[Diaspora] Diaspora questions

[C. W. Marshall]

Hi David,

I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to your questions  
earlier.  It's great to have so much feedback on the book -- really,  
thanks.

I'll just add a few thoughts to Brad's answers:

1.
> I think I'm missing something about the Weapon Familiarity rules  
> (p. 43). Why not always take archaic weaponry or precollapse  
> weaponry? Gives you a much better range of choices than putting  
> points into Culture/Tech.


> One more question about Weapon Familiarity -- what *is* it? A  
> skill? An aspect? Or just something you write?

I'm sorry this wasn't clear: weapon familiarity is an option for how  
you "spend" C/T points. It was a way to introduce rough-granularity  
weapon proficiency rules, and tie it to specialist knowledge that  
still wouldn't fill the skill pyramid. It represents a different set  
of specialist knowledge that can be incorporated within the Culture/ 
Tech skill. So: why not always take it? You might get the effects  
anyways from your familiarity with other cultures, and it's then not  
needed. Certainly the effects diminish the more other worlds you are  
familiar with.

Hope this is clearer now.

2.
> As a fencer, I'm bothered by the inability to use your sword to  
> attack and defend (p. 101). I think I understand the game logic,  
> but it's one of the few places that the abstraction feels like it  
> gives the wrong feel.

Brad suggests MG Close Combat, and that's one way to model it.  I  
might lean instead to suggesting Profession: Fencer, which would be  
applicable in formal fencing contexts (where death is not the actual  
goal), and with a stunt, perhaps skill sub, use it for close combat.  
agility would be a natural second skill in any context, though for  
defense. But it might also be advisable to use close combat as a  
defense and to stack a few aspects on the situation (stamina to wear  
down the opponent; agility to get into an advantageous position) and  
then go on the offense with a strike at +4.

3.
> At the same time, it seems like spaceship combat is the only time  
> this rule is not in place? You can use Beams to attack in the Beam  
> phase, and defend in the Torpedo phase. And it looks like a  
> character's Gunnery skill is also used in both phases.

As Brad noted, the system is inverted; remember also that if Gunnery  
is used in both places, there is a penalty for having the same  
character act in two phases (pp. 124-25), so special rules are in  
place there too.

4.
> Actually you did, on p. 238. (Most people prefer to use Dave over  
> Tucker, but they're functionally the same.)
> <snip>
> I assume you did have a reason for wanting two.

I'm so pleased you read the final fiction (I think yours is the first  
mention of it!). Two slipknots allows the possibility of a  
stranglehold on the system, but means that a single astronomical  
phenomenon can't shut a system down. It means blockades are easier  
from in system, and are tough (i.e. much more resource-intensive) to  
impose from another system. It also means that if the end point is  
not predictable, convoys (with tethering) are needed to prevent  
strays emerging 10 AU from their gurad ships. Now of course all of  
those things could happen and you'd have a cool story --  two  
slipknots presented a set of possible stories that appealed to us;   
your table is free of course to decide differently!

Those are some of the factors that went into that decision, at any rate.

I hope this helps.

Toph