I had never made the connection, but yeah, Firefly and Traveller do share some thematic similarly.

I would think that Vacc Suits and other armor would be more prevalent than in the Star Wars setting...but I won't pretend to be an expert on either setting...hence why I thought that the blasters and light sabers would really havoc on unarmored characters.

They do.  That's why I mentioned above that you really need to flip some switches in GURPS (turning on a lot of cinematic rules) if you want to run Star Wars (and some tropes, like not allowing Force Users to just willy-nilly Light Sabering people in combat and Jedi mind Tricking everyone*).

Honestly, the Action line is perfect (specifically Action 2 and 3) for running Star Wars.



* Or you do what I did and allow those things, which makes for a much grimmer, darker Star Wars.

I can completely see how that would change some things.

"A squad of Imperial Stormtroopers bursts through the door"

"Quickdraw and fire"

Vs

"A squad of Imperial Stormtroopers bursts through the door"

"Run for the back door, full defense, try to use the others for cover!"

I feel like GURPS would handle Battlestar Gallactica pretty well.

In reply to Walter Goldman (msg # 138):

I think it would handle most of these well. I have run Cyberpunk, VtM, Horror (modern and CoC converted 20's) and a 3e version of Fantasy based on Otherwhere.org's now gone Advanced Grottoes & Goblins. I had the bug for this genre since 89.

I think the Galactica reboot is pretty close to Traveller, in some ways, too.

Jump drives (though they have much longer range, that could be house ruled with computer requirements and fuel efficiency improvements), no beam weapons (just freeze weapon development at nukes and autocannon), artificial gravity, starships that can land (some of them) -- and lots of grit.

Jump drives in tiny ships is another house rule -- just waive the 100T hull requirement.

a 100 T hull is pretty tiny ... when you add up everything needed, it's hard to get below that level and have a ship useful for anything.

Once again, a little house rule work on fuel efficiency, sizes of engines and computers, and you could get a Viper (looks like about 4-5 T by Traveller measurements; similar size to a Navy fighter like a Tomcat or Phantom II) that can jump.  This is mostly flavor -- you still have jump drives for distance, maneuver drives (with reasonable point-and-boost physics, aside from ignoring reaction mass requirements), ships are the fastest/only communication method over interstellar distances -- rebooted Galactica is more like Traveller than unlike.

In reply to Ardenas Barehand (msg # 142):

In my Traveller game on this site I keep the 100 T limit, but that is more of a tactical decision to make Carriers still useful. Otherwise, each planet only needs to build hundreds of fighters and send them in a giant swarm, taking advantage of the fact that in Traveller there are some limitations on the number of weapons, because weapon sizes are pretty much standardized. This Limit counters that.

But I do have systems taking up much less than the 0.5 dTon space limit imposed by GURPs: Interstellar Wars ship design for small craft (<10 dTons). I have many small fighters of 6 dTons...Note, this system works with dTons, or displacement tones, rather than actual tons...this is actually a measure of volume rather than weight...but I am getting into way too much detail now, so I better stop.

Traveller always ran on displacement tons.  A "standard ton" for ship design purposes was the volume of a metric ton of liquid hydrogen (fusion fuel, hence a large fraction of ship mass and volume for long-jump vessels at Traveller efficiency levels) -- approximately 14.5 cubic meters (two 1.5 m squares, each 3 m tall, for deck plans).

In reply to Ardenas Barehand (msg # 144):

I just got a player request from a fellow I had to remove for irregular posting- the character he had was Kebrel Hoat, the patron of all of the original huniors. He wants to be the captain of a pirate fleet,possibly involving airships. While that is stirring, it is really beyond my scope. The sea is too big of a (wet) sandbox for me to tackle without making it a railroad, and I kinda have my hands full.

This brings up something I've mentioned before...

Can we get a list of who is playing who?

So it's easier to see if someone is MIA completely, or just not paying attention in one thread.

For instance, if I knew what other characters the Player of Dareos was playing I'd have an idea if he was MIA in all his threads, or if he's just not noticed his cues in the Defiled Snacktuary.

some people like anonymity... unless the players personality shines through, for every character, part of the game is not knowing who they are, cos people tend to treat players differently, than characters. i know the Gm knows what I mean.

The GM can tell when a player of multiple characters is AWOL... and he can handle it... we as Players don't need to get involved.

In reply to Mellarill (msg # 148):

I am starting  a list...

Sure.  I can see that.

There are specific arguments to be made for and against it.



Myself?  I repeatedly name out who I'm playing (Jareth, Jednesa, Stenet, Ulo - evileeyore on the GURPS forums, the Player behind the characters).  If someone decides they hate my style and want nothing to do with me, then they know what characters of mine to avoid.  I'm all for it.

I hope I differentiate characters enough that if someone gets upset over one, it isn't a problem with the others (see Grend, Oren, Jin*)... but... if someone identifies a problem they have with me, the Player, something endemic to my style, I am okay with them not wanting to associate.  Likewise, if I discover a thing I know will cause issues for me*, then I'd like to be able to avoid associating in the future.

However, I'll accept the "rules of anonymity" to cover others  (note, the only 'pestering' I've ever done was short lived and in good humour)... if those are actually in place.  I don't know, our Narrator has been vague on that in the past.




* Not so much calling out that he had a problematic style, but rather that he had a distinct style.  One which was aggressive about displaying his character's worst flaws, which is great in many roleplaying settings.  I stand with it!

However... in a 'team-focused' play (like DF) it's... a bit not-so-good when those flaws are ones that will cause friction between the characters.  Friction enough to maybe cause characters to come to blows.  Which is against the OOC rules (intra-party combat has it's place, that place is in the Arena).

I have a ... "no retreat, no surrender" type of personality.  Each of my characters would have reacted strongly to his (much as pretty much everyone did).  In some cases that could have lead to or prompted character combat (as you, Iksander, know well).

So ... I got lucky and never ended up in a party with him (I was avoiding it only in that I avoided creating a Sahud facing character for the Sahudese thread).

Just as I'll deliberately avoid having Ulo and Christine ever meet up.  Not I have a problem with Christine's Player (they are doing a wonderful job!) but because I wouldn't even check Ulo's disads, it would be all attack-attack-attack-attack-attack until one of them was dead.  At least until this situation get's resolved in some manner.  Probably using talking.  And Diplomacy.  And economics.  And no where near enough blue-haired fire wizard elves in pools of acid conflict resolution strategies.

In reply to Jareth Mooncalled (msg # 150):

I am good with "A and B have same player"

That's leaving a lot of work to be done on the definition of "involvement".

Example:  Dareos.


If I know Dareos's Player is still actively posting in threads as other Characters, then I will chill and just give him time to catch up.  Maybe make another post calling out attention to whatever it is Stenet needs Dareos to respond to (which I have done).  If I know the Player is actively engaged, I won't wait seven days between them.  I'd have posted a few (probably exactly two) days later.  Shorter if the Player is very active (posting several times a day).

But... I was unsure.  To avoid giving the appearance of being rude In Character I waited a week.  Imagine how it would have looked had I posted every day... it'd look like Stenet was down there wheedling away at him!

Imagine:

Stenet:  Hey Dareos!
Stenet:  Dareos!
Stenet:  Dareos hey listen!
Stenet:  DAREOS!
Stenet:  HEY!
Stenet:  Hey listen!  Dareos!


(That, that seems kinda funny now.  Maybe I should have.  Heh.)





Okay, cool.

I think it might have been funny too...

I have no problem with folks knowing who I play (those who pay attention likely already know anyway; I occasionally forget to change the default character when posting in the threads).  I've already posted in the list thread.

Conversely, aside from players who post as if they enjoy provoking other characters, I don't much care who plays who.

In reply to Ardenas Barehand (msg # 154):

Let me reach out to Dareos player...

I agree it would be funny.  Even to the point of running up the stairs and shaking him

"Hey!  Are you with us?"

Sorry for the delay.  I've become too accustomed to not being involved since my fighting skills are rarely needed and if we're doing well, my healing skills are rarely needed and I needed to focus on other things, so my check ins have become less frequent.

In reply to Dareos Madrigar (msg # 156):

There us going to be a bit of both soon

S'all good.  Just started to worry that we'd lost ya.

Apologies if the word "medallion" is eye-searingly obvious in that last post... but just drawing attention to it.