And Speaking of Vehicle Scale Weapons...

I've never really been satisfied with the way the official Star Wars D6 handles differences in scales when it comes to damage. In the First Edition rules, it was stated (roughly) that the listed damage of vehicle weapons would be doubled if used against a character-scale target. Thus, a 6D Quad Laser cannon would do 12D versus a humanoid target. This worked well enough—until you got to the reverse: a TIE Fighter with a 2D hull could rather easily be heavily damaged/destroyed by just 2 or 3 shots from a standard blaster rifle (which would do about 2D+2 damage in vehicle scale). Now, I know TIE fighters are supposed to suck, but.. not THAT much.

In the First Edition 'Rules Companion', the whole idea of 'die caps' were added. For example, a person using a 4D Damage blaster pistol against a landspeeder with a 2D Hull; If the attack hit, 4D were still rolled, but the 'cap' on the die was 3. Thus, anything OVER a 3 became a three. Instead of a max damage of 24, you'd have a max damage of 12. I didn't particularly like this- for one thing because there were a LOT of different scales. Character, Speeder, Fighter, Walker, Capital, etc., so you really had to use a chart to figure things out. Also, mathematically, the rolls for 'capped' weapons were skewed to always roll towards the upper end of their range: for instance, with a cap of three, if you rolled a 1, it counted as a 1; a two, it counted as a two, but if you rolled a 3, 4, 5 or 6, it counted as a three.

In all honesty, I don't even remember what 2nd Edition used to solve these scaling problems, because I had already kind-of worked out my own system by that time. I have been refining it ever since and pretty much now I use a very simple (in my opinion) way to handle damage between targets of different scales.

There are three scales in my system:

Character (things the general size of a human)
Vehicle (things from speeder-bike size to light freighters)
Capital (things from medium freighter size to star destroyers)

Theoretically, there is a 'gargantuan' size category, for things like the Death Star, but I can't recall a single time where I ever needed it in my own campaign.

Damage between scales is simple:

For every scale you go up from character-scale, the number of dice is divided by three

For instance

A heavy blaster rifle does
6D character scale damage
2D vehicle scale damage
0D+2 capital scale damage

An E-Web 'blaster cannon' does
9D character scale damage
3D vehicle scale damage
1D capital scale damage

A quad-laser cannon does
18D character scale damage
6D vehicle scale damage
2D capital scale damage

A turbolaser does
36D character scale damage
12D vehicle scale damage
4D capital scale damage

Of course, this means I've had to adjust the hull ratings of some of the vehicle slightly lower (for instance, the X-wing now has a 3D rather than a 4D hull, because... seriously, 4D was just a bit too much).

Again, I like this because there is some symmetry to it. For instance:

An 'average' human has a 2D strength and the average blaster pistol does 4D;
An 'average' starfighter has a 2D hull and the average laser pistol does 4D

Now, keep in mind there ARE different modifiers for HITTING things of different scales/sizes, this system only covers damage taken when something is hit. And obviously, if you're a player character, no matter how strong you are, you do NOT want to get hit with a turbolaser.

Vehicle-Scale Weapon Damage and Fire Control

As much as I love the Star Wars D6 system, there are things in it that require explanation/rationalization as to why they are so—explanation beyond simply ‘game balance mechanics’. Or at least they do for me. If a player asks me ‘why is this like this?” I like to have some kind of answer for them.

What I’ll be talking about in this post in particular are the combined mechanics of vehicle-scale weapon damage and fire control. Damage is pretty self explanatory—the damage the weapon dishes out. The more powerful it is, the more it does. Fire control represents an ‘assisted aiming’ system that most vehicle-scale weapons have—the weapon’s ‘targeting computer’, if you will.

We’ll start with damage—but before we do, I want to gloss over the whole problem D6 has with wildly varying stats. For instance, a basic ‘laser cannon’ is listed in various Star Warssource materials as doing anywhere from 1D to 5D damage. This seems to have no rhyme or reason to it—it was simply a number picked by whoever authored the source in question. For the purposes of moving this discussion forward, I’ve come up with my own ‘rules’ for standard damage per weapon type. Here is a brief example:

A ‘blaster cannon’ is lighter than a laser cannon and does 3D damage

A ‘laser cannon’ is the standard vehicle weapon and does 4D damage

A ‘heavy laser cannon’ is heavier (duh) than the standard and does 5D Damage

I like the symmetry here between vehicle scale weapons and character scale weapons. For instance, the standard blaster pistol does 4D character scale damage; the standard laser cannon does 4D vehicle-scale.

At this point, the system seems to work. Where the ‘wrinkle’ comes in is when you have ‘fire-linked’ weapons. For instance, the 2 laser cannons used by the TIE fighter. Logically, one might assume that if two 4D weapons are fired simultaneously, the resulting damage would be 8D. Yet, the stats in all of the sourcebooks list the damage of a ‘dual laser cannon’ as 5D. Just 1D higher than a single cannon. Similarly, the Falcon’s ‘quad laser cannon’ does not do 16D (4x4D), but ‘only’ 6D.

How to explain this…

The best that I have come up with is that ‘linked’ weapons do NOT fire simultaneously, but rather alternate to keep up a higher sustained rate of fire that a single weapon can not. Thus, a craft hit by a dual laser cannon isn’t (necessarily) hit by both blasts every time- but odds are you’re going to do more damage when you hit. Maybe one hit is square, and the other is just a graze, or maybe both blasts hit, but both are grazing shots. The D6 system is very abstract when it comes to damage anyway, meaning that a bad damage roll already DOES indicate a ‘grazing’ shot, while a good roll indicates a more solid hit. Thus (I feel), the adding of a D or two of damage helps reflect this AND keeps damage rolls in game balance’.

My general rule for this is as follows:

A ‘single’ weapon does its base damage

(example, a laser cannon does 4D)

A ‘dual’ weapon does its base damage + 1D

(example, a dual laser cannon does 5D)

A ‘triple’ weapon does its base damage +1D+2

(example a triple laser cannon does 5D+2)

A ‘quad’ weapon does its base damage +2D

(example, a quad laser cannon does 6D)

I also feel rather ‘justified’ in this explanation by what we see in the films. Weapons DO seem to alternate their fire. TIE cannons alternate. X-Wings seem to fire their lasers in sequence. The Falcon’s quad guns fire 2 x 2, etc.

Now, all this having been said, how does Fire Control fit into all of this? Well, I am of the opinion that Fire Control is NOT just the targeting computers on the ship, but also a factor of the rate of fire that vehicle weapons put out. In vehicle combat- particularly ‘dogfighting’- it is VERY difficult to hit a moving target. This is why cannons mounted on modern aircraft are of the ‘automatic’ variety. They fire a ‘stream’ of rounds at an enemy in order to increase their chances of hitting with a few of those round. The same is shown in the Star Wars films.

So, for me, the fire-control of a vehicle is part computer, part rate of fire. Say your average TIE fighter has a fire-control rating of 2D. In my opinion, 1D of that would be the actual assistance of the computer, the other 1D would be from the ‘burst fire’ effect. A vehicle with a 1D fire control would have only a basic target computer and rely almost entirely on the burst effect to help them hit targets. A vehicle with a 3D fire control would rely more on its computers (providing 2D) and less on its burst effect (which still just provides 1D). This has no actual effect on the mechanics of the system—you would never roll 1D for computer then 1D for burst effect, but I do like to THINK of the system in this manner.

Also, if you consider that burst effect and want to add some more depth to your vehicle combat system, you could allow different fire modes on weapons that could alter both the weapon damage and fire-control. This is a concept I always enjoyed in the old X-Wing and TIE Fighter video games.

In these games, if you had a craft with dual weapons you could switch between the standard alternating shot to a ‘dual fire’ mode, where both weapons fired at the same time. The effect in the game was that your rate of fire dropped (it took longer between shots for both weapons to recharge) and with it your chances of landing a shot, but when (if) you hit, you did more damage. With a quad-firing weapon (such as an X-Wing or TIE interceptor) you actually had 3 fire modes. The ‘standard’ was firing alternating pairs of weapons. But you could also switch to a mode where each laser fired individually, in turn. This upped your rate of fire (and chances to hit), but lowered the damage when you hit). Likewise, you could switch all four weapons to fire simultaneously. This resulted in a very slow rate of fire, less chances to hit, but more damage if you did hit solidly.

In game terms, this could work simply as follows:

For dual-weapons:

Alternating Mode (standard): Damage normal; Fire Control Normal

Dual-Mode: Damage +1D; Fire Control -1D

For triple-weapons:

Alternating Mode (standard): Damage normal; Fire Control Normal

Triple-Mode: Damage +1D; Fire Control -1D

For quad-weapons:

Alternating Mode (standard): Damage normal; Fire Control Normal

Single-Mode: Damage -1D; Fire Control +1D

Quad-Mode: Damage +1D; Fire Control -1D

Star Wars 1313

So, LucasArts is coming out with a new Star Wars video game. It is called "Star Wars 1313".

The official blurb on the game is as follows:

"LucasArts is diving into the most dangerous depths of the Star Wars criminal underworld with their newly announced internally developed videogame franchise, Star Wars 1313. Players will take control of a lethal bounty hunter in the never-before-explored expanses of Level 1313, deep below the surface of Coruscant. Using an arsenal of exotic weaponry to hunt down marks, the player must also uncover the truth surrounding a criminal conspiracy in this third-person cinematic action adventure game. It's a bold new take on the Star Wars galaxy, intended for mature audiences.

Star Wars 1313 emphasizes epic set pieces and fast-paced combat with a mortal, well-equipped hero who cannot rely on supernatural powers to survive his dangerous environment. The game benefits from an integrated development approach that brings together artists from across the entire Lucasfilm organization, including LucasArts, Industrial Light & Magic, Lucasfilm Animation Ltd. and Skywalker Sound."

A few things about this...

First of all, I'm pretty sure that 1313 is (also) in reference to Boba Fett, who (as a youth) used the alias CT-1313. So, if I had to hazard a guess, you'll be playing as Boba Fett, though perhaps before he was widely known. This is just a guess, however... we'll see.

Second of all, I applaud the idea of  a Star Wars game where you can (finally) play as something other than a Jedi Knight. I have long championed the idea that Star Wars (at least the original trilogy) was not ALL about the Jedi. I'm betting the number of folks who love Han and Boba Fett greatly outnumber the Anakin and Luke fans. And yet this has been almost entirely ignored by every Star Wars game, from Knights of the Old Republic to the Jedi Knight series to the execrable Force Unleashed. Okay, so maybe Kyle Katarn did use blasters and the like, but only until he developed his Force powers. About the only true exception to this has been those segments of the "Old Republic" MMO where you can play as a trooper, spy, bounty hunter, smuggler, etc. Its about time that some attention be given to the REST of the Star Wars universe.

That being said, the whole 'lethal bounty hunter' and 'intended for mature audiences' thing gives me bad vibes. They're going for a dark, edgy Star Wars. Well...to me, Star Wars just isn't dark and edgy, and if you make it that way, it aint Star Wars anymore. But then, dark and edgy and mature is what all the 12-year-old gamers demand these days, right? I'm going to be disappointed (but not surprised) if the 'hero' of this game turns out to be an anti-hero. I don't mind a more 'gritty' hero (like Han Solo), but wouldn't it be nice if you could decide for yourself if you're gonna be a 'hero' or an 'anti-hero', instead of having the 'cool' option forced on you?

I also have a few qualms about the statement that the game will take place on level 1313 on Coruscant. To me, that suggests a single planetary location. I hope they don't limit it to just that- not in a wide-open universe like Star Wars. While I realize you can have a variety of different looks and settings on a planet as epic as Coruscant, I think it also flows against the Star Wars 'feel' to confine yourself to just one place.

As far as the 'shooter' aspect goes- I happen to like shooter games, so I'm okay with the whole idea of one set in a Star Wars universe. But truth be told, I would have MUCH preferred to see that implemented in a Battlefront 3 rather than this game. In fact, with the success of so many FPS games today, you'd think a Star Wars version- one fans have been clamoring for for years- would be a no-brainer. But what do I know. I'm only their target audience.

And finally, on a note of optimism, I hope that this game DOES do well, and that my concerns about it are unfounded. Why? Because maybe the producers will see that a Star Wars game WITHOUT the Jedi as the primary focus can sell. Maybe some day this will lead them to make a game I would KILL to play- a sandboxy, RPG Star Wars Smuggler game. Dude, seriously that would rock.

TUESDAY TANGENT: Top Ten Dragons

 

Like many sci-fi, fantasy geeks, I love dragons. Below are a list of my top ten dragons appearing on film or TV. They are purely subjective choices, of course, but I'll endeavor to briefly explain why each was chosen.

10. Toothless (How to Train your Dragon, 2010)

A 'silly' movie, yes, but Toothless was awesome. Who WOULDN'T want a pet/companion like him. He stands out as a very unique design of dragon, too- not quite like any others. In fact, that is one of the things I like about the movie in general, the variety and creativity of the various dragons.

9. "Red Death" (How to Train Your Dragon, 2010)

The primary villain of this otherwise lighthearted film, the Red Death was truly terrifying in scale and appearance. The scenes of its aerial battle with Toothless were awesome, cartoony or no. And again, the design of the beast was unique- like nothing I'd ever seen before.

8. Tiamat (Dungeons & Dragons Cartoon, 1983)

A recurring nemesis in the Saturday morning cartoon, Tiamat is an awesome design. I especially liked her five-headed design, with each head able to spew a different kind of breath- from acid to fire to ice to poison gas and lightning. It was cool that she looked and 'performed' according to her stats in the D&D game. Unfortunately, she was also a bit wussified, be defeated rather easily by the kids in the show on several occasions.

7. Sokurah's Dragon (The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, 1958)

A true classic of stop-motion animation, this guard beast for the evil wizard Sokurah was probably one of the best examples of that art- as was its epic battle with a giant Cyclops at the end of the film. This dragon was unique in that it was wingless- but to me, this gave it an interesting 'eastern' look, which fit well with the Arabian Nights setting.

6. Male Dragon (Reign of Fire, 2002)

Though I had a lot of problems with the film itself, I could not fault it on the design and implementation of the dragons. They were truly terrifying, and none more so than the gigantic 'Male' of the species. The scene where he burns down the survivor's castle was awesome, as was the final confrontation in the ruins of London.

5. Hungarian Horntail (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, 2005)

The screen version of the show-down between Harry and this dragon was a lot better than what I had cooked up in my imagination while reading the book. The whole battle over the castle, with the dragon scrabbling over slate tiles on the high towers...well, it was just awesome, and really drove home the 'seriousness' of the tournament in a way the scene in the book didn't quite achieve.

4. Draco (Dragonheart, 1996)

One of the earlier CGI dragons, Draco was truly awesome for his time. Unfortunately, he hasn't' aged well. The CGI looks pretty mediocre now (but still better than almost everything you see on the SyFy channel). What made Draco truly memorable was his personality and (of course) voice acting by Sean Connery. That come-hither "Helooo" when he spies the sheep. Classic.

3. Malificent (Sleeping Beauty, 1959)

Okay, so she's a sorceress changed into a Dragon, I don't care. Malificent is one of the most terrifying dragons ever brought to the screen, and her battle with Prince Philip at the end of the movie was epic- I mean, she actually died by having a sword stabbed into her heart. That wasn't common for Disney movies.

2. Smaug (The Hobbit, 1977)

I remember seeing this dragon for the first time on TV when I was a little kid. The scene with Smaug scared me. A lot. The voice is what really sold it- low, rumbling- seemingly bored, but seething with barely contained anger. Then there were the eyes, shining like twin spotlights as they scanned the room to find little Bilbo Baggins. Yeah. Smaug was memorable- and I can't wait to see what they do with him in the new hobbit movie.

1. Vermithrax Pejorative (Dragonslayer, 1981)

"The Worm from Thrace who makes things worse". Freaking awesome name. I own the DVD to this and I am still amazed at how well the animation of the dragon holds up. I'd say that it has held up MUCH better than some CGI beasts (sorry Draco). For me, old Vermithrax is the best dragon yet presented on the screen- the scenes of her flying through the clouds are still awe inspiring and her bat-like crawling through her caves is still creepy and terrifying. A truly classic design and implementation.

May the Fourth be With You!

May the Fourth! Star Wars Day! I hope you're all having a fun one. Hard to believe it was 35 years ago (give a few days) that it all began. Amazing to think how this movie and the people who made it changed the face of entertainment for all time. Fun to think how it changed my life personally. I'm thankful for all the great times I've had and friendships I've made because of the mutual love of these films (yes, even the prequels). Talk to you later!

Sand People

I've probably already talked about this, but if I have, I've forgotten where. Oh well, it's my blog and I can be redundant if I want to! In any case...

The Tusken raiders (or Sand People) are an element of Star Wars that I, for whatever reason, found (and still find) fascinating. Initially, I think it just had to do with the way they looked with their fearsome, wrapped heads with goggle and gas-mask like protrusions jutting through.

My interest in the Sand People only increased in 1978, after I moved to South Dakota and began to learn more about Native American plains society. Even as a kid, I began to draw parallels between the cultures- and to recognize bits of North-African/Middle-East nomad in there as well (especially visible in the design of Tusken rifles).

There was very little 'official' information about Tusken Raiders until the Star Wars D6 roleplaying game came out in 1987. Here, in the Star Wars Sourcebook, I was treated to the basic stats and information for Tusken Raiders, but also to a short story entitled "Song for a Fallen Nomad". In this, we see a young Moisture Farmer, caught out in the desert after dark. He stumbles upon the scene of a Tusken raider singing to a dieing elder, revealing a strange, spiritual and beautiful side to these fierce nomads. This stuck with me over the years and totally colored the way I viewed the race.

What really gave the Sand People a 'face' for me, though, was the portrayal of one of them- a Tusken Jedi/Shaman- by one of the players in my long-running Star Wars campaign. He too was inspired by the idea of Sand People not as mindless savages, but as the a noble and even wise people. Well, most of them, at least.

As I got older, I was exposed to different 'brands' of Sci-fi, including Frank Herbert's Dune. It was VERY easy to relate the Sand People to the Fremen of that novel- and indeed, in the video game "Knights of the Old Republic", someone else must have made the same association. In this game, for the first time, we are given a glimpse of a possible history of the Tusken, speaking of a time when Tatooine was not so harsh and a belief that the Tusken, if they are strong, will once again inherit a 'garden world'. So it was pretty easy for me to add on yet another layer to my concept of the race, going so far as to have Tusken raiders have remote 'holy places' in the deep desert (picture Ayers Rock), where they gathered in larger numbers and even had huge caverns filled with water.

And then the prequel movies came around. Now, as I've said many times, I have reached a place where I mostly like the prequels. But I have a few peeves about them, and how the Tusken are handled is one of them. Particularly, when Anakin slays an entire tribe of them, the whole situation is just 'written off' by the reactions of characters to it. Namely, Padme seems to instantly forgive Anakin of this horrendous crime. To me, this suggests an attitude of "Oh, well, its okay you wiped out the entire tribe, because they're all bad." Even in a black-and-white universe like Star Wars, it seems harsh to suggest that an entire species is just bad and its 'okay' to kill them. But that's what I got out of it.

This attitude seemed to have been carried over into the Star Wars d20 system, where Tusken raiders are (in one edition at least), prohibited from being used as a Player Character species. In short, they're supposed to exist only as 'monsters'. I think that really sells them short.

Rebel Troopers

So, I guess that I’m in the minority here, based upon talks I’ve had over the years with friends and other Star Wars fans. I always liked the way the Rebel troopers looked in Episode IV. You know, the ones on Leia’s ship? (figure 1 in attached picture)- the blue shirts, the vests and the big, white, clam-shell lookin’ helmets? The first time I saw them was actually BEFORE the movies, on some Star Wars trading cards. I thought they were cool looking and I actually expected that there would be action figures released of them. I mean, they made action figures of ‘Hammerhead’ and ‘Snaggletooth’ and they were only in the movie for a couple seconds. It only made sense, right?- that is if you ever wanted to have a ‘good guy army’ versus ‘bad guy army’. But no such luck. Not until the mid-90’s.

Why do I like the design of the Rebel Trooper uniform? Well, it’s difficult to say, really. It just appealed to me aesthetically. 

Okay, maybe the helmet was a little large, but it seemed mostly functional to me. In fact, the whole uniform did. They were ‘recognizable’ as soldiers, but just sci-fi enough to satisfy me. They also stood apart from Stormtroopers, emphasizing the difference between the two armies in no uncertain terms. Stormtroopers were intimidating and faceless. Rebel troopers looked a bit under-equipped (which helped give them that ‘rag tag underdog’ feel), but more importantly, they were individuals- young and old men fighting for a cause.

I also liked the variation we saw in  Episode IV. Different troop types had different uniforms- again something to differentiate from the Imperials. There were the flight-crew/tech guys (figure 2) and the dapper, OD Green clad ceremonial guards (figure 3). Even as a kid, I could appreciate the effort that went into making different folks look unique, but still part of the same ‘family’. It was just another way that made the movies feel grounded, despite their fantastic story.

With the growth of the Expanded Universe, the Rebel trooper has been featured a bit more prominently- namely in comic books, but also in a few gaming supplements.

Figure 4 shows some of the ‘classic’ blue, black and white guys duking it out with stormtroopers. I like the addition of bulky ‘ammo packs’ to the one trooper’s uniform, again giving them a real ‘soldier’ feel.

Figure 5 shows some desert troops involved in a battle on tatooine. Can’t say I’m really a big fan of the armor, though. They seem to have shoulder guards, which is cool, but… they also seem to just be wearing a T-shirt. Why do away wth the vest? Even if it doesn’t provide any protection, its good for carrying gear.

Figure 6 shows an artists conception of ‘evolved’ rebel troopers. I like the more practical colors of the uniforms and helmets, but I’m not a huge fan of the face-plates. I can see where they’d be functional in certain areas, but they make the troopers seem a lot more…faceless-literally and figuratively. Plus, we all know that face-plates are the surest way to invite enemies to disguise themselves as your own troops. I mean, that’s in the Evil Overlord handbook.

Now, as far as my own concept of the ‘evolved’ Rebel trooper, the figures along the right side of the image are pretty much it. I found the base soldier image somewhere online and modified it color-wise. They have that similar look to the classic Rebel trooper, but with a bit more military oomph and functionality. They also incorporate a blast-vest in addition to the helmet. For some reason, I still like the blue-and-grey color scheme the best. To me, it still says ‘Rebel’ (or in this case, New Republic).