[Diaspora] Diaspora questions

[Brad Murray]

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:08 PM, David Dunham <alakoring at gmail.com> wrote:

> Compels: looks like these are intentionally different from SotC, in that
> there's no counter-bid.
>

We don't explicitly call out the idea of counter-bid (I don't think) but
that might be more oversight (or simplification) than anything else. We
counter-bid at the table.


> I think I'm missing something about the Weapon Familiarity rules (p. 43).
> Why not always take archaic weaponry or precollapse weaponry? Gives you a
> much better range of choices than putting points into Culture/Tech.
>

It gives you better weapons familiarity but it gives you no cultural
knowledge. Generally speaking, combat is pretty rare, so being especially
good at it is not that big an advantage -- characters are operating in a
real-feeling place with powerful people and laws, so the opportunities to
get away with violence can be rare. If the game you're running is more
violent (which is cool -- I have been planning a mercenary game) then it
might make sense that the characters are more versed in weaponry than
cultures anyway.


> The Alter a Track rules (p. 48) seem inconsistent. They're said to improve
> "one of your stress tracks" but Lucky affects all of them?
>

Changing the value of the consequence sequence isn't quite the same thing --
you don't always get to use their full value. And when you do use one,
you're stuck with a free-taggable negative aspect which is about to give
your next opponent +2. The stress track improvement is more specific but
also might avoid a consequence altogether.


> As a fencer, I'm bothered by the inability to use your sword to attack and
> defend (p. 101). I think I understand the game logic, but it's one of the
> few places that the abstraction feels like it gives the wrong feel.
>

I'd make that a stunt then -- military grade close combat -- can use close
combat twice in a row but only for attack and defense.


> At the same time, it seems like spaceship combat is the only time this rule
> is not in place? You can use Beams to attack in the Beam phase, and defend
> in the Torpedo phase. And it looks like a character's Gunnery skill is also
> used in both phases.
>

Yes because the space combat system is inverted -- rather than poll players
in order and ask for actions, we go through each action as a phase and ask
for participants. You don't get the problem play we wanted to avoid -- using
the same skill over and over, which is boring. You get beams in the beam
phase, comms in the EW phase, and so on.


> I think I understand the logic for the Sitting Duck aspect used for
> composure attacks without a weapon (p. 102), but I can easily imagine them
> being made from behind cover. Any amplification of this?
>

I can't imagine an effective composure attack from behind cover, but if it
happens, they should have used a Maneuver to get the cover, so it balances
out. Actually it's still in the attacker's favour because Sitting Duck isn't
free-taggable. Still, if there's a good story that the table has, play it
out however seems appropriate.


> The equipment tables (p. 118) confuse me a bit. Are the stunts always
> there? What's the disadvantage to taking a crossbow with the Civilian stunt?
> (It costs less, and everyone can use it.) Or are all crossbows Civilian? In
> which case, they must cost 1 not 2 because that stunt reduces the cost?
>

The disadvantage is that civilian weapons are universally crappier than
military weapons, as per the design sequence (the Civilian stunt costs build
points which might be used for Harm or Pen). Crossbows have Civilian because
they are intrinsically easier to handle and train than a bow. And it
differentiates them a little, which is hard down at that low a build point
scale.

Weapon stunts are basically features that are bought in the design sequence.
Some are negative so that they chew up build points in order to make a
weapon less powerful (Cheap for example). This is because the build system
is *not* the usual weapon/ship designer simulator (where you play a gunsmith
and try to construct the most awesome weapon possible within
mass/physics/space constraints). Rather it's a game design tool to build
weapons that are tech level appropriate, and so build points are fixed per
tech level and the way to make suboptimal weapons is to select stunts that
reflect the deficiency and pay for them (a "sink" stunt).


> You describe beam weapons as including rockets (p. 132). What then are
> torpedoes? (I think including the word "guided" would have helped.)
>

The intention was to leave the story to you. Beams could be anything that
suits the way they are used mechanically: relatively short range and viable
for point defense. Personally I prefer them painted as KE weapons --
coilguns or something.  These details are paint -- they are elements that
you should see come out of cluster generation and play such that they suit
your style. Anything you find compelling and believable in the context
(shortish range, point defense) works because no rule changes.

Hope these ideas help some!

-- 
Brad Murray (halfjack)
VSCA Publishing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phreeow.net/pipermail/diaspora_phreeow.net/attachments/20091220/37bc3a91/attachment-0001.html>