Hey there, I’m still fairly new to this system and have a question about Starship combat.
Essentially it boils down to this; my table had a starship combat scene and I assumed that the ship the PCs control when suffering harm may use one or the other of the moves: Shields up or Brace for Impact.
One player posits that starships should be able to use both moves in resolving the harm a starship suffers. (Which I argued was illogical since I’ve this far playing pbta games have yet to see a mechanic allowing two moves simultaneously.)
Thoughts?
I really like the game but often feel it lacking in some mechanical elements. Or that the provided material isn’t always very clear.
.
Your initial instinct was correct: Shields Up allows the engineer (or pilot) to reduce harm done to the ship. Brace for Impact is for individuals. Note the difference in wording: “When you would suffer harm” vs “When one of the starship’s sections would suffer harm”.
It is possible that a failed Shields Up can cascade into a Brace for Impact, but those happen sequentially, not simultaneously.
Sean Gomes Those were my thoughts exactly. I may we’ll have said your reply verbatim during the scene setback.
Trevor Franklin What’s scene setback?
.
Dan I was referring to the moment within the scene that I considered a “setback” due to OOC debating on game mechanics.
Your player might have been confused by the mention of shields in the.move, assuming the move was for the shields only and not the hull.
That’s just poetic so the move name is evocative. This may be one reason why PbtA games suggest not using the names of the moves in play discussion. They are a shorthand.
Isn’t it merely stated that GMs ought not name the moves they’re making? Other players don’t fall under that rule and is seems to me it’s good to use names between the players for clarity.
Richard Robertson. It’s a suggestion to keep the game flowing and to more immersed. But the move names are to have a common negative for what is happening, but sometimes (like here. Possibly) it can lead to someone not seeing the forest for the trees.