Starship encounter tables - got 'em? use 'em?

[Black Globe Generator]

I've been fiddling around with some ideas for starship encounter tables. The table in LBB1 and the tables in Traders and Gunboats both leave something to be desired.

I want something that can... </font>

• Reflect differences in system location (main, express boat route, backwater, frontier).</font>
• Reflect differences in starport type.</font>
• Generates random mission characteristics (trade, patrol, and so on), depending on ship type.</font>
• Accounts for different locations in the syster (near the 100d jump point, outer system, gas giant, halo, et cetera).</font>
• Provides a list of non-starship encounter events (dust clouds, stellar flares, distress signals, and the like).</font>
• Uses as few tables and rolls as possible.</font>

That's not too much to ask for, is it?

Right now I'm toying around with making my starship encounter charts a lot like those in the Animals Encounters supplement (which is the opposite of few tables... ), but I'd appreciate hearing suggestions and experiences from other CT gamers.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

I've been fiddling around with some ideas for starship encounter tables. The table in LBB1 and the tables in Traders and Gunboats both leave something to be desired.

I want something that can... </font>

• Reflect differences in system location (main, express boat route, backwater, frontier).</font>
• Reflect differences in starport type.</font>
• Generates random mission characteristics (trade, patrol, and so on), depending on ship type.</font>
• Accounts for different locations in the syster (near the 100d jump point, outer system, gas giant, halo, et cetera).</font>
• Provides a list of non-starship encounter events (dust clouds, stellar flares, distress signals, and the like).</font>
• Uses as few tables and rolls as possible.</font>

That's not too much to ask for, is it?

Right now I'm toying around with making my starship encounter charts a lot like those in the Animals Encounters supplement (which is the opposite of few tables... ), but I'd appreciate hearing suggestions and experiences from other CT gamers.

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
That's not too much to ask for, is it?

Not really; it's a fairly clasic spreadsheet application.

1. Build a back-end database of ship types, assigning each a likelihood for each of your variables (starport type, pop, TL, etc.)

2. Build a front-end template where you enter as many or few of the variables as presently needed, and let the worksheet kick out a ship type as an answer

That's how I'd approach it, at least...

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
That's not too much to ask for, is it?

Not really; it's a fairly clasic spreadsheet application.

1. Build a back-end database of ship types, assigning each a likelihood for each of your variables (starport type, pop, TL, etc.)

2. Build a front-end template where you enter as many or few of the variables as presently needed, and let the worksheet kick out a ship type as an answer

That's how I'd approach it, at least...

 

[sid6.7]

well i have one built into HIGHPORT
it considers whether a base is commerical
naval or scout and it also considers MAX
berth size of base...it also notes if the
ships are berthed, orbiting, or in near orbit
you have to build go thru the starbase
building part though to get to it..
the base reflects populations so that to
is all part of the makeup..

here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gal24/

its not great but it will give you about
30 ship types and up to 9 ships depending
on the starbase size/type...1/2 the ship
types are from my seperate program SHEN
which makes CT type ships...

A,B bases provide larger variety
C is okay
D,E,X are more scout orientated...

 

[sid6.7]

well i have one built into HIGHPORT
it considers whether a base is commerical
naval or scout and it also considers MAX
berth size of base...it also notes if the
ships are berthed, orbiting, or in near orbit
you have to build go thru the starbase
building part though to get to it..
the base reflects populations so that to
is all part of the makeup..

here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gal24/

its not great but it will give you about
30 ship types and up to 9 ships depending
on the starbase size/type...1/2 the ship
types are from my seperate program SHEN
which makes CT type ships...

A,B bases provide larger variety
C is okay
D,E,X are more scout orientated...

 

[Whipsnade]

BGG,

Sounds like a nifty project!

I used starship encounter tables as a session 'filler' as the actual important encounters were already plotted. I'd make a hidden roll, run a finger down a chart, and announce the results. Sometimes the result as from the chart and sometimes it was from the plot. Which every it was the players never knew.

We were wargamers first, so I used Mayday quite a bit. I'd have the players move their ship on the map between port and jump limit while I moved other traffic. Sometimes that was just 'filler' or 'chrome' and sometimes it was a plot point. I mixed it up so that the players wouldn't think "Oh, he's got the map out! An important ship encounter must be coming up!"

Encounter tables are the GM's friend. Players can go all bughouse over a completely innocent SDB customs check you rolled. They'll be looking for things far beyond the 2D6 result you implemented and that's part of the fun!


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

BGG,

Sounds like a nifty project!

I used starship encounter tables as a session 'filler' as the actual important encounters were already plotted. I'd make a hidden roll, run a finger down a chart, and announce the results. Sometimes the result as from the chart and sometimes it was from the plot. Which every it was the players never knew.

We were wargamers first, so I used Mayday quite a bit. I'd have the players move their ship on the map between port and jump limit while I moved other traffic. Sometimes that was just 'filler' or 'chrome' and sometimes it was a plot point. I mixed it up so that the players wouldn't think "Oh, he's got the map out! An important ship encounter must be coming up!"

Encounter tables are the GM's friend. Players can go all bughouse over a completely innocent SDB customs check you rolled. They'll be looking for things far beyond the 2D6 result you implemented and that's part of the fun!


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Maladominus]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:

Encounter tables are the GM's friend. Players can go all bughouse over a completely innocent SDB customs check you rolled. They'll be looking for things far beyond the 2D6 result you implemented and that's part of the fun!

And that's because the players generally have no idea whether you (the GM):

1) Just randomly rolled a random encounter OR

2) You intentionally introducted that ship (via GM's 'grand design') to harrass and provoke the characters into some kind of new "adventure" or mission.

As always, it's good to keep the characters guessing. I often hide the rolls from them anyways. And sometimes, I just roll a bunch of dice, and do NOT tell them what I am rolling for, just to keep them guessing.

 

[Maladominus]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:

Encounter tables are the GM's friend. Players can go all bughouse over a completely innocent SDB customs check you rolled. They'll be looking for things far beyond the 2D6 result you implemented and that's part of the fun!

And that's because the players generally have no idea whether you (the GM):

1) Just randomly rolled a random encounter OR

2) You intentionally introducted that ship (via GM's 'grand design') to harrass and provoke the characters into some kind of new "adventure" or mission.

As always, it's good to keep the characters guessing. I often hide the rolls from them anyways. And sometimes, I just roll a bunch of dice, and do NOT tell them what I am rolling for, just to keep them guessing.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Okay, I've been giving this some more thought - here's the direction I'm leaning for the moment.

As I mentioned earlier, I'd like a starship encounter table that reflects a variety of circumstances, with a minimum of crossreferencing and rolling. What I'm considering is a "3D" table, that is, a table with x-, y-, and z-axes. Each axis reflects some variable condition with respect to local space - for example, the x-axis could be starport type, the y-axis could be system population, and the z-axis could be star system isolation:</font>

• starport A <------> starport X</font>
• high population <------> low population</font>
• main <------> backwater</font>

In this way, a system on a main, with a type A starport and an 8 population UWP value, would be more likely to have one sort of encounter, a backwater system with an E starport and pop 3 would have a different likely encounter.

To achieve this result, the referee rolls three dice, one for each axis, and applies a modifier to each: on the starport axis, the die gets a +1 for starport A or B, -1 for E or X; on the isolation axis, +1 for being on a main, -1 for being a backwater (jump-2 or greater from all neighbors), and so on. This allows me to weight certain encounter types - warships are more common in high pop, good starport systems on mains, for example.

This also gives me a pretty robust table: a range of one to six on each axis gives me 216 possible results. If I want to expand each range by one to reflect the +/-1 modifiers on each axis, then I have a table with 512 possibilities! It also provides the usual 3D bell curve to weight probabilities within the table itself.

Whaddya think? Pitfalls? Advantages? Your feedback is appreciated.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Okay, I've been giving this some more thought - here's the direction I'm leaning for the moment.

As I mentioned earlier, I'd like a starship encounter table that reflects a variety of circumstances, with a minimum of crossreferencing and rolling. What I'm considering is a "3D" table, that is, a table with x-, y-, and z-axes. Each axis reflects some variable condition with respect to local space - for example, the x-axis could be starport type, the y-axis could be system population, and the z-axis could be star system isolation:</font>

• starport A <------> starport X</font>
• high population <------> low population</font>
• main <------> backwater</font>

In this way, a system on a main, with a type A starport and an 8 population UWP value, would be more likely to have one sort of encounter, a backwater system with an E starport and pop 3 would have a different likely encounter.

To achieve this result, the referee rolls three dice, one for each axis, and applies a modifier to each: on the starport axis, the die gets a +1 for starport A or B, -1 for E or X; on the isolation axis, +1 for being on a main, -1 for being a backwater (jump-2 or greater from all neighbors), and so on. This allows me to weight certain encounter types - warships are more common in high pop, good starport systems on mains, for example.

This also gives me a pretty robust table: a range of one to six on each axis gives me 216 possible results. If I want to expand each range by one to reflect the +/-1 modifiers on each axis, then I have a table with 512 possibilities! It also provides the usual 3D bell curve to weight probabilities within the table itself.

Whaddya think? Pitfalls? Advantages? Your feedback is appreciated.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

How would you write it out? That's the only real question.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

How would you write it out? That's the only real question.

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
As I mentioned earlier, I'd like a starship encounter table that reflects a variety of circumstances, with a minimum of crossreferencing and rolling. What I'm considering is a "3D" table, that is, a table with x-, y-, and z-axes. Each axis reflects some variable condition with respect to local space - for example, the x-axis could be starport type, the y-axis could be system population, and the z-axis could be star system isolation:</font>

• starport A <------> starport X</font>
• high population <------> low population</font>
• main <------> backwater</font>

In this way, a system on a main, with a type A starport and an 8 population UWP value, would be more likely to have one sort of encounter, a backwater system with an E starport and pop 3 would have a different likely encounter.

Three variables are probably enough. I would tweak them just a little; instead of a main-backwater axis, I'd think about a more general location criterion such as "astropolitik": isolated system, frontier system, border system, interior system. This would give more options than just the "main" or "backwater" consideration and provide more variability -- a sleepy system deep within a large interstellar polity will see a different kind of traffic than one in a frontier area, for example, whereas a bustling, high-tech & high-pop world in a border area will be a different environment than a similar world isolated in an undeveloped subsector...

But overall, three variables should provide more than enough complexity, I expect.

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
As I mentioned earlier, I'd like a starship encounter table that reflects a variety of circumstances, with a minimum of crossreferencing and rolling. What I'm considering is a "3D" table, that is, a table with x-, y-, and z-axes. Each axis reflects some variable condition with respect to local space - for example, the x-axis could be starport type, the y-axis could be system population, and the z-axis could be star system isolation:</font>

• starport A <------> starport X</font>
• high population <------> low population</font>
• main <------> backwater</font>

In this way, a system on a main, with a type A starport and an 8 population UWP value, would be more likely to have one sort of encounter, a backwater system with an E starport and pop 3 would have a different likely encounter.

Three variables are probably enough. I would tweak them just a little; instead of a main-backwater axis, I'd think about a more general location criterion such as "astropolitik": isolated system, frontier system, border system, interior system. This would give more options than just the "main" or "backwater" consideration and provide more variability -- a sleepy system deep within a large interstellar polity will see a different kind of traffic than one in a frontier area, for example, whereas a bustling, high-tech & high-pop world in a border area will be a different environment than a similar world isolated in an undeveloped subsector...

But overall, three variables should provide more than enough complexity, I expect.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
How would you write it out? That's the only real question.

134 Distress call: (text here)
135 Bulk carrier: (text here)

...and so on.

Each number position corresponds to one of the axes. Pretty simple, really.

Originally posted by boomslang:
I would tweak them just a little; instead of a main-backwater axis, I'd think about a more general location criterion such as "astropolitik": isolated system, frontier system, border system, interior system. This would give more options than just the "main" or "backwater" consideration and provide more variability -- a sleepy system deep within a large interstellar polity will see a different kind of traffic than one in a frontier area, for example, whereas a bustling, high-tech & high-pop world in a border area will be a different environment than a similar world isolated in an undeveloped subsector...

Interesting approach.

The one variable I'm not wild about at the moment is population - a low-pop world with a high natural resources value could have a favorable trade balance (and who's to say it's not low pop due to the TL 14 automated mining facilities?). Perhaps a core <------> frontier axis makes a suitable replacement.

The other option I'm considering is inner/habitable zone <------> outer zone. That could be handled in a couple of different ways, however - I'm liking the core <-----> frontier axis better.

Originally posted by boomslang:
But overall, three variables should provide more than enough complexity, I expect.

I think so, too.

Thanks very much for the feedback!

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
How would you write it out? That's the only real question.

134 Distress call: (text here)
135 Bulk carrier: (text here)

...and so on.

Each number position corresponds to one of the axes. Pretty simple, really.

Originally posted by boomslang:
I would tweak them just a little; instead of a main-backwater axis, I'd think about a more general location criterion such as "astropolitik": isolated system, frontier system, border system, interior system. This would give more options than just the "main" or "backwater" consideration and provide more variability -- a sleepy system deep within a large interstellar polity will see a different kind of traffic than one in a frontier area, for example, whereas a bustling, high-tech & high-pop world in a border area will be a different environment than a similar world isolated in an undeveloped subsector...

Interesting approach.

The one variable I'm not wild about at the moment is population - a low-pop world with a high natural resources value could have a favorable trade balance (and who's to say it's not low pop due to the TL 14 automated mining facilities?). Perhaps a core <------> frontier axis makes a suitable replacement.

The other option I'm considering is inner/habitable zone <------> outer zone. That could be handled in a couple of different ways, however - I'm liking the core <-----> frontier axis better.

Originally posted by boomslang:
But overall, three variables should provide more than enough complexity, I expect.

I think so, too.

Thanks very much for the feedback!

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
I'm liking the core <-----> frontier axis better.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Maybe extend it out to core <-----> wilderness to cover all bases...

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
I'm liking the core <-----> frontier axis better.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Maybe extend it out to core <-----> wilderness to cover all bases...