Is anything lost by removing them? Since the GM just makes all the numbers up anyway, it seems like you could skip a step and say

"Well, in order to take control of the moon, they'll need to secure all shipping in the region, ensure the support of the general populace, and make deals with the nobility. Or at least two of the three, and I'll throw in an extra PF if they do all three."

instead of

"Well, Seizing The Moon is a Lesser Endeavor that should require 200 points to complete, with Securing Shipping, Ensure Support, and Noble Dealings each being worth 100 and a bonus PF for every 100 by which they exceed the required total"

Admittedly, a lot of ship components have ingame traits (Barracks, for instance, give a hefty bonus to Military objectives) but it doesn't seem like it'd be too hard for the GM to take note that the players should be a bit more successful at things they're actually equipped to do.

Note that while theoretically this could go in Houserules, I'm more interested in hearing accounts for how using the points system for Endeavors has actually worked out for GMs that've had experience with it, since I"ve seen some accounts of games where players amassed tremendous PF using an optimized ship (If a barracks is +100 Military Objectives, and Military Auspexes are another +50, then completing an Endeavor with two Military objectives would leave the players with 300 more objective points than they need, for a cool +3 PF, in addition to whatever the Endeavor yielded, and that's with a pretty minimal level of optimization.)

Change the bonus to +1 PF per additional 1000 points and it works out much better. Let them "keep their change" between Endeavours so that a little extra ere and there can still build, but the big scores are not nearly so gamebreaking to the PF.

From my experience at GMing RT, the Objective Point based system is a little daunting at first. Especially if the PC's somehow create a Universe Mass Conveyor Transport ship all decked out in trade endeavors that exceeds +1050 points if fully loaded. Yea, insane. Anyhoot, when referring to page 278 of RT, it makes it a little easier to keep track of it all. I attempted to not utilize the point based system once, and it didn't feel as rewarding for the players as I thought it was. In the end, I converted all their achievements over to points and they came out on top.

All you really have to do is this. 1) Figure out if is a Lesser, Greater, Grand, or Meta Endeavor. Examples are in the RT pg 279 and ItS pg 214 for Meta.

2) Figure out how many points they need to achieve said Endeavor. Once again refer to the examples.

3) Distribute those points between Objectives within that Endeavor (these do not have to be exact Objectives, just more or less open ended ones)

4) Keep track of what the PC accomplish and don't accomplish, and give them points based off the difficulty you initially set it as. Link your Objectives to ones that are similar to what they accomplish.

5) Remember that PC's will always go different routes than what you thought of, and accomplish other things outside the scope of the Endeavor/Objectives. Go with this and give them points relating to what they accomplished, and/or warn them that this route they are following could turn into a totally different Endeavor, so they could save it for later. This will help you to create an Endeavor for it instead of thinking on your feet for during the game.

And that's pretty much it. As for ships with components that add points to certain Endeavors, this only works if that component is carrying what you need. Say you have a Barracks. If it's empty, this nets you +0 for Military Endeavors. Even an empty Main Cargo Hold isn't really going to help you any, unless you are looting stuff. And as HappyDaze mentioned, a cap might need to be set. I have recently decided that a cap of half of the Endeavor is the max the PC's can go over. Meaning, if the Endeavor was initially set at +4 PF for accomplishing it, then the max they can get is +6 PF. This forces the PC's to choose larger Endeavors to meet their needs, instead of min maxing smaller ones. Hope this helps some.

Nameless2all said:

That was super helpful actually. Our current GM just tends to handwave it based on what our goals are and such. (He does a great job and runs a great game - this is no slight on him. In fact, that may just be his strong suit: he's got a great feel for balancing his game with story and PF advancements.)

I'm planning to run an RT game soon and I'd like a little more structure to endeavours. This framework lkooks great! Thanks a lot!

Macharias the Mendicant said:

Glad it helped. And hey, I think it's awesome that he doesn't need it. I was hoping I wouldn't but I guess that since I started off with it I got used to needing it. As long as everyone if having fun and enjoying the game (this includes, but is not limited too, the GM), then that is all that matters in my book. Happy gaming people. And may your Endeavors always be fruitful, though they may not always be profitable.

I also don't use the objective system its really cumbersome, story based objective make the game feel more organic I find. My only regret in not doing this is the fact that some ship components and items provied objective points and I have to come up with other game play solutions.

ieatdeadpeople2 said:

Did you ever think of a way to handle the parts where the players can spend achievement points to restore morale, etc…?