Something like that could be implemented. Personally, I wouldn't until you start modifying a drive below its installed specification. My reasoning is that the slower drives aren't that way because the vessel they're on requires a more dependable drive, they're slow because it's cheaper (and cheapness rarely translates into "more precise").

For modified drives, I'd encourage the GM to upgrade the difficulty, probably with Force Points*, despair meaning the **** thing just broke, requiring either a lengthy fix or some quick jury rigging (which will inflict system strain).

* If you require a solution that occurs more frequently than this (justified - look at the falcon) upgrade the difficulty but add a boost - things got more random, but you're not actually punishing the guy for having a better engine.

My only question to you all is:

Is there any support for slower hyperdrives being more accurate? This is the part of it that bothers me.

Suns of Fortune have some rules for microjumps in one of the encounter modules; the designer seemed to think a slower drive was more accurate too. However, they set the difficulty at 3d1s, with an extra setback for using a fast drive.

Suns of Fortune have some rules for microjumps in one of the encounter modules; the designer seemed to think a slower drive was more accurate too. However, they set the difficulty at 3d1s, with an extra setback for using a fast drive.

I don't have Suns of Fortune. Do they explain why the slower drives are more accurate? Seems very strange, to me.

Well, this is purely nonsensical pseudo-tech speculation (as with any star wars tech mumbojumbo), but considering that the slower drive gives more time to the drive to "accelerate" to top speed (I know its not really about that) and therefore a relatively early warning to itself about "time to decelerate" while in hyperspace, this could make it easier for the navcomputer and hyperdrive to have the ship end up where it should be, rather than too far away, or too close (whabaam!). Think of it like numbers counting upwards really, really, really, REALLY fast. With a fast drive its going to be hard to stop at the exact number, i.e. the precise location, whereas a slower drive might get it right more often...

While not necessarily giving much advantage to long distance travelling, for these short microjumps it could make all the difference, if the above is an approximation of the reasoning behind the designers' decision. The difference between a x1, x2 or x10 within a star system is going to be negligible when it comes to travel time.

Also, it gives a use for the backup drive and it prevents players from always calculating micro/precise hyperspace jumps... if that would be an issue. I don't know.

Well, this is purely nonsensical pseudo-tech speculation (as with any star wars tech mumbojumbo), but considering that the slower drive gives more time to the drive to "accelerate" to top speed (I know its not really about that) and therefore a relatively early warning to itself about "time to decelerate" while in hyperspace, this could make it easier for the navcomputer and hyperdrive to have the ship end up where it should be, rather than too far away, or too close (whabaam!). Think of it like numbers counting upwards really, really, really, REALLY fast. With a fast drive its going to be hard to stop at the exact number, i.e. the precise location, whereas a slower drive might get it right more often...

While not necessarily giving much advantage to long distance travelling, for these short microjumps it could make all the difference, if the above is an approximation of the reasoning behind the designers' decision. The difference between a x1, x2 or x10 within a star system is going to be negligible when it comes to travel time.

Also, it gives a use for the backup drive and it prevents players from always calculating micro/precise hyperspace jumps... if that would be an issue. I don't know.

From the films, hyperdrives seem to accelerate to top speed pretty darn fast, but I'd still consider the above to be acceptable technobabble.

@Jshock: yea, this is where I am taking this from. =)

@Col. Orange: no explanation besides 'slower drives are more accurate'. Seems very strange to me too. =(

@Jegergryte - interesting thoughts

Thanks for the input everyone. I am not overly keen on this sbd/more accurate slower drives thing, but I will keep it in there until someone can bring up some good canon stuff counter to it.

So. I have a question I think is fitting for this thread. When making astrogation checks, calculations go over many rounds, I'm now considering this as part of a chase or combat scenario. 1) the check is made the first round as an action, only one check is, initially, necessary as it can reduce calculation time. 2) what is the navigator able to do for the following rounds? Is all her/his attention required for the calculations? Or can s/he also perform manoeuvres and/or actions? Thoughts?

Good question. I think that it only takes one action to input it and get your navicomp rolling and then the calculation time is the time for the computer to finish the final calcs. There is nothing in the rules that says the astrogator must be involved with the navicomp the whole time, since a check is technically only action, but suggesting so as a house rule seems reasonable, but would take the person out of the game until the calc was done and no rolling or action for him.

Another way to approach this if you want to go that way would be to require cumulative successes. A number that was thrown out in another thread was a base of 6 successes. I would have to really look at that, but you may be able to start with 3 success (just throwing a number out there) per base round the calc should take as a start, and the final roll determines the dynamic die results.

Perhaps the first round is an action and subsequent rounds are a maneuver, and then the final round is an action too.

The first action roll could determine how long and the last action roll could determine the other results.

I thought about the two check option, but I think it goes against the intention of the narrative dice system. Reason I ask is that it came up last session and I thought it overly hars, at least for a small group, to remove one player from the action, even if what s/he is doing is important, even vital.

I sort of think that the initial check is an action, and the following rounds require a manoeuvre, until it's done. Not that there isn't stuff the player can do as a manoeuvre...

A two check option isn't a bad idea, if the initial check can somehow affect the last check, not just the time required for the calculations... but again it becomes more rolling and slightly more "complicated". Still, it is perhaps worth a test.

Let me know what happens if you test it, and what form you test.

I think the normal result from an average unskilled character and a difficult check is... failure. (32% chance of success for two green and three purple dice: 68% chance of failure.)

So... what are the consequences of failure? Not discussed above(?), or really in the book, other than 1 success lets you arrive in the system uneventfully. So you don't arrive, or do you have to try again? or?

I'm also surprised not to see anything in the rules to dissuade lunatics from skipping the normal "5 to 15 minutes, Time needed to fly from a planet's orbit to a safe hyperspace jump distance". (In our game, the bad guys just pulled this *bleep* from orbit around an unmapped outer rim planet with an unstable gravitational anomaly. I'm getting a lot of flak from the other PCs for not anticipating their lunacy.)

I think the normal result from an average unskilled character and a difficult check is... failure. (32% chance of success for two green and three purple dice: 68% chance of failure.)

So... what are the consequences of failure? Not discussed above(?), or really in the book, other than 1 success lets you arrive in the system uneventfully. So you don't arrive, or do you have to try again? or?

The way I've been running it is you never fail to jump to hyperspace. What you might fail at is arriving at your intended destination; higher degrees of failure indicate how badly off course you are (conversely, success indicates how pinpoint accurate you are). Advantage/Threat is my time axis (how much longer or shorter the trip is). Triumph/Despair is my axis of FUN.

You don't accelerate when making the jump. What is perceived as acceleration is really the ship transitioning from normal space to hyperspace.