On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:53 PM, C. Berry <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

The "overdrive" option opens up a larger can of worms, in my experience. If they can double the M-drive rating for liftoff, any player worthy of the name will then try to do so in combat. And so forth.

Sure.

But if the ability to overdrive the drive it is a common feature, then everybody does it, including the PCs and the naughty sentients, and it's just part of operations, and not particularly noteworthy.

Overall, it has no net effect, unless you want to add some drama and allow people to exceed the manufacturer's specs for rated power output for longer than the manufacturer recommends, at the risk of the gear *failing* (possibly explosively) and leaving them even more stuck.

If you run a cinematic universe, overdriving is dangerous, and requires lots of die rolls, possibly resulting in showers of pretty sparks and/or temporary drive failure while it cools down.

If you run a "Scotty" universe, the rated performance of a system is only 35-50% of the minimum failure performance rating, and there is plenty of operating headroom over the rated performance. IE, if your pressure tank is rated for 100X, the minimum failure rating from the manufacturer is actually 200x and typical failure is maybe 225X (or 300x if engineering community is particularly conservative).

The PCs overdriving a system to 150x is not particularly noteworthy, although they might think it is.

Because, after all, the Vilani are cautious and conservative. :)

If you run a gritty universe, those ratings only apply to new systems that are very well maintained, and safety margins on the 50 year old clunker the PCs are using will be considerably narrower. Heh, heh, heh.

If you run an administrative universe, you can always upcharge the PCs during their annual overhaul, when the drive logs report that they violated safety regs by exceeding the manufacturer's rated output/time specs.

"Ah, Captain Brzt! Welcome! We reviewed your ship's performance logs as part of your overhaul. You have accrued 23,472cr in fines, for 37 instances where you exceeded the manufacturer's rated drive specs. As a safety precaution, we have also replaced additional components, per the manufacturer's specs, for these incidents of exceeded ratings. Additional parts and labor will be billed, and your upcharge will be 34,873cr, plus two additional days of dock charges, for an additional 1275cr. Please pay the bursar on your way out. Have a nice day."

Dan

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Grimmund <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 2:47 PM, C. Berry <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
To my way of thinking, this is what CG is specifically intended to solve. CG provides no thrust as such, but it cancels out gravitational attraction, up to some limit higher than would be encountered on habitable planets. Thus you just turn on the CG, thereby becoming weightless, point the nose at the sky, and accelerate using your maneuver drive.

This was pretty much my assumption, once I thought about it.

Enough lift modules built in and decentralized around the hull to enable the thrusters to get the ship to orbit. Details were never particularly necessary from a narrative standpoint.

Or, you know, "1 G" is a nominal "cruise" rating, with one decimal place of accuracy, and represents maybe 75-80% of full rated performance, with peak output maybe 200% of full or "cruise" performance for up to an hour, to allow for takeoff and landing maneuvers on higher-G worlds.

"Any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from a genuine kook." -Alan Morgan