So, I've been eying the Star Trek Adventures tabletop game and it uses Modiphius' 2d20 system. I'm not familiar with it. How does it play out?
The game has miniatures, so how is the grid-based combat in their system?
I've had two radically different experiences with the game. I was super unimpressed with an early beta, but I got to be a player in a session with the released version and had a ton of fun. I've been chomping at the bit to get another session in. The character creation is called "lifepath," and you can randomly generate it if you dig that sort of thing. It winds up as this guided system, helping you create a backstory as you go.
Also, like, your characters are only as permanent as you want them to be. I'm basically playing Trill Picard, except even more reticent to engage in hostilities. So no away missions for me! But I can jump in the boots of an engineer supporting character, and help Zed Kirk a bunch of Cardassians by blowing up computer consoles.
So, yeah. Blew something up, talked my way out of a fight, gave the order to blow another thing up. Investigation and SCIENCE! in between. Good times.
I've read through the quick start and here is my "review".
TL;DR: I like it! But I kind of wish it was just a Blades in the Dark hack.
The core system is D10 dice pools, but small pools -- likely 4 or 5 at a realistic max. Only players roll dice. You start with a D10, gain a D10 if you have the skill you're using, then further D10s for applicable high-quality equipment, help from others, and so on. There are nine Skills, one of which is just Fight, so combat and non-combat are rolled the same way. Results are basically success or failure (1-5 failure, 6-10 success) but with varying degrees of Stress taken.
Stress is the consequence mechanic for everything, and there are five different types of stress: Blood (physical), Mind (mental), Shadow (covertness), Silver (resources), Reputation (social standing). Whenever you take stress you mark boxes in the appropriate track, then roll 1D10 and if it's lower than your total marked stress, you suffer Fallout (and lower your current stress). Fallout is minor, major, or severe based on how much stress you have when you suffered fallout. Fallout are more specific consequences divided, again, into the five categories. Blood fallout are things like bleeding, knocked out, or dead. Reputation fallout is stuff like a vendetta, humiliation, or reviled. Fallout seems to be a mixture of narrative and mechanical consequences -- Lash Out forces you to lash out against the source of your stress, whereas Tired stops you from using the Fight, Pursue, or Sneak skills.
I like the stress mechanic as a blanket for just about everything bad that can happen to you and it mechanizes consequences in a way that I like, but the fallout is a little awkward in the extra roll that it adds to every result and then digging through a very specific list of consequences... I'm less fond of that. That said, it does push a lot of the burden off of the GM as, unlike in Blades in the Dark, they don't need to improvise nearly as many consequences for players -- they can just roll some stress, then if they suffer fallout there's probably something on the list that maps to whatever just happened.
Characters look straightforward (in the quickstart they're written across two pages) but the special abilities are and with a power level akin to PbtA-style moves (so, high). A character is made up of:
Resistances -- five values that correspond to the five stress types. If you have X in a resistance, the first X stress you take to that track is ignored for fallout.
Skills -- you either have a skill or you don't.
Domains -- tags like Low Society, Criminal, Occult, Order, Commerce -- these can give you bonus dice if they're related to an action you're rolling.
Refresh -- a narrative phrase like "Take something back from those who would oppress you" that allows you to recover stress.
Bonds -- individual NPC or group affiliations that you can call on to do things for you.
and that's it! Except for the special abilities, which are MANY AND VARIED. There are simple mechanical ones that give you bonus resistances, or Mastery (bonus dice) when rolling in certain contexts, or re-rolls, and then narrative ones that let you do things like "so long as there are people nearby and a place to have it, you can create an instant gathering with dancing, games, drinking, eating and chatting." The quick start lists eight special abilities per character, and I imagine that's reduced from the full list. You can also take abilities from other classes, and there are abilities locked under requirements that you have to satisfy in-game, so the customization looks many and varied.
The character stuff looks really solid. This feels like a game where you're going to start out effective (but in desperate circumstances) and then grow horizontally rather than vertically.
The rest of the quickstart is some setting info and a bunch of factions. The quick start adventure is not like a D&D adventure: it's a starting situation, some more factions and NPCs, and hooks into each of the quickstart PCs. There are no laid-out scenes. It's expected that the PCs approach, allies and enemies, and goals will be determined in play.
Overall, I'm happy with what I read and I'm sticking with my pledge. The system feels about as heavy as Blades in the Dark (which puts it above PbtA, but well below D&D) but with a little less smoothness and a little more cruft in exchange for less improvisational weight placed on the GM.
Thank you for doing this leg-work, @admanb! I was probably going to back it anyway, just for the fluff, but I'm glad to hear that the mechanics are pretty solid, too!
I've read through the quick start and here is my "review".
TL;DR: I like it! But I kind of wish it was just a Blades in the Dark hack.
To be honest the fundamental system's close enough that you can probably hack it pretty damn close without really losing anything? If you make Fall Outs narrative, not prescribed you're a pretty decent way there. Then if you want you could just sub out the core mechanic for Blade's by starting players at 0 dice and then have every factor contribute 1 dice like normal.
Obviously the full rules might complicate that but I think you could messily drag it over without too much fuss.
Just saw the Kickstarter for Spellbound Kingdoms: Arcana. That was an easy back for me, but now I've backed five things this past week. I need to stop. I. Must. Stop.
And I heard about a Reaper Kickstarter next week. Help Me.
And I heard about a Reaper Kickstarter next week. Help Me.
...wait, what? Like, another Bones one? Good gravy, I still have the first three sets sitting in my closet completely unpainted. I can't do another one.
And I heard about a Reaper Kickstarter next week. Help Me.
...wait, what? Like, another Bones one? Good gravy, I still have the first three sets sitting in my closet completely unpainted. I can't do another one.
j/k, I can and will do another one.
I guess these belong moreso in the Painting Minis thread, but I'm it'll be alright. These are from their website. I don't know when I'd use any of these, but that dragon turtle looks beautiful.
Finally played some Fantasy Flight Star Wars over the weekend. Had a great time, but it was a bit of a bummer in the whole "learning the game" aspect.
Our GM wasn't really adjudicating the dice properly. He mostly just looked at the results and winged it using narrative. I don't think we ever once took damage, or soak or even strain into consideration. When I brought it up...that Advantages do not count as successes, and that they could be used to boost an ally or remove strain...and that you can trigger critical hits and weapon effects... I got a "Fuck that, my way is more fun."
Sigh. It WAS kinda fun, I can't deny that. But what's the point of playing the game in the first place, if you are going to throw out 75% of the rules and make it all up based on inconsistent whimsy?
EDIT: I wouldn't be so put out, normally. But in this case I REALLY wanted to get a handle on the flow of the dice and how it worked at the table, because unless I play something a few times, I don't tend to "get it" just by reading the book. This was not the right weekend for that, unfortunately. However, there was enough of it for me to know that I really want to try again one day. Thankfully, we talked about a rotating GM schedule so next time might be a different experience.
And to think, my finger was hovering over buying one of the Beginner Games for SW...
I mean, it's a really good system. The main drawback are:
A) It's kinda got some weird break points if your campaign is combat based. Basically jury rigged auto fire makes light sabers look like fucking chumps.
It's really expensive to even just get the core book and enough dice to support 4/5 players.
It is really expensive. Because to get the "proper" Star Wars experience you should buy all three core books. (I've complained about that before in these forums, though and don't want to start again.)
The game, from what experience I did get wrt the rules, is really fun though.
And to think, my finger was hovering over buying one of the Beginner Games for SW...
I mean, it's a really good system. The main drawback are:
A) It's kinda got some weird break points if your campaign is combat based. Basically jury rigged auto fire makes light sabers look like fucking chumps.
It's really expensive to even just get the core book and enough dice to support 4/5 players.
I'm at a point in my DMing where I'm wondering what I can't accomplish by just sticking with 5e (Very popular), ICRPG (Very simple), and Spellbound Kingdoms (Very flavorful and innovative). Like...I looked at the Stars Without Number Revised Kickstarter and read the beta rules, but if I want something more interesting than OSR I'd probably just stick with ICRPG.
I really think SIFRP is cool because of the house management and stuff, but I could get that with Spellbound Kingdoms as is or through 5e third party stuff.
Is the gameplay and system of Star Wars unique and easy enough to play to merit shelf space? I'm heavily invested in X-Wing which could be cool to tie together, but that could probably be said for Imperial Assault too. I really like the idea of it, though.
I'm at a point in my DMing where I'm wondering what I can't accomplish by just sticking with 5e (Very popular)
...
Is the gameplay and system of Star Wars unique and easy enough to play to merit shelf space? I'm heavily invested in X-Wing which could be cool to tie together, but that could probably be said for Imperial Assault too. I really like the idea of it, though.
This is interesting when those two phrases are next to each other. Short answer to your question: that really depends on if you want a more narrative game in your collection.
With SW's dice, every roll tells a story. It isn't just "you hit (1d20 > 10)", or "you miss (1d20 < 10)", it's "You score a solid hit against the Stormtrooper's armor, knocking him down and sending his squadmates running for cover (3S, 3A)." Or those three Advantage can be swapped out for a number of other effects (bonus die for a buddy's roll, etc). Advantage are owned by the player and negotiated as such; Threat is owned by the GM. Same goes for Triumph and Despair; scene-changing events that can be rolled on the d12s (1/12). Those could be critical hits, but they could also be events like a stray shot causing the loading crane to crash through the wall and expose the warehouse to hard vacuum.
It means looking at a handful of symbols and interpreting the events they cause as a group, instead of the binary hit/miss of d20 systems.
D20 systems give you a single axis of resolution and that axis consists of +1 and -1. You succeed or you fail. Really complicated D20 gives you a +2 and -2 option with criticals. A whole four possible results.
Star Wars dice let you play in a fully 3 dimensional resolution where you have success/failure, advantage/threat and Triumph/Despair axes. It is easy to think advantage is related to success but it really isn't, neither are threat and failure. (There is a slight bias for Triumph and Success or Despair and Failure but it is minor.) So instead of a single variable you're talking about 3 different axes of resolution that increase your options by multiplication of results.
So, basically, D20 says Yes or No. PbtA says Yes, Yes But..., or No and leaves it up to the DM to creatively fill in the blanks. FFG Star Wars says Yes, Yes But..., No And..., or No...and the dice give the players and DM a finer detail of what exactly went right or wrong to interpret the results creatively?
Is that accurate? If that's the case, I'm afraid it MAY have a spot on the shelf, or at least the setting agnostic version when it comes out.
So, basically, D20 says Yes or No. PbtA says Yes, Yes But..., or No and leaves it up to the DM to creatively fill in the blanks. FFG Star Wars says Yes, Yes But..., No And..., or No...and the dice give the players and DM a finer detail of what exactly went right or wrong to interpret the results creatively?
Is that accurate? If that's the case, I'm afraid it MAY have a spot on the shelf, or at least the setting agnostic version when it comes out.
Yes, yes but, yes but holy shit, yes and also, yes and incredibly
The main downside is that sometimes like, weird results can be hard to slot into the fiction happening at a given moment. It's almost too much detail in the roll.
So, basically, D20 says Yes or No. PbtA says Yes, Yes But..., or No and leaves it up to the DM to creatively fill in the blanks. FFG Star Wars says Yes, Yes But..., No And..., or No...and the dice give the players and DM a finer detail of what exactly went right or wrong to interpret the results creatively?
Is that accurate? If that's the case, I'm afraid it MAY have a spot on the shelf, or at least the setting agnostic version when it comes out.
Yes, yes but, yes but holy shit, yes and also, yes and incredibly
The main downside is that sometimes like, weird results can be hard to slot into the fiction happening at a given moment. It's almost too much detail in the roll.
I'll admit I didn't read nearly enough when @DaMoonRulz and I played and had no idea what I was doing.
So, basically, D20 says Yes or No. PbtA says Yes, Yes But..., or No and leaves it up to the DM to creatively fill in the blanks. FFG Star Wars says Yes, Yes But..., No And..., or No...and the dice give the players and DM a finer detail of what exactly went right or wrong to interpret the results creatively?
Is that accurate? If that's the case, I'm afraid it MAY have a spot on the shelf, or at least the setting agnostic version when it comes out.
PbtA is more like "Yes, Yes But..., or No And..."
One of the more common things I find when I see people running pbta is not failing forward.
+1
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
So, basically, D20 says Yes or No. PbtA says Yes, Yes But..., or No and leaves it up to the DM to creatively fill in the blanks. FFG Star Wars says Yes, Yes But..., No And..., or No...and the dice give the players and DM a finer detail of what exactly went right or wrong to interpret the results creatively?
Is that accurate? If that's the case, I'm afraid it MAY have a spot on the shelf, or at least the setting agnostic version when it comes out.
PbtA is more like "Yes, Yes But..., or No And..."
One of the more common things I find when I see people running pbta is not failing forward.
I would generalize this: one of the most common problems I find with people running RPGs is not failing forward.
No matter how binary or narrative a system is, very few "No"s should be hard "No"s.
That's one of my more common failings as well. I think that's why ICRPG makes an action "Easy" (the DC is -3) if you fail and want to try again. It's easier to make that happen than to guarantee every DM will say something interesting. In my case, it's true!
The thing I like about the narrative dice is that, because you have particular situation modifiers or actions that add certain dice to the pool, you know by looking at the dice why something occurred.
Like, you only hit them because you took that extra moment to aim, or all the smoke in the air from that exploded console is why that friendly fire occurred, or it's only because they were distracted by the commotion your friend was making at the bar that you picked the target's pocket without them noticing.
Because my brain parasites require me to spread the contagion;
bundleofholding.com has both Rifts and Numenera bundles up right now, and just put up a Palladium Fantasy RPG bundle.
If you are crazy enough to actually use the books, the Rifts collection is actually really solid. Core + Psyscape + New West + Juicer Uprising is a ton of content for running or playing as a super-sub-human badass in a duster fighting giant psychic robots.
Because my brain parasites require me to spread the contagion;
humblebundle.com has both Rifts and Numenera bundles up right now, and just put up a Palladium Fantasy RPG bundle.
If you are crazy enough to actually use the books, the Rifts collection is actually really solid. Core + Psyscape + New West + Juicer Uprising is a ton of content for running or playing as a super-sub-human badass in a duster fighting giant psychic robots.
Humble bundle or bundleofholding.com? I basically noped out on both. More power to ya if you enjoy those games, though.
Because my brain parasites require me to spread the contagion;
humblebundle.com has both Rifts and Numenera bundles up right now, and just put up a Palladium Fantasy RPG bundle.
If you are crazy enough to actually use the books, the Rifts collection is actually really solid. Core + Psyscape + New West + Juicer Uprising is a ton of content for running or playing as a super-sub-human badass in a duster fighting giant psychic robots.
Humble bundle or bundleofholding.com? I basically noped out on both. More power to ya if you enjoy those games, though.
Savage Rifts is alright. I'm not a huge fan of Savage Worlds generally, but I will definitely give it the distinction of speeding Rifts up significantly.
Beyond that, I found the materials to be pretty dry to be honest. I think it'd be really tough to get a good Rifts feel from Savage Rifts without already having a lot of experience with the original game's setting and tone. The Savage stuff seems to be written specifically for people who are porting over rather than as a means of inspiring new Rifts players or groups. If that's not an issue, then it's a servicable system to whatever degree Savage Worlds typically is. They did do some interesting things with a couple of classes, like the Juicer essentially having a time limit counted in game sessions, but even those don't feel particularly well thought through for the most part.
Overall, I'd give the whole project a resounding "meh", with the caveat that if you're gonna actually run Rifts, using the original game to do so is probably gonna be a nightmare unless you're willing to basically eyeball three quarters of the things you end up doing and willfully chopping at the system itself.
Basically, I like SK because it combines combat, social encounters/abilities, chase scenes, and even player controlled organizations. It has a very cool setting and the combat mechanics for both fighters and spellcasters are based on different fighting styles that are flowcharts with stances and attacks that you learn over time. Each round you decide what your attack is and that determines your damage as well as your defense (in lieu of a stationary Armor Class)
Additionally, the setting is basically....grim dark magic renaissance where the ruling class makes sure the downtrodden are as depressed as possible to magically leech energy off them. In the lore, and mechanically, a character's Mood is derived from their Inspirations. If you knock somebody's Mood far enough, you can directly attack their Inspiration - and will to live. Yes, you can hurt somebody's feelings to kill them faster so they don't escape because they want to see their family or kingdom restored.
ICRPG is what happens what "Hankerin Ferinale" of his DM-advice YouTube Channel, Drunkens & Dragons, boils down how he's been playing D&D 5e with his groups into its own simplified version. The difference between this and 5e is that the math has been simplified (at character creation you spread 6 points across the 6 basic attributes, Armor, and Effort. Basic Effort is a D4 for picking locks, moving obstacles, persuasion attempts, etc. Weapon Effort is a D6, and all weapons (unless they're magical) use this damage. Magic Effort is a D8, and is used for spells that damage or heal. The D10's are used by the DM when it's time to loot a chest or a room.
Instead of a specific class progression tree, the DM can award class progression rewards or loot to the players. Seriously, that's the character progression. Spells are loot, weapons are loot, food is loot. They all help modify your character. It's pretty interesting.
Edit: I just realized you can get a Gozanti cruiser to use as a mobile home and install a tiny hangar...that's all I've wanted! Even more than a Decimator, since it can fit fighters in there.
Is it reasonable to get each of the Beginner boxes for max dice and starter character options for just dipping our toes in?
Honestly probably depends on how cheap you can get them vs just another dice set and how broad your campaign is going to be (i.e. If you're just going to be rebels just buy that box).
For the most part the rules aren't significantly different and mostly it's about what kind of moral mechanic you have and what equipment your book covers. So unless you really want to I wouldn't bother with multiple starter sets.
I'm just honestly not sure what I'd want to spend most of my time doing, or even what my players would want. I feel like with all the options you have the chance to get the whole ensemble together. I'm more interested in F&D and EotE even though I wish there were Grey Jedi and Firefly gets rehashed all the time, but I do like the idea of spending time in space or being away on missions. AoR seems solid for using the ships and if any Clone War/Galactic Civil War veterans are around.
Edit: Though, using EotE to basically play MechWarrior 4: Mercenaries in space wouldn't be the worst thing to happen.
Fuselage on
+2
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
edited August 2017
EotE is my favorite of the three, and seems the most adaptable to telling different kinds of stories. AoR and FnD feel more focused on telling War or Jedi stories which I've found to be almost niche sections of what people get excited about in Star Wars
Edit: Nobody complains tthat Space: Above and Beyond only got one season. But mention that other Fox space show......
EotE is my favorite of the three, and seems the most adaptable to telling different kinds of stories. AoR and FnD feel more focused on telling War or Jedi stories which I've found to be almost niche sections of what people get excited about in Star Wars
Edit: Nobody complains tthat Space: Above and Beyond only got one season. But mention that other Fox space show......
I totally complain that Space: Above and Beyond only got one season. I loved that show, as cheesy as it was. Also, my personal experience is that most people love playing Jedi in war stories in Star Wars RPG games, so EotE is the least used book of mine. Different groups and all that...
Because my brain parasites require me to spread the contagion;
bundleofholding.com has both Rifts and Numenera bundles up right now, and just put up a Palladium Fantasy RPG bundle.
If you are crazy enough to actually use the books, the Rifts collection is actually really solid. Core + Psyscape + New West + Juicer Uprising is a ton of content for running or playing as a super-sub-human badass in a duster fighting giant psychic robots.
Its a great deal for people playing savage rifts or just picked up savage rifts to get more world back ground stuff pretty cheaply.
So, basically, D20 says Yes or No. PbtA says Yes, Yes But..., or No and leaves it up to the DM to creatively fill in the blanks. FFG Star Wars says Yes, Yes But..., No And..., or No...and the dice give the players and DM a finer detail of what exactly went right or wrong to interpret the results creatively?
Is that accurate? If that's the case, I'm afraid it MAY have a spot on the shelf, or at least the setting agnostic version when it comes out.
PbtA is more like "Yes, Yes But..., or No And..."
One of the more common things I find when I see people running pbta is not failing forward.
I would generalize this: one of the most common problems I find with people running RPGs is not failing forward.
No matter how binary or narrative a system is, very few "No"s should be hard "No"s.
It's also worth noting that learning to say "You totally fucked that up" is easy, but learning to add "Now how are you going to fix it?" is hard.
I attribute a lot of that to D&D being the gateway, and D&D deals in hard nos and no other kind of no other than "oh shit (no)" with critical failures in combat.
PbtA just has the advantage of fail-forward being explicitly noted as a critical element to the game in the book. But even so, with a d20 pedigree it can be really REALLY hard to see someone fail a die roll and not just say "looks like you fucked up."
I feel like the other end of the stick is that d20 players are often conditioned to roll too much. They'll pick up the dice to figure out if their level 15 rogue can climb up a ladder before you even call for a roll (which of course you wouldn't/shouldn't), and they expect a low roll to mean a failure even if there was no need to roll in the first place.
I feel like the other end of the stick is that d20 players are often conditioned to roll too much. They'll pick up the dice to figure out if their level 15 rogue can climb up a ladder before you even call for a roll (which of course you wouldn't/shouldn't), and they expect a low roll to mean a failure even if there was no need to roll in the first place.
Hah. Yeah. Fail-forward/consequences as well: I ran a one-shot of Tales From the Loop for a group that had largely only played D20 and this thing kept happening where they would fail a roll and then just try to move on and figure out the next roll they could make while I'd be like, "hang on, something happens."
I feel like the other end of the stick is that d20 players are often conditioned to roll too much. They'll pick up the dice to figure out if their level 15 rogue can climb up a ladder before you even call for a roll (which of course you wouldn't/shouldn't), and they expect a low roll to mean a failure even if there was no need to roll in the first place.
Part of my learning to GM FFG Star Wars definitely involved forcing myself to call for fewer rolls. It's easier in combat since combat is more locked-down and there are so many prescribed ways to spend advantage/threat/Triumph/Despair, but almost all noncombat situations are best resolved with one or maybe two rolls at most, since so many possibilities for the story to take a detour are packed into every roll.
I feel like the other end of the stick is that d20 players are often conditioned to roll too much. They'll pick up the dice to figure out if their level 15 rogue can climb up a ladder before you even call for a roll (which of course you wouldn't/shouldn't), and they expect a low roll to mean a failure even if there was no need to roll in the first place.
Part of my learning to GM FFG Star Wars definitely involved forcing myself to call for fewer rolls. It's easier in combat since combat is more locked-down and there are so many prescribed ways to spend advantage/threat/Triumph/Despair, but almost all noncombat situations are best resolved with one or maybe two rolls at most, since so many possibilities for the story to take a detour are packed into every roll.
It's good advice for any game you're playing, though. As a GM, looking at a character concept, what are the chances your master assassin fails to murder a bunch of mooks who are asleep? 0%
So instead of saying "hey, roll for this" you just acknowledge they made the initial stealth roll and can murder a room full of unimportant NPCs without any problems.
But D&D doesn't outline that as necessary or even a good idea. It just assumes you'd make them roll for every murder.
There are games that explicitly demand a roll for everything, too. So it's not like D&D's absentee parenting is the only thing to blame.
Posts
Also, like, your characters are only as permanent as you want them to be. I'm basically playing Trill Picard, except even more reticent to engage in hostilities. So no away missions for me! But I can jump in the boots of an engineer supporting character, and help Zed Kirk a bunch of Cardassians by blowing up computer consoles.
So, yeah. Blew something up, talked my way out of a fight, gave the order to blow another thing up. Investigation and SCIENCE! in between. Good times.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Also, dat art.
To be honest the fundamental system's close enough that you can probably hack it pretty damn close without really losing anything? If you make Fall Outs narrative, not prescribed you're a pretty decent way there. Then if you want you could just sub out the core mechanic for Blade's by starting players at 0 dice and then have every factor contribute 1 dice like normal.
Obviously the full rules might complicate that but I think you could messily drag it over without too much fuss.
And I heard about a Reaper Kickstarter next week. Help Me.
j/k, I can and will do another one.
I guess these belong moreso in the Painting Minis thread, but I'm it'll be alright. These are from their website. I don't know when I'd use any of these, but that dragon turtle looks beautiful.
https://www.reapermini.com/misc/Bones4Tease2.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/misc/Bones4Tease3.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/misc/Bones4Tease4.jpg
https://www.reapermini.com/misc/Bones4Tease5.jpg
Anyone got any experience with Open Legend?
Our GM wasn't really adjudicating the dice properly. He mostly just looked at the results and winged it using narrative. I don't think we ever once took damage, or soak or even strain into consideration. When I brought it up...that Advantages do not count as successes, and that they could be used to boost an ally or remove strain...and that you can trigger critical hits and weapon effects... I got a "Fuck that, my way is more fun."
Sigh. It WAS kinda fun, I can't deny that. But what's the point of playing the game in the first place, if you are going to throw out 75% of the rules and make it all up based on inconsistent whimsy?
EDIT: I wouldn't be so put out, normally. But in this case I REALLY wanted to get a handle on the flow of the dice and how it worked at the table, because unless I play something a few times, I don't tend to "get it" just by reading the book. This was not the right weekend for that, unfortunately. However, there was enough of it for me to know that I really want to try again one day. Thankfully, we talked about a rotating GM schedule so next time might be a different experience.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
I mean, it's a really good system. The main drawback are:
A) It's kinda got some weird break points if your campaign is combat based. Basically jury rigged auto fire makes light sabers look like fucking chumps.
The game, from what experience I did get wrt the rules, is really fun though.
I'm at a point in my DMing where I'm wondering what I can't accomplish by just sticking with 5e (Very popular), ICRPG (Very simple), and Spellbound Kingdoms (Very flavorful and innovative). Like...I looked at the Stars Without Number Revised Kickstarter and read the beta rules, but if I want something more interesting than OSR I'd probably just stick with ICRPG.
I really think SIFRP is cool because of the house management and stuff, but I could get that with Spellbound Kingdoms as is or through 5e third party stuff.
Is the gameplay and system of Star Wars unique and easy enough to play to merit shelf space? I'm heavily invested in X-Wing which could be cool to tie together, but that could probably be said for Imperial Assault too. I really like the idea of it, though.
With SW's dice, every roll tells a story. It isn't just "you hit (1d20 > 10)", or "you miss (1d20 < 10)", it's "You score a solid hit against the Stormtrooper's armor, knocking him down and sending his squadmates running for cover (3S, 3A)." Or those three Advantage can be swapped out for a number of other effects (bonus die for a buddy's roll, etc). Advantage are owned by the player and negotiated as such; Threat is owned by the GM. Same goes for Triumph and Despair; scene-changing events that can be rolled on the d12s (1/12). Those could be critical hits, but they could also be events like a stray shot causing the loading crane to crash through the wall and expose the warehouse to hard vacuum.
It means looking at a handful of symbols and interpreting the events they cause as a group, instead of the binary hit/miss of d20 systems.
Geth, roll 2eA+1eP+1eB+1eD+1eC+1eS for example
Edit: brilliant Geth, thanks.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
D20 systems give you a single axis of resolution and that axis consists of +1 and -1. You succeed or you fail. Really complicated D20 gives you a +2 and -2 option with criticals. A whole four possible results.
Star Wars dice let you play in a fully 3 dimensional resolution where you have success/failure, advantage/threat and Triumph/Despair axes. It is easy to think advantage is related to success but it really isn't, neither are threat and failure. (There is a slight bias for Triumph and Success or Despair and Failure but it is minor.) So instead of a single variable you're talking about 3 different axes of resolution that increase your options by multiplication of results.
Is that accurate? If that's the case, I'm afraid it MAY have a spot on the shelf, or at least the setting agnostic version when it comes out.
Yes, yes but, yes but holy shit, yes and also, yes and incredibly
The main downside is that sometimes like, weird results can be hard to slot into the fiction happening at a given moment. It's almost too much detail in the roll.
I'll admit I didn't read nearly enough when @DaMoonRulz and I played and had no idea what I was doing.
PbtA is more like "Yes, Yes But..., or No And..."
One of the more common things I find when I see people running pbta is not failing forward.
I would generalize this: one of the most common problems I find with people running RPGs is not failing forward.
No matter how binary or narrative a system is, very few "No"s should be hard "No"s.
Like, you only hit them because you took that extra moment to aim, or all the smoke in the air from that exploded console is why that friendly fire occurred, or it's only because they were distracted by the commotion your friend was making at the bar that you picked the target's pocket without them noticing.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
bundleofholding.com has both Rifts and Numenera bundles up right now, and just put up a Palladium Fantasy RPG bundle.
If you are crazy enough to actually use the books, the Rifts collection is actually really solid. Core + Psyscape + New West + Juicer Uprising is a ton of content for running or playing as a super-sub-human badass in a duster fighting giant psychic robots.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
bundleofholding.com
Sorry. I'm gonna blame the brain parasites.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
@OptimusZed Did you ever end up getting Savage Worlds Rifts? If so, how was it?
Beyond that, I found the materials to be pretty dry to be honest. I think it'd be really tough to get a good Rifts feel from Savage Rifts without already having a lot of experience with the original game's setting and tone. The Savage stuff seems to be written specifically for people who are porting over rather than as a means of inspiring new Rifts players or groups. If that's not an issue, then it's a servicable system to whatever degree Savage Worlds typically is. They did do some interesting things with a couple of classes, like the Juicer essentially having a time limit counted in game sessions, but even those don't feel particularly well thought through for the most part.
Overall, I'd give the whole project a resounding "meh", with the caveat that if you're gonna actually run Rifts, using the original game to do so is probably gonna be a nightmare unless you're willing to basically eyeball three quarters of the things you end up doing and willfully chopping at the system itself.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Spellbound Kingdoms
DriveThru RPG
Short Review
Basically, I like SK because it combines combat, social encounters/abilities, chase scenes, and even player controlled organizations. It has a very cool setting and the combat mechanics for both fighters and spellcasters are based on different fighting styles that are flowcharts with stances and attacks that you learn over time. Each round you decide what your attack is and that determines your damage as well as your defense (in lieu of a stationary Armor Class)
Additionally, the setting is basically....grim dark magic renaissance where the ruling class makes sure the downtrodden are as depressed as possible to magically leech energy off them. In the lore, and mechanically, a character's Mood is derived from their Inspirations. If you knock somebody's Mood far enough, you can directly attack their Inspiration - and will to live. Yes, you can hurt somebody's feelings to kill them faster so they don't escape because they want to see their family or kingdom restored.
ICRPG
DriveThru RPG
Short Review
Google+ Group
ICRPG is what happens what "Hankerin Ferinale" of his DM-advice YouTube Channel, Drunkens & Dragons, boils down how he's been playing D&D 5e with his groups into its own simplified version. The difference between this and 5e is that the math has been simplified (at character creation you spread 6 points across the 6 basic attributes, Armor, and Effort. Basic Effort is a D4 for picking locks, moving obstacles, persuasion attempts, etc. Weapon Effort is a D6, and all weapons (unless they're magical) use this damage. Magic Effort is a D8, and is used for spells that damage or heal. The D10's are used by the DM when it's time to loot a chest or a room.
Instead of a specific class progression tree, the DM can award class progression rewards or loot to the players. Seriously, that's the character progression. Spells are loot, weapons are loot, food is loot. They all help modify your character. It's pretty interesting.
Edit: I just realized you can get a Gozanti cruiser to use as a mobile home and install a tiny hangar...that's all I've wanted! Even more than a Decimator, since it can fit fighters in there.
Is it reasonable to get each of the Beginner boxes for max dice and starter character options for just dipping our toes in?
@Albino Bunny @DarkPrimus @DevoutlyApathetic
For the most part the rules aren't significantly different and mostly it's about what kind of moral mechanic you have and what equipment your book covers. So unless you really want to I wouldn't bother with multiple starter sets.
Edit: Though, using EotE to basically play MechWarrior 4: Mercenaries in space wouldn't be the worst thing to happen.
Edit: Nobody complains tthat Space: Above and Beyond only got one season. But mention that other Fox space show......
I totally complain that Space: Above and Beyond only got one season. I loved that show, as cheesy as it was. Also, my personal experience is that most people love playing Jedi in war stories in Star Wars RPG games, so EotE is the least used book of mine. Different groups and all that...
Its a great deal for people playing savage rifts or just picked up savage rifts to get more world back ground stuff pretty cheaply.
I attribute a lot of that to D&D being the gateway, and D&D deals in hard nos and no other kind of no other than "oh shit (no)" with critical failures in combat.
Hah. Yeah. Fail-forward/consequences as well: I ran a one-shot of Tales From the Loop for a group that had largely only played D20 and this thing kept happening where they would fail a roll and then just try to move on and figure out the next roll they could make while I'd be like, "hang on, something happens."
Part of my learning to GM FFG Star Wars definitely involved forcing myself to call for fewer rolls. It's easier in combat since combat is more locked-down and there are so many prescribed ways to spend advantage/threat/Triumph/Despair, but almost all noncombat situations are best resolved with one or maybe two rolls at most, since so many possibilities for the story to take a detour are packed into every roll.
So instead of saying "hey, roll for this" you just acknowledge they made the initial stealth roll and can murder a room full of unimportant NPCs without any problems.
But D&D doesn't outline that as necessary or even a good idea. It just assumes you'd make them roll for every murder.
There are games that explicitly demand a roll for everything, too. So it's not like D&D's absentee parenting is the only thing to blame.