A Question of Scale

[Jamfke]

What is your favorite version of the scale system in D6?

I can swing with any of them, but I find that the latest iteration in the three core books suits my purposes quickly, and easily. The old Star Wars system found in the Rules Companion manual worked very nicely too.

[Whill]

I think the SW Rules Companion one was the die caps one, right? Grimace has done a lot of comparisons and evaluation. He said that the die caps is the best one, and whatever his argument was it worked on me because I ended up agreeing with him...

I'll just let Grimace come on here and speak for himself.

[Jamfke]

Pshaw, Grimace is so full of...

*ahem*

I mean, you're right, Grimace does know a lot about scales, he's an awesome authority on All Things D6!

:D

Just kidding, really though, Die Caps are a good way to handle scaling issues, and probably the most accurate too, but for quick and dirty game play, I still like the way they're done in the three core books; just roll your normal dice, add the static bonus, and move on. Unless you're just in the mood to roll a "bucket 'o' dice" (TM), that is!

[Whill]

I know what you mean. But me, I personally like rolling a bucket o' dice! Arithmetic can be fun! :D

[Grimace]

Okay, my thoughts on scales. *cracks knuckles*

Die cap is my favorite.
Followed by the static modifiers presented in the 3 core books.
and distantly in third is the bonus dice method.

Why, you ask?

Many reasons.

One, with die caps you don't have to worry about rolling any different amount of dice. What your sheet says is what you roll. The only thing you have to contend with is knowing how high on the dice you can count.

You can keep the amount of dice more manageable with die caps. You only have to contend with skill advancement and character point/fate point usage. Much less likely to experience the "bucket of dice" syndrome that many like to complain about.

You also have the nice effect in the die caps scale method of simply being so outclassed in a scale that you can affect something. Something too small simply isn't going to be able to damage something vastly more huge. Might be able to hit it without a problem, but damage is another thing entirely. I don't like the thought that a person with a lightsaber and a force point can cut through a Star Destroyer using the bonus dice method.

The static modifiers in the core books come in second, because at least they don't add in a hoarde of more dice. They do have the drawback of being able to affect any sized thing, but I know some people will like that idea.

The bonus dice method just adds too many problems, in my opinion. More dice, and a variable amount depending on the scale. And it's got the aspect that the smallest thing can affect the largest thing with the proper rolls. The LAST thing I want to be doing is adding 24D to my skill of 10D and rolling that.

[Whill]

Thanks for refreshing us with your wisdom here, Grimace.

The only trade-off with the die cap method is refering to a little chart (unless you eventually memorize what scales against what has what die cap). I'm ok with that.

Now if you want to ask Grimace how many scales there should be and what they each are, he'll have a lot more to say on that. :)

[Jamfke]

So Grimace, how many scales should there be, and what are each of them?

:D

[Grimace]

25.

Twenty five set and defined classifications of scales.

Sub-atomic
Atomic
Microbial
Tiny
Small
Character
Large
Vehicular - aka Speeder
Tank
Mech - aka Walker
Starfighter
Transport
Escort
Capital
Battleship
Space Station - aka Death Star
Lunar
Terrestrial 1
Terrestrial 2
Terrestrial 3
Gas Giant 1
Gas Giant 2
Stellar 1
Stellar 2
Stellar 3


Each classification of scale would have multiple examples of things that could be in it. That way you're not stuck with such scale groups as "8 story building", "2 story building", "aircraft carrier", "tip of a pin" and such.

For the static modifier method of scales, each classification would cover a range of numbers. For example, Character scale could be from -2 to 1, with 0 being the most common. This accounts for different things that might be just a bit less or a bit more than a normal human (say a young teen, or a moped...which shouldn't be classified as Vehicle scale). Large scale could range from 2 to 4, with 3 being the most common. And so on in both directions.

Die caps work easy with this by simply adjusting up or down the list with the same caps covering a range. Everything outside of the numbers, up or down, are simply too big or too small to matter.

Bonus dice method can be used as well, but generally equate to a lot of extra dice, which is another reason I don't like the bonus dice method.

I could give examples, but that would make this a little long.

[Jamfke]

What sort of examples did you have in mind?

:p

[Grimace]

Ha ha... nice try. Let me turn it about on you:

What examples do you think there should be for each classification?

[Whill]

Tiny
Small
Character
Large
Vehicular - aka Speeder
Tank
Mech - aka Walker
Starfighter
Transport
Escort
Capital
Battleship
Space Station - aka Death Star

I'd like Star Wars examples of each of the above, please. OK, you've already got Vehicular (speeder), Mech (Walker), and Space Station (Death Star). Character and Starfighter are no brainers too. But what about the rest (in bold)?

[DCBradshaw]

Die caps work easy with this by simply adjusting up or down the list with the same caps covering a range. Everything outside of the numbers, up or down, are simply too big or too small to matter.


Ok, let me see if I'm tracking here: you say you'd group certain scales together into a "range" and cap it out similar to the SW chart within that range, and then things below and above that range are negligible?

I guess I'm curious about the caps for a specific range. It's difficult to get much diversity when you're talking about 1-6; much beyond 6 scale ratings and doesn't it start to get grainy?

[Jamfke]

Ha ha... nice try. Let me turn it about on you:

What examples do you think there should be for each classification?

Personally, I think there should be examples for each type of genre. Like, oh, for instance, where would a B-29 bomber fall into the list? Transport, or Escort? Or in a western type setting, would one of those extra-large prairie schooners (see HERE (http://www.wheelsthatwonthewest.com/Pages/Featured_Vehicle_Freight_Wagons.html) for reference) be classified as vehicular, or would it fall under the tank category? Same goes for a steam engine.

I'd probably list the B-29 as escort scale myself. The freight wagon would still be considered vehicular to me since it's still just covered wagon. It might be a bit sturdier, and a lot larger, than a standard Conestoga, but it's not hardy enough to be classed with a tank. A steam train now, where would you consider putting that one?

[Rerun941]

I submit the following for examples:

http://www.merzo.net/index.html

[Jamfke]

I love that site. Excellent visual reference.

[Whill]

I'd like Star Wars examples of each of the above, please. OK, you've already got Vehicular (speeder), Mech (Walker), and Space Station (Death Star). Character and Starfighter are no brainers too. But what about the rest (in bold)?


Personally, I think there should be examples for each type of genre.

Sure, but for reference, let's start with Star Wars. Star Wars was the game that the multi-genre D6 system was based on, and my brain thinks in terms of Star Wars. But Star Wars and other genres definitely wouldn't hurt. :cool:

[bave]

Bravo on the scale thing, makes alot more sense, just need to make sure it is balanced, so what are the variables?

[Grimace]

I'd like Star Wars examples of each of the above, please. OK, you've already got Vehicular (speeder), Mech (Walker), and Space Station (Death Star). Character and Starfighter are no brainers too. But what about the rest (in bold)?


Actually, the list would be like this:
(bold is Star Wars scales)

Sub-atomic
Atomic
Microbial
Tiny
Small
Character
Large
Vehicular - aka Speeder
Tank
Mech - aka Walker
Starfighter
Transport
Escort
Capital
Battleship
Space Station - aka Death Star
Lunar
Terrestrial 1
Terrestrial 2
Terrestrial 3
Gas Giant 1
Gas Giant 2
Stellar 1
Stellar 2
Stellar 3

[Grimace]

Now I'll also put in some examples of things in those scales. Some you'll recognize from Star Wars.

Sub-atomic: electrons and other sub-atomic particles, "atoms" to a "Who" (from Horton Hears a Who)

Atomic: A "Who" (from Horton Hears a Who), individual atoms

Microbial: bacteria, nanites, microdots, the tiniest of insects

Tiny: most insects, computer chips, mouse, lego piece, small toys, pixies

Small: large insects, cats, dogs, children, brownies(fantasy), many toys

Character: mostly grown to full grown individuals, elves, lion, motorcycle, velociraptor, many aliens, Giant "small" animals (like a Giant Rat), rafts and canoes

Large: Rhinocerous, grizzly bear, small sailing ships, small civilian cars, most motorboats, gargoyle, Triceratops, speeder bikes, early aircraft, {prairie schooner}

Vehicular: Trucks, mid and large sized civilian cars, landspeeders, airspeeders, light tanks, tractor trailers, small helicopters, small and mid-sized jet aircraft, yachts, Tyrranosaurus Rex, {B-29}

Tank: most tanks, cruise ship, some naval ships, dragon, jumbo jet, AT-ST, small Mechs

Mech: modern/near-future tanks, AT-AT, large naval ships, supercarrier, battle Mechs

Starfighter: space fighter craft, "Ogre" tank and other futuristic tanks

Transport: larger transport space craft, super heavy fighters, small space corvettes, Klingon Bird of Prey

Escort: giant space slug, mid-sized space vessels such as frigates and light cruisers, small space stations, very large transport spacecraft, starship Enterprise

Capital: large space craft such as cruisers and Star Destroyers, large space stations, some comets

Battleship: very large space craft, enormous stations such as Babylon 5

Space Station: Extremely large stations like the Death Star, Unicron, ID4 Mothership

Lunar: Most moons

Terrestrial 1: very large moons, small planets such as Mercury, Pluto

Terrestrial 2: average planets such as Earth, Mars, Venus

Terrestrial 3: large planets of a non-gaseous nature

Gas Giant 1: smaller gaseous planets such as Neptune or Uranus

Gas Giant 2: larger gaseous planets such as Saturn or Jupiter

Stellar 1: largest gaseous planets, small stars, neutron stars

Stellar 2: Most main sequence stars, Dyson Spheres

Stellar 3: Giant and SuperGiant stars

[DCBradshaw]

So, ok, I'm still curious how you arrange these into groups for the caps. Are you talking like a group of 6, ala Star Wars?

[Grimace]

Basically 6, yeah. Six up and six down. So if your base is Character, you would go 6 up to Transport. Six down would take you to the bottom scale. Then that "6 up and down" can be moved up and down the whole chart. So if I moved it up to, say, Starfighter, 6 up would be Lunar (meaning that's the biggest thing a Starfighter scale has a chance of affecting) and 6 down would be Small (meaning that's the smallest thing a Starfighter can specifically target).

Make sense?

[mbentley]

Interesting.

[bave]

Help me understand that Grimace, so if you move up from one to another what is the change? ie: starfighter to space transport? Is it one step = +1, or +6, or what?

[mbentley]

From what I understand from what he is saying a Starfighter can target anything 6 up and 6 down from it. He didn't say what the bonus or penalty for targeting things would be.

So a Starfighter can go down as far as Small (with some currently unspecified penalty to hit and bonus to damage) and up to Lunar (with a currently unspecified bonus to hit and penalty to damage) if I understand how things are being said.

[bave]

I get that, but what is the number swing?

[mbentley]

Not sure what you mean by Number Swing. It's a sliding scale of 6 up and 6 down. If you are asking what the bonus and penalties are for the scale, he hasn't stated them, but I'd imaging it could be as simple as a +/-1D per up or down. So a Starfighter would have a -6D on it's to hit on something Small, but would get a +6D to damage. However thats just a guess on my part.

[Rerun941]

From what I understand from what he is saying a Starfighter can target anything 6 up and 6 down from it. He didn't say what the bonus or penalty for targeting things would be.

So a Starfighter can go down as far as Small (with some currently unspecified penalty to hit and bonus to damage) and up to Lunar (with a currently unspecified bonus to hit and penalty to damage) if I understand how things are being said.

He's using the die cap method for scaling, not the +/- modifier system. So, the die caps essentially "slide" up and down the scale.

If you're unfamiliar with the die-cap system, basically each die has a set maximum value (a cap) that it can roll... the farther away you are in scale the tighter your cap.

e.g. a character scale weapon trying to damage a starfighter (+5 scale levels) has a die cap of 1 to damage the starfighter. So any die rolled to damage the starfighter is capped at 1... no matter what shows up on the die, it counts as a 1. Now, the caps "slide" so a Large weapon attacking a Captial scale object again has a die cap of 1 (+5 scale levels). That Large weapon has a die cap of 2 to attack the Starfighter (+4 scale levels). 1s and 2s count as 1s and 2s... 2, 4, and 5 count as 2s.

[mbentley]

Sounds vaguely familiar, but also seems odd to me. Not sure exactly what about it it is that doesn't seem right. Maybe when it's all put together it'll make more sense to me.

[Grimace]

Rerun has it correct in regards to the Die Cap method. The reason I mentioned Die Caps rather than the bonus dice method is because that is what was asked. But when I get this to a finalized state, it will actually show and be able to use all three methods of scale rules (die caps, static modifiers, bonus dice) so a person has the option of using any of the three they desire.

As far as the Bonus Dice method goes, it would basically fall into the same way of operating as is listed in the Star Wars 2nd edition R&E rulebook. Character at 0D, Large at 1D, Vehicular at 2D, Tank at 3D, Walker at 4D, Starfighter at 6D, Transport 8D, Escort 10D, Capital 12D (note how all of the Star Wars referenced scales line up with the numbers in the R&E book, so there's still uniformity from existing material)

When it's all said and done, and I get this to the point of having examples of things in each scale, I will also have examples of how things are resolved in them.

As I mentioned, everyone has their own version of scales that they like. Some like rolling lots of dice. Some want to go with the newest version of scales from the 3 core books. Some, like myself, still like the die cap method that was presented in the Star Wars 2nd edition book. I basically just wanted to not only expand the scales to encompass more things (so you didn't have people thinking a dirtbike was speeder scale just because it's a motorized vehicle), to create a wider range so it can handle any sort of setting (from superhero settings to Robotech or Transformer type settings), and to have a cross reference so you can see how each method of scale resolution would handle the situation (and allow for you to use any of the three for the type of setting you want).

I realize that in some settings certain types of scale resolution methods (die caps, bonus dice, static modifiers) work better than others. If a person wants one type, all the time, then great. But if they want different types depending on setting, or simply want to see how the other method of scales works, they can try it out.

So far, this project isn't quite on the "done" list yet. Close, but not quite.

[mbentley]

I'll go back to interesting and keep my mouth shut ;)

[bave]

The one problem that I see is that this works great for resisting damage, but it is very difficult for determining damage. Who wants that many different scale weapons out there? It doesn't make sense.

I would think the best thing to do would be to keep the weapons on 2-3 scales. A starfighter scale, a medium scale, and a very large capital scale perhaps, and just have the damage be modified by the target resist.

[Whill]

Rerun has it correct in regards to the Die Cap method. The reason I mentioned Die Caps rather than the bonus dice method is because that is what was asked. But when I get this to a finalized state, it will actually show and be able to use all three methods of scale rules (die caps, static modifiers, bonus dice) so a person has the option of using any of the three they desire.

As far as the Bonus Dice method goes, it would basically fall into the same way of operating as is listed in the Star Wars 2nd edition R&E rulebook. Character at 0D, Large at 1D, Vehicular at 2D, Tank at 3D, Walker at 4D, Starfighter at 6D, Transport 8D, Escort 10D, Capital 12D (note how all of the Star Wars referenced scales line up with the numbers in the R&E book, so there's still uniformity from existing material)

I hadn't realized that the new scales fills in the blanks of the existing system, which makes it much more appealing to me. With this greater understanding of your concept, I'll look into this myself sometimes and let you know what I think.


The one problem that I see is that this works great for resisting damage, but it is very difficult for determining damage. Who wants that many different scale weapons out there? It doesn't make sense.

I would think the best thing to do would be to keep the weapons on 2-3 scales. A starfighter scale, a medium scale, and a very large capital scale perhaps, and just have the damage be modified by the target resist.

That's a very good point. But even in the existing system, ships sometimes have weapons of different scales (capital has some starfighter, starfighter may have some vehicle, etc.). Who wants to re-stat everything?

Grimace, I know it's not done, but I am very interested in this idea now, at least within the range I quoted above (because I don't think I'll ever need mechanics for above death star scale or below tiny scale). I know this is in general but since you are into Star Wars, I'll be requesting your assistance in re-statting stuff like hull and manueverability for some ships, etc.

[bave]

I hadn't realized that the new scales fills in the blanks of the existing system, which makes it much more appealing to me. With this greater understanding of your concept, I'll look into this myself sometimes and let you know what I think.



That's a very good point. But even in the existing system, ships sometimes have weapons of different scales (capital has some starfighter, starfighter may have some vehicle, etc.). Who wants to re-stat everything?

Grimace, I know it's not done, but I am very interested in this idea now, at least within the range I quoted above (because I don't think I'll ever need mechanics for above death star scale or below tiny scale). I know this is in general but since you are into Star Wars, I'll be requesting your assistance in re-statting stuff like hull and manueverability for some ships, etc.

Oh yea Whill, I entirely agree. I have no problem at all in different scale weapons on a ship, it makes sense (look at modern naval ships). What concerns me is inventing an entirely new bunch of weapon systems.

What is a starfighter laser battery vs an escort laser battery vs a transport laser battery? etc.

[Grimace]

Well, bave, for the most part there's not going to be weapons for every scale classification. I agree with you in saying that would be a little ridiculous.

There'd likely be a fairly large collection of Character scale weapons, just as there is now. There *might* be some large scale weapons (such as a .50 caliber) or those weapons might just be grouped up where they would be more plentiful with other weapons...and be in Vehicle scale. Some heavier weapons, such as a 120mm tank gun or the 204mm Artillery piece, would be Tank scale, but there's not going to be any sort of massive amount of them (I don't think).

When you get up into the space realm, most weapons would probably still stay where they are. Fighters would have Starfighter scale weapons. Same for transports. Most transports certainly don't mount heavier weaponry than fighters. Yes, there certainly could be a batch of weapons becoming Escort scale, but most Escort scale ships would likely mount either Starfighter scale or Capital scale weaponry. And Battleship scale ships would likely only carry Capital scale weapons or Starfighter scale weapons.

So, for the most part, there's not going to be a slew of different scale weapons. The scales for the ships would reflect either more inherent durability or larger size, but that doesn't mean their weapons are going to follow suit with those scales.

And on the small end, you probably won't see any change until you start getting into the Tiny scale or so, where things like Pixies have weapons their size that do inherently less damage to a human than a weapon that a Brownie would carry.

So don't worry, there won't be a mess. :)

And Whill, I'd be glad to help on ideas for re-statting Star Wars ships or whatever.
I've already done a little of that in preperation of figuring all these scales out. I figured it was too extravagent for "general consumption", so I never planned on putting any of those ideas out for the public to use, but if a person wants to do that, I'd certainly lend a hand. :)

[bave]

Grimace,

I think this represents one of the best opportunities to improve the game. The scalar damage system has always had problems and you have a good idea on how to resolve it.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Let's see -- how would this work in my uber-fantasy campaign concept? On the big end of the scale we wouldn;t have planets and such, but we would have dragons that get pretty big, and spells designed to take them out which are also capable of taking out towns or even (in rare cases) cities. Collateral Damage is an important consideration when using ubermagics, as you could detsroy a great deal else along with your target.

Then we have the scale of the Intelligent Dragons (as opposed to the big dumb animals) who can take human forms to walk among humans and communicate with them. They operate on two different scales, depending on which form they are currently using.

[bave]

Grimace,

Question for you here....

Starfighter
Transport
Escort
Capital
Battleship

This is the basic layout you are using for starships, can you provide some examples of what fits into what and what the criteria are?

Now, I understand the negative modifiers, but are there positive modifiers? Take for example a transport scale ship firing on a capital ship would be two steps below, which means a "4" cap on their roll for damage, but what about a bonus to hit? Do they get a +2 per die? Over 6?

Also, take it the other way. A capital firing on a transport. Their to hit is capped at 4, but what about damage? Do they get +2? to a max of 6 or 8 per die?

What would you envision for weapon systems? Would a transport mount primarily starfighter weapons with possibly a custom heavier weapon? I assume the cap modifiers would be based on the weapon for targetting and damage? How many classes of weapons do you see?

[Whill]

Question for you here....

Starfighter
Transport
Escort
Capital
Battleship

This is the basic layout you are using for starships, can you provide some examples of what fits into what and what the criteria are?

Last night I IMed with Grimace a little bit about scaling. I asked him the same question and he gave me Star Wars examples. But those are on my other computer that I probably won't be able to access again until tonight. I'll be happy to share later even though scale systems are meant for D6 in general and not just Star Wars.


Now, I understand the negative modifiers, but are there positive modifiers? Take for example a transport scale ship firing on a capital ship would be two steps below, which means a "4" cap on their roll for damage, but what about a bonus to hit? Do they get a +2 per die? Over 6?

Also, take it the other way. A capital firing on a transport. Their to hit is capped at 4, but what about damage? Do they get +2? to a max of 6 or 8 per die?

Die caps were the very first scale system in D6. Going back to my memory of The Star Wars Rules Companion (upgrades to 1st Edition or SW "1.5"), die caps limit attack/to hit rolls or evade/dodge, and attack damage or hull/str to resist damage. Die caps can never be above 6, and there are no + or - modifiers per se. In use, die caps are always a direct disadvantage to something, and never a direct advantage to anything. Die caps always cap the scale that logically should be at a disavantage based on the particular contest.

If a higher scale weapon is shooting at a lower scale ship, then the higher scale is at a disadvantage to hit. The attack roll would be capped while the evade would be normal. For example, a star destroyer capital-ship-scale weapon (primarily designed to target other capital ships) against a starfighter. If the higher scale weapon hits, then the cap is reversed for determining damage - the higher scale damage roll is normal and the lower scale hull is capped.

Conversely, if a (lower) starfighter-scale fighter shoots back at the (higher scale) captial ship, the attack roll is normal and the capital ship evade is capped (if they bother trying to evade at all). If the starfighter weapon hits, the damage roll is capped and the hull to resist damage is normal.

And of course die caps would effect all dice rolled, including the bonuses from fire control (targeting computers), maneuverability, shields/armor, character points and fate points.

Same scales are technically die cap of 6, meaning all dice are counted as normal and no scaling is required. When two things are different scales, each step away is subtracted from 6. So scale differences of one step are "die cap 5", scale differences of two steps are "die cap of 4", and so on.

What "capped" actually means is that all individual die results have a max value of whatever the cap is for that roll. With a cap of "5" that means that all die results of 1-5 are normal, and any 6 result becomes a 5. With a cap of "4", 1-4 are normal and 5-6 results becomes 4's, etc. It's very easy in actual play because for any die results over the cap, you simply turn the die over to the cap value, and then count up your result.

I would think that to get the benefit of 6 on the wild die, you explode as normal and when you stop getting 6's, then turn all the 6's over to the die cap of that roll and count up your result. Same with 1 on wild die if you have to subtract a highest die result: do that first and then "cap" your remaining dice. But since this scale method pre-dates the inclusion of the wild die in the game, this would have to be officially determined if adopting this scale system. I'm not sure how Grimace does it but that's how I would do it. I personally haven't used die caps since 2nd Edition came out.

This scale method is an advantage over the 2nd edition dice method because in that it doesn't involve rolling more dice for either side. It just changes the results of the dice rolled.

The system does prevent usual die roll contests of more than 5 steps higher or lower, because if something has a difference of 6 steps or more, then the die cap is "-" of "0". Technically, a die cap of 0 means the higher scale attacking a lower scale cannot target something so small so can't really aim at it. For lower scale atacking higher, "0" technically means that lower scale can't really miss because the item is so much larger, but the lower scale ability to damage is ineffectual. That means that a hand blaster shooting at a star destroyer probably won't miss if within the weapon's max range, but on the other hand the hit would have no effect.

Of course, a dose of common sense is needed when applying these rules, and like with all rules, the GM should override something if the game mechanics don't make sense.

I don't think a Death Star would really be able to even attempt to target a specific single X-Wing with die cap 1 (or even a AT-AT Walker with cap 2), but maybe it could shoot it's beam in the general direction of a swarm of X-Wings and maybe hit some of them. If somehow hit by a higher scale weapon and the die code value is 0, then by the rules all die results would cap at 0 which means the lower scale item would be toast. In the case of a Death Star trying to target a swarm of fighters that you are flying in, I would probably ignore the scale rules and just make the pilot make a roll to get out of the way of the beam. But it's instant death if you get hit by the beam. Of course, a Death Star wouldn't need to target a specific ship on a planet or even in the atmosphere of a planet, because it if hits the planet than you're toast anyway. I personally don't think I'd ever even bother to use scale rules for a Death Star-level or higher at all.

The final comment I have about this here is that the particular scale of things may be partially based on size, but it also takes other factors into account (toughness, power of weapon, etc.).


What would you envision for weapon systems? Would a transport mount primarily starfighter weapons with possibly a custom heavier weapon? I assume the cap modifiers would be based on the weapon for targetting and damage? How many classes of weapons do you see?

In theory, weapons could be of any scale in the system, but in practice that would really complicate things. Grimace has rationals for weapons of various scales for specific ships, and again, he'll have to speak for himself. Above I was just talking about how scales work in general, but Grimace has the most knowledge of his actual expanded scale system (and it's still in development so to speak). In the old system with only six different scales, you had a chart to cross-reference scale vs. scale, since many Grimace's added scale levels were not included.

Grimace, if I was wrong or off about anything please correct me! (See below for clarification about the Death Star scale superlaser of my examples, thanks to bave).

[bave]

Whill,

The deathstar reference is easy since alot of their weapons were not death star scale, almost all in fact :)

The reason I ask is that take a Star Destroyer, either Capital or Battleship against an X-Wing. Take Capital for simplicity sake. 3 steps away.

Star Destroyer fires its turbolaser, capped at 3 on the die to attack. The Xwing dodges at full value. If it hits the Xwing rolls its resist shields/hull capped at 3.

Am I understanding this correctly? If so, it seems about right. That Xwing would be pretty toasted.

[Whill]

The deathstar reference is easy since alot of their weapons were not death star scale, almost all in fact

Oops, I should have been more specific. The Death Stars only had one Death-Star-scale weapon, the "superlaser" that destoyed Alderaan and Mon Cal capital ships. All the other weapons are less than that scale, so for my examples above assume the superlaser. Good point. :)


The reason I ask is that take a Star Destroyer, either Capital or Battleship against an X-Wing. Take Capital for simplicity sake. 3 steps away.

Star Destroyer fires its turbolaser, capped at 3 on the die to attack. The Xwing dodges at full value. If it hits the Xwing rolls its resist shields/hull capped at 3.

Am I understanding this correctly? If so, it seems about right. That Xwing would be pretty toasted.

Yes, you have it. That is exactly the way it works. For the capped rolls, all the die results above 3 would be capped at 3. All 1-2 results remain what they are.

[Grimace]

First off, Whill got most of the explanation right on the button. Just a couple of clarifications:


I don't think a Death Star would really be able to even attempt to target a specific single X-Wing with die cap 1 (or even a AT-AT Walker with cap 2), but maybe it could shoot it's beam in the general direction of a swarm of X-Wings and maybe hit some of them.

From your example, the lowest scale the Death Star's superlaser could specifically target would be a Starfighter. (Battleship is capped at 5, Capital at 4, Escort at 3, Transport at 2, and Starfighter at 1) Anything smaller than a starfighter is simply too small to be specifically targetted by a superlaser. A superlaser, however, could easily just target the planet the AT-AT is on, and deal with that particular issue rather easily. And, as a corollary, an AT-AT is simply so small and weak that while it could conceivably hit a Death Star without fail, actually damaging a Death Star would be impossible.



Starfighter
Transport
Escort
Capital
Battleship

This is the basic layout you are using for starships, can you provide some examples of what fits into what and what the criteria are?


Just using Star Wars as an example, you'd have some things like the following in each category:
Starfighter = X-Wings, A-Wings, TIE fighters
Transport = YT-1300 transport, Gallofree transport
Escort = Nebulon B frigate, Corellian corvette, Lancer frigate
Capital = Star Destroyer, Dreadnought, Mon Cal cruiser
Battleship = Super Star Destroyer

For some things outside of the Star Wars realm:
Starfighter = B5 Starfury, "Last Starfighter" Gunstar, "Aliens" UD-4L Cheyanne Dropship
Transport = "Serenity", "Eagle" from Space 1999, "Discovery" from 2001, Bajoran freighter
Escort = starship "Enterprise NCC-1700A", starship "Excelsior", Ferengi D'kora, "Nostromo" from Aliens, "Rodger Young" from Starship Troopers
Capital = Battlestar "Galactica", Centauri "Primus" battlecruiser, B5 "Omega" Destroyer, SDF-3 Pioneer, Macross SDF-1, Minbari Sharlin cruiser, starship "Andromeda", "Titan AE"
Battleship = Peacekeeper Command Carrier, "V-Ger", Vorlon Planet Killer, Marduk Mothership




I would think that to get the benefit of 6 on the wild die, you explode as normal and when you stop getting 6's, then turn all the 6's over to the die cap of that roll and count up your result. Same with 1 on wild die if you have to subtract a highest die result: do that first and then "cap" your remaining dice. But since this scale method pre-dates the inclusion of the wild die in the game, this would have to be officially determined if adopting this scale system. I'm not sure how Grimace does it but that's how I would do it. I personally haven't used die caps since 2nd Edition came out.


Pretty much right on the money. If you get a 6 on the Wild Die and the cap is 4, then you'd count it as a 4, but roll the Wild Die again. Another 6, do the same thing. If you get anything other than a 6 on the Wild Die, it counts as it should (with a 5 becoming a 4 if the cap is at 4). If you get a 1 on the
Wild Die and do the subtraction, then you'd take away the 1 and the highest other die rolled. If that's a 5 or 6 that was capped at 4, then that's what it is. Obviously taking away a 6 that's been capped at 4 isn't quite as damaging as it could be, because that's the equivalent of only losing a 4.

And that is how I've done it for years.




The reason I ask is that take a Star Destroyer, either Capital or Battleship against an X-Wing. Take Capital for simplicity sake. 3 steps away.

Star Destroyer fires its turbolaser, capped at 3 on the die to attack. The Xwing dodges at full value. If it hits the Xwing rolls its resist shields/hull capped at 3.

Am I understanding this correctly? If so, it seems about right. That Xwing would be pretty toasted.

Yep, you've got it right on! The X-Wing, if it gets hit, is going to feel some pain from the capital scale weapons on the Star Destroyer.

[Whill]

Thank you for everything, Grimace! I'm gonna get out the 3 scale systems and look at them more closely myself, but this detail this time around has really gotten me into the subject.


Of course, a dose of common sense is needed when applying these rules, and like with all rules, the GM should override something if the game mechanics don't make sense.

I don't think a Death Star would really be able to even attempt to target a specific single X-Wing with die cap 1 (or even a AT-AT Walker with cap 2), but maybe it could shoot it's beam in the general direction of a swarm of X-Wings and maybe hit some of them.


From your example, the lowest scale the Death Star's superlaser could specifically target would be a Starfighter. (Battleship is capped at 5, Capital at 4, Escort at 2, Transport at 2, and Starfighter at 1) Anything smaller than a starfighter is simply too small to be specifically targetted by a superlaser. A superlaser, however, could easily just target the planet the AT-AT is on, and deal with that particular issue rather easily. And, as a corollary, an AT-AT is simply so small and weak that while it could conceivably hit a Death Star without fail, actually damaging a Death Star would be impossible.

I understood the way the rules worked mechanically (superlaser shooting at starfighters and walkers having die cap of 1 and 2, respectively), but my statements about the Death Star attacking them were my own opinion of Star Wars reality and not based on game mechanics. It was meant to continue from the thought above that about each GM using common sense. I understand how this scale system says that the superlaser could target a starfighter with a die cap of 1, but I say it can't. I'm not saying this blows the whole system or anything. I'm just saying, as with any game mechanics, each GM can come in and make a ruling that overrides a game system mechanic if it feels right to him. If you want superlasers to have a small chance of targeting a starfighter in your game as per this system, well it's your game. Of course, with the energy required for each shot, it would be a waste to shoot a starfighter with a superlaser anyway, even if it hit. Why would you get a tank to kill a fly? :cool:

If I ever even have a battle-station-scale station in my game, I probably would not bother with scale mechanics at all. And like I said previously, I don't think I'd go lower than small or tiny. But in between tiny and battle ship, this system seems sound and I'm very interested in implementing it into my Star Wars revision. Thanks again.

[DCBradshaw]

If I ever even have a battle-station-scale station in my game, I probably would not bother with scale mechanics at all.

I understand and endorse this sentiment. It gets to a point where the very high scales are essentially just terrain with smaller scaled objects on it (like turbolaser embankments on the Death Star) and any damage done between one or the other is GM fiat (the Death Star blowing up a planet) or a plot point (nailing the exhaust port).

[Whill]

It gets to a point where the very high scales are essentially just terrain with smaller scaled objects on it (like turbolaser embankments on the Death Star) and any damage done between one or the other is GM fiat (the Death Star blowing up a planet) or a plot point (nailing the exhaust port).

That's exactly my point, DC. Well said.


And I also want to correct an earlier statement I made in this thread. The dice cap scale method did coexist with the wild die in publication, back in the oiriginal Star Wars RPG, 2nd Edition from 1992 (not R&E). And it worked exactly as Grimace and I have stated.

I did adopt most of the 2E rules when they came out (my first edition house rules actually foreshadowed many of the updates the D6 system). But the time period after this edition and before 2nd Edition, Revised & Expanded came out was college, a lot of moving around, and other personal upheavals. So I didn't play a whole lot during those 5 years, one fairly complete "campaign" and one partial. So I didn't use the original 2E much. And I don't remember having to use scale rules much (I often just winged it). And then since the shiny, full-color, well-designed, revised edition came out in '97, I've barely cracked open the original poorly-designed 2E rule book since. So basically, I forgot about die cap scales in 2E. OK, I admit: I'm getting old. :o

[Rerun941]

So basically, I forgot about die cap scales in 2E. OK, I admit: I'm getting old. :o

Aww, you're not old, Whill... you're just "experienced" :cool:

[Grimace]

I have no problem with people deciding not to use scales at or above where the Death Star is. I just know that there are people out there that have such enormous things pitting against each other. Imagine a Death Star against the ID4 Mothership. Or the Zentraedi Mobile Command Base against Omicron. While I may never run something like that, or if I did I might only use GM fiat, I've personally known some people who would've revelled at the idea of statting and battling those things out. That's why I progress up and beyond. Basically all the way to the potentially largest thing I could think of: Super Massive Red Giant stars. It's a star so big it would put Pluto in the orbit that Mercury is right now. Yeah, it's probably bigger than anything anyone would ever throw at a group...but I wanted to include it so people weren't left guessing.

Right now, on my three scale conversion method, the only scale system that WORKS at that stage is die caps. With the others, the static numbers become so huge it's ridiculous. And the bonus dice method would have a person rolling 60+ dice just for a scale offset. That's just silly in my mind, but for completeness I'll probably put it in there.

So don't get me wrong. I'm not going to try to force people to use this scale system. If anything, I'd hope they'd use the conversion between the three so they can try out all three methods and decide which is best based on their own experience. I can tell people I prefer the die caps the best, and other people can say they like the bonus dice method the best. But once a person tries the different methods they can decide on their own which they prefer the best. And if they want to use my different scales to fill in the blanks, then more power to them. If they want to just stick with the scales presented in Star Wars...they're in there too, and largely untouched by any changes (save for name, due to copyright). I just figured there was a better way of handling the classifications of scales rather than having the vague references of "4 story building" and such. And I really felt that a static modifier of 50 for an aircraft carrier was just wrong, especially since combat starships were so far below that amount.

So DC, Whill, if you don't want to use higher scales...perfectly fine with me. If you don't want to use my scale classifications, that's fine too. Everybody's got a choice and I just hope that people will try it out and decide on their own.

[asmkm22]

honestly, i ignore scales entirely.

[Michael Hopcroft]

honestly, i ignore scales entirely.

Like, do I really want to know how much I weigh? ;)

Seriously, I'm trying to wrap my mind around getting scales to work in non-SF settings. What's the scale equivalent on Grimace's scale for a dragon or a giant? What about a dirigible? A skyscraper? If I want to leap the tallest buildings in a single bound, how do I do it?

[mbentley]

Like, do I really want to know how much I weigh? ;)

Seriously, I'm trying to wrap my mind around getting scales to work in non-SF settings. What's the scale equivalent on Grimace's scale for a dragon or a giant? What about a dirigible? A skyscraper? If I want to leap the tallest buildings in a single bound, how do I do it?

In a fantasy setting I'd say the following scales may apply:
Tiny
Small
Character
Large
Vehicular - aka Speeder
Tank
Mech

Tiny representing really small beings and Mech being Dragons and Giants maybe falling into Large or Vehicle.

[asmkm22]

Like, do I really want to know how much I weigh? ;)

Seriously, I'm trying to wrap my mind around getting scales to work in non-SF settings. What's the scale equivalent on Grimace's scale for a dragon or a giant? What about a dirigible? A skyscraper? If I want to leap the tallest buildings in a single bound, how do I do it?


roll your jumping skill, and get really high :P

adding or subtracting dice from your pool based on relative object size has never made sense to me. the *only* reason it's mechanically needed is if everything in the game has the same attribute caps. (so the dragon has a max strength score of 4d, and so does the human). at that point, a scale system would be needed to bridge the two.

as far as i know, there's nothing stopping you from assigning 8d to the dragons' strength, which nullifies the need for a scale.

[Grimace]

Seriously, I'm trying to wrap my mind around getting scales to work in non-SF settings. What's the scale equivalent on Grimace's scale for a dragon or a giant? What about a dirigible? A skyscraper? If I want to leap the tallest buildings in a single bound, how do I do it?

Actually, I started this remake of the scales when I ran a fantasy game with D6 before D6 Fantasy ever came out. I used the scales: Human (Character), Large (same name), Giant (Vehicle), Enormous (Tank).

Some examples would be: Hydra = Large scale, Treant = Large scale, Griffon = Large scale, Dragon = Giant (Vehicle) scale, Roc = Enormous (Tank) scale, Giant = Giant (Vehicle) scale.

So I ran a fantasy game with these scales and it worked fine for me.

A dirigible is a different "beast" entirely. While large, it's pretty much as fragile as an eggshell. So I'd likely put it at either Large or Vehicle scale as an "overall" scale. Or, if I was inclined to break things down a little more, I'd give it a Tank scale to be hit, but a Character scale to resist damage. If you don't want to be that nitpicky, just put it at Large scale and put the Body at 2D or something of the sort.

A skyscraper I'd probably put in the Mech or even Starfighter scale, depending on the size of the skyscraper. I definitely wouldn't go higher than Starfighter scale for any earth type building.

If you want to leap the building in a single bound, use D6 Powers. ;)

[Grimace]

adding or subtracting dice from your pool based on relative object size has never made sense to me. the *only* reason it's mechanically needed is if everything in the game has the same attribute caps. (so the dragon has a max strength score of 4d, and so does the human). at that point, a scale system would be needed to bridge the two.

as far as i know, there's nothing stopping you from assigning 8d to the dragons' strength, which nullifies the need for a scale.


Well, it may have never made sense to you, and if you don't use it, then more power to you. I think, and I believe a fair number of others think, that scales are a useful things. It stops the dice from becoming outlandish.

Take your example. Assign 8D to a Dragon. Great. So an E-web has an equal chance of taking out a dragon. Mmmm.. conceivable. But now what do you do for something bigger than a dragon? How does a dragon stack up against a Corellian corvette? Can a dragon take a turbolaser blast from a capital ship better than it can take a hit from an E-web? If you want the turbolaser to really potent to a dragon that has 8D to resist, you need to put the weapon of the Corellian corvette at 10D or 12D. That gives the turbolaser pretty good odds of dropping the dragon with one shot most of the time.

So now you have to look at something bigger than a Corellian corvette. Let's take a Star Destroyer. Do the weapons of a Star Destroyer need to be bigger than that of the corvette? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing's for sure, the hull of the Star Destroyer has to be a lot bigger than the corvette, as the Star Destroyer can take a LOT more hits than a corvette. So you need to compare the Body of the Dragon 8D with the hull of a corvette. Could a dragon defeat a corvette easily? Probably not. So it needs to be pretty high. High enough that the dragon's breath won't easily damage the corvette. So you have to give the corvette 9-10D. Even if you only give the dragon 5D for its breath weapon (equivalent of a heavy blaster pistol) you wouldn't want the dragon being able "accidentally" toast the corvette with one shot. So 9D or so is probably safe. But then what would the Star Destroyer have? If the weapons on the corvette do 10D or 12D to contend with the 8D dragon, then you need the hull of the Star Destroyer to be substantially more so a Star Destroyer wasn't easily toasted by a Corellian corvette. So you then have to put a Star Destroyer's hull at 16D or 18D or some other ridiculously high number.

You see where this is going?

Scales omit the increasing inflation of dice to account for things bigger, more durable, or more powerful than something else.

When you start to stat a bunch of things, and work your way up to larger and larger things, you really notice it if you don't use scales.

But, as I've said, it's each person's choice. So if you don't want to use scales, that's your choice. I'd cringe at the thought of that, but that's just me.

And before you say a dragon would never fight a Corellian corvette, take into consideration that some people cross genres. Some people create bigger and badder things. So consider those things as well...things that could conceivably go up against each other. Those things should be balanced, and constantly inflating the quantity of dice isn't the way to do it best. Yes, it can work, as the bonus dice method of scale does such a thing, but it leads to simply outlandish amounts of dice being rolled.

[Kalzazz]

Oh! The dirigible question!

My solution to the dirigible/zeppelin question (and pretty much all scale questions if I wasnt stuck being a slave to tradition) is to give negative stats and set the scale off size

So, Zeppelin - Capital Scale, -2d body, -4d vs fire

Negative stats add dice to the opposing roll where appropriate and/or subtract from the things own roll

So a speeder scale Sopwulf Pup armed with tracers could quite possibly down the zeppelin

Edit: The reason I like scales is they help keep things in perspective (somewhat), a ship with 2d hull isnt very tough just like a human with 2d strength, while a ship with 6d str is clearly pretty cool

[Whill]

adding or subtracting dice from your pool based on relative object size has never made sense to me. the *only* reason it's mechanically needed is if everything in the game has the same attribute caps. (so the dragon has a max strength score of 4d, and so does the human). at that point, a scale system would be needed to bridge the two.

as far as i know, there's nothing stopping you from assigning 8d to the dragons' strength, which nullifies the need for a scale.

The example in the Star Wars 2E (original) is that, on a character scale (average PC has STR 3D), the Death Star might have a Hull 100D. That's an extreme example but it makes the point.

You're right. There is nothing stopping you from making everything in your game on the same scale, but then you may get into the realm of extremely large amounts of dice to roll. In general I think rolling dice and adding them up is fun, but there is a point when it becomes rediculous and slows down the adventurous pace of the game. Scale considerations may not come into play extremely often in every game, but they are valuable for when they do.

[Jamfke]

In my western setting, I'm thinking of not using a scale system at all. Reason being that there will rarely be a case of characters going up against anything that would warrant its use. It will be simple enough to raise the dice for things such as a locomotive, or a large animal based on the "Character Scale." This can work because the western setting will be all that the game is about. Unless the GM and players decide that they want to twist it into a Weird West style of game, there won't be any starfighters, or mechs to contend with.

That said, for a game like ACES, Grimace's scaling would be more acceptable, because you would be able to advance the setting beyond the era of WWII. So, you'd need to be able to see a difference between the old warbirds and our modern jet fighters. Same goes for the difference between the old tanks and our modern MBTs (a point Grimace made evident to me in previous conversations). For something like that, you wouldn't want to have set die codes for vehicles and weapons, because it would get ridiculous very quickly.

So, for me, the use of scale, and the system you wish to use, depends heavily upon the setting you are using, and whether or not you want your setting to be analogous with past, and future, time lines. If it's a stand alone setting, with no plans for future development, then a scaling system may not be required.

[asmkm22]

So now you have to look at something bigger than a Corellian corvette. Let's take a Star Destroyer. Do the weapons of a Star Destroyer need to be bigger than that of the corvette? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing's for sure, the hull of the Star Destroyer has to be a lot bigger than the corvette, as the Star Destroyer can take a LOT more hits than a corvette. So you need to compare the Body of the Dragon 8D with the hull of a corvette. Could a dragon defeat a corvette easily? Probably not. So it needs to be pretty high. High enough that the dragon's breath won't easily damage the corvette. So you have to give the corvette 9-10D. Even if you only give the dragon 5D for its breath weapon (equivalent of a heavy blaster pistol) you wouldn't want the dragon being able "accidentally" toast the corvette with one shot. So 9D or so is probably safe. But then what would the Star Destroyer have? If the weapons on the corvette do 10D or 12D to contend with the 8D dragon, then you need the hull of the Star Destroyer to be substantially more so a Star Destroyer wasn't easily toasted by a Corellian corvette. So you then have to put a Star Destroyer's hull at 16D or 18D or some other ridiculously high number.


the question i ask is why would you even need a stat for the star destroyer's hull when it's obviously not going to be harmed by an inferior attack?

[asmkm22]

The example in the Star Wars 2E (original) is that, on a character scale (average PC has STR 3D), the Death Star might have a Hull 100D. That's an extreme example but it makes the point.

You're right. There is nothing stopping you from making everything in your game on the same scale, but then you may get into the realm of extremely large amounts of dice to roll. In general I think rolling dice and adding them up is fun, but there is a point when it becomes rediculous and slows down the adventurous pace of the game. Scale considerations may not com into play extremely often in every game, but they are valuable for when they do.

exactly. once the dice pools get too large because of no scaling rules, the roll probably shouldn't even be made in the first place. i'm not going to bother rolling to punch the death star because it has a stupidly high hull stat.

[Kalzazz]

The Death Star only has, what, 30 some odd dice of soak vs a character scale attack?

A Jedi Master could cut it out of space with a lightsabre blow and a Force Point

[Michael Hopcroft]

This is like asking myself in the original DC game whether a Kryptonian could destory the Earth simply by punching a good-sized hole in the crust. Of course, silver-age Superman could tunnel through the planet and come out the other end without the expected negative consequences.

But of course once we get into super-powered characters we run into all sorts of problems with scale.

[Kalzazz]

I mostly consider it a bonus not a problem, Id be dissapointed if a high powered character couldnt fight big things

edit: granted, the problem/oppurtunity isnt really based on scales/lack of scales, as soon as you assign numbers to something, then other numbers can be found to beat it. Like in the old Deities and Demigods

[Grimace]

the question i ask is why would you even need a stat for the star destroyer's hull when it's obviously not going to be harmed by an inferior attack?


Huh? What, you're never going to have two capital ships attacking each other? No Mon Cal cruisers against a Star Destroyer like what we see in Return of the Jedi?

Right there you need stats for a Star Destroyer's hull.



exactly. once the dice pools get too large because of no scaling rules, the roll probably shouldn't even be made in the first place. i'm not going to bother rolling to punch the death star because it has a stupidly high hull stat.

I'm not intending to pick on you, I just want to point something out. If you have a human in a game, and if you have a starfighter in a game, and if you have a Star Destroyer in a game, and if you have a Death Star in a game, then you HAVE to give them appropriate dice if they're all at the same scale. So you may not have a human attack a Death Star, but you may very well have a Star Destroyer try it. And there is where you'd have the ridiculous amounts of dice.

In order to keep everything "appropriate" to each other, and at the same scale, you'd be looking at literally dozens and dozens of dice being rolled at one time. If you decide to cheat and make the Death Star scaled appropriately higher than the Star Destroyer, but the Star Destroyer being your base for comparison, then you throw out all balance between the Star Destroyer and a starfighter. And a starfighter has to be appropriately larger than a human. So either you end up with massive dice on the upper end (that ARE needed, because you can have battles between big things), or you end up with capital ships with only 6D and a human at 3D and a starfighter at 8D. It just get's all wonky.

As Jamfke said, you can get away without using any scales in a particular setting if you're operating under a very narrow set of things that will be used. But for something like Star Wars, with the massive discrepancies in size and power, without scales it just seems like you'd either have such atrocious quantities of dice being rolled, or you'd have glaringly bad stats for things that have no balance when compared against other things in the same setting.


So, with all that said, like I said before, if you want to go with no scales, that's fine if it works for you. But to infer that scales are absolutely not needed is just wrong, especially if you've got a wide range of sizes and powers of things in a game.

[asmkm22]

That's why I use an alternate set of rules to handle large scale combat, rather than apply what feels like a band-aid patch to an outdated scaling system.

[Jamfke]

Why? You're still basically scaling things if you have to use a different combat system.

[asmkm22]

Why? You're still basically scaling things if you have to use a different combat system.

Lets them scale in a way that doesn't require conversions or adjustments to stats based on it's opposition. Essentially, ships are treated as characters, in terms of abilities and skills (although with different sets of each).

An x-wing might have a 2D in hull, and the death star might have an 8D plus whatever soak it's shielding provides. More importantly, it's wound box would be massive compared to the x-wing. This way, something like an x-wing could potentially get lucky and actually "damage" the death star, but the few wound points lost would be like throwing a deck chair off The Queen Mary; who would notice?

After writing this, I think a large reason for the divide between me and pretty much everyone else here on the subject, is that I don't think the strength of something like the death star comes from how much damage it can ignore through a toughness roll, but in how much damage it can sustain and still function fine due to it's immense size.

I can fire a blaster in the earth and cause damage, but the "wound chart" of a planet would simply be too massive to ever have a real effect.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Lets them scale in a way that doesn't require conversions or adjustments to stats based on it's opposition. Essentially, ships are treated as characters, in terms of abilities and skills (although with different sets of each).

An x-wing might have a 2D in hull, and the death star might have an 8D plus whatever soak it's shielding provides. More importantly, it's wound box would be massive compared to the x-wing. This way, something like an x-wing could potentially get lucky and actually "damage" the death star, but the few wound points lost would be like throwing a deck chair off The Queen Mary; who would notice?

After writing this, I think a large reason for the divide between me and pretty much everyone else here on the subject, is that I don't think the strength of something like the death star comes from how much damage it can ignore through a toughness roll, but in how much damage it can sustain and still function fine due to it's immense size.

I can fire a blaster in the earth and cause damage, but the "wound chart" of a planet would simply be too massive to ever have a real effect.

Funny that you would use the Death Star as an example. Both versions of the station had structural flaws that provided an opening through which smaller craft could cause massive, even fatal damage to the Death Star. The Imperial engineers were either massively overconfident or had some of their number working for the Rebels (which may be how the rebellion got those plans in the first place, from a traitor within the group that was constructing the station).

So under the right circumstances, especially when dramatically appropriate, much smaller-scale attacks can have bad or even fatal effects on higher-scaled foes. Whether it's the star-fighter finding the weak point of the Empire's massive and massively-expensive main battle station to the valiant archer hitting the missing scal in the dragon's armored hide, fiction is full of things that ought to be impossible if scaling is used "properly".

[Whill]

Funny that you would use the Death Star as an example. Both versions of the station had structural flaws that provided an opening through which smaller craft could cause massive, even fatal damage to the Death Star. The Imperial engineers were either massively overconfident or had some of their number working for the Rebels (which may be how the rebellion got those plans in the first place, from a traitor within the group that was constructing the station)


...Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire. During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire’s ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet. Pursued by the Empire’s sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans...


Any attack made by the Rebels against this station would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they have obtained. This station is now the ultimate power in the universe.


An analysis of the plans provided by Princess Leia has demonstrated a weakness in the battle station... Well, the Empire doesn't consider a small one-man fighter to be any threat, or they'd have a tighter defense.


Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances!


Your overconfidence is your weakness.

The Imperials were massively overconfident. There wasn't a Rebel saboteur on the Imperial Death Star team because the Rebels didn't know about the weakness until they analyzed the plans. They weren't designed to be there by a Rebel. The plans (later demonstrating the flaw) were clearly stolen, not sabotaged.

And the 2nd Death Star did not have the exhaust port design flaw. It was incomplete. If it had been completed, then the Rebels would be stuck attacking it using normal scale rules. :cool: The only thing that might not have been a "useless gesture" would be for the entire Rebel fleet to simultaneously kamikazi it, because the Death Star had a fire rate and could only fire every so often. But even that may have been stopped by the powerful planetary shield.

Again, the Emperor was overconfident that his trap would destroy them, because he underestimated that the primitive Ewoks would be help the Rebels destroy the shield, thus allowing for the Rebel Falcon/starfighter attack into the Death Star on the main reactor core. The Emperor was well aware of the incomplete station's weakness if a direct attack on the core could be made, but didn't think that shield would ever go down because an entire legion of his best troops could handle the natives and Han's pitiful little band of Rebels.


So under the right circumstances, especially when dramatically appropriate, much smaller-scale attacks can have bad or even fatal effects on higher-scaled foes. Whether it's the star-fighter finding the weak point of the Empire's massive and massively-expensive main battle station to the valiant archer hitting the missing scal in the dragon's armored hide, fiction is full of things that ought to be impossible if scaling is used "properly".

Yes, these are designed by the story and do not need scale rules to put into use. This does not completely invalidate scales or make them useless in the game. These are special exceptions of scale rules, and the use of scale rules does not mean the GM has to always use them for every situation.

[Cryonic]

The problem of scale in general, as asmkm22 noted, isn't that the Death Star actually takes no damage from smaller attacks, just that it can survive a lot of them. Look at the first movie. The starfighters aren't really doing much more than scratching the surface, but they are doing actual damage to it. They take out surface guns and various towers. Not sure why they don't shoot back when running down the canyon as they might take out the guns shooting at them. This is a major problem with all game systems that I've played in from HERO to Shadowrun to D6 to D&D... How much damage do you have to do to a door to get through it... but what if all you want is to take out the lock on it? or the hinges? The door is still intact otherwise... You can destroy tons of walls in the interior of the building and it is still structurally intact...