What's stopping me from turning it on though? It's an encumbrance 15 item, a big wookie can carry it around.

Just now, ShadoWarrior said:

Sure, that's what happened in d20 Saga under their starship mod rules. But in FFG, using the house rules on that page I linked to, with a hard cap at no more than 5 HPs when converting space on a GR-75 it's no longer possible to blow frigates to dust, let alone cruisers or battleships. You can't even face down purpose-built warships of your own size (like Marauder corvettes), which is as it should be. Also, under d20 the GR-75 had 19k of cargo space. In FFG it has 1k. Vast difference.

7 hard points used on quad proton torpedo launchers are more than enough, and I am not even using those heavy quad launchers , still enough even against ISDs ;-)
THough naturally some other versions of the suggestions come up with 10+ hardpoint sil 4 dogfighting YT fighters which can unleash hundreds of damage per turn for rather reasonable prices.

Most GMs that I know treat ship encumbrance as tons. Use a different scale for ships of Sil-4 or higher than for those of 3 or less. In fact, if you look at how FFG "converted" (in many cases just copied) stat blocks from prior SWRPG games, ship enc was tons in those earlier systems and for most ships in FFG the stat block numbers have not changed from earlier systems.

9 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I think the hard point system could use some refinement. Like ships having having systems that have hardpoints. like the engines have 1 or 2. one or 2 for weapons etc. and perhaps systems hard points. And it would be nice to sometimes swap encumbrance for hardpoints.. But overall I agree with you Alderaan Crumbs

Having HP subsystems would be cool, as long as it doesn't become too fiddly. As far as swapping Encumbrance for HP, I already allow this, in a sense. It makes sense that you can place something like a pirate Holonet array in your cargo bay and jury rig the fixtures. I don't think it'd be too difficult to extrapolate the loss of Encumbrance. Placing things in your cargo space isn't technically making them part of the ship. It's functional but not intergral, depending on the device.

2 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

7 hard points used on quad proton torpedo launchers are more than enough, and I am not even using those heavy quad launchers , still enough even against ISDs ;-)
THough naturally some other versions of the suggestions come up with 10+ hardpoint sil 4 dogfighting YT fighters which can unleash hundreds of damage per turn for rather reasonable prices.

I've always ruled that it's 1 HP per weapon, not weapon type. Problem solved.

3 minutes ago, Alderaan Crumbs said:

Having HP subsystems would be cool, as long as it doesn't become too fiddly. As far as swapping Encumbrance for HP, I already allow this, in a sense. It makes sense that you can place something like a pirate Holonet array in your cargo bay and jury rig the fixtures. I don't think it'd be too difficult to extrapolate the loss of Encumbrance. Placing things in your cargo space isn't technically making them part of the ship. It's functional but not intergral, depending on the device.

I wouldnr want it too fiddly either. I also wouldnt allow too many encumbrance to be converted. Like maybe a max of 3 hardpoints for 3 encumbrance. Maybe a max of 2 hp per weapons system. 2 for engines and so on.

12 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

I've always ruled that it's 1 HP per weapon, not weapon type. Problem solved.

Interesting. So you increase the HP cost for weapons for most weapons by factor 4 and increase than the hardpoints of the ships by factor 2 to 5 afterwards.
And increases the HP efficiency of quad-laser cannons by factor 4, but that is just a side factor.

Bottom line is, there should be at least two separate resources for ship customization, there should be hardpoints for modifying the actual stats of the ship and there should be interior space for adding rooms and amenities.

The fact that those two things cut into each other is the reason the system is currently so flawed.

Like I said, it shows in the Luxury Cruise Liner. Someone stated out that ship with the intention of not allowing players to turn it into a battleship, by giving it very few hardpoints, and someone stated out the kitchen and luxury suites attachments with the intention of not making warships able to be very comfortable by making them cost hardpoints. The problem is that now you have a luxury cruise liner that can't have great food and luxurious quarters on board.

If the game used two separate stats for modifying a ships combat relevant stats and modifying a ship's interior space both ideas could be served. You could have a giant cruise liner that can have every conceivable amenity on board and provide proper event spaces for anything you might host there (including a rebellion), or you could have a highly customizable spaceframe that can carry additional weapons, armor, engines etc.

Another thought: The Mon Calamari star cruisers used to be cruise ships that were armored and had weapons added once the planet rebelled.

So, per RAW, are the turbolasers on a Nebulon-B 1 HP used for all 12, or 2 HP since they're grouped into two 6-gun batteries? (Disregarding the recent dev ruling that stock weapons cannot be recovered for HP. I'm just curious if one were building the ship from the keep up.)

2 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

Another thought: The Mon Calamari star cruisers used to be cruise ships that were armored and had weapons added once the planet rebelled.

Exactly. This is something from canon that the FFG game system can't even remotely begin to replicate. Of course, the game also has no rules for creating a new ship from the keel up. The only SWRPG that had such rules was d20 prior to Saga Edition (in the original Starships of the Galaxy paperbound splatbook), and that system had some serious flaws. But at least there was a system, however clumsy it was.

5 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I wouldnr want it too fiddly either. I also wouldnt allow too many encumbrance to be converted. Like maybe a max of 3 hardpoints for 3 encumbrance. Maybe a max of 2 hp per weapons system. 2 for engines and so on.

What's great is that the group can make it work in-house, on a case-by-case basis. For example, in our game the players had two speeder bikes in the cargo bay of a YT-2400. They didn't have a hangar bay, they were just stored there. We reasoned that a hangar bay has everything needed to secure, refuel and deploy whatever's in it. Otherwise, you just have two speeder bikes strapped to the deck, which they were fine with. You could also reason that hangar bays have the necessary equipment to perform light maintenance.

Some argue you can't have interior-held vehicles without a hangar bay, which is a silly argument. After all, do freighters shipping speeder bikes need a hangar bay? No, they need cargo space. The bikes might be dismantled and stacked in boxes, so having a couple assembled and ready simply means you can't carry as many. I look at it as storage versus deployment.

Honestly, I don't want too much granularity. I'm perfectly happy discussing things with the group and making sure everyone is satisfied with our decisions. One of the best parts of TTRPGs is making it your own, however I like solid rules to keep it from becoming a game of "Mother May I?". FFGSW handles this very well.

Is it really a stretch to just apply what you want? Or, go back to a game that works for you? Let's be honest, how many ships are you concerned with? One, maybe two? If the PCs have a YT-2400 and an X-Wing, just worry about those two and be done with it. Don't make it a headache for yourselves. If you all agree certain attachments shouldn't cost HP, make it so.

I've often wondered when the creativity of players in customizing their experiences turned to a desperate need for by-the-numbers rules with little to no creative space.

35 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

Another thought: The Mon Calamari star cruisers used to be cruise ships that were armored and had weapons added once the planet rebelled.

The cruise ship part has changed into buildings in canon iirc. Some new eu author thought it would be a good idea, and it works alright as the architecture was indeed very similar.

1 hour ago, Aetrion said:

What's stopping me from turning it on though? It's an encumbrance 15 item, a big wookie can carry it around.

Space and cargo capacity are meaningless if the infrastructure isnt there to support what you want.

You have access to a baseball stadium - lets say, Safco Field. You could fill the infield with Xbox and Playstation consoles as far as the eye can see. You want to play Final Fantasy on the Jumbotron - but you only have one HDMI cable port leading to the Jumbotron. So much for hot swapping between FF7 and Metal Gear Solid.

That's what you're trying to do here. You could install a Command Center and a super duper Space Home Theater system, and you might have the physical space to include both items. But if you only have one computer port to plug everything into and one one power outlet to draw juice from - you are out of luck.

This is where house rules for conversion comes in. You don't just use space, there is also a cost associated with the conversion. That cost would include "wiring".

But it's not just the space requirements. Can the frame support the actual thing(s) you are doing?

I could take an AMC Pacer, replace the powertrain with a custom hibread and swap the engine with a turbocharged 5.0-liter twinturbo V8 motor that sports 1,500 horsepower and delivers 2,000 pound-feet of torque, a rig that can accelerates from 0 to 60 in 1.1 seconds. But all I'll do is spin out and bounce into a Jersey barrier the first time I lightly brush the accelerator pedal.

There are few attachments that can stress the starship's frame. A GM could always rule that a player may only use book (stock) CHPs for stress-inducing attachments like better engines, leaving conversion CHP for relatively trivial gear such as comms and other stuff that goes inside the ship.

Bottom line is the devs point out in the RAW, any RAW that is causing this much distress at a table is a rule that should be by passed.

15 hours ago, ShadoWarrior said:

There are few attachments that can stress the starship's frame. A GM could always rule that a player may only use book (stock) CHPs for stress-inducing attachments like better engines, leaving conversion CHP for relatively trivial gear such as comms and other stuff that goes inside the ship.

Sounds good.

Now my home office as an encumbrance of about 15 or so. If I install this in a room in my neighbor's home his fuse will blow out. Basically the power grids of most homes are not suited for dealing with this much energy consumption and my home office for this and other reasons is on 2 different circuits, installing them involved to prise open the wall, rewire the distribution board and the power line leading to my home.

And while were were at it, we upgraded the communication systems as well, because, well the walls were open already and network cable and wall plugs are cheap. This is certainly past the scope of an attachment though and certainly over just spending a few minutes to hours on a mechanic check. ;-)

edit: Or technical not even a mechanic check as installing and removing attachments does not require one iirc.

Did you see my earlier post regarding "wiring" included in the cost of conversion? You're not just eating up space in exchange for HP. You're also spending money to hire contractors and paying for materials costs to rebuild the space into something usable. It's not a difficult concept. Using those aforementioned house rules, it's 100,000 credits to convert 300 tons of space into just one usable HP for a Silhouette-6 vessel. This is not unreasonable. Each GM can, and should, adjust the numbers to suit themselves.

The idea that having to run an extension cord through the ship should take a hardpoint is absurd. For that matter, you could just attach a fusion lantern to everything that needs power. Those are only 2 encumbrance.

As a GM I'd rule that starship attachments draw more power than a portable power source, such as lightweight fusion lantern, can supply. Now if the players want to spend some serious money on a fusion generator that requires a repulsorlift platform to move, that's another matter.

41 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

The idea that having to run an extension cord through the ship should take a hardpoint is absurd. For that matter, you could just attach a fusion lantern to everything that needs power. Those are only 2 encumbrance.

Fine. Do whatever you like.

You don't like Jedi, you don't like the force powers, you don't like hardpoints - what the hell about the system do you like?

1 hour ago, Aetrion said:

The idea that having to run an extension cord through the ship should take a hardpoint is absurd.

Except it's not just an extension cord, if something needs a hardpoint it's because it needs significant infrastructure or accommodate.

Take the above example of a supercomputer, it's not going to run on a puny domestic power supply like the one you charge your phone and run your washing machine on, even if you have proper European style 220-240V power you'll probably blow your breakers those of your neighbours too.

It's the same with hardpoints, requiring one represents a power or infrastructure requirement above and beyond what's needed to charge your datapad and commlink.

A ship like a YT-1300 has an excess of power capacity and the conduits to provide power, cooling, and computer links to all manner of devices, this is represented by having a large number of hardpoints in it's stats, ships with fewer hardpoints represent a design that's working near capacity, there either isn't the infrastructure or available power to convert it much. It doesn't matter how much space BudgetSpaceFreighter3000 has available if it needs 98% of it's available operating power to run the standards systems, and they cheaped out on the motherboard meaning there are now expansion sockets to connect anything to it then you're not going to be able to install that extra blaster cannon.

Now, is the current system perfect? No, I have personal issues with some of the costings, and clearly the space yacht should come with luxury amenities and accommodations as standard, but it is one of the better modification systems I've seen in an RPG and is very suited to the rules medium-to-light approach the game aims for.

1 hour ago, Desslok said:

You don't like Jedi, you don't like the force powers, you don't like hardpoints - what the hell about the system do you like?

I like Jedi just fine, I just don't like that there is no limit to how many force dice you can have because it doesn't encourage people to make broad characters in long running games. I also like most of the force powers just fine, I just think Move was written for EotE way back when and keeping it backwards compatible has deprived us of more specific and balanced powers in F&D, and some of the dark/light requirements are a bit extreme. I also like hardpoints just fine for the purpose of making modifications to the ship's actual characteristics, they just become stupid when you're talking about how many hardpoints it takes to serve nice food on board.

You forgot the morality system. I think that system is also extremely weak, because it would make people who say mean things three times a session fall to the dark side, while people who murder a child every year at their birthday party would be paragons of light for the other 11 months of the year.

Other things: The defense system is weird because it's rarely clear what stacks and what doesn't, a simple cap would have been nicer so that lots of paths lead there without encouraging endless stacking. Taking cover is way too weak of a move, leaving the game without any decent defensive plays you can make that don't cost strain and require a heap of talents. Ship shields just adding black dice completely contradicts how people seem to treat shields in the movies and shows, where they are more like star trek shields and serve as a form of ablative armor that is generated from energy fields. Oh, and personal scale really needs to have rules that allow you to add a similar effect to "massive" to resisting various weapon effects like autofire. Maybe roll that into a better cover system, so you can make smart defensive moves against overwhelming firepower.

So, yea, that's pretty much the list of stuff I don't like about this game.

What I do like about the game?

Uhh... everything else.