short it's the difference between "we know there are gouald supporting rebels in town but haven't been able to identify them" and "There is literally a newly built fortress filled with a hundred or so gouald supporting militant rebels overlooking the town but haven't noticed it till you showed up so can you look into why our crops are failing this season?". It's possible to scale up for more encounters by stretching resources, giving out magic/higher TL items/whatever... but if you want to shrink the overinflated encounter number down to focus on plot or any of the noncombat things in the player style paragraph there you move extremely powerful sometimes abilities meant to be used sparingly to the default mode in nearly every combat & run into a whole host of problems so I can't praise this enough. Yes not every encounter needs to be combat & some have no combat, but at least in standard 5e the combat is tuned extremely tight to the assumption that they will be. It's also one of the first things I noticed in sgp back in march that really grabbed me. Splitting the party: This is a sidebar on pg185 that I really like & wholeheartedly agree with but I feel like it's missing a signpost saying that it's ok to break the normal d&d box of reactive players working to handle whatever new situation the gm threw out one by one & move towards seizing upon the fact that the PCs are highly competent skilled professionals able to proactively do things the GM might not have even considered in his notes. In order for this to feel empowering to brainy/skilled characters it needs to be something capable of really changing the course of things at the table in a more shared narrative style than is typical for d&d. Noting something about shared narrative here would be good. If all hanging back to research the virus or understand the technical logs noted can accomplish is to effectively obtain the red key to let the more fighty inclined players progress then everyone will hang back with bob rather than leave him out & a good gm will encourage it rather than leave poor bob twiddling his thumbs the whole session. Doing that requires a level of thinking outside the box that in some ways requires explosives and fire. Using the Broca Divide episode as an example, lets say the GM went in with notes about a gould/ancient weapon with automated defenses that needed fighting but early on one of the players raised the idea of the aberrant behavior being a plague with something protecting the locals for some quick back & forth table discussion where the GM admits some of the original threadbare plot &everyone agrees that using tranq guns to cure all the infected while they themselves are still suffering from hallucinations & hormone problems would be more fun. A lot of times people will say "yea we do that all the time in my games" but players tend to limit themselves to things they think will fit within the GMs plans to a certain degree & telling the players "here's some plot your characters don't know" is a big problem compared to shared narrative games where it's pretty normal where there is an implied player/gm agreement for the player characters not to abuse that player knowledge. 139 touches on that to a degree, but it's often good advice for the GM to give three or more clues pointing with a neon arrow at something before the players wonder if the culprit is even involved so touching it a few places is probably an improvement Action encounters: Pg139 has this bit "he most recognizable action encounter is combat, which can take many forms from a bar brawl to an extended firefight. Others exist, including traversing dangerous terrain or engaging in an aerial dog-fighting." Seems like something along the lines of "finding an interesting way to creatively influence the action with your noncombat skills" or similar would slot nicely into that others exist section for a third clue that shared narrative is encouraged This sort of addition is important to make it clear that these other ways of dealing with things are just as valid as "the big stupid fighter can almost always add violence" option even when the smart/sympathetic/charismatic folks are trying to do their thing Determination 140: This is a great addition that occupies a nice middle ground between fate's "everything is combat" & standard d&d's "my charisma based SAD class can & should brainwash people with a smile by RAW through diplomancy has no real mechanic other than gm's whims". Not only is it great for that but it keys off int & wis on top of charisma, Bob might not be very good at conveying himself, but he's got enough int to make sure his stuttering mumbles about that gouald supporting rebel fortress messing with our crops are worth listening to & Cindy has the wis to be sympathetic enough for the same. That's something traditional d&d is pretty bad at even with 5e's phb174/175 attribute checks/skills with different abilities where decades of reinforcement set charisma based skills off in a special box that no other ability shall violate the sanctity of. Convince Encounter 142: A lot of the good things I said about splitting the party/action encounters applies to this and the other encounters, one thing I especially like is that it specifies "each PC." I've seen players who are monstrously good at riffing off each other in social encounters to setup the other for a sure thing or snatch their bud from failure as carter regularly does with "what he means to say" type stuff... Then I've also seen two other normal types of players I'll call alice & bob. Alice wants to be involved but due to some social anxiety or whatever holds back while bob just wants to show up & hang out but is always lurking there in hammerspace ready to be summoned in a pinch. Bob doesn't do anything on his own & the gm will bring the game crashing to a halt if NPCs try to interact with him. Having to spend determination each round of it gives Alice some support & footing to jump in when she's interested & keeps Bob from being yanked from hammerspace for every interaction without the gm needing to be a killjoy playing teleport cop and ask the guy who's not going to volunteer an answer if he's going with anyone whenever the party splits but later the party realizes they need one more whatever. One of my pre-covid games had both an alice & a bob, alice would regularly tell us how d&d helped her social anxiety so much. I'm not sure why the convince encounter sidebar is on 148 but those are some nice examples of how it could be used. Roll then Role 142: Basically this amounts to doing the dice portion using the 142 encounter template or whatever then roleplaying out the results of that quickly don't know how I feel about this, in theory it might work great or it might be a mess. I feel like the answer might depend on the particular gm & set of players but the mere existence is undoubtedly a good thing for newer/less experienced GMs who need this kind of advice when they are just getting started so it's great to see. Diplomatic Function 144: I was really confused about what seemed to be a really complex scene that almost felt too complex for a ttrpg just from the 144 part alone, but after I read through the 145 mechanics for it a few things clicked when I went back to read it again. It's hard to imagine using this & I feel like getting the "diplomatic actions" to the average group of players might be difficult enough to avoid this kinda thing, but I've known players who will read anything I give them in addition to a bunch of stuff on their own & it seems like this is probably a good thing for any group that can juggle the plates involved. Infiltration encounter 148: I really like this as someone who's been involved with physical datacenter security+pentests of it & have had players who occasionally did penetration testing so it's really great to see some basic mechanics for things like that alertness track. One thing I'd note is that it mentions using stealth, but not the kind of near SEP field social engineering tactics the team frequently uses when dressing up like the locals & walking right in the front door like the locals do. That sort of social engineering is frighteningly effective but without a mechanic that spells out that it's ok to translate know stuff skills to walk out the door with 75k handed to you, walk out of multiple grocery stores with palettes of beer, or much much worse you often wind up with GM's sidelining those attempts with "roll dex(stealth) to walk in the front door like that" even though trying to be stealthy would make you obviously out of place. Calling out that sort of look like you belong & brazenly lean into it style of infiltration might make this a lot more interesting for the whole group instead of just the sneaky types in the group. Seems like maybe the infiltration mechanics or example might be the place for that kinda stuff. Also it might not be a bad idea to mention that even advanced security is usually really bad. Here's a bunch of examples of real world electronic security & the trivial ways of walking all over it in the form of a bunch of defcon talks that might not all track over cleanly but there's going to e a bunch of gadgets that can be translated over neatly to the equipment lists & give inspiration for cool alternatives to "The door is locked with a dc16 lock" Interrogation 150: The thing I really like about this is that it beats back the high CHA quick brainscan/brainwashing diplomancy expectation with all the brutality it deserves & gives a nice little mechanic to structure something. step2 aid interrogation is missing things like leveraging culture against the subject, just being there as scary muscle, & so on Personal Transport & mounts 162: "If an effect moves your personal transport against. its will, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or fall off the vehicle, landing prone in a space within 1m of it." What about seat belts & enclosed transports like an airplane hitting turbulence? That wording works well for horses & such but kinda falls down when applied to a lot of vehicles as written. contest 168: These are great when they apply, but extending it with the addition of fate style challenges where a really high dc thing is broken up into smaller plausible chunks within the reach of PCs might be a nice addition Aerial combat 170/171: assist specifies dex(pilot), but once you move from single pilot stuff to anything larger like an alkesh or bigger you've also got all the times Sam Daniel or whoever rearranging crystals, rerouting power, altering shield frequency, the classical signal interference, & so on to assist or harass other enemy craft. Not sure if that kinda stuff would be an addition to existing actions or new actions though. Duels 172: It's just a blank page in 063120, but these are reasonably common in my experience & almost always just a painful slog of one PC & one NPC beating on each other while the rest of the party watches on twiddling their thumbs, any mechanic breaking away from that is certain to be great. that leaves the tactical retreat/concede Edit: I wrote about other things that could be added to Aerial combat, but might not have been clear on the problem having every included action being dex(piloting) it would be trivial to have a situation where much of the group had no effective way of contributing at all & not much harder to have a situation where some players literally have nothing they could be doing. Starfinder handles this by having a lot of weapons, ship systems, & so on key off various skills but I've still seen a group of 4-5 run into a situation with a good sized ship (similar to ds9's defiant or millennium falcon in size maybe) had 1-2 players who literally could do nothing but twiddle their thumbs because there was only one included weapon in the module supplied ship that fit their skill but two players who had only that as an option.
  14. Agreed that it was absolutely electrical, for comparison though the boston dynamics big dog darpa project had a speed that varies from a 0.45 mph (0.2 m/s) crawl to a 3.6 mph (1.6 m/s) trot according to it's wikipedia page
  15. This is really important catch & touches on a lot of the reason it's a problem to just reduce ranges or whatever without being a hot wire. No player ever complains when the gm puts narrative over crunch to kick a boring or uninteresting/irrelevant bit of stuff behind the curtain like declaring the FRED is faster if the party has something else more interesting to be doing/focused on. When the GM moves from letting the players be awesome together by describing competence porn & focusing on the fun parts to being the fun referee kneecapping them for being too good like 5e so often forces the gm to... that's when fights start over the math & specific wording. The gm advice section isn't quite in/ready yet from what I've heard, but noting those two styles of gming might be a good inclusion.
  16. huh?... I'm not sure I get your point, it sounds like you are trying to say that a tabletop roleplaying game should try to accurately model a military engagement even if that modeling does not actually work within the confines or play to the strengths of how it is being modeled? something else? You might want to get on those wormholes hyperdrives zat disintegration & so much more with the laws of physics if that's the case. You continue to pretend that this is not a tabletop rpg built for a setting By your argument the TV series was complete trash and was a badwrong version because the special effects budget was far lower than the movie due to the constraints of a weekly tv series. Because we are discussing a tabletop rpg, the constraints of a tabletop rpg need serious consideration. Try as you might, the needs of a tabletop RPG are inseperable from this discussionbecause it's a discussion about a tabletop rpg no matter how hard you try to argue from a position of absolute authority. Your refusal to concede those problems or argue the merits of ranges as is speaks volumes to the instability of your argument. Even if you ignore the medium crushing battlemat/vtt problems caused by the current ranges you still refuse to dive into the Theater of the mind problems Deriachi pointed out with the excessive specifics defined within ranges. a ttrpg should A: work great with a battlemat/vtt with lots of stuff that is really enhanced by that style of running/p;aying the game, B: Work great with theater of the mind style gameplay with lots of ways to really spotlight the powerful flexibility and highlighted narrative, or C : Some combination that floats comfortably between those two extremes. The current rules result in D : a bizarre combination that is problematic with all three and flails poorly in each rather than leaning into any. Sure there might be an E style, but you've thus far been utterly unwilling to even hint at an attempt to describe it. Last night you tried to claim that there were ttrpgs that lean heavy into totm and snub the power of narrative over hard and specific numbers as successful examples of D, but when asked to name some went strangely quiet & changed the subject. It's not just commercial mats, using a scale of 1 inch to 1 meter, the 200/1800 range p90 requires a mat that is 16.6feet/150ft (5.08M/45072M). That is utterly unworkable for the needs of a tabletop rpg. There is a reason why so many ttrpgs do not use 1 as the smallest unit of measurement & that gets into it. Changing the size of a square ion the fly is a disaster for a whole legion of reasons that include violations of the laws of physics.. that combined with the total inability to model a fractional square & resulting disasters when you start trying to is the reason why a square on the grid represents the smallest unit of measurement in a system. Space ships & vehicles in motion create some exceptions, but those don't even factor in because of the way even small arms ranges are so extreme. would a pistol with 20/40 fix the problems? not as long as the smallest unit of measurement is 1, however it barely brings the pistol into the realm of something that fits within the limitations of being modeled in a tabletop rpg while still doing nothing for things like the p90 & other such weapons that sport ranges entirely incompatible with the medium as the system's baselines are structured using 1m increments rather than 2 5 or 10. Also, you didn't raise even a single benefit of the ranges as is within the baselines of the system. Since you are incapable of accepting that a ttrpg should work within the confines of a ttrpg or lean to the strengths of one, here is a real tangible issue courtesy of someone in discord trying to use it as an example of how the ranges are good in combination of the firefight rules. Scene: The SGP team are trying to get a bunch of refugees back to the gate. They are being chased on foot be Jaffa and the Gliders are scouting the area to try and locate the SGP team members that are trying to lay an ambush. The gate is some 500m from the town where the refugees were located You have the following party - Alice: diplomat proficient in Common weapons, Sidearms. Max range bow: 50/200 - Bill: a scout proficient in Common weapons, Martial Arts, Bows, Sidearms, ShotgunsMax range bow: 50/200 - Dawn: Medic proficient in Common weapons, Sidearms, Shotguns Max range bow: 50/200 - Eddie: A scientist proficient in Common weapons, Sidearms, ExplosivesMax range bow: 50/200 - Francine: engineer proficient in Common weapons, Sidearms, Longarms Max range longarm 200/1800 - Greg: a soldier proficient in Common weapons, Martial Arts, Sidearms, LongarmsMax rangeLongarm 200/1800 Page ten has a section titled "Other Gaming Tools" that mentions theater of the mind(totm) & grid map+minis that covers both battlemats & vtts, despite your repeated assertions there is no third way mentioned & you've yet to describe much more than "use notepad" and "adapt". Lets use that stellar example of how the ranges as is & firefight rules really make for a winning gameplay experience with hypothetical totm game. -GM: "Ok, the refugees are in town 500 meters away & you need to help them flee from the jaffa to the stargate whereyou are" -Alice Bill Dawn & eddie laugh & note that their sidearm is 50/100 so they are going to be running for the next several rounds with a sigh. - Francine & Greg note the scope on their long arm & proceed to start shooting jaffa from the gate with no penalty. Given the 3/60 range on the jaffa staff weapon & 20/100 on the long range staff cannon. - GM: "No uhh you see it's really far so Francine & greg you can't do that because.... obstacle" - all players: Well lets work our way closer to the fleeing refugees.. How far are we? - GM about halfway, the refugees are really in a panic & the jaffa are really doing a number on them, looks like this module was written assuming you'd have killed 5-6 of the jaffa over the last 10 turns of dashing 12m/round& having to track everyone based on needlessly precise1m increments. -Alice Bill Dawn & eddie note that half of five hundred is still more than 50/100 & make a mental note to remember from game two on to ditch the pistol in favor of those bow the refugees have since it's also 1d6 damage but longer range - GM notices and makes a note to remember - Francine & greg: I start shooting at the jaffa - repeat for the next few rounds unil it starts being time to fallback to the gate with refugees while shooting. - after session report: gM... uhh... this was a trainwreck. Alice Bill Dawn & eddie: what the heck was that?! Why did I come today?! Francine & greg: Why do I have this off the chart range weapon if it breaks the game using it?! Totm using the short/medium/long ranges that tend to be in place with systems Deriachai raised & names shortened to first letters. - GM: Ok you got sent through the gate to p4x11111 o rescue some refugees fleeing from the jaffa. There is a town about an 20 minute walk away & maybe half that if you run. - Players: Can we see the town? - GM: Yea there are some trees & hills that are in the way sometimes, but you can see the simple primitve stone buildings & see that there are people there. The Jaffa are clearly making villagers do labor. -Greg: are we close to long range yet? - GM: not just yet but you walk a few more minutes & are in range - Francine: can I make out any commander types? - back & forth... survey says yes! - Francine: I point them out to greg & we start shooting using my scope to ignore the range penalty -Alice Bill Dawn & eddie:Our sidearms only do short & medium range, we close to medium range & start shooting - Thefour of them move forward one zone to enter range of shooting & being shot at by both staff weapons & staff cannons - Things continue well but this example assumes totm focused ranges are bake in rather than tacked on. If tacked on, the gm will need to interrupt the action to adjudicate how a skill with x meter range works in short/medium/long ranges. Lets go with a battlemat or vtt... Since the example was brought up to show how ranges and the 1m>10m square work in progress is a good thing... Right away bill & greg are going to be shooting anything getting near the refugees& with a speed of 6m move at a speed of 0 squares 1.2 squares 1.8 squares 2.4 squares, & so on If they are dashing it's 1.2 2.4 3.6 & so on. Not only is tracking that movement impossible that fraction is insanely important to some of them because Alice Bill Dawn & eddie are using the logical 50/100 sidearm giving them a range of 5-10 squares & the jaffa chasung refugees in the example of how these ranges shine are 500m(50 squares away) Right away Alice & greg are going to ignore the disadvantage thanks to use the scope on their longarm & begin shooting the Jaffa 500m away. Alice Dawn Eddie & Francine are going to spend the next dozen or so rounds dashing towards the jaffa chasing the refugees with the rounds to close largely depending on how direct the jaffa & refugees are. Meanwhile bill & greg have been making a normal attack roll every round, the combat was either an epic slog where 4 of the six players literally did nothing but try to get in range or things started at a closer & more reasonable range that makes the current extreme ranges a pointless hassle rather than an improvement. The ranges & baselines providing the structure supporting them are very problematic no matter which of the styles noted on page 10 you use when using an example someone on discord showed the strength these ranges & firefight encounter rules. If the ranges were more reasonable or the baseline rules structure did a better job supporting them the players might be working together, trying to help along the refugees, drawing fire, trying to use cover & so on through the rolling battle, but instead we have these ranges & supporting rules structure. You keep saying that grid mats & totm re just an option to dismiss the very real problems caused for trying to run a game in one of those styles but thus far have declined to paint a picture of these rules providing a smooth & engaging gameplay experience or even vaguely describe it. It's extremely clear that your argument & tone of absokute authority comes from the level of extreme inexperience that keeps you from being able to describe such an example of gameplay... but it'stime to dial back that absolute authority (currently your at about a 12 on a scale of 1-10) or start showing the one true way not related to using totm or grid maps that not even the introduction on page 10 could hint to. It's ok to be inexperienced, everyone has their first time playing a ttrpg & every gm at some point took that first scary step that goes with running the world for a bunch of friends.
  17. Turn that bolded bit around on it's head, you have it the wrong way around. You are saying that very real & tangible problems caused by the current ranges aren't a good reason for why those ranges should be reduced rather than actually defending those ranges or bringing up any merits of those ranges. Some of the things you raise are relevant to the context they were raised, while others narrow the scope of the problem in order to setup a strawman capable of being trivially attacked "my mat doesn't have enough tiles to catch the maximum range of a pistol" seems to me like a stupid reasoning. First off, No commercially available battlemat does & many VTTs like like roll20 run into similar trouble or worse. Second, if you have a VTT or even a custom football field sized battlemat you run into a second set of problems that are potentially even worse. The fact that it happens with pistol's short range highlights just how problematic it is for even longer ranged weapons to a critical degree. Defend why the current ranges are better for the game than the very real problems are a negative for it Also, "The laser rifle is 20/60 squares not the sgp pistol's 50/100 squares" is a poor comparison: laser beams lose coherency when fired through an atmosphere (things such as small water drops floating in the air refracting or difracting the beam), which greatly limit their range effectiveness; nothing to do with the air resistance a small projectile suffers when fired. This misses why bringing up the laser rifle was relevant & it wasn't because of physics. There has been a strong undercurrent of "The ranges are what they are & can't be changed" in what little defense people have made for the current ranges & those dmg firearms ranges are relevant because it shows they are not set by wotc. Combine that with the fact that current ranges are absurd by the standards of reality you have ranges that are not imposed by wotc, objectively problematic in multiple ways for playing a tabletop rpg, & in no way reflective of even a generous accounting of reality. If you want to defend the ranges have at it, but you need to do things like highlight up the merits they bring to the game because reality, 5e itself, & the needs of a tabletop rpg provide no support with nobody even attempting to suggest any.
  18. The two on the left seem to be pointing at the hand, but out of pure curiosity what is the difference between these two or is the still incorrect pointing at something other than the hand?
  19. This game builds on 5e but is not shackled to 5e unless you can cite wotc book & page number for tension dice, moxie & it's various uses in things like social encounters, mission points, 5 level classes, pointbuy feats, & so many other interesting improvements present in sgp. The folks at Wyvern can absolutely change the insane range parameters they themselvescurrently have set. Not only can they change them, they can do just like all those other things you can't cite wotc book & page number on & do something better. It's time for you to drop this preaching from on high defense of an obviously unworkable set of ranges and either espouse the virtues of it or admit that it's so unworkable even the lone defender can't actually defend it using any of the merits those ranges have.The insane ranges aren't set by wotc & here is proof so stop acting otherwise and either defend the ranges on whatever merits you seem to think they might have or allow others to provide constructive feedback & discussion without the needless disruption you are contributing. There are any number of ways to correct this self inflicted wound in the ruleset for SGP, but one critical thing is that the fix has to simply be capable of functioning (changing the size of gridines does not meet that very low bar so a different solution is required). Your "nothing can be done must remain broken" wardrum is unhelpful and actively prevents people from fleshing out a functional solution that might provide a baseline wyvern could use as inspiration or even a guidepost to avoid wasting time developing/testing a solution that fails at the very low bar of simply being possible like the idea of changing the size of squares on the fly from 1:1 to 1:10 from player to player. It the excessively long yet needlessly concrete ranges cause problems for tables that do not use a battlemat or vtt as well as both Deriachai & myself have pointed out in this thread. Since you admit that the rules are problematic for games that use either a battlemat or vtt & those same rules are inadequate for a theater of the mind game as well... exactly what fourth style of game are you saying the ranges are designed to fit well with. Given that you appear to be the only person excited to finally have a system designed to fit that unknown style of tabletop rpg, can you provide statistics showing its popularity in relation to ToTM battlemats & VTT usage. Ranges that "exceed the space representable by existing RP aides like battlemats and the computational limitations of [the most popular well known VTT roll20] are not inherently bad" they are failing at one of the most basic hurdles a tabletop RPG can be expected to clear with ease making the current ranges the rpg equivalent of this car. There are VTTs capable of handling the ranges provided, one of the developers of arkenforge said "millions is probably where you will start hitting floating point issues" in regards to how many squares large a map could theoretically be... Except the ranges still crash face first just as spectacularly into two different critical hurdles where the current rules massively fail on. Specifically: the pressure it places on the gm to make larger and larger maps causing the prep needed for a game to expand beyond any reasonable amount of time. "can I shoot them with my weapon from here" "um... one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve thirteen fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen eighteen nineteen twenty twenty one twenty two twenty three twenty four twenty five twenty six twenty seven twenty eight twenty nine thirty thirtyone thirtytwo thirtythree thirtyfour thirtyfive thirtysix thirty seven thirty eight thirtynine forty fortyone fortytwo forty three forty four forty five forty six forty seven forty eight forty nine fifty fifty one fifty two fifty three fifty four fifty five fifty six fifty seven fifty eight fifty nine sixty sixty one sixty two sixty three sixty four sixty five sixty six sixty seven sixty eight sixty nine seventy seventy one seventy two seventy three seventy four seventy five...." "hold on GM, there are a lot of really cool improvements on 5e in this game but this is monumentally stupid, lets play something else."
  20. Good catch, thanks for pointing out how unique that was! That is not "guy with a bow", it's he legendary armless windstrike archer of the local tribe on P9x-35r3543 who has made a reputation of killing the local system lord's jaffa one each day with impunity & vanishing without a trace before the search expands out that far... Interestingly enough, he' has the ancient gene and is using an ancient crafted bow named "heartpiercer" that helps direct the arrow at the electrical impulses of the target's heart using long distance force field based adjustments. Of course, bob over there just picked up a bow for the first time & is almost as good & his caretaker/student "õ¤«°" just picked up the first p90 he ever saw in his life & is shooting 200/1800 after an afternoon if that, When the baseline is so far beyond legendary nobody is legendary.
  21. While true that the ranges are absurd even by the standards of their real world equivalents, the problem is more that the ranges are so absurdly far beyond their real world counterparts that they explode past the limitations of a tabletop rpg in ways that are capable of causing significant problems. I think most of us would prefer to pay for a ruleset that is designed to work without obvious "see it from space" problems.
  22. Your entire post is ridiculous & can be summarized as "The fact that the rules as written are mechanically incapable of being supported by a battlemat & cause severe problems with both a vtt as well as ToTM is a nonissue because those ways of playing are badwrongfun & should not be used and good gm will invent new rules to fix the system level problem everyone seems to agree is a bad thing." Your game of calvinball must be a blast
  23. It's good to see this getting discussion again, The ranges as written are capability shattering for battlemats, an absolutely herculean effort for vtts, & needlessly in the way in a manner that thwarts ToTM. For the sake of clarity, Chessex make mats in these sizes (1inch=2.54cm) The Battlemat: 26” x 23½” (66cm x 60cm) The Megamat: 34½” x 48” (88cm x 122cm) Short range on a pistol and primitive bow is roughly double the small one and still exceeds the long edge of the massive 4 foot (1.219m) long big even for warhammer gamers megamat. Again, that;'s for short range on bow & pistol. at 30/150 the sling is still consuming the normal battlemat and coming pretty close to doing the same with the warhammer double table scale megamat. According to wikipedia, the compact p90 "was designed as a compact but powerful firearm for vehicle crews, operators of crew-served weapons, support personnel, special forces, and counter-terrorist groups" with a total length of 50.5 cm (19.9 in) & a barrel length of 26.4 cm (10.4 in). Not only is it very much NOT a long anything like the weapons used on this list where it does not even show up. has a 200/1800m range allowing it to look at the problems short range pistol bow or sling cause with battlemats and say "hold my beer... watch this". As of this reddit thread roll20 maps have a maximum grid area of 150x100 squares according to the first reply & in the second one someone reports that big maps put a load on PC computers to the degree that they have had players report issues with maps in the 50x50 range. While a local VTT pushed out to a second monitor on the GM's computer like arkenforge can handle dramatically larger maps That says nothing about the fact that even 50x50 is huge for most premade maps and just counting 200 squares for short range any time reinforcements are coming/ambushes are set/etc let alone filling it in on the map places a burden on the GM. that rockets right past unreasonable deep into comical. Resizing the battlefield so squares jump from 1m to 10m is completely impossible on a battlemap without redrawing the entire battlefield & replacing any props with a 1:10/10:1 scale version. Because assets/objects/whatever are scaled individually to a desired size on a vtt the gm would need to build two different maps & possibly be trying to run two games at once if the scale changes from player/weapon to player/weapon. I'm not aware of any vtt that allows you to adjust the gridlines of map because zoom in/out keeps them to scale allowing them to display both the immediate fight zoomed in as well as a larger dungeon(or whatever) layout by zooming out. All of these weapons have short ranges that cause very real playability problems making their "long" range effectively a waste of ink that causes one or more problems regardless of if your game is ToTM, Battlemat, or VTT to the point where melee weapons may as well not even be listed. It's not the end of the world to use reasonable ranges like d20 modern weapons(5ft squares), rifts, or even shadowrun style weapon based range increments (also 5ft) squares but the game is so different mechanically that it's almost impossible to compare without explaining a very complex combat system using dice pools , opposed rolls, & various skill/equipment/siuational/environment modifiers. You can still have long & short ranges, or fate style vaguely descriptive ranges, you can even have "You are going to spend all day setting up this one shot you still might miss while the rest of the group was playing a completely different game as usual or your absolutely going to miss unless your shooting a uilding...a large one... with a missile" type ranges like shadowrun's top end ranges... but short ranges with specific values of "you'll probably never need long range" and equally specific long ranges of "not markedly different from controlling a reaper drone from across the planet" just creates problems that outweigh the fun no matter if yoou run ToTM battlemat or VTT games.
  24. pg131 Biological venom: "Venomous creatures include snakes, scorpions, frogs, and of course strange alien beasts. Most can be classified as a neurotoxin, but regardless of the poison type they all deal poison damage. Upon exposure the character must succeed at a DC 13 constitution save or suffer 1d8 poison damage. Every hour afterwards the afflicted character must pass another save or suffer an additional 1d8 poison damage. The poison is cured after 8 hours or when the afflicted passes a save." It's good that it has some teeth in a way that makes it actually be a little scary, but it should take more than 8 hours of running for your life evading a kull warrior kill team for 8 hours to be rid of things like this. If this was changed from 8 hours to "end of long rest where modern or better treatment can be given" or similar it shifts the problem from yet another survival but with the slow & gradual accumulation of slightly more than a couple staff weapon blasts worth of damage to a snag that needs to be managed while trying to fin/hide/disguise a shelter from those same kull so alice can treat bob because nobody knows how long the poison from that p4x-37542342 critter lasts for. pg121 Forced march: "travel for 8 hours in the day. They can push on beyond that limit, at the risk of exhaustion. For each additional hour of travel beyond 8 hours, the characters cover the distance shown in the Hour column for their pace, and each character must make a Constitution saving throw at the end of the hour. The DC is 10 + 1 for each hour past 8 hours. On a failed saving throw, a character suffers one level of exhaustion (see page @@). " This should include a footnote that high gravity worlds & poor atmospheric compositions like low o2/low pressure/etc can reduce that 8 hour time frame. pg104 foraging:"When in a [SUITABLE] natural environment you can feed a number of people up to your proficiency modifier with a single Hard (DC 20) survival check and 1d4 hours of work." I'm being a bit pedantic here but including it for completeness. Yea dc20 is nothing to sneeze at, but adding a word like suitable might not be a bad idea since the Chernobyl exclusion zone & noctis labyrinthus are both "natural environments." Pg108 archaeologist:"As an action you can cause a target emotional and mental distress by using cultural taboos against them. If the target fails a Wisdom save (DC 8+ Intelligence modifier + Proficiency Bonus) you may spend a number of Eureka points. The target is stunned for a number of rounds equal to the Eureka points spent. A target that passes its save is immune to this ability for 24 hours (and possibly very upset)." As written this affects a replicator, AI, Grizzly Bear, slime mold, carnivorous plant, or even godzilla sized dinosaur. Pretty sure most of those should not be subject to it.
  25. Don't be ridiculous, this is a game & There are multiple stargate tv series where a main character uses an alien/nontauri weapon despite joinnig the secret military agency. Not to mention... To take things one step further, even if we assume your words as the one true & only way to "play" the game, the design space is lacking for a GM to create new equipment that represents small & lateral improvements other than +1/+2/+3/etc, "more of a value that's already nearly always enough to nearly always be irrelevant", and "less of a value that's already low enough to nearly always be irrelevant" thereby getting hamstrung by the same problem you seem to be trying to dismiss as not relevant to the way it should be played.
  • Create New...