Cinematic Vs Rules/Realism in Space Combat

[StephenBirks]

@SSiron

Moving around in starship combat is the responsibility of a vessel’s Helmsman, and typically requires a Task, though these Tasks have a Difficulty of 0 under normal circumstances.

Whilst from a narrative point of view you are moving constantly in combat, from a mechanical point of view you are not. Requiring a task roll to functionally not do anything but overcome a narrative effect reduces agency, be it rolled by the GM or the Players.

@SSiron

Unless you are trying to argue that all ships are sentient and can move on their own without needing to be directed by a pilot

No and you are being ridiculous and condescending. I argue that minor and non-mechanical effects that serve only a narrative function do not need to stop the flow of the game and their outcome be dictated by a roll of the dice when it does not serve any purpose.

@SSiron

…then having said enemy with forward-facing weapons (without even spending threat) … does in fact make their tactics and strategy meaningless.

Either argue that it is meaningless when threat is spent, or meaningless when it is not. Please do not contest my argument by suddenly changing the parameters. My argument was specifically that a GM using the same options available to players, using actions or resources to counter player actions, is not meaningless.

@SSiron

A PC ship behind an enemy craft with forward cannons like a Klingon Bird of Prey, (as in the examples) in that position would require a helm task from the BoP. At the very least, an Attack Pattern roll.

I again contest that this is an Advantage/Complication that the players will have had to create, and thus will require the NPC to negate that Advantage/Complication. I would not allow a simple Attack Pattern to overcome it. Attack Pattern grants it’s own benefit, the GM should spend 2 Threat to create their own advantage that the Attack Pattern has countered the player’s tactic. Otherwise the GM could do a straight Create advantage roll that if successful has countered the player’s tactic.

You argue previously that if a mechanic is present, then it should be used, but you seem to be disregarding of the Advantage/Complication mechanic.

[Dytrrnikl]

…A PC ship behind an enemy craft with forward cannons like a Klingon Bird of Prey, (as in the examples) in that position would require a helm task from the BoP. At the very least, an Attack Pattern roll.

I’ve got to speak up about the above assertion, one in which I must disagree. There are no facings in STA Conflicts, whether it’s Starship or Character. STA does not have firing arcs/facings specified as part of ship stats or the Starship Conflict mechanics. The first example you listed above, about the GM describing the enemy vessel listing from being struck by enemy fire and then righting itself before firing, I interpret as all part of the same Fire Weapons Task. The ship “listing” would just be creative GM cinematic flair to make the battle sound more interesting than “you scored a hit to their main hull just before they return fire”.

In regards to:

Having the players perform an evasive action or maneuvering task that they describe as piloting into a ship’s blindspot and attempting to stay there to prevent the enemy ship from getting a good firing solution on them where they succeed, then having said enemy with forward-facing weapons (without even spending threat) spin towards them without requiring any task or action and fire on the PCs because they are within close range using up only 1 enemy turn in combat, does in fact make their tactics and strategy meaningless.

I must disagree. If the PCs successfully pulled off an EVASIVE ACTION Task, it only increases the difficulty of of enemy vessels FIRE WEAPONS Tasks by 1, it doesn’t completely PREVENT the enemy vessel from firing on them completely - even if you add in the forward facing weapons, just makes it more difficult. Energy Weapons Difficulty increase to 2 and Torpedoes to 3. While not a guaranteed miss, it does make the likelihood of a miss that much greater. What that looks like in the event an enemy vessel still attempts to fire upon them, whether they get hit or not, is entirely up to the GM’s “cinematic license” to describe the end result.

[SSiron]

@StephenBirks

No and you are being ridiculous and condescending.

I apologize, that was not my intention. I was merely trying to be a bit goofy with that comment.

@StephenBirks

Either argue that it is meaningless when threat is spent, or meaningless when it is not. Please do not contest my argument by suddenly changing the parameters. My argument was specifically that a GM using the same options available to players, using actions or resources to counter player actions, is not meaningless.

My thoughts are going all over the place right now. I realize there was some confusion (and again, apologize) with how everything is being presented. Personally, if I was a player and the helmsperson on our ship stated that he wanted to get behind an enemy in the blindspot of a ship with forward-firing weapons then succeeded on a task to do just that (regardless of which helm task it was), then on the next enemy turn said ship simply fired on us without doing a helm maneuver and no threat was spent for an advantage, tactics and strategy would effectively be meaningless. This situation is what I was attempting to argue earlier, but was distracted.

If everyone at the table is ok with strictly narrative cinematic flavor to cover actions like that, then there is no problem. Personally, I would prefer if one party is using helm tasks tactically in that regard to attempt getting an upper hand or at least a reprieve to give the engineer time to restore shields or power, it shouldn’t be ignored as a simple narrative that can be discarded easily without a task roll to overcome.

I personally don’t view advantages/complications as a ‘free for all’ action like negating a player’s task. If the action to get within the blindspot was used with momentum or create advantage task, then sure. Spend threat to cancel it out.

@StephenBirks

You argue previously that if a mechanic is present, then it should be used, but you seem to be disregarding of the Advantage/Complication mechanic.

I am not meaning for it to seem that way. I agree that there is a use for advantages and complications and intend to use them. However, I don’t think they should be used as extremely powerful effects that can completely negate tasks simply by spending the resources to purchase them. In the example of just spending the threat to counter the player tactics, I would personally opt to instead use a swift task with the enemy ship. Perform a helm task to break free of the situation in order to acquire a good firing solution, then swift task to fire.

@Dytrrnikl

There are no facings in STA Conflicts, whether it’s Starship or Character. STA does not have firing arcs/facings specified as part of ship stats or the Starship Conflict mechanics.

It is in the lore, however. Every single time you see a Klingon Bird of Prey in the shows or movies, they are always facing their targets. They don’t have the ability to fire behind them. It is a basic thing. Cannons are directional with a possible 45-90 degree firing arc, banks and arrays can be omni-directional with 180-360 degrees.

[PiercedMonk]

@SSiron

It is in the lore, however. Every single time you see a Klingon Bird of Prey in the shows or movies, they are always facing their targets.

Yes, and in the lore ships also don’t jump from one static position to the next while the helmsperson dutifully waits for their turn to act.

The ships are in constant motion, jockeying for position. The necessary abstraction of the game means that movement is only as apparent as the GM chooses to make it.

Here, let’s consider the reverse situation. The space combat where the players’ ship takes a heavy banger, and the GM describes the damage as being enough to cause them to list. They don’t spend any threat, or cite a Talent to account for this; it is purely narrative. The players want to return fire, but the GM tells them they can’t until the helmsperson makes a roll to reorient the ship.

How would that be fair to the players? What happens if they’ve already taken a helm action this round? Now someone else needs to spend their turn on a helm action at a higher difficulty. What’s to prevent the GM from just again moving the players’ ship?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but that sounds miserable to me.

[SSiron]

@PiercedMonk

Yes, and in the lore ships also don’t jump from one static position to the next while the helmsperson dutifully waits for their turn to act.

The ships are in constant motion, jockeying for position. The necessary abstraction of the game means that movement is only as apparent as the GM chooses to make it.

True, like almost all RPGs, the actions in a round of combat are all within a relatively short amount of time. Within the span of roughly 10 seconds, for example, the helm controls the ship, tactical fires, and all other actions happen on all ships involved.

@PiercedMonk

Here, let’s consider the reverse situation. The space combat where the players’ ship takes a heavy banger, and the GM describes the damage as being enough to cause them to list. They don’t spend any threat, or cite a Talent to account for this; it is purely narrative. The players want to return fire, but the GM tells them they can’t until the helmsperson makes a roll to reorient the ship.

If this hit caused a breach to engines, I could see and understand the listing and requiring at least a restore minor action to bring the engines back online. Also, unless the player ship only has cannons or forward-fired torpedoes, that won’t be an issue. Arrays and banks allow for enough coverage to attack ships at multiple vectors.

If an enemy ship did manage to succeed on a helm task to make it into a blind spot with no weapon coverage and was jockeying to stay in that position, I would expect my player ship (if I was a player) to have to take a helm action in order to get the target in a firing solution. If helm had already taken an action that turn, I would focus on doing other things in order to benefit the ship. Modulating the shields, restoring power, the create advantage task to help the ship in some way, or even readying an attack for once the ship was in the sights.

[PiercedMonk]

If the GM were to describe an enemy getting the drop on the PCs and ambush them from behind, do you think the players should be required to expend their characters’ Minor Actions to turn around and face their attackers?

[SSiron]

No, and using the logic from that question would require the characters on the ship to perform minor actions to turn away from their consoles on the bridge or in engineering. There is a big difference between personally turning to face attacks and a ship that has to be given the command by a person turning towards an enemy ship.

That question argues that instinct requires a minor action to complete, and operating the helm of a ship requires more than mere instinct. It requires a task or willful action on the part of the helmsperson to control a vessel.

[mattcapiche]

But causing the ship to list or drift of course isnt a lister effect of a breach to engines. It is literally just narrative!

That situation comes down to a simple question. Does your table want your GM to be able to dynamically describe combat without having to justify everything mechanically? Or would you rather stick to pure mechanics, with the GM basically administering a form of combat mini-game?

Both can have place at the table, and both can be extremely fun, but they dont really mix together. I’d suggest STA is designed with the more narrative approach in mind, but there is no reason you cant play elements of it more crunchy.

If you do go for the crunchier approach, let’s rewind that clip slightly. What action or resource spend did the players use to cause the enemy ship to list off course? Did they do anything beyond the mechanics of a normal hit? If not, then no additional action or spend should be required to correct for it. Equally, if there was a dedicated spend to achieve that outcome, then its totally fair to assume an equal spend should be required to overcome it. In the given case, I’m fairly certain it was just narrative flavour with no resources expended.

From quickly glancing what has been said about the second scenario, sounds like Eric just got it wrong. He did that a lot, but nobody overly cared because he ran a fun game. That is after all the point

[SSiron]

@mattcapiche

If you do go for the crunchier approach, let’s rewind that clip slightly. What action or resource spend did the players use to cause the enemy ship to list off course? Did they do anything beyond the mechanics of a normal hit? If not, then no additional action or spend should be required to correct for it. Equally, if there was a dedicated spend to achieve that outcome, then its totally fair to assume an equal spend should be required to overcome it. In the given case, I’m fairly certain it was just narrative flavour with no resources expended.

Ok, fair point, and nice argument. To be honest, I guess you could say this thread is to help me figure out how I want to run my game as GM, and what options to present to my players. We should be starting our game in a few weeks, and I am leaning more towards the slightly crunchier aspect because I know that at least a couple of my players will try to be tactical and strategic.

@mattcapiche

From quickly glancing what has been said about the second scenario, sounds like Eric just got it wrong. He did that a lot, but nobody overly cared because he ran a fun game. That is after all the point

It wasn’t in Shield of Tomorrow. I rewatched one of the two scenarios that were the inspiration for that example, and the GM did everything right in the second scene. I still need to rewatch the first scene which had multiple enemies, but that was basically in the group’s first time in ship combat, so they were learning and mistakes happened. No big deal.

[mattcapiche]

That is the great thing about this forum. It’s a great resource for corrections, clarifications and purely learning new things. Once you do get running, I’m sure you’ll find what works best for your table. Sometimes that also means not feeling like you have to get too stuck to the letter of the rules. You do you, and hopefully your table will have fun

[aramis]

@PiercedMonk

If the GM were to describe an enemy getting the drop on the PCs and ambush them from behind, do you think the players should be required to expend their characters’ Minor Actions to turn around and face their attackers?

In general, STA has no facing rules, but makes restricted arcs a part of narrative only relevant when a trait is involved.

For example, when declaring an ambush, the NPCs all have “hidden”… and that’s a compelling reason to have an NPC go first. To give the PC’s a “surprised” condition? I’d spend threat.

To get from hiding to “behind” is a move (probably a minor action, {1T}), and a create trait {2T}, probably an aim action (melee, call it a windup) {1T}, and attack (major action), then {2T} to get the second attacker out before players can react…

In ship combat
GM declares scene, and suitable terrain to be hidden in. If the players scan for ships and fail, or scan the terrain without a momentum spend for hostiles, onward to the movement sequence…

When PC’s ship gets suitably placed, GM declares combat scene, giving his ships the hidden trait.

Since all his have the hidden trait, going first is a compelling narrative reason to go first. No cost in threat because it is a compelling narrative reason.

So, first ship goes. Movement is a major action in Ship Combat… so that’s a major action, generating the in the blind spot trait {2T}, but losing the hidden trait (because it’s basic logic). Now, he has to retain the initiative {2T}, and shoot. We’ll pick disruptors to avoid the {T} cost. The gunner has a shot, base is D=2, but -1 for in the blind spot and -1 for suprised - so D=0. Undoubtedly, the GM is going to throw in 3 extra d20’s… {6T}, or, if the NPC captain is a named NPC, maybe even a determination spend {3T} and dice 3&4 {5T}. So… {13T} total for a minimum 2 successes, expected 4 successes, maximum 10 successes on a D=0, for 2-10 momentum for those damage rolls…

[PiercedMonk]

@aramis

In general, STA has no facing rules

Yes, that was my point…

[SSiron]

@aramis

The gunner has a shot, base is D=2, but -1 for in the blind spot and -1 for suprised - so D=0.

Those sound more like advantages to me than traits, due to the apparent lowering the difficulty of the shot. Even if they are traits, I am not sure that I would lower the difficulty of the attacker’s shot for being in the blindspot. That to me sounds more like an increase in difficulty and complication range for the ship whose blindspot they are in if that is the preferred method of the group to handle those situations.

[Shran]

@SSiron

Those sound more like advantages to me than traits

Advantages are actually Traits. Traits is a neutral term for Advantages (mostly positive Traits) and Complications (mostly negative Traits).

That is within the game rules, the GM can spend 2 Threat to create an Advantage after a successful Task (as per the Create Advantage Momentum spend). Normally, you don’t have to roll to perform the Maneuver Task, but it is technically a D0 roll. So spend 2 Momentum (i.e. Threat) afterwards to create the Advantage.

[aramis]

The Surprised trait is [quote=“SSiron, post:33, topic:7523”]

Those sound more like advantages to me than traits,
[/quote]

Surprised is definitely NOT an advantage, but a disadvatage.
In behind is an advantage.

Trait is a collective term which applies to…

• Tools
• Values
• Advantages
• Disadvantages
• Species
• other traits called simply Traits

Note that X’s Disadvantage Trait is potentially applied as Y’s advantage.
And X’s Advantage trait might be applied as Y’s disadvantage.

For example, an “in shadow” trait is carried by the target. It makes it harder for others to hit the target. Is it an advantage of the target? or a Disadvantage for the shooter? Yes, to both…

Traits apply to the transaction of the roll… not just the one attached.

A cloaked trait prevents being attacked - it’s labeled an advantage for the bearer, but really, it’s both - it prevents firing, and it prevents being targeted.

Likewise, the value, “greed conquers all” can very much be used as an advantage when bribing a local gendarme… and a disadvantage when the opposition is aware of it, and invokes it with suitable narration, such as the bearer resisting a bribe attempt, and, as a value, it can also be used with the special rules for values and Determination.

[SSiron]

@aramis

Trait is a collective term which applies to…

• Tools
• Values
• Advantages
• Disadvantages
• Species
• other traits called simply Traits

I have never played games with advantages and disadvantages/complications as a game mechanic before, so the way that I have been mentally processing it, is by separating those from traits, and viewed values as a separate thing as well. To me, it has been viewed as separate mechanic elements as such:

• Traits (Species/Tools/Environmental effects, most of which do not normally have an effect other than allowing or disallowing an action such as scanning with a tricorder or minor bonuses and penalties for all parties)
• Values
• Advantages/Complications (Bonuses or penalties applied to certain parties)

However, again… I don’t see how an attacking ship being In the blind spot would give them a better shot by lowering the difficulty to hit their target. I would apply that advantage as a disadvantage to the target if they attempt to return fire. I might consider lowering the difficulty by 1 for the attack due to the Surprised effect.

The target of the attacker would most likely not have their shields up if they were not expecting combat, which would make that entire situation very bad if the player ship is the one being attacked. Granted, it happens.

I would like to thank all the participants of this thread for their input and arguments. This is definitely helping me figure out how I would like to proceed with my group. Even the last few posts focused on the topic of traits is helping me a bit to figure out exactly how I should utilize them in game and how they sit in my brain.

[aramis]

@SSiron

However, again… I don’t see how an attacking ship being In the blind spot would give them a better shot by lowering the difficulty to hit their target. I would apply that advantage as a disadvantage to the target if they attempt to return fire. I might consider lowering the difficulty by 1 for the attack due to the Surprised effect.

The blind spot being a sensor dead zone, that’s how. They can’t see to move out. Or being a weak spot of shields. It’s implied in canon that rear shields are somewhat weaker, as well.
It helps if you think of the TH to be hit as an unstated numerical ability with a rating of two.

Based upon things Modiphius-Nathan has posted, everything other than attributes, disciplines, and foci are traits.

And foci can also be seen as a trait variant - the primary use being to allow the increase of the double-success range from 1—1 to 1—(discipline). But the system won’t break if you use a focus to reduce a TN or allow some other action not normally allowed (such as a “trick shooting” allowing bouncing a phaser off a security field by tuning it to the field.)

Also, remember: A trait goes away when story sense says it should.
your In the blind spot should go away after a single attack - they know where you are, now.
Your Surprised might go away when attacked (especially in personal combat), or might need a Command & Presence D2 to represent crew going to action stations.
Your Hidden goes away when you move, unless there’s a way to move and stay hidden.
Your behind them goes away either when you attack or either you or they move. A grapple from behind, tho’, probably means it doesn’t go away.

Note that, in melee, in the real world, an attack often results in the target turning to face, which is why it should go away with the attack; it not doing so won’t break anything, but can result in silliness.

[Dytrrnikl]

It is in the lore, however. Every single time you see a Klingon Bird of Prey in the shows or movies, they are always facing their targets. They don’t have the ability to fire behind them. It is a basic thing. Cannons are directional with a possible 45-90 degree firing arc, banks and arrays can be omni-directional with 180-360 degrees.

You are absolutely correct, it is in the many years of lore both fan-made and official. That said, that wasn’t the point I was making, I was referring to STA not having combat/conflicts set-up with the degree of “realism” you seem to be seeking. As the mechanics of STA stand, from my understanding, they are not designed with specific mechanics relating to firing arcs (port/starboard/fore/aft/ventral/dorsal). I’ve played many a game in which combat mechanics were set-up to be intensely “real”/“simulationist” and those in which it’s far looser. My preference are for those mechanics which allow for a more cinematic/story oriented approach - something which STA hits on nicely for me.

On the other hand, the cinematic approach appears to be insufficient for you, at least from what I gather from your responses. With a little work, you can easily tailor STA to your expectations. I would advise looking to the FASA Star Trek Starship Tactical Combat Simulator game for inspiration - ships had six different shield generators, firing arcs, rules for firing upon “detected” cloak vessels, tactical heading changes, power:movement ratio, power:shield ratio, and more.

[SSiron]

@Dytrrnikl

I would advise looking to the FASA Star Trek Starship Tactical Combat Simulator game for inspiration - ships had six different shield generators, firing arcs, rules for firing upon “detected” cloak vessels, tactical heading changes, power:movement ratio, power:shield ratio, and more.

I will keep that in mind, although it also depends on what my players decide for that as well. I will be bringing it up to them before our campaign starts in a few weeks.

[PicardX]

@SSiron

It is in the lore, however. Every single time you see a Klingon Bird of Prey in the shows or movies, they are always facing their targets. They don’t have the ability to fire behind them. It is a basic thing. Cannons are directional with a possible 45-90 degree firing arc, banks and arrays can be omni-directional with 180-360 degrees.

Except for one aft torpedo fired at the Defiant when they were attempting to rescue the Detapa Council in 2372.