As far as I am aware, there are no rules for crashing with atmospheric vehicles. A good example of what I'm talking about is from "Landing at Point Rain" where Obi-Wan's gunship is shot down.

My proposal is as follows:

• Use the rules for falling. If a character is strapped in, they do not make a check, instead they are reliant on the pilot's Piloting check (using the same difficulty as Falling, with Boost and Setback for handling), but also reduce strain/damage by 5/7 and crit by 15.
• If a character is not strapped in (i.e. passenger compartment of the LAAT/i) they make an Athletics/Coordination check to lower damage, and yes, Triumph still reduces the fall by one slot.
• Determine Falling range band using the table for falling, but with these modifications : 1st slot is Speeds 1 and 2, 2nd slot is Speeds 3 and 4, 3rd slot is Speed 5 and up.
• Increase speed by 1 for every range band past Medium.
• Additionally, on the Piloting check, 3 Advantage is not spent, but indicates (so it still reduces strain) that the pilot lowered the Speed by 1, and a Triumph can be used to change your slot by one (i.e. 2nd slot down to 1st slot).
• Upon crashing, the vehicle has made a Major Collision and makes a crit roll with +10 for every speed past 1 it was going when it crashed.

Justifications:

• If you are strapped in, you aren't going to be able to save yourself, but you have the advantage of a safety harness and so are less likely to be hurt (good example, the ambassador Jar-Jar murdered in the [crashing] Nu-class shuttle on Florrum).
• I'm basically just pulling this one straight from the rules, so what's to justify?
• The distance you fall is about how fast you're going when you hit the ground (and how fast you stop, but that's somewhat irrelevant), so it makes sense to judge it based on speed.
• As you fall, you pick up speed until you hit terminal velocity, which I account for by the 5+ on the table, since the consequences for going that speed are pretty high already, it doesn't make much sense to increase it even more (unless you just want to rule them dead).
• I'm not sure about the "indicates" vs. "spent" on this one, but one argument for it is that lower speed reduces the crit roll by 10, so you don't have to choose between reducing 3 strain or reducing the vehicles crit roll (since it is possible that reducing speed by one doesn't reduce your slot).
• Basically the Major Collision rules, but since you are smacking into the ground as opposed to bumping into something that will move (thereby slowing your stopping speed), I think it makes sense to add to the crit roll based on the speed you're going.

Why not just handle it narratively? Seems way over complicated.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

Why not just handle it narratively? Seems way over complicated.

Then falling is over complicated. I mean that quite sincerely. I add one option for expenditure of 3 Advantage, I lower the number of rolls required (if multiple people fall/crash), and I simply change the table, and I add ONE variable. The crit roll for the vehicle is relatively extraneous and you could just say that it is destroyed, removing a step of the "Crashing" protocol.

You can't really just handle it narratively because there must be someway of calculating damage rather than just arbitrarily deciding how much damage the characters take. If you decide it arbitrarily, then the players start to feel less in control than if it is decided by mechanics and dice because they feel as if you are putting them on rails. Too much narrative and you end up with: Are we playing a game, or are you telling us a story? I am all for Narrative, but too much is too much.

55 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You  can't really just handle it narratively because there must be someway of calculating damage rather than just arbitrarily deciding how much damage the characters take.

Why?

55 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

If  you decide it arbitrarily, then the players start to feel less in control than if  it  is decided by mechanics and dice because they feel as if you are putting them on rails  . 

If you over mechanic things though, you end up TPKing the group because the dice just didn't like you today. Then either the campaign ends and all your GM prep work is garbage. Or you arbitrarily apply a narrative to undo everything the dice just did, which is an even more railroady solution than saying "you crash everyone take three wounds and a crit, Jim you aren't strapped in, so add 20 to your crit result."

If you want something more random you can apply a light mechanic like: "You crash, everyone roll a Hard Resilience check to see how you hold up, add two boost if you're strapped in."

You can still apply mechanics to a narrative situation, but you don't need (or want) an intricate full blown complex system for every situation or you waste time crunching numbers and making rolls that don't really matter and might even generate results that blow the entire campaign.

You've mentioned you haven't really GMed before, and this is something GMs need to resolve internally: What does "railroading" mean?

Some things are obvious. The door that's locked and can't be picked, hacked, cut through, or bypassed until the player hit a specific story milestone is probably railroading.

Telling the players that despite having a fully functional hyperdrive and no motivated destination, they must go to Bespin is probably railroading.

Some things aren't obvious.

If I make an investigation encounter where there's three different ways to find the clues needed to move on the the next encounter, with a fourth backup option that's so easy the players can't fail, is that railroading?

If the players go in a totally wrong direction, and I allow a simple check to determine so, is that railroading? What about if HQ comms them and just tells them outright?

What about if the players decide to search a room I know contains nothing of value, and logically wouldn't, and I really don't want them wasting session time going through the motions... So when the players call for the check I just say "No need to roll, you search and find nothing." Is that railroading?

What about your players? What do they think is railroading? It's their game too, maybe they don't care that much if the crash is just a flat consequence, and they still get to decide where to go from there. If you aren't having an ongoing conversation with your players and making sure everyone is having fun, you've already failed.

Honestly, you're fretting mechanical details when I'm not sure you've even worked out the basics of GMing. GMing is hard, you never get perfect, and you only get better by doing it. So get out there and do it instead of trying to memorize every rule, and house rule every possibility.

2 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

If you over mechanic things though, you end up TPKing the group because the dice just didn't like you today. Then either the campaign ends and all your GM prep work is garbage. Or you arbitrarily apply a narrative to undo everything the dice just did, which is an even more railroady solution than saying "you crash everyone take three wounds and a crit, Jim you aren't strapped in, so add 20 to your crit result."

I'm not over mechanic-ing it, I'm little more than expanding on existing rules. At least on this, it wouldn't result in a TPK unless somebody already had a ton of crits and wasn't buckled and flew at top speed straight into the ground. On a more general note, as a GM you can pull your punches or manipulate the situation to avoid a TPK if you don't want them to all die. Rolling also adds a little bit more drama to the situation and allows more skilled characters to contribute (i.e. pilot saving all the passengers from serious injury, agile character managing to grab onto something and brace to avoid taking too much damage, etc.) In the example from "Landing at Point Rain" the pilot did not do a fantastic job, and all the (minions) passengers died, with the exception of Obi-Wan and one other passenger (who must have rolled well on his athletics). As far as going over their wound threshold, if all of them are incapacitated (speeds 3+), then maybe they wake up in a medbay and are a little late to the action. Or maybe if they are slightly over their wound threshold they have to take a stand (like Obi-Wan) while somewhat wounded.

14 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

You've mentioned you haven't really GMed before, and this is something GMs need to resolve internally: What does "railroading" mean?

Some things are obvious. The door that's locked and can't be picked, hacked, cut through, or bypassed until the player hit a specific story milestone is probably railroading.

Telling the players that despite having a fully functional hyperdrive and no motivated destination, they must go to Bespin is probably railroading.

I have GMed before, (90% of my playing has been as a GM) I just don't have all that many hours logged (although I've spent 8 months studying the game almost constantly).

Railroading (for me, at least) is when you arbitrarily declare something that directly effects the players to suit your whims. I.e. your radio doesn't work cause it got sand in it, so you can't call in a bombing run, vs. this droid rolled a triumph, so I'm gonna say he shot your radio so you can't call in a bombing run. Story or the actions of NPCs do not necessarily count as railroading (although they can).

23 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

If I make an investigation encounter where there's three different ways to find the clues needed to move on the the next encounter, with a fourth backup option that's so easy the players can't fail, is that railroading?

Not necessarily. I support helping the players if they are stuck, as long as it isn't just serving it to them on a silver platter.

28 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

If the players go in a totally wrong direction, and I allow a simple check to determine so, is that railroading? What about if HQ comms them and just tells them outright?

It depends on the wrong direction and the situations surrounding said direction. Oftentimes if there is only 1 right choice, that leads to only 1 right choice, that leads to only 1 right choice, etc. there is something wrong. They should have someway of getting back on track without backtracking, even if that means you insert some sort of encounter or chance interaction that sets them straight. HQ comming them and telling them "the base is on your left, dummies!" isn't really railroading unless HQ doesn't have a way of knowing where they are or whatnot. If you were the commander of a group of rebels and one of them was wandering off in the wrong direction, would you ignore it? A lot of these questions need background information in order to be properly parsed.

34 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

What about if the players decide to search a room I know contains nothing of value, and logically wouldn't, and I really don't want them wasting session time going through the motions... So when the players call for the check I just say "No need to roll, you search and find nothing." Is that railroading?

No. It skips the fluff text that does literally nothing and saves time. Now if you wanted them to roll and see if they get 3 Triumphs and find a dusty personal deflector shield in the back of the broom closet, you can, but if the roll doesn't effect anything (you can't find something that isn't there), it is perfectly fine, in my opinion, to simply say so upfront. Now, if that means that they get something regardless of the roll, there is a good chance that something is wrong.

38 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

Honestly, you're fretting mechanical details when I'm not sure you've even worked out the basics of GMing. GMing is hard, you never get perfect, and you only get better by doing it. So get out there and do it instead of trying to memorize every rule, and house rule every possibility.

I believe I have worked out the basics of GMing, even if I haven't had a lot of practice putting those principles into action, but I am most certainly far from perfect and need practice. In down time where I'm waiting for a game to eventually transpire (back to school [and the events that come with] is hard for that) I try to get as many of the details ironed out and rules memorized as possible so that sessions run more smoothly and I don't have to look stuff up as much when an obscure rule suddenly is thrust to the forefront.

Also, my opinions on GMing are not all just pulled from the ether, I have listened to a lot of advice from various people and YouTubers on the subject and that has helped me tremendously with planning stuff out and thinking things through.

What is your opinion on the merits of my proposal though? Are there any tweaks you would suggest? I do not like arbitrary "Oh you take X damage" I prefer mechanical rules for something like that. Of course, however, tweaks in individual circumstances are important, i.e. You fly a T-16 face first into a cliff at speed 2, even though that is technically a very low result, you might take much more damage since there isn't much more than a window in between you and rock, and you don't want the controls jammed up into your face (not to mention glass shrapnel).

What about using the rules for (major) collision on AoR page 256?

Everyone takes a critical injury with a -5 per point of vehicle defense. You could even say that all parties onboard suffer 10 wounds, but can make a Hard (DDD) Resilience check to reduce that by 1 per uncanceled success. If they're properly restrained then it's strain instead of wounds. And note that since they suffer wounds/strain and don't take wound/strain damage soak does not apply.

1 minute ago, c__beck said:

What about using the rules for (major) collision on AoR page 256?

Everyone takes a critical injury with a -5 per point of vehicle defense. You could even say that all parties onboard suffer 10 wounds, but can make a Hard (DDD) Resilience check to reduce that by 1 per uncanceled success. If they're properly restrained then it's strain instead of wounds. And note that since they suffer wounds/strain and don't take wound/strain damage soak does not apply.

Hmm... That is an interesting proposal. I don't think that the crit is a good idea though, but maybe roll a d10/d12/d20 instead to determine wounds/strain taken for one/all passengers and then make a Hard Resilience check to reduce per uncancelled success/advantage? A crit for unsecured passengers would make some sense though. I think I still prefer my rules, but that seems pretty good for people who want a more cut-and-dried solution. I don't tend to like one-size-fits-all solutions, though, because it doesn't always make sense in particular situations.

Just now, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Hmm... That is an interesting proposal. I don't think that the crit is a good idea though, but maybe roll a d10/d12/d20 instead to determine wounds/strain taken for one/all passengers and then make a Hard Resilience check to reduce per uncancelled success/advantage? A crit for unsecured passengers would make some sense though. I think I still prefer my rules, but that seems pretty good for people who want a more cut-and-dried solution. I don't tend to like one-size-fits-all solutions, though, because it doesn't always make sense in particular situations.

Having been in several automobile accidents, I can tell you that having the passengers suffer a Critical Injury makes total sense. And crashing from a flying vehicle is going to be even worse.

And I would highly suggest not rolling for random wounds/strain suffered. It literally doesn't work like that for any other part of the game. It's always static numbers (usually +1 per success, but sometimes it's -1 per success if you're resisting the effect). Also, using anything besides a d10 isn't a good idea because there's no guarantee that anyone else will have them, since SWRPG only has d10s with numbers on them—and you can't exactly use any of the other dice to "reverse-engineer" a number, since all the SWRPG dice have at least two faces with the same result, they're not unique.

1 minute ago, c__beck said:

Having been in several automobile accidents, I can tell you that having the passengers suffer a Critical Injury makes total sense. And crashing from a flying vehicle is going to be even worse.

And I would highly suggest not rolling for random wounds/strain suffered. It literally doesn't work like that for any other part of the game. It's always static numbers (usually +1 per success, but sometimes it's -1 per success if you're resisting the effect). Also, using anything besides a d10 isn't a good idea because there's no guarantee that anyone else will have them, since SWRPG only has d10s with numbers on them—and you can't exactly use any of the other dice to "reverse-engineer" a number, since all the SWRPG dice have at least two faces with the same result, they're not unique.

Alright, that's a good point. I don't know why I hadn't considered any of that. Also I (fortunately) haven't been in a car accident yet, so that might contribute to my blatant oversight.
But yeah, I agree the only question now would be base damage for crashes. I think that a variable would be best for this because there are varying levels of "ouch" involved in crashing at different speeds.

Just now, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Alright, that's a good point. I don't know why I hadn't considered any of that. Also I (fortunately) haven't been in a car accident yet, so that might contribute to my blatant oversight.
But yeah, I agree the only question now would be base damage for crashes. I think that a variable would be best for this because there are varying levels of "ouch" involved in crashing at different speeds.

Yeah, reading over your initial post I realized that you're on to something with the wounds/strain suffered being based on the distance of the crash. The higher up you are, the more it's going to hurt. Off the top of my head, I'd say 5 wounds/strain, Resilience check to reduce, them multiply by 5 for each range band beyond close. That way your PCs still have a chance to survive (since the multiplication is after the skill check) but high enough to probably still hurt (unless they're super Resilient, they won't reduce it to zero so they'll still take some wounds/strain).

Again, just off the top of my head.

1 minute ago, c__beck said:

Yeah, reading over your initial post I realized that you're on to something with the wounds/strain suffered being based on the distance of the crash. The higher up you are, the more it's going to hurt. Off the top of my head, I'd say 5 wounds/strain, Resilience check to reduce, them multiply by 5 for each range band beyond close. That way your PCs still have a chance to survive (since the multiplication is after the skill check) but high enough to probably still hurt (unless they're super Resilient, they won't reduce it to zero so they'll still take some wounds/strain).

Again, just off the top of my head.

That makes sense. How about the Crit has a base of +10, and then you multiply it the same way, still reducing for defense?

Would you please also critique my original proposal from a mechanical basis? I like it and want to use it, but I would like to know if you or others see any particular errors in my reasoning.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Railroading (for me, at least) is when you arbitrarily declare something that directly effects the players to suit your whims. I.e. your radio doesn't work cause it got sand in it, so you can't call in a bombing run, vs. this droid rolled a triumph, so I'm gonna say he shot your radio so you can't call in a bombing run. Story or the actions of NPCs do not necessarily count as railroading (although they can).

In Star Wars FFG, this is not railroading but the GM spending a Destiny Point to complicate things.

Upside: the players can and will pay you back in kind.

Just now, micheldebruyn said:

In Star Wars FFG, this is not railroading but the GM spending a Destiny Point to complicate things.

Upside: the players can and will pay you back in kind.

Okay, fair point. That was not a good example.

On 8/17/2019 at 4:38 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Would you please also critique my original proposal from a mechanical basis? I like it and want to use it, but I would like to know if you or others see any particular errors in my reasoning. 

Sure, I'll give it a go!

On 8/17/2019 at 12:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Use the rules for falling. If a character is strapped in, they do not make a check, instead they are reliant on the pilot's Piloting check (using the same difficulty as Falling, with Boost and Setback for handling), but also reduce strain/damage by 5/7 and crit by 15.

On 8/17/2019 at 12:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

If you are strapped in, you aren't going to be able to save yourself, but you have the advantage of a safety harness and so are less likely to be hurt (good example, the ambassador Jar-Jar murdered in the [crashing] Nu-class shuttle on Florrum).

I'm not a big fan of the falling rules in general. I think they're a bit harsh. I mean, when the best option for using the move Force power is to lift 'em up one range band then drop them, you know there's something wrong there. So while you're not wrong that the falling rules are a great place to start, I would definitely change them a bit.

Also, as you know, I don't think that strapping in would obviate the need for a check, but rather change the consequences of said check. Either changing wounds to strain or reducing the modifier on a critical injury roll. The idea being that a rugged individual will still gain less trauma from being strapped in than a weaker person.

On 8/17/2019 at 12:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

If a character is not strapped in (i.e. passenger compartment of the LAAT/i) they make an Athletics/Coordination check to lower damage, and yes, Triumph still reduces the fall by one slot.

On 8/17/2019 at 12:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I'm basically just pulling this one straight from the rules, so what's to justify?

Nothing wrong here. makes sense in light of the rules.

On 8/17/2019 at 12:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Determine Falling range band using the table for falling, but with these modifications : 1st slot is Speeds 1 and 2, 2nd slot is Speeds 3 and 4, 3rd slot is Speed 5 and up.

On 8/17/2019 at 12:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The distance you fall is about how fast you're going when you hit the ground (and how fast you stop, but that's somewhat irrelevant), so it makes sense to judge it based on speed. 

I would instead have the speed be a modifier on any crit roll. Like the crit has +10 per speed or something.

On 8/17/2019 at 12:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Increase speed by 1 for every range band past Medium.

On 8/17/2019 at 12:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

As you fall, you pick up speed until you hit terminal velocity, which I account for by the 5+ on the table, since the consequences for going that speed are pretty high already, it doesn't make much sense to increase it even more (unless you just want to rule them dead).

This seems like double-dipping to me. You're already suffering more based on distance fallen and speed of the vehicle, so why combine them into yet another damage modifier?

On 8/17/2019 at 12:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Additionally, on the Piloting check, 3 Advantage is not spent, but indicates (so it still reduces strain) that the pilot lowered the Speed by 1, and a Triumph can be used to change your slot by one (i.e. 2nd slot down to 1st slot).

On 8/17/2019 at 12:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I'm not sure about the "indicates" vs. "spent" on this one, but one argument for it is that lower speed reduces the crit roll by 10, so you don't have to choose between reducing 3 strain or reducing the vehicles crit roll (since it is possible that reducing speed by one doesn't reduce your slot).

I don't like this one. Symbols are always spent to do things. There is no existing rule that allows for symbols to be used twice like this, and just makes an odd corner case that you have to remember. I don't think it's worth the hassle.

On 8/17/2019 at 12:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Upon crashing, the vehicle has made a Major Collision and makes a crit roll with +10 for every speed past 1 it was going when it crashed.

On 8/17/2019 at 12:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Basically the Major Collision rules, but since you are smacking into the ground as opposed to bumping into something that will move (thereby slowing your stopping speed), I think it makes sense to add to the crit roll based on the speed you're going.

As I stated above, this I like. But, also like the your "increase speed per range band fallen" it's double-dipping. You're already using Speed to modify the wounds/strain in point 4. Choose one or the other (my vote is this one).

I hope that helps!

On 8/17/2019 at 9:07 PM, c__beck said:

What about using the rules for (major) collision on AoR page 256?

Everyone takes a critical injury with a -5 per point of vehicle defense. You could even say that all parties onboard suffer 10 wounds, but can make a Hard (DDD) Resilience check to reduce that by 1 per uncanceled success. If they're properly restrained then it's strain instead of wounds. And note that since they suffer wounds/strain and don't take wound/strain damage soak does not apply.

This is the best solution in this thread. The safety harness thing is applied, but crashing is still traumatic. I would possibly make it (TTT) Difficulty.

47 minutes ago, c__beck said:

I'm not a big fan of the falling rules in general. I think they're a bit harsh. I mean, when the best option for using the move Force power is to lift 'em up one range band then drop them, you know there's something wrong there. So while you're not wrong that the falling rules are a great place to start, I would definitely change them a bit.

Also, as you know, I don't think that strapping in would obviate the need for a check, but rather change the consequences of said check. Either changing wounds to strain or reducing the modifier on a critical injury roll. The idea being that a rugged individual will still gain less trauma from being strapped in than a weaker person.

Okay, then how about a Simple Resilience check with as well as a crit reduction (-20?)?

As far as falling damage goes, there are some problems as far as balance goes, but I think that that is by necessity and that the rules are pretty good. Falling isn't fun. Remember, Short range at its max is ~30 feet or so. That's like jumping off a house. Of course, though, I approve of modifying the damage based on actual distance fallen, and as far as the force goes, they would slam people into walls right? How is this much different? I do understand your concerns though.

56 minutes ago, c__beck said:

I would instead have the speed be a modifier on any crit roll. Like the crit has +10 per speed or something.

Because of the double dipping you mentioned, I do not think this would be a good idea. If you are falling far enough, you already get a + to your crit roll, so I think that it is double dipping to add a +10 per speed. You did not seem to propose a substitute for determining Falling Damage slot, and I still think that it makes the most sense to determine it based on speed because when you throw a baseball, it stops accelerating the moment it leaves your hand (which could be considered to be the moment the gunship gets shot down), but if you throw it downward, gravity takes over the acceleration until it hits terminal velocity, but if the baseball still had partially functional thrust, but without the benefit of a repulsorlift, it could continue to accelerate past terminal velocity...

1 hour ago, c__beck said:

This seems like double-dipping to me. You're already suffering more based on distance fallen and speed of the vehicle, so why combine them into yet another damage modifier?

...resulting in an increase in its speed before it hits the ground. I understand your objections, but this isn't really a damage modifier, it just adjusts the placement on the damage table. I feel that it is justified because it reflects the sheer danger of falling from any height. I would say that if the engines are down it doesn't gain speed while falling, so if it is disabled by exceeding its system strain threshold (meaning its systems shut down) it wouldn't increase based on the range band because it would be maintaining its speed as it loses thrust and starts being slowed down by the air, but is accelerated by gravity. Without using complicated tables I think this is a good method, since momentum means that the vehicle will never just drop straight down.

1 hour ago, c__beck said:

I don't like this one. Symbols are always spent to do things. There is no existing rule that allows for symbols to be used twice like this, and just makes an odd corner case that you have to remember. I don't think it's worth the hassle.

Yeah, I think I'll remove that option altogether. Good point.

1 hour ago, c__beck said:

As I stated above, this I like. But, also like the your "increase speed per range band fallen" it's double-dipping. You're already using Speed to modify the wounds/strain in point 4. Choose one or the other (my vote is this one).

I think you may have misunderstood this one. This was a relatively unrelated proposal for crashing vehicles, NOT related to the crit/injury for characters. If you are actually objecting to my actual proposal on this point, would you suggest adopting the personal scale falling damage for vehicles (which would require fairly extensive modification)?

1 hour ago, c__beck said:

I hope that helps!

Thank you!

On 8/17/2019 at 12:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

My proposal is as follows:

Just use collision rules and call it a day.

39 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Just use collision rules and call it a day.

This is more or less my opinion as well.

When talking something like a LAAT hitting the ground, for the most part you can just simplify a crash to a Resilience check with results on Characters aboard, and a Major Collision on the vehicle, and call it done.

Were I doing it, the Resilience check wouldn't be especially hard, though failure would kick out a Crit. Being properly secured would give a character a significant boost, and possibly allow the check to be totally ignored, that way I don't end up wiping all minions aboard by default.

Depending on the circumstances I might get more interesting and go with something like A Piloting Check to make it more a crash-landing instead of a crash, doing something like inflicting a series of Minor Collisions negated or reduced by Piloting Checks to show the craft skidding/rolling to a stop.

On ‎8‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 2:38 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Would you please also critique my original proposal from a mechanical basis

There's two core issues I have with it.

1) There's a lot of If:Thens to go through. I don't see the sense in going through the whole "Ok... If it's this fast... and you're this high up... then shields... and carry the two..." It's just cumbersome, time consuming and one more thing I've got to remember and track. As a GM I've got enough on my hands that I don't go looking for ways to add more. A straight roll or two and calling it good and moving forward is usually better.

2) Anything that can kill the players outright is bad. If you've got that... I'll almost always be opposed to it. So factor in a Crash like the type being covered here, there's a very good chance the vehicle involved already has several Crits on it. Either a minimum of 1 Crit for exceeding it's HT, or multiple Crits that resulted in the Crash through Strain Inflicting or Engine Damage results. So having the Crash cause a +X Crit to the Vehicle is redundant at that point, and just increases the odds of a "Vaporized" result. I dunno about your players, but I'd be pissed if an entire campaign ended because of a single cruddy roll.

9 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

Were I doing it, the Resilience check wouldn't be especially hard, though failure would kick out a Crit. Being properly secured would give a character a significant boost, and possibly allow the check to be totally ignored, that way I don't end up wiping all minions aboard by default.

The idea that a failure would result in a crit is definitely a good idea. However, if you crash majorly, not taking any damage would be a miracle. As for not wiping any minions aboard, that is a legitimate concern, so the auto-crit shouldn't apply to them.

12 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

Depending on the circumstances I might get more interesting and go with something like A Piloting Check to make it more a crash-landing instead of a crash, doing something like inflicting a series of Minor Collisions negated or reduced by Piloting Checks to show the craft skidding/rolling to a stop.

I actually proposed something similar in the OP, but I could certainly see 2 Triumphs resulting in no damage to the characters, though 1 Triumph would still be just the "reduce range band by one" effect from the RAW.

14 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

There's two core issues I have with it.

1) There's a lot of If:Thens to go through. I don't see the sense in going through the whole "Ok... If it's this fast... and you're this high up... then shields... and carry the two..." It's just cumbersome, time consuming and one more thing I've got to remember and track. As a GM I've got enough on my hands that I don't go looking for ways to add more. A straight roll or two and calling it good and moving forward is usually better.

2) Anything that can kill the players outright is bad. If you've got that... I'll almost always be opposed to it. So factor in a Crash like the type being covered here, there's a very good chance the vehicle involved already has several Crits on it. Either a minimum of 1 Crit for exceeding it's HT, or multiple Crits that resulted in the Crash through Strain Inflicting or Engine Damage results. So having the Crash cause a +X Crit to the Vehicle is redundant at that point, and just increases the odds of a "Vaporized" result. I dunno about your players, but I'd be pissed if an entire campaign ended because of a single cruddy roll.

I understand the If:Then objection, but that is already a mechanic throughout the whole game. And in this case it is only "how fast are you going?" and if you are more than 50 Kilometers up in the air (Medium range) then you add 1, and if you are pretty much just in low orbit you add 2. Basically, you are rather unlikely to have to add anything to your speed. As for the checks, if everyone is strapped in, it is just one check, and otherwise, it's the same as if a bridge collapsed while the PCs were on it or something.

One way to handle Minions would be to handle it like a combat check: You've got a group of 4 minions and they take 30 damage, so 10 damage knocks out one Clone, the next 10 knocks out a second clone, and 10 damage knocks out a third clone, leaving one left. A 75% casualty rate in that crash.

Your concern regarding "Vaporized" is something I had not thought about, but would it not be plausible to simply state that the vehicle is damaged beyond repair, but that the frame is intact enough to have preserved the characters? It doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. I know the text of the Crit says "killing everyone aboard" but I think that you would be willing to make an exception in this case.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

not taking any damage would be a miracle.

Yeah... Crits are actual verifiable injuries. Wounds are just Plot Armor. So issuing Crits in cases like this make more sense, it kicks out an effect but doesn't otherwise prevent the players from continuing. I might swap this if the group has no access to a Medic, but in your case you've mentioned you plan on a medic, so giving a character a concussion that can be healed afterward works pretty well compared to giving them a concussion in a firefight 3 hours later because they were low on wounds from the crash and got WTed in one hit.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

And in this case it is only "how fast are you going?" and if you are more than 50 Kilometers up in the air (Medium range) then you add 1, and if you are pretty much just in low orbit you add 2

You can do this, but this is really something better not measured. Range Banding is really only important between the major players. So how close I am to the TIE matters. But how close we both are to the ground? Not so much, at least not in this instance, because that's the sort of thing the player can change with Advantage as he describes the action.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

One way to handle Minions would be to handle it like a combat check: You've got a group of 4 minions and they take 30 damage, so 10 damage knocks out one Clone, the next 10 knocks out a second clone, and 10 damage knocks out a third clone, leaving one left. A 75% casualty rate in that crash.

Your concern regarding "Vaporized" is something I had not thought about, but would it not be plausible to simply state that the vehicle is damaged beyond repair, but that the frame is intact enough to have preserved the characters? It doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. I know the text of the Crit says "killing everyone aboard" but I think that you would be willing to make an exception in this case.

....I don't mean to be rude, but you've basically argued against yourself here. You say you want rules for everything over quick resolutions based on the GM eye-balling it because you're afraid of railroading, but when your rules glitch out, you propose GM fiat as the fix.

1 hour ago, Ghostofman said:

You can do this, but this is really something better not measured. Range Banding is really only important between the major players. So how close I am to the TIE matters. But how close we both are to the ground? Not so much, at least not in this instance, because that's the sort of thing the player can change with Advantage as he describes the action.

I am not suggesting that you should always be keeping track of it, but many atmospheric craft have a maximum altitude anyway, and for those that don't, you don't even have to measure it unless they 1. get shot down, and 2. are REALLY high up to begin with. Common sense can indicate that a Gunship on approach is probably not going to be super high up.

1 hour ago, Ghostofman said:

....I don't mean to be rude, but you've basically argued against yourself here. You say you want rules for everything over quick resolutions based on the GM eye-balling it because you're afraid of railroading, but when your rules glitch out, you propose GM fiat as the fix.

That is a little bit of a strawman, I am not against the GM eye-balling stuff, I'm against too many things being arbitrary . In this case it is simply tweaking something to allow the campaign to continue. Like you said, it's no fun to get killed outright. I would not define this as railroading, because it is a binary choice of: "campaign end?" vs. "not campaign end." I think it would be acceptable to make a decision in that case in order to preserve the campaign (for that matter, you could just ask the players). "I can't really define it, but I know it when I see it" is more or less how I approach railroading because, as the economist in my dad says, "it depends," on the situation, the circumstances, the result, etc.
One argument that could be made in favor of Vaporized not counting in the same way on a crash is that if you are vaporized in space (by a turbolaser blast or what have you) there is nowhere to go, if you are vaporized in atmosphere there is a long drop below you (and you were probably shot or something) but if you were "Vaporized" by crashing into the ground there is somewhere to go, you just need to survive the crash. Not a great argument, I know, and it could be argued in reverse that on a crash a "Vaporized" crit means your ship just exploded, but it is not supposed to be a foolproof argument, it is really just supposed to be an excuse or justification.

In the case of an organic "Vaporized" crit, the PCs should probably be dead. If they got a "Vaporized" crit in normal gameplay, then either they did something stupid, or the GM REALLY wanted them dead.

I would also argue that this is not the rules glitching out, I would say that this is an unfortunate potential outcome.

A couple other options for minion preservation: (1) only a failure results in a crit, (2) if you are strapped in, you get a crit reduction. Roll for each minion group and if you get less than the reduction, they don't get the crit, (3) don't give an auto-crit, and deal damage base on minion health as I mentioned earlier. I'm leaning toward the 3rd option.

The problem is you are tying yourself in knots with tons of new microsystems that arent really needed and likely to result in killing your players. When just using the major collision rules will accomplish what you need all by themselves. I mean a crash is just a collision with the planet

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

The problem is you are tying yourself in knots with tons of new microsystems that arent really needed and likely to result in killing your players. When just using the major collision rules will accomplish what you need all by themselves. I mean a crash is just a collision with the planet

But what about the characters in the vehicle?

Just now, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

But what about the characters in the vehicle?

Already covered by the same rules

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

Already covered by the same rules

Are you suggesting that I use the major collision rules for crashing, or are you saying that the rules are supposed to extend to crashing?