TheRPGSite

Ok, confession time. In addition to cross lightings and lynchings, I like gurps vehicles, the third edition one.

Yes, its a pain to be a vehicle in it, but by god when you're done you know damn near everything you could ever need to know about the vehicle you've designed. Mass, power output in kilowatts, available space, the weight, size and power consumption of sub assemblies, fuel endurance, cost, how many men it can carry/support, everything.

The level of detail in gurps vehicles was really complete, and with it your cplyers could even scavenge parts, power sources, fuel, ammo, etc.

Well, having read thru my used copy of UT4e, I was initially pleased to see that there were some UT vehicles.

Then I saw the "stats" fo them and was crushed. I mean the stats were very, very limited and vague in the extreme.

Subassemblies? Fuhgeddabouddit! Weapon arcs? Ha!

Even traveller 4, a disaster by most reckonings, had far more detailed vehicles in it.

MAybe they think some people like a near total lack of detail, but I'm worried that this doesn't look good for gurps gearheads.


Anyway, how much detail do you want in vehicles, equipment, weapons, etc, in your systems? Do you like a level equal to gurps vehicles or do you want the barest notes like armor, hp, turn radius, weight and the weapons caries, but not the arcs or mount details?

What vehicle/construction systems do you like and why? What level of detail do they posess?

I like the ship design in Serenity, especially the "what went wrong" table.

Basically you make your ship with the normal character creation rules, they give advice on using stats from civil war era ships and some of the terminolgy is changed/altered to better fit but at the end of the day the ship becomes another member of the party.

I find the Mekton Zeta Advanced Technical Manual to be my perfect level of vehicle detail. I'll just sit around and build hardsuits and sub-orbital fighter-bombers and the tele-operated drones for the Porcupine Remote Assault Suit all day.

When I'm not engaging in over-ambitious conversion projects, of course.

Back when I still played Cyberpunk 2020, I was designing a sourcebook for CP style street racing, sort of Fast & the Furious meets Car Wars. It was insanely crunchy, but you could feed in real world vehicle data and the performance stats coming out the far end were accurate to a percent or two to actual road test results.

I liked GURPS vehicles 3e to a point.  However it had the annoying and niggling problem of being unable to simulate the effects of a great many sf vehicles such as the ships from Mote In God's eye that had fuel dependant engines capable of accelrating at 3g for hours on end.

Also, GURPS Vehicles had weird effects on small vehicles because they went with base weight + weight per kilowatt (or whatever) instead of having a rule to reflect reduced efficiencies in smaller engines etc.

I'm sorry Mr. Pulver, you're brilliant, you really are but I'm holding a quarter pound Cox 0.5 one cylinder gas engine in my hand and it breaks your masterpiece vehicle design system like a twig.

I love detail, but listing a price for seatbelts?  C'mon, let's not be silly, you shouldn't even be adding up the price of the parts to find the total price.  It just doesn't work that way.

I dare you to find an item that actually costs what the sum of its parts do.

But yes, I think this rant illustrates that I am indeed a detail freak and GURPS Vehicles never quite went far enough for me.

I like a lower amount of detail, largely because I just don't want to spend the time statting out every little thing.

I do admit, however, to having had a good time tweaking my character's SMG in a Shadowrun 3rd game.  The only downside to it was not munchkining the system.  When there are lots of nifty little options I tend to look to what's most efficient, which spoils a bit of the fun.

When I was a teenager, I was a real "gearhead" with TRAVELLER - used to make all sorts of ship designs with the old High Guard design system.

 As I got older....I switched to other game systems, first to the FASA version  STAR TREK RPG, then to 1st edition GURPS.  With the FASA TREK game , I did a few ship designs  - but that level of design never appealed to me as much as it had when I was a teenager.

 Think I've done an almost complete transition in gaming style as a GM. I worry more about the plots, story and characters  (especially characters and NPCs) than about the machines they use.  Vehicles and machines just get the characters into the story - so I just worry about the numbers that might impact combat or the plot . OR I put up a question on a gaming forum and someone else who is more into match appears these days happily willing to work out the numbers. (see a bunch of old threads on the SJG forums fall of 2005  about Marcucci vs. I.M.S.  Margaret Thatcher  to see what I mean )


 Now I put that same level of  detail into making characters and NPCs. The GCA (Gurps Character Assistant) has become my favorite tool before a game session. It almost makes "math" fun.

- Ed C.

I like using Tri-Stat BESM to build my spaceships!

What, all vehicles? Sure. It's my favorite system to do so in.

Quote from: Dominus NoxAnyway, how much detail do you want in vehicles, equipment, weapons, etc, in your systems? Do you like a level equal to gurps vehicles or do you want the barest notes like armor, hp, turn radius, weight and the weapons caries, but not the arcs or mount details?

What vehicle/construction systems do you like and why? What level of detail do they posess?

Well, I like the Savage Worlds sytem, just because it is concise and simple, but especially because it uses the same rules for all vehicles (and the same system for using them as the rest of the game).

For me it depends on what I am running or playing.  Cyberpunk games with a heavy focus on combat and vehicle use need some detail.  But a Vampire game revolving around the politics element does not.

I used to love the Car Wars game, constantly building and rebuilding vehicles trying to squeeze out every thing I could for an advantage.

Ah well....

Quote from: KoltarWhen I was a teenager, I was a real "gearhead" with TRAVELLER - used to make all sorts of ship designs with the old High Guard design system.

 As I got older....I switched to other game systems, first to the FASA version  STAR TREK RPG, then to 1st edition GURPS.  With the FASA TREK game , I did a few ship designs  - but that level of design never appealed to me as much as it had when I was a teenager.

 Think I've done an almost complete transition in gaming style as a GM. I worry more about the plots, story and characters  (especially characters and NPCs) than about the machines they use.  Vehicles and machines just get the characters into the story - so I just worry about the numbers that might impact combat or the plot . OR I put up a question on a gaming forum and someone else who is more into match appears these days happily willing to work out the numbers. (see a bunch of old threads on the SJG forums fall of 2005  about Marcucci vs. I.M.S.  Margaret Thatcher  to see what I mean )


 Now I put that same level of  detail into making characters and NPCs. The GCA (Gurps Character Assistant) has become my favorite tool before a game session. It almost makes "math" fun.

- Ed C.

Jeezus, for someone who claims to have me on their IL and therefore can't read my posts you sure darken my threads a lot.

Kind of dumb, replying to threads when you can't, supposedly, even read them.

Quote from: Dominus NoxAnyway, how much detail do you want in vehicles, equipment, weapons, etc, in your systems?

In systems where vehicles aren't the primary focus of the game (e.g., most RPGs), I like as little mechanical detail as possible. I treat vehicles in such games as movie directors and writers treat them (i.e., as scenery).

In systems where vehicles are the primary focus of the game (e.g., Robotech, Heavy Gear, etc), I like robust mechanics to represent them in actual play -- not crazy calculus-driven stuff, mind you, but at least some workable miniature combat rules.

Quote from: Dominus NoxJeezus, for someone who claims to have me on their IL and therefore can't read my posts you sure darken my threads a lot.

Kind of dumb, replying to threads when you can't, supposedly, even read them.

Three things :

• You're a twat.
• He might just have been responding to other people in the thread without reading your post.
• You're a twat.

Now I realise that points 1 and 3 are identical, but I really felt the statement needed the extra emphasis.

Here is my take: Most of us are not engineers. Those of us who happen to be engineers probably don't want to 'work' while playing a game.  Even those freaks who are engineers who LIKE doing games that reflect their job are not working on a significantly high tech level than the rest of us.

Ergo: I no longer have the desire or energy to play with every fiddly bit of engineering gobblygook a designer can plug into a game. I'd rather be, you know, gaming.


In other words: Yes, I am painfully aware that firefly has about as much logic and internal consistency as Calvinball.  Yet, oddly, as long as I chose not to wince at every bit of foolishness that Joss Whedon feels compelled to stick in there I can enjoy it just fine, and even pimp it out to non-fans as an entertaining show/diversion.  Just like I can enjoy a good game of Calvinball.


Its a bad sign when the tech/logic of Farscape seems absolutely HARD compared to what goes on in Firefly/Serenity.


EDIT:::: 4: You're a Twat.

Quote from: SpikeHere is my take: Most of us are not engineers. Those of us who happen to be engineers probably don't want to 'work' while playing a game.  Even those freaks who are engineers who LIKE doing games that reflect their job are not working on a significantly high tech level than the rest of us.

Ergo: I no longer have the desire or energy to play with every fiddly bit of engineering gobblygook a designer can plug into a game. I'd rather be, you know, gaming.

I agree. But I'm a 100 octane petrolhead :)
With the system I was building, the crunch was in the background at vehicle generation stage. Actual play would be using some real world factors like top speed and accelleration (which is a stone cold b'stard to calculate, btw) and some abstract stats like handling and grip.

Quote from: O'BorgThree things :

• You're a twat.
• He might just have been responding to other people in the thread without reading your post.
• You're a twat.

Now I realise that points 1 and 3 are identical, but I really felt the statement needed the extra emphasis.

 O'Borg is quite correct.

 If a thread is started by one person but 6 to 7 people comment on it and do  responses...then I only need to read 7 of those 8 people to get an idea  of what the thread is about.  Plus folks have put the OP's comments in quote boxes.

 But yeah he is on my IL.
 The other day  I was thinking the word  Twit applied  , one letter different works just as well.

This "level of Detail" I might get accused of when writing up characters these days. Check some of the other threrads and see what I mean.

- Ed C.

Calculus?  Engineers?  FUCK BUT SOME PEOPLE NEED TO SUE THEIR MATH TEACHERS.

Inquisitor needs a calculator because you have to divide by 5?

Rolemaster needs a calculator because you have to divide by 5 and add a list of numbers?

Chivalry and Sorcery needs a calculator, I don't know why, adding double digit numbers I guess.

Now GURPS vehicles does need a calculator if you want more than one or two significant digits in your cube roots (I know I do), but it certainly doesn't involve any calculus.  I think Fire Fusion and Steel might have.  Interpolation might be elementary calculus, I'm not sure, I doubt it though.  I've never taken calculus but I didn't need a sidebar to tell me how to derive intermediary points on a chart.

WHAT DO THEY TEACH THEM IN THESE FUCKING SCHOOLS ANYHOW?

David J,
 At our store we have a copy of the GURPS Vehicle builder that was meant for GURPS 3/e  - its still sitting on the shelf. (actually it may be a replacement for one we sold)

 Even though I am running 4th edition - do you think it might be a useful purchase? I admit I'm not the greatest with math at times.  The GCA has made character design "Fun" , would the vehicle builder also have that effect ?

- Ed C.

Quote from: David JohansenWHAT DO THEY TEACH THEM IN THESE FUCKING SCHOOLS ANYHOW?

Mostly sex from what I hear.

Regardless: I am a math head, really I am. I do hard shit in my head pretty much instinctively. That doesn't mean I want to spend four hours fiddling with seat belt costs per part per seat when designing a vehicle for use in a game.  I've played with Fire Fusion & Steel, I've done Guns, Guns, Guns...

But that was when I was a lonely geek with nothing but time on my hands. Now I just want to fucking game, not do 'homework'.  I want useful, not exacting. I don't have TIME or ENERGY for exacting. And it has FUCK ALL to do with how hard math is or is not.  Hell, for all the bitching, Gurps character creation typically only includes basic addition and subtraction.... that is totalling up point costs. Guess what, Buckwheat, it ain't about the math, it's the workload. The man hours. The time it takes to do all that shit that is better spent rolling dice and kicking ass in the imaginary world of your run of the mill RPG world.

And I say that as a diehard GURPS fan.

Spikey ,
 You can play in my GURPS game any time.
 I like a player that knows his math better than I do.  I also keep a few "stock" characters hand on my GCA that only need minor "tweaks" to be usable as player characters.  These "tweaks" take less than 15 minutes or so before a game - then we're ready to go.

Actually had to use that option twice in the past 2 years.

- E.W.C.

In a RPG detail is really needed, much more than in a wargame because it rpgs you're going to see players trying to scavange the powerplant from that grav tank to repair their damaged starship with, or even bolt that grav tank's cannon onto a piece of heavy construction equipment tto make an improvised war machine. Knowing how much juice a powerplant puts out, what it runs on and weighs, etc. is important to role playing games where unimaginable things happen all the time.

Quote from: Dominus NoxIn a RPG detail is really needed, much more than in a wargame. . .

You were speaking of mechanical detail in your first post. Niow you're talking about purely descriptive detail. There is a difference. My first post herein addressed your first query.

In wargames mechanical detail is an absolute necessity as it's a given that tracking tabletop movement/troop formation/reaction/morale reaction/etc are fundamental parts of game play and, thus, must be detailed mechanically.

This is not true of RPGs. Heck, it wan't true of most RPGs until this century rolled around. The most notable exception would be the vehicle-centric RPG/wargame hybrids that I mentioned earlier (e.g., Mechwarrior, Heavy Gear, etc).

All of that said, actual descriptive detail has always been an important part of RPGs and I treasure it very much. The thing is, simply being descriptive doesn't require mechanical backing (if it did, you'd need to be a mathmetician to read a novel).

Koltar: Sadly, Ohio is way the heck off my beat.

Nox: Again, I don't need to know the exact output of a tank fusion engine vs. some sort of unobtanium starship engine to handle hair brained jury rigging schemes.  Jury rigging moves at the speed of plot, if you will.  

I've on occasion had times where the players came up with some fantastic scheme and I have turned to the rules all set to provide the 'official word' that they had succeeded... only to discover that there was no way, by the rules, they could ever succeed with what they had.   Like a fool I will announce same, watch everyone's faces fall, their enjoyment crushed and realize that it is not the fault of the players or the game, but that I, as the GM, must occasionally use 'handwavium' and my ability to apply my own judgement rather than cold rules.  Sheer density of rules can make these sitiuations MORE common, not less. I'd rather have more abstraction for vehicles and salvaging, and I have found it in a variety of places.  Abstraction gives me the wiggle room for more enjoyable play.

Quote from: KoltarDavid J,
 At our store we have a copy of the GURPS Vehicle builder that was meant for GURPS 3/e  - its still sitting on the shelf. (actually it may be a replacement for one we sold)

 Even though I am running 4th edition - do you think it might be a useful purchase? I admit I'm not the greatest with math at times.  The GCA has made character design "Fun" , would the vehicle builder also have that effect ?

- Ed C.

The problem with GURPS Vehicles isn't the math it's the anal retentive focus on details that don't really add anything useful from a game perspective.  Those who've seen Galactic Adventures will know that I think it's pretty futile to try differentiating power plant and fuel types.  Seriously, they'll use the appropriate power plant for a system of the size they're building and the difference between two fuel types is generally counterbalanced by the weight of the storage system.

Would I use the software?  Yeah, probably if I had it, I use GURPS Character Assistant pretty heavily for pregenerated characters.  I prefer to make characters with the book and a pencil, but people can read a printout better than my handwriting.

Nope, focus is on the bare minimum detail for in play. I do like some sort of consistent process or system applied for some semblance of difference between different equipment.

Ideal overall design system BESM or Dream Pod 9's VCS (free version here (http://www.dp9.com/Funhouse/Aids_HG.htm)) for use with Silhouette. The Mecha d20 SRD (http://www.guardiansorder.com/games/d20/srd/) is pretty good too, being pretty much BESM's Own Big Mecha on 11 for d20. All are effects based design systems as opposed to trying to model some sort of fictional reality. The BESM systems were designed mostly by David Pulver so he's not *just* GURPS Vehicles level detail.

Nods to CT book 2 & the presentation and writing in TNE's FFS. I also appreciate FFS's unrealized attempt at allowing for multiple technology assumptions and settings.

Never gotten into GURPS Vehicles and mixing Imperial and Metric in the same design system tends to make my brain hurt for Modern-Science Fiction gaming. Gun design is for gun bunnies and most games don't differ enough to warrent much design work or detail. In general most "reality" based systems don't hold up to reality as much as they claim to (if gearhead arguments and tweaking are any indication) and for me are too much work and detail for little added gain when in play.

Oh and wargames can have much more overall levels of detail. See "monster wargames" and the ones where you have to track every barrel of oil, roll of toilet paper and such for an entire theater level campaign. :raise:

Quote from: Dominus NoxAnyway, how much detail do you want in vehicles, equipment, weapons, etc, in your systems? Do you like a level equal to gurps vehicles or do you want the barest notes like armor, hp, turn radius, weight and the weapons caries, but not the arcs or mount details?

See, I don't like GURPS Vehicles for the reasons you do. All of those figures...volume, space, kilowatts, horsepower...might as well be arbitrary numbers. There's just enough real world math that goes into it to make the numbers seem right (also called a Goldilocks number), but it's not a solid enough basis. If it's going to be an abstraction it might as well be...an abstraction.

QuoteWhat vehicle/construction systems do you like and why? What level of detail do they posess?

SilCore. Vehicles are comprised of an armor rating, size rating, manueverability score, movement modes, some weapons, and some perks and flaws and that's it. That's all I really need anyway. My theory is that if I'm going to modify or ignore things like volume, space, etc. the system might as well too. Otherwise, my next favorite is Mekton Zeta Plus because while it has subassemblies and space and weight and all that fun stuff...it allows me to ignore them when I want to.

Quote from: Dominus NoxIn a RPG detail is really needed, much more than in a wargame because it rpgs you're going to see players trying to scavange the powerplant from that grav tank to repair their damaged starship with, or even bolt that grav tank's cannon onto a piece of heavy construction equipment tto make an improvised war machine. Knowing how much juice a powerplant puts out, what it runs on and weighs, etc. is important to role playing games where unimaginable things happen all the time.

You don't need a detailed vehicle design system for that, you just need enough information and internal consistency in the game world itself. All a vehicle design system needs to do is represent the vehicle in whatever mechanical terms it needs. Everything else is just fluff.