Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => HARP SF => Topic started by: Mungo on March 12, 2007, 06:17:26 PM
-
Hi,
I have read the chapter on skills and here are my comments:
- I love the Vocation skill. Good idea.
- I would remove anything that is not SF, especially when it is already covered in HARP. Reason: here there is not enough space to treat it properly, on the other hand it uses up page space. In particular I would remove:
- Heraldry
- Resistance Magic (and all other magic related text, except in the race tables)
- Frenzy (to me this skill is very Fantasy oriented)
- I would remove Astronomy. I do not see the value for a game and it is extremely close to Physics.
- I would remove Mathematics. As a standalone skill it has extremely limited value, it is mostly needed for other sciences -> it is covered by Physics, Chemistry,...
- Is Astrogation covered by Navigation? It seems to be, but personally I would rather see it as a subskill of Navigation with -20 or the other way round (because Navigation is 2D, Astrogation is 3D)
- I would put Psychology under Medical.
- I would treat Forensics as Subskill to Perception. Or as part of a Vocation skill (police investigaor). I do not see it big enough to be its own skill.
- There are 3 computer skills (Hacking / Operation / Programming) -> they are in different categories, so I realize why there are 3 skills. Nevertheless I would rather prefer to have less Computer skills.
- Disarming Demolitions should be in my opinion a subskill.
- For Zero-G I would prefer a method of resolution like for Flying or Blindfighting (to be consistent). I.e. you get a negative modifier (-50 ?) what can be reduced by this skill.
- Signaling. Can this be used also for operating signaling equipment? Or is this a subskill? If not, what is used to operate such equipment?
- What skill is used to operate scanners? And other electrical equipment?
- I would suggest to introduce a skill "Tactics / Strategy" for having an in-game explanation for all these nice plans the players develop.
And I am missing Blasters (my favourite SF weapon).
BR
Juergen
-
In general I agree with these points but I have no real problem with Astronomy - what I agree with most of all is the need to have blasters!
:)
I am thinking seriously of converting all the old weapons from Space Opera to HARP SF - for me Sci fi games are all about huge lists of guns, almost all of which make loud noises and big explosions!
Jem
ps loving the game so far - we are making characters tonight - woo hoo
-
I agree with the removal of the magic skills, the power points and the magic resistance. I think anything related to magic shouldn't be in this book. Also it's a good idea to merge the computer skills under one category. Maybe I'm biased because I know HARP but the skills list don't seem completely sci-fi to me. Sorry to not elaborate on this point but I haven't got time to think seriously about it, it's just an impression.
All in all, a very good job. I'll make more suggestions when I have proofreaded it completely and tried to create a couple of characters.
-
Hi,
Yes, although I didn't state it, I was also left with the impression that the SF skill part is relatively small compared to the HARP legacy. E.g. the subskills and examples dealing with melee combat are quite numerous combared to the ones dealing with ranged combat (while in my opinion most combat situations will involve ranged weapons).
But I also want to read the complete bookand make some tests before I post more specific comments or suggestions concerning this impression.
BR
Juergen
-
Here are my opinions, in semi-rebuttal to the original post.
As a general observation, I didn't see any skills in the skill descriptions that were "out of place" for a self-contained SF game (remember, this isn't a HARP supplement, it's a stand-alone). I don't yet have an opinion either way on which, if any, SF skills are *missing* from the game, even after re-reading the Spacemaster skill list.
Mathematics - a reasonable level of proficiency is required to plot courses, calculate travel times and fuel consumption, and so on when your computer has crashed, a fun plot twist (Arthur C. Clarke wrote an entire short story around this plot). It's also useful to have a skill where the *lack* of skill (e.g. primitive cultures) can be a plot point.
Astronomy - A good working knowledge of astronomy is required to figure out where the $^%&* you are after a hyperspace mis-jump. The definition as given could also be interpreted to include Astrophysics, and Astronomers are the specialists choosing targets for Translight Survey...
You're correct, Astrogation is covered by Navigation in the detailed text description. (I'm amused that you wish to drop Math and Astronomy but add Astrogation; this seems inconsistent to me, but hey, what do I know? :). Spacemaster separates them, but this is HARP (see below).
Computer skills - especially in cyberpunk environments, but also in other SF&F contexts, the three skills of operating a computer, bypassing computer security systems, and programming *are* different, even though they're related.
Psychology is Science; Psychiatry is the Medical practice of applied Psychology. :). In the context of the game, I would expect Psychologists to also be involved in the study of alien minds?
However, to moderate my opinions somewhat, I noticed that the choice of Scientific Specialties seemed somewhat haphazard compared to (e.g.) Spacemaster. Also, in the "simpler" world of HARP I can see combining many of these currently separate skills into a more general "Scientific Specialty" skill that includes Computer, Mathematics, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Psychology, and so on.
On the gripping hand, the text is written, and is going to be published soon, and this would constitute a rather large re-write. So the bottom line for me is that the current setup is "good enough"?
Heraldry - one sentence, two lines of text. Hardly an offense against page space! Resistance: Magic probably belongs over in HARP, not HARP SF. But it too is only one line of text...
I don't have an opinion either way on the Zero-G thing; I can convince myself both that Zero-G is the same as flying or blind fighting (start with a penalty and add your skill), but I also like the idea that you can't do *anything* in Zero-G without Zero-G skill. I don't think the mechanic needs to be changed, but I'm not really attached to either outcome.
Scanners: P120 of Beta 0.1.1:
Successfully using a personal scanner requires a maneuver roll
by the character. This is resolved as a Hard First Aid or Medium
Medical Practice All-or-Nothing skill maneuver for Medical
Scanners (owing to the specialist knowledge required to interpret
their results). For all other scanners, a Medium All-or-Nothing
Machine Operation maneuver is required.
Tactics is a skill in both Rolemaster and Spacemaster, but not in HARP, so I'm not surprised it was also removed from HARP SF. I don't have an opinion either way. In both games, Tactics is a "Vocational" skill, so could be covered under that skill in HARP SF...
And finally, I agree that it would be "cool" to have Blasters. They're even mentioned (once) on Page 73 in the Technology chapter...
-
Note: If you leave the Magic stuff in (it CAN be ignored), then you can more easily use the material in a sci-fantasy setting (i.e. like Shadow World, where you can actually find a mix of futuristic and fantasy). HARP is about flexibility overall..... Just keep that in mind..
-
I'd rather not see the skill set expand, it runs the risk of becoming less HARP like and more Spacemaster like. Spacemaster is already out there and what is needed is a HARP approach to the topic.
As for the legacy elements, they too are required for integration with HARP. Some settings will require primitives with melee weapons.... it is hard to find a sci fi universe without them... Trek, Star Wars, Niven, Asimov, Stargate, heck even Firefly has primitive weapons ans space ships and OS BSG ran into a few primitives along the way.
I like having the two compatible, that allows me to mix and match.
Math is a vital skill in a Sci-fi world.... though in HARP it is covered under mundane lore, as is tactics. (see published training packages) I would not want to part with that or astronomy.
The breaking out of the lore skills from general, left me feeling like the skill set was heading toward over complexity, but I see why it was done to make certain professions work. I don't quite buy into the notion that science is not ubiquitous and readily available to all in a future world... but that is probably just my inner geek.
-
Hi,
Mathematics - a reasonable level of proficiency is required to plot courses, calculate travel times and fuel consumption, and so on when your computer has crashed, a fun plot twist (Arthur C. Clarke wrote an entire short story around this plot). It's also useful to have a skill where the *lack* of skill (e.g. primitive cultures) can be a plot point.
Yes, you need math for nearly everything scientific. But then you get very fast to a point where you should have a rule like "minimum ranks of Math to have so many ranks in Physics/Mechanics/..", which to me is a violation of the "easy to use" rule. Therefore my suggestion to have it implicitely included in the relevant Scientific and Engineering skills. And I have never seen a character spending DPs on Math - and I really think HARP should focus on skills that are playable in 95% of the campaigns. The remaining 5% can easily be added by the GM. And for most day to day math you have computer applications anyway.
Astronomy - A good working knowledge of astronomy is required to figure out where the $^%&* you are after a hyperspace mis-jump. The definition as given could also be interpreted to include Astrophysics, and Astronomers are the specialists choosing targets for Translight Survey...
That is Astrogation for me. The rest is Physics. The reason I think so is simply my personal experience: I have degrees in both Physics and Astronomy - and the Astronomy one I only got because more than 90% of my Physics exams were being recognized by the Astronomy faculty. And the other 10% were Physics, just spezialised.
Computer skills - especially in cyberpunk environments, but also in other SF&F contexts, the three skills of operating a computer, bypassing computer security systems, and programming *are* different, even though they're related.
Why 3 Computer skills (actually 4 with Engineering) and only one (2) for all things Mechanical? As I said I see the reasoning behind this, its just a lot of emphasis on computers compared to other fields.
Scanners: P120 of Beta 0.1.1:
...
I am one of the persons who don't want open questions at the end of a chapter. And that was one of the open questions I had. I also saw that later on it is stated that the Engineering skill can be taken to use certain equipment. But this is not mentioned in the skill chapter, there Engineering is only for designing, constructing and repairing.
Tactics is a skill in both Rolemaster and Spacemaster, but not in HARP, so I'm not surprised it was also removed from HARP SF. I don't have an opinion either way. In both games, Tactics is a "Vocational" skill, so could be covered under that skill in HARP SF...
This was meant as a joke.
BR
Juergen
-
I'll simply repeat what I said earlier:
However, to moderate my opinions somewhat, I noticed that the choice of Scientific Specialties seemed somewhat haphazard compared to (e.g.) Spacemaster. Also, in the "simpler" world of HARP I can see combining many of these currently separate skills into a more general "Scientific Specialty" skill that includes Computer, Mathematics, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Psychology, and so on.
But really, I don't have a strong opinion either way...
-
Some points of designer rationale on this subject rather than specific comments.
HARP SF has been designed with the intention of being (almost) wholly compatible with HARP Fantasy. Many gamers will want to easily mix technology and magic, whether that is in the sense of a Shadow World setting or a Shadowrun technomagic.
In terms of melee skills, combat actions, etc., guns, blasters, etc will not always be the weapons of choice or availability. High-tech characters may encounter primitive indigenes or fallen civilisations in the Tintamar universe. More generally, other settings, say Dune, Star Wars, Known Space (variable-swords), the pulp sf of Edgar Rice Burroughs (John Carter of Mars), etc. need such things.
In terms of computer skills, a single Computer skill is inappropriate. Using is not the same as creating is not the same as hacking. It is also a division to protect game balance (by spreading the capabilities rather than having one skill do everything) and to properly support the cyberpunk genre.
In terms of Science, I considered having the different sciences as specialities of a Science skill. However, it just felt wrong from a hard/soft scifi perspective as opposed to an explicitly pulp perspective where Science! would be the natural choice. It also did not work in terms of supporting the Scientist/Researcher archetype. Moreover it prevented anyone who wanted to further decompose the sciences (Planetology requiring specialities in Meteorology, Geology, Oceanography) from using the speciality mechanism trivially.
With regard to Engineering, the flavors of Engineering depend much more on the level of technology and various setting parameters. That one suited the speciality paradigm so that SysOps could flex the list to suit.
The Skills chapter was written about the same time as the Professions chapter. I'm not surprised that there are extra bits in later chapters about skill uses that ought to be fed back into the Skills chapter.
One detail point - Mundane Lore: Tactics is already in the skill list.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
I just noticed that *all* Weapon skills are St/Ag. I would expect that firearms (except for the really big ones) and energy weapons would not need Strength (and especially, weaker characters shouldn't have to offset a positive Ag Bonus with a negative St Bonus)?
Is it worth splitting this into Melee Weapons and Projectile/Energy Weapons, or is that getting too far from HARP's simplicity goal?
-
I just noticed that *all* Weapon skills are St/Ag. I would expect that firearms (except for the really big ones) and energy weapons would not need Strength (and especially, weaker characters shouldn't have to offset a positive Ag Bonus with a negative St Bonus)?
Is it worth splitting this into Melee Weapons and Projectile/Energy Weapons, or is that getting too far from HARP's simplicity goal?
Hi,
Actually here I agree with HARP SF. You need Strength for two reasons with modern weapons: recoil and holding the weapon steady (look at Biathlon to see what happens if you run out of Strength, and that has nothing to do with recoil).
BR
Juergen
-
page 57 SysOp's Choice: Lasers and Stunners
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
I think you changed my opinion about the presence of magic in the book with your comments. :) The fact that a character can be moved between HARP and HARP SF without problems because of that is a good argument.
-
Gotta love typsetting; the bit I needed was on the next page :-)
-
Gotta love typsetting; the bit I needed was on the next page :-)
Tim's clever typesetting has reduced the page count by about 70 pages without any loss of material, however. And once there's an index things will be much easier to find.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
However, a number of those pages will come right back as things like artwork are added into the mix....
-
Speaking of typesetting the stat chart showing score DP and bonus needs reformated currently it has 3 columns that do not make any sense because it should have two columns, take a quick glance and you will see what I mean. Good news is it should be an easy fix.
Psionics are nice as far as they go, but I might have to add a few more to cover some of the powers I may want to use for a high powered Psionic campaign. Any chance of some sort of system to build powers similar to the system for building spells?
-
Speaking of typesetting the stat chart showing score DP and bonus needs reformated currently it has 3 columns that do not make any sense because it should have two columns, take a quick glance and you will see what I mean. Good news is it should be an easy fix.
One for Tim.
Psionics are nice as far as they go, but I might have to add a few more to cover some of the powers I may want to use for a high powered Psionic campaign. Any chance of some sort of system to build powers similar to the system for building spells?
What powers are you missing? But may be more sensible to pose the query in its own thread
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
I would like to see a list of specialities and subskills for all skills that require those. It doesn't have to be a complete list (as that would probably be setting-specific), but at least for the Vehicular skills I would consider it important (and extremely helpful) if vehicle-classes were defined in the book (did I miss them?). The same could be said for skills like machine operation and signaling.
And along those same lines. I think signaling could do with a more Sci-Fi oriented skill description. Right now it appears to have been taken directly from HARP and electronic warfare is mentioned as a bonus. Also, sensor operations is not mentioned in the skill description but is mentioned in a later chapter.
-
We looked at the description of "Sniping", and were concerned. The range increments on most rifles in the game seems to be 30-40 meters, so to be within two range increments, a sniper must be within 60-80 meters of the target (90-120 if you count from zero as the Combat text does).This seems too close to us; certainly while the Canadian snipers are experts, they were working at ranges at least 10 *times* this in Afghanistan.
My understanding is that Sniper has two components: 1) getting in and out undetected, and 2) making a precise shot countering for all of the effects that would normally cause inaccuracy (breathing, hand shake, wind, *and* range to the target).
I noticed that on p.77 a scope reduces the range penalty for sniping, except that there is no range penalty; it's a separate all-or-nothing maneuver. There are several other similar items in the text. So there's an inconsistency there; everything else reduces the range penalty for sniping, but the range penalty for sniping is never more than -10 if the 2 RI limit applies (-20 if you count from zero like the Combat section does).
Thoughts?
-
The Canadian snipers have a few "in game" advantages, considerable skill. Scopes and high quality weapons designed for longer range. Plus a talent like sure shot (which reduces range penalties). Even when the sniping bonus does not apply, the scopes can add up to +30 and the sights up to +15 for good ones. Reducing the range penalty in half, say RI 40, at 200 m the attack would be at -25 (+30+15+OB), at 280m it would be at -100(+30+15+OB). Most likely at that distance you would be well out of sight and hit the target unaware, or from behind or what have you giving you additional bonuses.
I see your point though, that really does not add up to real world sniper performance. Two things would help this one is longer ranges on sniper rifles 50-80 m does not seem unreasonable when a long bow has a RI of 28 m. (that would still only give 350-560m of effective range which is less than RL) A second option would be to remove the 2 range inc limit for sniping with firearms and energy weapons.
With projectile weapons, gravity is your enemy, they take a lot of care in making rifles that can shoot a specific man down at 1000m. With laser weapons, the curvature of the planet and the beam spread are the problems. It is not unreasonable to assume a laser can be built to effective ranges of a Km or more.
-
I also think that the 2 rang inc. limit should be removed. But if you want to maintain full compatibility with HARP this might be a problem. In that case I suggest change the scope so it increases the maximum rang inc. in which the weapon it's attached to can perform sniping.
-
I also think that the 2 rang inc. limit should be removed. But if you want to maintain full compatibility with HARP this might be a problem. In that case I suggest change the scope so it increases the maximum rang inc. in which the weapon it's attached to can perform sniping.
I think it is the scope that should be making the difference so that you can see well enough to make the precise shot beyond two range increments. Good idea, and good catch from chk.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
I believe that sniping is more than just a good scope, but I'd accept "a good scope removes the 2*RI penalty" as a simple solution to the issue. This would mean that a sniper would still have range penalties for long-range shots, and that all the other things in the text that reduce range penalties when sniping would still apply, without also having to be re-worked!
(Simple is good :)
-
A few comments:
1) Reading the Flying/Gliding skill description, I don't know how it works. It claims it's an All-or-nothing skill, but it reads like an (incomplete) form of the reducing penalties type of skill.
2) Gunnery needs a chart like Weapon Skills. As do the piloting skills. Notably - what are the categories? "Small craft"? "Fighters"?
3) Dirty Fighting, at least (I'm sure there's another one) ... adds skill ranks to damage. Does it add to Concussion Hits, or the Crit Rating? This should be cleared up.
4) I would prefer the Language Chart in where the Language Skill description is, so that the player knows what ranks mean. I understand that it's where it is for legacy reasons (at least).
Laz
-
A few comments:
1) Reading the Flying/Gliding skill description, I don't know how it works. It claims it's an All-or-nothing skill, but it reads like an (incomplete) form of the reducing penalties type of skill.
On the list.
2) Gunnery needs a chart like Weapon Skills. As do the piloting skills. Notably - what are the categories? "Small craft"? "Fighters"?
On the list
3) Dirty Fighting, at least (I'm sure there's another one) ... adds skill ranks to damage. Does it add to Concussion Hits, or the Crit Rating? This should be cleared up.
It is an adjustment to the Adjusted Attack Roll, i.e. so increases the number that you look up on the crit table, rather than change an individual entry. I've made a note to that effect for Ambush, Dirty Fighting and Sniping.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
I remember another point I was going to make here:
Resistance: Stamina is only mentioned as being able to resist stun in the "Reading the Critical Tables" section. It should, in the skill description and "Important Skills", have a quick overview of that (given that it is vital for combat, and important to know how it works - especially when buying it, to know how much to get). Notably, the other, less used, uses for Stamina are mentioned in the other sections, but resisting Stun is not.
Laz
-
About Medical Practice skill...shouldn't it be a separate skill for each race? Or, maybe, we can take one of the options given for this problem in SM:P. Develop a Medical Science skill for each race, and your Medical Practice skill is limited to your skill the relevent Medical Science skill when treating someone of a race other than your own.
Thoughts?
-
About Medical Practice skill...shouldn't it be a separate skill for each race? Or, maybe, we can take one of the options given for this problem in SM:P. Develop a Medical Science skill for each race, and your Medical Practice skill is limited to your skill the relevent Medical Science skill when treating someone of a race other than your own.
Thoughts?
There's nothing to prevent Medical Practice and Medical Science being specialized for specific species - that's at the level of SysOp customisation just as Planetology could be specialized to Geology, Meteorology, Oceanography.
In the previous incarnation of Zero-G Maneuvering it acted as a limiter on other skills. We've taken that out (partly because it would be yet another skill option), so it's not a technique that is likely to be put back in.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
Another one: Pick Pockets. Is there a reason that it's not an RR to be noticed by Perception? It strikes me as an easier mechanic to use RR, rather than have a Pick Pocket roll to see if it succeeded, then a Perception (- Pick Pocket) roll to see if it's noticed, when it could be reduced to Perception vs Pick Pocket RR to see if it was noticed (having the Pick Pocket roll modified by difficulty, perhaps)
Laz
-
Another one: Pick Pockets. Is there a reason that it's not an RR to be noticed by Perception? It strikes me as an easier mechanic to use RR, rather than have a Pick Pocket roll to see if it succeeded, then a Perception (- Pick Pocket) roll to see if it's noticed, when it could be reduced to Perception vs Pick Pocket RR to see if it was noticed (having the Pick Pocket roll modified by difficulty, perhaps)
Laz
Hi,
I asked a similiar question in the HARP forums a long time ago . There Rasyr said that noticing a Pick Pocket attempt is so much more difficult than Pick Pocketing, that a direct RR is not appropriate for the situation, as the chance for the target to succeed is much too high.
BR
Juergen