Seven Worlds Setting - Feedback and Issues

[CPJ]

Thanks Arsilon.

We currently use custom effects for ship wounds and ship heat... they work ok.

If PCs are added to the ship as "pilot" and "gunners" the custom effects are automatically applied and the GM can apply and remove as required.

[Arsilon]

Can you post here and/or DM me more details on your work-around if it works well for you?

Heat wasn't a big enough deal in my playthroughs that just dealing with it manually was overly burdensome that I felt a need to prioritize time to try and tackle it vs. just getting the module up and available.

[Arsilon]

FYI, the only other thing the extension does is rework the code that publishes the Trait and Wild Die results separately so you know if you need to trigger Zero-G rules -- again not automated...just making it visible.

[CPJ]

Hi Arsilon,

This is what we use...

Install this fantastic extension... where the magic happens;
https://forge.fantasygrounds.com/shop/items/439/view

Ensure all the extension options are on in options.

Create some custom effects such as:
Ship Heat #1 [Trait -1]
Ship Heat #2 [Trait -1]
Ship Heat #3 [Trait -1]

Ship Wound #1 [Trait -1]
Etc...

Ensure PCs are dropped on the ship as pilot and gunners by drag/dropping the character sheet icon on the pilot and gun/missile entries on the ship sheet.

The GM can add and remove the custom effects as required.

[Arsilon]

Actually I think when I tested this path previously Wounds does work without further effects. Its been a hot minute so I could be wrong. I'll poke around with this some more when I have a few minutes.

Thanks!

[Arsilon]

Moving this here per your other post:
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...e-Combat-Range

I'm glad someone else is jumping in and really putting things through its paces. Up to now, I've been relying on my own playtesting. I'm putting a 2nd group through the full campaign currently and taking notes on what works and doesn't work based on my own groups.

Reading your word document, several comments/questions:

I was already considering adding multiple weapons to the ship so each could be 'manned' separately vs. having one weapon with 2x notation. I was also going to add a separate PDLB weapon entry. Your suggestion of adding Ship Ops 'weapons' is also an interesting one if I'm already going down this path.

For Sensors, I typically give the option for players to do either Ship Ops (default) or Electronics (optional) roll. I don't think core rules suggest separate sensor rolls explicitly so I just defaulted to Ship Ops with Electronics as a player option if they have it instead of Ship Ops. Should it be Electronics by rule?

As for Shooting +2 I already have it as a global effect that can be turned on or off if you are in space combat. When I originally coded this, I wasn't sure how to code a pre-existing effect on an NPC or Vehicle master record. I'll have to go back and see if that actually works so it can be added to the master vehicle record (I usually forget until after the first attack that I didn't turn the global effect on).

Missiles I wanted to do some more testing on before ultimately deciding how they may be better implemented. Per an early suggestion by @Mike Serfass I had converted them from items to being vehicles themselves. There are still open questions I have on how to best handle a) inventory and loadout and b) if/how raises should be handled with damage. Given the attack is rolled one turn and the damage is one or more rounds later, how or even should you remember that the attack roll was done with a raise and does the damage roll get an extra d6 in such a case?

I may add the custom effects for wounds/heat as well but need to play a bit more on how things are handled default vs. what is required to make 4C work. My rule of thumb is I don't want to require you use a 3rd party mod to make what is in the core ruleset work. Unless I can pull the coding into the Seven Worlds Extension and be responsible for maintaining it myself. The simple visuals I've pulled into based on other more 'open' examples are one thing. Replicating an entire mod from another developer is quite a different thing.

It is still an open question in my mind what to do about SFC when its released if it fundamentally changes what is available for GMs and what I may need to do with the default ruleset. I'm also waiting to see how tests develop further -- I'd ideally like to work it where Psionic powers can be applied against mental toughness for instance; I could do the ones that roll against spirit currently but figured I'd let it sit and try and do it all rather than piecemeal -- Going back to edit things across 2 setting guides and 2x versions for 7 campaign modules is a bit involved to make sure nothing is missed.

I could add another page in the reference guide with 'options' and how to handle optional mods and instructions on how to do so.

[Arsilon]

Additional note: I'm also separating what I do for the Voyager vs. what is done for NPC ships since the GM already has to be flexible; there is significant diminishing returns on trying to code for every possible variant that might come up on the GM side vs. what a player has to deal with on the Voyager. A GM in theory is much more conversant on how to make on the fly changes in FG (or just do the math manually via roll adjustment) than a player might otherwise be.

[CPJ]

Moving this here per your other post:
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...e-Combat-Range

I'm glad someone else is jumping in and really putting things through its paces. Up to now, I've been relying on my own playtesting. I'm putting a 2nd group through the full campaign currently and taking notes on what works and doesn't work based on my own groups.

Reading your word document, several comments/questions:

I was already considering adding multiple weapons to the ship so each could be 'manned' separately vs. having one weapon with 2x notation. I was also going to add a separate PDLB weapon entry. Your suggestion of adding Ship Ops 'weapons' is also an interesting one if I'm already going down this path.

For Sensors, I typically give the option for players to do either Ship Ops (default) or Electronics (optional) roll. I don't think core rules suggest separate sensor rolls explicitly so I just defaulted to Ship Ops with Electronics as a player option if they have it instead of Ship Ops. Should it be Electronics by rule?

As for Shooting +2 I already have it as a global effect that can be turned on or off if you are in space combat. When I originally coded this, I wasn't sure how to code a pre-existing effect on an NPC or Vehicle master record. I'll have to go back and see if that actually works so it can be added to the master vehicle record (I usually forget until after the first attack that I didn't turn the global effect on).

Missiles I wanted to do some more testing on before ultimately deciding how they may be better implemented. Per an early suggestion by @Mike Serfass I had converted them from items to being vehicles themselves. There are still open questions I have on how to best handle a) inventory and loadout and b) if/how raises should be handled with damage. Given the attack is rolled one turn and the damage is one or more rounds later, how or even should you remember that the attack roll was done with a raise and does the damage roll get an extra d6 in such a case?

I may add the custom effects for wounds/heat as well but need to play a bit more on how things are handled default vs. what is required to make 4C work. My rule of thumb is I don't want to require you use a 3rd party mod to make what is in the core ruleset work. Unless I can pull the coding into the Seven Worlds Extension and be responsible for maintaining it myself. The simple visuals I've pulled into based on other more 'open' examples are one thing. Replicating an entire mod from another developer is quite a different thing.

It is still an open question in my mind what to do about SFC when its released if it fundamentally changes what is available for GMs and what I may need to do with the default ruleset. I'm also waiting to see how tests develop further -- I'd ideally like to work it where Psionic powers can be applied against mental toughness for instance; I could do the ones that roll against spirit currently but figured I'd let it sit and try and do it all rather than piecemeal -- Going back to edit things across 2 setting guides and 2x versions for 7 campaign modules is a bit involved to make sure nothing is missed.

I could add another page in the reference guide with 'options' and how to handle optional mods and instructions on how to do so.

Apologies... my comments in another word document since I'm rubbish on the message board...

https://1drv.ms/w/c/32f3222c8b33adbd...6Bf293dlbCbCYQ

[Arsilon]

I will pull some of the word doc stuff back here in case other people may have input:

Sensors:

[CPJ]The SWADE RAW skill “Electronics” states the use of starship sensors which is the reasoning for us to use it. Bearing in mind that it’s an optional settings rule in 7W anyway… Using sensors also gives non-Pilot/Gunner/Engineers PCs something useful to do during starship combat. In our game a successful roll will identify enemy missiles as per 7W and can also be used to gather some information on the enemy spaceship, for example; weapon types of laser/missile launcher etc, and with a raise; light/medium/heavy weapons and/or number of shield effects etc. There is also a discussion in our group about making this an opposed roll, where the enemy detects their ship is being scanned and may want to use Electronics as a countermeasure. Again, this makes a PC sensor user a little more involved in spaceship combat instead of just watching the rest of us panic about the heat pool…

1) If its optional then my preference would be to leave it to a GM to do it either way they prefer.
2) One thing you may consider to allow players with different skills to do 'something' is allow them to do support rolls. So for your player that has Electronics, allow them to do what you suggest and use the sensors to make targeting/fire control easier as a support roll to the gunner. That may indeed be what you are doing but it wasn't explicitly mentioned as such. In my games I'll allow a player to use any of their skills if they can figure out a way to make it relevant to any of the other 'common' ship functions; supporting heat rolls, piloting rolls, etc. We've even implemented a rule where you can use performance, taunt, persuasion, etc as long as they two ships are within 1 or 2 AU whereby the communication lag wouldn't make such a thing too awkward to still be effective.



Shooting +2

[CPJ] Yes, a global effect would work nicely. I couldn’t work out a way of adding an effect to a master vehicle record. If there is a way, this would be better.

Double check. There SHOULD be a global effect already defined for this. I did it this way since without 4C, it wouldn't take hold for the players.

Also I am pretty sure there is a way to add this effect to the vehicle master record. I figured it out how to have an NPC already have fatigue points by default; I'm guessing the same technique would work for effects but I will test it to be sure. I haven't tested it works on Vehicles but I would think it should if it does for NPCs.

Launchers:

[CPJ]You do need to add “0” to the Missile Launcher damage die otherwise it ignores effects and range penalties for some reason. We keep a record of missile inventory in a player note until we find a better way of handling it, though it could go on the spaceship notes tab?

I will put adding a 0 to the Missile Launcher default damage to the bugfix/enhancement list. In looking at this, I definitely screwed something up between the live version and my own playtest version.

1) If you look at the NPC's you see I have the missiles set up as explicit weapons with the count. As such, GM should be able to decrement the # as they are consumed.
2) I didn't do this for the Voyager; perhaps I meant to but didn't....what I do in my personal game is use the notes for it; but perhaps when I put in the fix for #1, I accidentally deleted the notes for the Voyager....what I have added into the Notes section in my personal version is:

Weapons:

• 2 × Light Laser Cannons (Range 4/8/16; Damage 3d6; AP 6; RoF 1; PDLB RoF 5; Heat Points 3; HW)
• 2 × Medium Missile Launchers (Range 1/2/4; RoF 4; Heat Points 1; 4 reloads per launcher, maximum 1 of them is nuclear).

Available Ammo:
(3) 4 Kinetic Missiles (Damage 3d6; AP 8; HW)
(1) 2 Nuclear Missiles (Damage 2d10; AP 12; HW)
(2) 2 NNEMP Missiles (Damage 3d6+special; AP 10; HW)
(2) 2 Kinetic Cloud Projectiles (Damage 2d4; AP 8; HW; each one takes up one entire launcher payload)

• 6 × Mine Cloud Defenses (+2 bonus to Piloting roll to Evade against all projectiles; +4 against one projectile).


I add the (current amount) in there to keep track of what current inventory is.
I currently use the Notes section to keep track...but in looking now, this is a bug. The notes section should also include the default weapons loadout


Which approach do you think is better? Notes? or explicit 'weapons' in the combat tap like it is for NPC ships?


4C vs Default

[CPJ[I have to say 4C works very well for us. The parts we use are “Vehicle Effects Transfer” and “Vehicle/Passenger Distance Proxying”. The former means that all crew/passengers get effects dropped on the spaceship in the CT and the latter means that range penalties are automatically applied.

I'm going to do some more testing on default behavior and see if I can't come up with something a bit easier to deal with than currently. I think the 4C added capability is good and I do use it myself as well; but I have to think there is more that can be done w/ vanilla than what I have in there currently. I have created a LOT of arguments along the way in the discord trying to find elegant solutions and trying to balance ease of use vs. diminishing returns on trying automate too much when it could be as simple as adding a +1 or -2 manually to your roll either as a player or a GM.

Additional Optional Notes:

[CPJ]If you want to include all my nonsense that’s fine by me… I’ll reiterate again; it works for us, but probably not for everyone!

This is originally why I haven't documented a lot of what I put in there. Most of it was because 'it worked for me'. But I didn't put in explicit directions on how I do it since I know mileage varies. I was hoping that GM's would just poke around and figure out what I put in and know if/how it works or doesn't for them.

I probably *should* put some mention of some of how I had intended things to work, eg Assistants, Missiles, etc. If I do, I may add some of what you have provided in your word docs as well, thanks!

[Mike Serfass]

Missiles were always a nuisance to run, even at the table.
For my in-person games I had found some cool tokens from Litko to represent missiles. I had to remember every round to move them closer to the target while the target continued to also move every round.
Often the target was destroyed by disruptor cannons or lasers before the missile caught up three rounds later. The players quickly gave up using missiles.
I think this is why missiles now work more like other weapons.

This is one of many things sci-fi setting creators may rethink with the new SFC. I'm glad futuristic setting creators didn't wait 10 years for the SFC to come out, but now they have to reconsider some of their settings decisions in comparison to the SFC. I expect creators to release updates that roll the SFC into their creation.

I bring this up because the SFC figures out lots of things for settings (that's its purpose, after all), and the extension handles stuff for you. While you don't want to make a setting reliant on another extension, I could see settings using the SFC. Like some settings use / extend on the Horror or Fantasy companion. And I hope the SFC / extension saves setting developers work and re-inventing the wheel.