Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Re: A New Class for the SJ setting...
Next Message: Re: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...
Month Index: June, 1996


From:     Leroy Van Camp III <van891@??????.edu>
Date:     Mon, 24 Jun 1996 15:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:  Re: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...


On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Thomas O. Magann Jr. wrote:

> >> I take it that rigging doesn't boost
> >> Manueverability in your world, either?
> >
> >    Ummm, what are you talking about?
>
> Well, you object to the Arocarka speep boost do to areodynamics in space.
> Extra rigging (sails and the like) for extra manuverability. Those sails and
> the like also interact aeodynamically for the manueverability bonus.

    Interact aerodynamically with what?  The only air in space is that
within the air envelop, and that moves with the ship; a ship does not
"fight" its envelope.  It's not moving through it. I mean, if you pull a
sail hard to port, what are you pulling against?  What force exerted on
the sail will make the ship turn?
    I don't recall the SJ stuff ever really clarifying how exactly sails
and oars help maneuver a ship, but the implications are that they focus
and manipulate the motive force of the helm.  I recall a discussion of
this list quite some time ago, and that seemed to be the general
concensus at the time.  So, how sails work is certainly a DM call.

> >    Yeah... that was my point.  That's why I call basing performance stats
> >on weight silly.  And the WCC construction rules base MC on material type,
> >and the chart would indicate it as a weight factor.  And the Stripping
> >option, which the book indicates removes weight, increases MC.
> >     (In defense of WCC, I have to point out that the Stripping option is
> >also in the original set.  Seems even the original author couldn't get it
> >straight.)
>
> Or you can't.

    Why the confrontational attitude?

> You've confused weight with Volume, and now you're talking
> about stripping, which affects volume not at all, just weight and
> manueverability. Volume remains the same.

    I have made no such confusion.
    In the WCC construction rules, a ship's MC is based on the materials
it is constructed from, and the chart shows weight to be a factor.  If two
ships are designed exactly the same, with the same men crewing it, with
the same guy on the same helm, a shi p of stone is going to be less
maneuverable.  And this seems contradictory to what has been said before.
    In the COAS, in the Ships of Wildspace chapter, under the MC section,
it says that maneuverability is a function of the ship's design/form and
the controlling devics it has (sails, oars, etc.).  It makes no mention
what so ever to weight.
    Further in that chapter it talks about the various kinds of helms.
And it never mentions weight as a limitaton, or even at all.  The tonnage
of the ship is always what's important.
    Now, the WCC comes along and says that weight is an MC determinant.
    And, as for stripping, that was my entire point.  All it does is
decrease the weight of a ship.  It does not affect volume at all, and thus
I feel should have no effect.

> Any vehicle handles better if it's actual weight is reduced. Planes, cars,
> boats, ships, etc.

    Well, that's all well and good for the real world.  But these aren't
cars, they are magical powered flying ships in fantasy space.  Ships
powered by devices that perform based on volume, not weight.

    Before things break down into a squabble, I want to say that many
aspects of the SJ setting and rules can easily be interpretted in a
vartiety of was.  Some things are simply not clarified sufficiently.
    So, there is nothing wrong with saying weight is important, if one
wishes to work that way. And there is nothing wrong with my
interpretations.
    What it boils down to is preference.  I like the general feel of the
original boxed set, and based by perceptions upon it.  And those
perceptions did not include weight as a factor.  So, when WCC came along
and said that it was, I didn't like it, and ended up changing it.
    And there is nothing wrong with that.

               Leroy Van Camp III      van891@??????.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "What do I know what do I know? (I), never look back never look back (no).
   Stick it in me stick it in me (I), what do I see what do I see? (now)"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      (A Higher Form of) Killing





Previous Message: Re: A New Class for the SJ setting...
Next Message: Re: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...
Month Index: June, 1996

SubjectFromDate (UTC)
Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...    Leroy Van Camp III    24 Jun 1996 22:15:04
Re: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    24 Jun 1996 22:25:41
Re: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...    Leroy Van Camp III    25 Jun 1996 02:09:11
Re: Weight and Volume and Maneuverability...    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    25 Jun 1996 02:16:15

[ SPJ-L@Cornell.edu ] [ Spelljammer@Leicester.ac.uk ] [ Spelljammer@MPGN.com ] [ Spelljammer-L@Oracle.Wizards.com ]