Seven Worlds Setting - Feedback and Issues

[Arsilon]

Finally got the initial version submitted and released. It's taken a while to get the original publisher and author to agree to have this converted for FGU. Thanks to all the folks that had to answer all the questions I had along the way, in particular Talon64, Jiminimonka and Savage Doswelk. And to Ikeal for providing example extensions that I ended up using to track Heat for ships in Space Combat and also to show Trait Die results for Zero-G rules.

This initial version is true to the original as-published Seven Worlds Setting Guide by Intellistories.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWDISSWSG
https://store.steampowered.com/app/3160930/Fantasy_Grounds__Seven_Worlds_Setting_Guide/

As such this original version is optimized for SWD per the original Setting.

For those that prefer to play in the SWADE ruleset, the setting guide has been re-optimized to work within the updated SWADE ruleset. It still keeps it's hard science fiction backbone but as per the original several rules have been customized to work for the setting and corresponding campaign adventure books.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWADEISSWSG
https://store.steampowered.com/app/3198500/Fantasy_Grounds__Seven_Worlds_Setting_Guide_SWADE/

Each version of the Setting Guide contains:
- Setting Guide - Player
- Setting Guide - GM
- Setting Guide - Intro Adventure: A Mysterious Encounter
- Setting Extension

The Campaign Book modules are also available on the Fantasy Ground store and on Steam. Each campaign book contains two (2) modules, one each built to work with the corresponding rulebook, Savage Worlds Deluxe -or- Savage Worlds Adventure Edition. The underlying stories are the same, but the content has been tweaked based on the differences in the underlying rulesets.

Seven Worlds Module 1: Rumors of War
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWISSWCBM1

Seven Worlds Module 2: Divided We Fall
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWISSWCBM2

Seven Worlds Module 3: Into the Fire
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWISSWCBM3

Seven Worlds Module 4: Broken Circle
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWISSWCBM4

Seven Worlds Module 5: Chrysalis
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWISSWCBM5

Seven Worlds Module 6: Exodus
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWISSWCBM6

Seven Worlds Module 7: End Game
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWISSWCBM7

Enjoy!

[Mike Serfass]

Nice! I'm very happy to see more sci-fi settings, and Seven Worlds is a good one. I backed them on kickstarter. It was well worth the money.

[Doswelk]

Thread is now sticky to kepp it on first page :)

[Arsilon]

Just submitted the SWADE version for QA. Hopefully it will flow through relatively quickly.

Tomorrow's patch should have some minor typo and formatting fixes as well as a couple missing links corrected in the SWD version.

[Lonewolf]

Right all sorted out. Will get the SWADE version.

[Arsilon]

The SWADE version has been submitted and is ready to go. Just waiting for Smiteworks to push the final 'release to live' button.

For simplicity sake we'll use this thread for any issues found in either version so we can keep both in sync.

As an FYI, development is nearing completion for the first 2 campaign adventure module books (there are 7 total); hopefully that means the full campaign adventure will also be available sooner rather than later. (Thanks again to Jiminimonka, Doswelk and Lonewolf for helping me figure out how to streamline conversion work on the back end to make it go faster!) I wanted to make sure the setting guides were out and clean before finalizing the campaigns since they need to link to the appropriate underlying version of the setting rules.

[Arsilon]

SWADE version is now live for anyone that was waiting for that version to release. Updated the original post accordingly.

Current list of enhancements/fixes in queue for next release cycle:
- Fixed errors in Optional rules for Ship Edges and Hindrances
- Fixed formatting issues with Archetype character backstories
- Added a Space Encounter battle map to the GM Guide for use with other campaign adventure modules
- Removed unused vehicle attributes to avoid automation errors
- Added 'missile payload vehicles' for use in tracking launcher projectiles in the CT and on battle map

[Sorontar]

What a great setting this is - picked it up on FG but had to go and grab the stuff from DTRPG as well and loving everything I've read so far.

[Arsilon]

The 1st two campaign books are in QA right now and should be available shortly. Book 3 is almost done being cleaned up as well waiting to be submitted. Shouldn't take too long to have all 7 books up.

[Sorontar]

The 1st two campaign books are in QA right now and should be available shortly. Book 3 is almost done being cleaned up as well waiting to be submitted. Shouldn't take too long to have all 7 books up.

Excellent news :):

[Arsilon]

First two modules from the Campaign Book went live today on the Fantasy Ground store and on Steam:

Seven Worlds Module 1: Rumors of War
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWISSWCBM1

Seven Worlds Module 2: Divided We Fall
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWISSWCBM2


Books 3 & 4 are in QA and should be live soon
Books 5 & 6 are in the hopper for QA

[Sorontar]

First two modules from the Campaign Book went live today on the Fantasy Ground store and on Steam:

Seven Worlds Module 1: Rumors of War
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWISSWCBM1

Seven Worlds Module 2: Divided We Fall
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWISSWCBM2


Books 3 & 4 are in QA and should be live soon
Books 5 & 6 are in the hopper for QA

Excellent - I look forward to reading through these :)

[Arsilon]

Books 3, 4 & 5 out today...(Original post also updated)

Seven Worlds Module 3: Into the Fire
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWISSWCBM3

Seven Worlds Module 4: Broken Circle
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWISSWCBM4

Seven Worlds Module 5: Chrysalis
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=IPFGSWISSWCBM5

[Arsilon]

I just submitted Book 7 into QA last night (Book 6 is already there). I'm guessing 6 & 7 will be released together similar to how the previous ones were.

So that means I'm moving into more bug fixes and enhancement mode. I have a short list of things I've been compiling already. For example a bunch of general format/consistency cleanup and adding some coding to use fast tests, adding the 'free' skills to NPC's in SWADE, etc.

If anyone has started playing around with this and has suggestions or finds any additional bugs, please let me know.

[srbongo]

Thanks for converting these, my Sunday group is on Chapter 3 now and really loving it.

One note, Module 3: Into the Fire (SWADE) has Leon Granberg's section duplicated onto Johann Patras' in the Important Characters section

A very minor issue in section R of Scene 6 where a link for the Veteran Mesh Trooper is instead a Typical Mesh Trooper, but the Encounter is correct.

Thanks again!

[Arsilon]

Thanks for converting these, my Sunday group is on Chapter 3 now and really loving it.

One note, Module 3: Into the Fire (SWADE) has Leon Granberg's section duplicated onto Johann Patras' in the Important Characters section

A very minor issue in section R of Scene 6 where a link for the Veteran Mesh Trooper is instead a Typical Mesh Trooper, but the Encounter is correct.

Thanks again!

It just so happens I'm working on various bug fixes as we speak. I'll fix that now and get into the queue for the Tuesday update. Thanks!

[Arsilon]

The last two books are in final release queue so I will be moving into full maintenance / enhancement mode at this point.

My intention is to try and keep the SWD version as pristine as possible; as close to the original as published as I can. I will fix any game play breaking issues but otherwise try to refrain from making any changes that deviate from what you can find in the original print/pdf version.

The SWADE version already has a bunch of changes, as you would expect, to accommodate the core rules differences. Most are minor. Some are more fundamental to the setting.

I have already found and fixed several minor issues. Feel free to continue to point out anything else you may find. As you use it, also feel free to make whatever suggestions to make gameplay easier. I will see what I can do to accommodate.

[Shapeshifter1923]

I am running the intoductory adventure for my group. They are just about to engage in their first Seven Worlds space combat.
I have purchased all the campaign modules now. All of them look excellent, great storyline. Already my favourite savage worlds setting.

[Arsilon]

I am running the intoductory adventure for my group. They are just about to engage in their first Seven Worlds space combat.
I have purchased all the campaign modules now. All of them look excellent, great storyline. Already my favourite savage worlds setting.

Fantastic, either post or DM me how it goes for you? Would be great to get GM feedback on how it plays and how to streamline it further. Most of what I've added beyond core what was printed was for my own preference -- mileage likely varies for others.

[mac40k]

I backed the Kickstarter for this setting/campaign back in the day and have always wanted to run it. Adapting it for use in FG was my biggest detractor. The existence of these modules in the store now moves it up on the ladder of campaigns I want to run next. I'm curious if the SWADE version includes the changes made by the Playing Seven Worlds withe the Savage Worlds Adventure Edition document released by the publisher. Also, I'd like some elaboration on what is meant by " several rules have been customized to work for the setting and corresponding campaign adventure books." Lastly, I assume the campaign books are all SWD format and manual conversion to SWADE (like replacing the Streetwise skill with the Edge) would still be necessary.

[Arsilon]

I backed the Kickstarter for this setting/campaign back in the day and have always wanted to run it. Adapting it for use in FG was my biggest detractor. The existence of these modules in the store now moves it up on the ladder of campaigns I want to run next. I'm curious if the SWADE version includes the changes made by the Playing Seven Worlds withe the Savage Worlds Adventure Edition document released by the publisher. Also, I'd like some elaboration on what is meant by " several rules have been customized to work for the setting and corresponding campaign adventure books." Lastly, I assume the campaign books are all SWD format and manual conversion to SWADE (like replacing the Streetwise skill with the Edge) would still be necessary.

1) The SWADE version does include most of the suggestions from the Playing Seven Worlds with the Savage Worlds Adventure Edition document. However it has been refined a bit after quite a bit of back and forth discussion with author. He admittedly hadn't really play-tested the SWADE version anywhere near as much as he had the SWD version. So what you find now in the SWADE version is mostly what was in the document but modified slightly based on my playtesting feedback and with agreement from the original author. A fairly detailed set of notes has been included in the SWADE version to review the changes made (similar to what was in the document).

2) The mention of several rules having been customized refers to things that Seven Worlds modifies from the core rules such as, but not limited to:

Modified Chase Rules and Space Combat
Significant changes to how Psionics works, eg custom/modified powers, advancement changes
Custom/modified Skills

It also includes deviations per above to accommodate using SWADE.

3) Each campaign module actually contains both the SWD and SWADE version. You can activate whichever one you want to use. I have already gone through and made each version 'correct' per which core rules version you prefer. You are still free to modify further, but they should each be playable out of the box for the appropriate underlying core and setting rules, eg SWD vs SWADE.

Hope that answers your questions, let me know if not.

ps. #3 is important since the two are bundled together vs sold separately -- if that isn't clear from the store page description let me know so that it can be updated to be more clear.

[mac40k]

The store page for Part 1 of the campaign just says: "This product requires the Savage Worlds rulebook and the Seven Worlds Setting Guide to play. It is compatible with both Savage Worlds Deluxe and Savage Worlds Adventure Edition versions."

It doesn't say anything about there being two separate versions, which is why I assumed it was just the original version with broken links to skills that no longer exist, etc.

[Arsilon]

The store page for Part 1 of the campaign just says: "This product requires the Savage Worlds rulebook and the Seven Worlds Setting Guide to play. It is compatible with both Savage Worlds Deluxe and Savage Worlds Adventure Edition versions."

It doesn't say anything about there being two separate versions, which is why I assumed it was just the original version with broken links to skills that no longer exist, etc.

Hrm...I was hoping that "It is compatible with both Savage Worlds Deluxe and Savage Worlds Adventure Edition versions." might have sufficed. Upon reading it again, I can see how its not obvious that means it actually has two versions included tailored specifically to work vs. 'sure it will open but with broken links that can be ignored.'

I'll see if I can get the page reworded to be more explicit.

Let me know if you find any problems with it as you get into it. Given even in the SWD version, 7W deviated from core rules quite a bit, it was somewhat of a judgement call with some of the SWADE changes and what to do about them. For SWD I could always revert to 'as written' in the published Setting/Campaign. SWADE I had to make some decisions as there were several discrepancies and inconsistencies -- and some things that just didn't feel balanced properly in actual gameplay. I did discuss them with the author but I realize that you won't find any documentation anywhere on them other than what I put in the notes page and some might disagree with some of those decisions.

[Mike Serfass]

@Arsilon: Your work on these modules was mentioned by the author on his old kickstarter page. He was complimentary and included screenshots.
Nice work!

[Arsilon]

Nice. He had mentioned he was going to post something there once it was all done. I'm just glad to give the setting a new boost -- its for sure one of my favorites personally. I had already done the work for my own personal table, so why not try and make it available for others as well?

In other news, the store page hopefully should be a bit more clear what is included in the Campaign Modules, now.

"This product requires the Savage Worlds rulebook and the Seven Worlds Setting Guide to play. It contains separate modules tailored to work with both Savage Worlds Deluxe and Savage Worlds Adventure Edition versions of the underlying Setting Guide and core rulebook."

[Mike Serfass]

That's more clear. I wish other products were that clear.

[mac40k]

Kudos for all your hard work. The many changes that would require more advanced techniques than just copy/pasting stat blocks and importing text is the main reason I never tried to adapt it myself. I've still got a bit of runway left in the current Deadlands campaign, but this is on the pitch list for next game with my group.

[Arsilon]

Kudos for all your hard work. The many changes that would require more advanced techniques than just copy/pasting stat blocks and importing text is the main reason I never tried to adapt it myself. I've still got a bit of runway left in the current Deadlands campaign, but this is on the pitch list for next game with my group.
Poke around and look at the tables and some of the extra added elements by way of items and vehicles. I added some things for my own gameplay purposes that are purely optional. I didn’t document them explicitly in some cases. Feel free to ask any questions and or offer suggestions if you think of better ways to do stuff.

[CPJ]

Evening all...
Is there any information on the Setting SW - Seven Worlds extension? I can see there is a "Heat" entry on the CT... Does this automatically add the penalty to PC rolls?
Thanks.

[Arsilon]

It does not automate anything currently. It was added as a convenience item since there is no other simple place to track it. The CT seemed to be the most ideal place to put it.

Trying to go through and do the full integration into Dice Rolling is 'on the list' but its also much more involved and would require a lot more custom.lua programming.

I should point out that Mental Toughness currently must be handled manually as well. There are some built in native capabilities around opposed rolls that are just now being introduced....but from what I can tell thus far are not advanced enough yet to be able to use these for Derived Stats like Mental Toughness. So that would require full custom .lua programming as well. Similar to Heat, it was added to the character sheet so it could be represented -- it is calculated based on Spirit, but it is not integrated into the opposed rolls for the relevant Psionic Power attacks like Parry would be for Fighting.

I'll probably poke someone like @Mike Serfass for advice on how possible this is and how involved given some of the other stuff that is already in the works. I should probably add a snippet per the above in the developer notes if it was important enough of a question that someone posted about it.

[CPJ]

Thanks Arsilon.

We currently use custom effects for ship wounds and ship heat... they work ok.

If PCs are added to the ship as "pilot" and "gunners" the custom effects are automatically applied and the GM can apply and remove as required.

[Arsilon]

Can you post here and/or DM me more details on your work-around if it works well for you?

Heat wasn't a big enough deal in my playthroughs that just dealing with it manually was overly burdensome that I felt a need to prioritize time to try and tackle it vs. just getting the module up and available.

[Arsilon]

FYI, the only other thing the extension does is rework the code that publishes the Trait and Wild Die results separately so you know if you need to trigger Zero-G rules -- again not automated...just making it visible.

[CPJ]

Hi Arsilon,

This is what we use...

Install this fantastic extension... where the magic happens;
https://forge.fantasygrounds.com/shop/items/439/view

Ensure all the extension options are on in options.

Create some custom effects such as:
Ship Heat #1 [Trait -1]
Ship Heat #2 [Trait -1]
Ship Heat #3 [Trait -1]

Ship Wound #1 [Trait -1]
Etc...

Ensure PCs are dropped on the ship as pilot and gunners by drag/dropping the character sheet icon on the pilot and gun/missile entries on the ship sheet.

The GM can add and remove the custom effects as required.

[Arsilon]

Actually I think when I tested this path previously Wounds does work without further effects. Its been a hot minute so I could be wrong. I'll poke around with this some more when I have a few minutes.

Thanks!

[Arsilon]

Moving this here per your other post:
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?83727-Close-Combat-Range

I'm glad someone else is jumping in and really putting things through its paces. Up to now, I've been relying on my own playtesting. I'm putting a 2nd group through the full campaign currently and taking notes on what works and doesn't work based on my own groups.

Reading your word document, several comments/questions:

I was already considering adding multiple weapons to the ship so each could be 'manned' separately vs. having one weapon with 2x notation. I was also going to add a separate PDLB weapon entry. Your suggestion of adding Ship Ops 'weapons' is also an interesting one if I'm already going down this path.

For Sensors, I typically give the option for players to do either Ship Ops (default) or Electronics (optional) roll. I don't think core rules suggest separate sensor rolls explicitly so I just defaulted to Ship Ops with Electronics as a player option if they have it instead of Ship Ops. Should it be Electronics by rule?

As for Shooting +2 I already have it as a global effect that can be turned on or off if you are in space combat. When I originally coded this, I wasn't sure how to code a pre-existing effect on an NPC or Vehicle master record. I'll have to go back and see if that actually works so it can be added to the master vehicle record (I usually forget until after the first attack that I didn't turn the global effect on).

Missiles I wanted to do some more testing on before ultimately deciding how they may be better implemented. Per an early suggestion by @Mike Serfass I had converted them from items to being vehicles themselves. There are still open questions I have on how to best handle a) inventory and loadout and b) if/how raises should be handled with damage. Given the attack is rolled one turn and the damage is one or more rounds later, how or even should you remember that the attack roll was done with a raise and does the damage roll get an extra d6 in such a case?

I may add the custom effects for wounds/heat as well but need to play a bit more on how things are handled default vs. what is required to make 4C work. My rule of thumb is I don't want to require you use a 3rd party mod to make what is in the core ruleset work. Unless I can pull the coding into the Seven Worlds Extension and be responsible for maintaining it myself. The simple visuals I've pulled into based on other more 'open' examples are one thing. Replicating an entire mod from another developer is quite a different thing.

It is still an open question in my mind what to do about SFC when its released if it fundamentally changes what is available for GMs and what I may need to do with the default ruleset. I'm also waiting to see how tests develop further -- I'd ideally like to work it where Psionic powers can be applied against mental toughness for instance; I could do the ones that roll against spirit currently but figured I'd let it sit and try and do it all rather than piecemeal -- Going back to edit things across 2 setting guides and 2x versions for 7 campaign modules is a bit involved to make sure nothing is missed.

I could add another page in the reference guide with 'options' and how to handle optional mods and instructions on how to do so.

[Arsilon]

Additional note: I'm also separating what I do for the Voyager vs. what is done for NPC ships since the GM already has to be flexible; there is significant diminishing returns on trying to code for every possible variant that might come up on the GM side vs. what a player has to deal with on the Voyager. A GM in theory is much more conversant on how to make on the fly changes in FG (or just do the math manually via roll adjustment) than a player might otherwise be.

[CPJ]

Moving this here per your other post:
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?83727-Close-Combat-Range

I'm glad someone else is jumping in and really putting things through its paces. Up to now, I've been relying on my own playtesting. I'm putting a 2nd group through the full campaign currently and taking notes on what works and doesn't work based on my own groups.

Reading your word document, several comments/questions:

I was already considering adding multiple weapons to the ship so each could be 'manned' separately vs. having one weapon with 2x notation. I was also going to add a separate PDLB weapon entry. Your suggestion of adding Ship Ops 'weapons' is also an interesting one if I'm already going down this path.

For Sensors, I typically give the option for players to do either Ship Ops (default) or Electronics (optional) roll. I don't think core rules suggest separate sensor rolls explicitly so I just defaulted to Ship Ops with Electronics as a player option if they have it instead of Ship Ops. Should it be Electronics by rule?

As for Shooting +2 I already have it as a global effect that can be turned on or off if you are in space combat. When I originally coded this, I wasn't sure how to code a pre-existing effect on an NPC or Vehicle master record. I'll have to go back and see if that actually works so it can be added to the master vehicle record (I usually forget until after the first attack that I didn't turn the global effect on).

Missiles I wanted to do some more testing on before ultimately deciding how they may be better implemented. Per an early suggestion by @Mike Serfass I had converted them from items to being vehicles themselves. There are still open questions I have on how to best handle a) inventory and loadout and b) if/how raises should be handled with damage. Given the attack is rolled one turn and the damage is one or more rounds later, how or even should you remember that the attack roll was done with a raise and does the damage roll get an extra d6 in such a case?

I may add the custom effects for wounds/heat as well but need to play a bit more on how things are handled default vs. what is required to make 4C work. My rule of thumb is I don't want to require you use a 3rd party mod to make what is in the core ruleset work. Unless I can pull the coding into the Seven Worlds Extension and be responsible for maintaining it myself. The simple visuals I've pulled into based on other more 'open' examples are one thing. Replicating an entire mod from another developer is quite a different thing.

It is still an open question in my mind what to do about SFC when its released if it fundamentally changes what is available for GMs and what I may need to do with the default ruleset. I'm also waiting to see how tests develop further -- I'd ideally like to work it where Psionic powers can be applied against mental toughness for instance; I could do the ones that roll against spirit currently but figured I'd let it sit and try and do it all rather than piecemeal -- Going back to edit things across 2 setting guides and 2x versions for 7 campaign modules is a bit involved to make sure nothing is missed.

I could add another page in the reference guide with 'options' and how to handle optional mods and instructions on how to do so.

Apologies... my comments in another word document since I'm rubbish on the message board...

https://1drv.ms/w/c/32f3222c8b33adbd/EZmXhuSLtF1GlA7GrV84XXcBQ-bpqoDI6Bf293dlbCbCYQ

[Arsilon]

I will pull some of the word doc stuff back here in case other people may have input:

Sensors:

[CPJ]The SWADE RAW skill “Electronics” states the use of starship sensors which is the reasoning for us to use it. Bearing in mind that it’s an optional settings rule in 7W anyway… Using sensors also gives non-Pilot/Gunner/Engineers PCs something useful to do during starship combat. In our game a successful roll will identify enemy missiles as per 7W and can also be used to gather some information on the enemy spaceship, for example; weapon types of laser/missile launcher etc, and with a raise; light/medium/heavy weapons and/or number of shield effects etc. There is also a discussion in our group about making this an opposed roll, where the enemy detects their ship is being scanned and may want to use Electronics as a countermeasure. Again, this makes a PC sensor user a little more involved in spaceship combat instead of just watching the rest of us panic about the heat pool…

1) If its optional then my preference would be to leave it to a GM to do it either way they prefer.
2) One thing you may consider to allow players with different skills to do 'something' is allow them to do support rolls. So for your player that has Electronics, allow them to do what you suggest and use the sensors to make targeting/fire control easier as a support roll to the gunner. That may indeed be what you are doing but it wasn't explicitly mentioned as such. In my games I'll allow a player to use any of their skills if they can figure out a way to make it relevant to any of the other 'common' ship functions; supporting heat rolls, piloting rolls, etc. We've even implemented a rule where you can use performance, taunt, persuasion, etc as long as they two ships are within 1 or 2 AU whereby the communication lag wouldn't make such a thing too awkward to still be effective.



Shooting +2

[CPJ] Yes, a global effect would work nicely. I couldn’t work out a way of adding an effect to a master vehicle record. If there is a way, this would be better.

Double check. There SHOULD be a global effect already defined for this. I did it this way since without 4C, it wouldn't take hold for the players.

Also I am pretty sure there is a way to add this effect to the vehicle master record. I figured it out how to have an NPC already have fatigue points by default; I'm guessing the same technique would work for effects but I will test it to be sure. I haven't tested it works on Vehicles but I would think it should if it does for NPCs.

Launchers:

[CPJ]You do need to add “0” to the Missile Launcher damage die otherwise it ignores effects and range penalties for some reason. We keep a record of missile inventory in a player note until we find a better way of handling it, though it could go on the spaceship notes tab?


I will put adding a 0 to the Missile Launcher default damage to the bugfix/enhancement list. In looking at this, I definitely screwed something up between the live version and my own playtest version.

1) If you look at the NPC's you see I have the missiles set up as explicit weapons with the count. As such, GM should be able to decrement the # as they are consumed.
2) I didn't do this for the Voyager; perhaps I meant to but didn't....what I do in my personal game is use the notes for it; but perhaps when I put in the fix for #1, I accidentally deleted the notes for the Voyager....what I have added into the Notes section in my personal version is:

Weapons:

• 2 × Light Laser Cannons (Range 4/8/16; Damage 3d6; AP 6; RoF 1; PDLB RoF 5; Heat Points 3; HW)
• 2 × Medium Missile Launchers (Range 1/2/4; RoF 4; Heat Points 1; 4 reloads per launcher, maximum 1 of them is nuclear).

Available Ammo:
(3) 4 Kinetic Missiles (Damage 3d6; AP 8; HW)
(1) 2 Nuclear Missiles (Damage 2d10; AP 12; HW)
(2) 2 NNEMP Missiles (Damage 3d6+special; AP 10; HW)
(2) 2 Kinetic Cloud Projectiles (Damage 2d4; AP 8; HW; each one takes up one entire launcher payload)

• 6 × Mine Cloud Defenses (+2 bonus to Piloting roll to Evade against all projectiles; +4 against one projectile).


I add the (current amount) in there to keep track of what current inventory is.
I currently use the Notes section to keep track...but in looking now, this is a bug. The notes section should also include the default weapons loadout


Which approach do you think is better? Notes? or explicit 'weapons' in the combat tap like it is for NPC ships?


4C vs Default

[CPJ[I have to say 4C works very well for us. The parts we use are “Vehicle Effects Transfer” and “Vehicle/Passenger Distance Proxying”. The former means that all crew/passengers get effects dropped on the spaceship in the CT and the latter means that range penalties are automatically applied.

I'm going to do some more testing on default behavior and see if I can't come up with something a bit easier to deal with than currently. I think the 4C added capability is good and I do use it myself as well; but I have to think there is more that can be done w/ vanilla than what I have in there currently. I have created a LOT of arguments along the way in the discord trying to find elegant solutions and trying to balance ease of use vs. diminishing returns on trying automate too much when it could be as simple as adding a +1 or -2 manually to your roll either as a player or a GM.

Additional Optional Notes:

[CPJ]If you want to include all my nonsense that’s fine by me… I’ll reiterate again; it works for us, but probably not for everyone!

This is originally why I haven't documented a lot of what I put in there. Most of it was because 'it worked for me'. But I didn't put in explicit directions on how I do it since I know mileage varies. I was hoping that GM's would just poke around and figure out what I put in and know if/how it works or doesn't for them.

I probably *should* put some mention of some of how I had intended things to work, eg Assistants, Missiles, etc. If I do, I may add some of what you have provided in your word docs as well, thanks!

[Mike Serfass]

Missiles were always a nuisance to run, even at the table.
For my in-person games I had found some cool tokens from Litko to represent missiles. I had to remember every round to move them closer to the target while the target continued to also move every round.
Often the target was destroyed by disruptor cannons or lasers before the missile caught up three rounds later. The players quickly gave up using missiles.
I think this is why missiles now work more like other weapons.

This is one of many things sci-fi setting creators may rethink with the new SFC. I'm glad futuristic setting creators didn't wait 10 years for the SFC to come out, but now they have to reconsider some of their settings decisions in comparison to the SFC. I expect creators to release updates that roll the SFC into their creation.

I bring this up because the SFC figures out lots of things for settings (that's its purpose, after all), and the extension handles stuff for you. While you don't want to make a setting reliant on another extension, I could see settings using the SFC. Like some settings use / extend on the Horror or Fantasy companion. And I hope the SFC / extension saves setting developers work and re-inventing the wheel.

[Arsilon]

Doing some more testing on this. Am I crazy? I don't think 4C is even needed for vehicle assigned effects to work for crew.

Here's the effects I'm currently testing to add to the default effects list. These all seem to work without 4C:

[Wounds Threshold = 5] ; For the Voyager and other non-Capital Ships (6.5 meter radius = 40 feet 'tall' which makes it Huge); I don't use size definition outright to avoid having to adjust further for size related to-hit modifiers

[Wounds Threshold = 6] ; For Capital Ships (these surely are Gargantuan)

Space Combat [Shooting +2] ; This is already defined as a global effect but I will pre-assign it to vehicles (certainly the Voyager to start, but then other ships too over time)

Fast Ship [Piloting +1] ; While Handling is already automated, the fastest ship bonus is not

Double Fast Ship [Piloting +2] ; While Handling is already automated, the fastest ship bonus is not; To minimize CT clutter pick whichever is correct between this and Fast Ship

Push the Engines [Piloting +2] (1 turn)
Evasive Maneuvers [Piloting -6] (1 turn)

Heat Fatigue 1 [Shooting -1, Ship Ops -1, Electronics -1]
Heat Fatigue 2 [Shooting -2, Ship Ops -2, Electronics -2]
Heat Fatigue 3 [Shooting -3, Ship Ops -3, Electronics -3]
; To minimize CT clutter pick one vs. add each one incrementally

Ship Wound 1 [Shooting -1, Ship Ops -1, Electronics -1]
Ship Wound 2 [Shooting -2, Ship Ops -2, Electronics -2]
Ship Wound 3 [Shooting -3, Ship Ops -3, Electronics -3]
; To minimize CT clutter pick one vs. add each one incrementally

Mine Cloud Defense Single [Piloting +4] (1 turn)
Mine Cloud Defense Multiple [Piloting +2] (1 turn)

Maximum Shielding [Armor +2] (3 turns)
Maximum Shielding with Raise [Toughness +4] (3 turns)

Move Shield Center [@Attack -2] (3 turns) ; Evasion effect still needs to be done manually for piloting rolls since it only applies situationally
Move Shield Center with Raise [@Attack -4] (3 turns) ; Evasion effect still needs to be done manually for piloting rolls since it only applies situationally
Move Shield Center Evasion [Piloting +2]
Move Shield Center Evasion with Raise [Piloting +4]

For Vehicles I'm testing further enhancements as follows:
1) Adding Bennies to each ship per their Shield Effects attribute.

2) Per above, adding the Space Combat effect by default to each ship. The others can be added by GM vs being there by default to minimize CT clutter. If a GM wants them there they can add them before hand in their setup. An argument might be made that the Voyager should have Fast Ship by default as well since its usually the fastest ship if you're running the default campaign.

3) Add extra "weapons" for Engineering based rolls per below:

Shield Effect: Linked to Ship Ops with no modifiers (you could do wound and fatigue modifiers here but is unnecessary if you use the above vehicle effects)

Radiate Heat; Linked to Ship Ops with Trait Info modifier = the ship's Heat Radiation attribute and Heat Pool defaulted to 0 (GM can modify this as heat points are added...alternately a custom weapon effect could be added on the fly Heat Pool [>Ship Ops -X])

I would ideally want to add modifiers for Piloting rolls but you can't do that on a vehicle. For now, the optional piloting rolls are available as effects per GM discretion

4) Adding the loadout overview to the note on the Voyager; also adding each launcher projectile type as additional dummy weapons with a count, eg Missile, Nuclear (2)


Let me know if you have opinions on this and/or if you think I missed any?

[Mike Serfass]

Wounds are calculated by size, starting at base 3 and adding 1 for each size category about medium. So you don't need the Wounds Threshold effect if the ship Size is set. (Which it should be to calculate size modifiers.)
The SWADE ruleset update releasing tomorrow has size modifiers for gargantuan +1 to +3 (from the SFC) so you won't need this effect for humungous ships.

Some of those other effects could be created as vehicle modifications and put on the starships. This would make it readily available to anyone adding ships. They can be toggled on/off if needed.

You can shorten

[Shooting -1, Ship Ops -1, Electronics -1]
to

[Shooting|Ship Ops|Electronics -1]

[Arsilon]

Wounds are calculated by size, starting at base 3 and adding 1 for each size category about medium. So you don't need the Wounds Threshold effect if the ship Size is set. (Which it should be to calculate size modifiers.)
The SWADE ruleset update releasing tomorrow has size modifiers for gargantuan +1 to +3 (from the SFC) so you won't need this effect for humungous ships.

Some of those other effects could be created as vehicle modifications and put on the starships. This would make it readily available to anyone adding ships. They can be toggled on/off if needed.

You can shorten

[Shooting -1, Ship Ops -1, Electronics -1]
to

[Shooting|Ship Ops|Electronics -1]

I had originally used the size attribute, but in Seven Worlds I did not want to all the to hit modifiers if a smaller ship is hitting a larger ship and vice versa. And none of the ship sizes are actually defined. This may also have been when I wasn't using crew properly but crew to hit was also being adjusted when targeting the enemy vehicles.

So I thought it would be easier to just leave the size attribute blank and hard code the wounds limit instead of having to override the modifiers.

I’ll have to go back and reread the rule set. I don’t think there was anything explicit in there about size definitions.

[Arsilon]

Additional note: I even tried to back calculate potential size using Armor and Toughness. But for The Voyager 12(9) Heavy Armor and Patrol Ships 16(10) Heavy Armor it came out as negative number for both for size assuming I was using the right formula.

I'll have to ask Luis what his thoughts are on this or if he arbitrarily assigned values.

[CPJ]

Wounds are calculated by size, starting at base 3 and adding 1 for each size category about medium. So you don't need the Wounds Threshold effect if the ship Size is set. (Which it should be to calculate size modifiers.)
The SWADE ruleset update releasing tomorrow has size modifiers for gargantuan +1 to +3 (from the SFC) so you won't need this effect for humungous ships.

Some of those other effects could be created as vehicle modifications and put on the starships. This would make it readily available to anyone adding ships. They can be toggled on/off if needed.

You can shorten

[Shooting -1, Ship Ops -1, Electronics -1]
to

[Shooting|Ship Ops|Electronics -1]

There is some odd behaviour with using the "|" combiner;

The following will apply both effects;
Ship Wounds 1 [Shooting -1, Ship Ops -1, Electronics -1]
Ship Wounds 2 [Shooting -1, Ship Ops -1, Electronics -1]

The following will only apply Ship Wounds 2 effect;
Ship Wounds 1 [Shooting|Ship Ops|Electronics -1]
Ship Wounds 2 [Shooting -1, Ship Ops -1, Electronics -1]

The following sometimes works, sometimes doesn't;
Ship Wounds 1 [Shooting|Ship Ops|Electronics -1]

The following always works;
Ship Wounds 1 [Shooting|Electronics -1]

Perhaps it doesn't like the space between Ship and Ops?

[CPJ]

Doing some more testing on this. Am I crazy? I don't think 4C is even needed for vehicle assigned effects to work for crew.

Here's the effects I'm currently testing to add to the default effects list. These all seem to work without 4C:

[Wounds Threshold = 5] ; For the Voyager and other non-Capital Ships (6.5 meter radius = 40 feet 'tall' which makes it Huge); I don't use size definition outright to avoid having to adjust further for size related to-hit modifiers

[Wounds Threshold = 6] ; For Capital Ships (these surely are Gargantuan)

Space Combat [Shooting +2] ; This is already defined as a global effect but I will pre-assign it to vehicles (certainly the Voyager to start, but then other ships too over time)

Fast Ship [Piloting +1] ; While Handling is already automated, the fastest ship bonus is not

Double Fast Ship [Piloting +2] ; While Handling is already automated, the fastest ship bonus is not; To minimize CT clutter pick whichever is correct between this and Fast Ship

Push the Engines [Piloting +2] (1 turn)
Evasive Maneuvers [Piloting -6] (1 turn)

Heat Fatigue 1 [Shooting -1, Ship Ops -1, Electronics -1]
Heat Fatigue 2 [Shooting -2, Ship Ops -2, Electronics -2]
Heat Fatigue 3 [Shooting -3, Ship Ops -3, Electronics -3]
; To minimize CT clutter pick one vs. add each one incrementally

Ship Wound 1 [Shooting -1, Ship Ops -1, Electronics -1]
Ship Wound 2 [Shooting -2, Ship Ops -2, Electronics -2]
Ship Wound 3 [Shooting -3, Ship Ops -3, Electronics -3]
; To minimize CT clutter pick one vs. add each one incrementally

Mine Cloud Defense Single [Piloting +4] (1 turn)
Mine Cloud Defense Multiple [Piloting +2] (1 turn)

Maximum Shielding [Armor +2] (3 turns)
Maximum Shielding with Raise [Toughness +4] (3 turns)

Move Shield Center [@Attack -2] (3 turns) ; Evasion effect still needs to be done manually for piloting rolls since it only applies situationally
Move Shield Center with Raise [@Attack -4] (3 turns) ; Evasion effect still needs to be done manually for piloting rolls since it only applies situationally
Move Shield Center Evasion [Piloting +2]
Move Shield Center Evasion with Raise [Piloting +4]

For Vehicles I'm testing further enhancements as follows:
1) Adding Bennies to each ship per their Shield Effects attribute.

2) Per above, adding the Space Combat effect by default to each ship. The others can be added by GM vs being there by default to minimize CT clutter. If a GM wants them there they can add them before hand in their setup. An argument might be made that the Voyager should have Fast Ship by default as well since its usually the fastest ship if you're running the default campaign.

3) Add extra "weapons" for Engineering based rolls per below:

Shield Effect: Linked to Ship Ops with no modifiers (you could do wound and fatigue modifiers here but is unnecessary if you use the above vehicle effects)

Radiate Heat; Linked to Ship Ops with Trait Info modifier = the ship's Heat Radiation attribute and Heat Pool defaulted to 0 (GM can modify this as heat points are added...alternately a custom weapon effect could be added on the fly Heat Pool [>Ship Ops -X])

I would ideally want to add modifiers for Piloting rolls but you can't do that on a vehicle. For now, the optional piloting rolls are available as effects per GM discretion

4) Adding the loadout overview to the note on the Voyager; also adding each launcher projectile type as additional dummy weapons with a count, eg Missile, Nuclear (2)


Let me know if you have opinions on this and/or if you think I missed any?

Wow, that's a lot of effects... a lot more than we use...
Where do you plan on putting them all? If they end up in the general effects window I'd think about prefixing them all with something like "7W" so they can be easily found with the search tool.

You're not going crazy... but I might be... You're correct, effects dropped on the ship are applied to crew and range penalties are calculated correctly without 4C. I'm sure this is different behaviour to what I've seen historically? You do lose the "Passenger" function without 4C but I don't think that's a huge problem as long as PCs are assigned as crew and any skills used outside of spaceship combat can use the modifier box.

Push the Engines should be [Piloting -2] (1 Turn)
Space Combat [Shooting +2] works great as a Ship Modification (now I've worked out how to do it) as declutters the CT.
Ship Wound and Heat Fatigue penalties can either be incremental or as above. We tried both and found adding them one at a time worked better for us, but does clutter the CT.
Evasive Manoeuvres I assume you mean Evading Missiles.
The only other things we use is PDLB as a sub-weapon of the Laser Cannon with a -6 modifier, and Sensor "weapon" as previously discussed.

Apologies Arsilon, I feel like I've created a lot of work for you over the last few days... I'm a bit surprised none of this has been commented on previously in the forum...

Have a great new year!

[Arsilon]

Its no work at all. Most of these are things I've been tinkering with for well over a year now (even before I packaged this up formally for use beyond my own personal table). I'm just happy to have someone to bounce ideas off of. I've tried to restrain myself on overdoing a lot of this since I didn't want to force my GM style on others. Outside input gives me perspective on where that line should be drawn.

Regarding above questions/comments:

[CPJ] Where do you plan on putting them all? If they end up in the general effects window I'd think about prefixing them all with something like "7W" so they can be easily found with the search tool.

Just like I did for the Planetary Effects effects, yes, I will likely put some sort of prefix on them (see next)



[Mike Serfass] Some of those other effects could be created as vehicle modifications and put on the starships. This would make it readily available to anyone adding ships. They can be toggled on/off if needed.


Excellent idea! This is a much more elegant solution than having to wade through the effects list to find them and at the same time keeping CT clutter to a minimum. If modifications serve their intended purpose, I will probably move the more cosmetic modifications like Healing Pod, Ships Locker, and V-World pods, which in and of themselves don't actually modify anything, to a separate notes field instead. (thus reducing ship modification clutter as well).



[Mike Serfass] Wounds are calculated by size, starting at base 3 and adding 1 for each size category about medium. So you don't need the Wounds Threshold effect if the ship Size is set. (Which it should be to calculate size modifiers.)

I have a note into the author about what his intent on Ship Size was as it effects automation for both Wound Cap as well as Size/Scale combat modifiers. Just to see what he meant for it to be since it matters how we have to code it to align with whatever the design intent was (of course any GM can override that, but I'd like to try and have it match the original intent and the ruleset is silent on the specifics).

I had originally assumed that since he didn't define them, he didn't intend for the modifiers to be applied...but that isn't necessarily a good assumption so figured it was worth asking him outright.


As an aside, I'm finding some wonkiness in M3L in getting the 'dummy' weapons to add properly. I'll need to break this down to specific incremental items vs. trying to accommodate all of these changes at once to see what exactly it doesn't like. After more testing, I may have to create another chaos storm in discord by trying to do something the code was never meant to allow vs. just doing it manually in the UI (which works, but just isn't as elegant for ongoing maintenance). I suspect it doesn't like me trying to create a new custom 'weapon' tied to a non-combat trait and add modifers all while not having a default npc crew defined.

[Arsilon]

Wounds are calculated by size, starting at base 3 and adding 1 for each size category about medium. So you don't need the Wounds Threshold effect if the ship Size is set. (Which it should be to calculate size modifiers.)
The SWADE ruleset update releasing tomorrow has size modifiers for gargantuan +1 to +3 (from the SFC) so you won't need this effect for humungous ships.

Some of those other effects could be created as vehicle modifications and put on the starships. This would make it readily available to anyone adding ships. They can be toggled on/off if needed.

You can shorten

[Shooting -1, Ship Ops -1, Electronics -1]
to

[Shooting|Ship Ops|Electronics -1]

I agree with CPJ that it doesn't seem to recognize it in that format. More testing it seems that it may not be the pipe '|' but instead that it just doesn't like a skill named 'Ship Ops' for whatever reason.

Its not that it is a custom skill because I created a new one called Electronics and that worked.
Its not that it has a space since I created a new one called ShipOpsTest and that didn't work.
I updated it so that it was just [Shooting|Electronics -1] and that worked for both Shooting and Electronics based weapons rolls.
I updated the default Electronics skill and renamed it to NotElectronics and it stopped working (had to readd the vehicle CT to reset it).

Not sure what I may be doing wrong but it doesn't seem like I'm the only one that is seeing odd behavior.

Also run into an issue with using Modifcations for Mine Cloud Defenses. Not sure you can't add another set of Wound modifiers and have a weapon tied to Piloting work. Default Fatigue and Heat works for direct piloting but not for skills tied to piloting. So you'll get double penalty if you create a universal modifier when doing the actual manuever roll vs. just the weapon (tied to Piloting) roll. It will have to be a single roll effect instead. Its either that or whatever it doesn't like about a linked skill called Ship Ops, it also doesn't like for a linked skill called Pilot.

Lots of permutations to test still but so far something isn't right.

[Arsilon]

FYI, I asked Luis (the author) what his original intent was given the notable absence of any mention of size/scale for vehicles.

His comments:


Honestly, I decided to skip size/scale when I wrote the battle rules. The ship toughness and damage indicators, plus wound caps, already do a good job of representing relative difficulty. More importantly (and I freely admit this is an idiosyncrasy of mine) I would argue that in a space battle, where distances are measured in tens of thousands of kilometers, if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of KMs, every ship is basically the same size. How different are the Voyager and a Battleship, really, when they’re 100,000KM away from each other? From the point of view of aiming/hitting, they’re both tiny, pixel-size pinpricks in each other’s bridge wall screen. Thus the size/scale mechanic sounds off for a ‘realistic’ space battle.

Although my reasoning wasn't quite as detailed as his, my net impression on realism on a future tech world I tended to agree.


He did also add, however...

And many years ago Dave Blewer (the creator of the Sundered Skies setting for Savage Worlds) gave me a piece of wisdom I still carry now: The ‘right’ rule is the one the GM that’s going to run the game likes the most.


He also left the door open should I decide its appropriate to alter the rules to accommodate this VTT implementation. We've debated several details since I took on this project and what you see, especially in the SWADE version, is a result of that discussion and at times compromise on his part.

As such, I will update vehicle definitions and in particular the Space Ship and Capital Ship modifications to include [Wounds Threshold +2] and [Wounds Threshold +1] respectively (Capital Ships get both modifications so it would be a net +3 or total of 6 wounds which aligns to an 'equivalent' size/scale.)

[CPJ]

Latest update looks great...

My only comment is; did you intend to give the +4 Coulborne shield heat radiation bonus to the Ship Ops: Activate Shield Effect "weapon" on the Voyager Combat Tab?

All the effects starting with "Ship," look good!

[Arsilon]

Hrmm.... Nope. I was testing a bunch of the permutations and what worked/didn't work with modifcations, etc. Per the above I backed most of the WIP stuff back out again. Looks like I missed one thing I had in there for testing purposes.

As an aside, I'm playing with themes for another title...wasn't sure if there was enough in the core ruleset to justify trying to do something here.

There for sure is one header that could be updated (the blue circuit thing); I could perhaps change the turn indicator to be the Oort Cloud. Maybe WC could be a planet w/ and w/o the red border.

Not sure there's enough there there to make it worth bothering with.

I do have the original fonts as well but not sure yet if/how to use them in FG.

[Shapeshifter1923]

Hi Arsilon and CPJ,
I have just had a look a the our Voyager sheet (I am CPJ's GM) and there are a couple of issues I have noticed.

When I open the ship sheet, and click on the "combat" tab I get a page of error messages, one of the passengers is on the same line as the "Passengers" heading (when adding passengers we have to drag characters onto the "Passenger" heading, they then appear below the line.
When I lock or unlock, or attempt to resize the ship sheet, I get a page of errors (window: Control (passengers) anchoring to an undefined control .....etc, etc)
I can't access the minus button to remove passengers becuse it is blocked by the Dragon button for the player that is on the same line as the "Passengers" heading.
On closer inspection I see there is a second "Passenger" section at the top of the page, on top of the pilot section. (pic attached)
63174
In short it has become a bit of a jumble, worse every action involving the ship sheet brings a whole page of error.s Thankfully it doesn't seem to affect other elements like character sheets or NPC sheets, so must be related to the changes made to the ship sheet.

UPDATE problem caused by having Chilhelm 4C extension loaded - restarted the campaign without Chilhelm 4C, deleted the old ship sheet form the combat tracker, then added it back into the CT from vehicles - all works no errors (Happy:) GM)

[Arsilon]

Was going to ask if you still had 4C loaded.

There are still some graphical issues with the window with the SFC extension as well. I'll have to deal with those separately. It *should* work by default.

[Mike Serfass]

The graphical error will be fixed in next week's SFC update, along with a couple of other adjustments.
It was assumed that if using the SFC, ships would have wounds and shields set.
So much for assuming.
I'm waiting until Tuesday to push this because I'm waiting for Arsilon to identify any other issues.
Seven Worlds has a few deviations from the standards, so I expect him to find a couple more things to address.

[rigerco]

I've started prepping a campaign and have moved the archetypes into the characters section. I was poking around on the character sheets and the Maricelle character throws this error when the Notes tab is opened. None of the other characters have this happen.63336

[Mike Serfass]

Can you zip the db.xml file of that campaign and post it here? If it's too large to post, put it on a shared drive and put the link here.

[Mike Serfass]

Nevermind zipping the file. I found the problem. The notes in the campaign database has the wrong type declared. I'll pass this on to Arsilon.

[Arsilon]

Nevermind zipping the file. I found the problem. The notes in the campaign database has the wrong type declared. I'll pass this on to Arsilon.

Great thanks will fix it tonight when I land and get to hotel.

[Mike Serfass]

The update won't fix the current character. If this isn't pressing, you could delete the character, wait until the update, then create the character anew from the pregen.
If this can't wait, I can walk you through editing the file to fix it.

[Arsilon]

I've started prepping a campaign and have moved the archetypes into the characters section. I was poking around on the character sheets and the Maricelle character throws this error when the Notes tab is opened. None of the other characters have this happen.63336

Is this game breaking for your prep? I won’t be able to get the fix in for this week’s fix.

If this is game breaking I can dm you the text that should be there and you can just paste it in till next week’s update.

[rigerco]

Is this game breaking for your prep? I won’t be able to get the fix in for this week’s fix.

If this is game breaking I can dm you the text that should be there and you can just paste it in till next week’s update.

No, I'm just getting started now for a "break" game I'll be running during the summer. I need to get my head out of a Savage Cthulhu game I've been working on for months so 7W is my candy snack.

I think I figured out the cause. Maricelle's Note's field in the db.xml is:
<notes type="formattedtext">
Everyone else's is listed as
<notes type="string">

Since Notes doesn't allow for formatted text, I assume that's the problem.

Update:
I changed the notes type in my db.xml to string and it's working like a charm now.

[dmbrown]

I’d be interested in hearing more details and anything you could share about a Savage Cthulhu game. I am thinking of running one in the future after finishing other SW settings.

[Mike Serfass]

That was exactly the fix. Here's a benny.63337

[rigerco]

I’d be interested in hearing more details and anything you could share about a Savage Cthulhu game. I am thinking of running one in the future after finishing other SW settings.

I ran a Section D campaign last year that had a heavy Cthulhu aspect to it. We've been gaming together since the late 70s and the campaign ended with The Black Drop from Trail of Cthulhu. One player called it a top 5 campaign ending in all our years of gaming. This year, they wanted to play more of a pure Cthulhu thing, less war stuff. So I'm converting Eternal Lies from Trail for Savage Worlds. Some of the concepts behind the way Trail works aren't that different from SWADE, so it isn't that great a stretch. To stay more in tune with the "what do you do with the clues" over "finding clues" ethos of Trail I've added two new pools: Investigation and Professional. These are aggregated from different skills. Spending one basically adds +4 to a roll, but the pools reset very slowly.

For Sanity, I'm sticking with the Strain concept I used last year, where traumatic events add to the value and going over certain levels of Strain causes a loss of Sanity. However I'll be using another concept from Trail called "Pillars of Stability" where players have opportunities to reduce Strain. Some forms of Strain (from elder beings and outsider gods) can never be recovered, and learning spells causes a reduction in Sanity per classic Cthulhu mechanics. We had session 0 last week and it kicked off well. I have the entire first act prepped and the second act outlined. I don't want to touch the 3rd act until I see how the game goes. In between Lies acts I will be running palate cleanser games of Supers (I've found the old FASERIP marvel stuff converts over quite well) and Seven Worlds.

[rigerco]

That was exactly the fix. Here's a benny.63337

Woo hoo!
I'm doing the intro adventure with the archetype characters to start things off. After reading the SFC, I've been enamored with the Heavy Metal system. I've been wondering how that would work in lieu of the Chase combat from Seven Worlds. In your experience, how much would that change the flavor of the setting?

[Mike Serfass]

Heavy metal is a quick way of doing damage, and is separate from chases and clashes. It's not as necessary in a VTT, since the computer easily calculate damage. I added it for completeness.
You can mix heavy metal with chases, clashes, or normal combat.

Clashes may be what you're thinking as the alternative to chases.
I suggest you set up a one shot with vehicle combat using clash. Make it a dog fight tie fighters vs Empire ships, or mecha vs mecha, whatever you think your players will enjoy.
Let the players experience a few clashes and get their feedback. This will give you a feel for how it will change the flavor.

In my game, I don't use clashes for every vehicle combat. Sometimes a tactical fight fits better, or a dramatic task, or even quick combat. It depends on what I'm going for with the scene.
After a few clashes, you'll have a good feel for when they fit a scene.

[rigerco]

You are correct, I was thinking using Clashes to replace 7Ws space combat as a chase mechanism.

[CPJ]

The "Ship, Wound 1/2/3" effects seem to have stopped working when dropped on a ship in the CT...

"Shooting -1" seems to be ok on a ship when used on its own, IE not using the "|" operator. "Ship Ops" and "Electronics" don't get applied at all.

Note that dropping the "Ship, Wound 1/2/3" on a character in the CT does work...

[Arsilon]

Is this a residual effect of chillums 3e no longer really working?

it may be we have to drop it on the characters now instead of the vehicle?

[CPJ]

I thought that most of Chillhelms 4C had been incorporated into the rule set?

I'm sure that the vehicle effects were being applied to character rolls from the vehicle sheet recently without 4C.

[Mike Serfass]

4C has not been incorporated into the ruleset.
Some similar functionality is included in the SWADE SFC extension.
More work around this is planned. I don't have an estimate on when it will be done.

[Arsilon]

Actually testing this some more, there is definitely something wonky going on.

I may have to bring this to Discord so I can do screenshots more easily.

[Arsilon]

I think I've boiled it down to something it doesn't like about Ship Ops. Not sure what because I can create a new entry tied to it and it works fine.

[Arsilon]

Thanks as usual to @Mike Serfass.

Quick fix appears to be removing the ":" from the the Combat Attack names like "Ship Ops: Activate Shield Effects" or "Ship Ops: Radiate Heat"

For some reason it no longer allows (or its a bug) colons in the names.

It does give me a good reason to go back and retrofit all of these using sub-attacks. I hadn't done it since it's a lot of vehicles to have to go through and fix...but if its now broken without it, I have no choice.

[Arsilon]

I submitted a fix for next update (both SWD and SWADE versions):

1) Reconfigured the Voyager combat setup using sub-attacks; should make Ship Ops related effects work again (should be a bit cleaner and complete)
2) Tweaked the wound and fatigue effects to work around the fact that the | syntax wasn't working for some reason for Shooting

[CPJ]

That's great, thanks Arsilon and Mike...

[CPJ]

Out of interest... are you using both the 7W and SFC extensions, or just the 7W?

[CPJ]

Out of interest... are you using both the 7W and SFC extensions, or just the 7W?

After trying out the pesky colon fix on the current version, I'll answer my own question...

7W Extension Only
The long form "Shooting - x, Ship Ops -x, Electronics -x" of Ship, Wounds 1/2/3 works.
The pipe form "Shooting | Ship Ops| Electronics -x" of Ship, Wounds 1/2/3 doesn't work.

7W and SFC Extensions
The long form "Shooting - x, Ship Ops -x, Electronics -x" of Ship, Wounds 1/2/3 works.
The pipe form "Shooting | Ship Ops | Electronics -x" of Ship, Wounds 1/2/3 also works.

I guess the SFC extension is over-ruling the 7W extension?

Also...
I don't think you should be adding the +4 Heat Radiation bonus to the Ship Ops - Activate Shield Effect.

Also, also...
Opening the "Trait Info" for Ship Ops - Radiate Heat causes an error. It still works though.

[Arsilon]

I make no assumptions that anyone owns anything other than core ruleset and the setting guide. The only other thing I do is embed into the Seven Worlds extension any code that is also required that a user might not know how to install, eg Trait Dice; along with adding a Heat tracking field to the combat tracker if I think it's necessary for 7W to play as it should.

All testing I do on my end is done in that configuration.

That being said:

We've discovered some differences between how things work between core (and also SFC) as it pertains to effects coding. According to Ikeal, spaces are meant to be parsed when using the pipe (|) syntax.

So the 'expected' syntax when 'coding' is no spaces whatsoever.

[Shooting|ShipOps|Electronics -x] is what the compiler 'expects' to see. Some combinations will still work but this is why the result have seemed to be different depending on what combination you happen to by trying to use...the parser will interpret things differently depending. (note I even removed the space in Ship(space)Ops

This is ultimately why I switched to the long form version. I prefer human readable form as not everyone knows how to 'think' like a compiler all the time (myself included). Doing it long form bypasses the parser and lets me leave it in logical human readable form.

As for your +4 Heat Radiation...can you try restoring your GM module? revert to master or start clean? I checked the code and it was a bug I had previously fixed a while ago that I had inadvertently left that in there in the Voyager sheet definition. You should definitely not be seeing this now. (Effects are stored in the PG module, vehicle definitions are stored in the GM module)

What *should* be in there now:

1) Everything re-organized using logical sections for Attacks (lasers + launchers), Countermeasures (Evasion + MCD variants, PDLB oops typo!), Ship Management (Heat and Shield Effect), Payload (Nuclear, NNEMP, Kinetic, Cloud)
2) Modified rolls as follows:

Radiate Heat: +4 heat radiation (per Voyager's Heat Radiation attribute); "null" Heat Pool field that you can adjust here (if you want to do it here)
Activate Shield Effect: no modifiers
Evasion Basic: +1 Handling, -6 Evasion Penalty
MCD Single: +1 Handling, -6 Evasion Penalty, +4 MCD bonus
MCD Multi: +1 Handling, -6 Evasion Penalty, +2 MCD bonus
PDLB: adjust ROF and attack dice to 5


As to your error message which one are you getting? Does it do it for other traits or just the Radiate Heat one?

The reason I ask is that there is some other error that seems to be thrown any time you open any trait adjust window (s'close - DEPRECATED - 2024-08 - Use new window menu implementation) -- that one seems to be left over from when they were testing the new menu vs. radial menus (I suspect -- but I have a question in on this)

BUT, there used to be an error previously that it didn't like how I had defined the 'null' previously. This was fixed in a previous iteration so you should no longer be getting THAT error. But the fact you're still seeing the +4 Heat in Activate Shield indicates you may not be running the latest as both were fixed in the same iteration. (The old error was because it wanted a #0 and I was just defining it with no value but that SHOULD work now)

If you're using an older version and have a local copy of anything you may still have legacy code in your particular 'copy'

[CPJ]

Thanks Arsilon.

With the new update today and revert changes it all looks good, correct bonuses and no errors.

I like the new Voyager layout with with the sub-weapons.

Chris.

[Arsilon]

I just wrapped up my Saturday group complete run-through of the published version of Seven Worlds. I have my own stack of notes to go through for minor tweaks and suggestions to go back and update.

If any of you are running this and have things you would like to add to the list for bug fixes or enhancements, now is the time to offer them up!

Please post anything you'd like to see that could use some spit and polish. Keep in mind it must remain true to what is available in the .pdf. Ideally I don't want to get into building out the extension any further either (there are lots of things I'd like to see along those lines but am not up to trying to figure out how to custom code them at this point).

We have some liberties we can take with the SWADE version as well given I changed quite a bit of it already (with the permission of the author) to make it work with the current ruleset version. That being said, unless its something fundamentally broken, I may only update the SWADE version at this point since I'd like to keep the SWD version as pristine as possible vs. the original as-published campaign which was designed specifically for SWD.

I will wait until the August release is out and stabilized before I do anything so we have some time. If you have ideas, let me know and I will add them to the list for consideration.

[Arsilon]

[RESERVED]

Current enhancement suggestion list:
- Some minor map tweaks with additional GM layers
- Revisit all NPC's to ensure they all have the SWADE 'free' skills added
- Consider if/where might make sense to use the new challenge effects

[Arsilon]

I put the SWADE Setting Guide up for patching in today's release. It was a complete overhaul of the organization of records in the module view including transforming all internal links to the new way that links are handled in FG VTT. In theory these are all back end changes that shouldn't effect anything GM/Player side. Hopefully I didn't break more things than I fixed. There were a few links that were broken that when I fixed them, it started a chain reaction whereby I ended up just changing all of them. (I also fixed the missing Assistant from Takumi's archetype character sheet).

For now I'm only updating the SWADE version; but let me know if anyone specifically needs the SWD version done. Hopefully this doesn't break anything with the Adventure Modules (it shouldn't but never say never).

If anyone has any problems, please post so I can get fixes out.