Pathfinding to Starfinding

Huzzah!

Will the new starship frames be available for free if non-society players want to use them? Or will they be included in one or more of the scenarios?

Will the new starship frames be available for free if non-society players want to use them? Or will they be included in one or more of the scenarios?

Multiple Tiers (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 to be precise) of the Drake and Pegasus will be available in the Starfinder Roleplaying Guild Guide—a free PDF product! :)

Luke Spencer wrote:

Will the new starship frames be available for free if non-society players want to use them? Or will they be included in one or more of the scenarios?

Multiple Tiers (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 to be precise) of the Drake and Pegasus will be available in the Starfinder Roleplaying Guild Guide—a free PDF product! :)

Awesome thanks! I don't have any society groups near me but I love to get my hands on some sweet sweet rules!

Is Infamy based solely on individual PC actions? I rather dread the thought that I could end up with unwanted Infamy if a particularly overzealous player beside me did unmentionable things.

Is Infamy based solely on individual PC actions? I rather dread the thought that I could end up with unwanted Infamy if a particularly overzealous player beside me did unmentionable things.

It applies to a PC who willingly performs, contributes to, or agrees with such actions. No being punished for another PC's actions. :)

One more question, will the afforementioned guide be available on launch?

Serisan wrote:

Is Infamy based solely on individual PC actions? I rather dread the thought that I could end up with unwanted Infamy if a particularly overzealous player beside me did unmentionable things.

It applies to a PC who willingly performs, contributes to, or agrees with such actions. No being punished for another PC's actions. :)

One of the fun—and sometimes productively vexing—aspects of working with people who have lots of organized play experience and exposure is that we tend to bring up classic problem situations while brainstorming. Mine tend to begin with "Okay, so let's say I sit down alongside Mr. Treacherous Jackal who's playing his –4 character named Captain Wannabe Antipaladin IV..." Ensuring that the worst efforts of a bad apple at your table don't spoil your own pristine Infamy score was an issue we identified and addressed very early in our Infamy discussions.

One more question, will the afforementioned guide be available on launch?

Should be a little before launch.

Fame, and not Prestige? That's an interesting take on it. Looking forward to seeing what else you guys have dreamed up.

I do hope we get to play with the smaller fighters at some point, and also being able to buy your own ship would make much more sense in Starfinder than the ship boon in Pathfinder does.

Just to clarify...

Purchasing: As hinted at above, purchasing works a bit different in Starfinder. Since most equipment is based on item level, PCs will have access to equipment based on their relative level compared to the item.

Does that mean that if the item does not show up on a chronicle sheet, your character level must be equal to or greater than the item in order to purchase it? Or does the purchase limit of character level +2 in large cities/stations from the CRB apply?

Basically do you have to hit 3 xp before buying a level 2 item unless its on your chronicle?

So the whole group has to decide which ship to use? Here I was hoping for a Starfox-like thing where we all fly a squadron of small fighters.

I'm not sure how I feel about Infamy considering that many PFS scenarios railroad you into doing evil things.

Modern ships... they all look like electric razors.

Modern ships... they all look like electric razors.

great ghost of taargick

blasphemy

when torag comes back he'll be mad mad mad

So the whole group has to decide which ship to use? Here I was hoping for a Starfox-like thing where we all fly a squadron of small fighters.

In our playing around with the system, starship combat seems to lend itself especially well to having the whole group on board a single starship. We've wanted to experiment with how a squadron might function, though in all likelihood this would be with two PCs per ship (it's much nicer to have a pilot and a gunner). This would also mean that having one person good at piloting wouldn't be enough, and there would need to be multiple competent pilots on the team. I have no doubt that a group could build to this dynamic, but that's a dangerous assumption to make in the organized play setting.

The especially tricky element? Escape pods require expansion bays. Tiny starships and half of the Small starships don't get those. Lower starship hull points plus a lack of an escape clause make squadron fighting a cool concept that might run into serious roadblocks—especially for Starfinder Society.

In our playing around with the system, starship combat seems to lend itself especially well to having the whole group on board a single starship. We've wanted to experiment with how a squadron might function, though in all likelihood this would be with two PCs per ship (it's much nicer to have a pilot and a gunner). This would also mean that having one person good at piloting wouldn't be enough, and there would need to be multiple competent pilots on the team. I have no doubt that a group could build to this dynamic, but that's a dangerous assumption to make in the organized play setting.

The especially tricky element? Escape pods require expansion bays. Tiny starships and half of the Small starships don't get those. Lower starship hull points plus a lack of an escape clause make squadron fighting a cool concept that might run into serious roadblocks—especially for Starfinder Society.

Sounds like something to try out in an exclusive/special some time in the future. Finding pilots seems pretty easy though. Seems like everyone can do it at some level.

Thanks a lot! Many very nice things. And it is so good that you did the fine effort of not doing Pathfinder in space, but created a true new game (even if the origins are recognizable).

I am a little wary of what problems Infamy might bring (but I am only talking about GM-player problems, ie. getting into 'arguments' about whether the PC's action merits getting an Infamy point and losing time ; in pure game mechanics, it sounds like another super interesting element you have added).

Infamy generally works along the same schema as Pathfinder 'Alignment Infractions'. Basically, PCs shouldn't be collecting Infamy unless they end up doing something particularly heinous that would (in Pathfinder) result in an alignment infraction. This also gives a little more leeway in "You're evil. Get an atonement."

Similarly, it lets us put some call-outs into scenarios for exactly the situations where a scenario might encourage an 'evil act'. This way, we can give some written sections on what could cause an Infamy gain. Unless things radically change, I don't see us publishing a scenario where gaining Infamy is a requirement to succeed at the mission.

I also like the potential design space for PCs getting some benefits out of having a point or two of Infamy. This might translate to a skill bonus when interacting with another organization, or even fit into some future boons. Again, this system is meant to give development more flexibility with alignment, rather than the current Pathfinder system of Yes/No.

As with anything we're testing out. We'll be monitoring it and course correcting as necessary!

For the folks who cannot make GenCon (regrettably, myself included) that are planning to play on the evening of the 17th, I would like to ask when will character registration on the site will become available. Also, will our -700 series characters be allowed to use the same name as a -1 series character?

The listed examples for accruing Infamy seem to punish Chaotic as well as Evil. I fervently hope this will be clarified before GMs whose personal take also confuse Chaos and Evil start punishing Chaotic PCs

The listed examples for accruing Infamy seem to punish Chaotic as well as Evil. I fervently hope this will be clarified before GMs whose personal take also confuse Chaos and Evil start punishing Chaotic PCs

Once again, in terms of application, this system follows several of the existing Pathfinder Society guidelines. A GM must inform the player that his or her PC will receive Infamy for performing an action. The PC always has the option to avoid gaining the point.

The especially tricky element? Escape pods require expansion bays. Tiny starships and half of the Small starships don't get those. Lower starship hull points plus a lack of an escape clause make squadron fighting a cool concept that might run into serious roadblocks—especially for Starfinder Society.

Could remote-control of a squadron from a base/ship (a la Ender's Game) be a possibility, though?

the Drake and the Pegasus both look awesome!

Sounds like something to try out in an exclusive/special some time in the future. Finding pilots seems pretty easy though. Seems like everyone can do it at some level.

Space combat definitely favors the skilled pilot over a character who can get you from point A to point C.

And to be a skilled point does take a dedicated effort.

Could remote-control of a squadron from a base/ship (a la Ender's Game) be a possibility, though?

Having read through the rules a couple times, I didn't see anything that would allow remote-control of other ships. It could be added, but nothing out the gate.

Space Combat is going to be a blast!

It is different than what we are use to in Pathfinder but can be picked up pretty quickly.

Cyrad wrote:

So the whole group has to decide which ship to use? Here I was hoping for a Starfox-like thing where we all fly a squadron of small fighters.

In our playing around with the system, starship combat seems to lend itself especially well to having the whole group on board a single starship. We've wanted to experiment with how a squadron might function, though in all likelihood this would be with two PCs per ship (it's much nicer to have a pilot and a gunner). This would also mean that having one person good at piloting wouldn't be enough, and there would need to be multiple competent pilots on the team. I have no doubt that a group could build to this dynamic, but that's a dangerous assumption to make in the organized play setting.

This DEFINITELY sounds like a future SFS starship model! :D

Unless things radically change, I don't see us publishing a scenario where gaining Infamy is a requirement to succeed at the mission.

That scenario would likely be my "Rage quit" scenario.

Your blog post is already making me nervous since it sounds like you're deliberately trying to build in "Traps" into the scenario.

As mentioned above, yes, a GM must inform the PC that an action will result in Infamy. The wording here is almost identical to what already exists in Pathfinder Society.

The term "Traps" is wholly inapplicable here. We're specifically calling out certain actions that could result in Infamy to assist GMs who might be concerned about certain PC actions. In our first batch of five scenario, we have three Infamy call-outs; two of which can roughly be equated to "Hey, if PCs decide to try and kill these non-combatants, then apply Infamy." The other Infamy-related event is something similarly scummy, but not quite on the scale of pre-meditated murder of a noncombatant.

I've been getting some messages with regards to Pathfinder comparisons, especially in terms of some events in Pathfinder Society Season 4. One of the reasons this system really appealed to the Organized Play team, is because it lets us have a system for handling situations where the PCs might find a less-savory solution to a problem. Rather than leaving more obvious "evil decisions" up to GM-fiat on how to handle, putting in an Infamy header lets us give further guidance on how to handle those situations. Taking the burden (and potential personal conflict) off the GM's hands.

Also, I want to call-out that "Fighter Squadrons" are certainly in my headspace! :)

One of the key assumptions for Starfinder, is that that PCs end up working together on a single ship. Since that's the assumption, we wanted to start with that. It also makes way more sense for the PCs to be exploring the galaxy in a larger ship with (frame-depending) some extra expansion bays with appropriate labs and systems.

We want to get these rules locked in place before we start tinkering with things outside of the core assumption. That being said, John and I have already been discussing some interesting potential for different types of starship combat encounters, including fighters and some other (perhaps far larger) ships. For now, I do hope the players start to get a feel for the Drake & Pegasus... as well as any other ships that might get introduced in the not-so-distant future. :)

The artwork for the two ships above is excellent.

Luke Spencer wrote:

Will the new starship frames be available for free if non-society players want to use them? Or will they be included in one or more of the scenarios?

Multiple Tiers (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 to be precise) of the Drake and Pegasus will be available in the Starfinder Roleplaying Guild Guide—a free PDF product! :)

Where can we find the above guide?

Thanks.

As mentioned above, yes, a GM must inform the PC that an action will result in Infamy. The wording here is almost identical to what already exists in Pathfinder Society.

The term "Traps" is wholly inapplicable here. We're specifically calling out certain actions that could result in Infamy to assist GMs who might be concerned about certain PC actions. In our first batch of five scenario, we have three Infamy call-outs; two of which can roughly be equated to "Hey, if PCs decide to try and kill these non-combatants, then apply Infamy." The other Infamy-related event is something similarly scummy, but not quite on the scale of pre-meditated murder of a noncombatant.

I think their may have been miscommunication here. From your example, Thursty, what you are saying is that scenarios in which events may be more likely to allow the players to have their PCs take actions that would lead to the accrual of Infamy will have call-outs.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, you're not saying that we will see the intentional creation of situations in which the PCs are likely to gain Infamy.

It can seem like fun to create a "moral dilemma" in which the expedient course of action would be Infamy-inducing. However, such scenarios need to be very careful to present at least one clearly feasible alternative, even if that option is more difficult. If "good-aligned" alternatives aren't clear, many players are likely to feel like they are being forced into gaining Infamy.

I think their may have been miscommunication here. From your example, Thursty, what you are saying is that scenarios in which events may be more likely to allow the players to have their PCs take actions that would lead to the accrual of Infamy will have call-outs.

It's not our goal to intentionally create situations where the PCs should feel compelled to perform actions that result in Infamy. Instead, we're adding in text to support situations where the PCs might decide to take radical action (players being players). This way, there's some guidelines on how to handle it.

Here's some examples of how we're employing this.

In the above examples, you'll note that one example is entirely a malicious act (breaking into a safe unrelated to your mission), while the other involves a situation where the PCs could provide a service/skills to overcome. It's our intent to call these out as best we can in text. We're extremely cognizant of avoiding situations where PCs feel they "need" to gain Infamy to complete an encounter. That being said, if a group recognizes an encounter could be easier if they "muderhobo" a key NPC to save time, then we want there to be repercussions.

Where can we find the above guide?

Thanks.

That is the question that all of the GMs running Starfinder is wondering about. It is not out yet.

Best answer is Soon TM.

In the above examples, you'll note that one example is entirely a malicious act (breaking into a safe unrelated to your mission), while the other involves a situation where the PCs could provide a service/skills to overcome. It's our intent to call these out as best we can in text. We're extremely cognizant of avoiding situations where PCs feel they "need" to gain Infamy to complete an encounter. That being said, if a group recognizes an encounter could be easier if they "muderhobo" a key NPC to save time, then we want there to be repercussions.

That's exactly what I thought. Thanks for taking the time to clarify!

The Penecontemporaneous One wrote:

Could remote-control of a squadron from a base/ship (a la Ender's Game) be a possibility, though?

Having read through the rules a couple times, I didn't see anything that would allow remote-control of other ships. It could be added, but nothing out the gate.

I was referencing something that does exist, but in a way that doesn't spoil anything ;-)

As mentioned above, yes, a GM must inform the PC that an action will result in Infamy. The wording here is almost identical to what already exists in Pathfinder Society.

The term "Traps" is wholly inapplicable here.

...

it lets us have a system for handling situations where the PCs might find a less-savory solution to a problem. Rather than leaving more obvious "evil decisions" up to GM-fiat on how to handle, putting in an Infamy header lets us give further guidance on how to handle those situations. Taking the burden (and potential personal conflict) off the GM's hands.

From this (and your other posts) it is obvious that I misinterpreted your earlier post. Thank you for the clarification. Sorry for misinterpreting/overreacting

Hmmm. Infamy looks fine, as long as the rule about the GM needing to warn ahead of time that an act is evil/Infamous act still stands.

Levelgating Equipment though is terrible. Price is already an effective levelgate, and in those incredibly rare (though breathlessly talked-about) instances where characters spend all their gold on a single item, that's what fame limits are for.

Let's not forget the main reason 4E failed in the first place: Designers who were too obsessed with "Game Balance" at the expense of fun.

Hmmm. Infamy looks fine, as long as the rule about the GM needing to warn ahead of time that an act is evil/Infamous act still stands.

Levelgating Equipment though is terrible. Price is already an effective levelgate, and in those incredibly rare (though breathlessly talked-about) instances where characters spend all their gold on a single item, that's what fame limits are for.

Let's not forget the main reason 4E failed in the first place: Designers who were too obsessed with "Game Balance" at the expense of fun.

Don't worry, I got the book and things look pretty fun. The leveled equipment is actually really nice, and much more fun than the old enhancement bonus advancement.

The link to the full-sized image of the Pegasus is broken.

I'm getting a very FTL vibe from the starship stuff and I like it.

Howard197 wrote:

Hmmm. Infamy looks fine, as long as the rule about the GM needing to warn ahead of time that an act is evil/Infamous act still stands.

Levelgating Equipment though is terrible. Price is already an effective levelgate, and in those incredibly rare (though breathlessly talked-about) instances where characters spend all their gold on a single item, that's what fame limits are for.

Let's not forget the main reason 4E failed in the first place: Designers who were too obsessed with "Game Balance" at the expense of fun.

Don't worry, I got the book and things look pretty fun. The leveled equipment is actually really nice, and much more fun than the old enhancement bonus advancement.

I concur. And it means that chronicle sheet loot may actually be once again relevant...

The artwork for the two ships above is excellent.

I agree! I'm also excited to be involved in naming them! I proposed a lighter "Pegasus class" ship and a heavier "Drake class" ship in my outline for Into the Unknown, and I'm happy to see them become so critical to the Starfinder Society.

The Mad Comrade wrote:

The artwork for the two ships above is excellent.

I agree! I'm also excited to be involved in naming them! I proposed a lighter "Pegasus class" ship and a heavier "Drake class" ship in my outline for Into the Unknown, and I'm happy to see them become so critical to the Starfinder Society.

Into the Unknown is a pretty awesome Quest series, Ron! I'm excited to get to run it during (and by popular demand, immediately after) Gen Con!

Hmmm. Infamy looks fine, as long as the rule about the GM needing to warn ahead of time that an act is evil/Infamous act still stands.

Levelgating Equipment though is terrible. Price is already an effective levelgate, and in those incredibly rare (though breathlessly talked-about) instances where characters spend all their gold on a single item, that's what fame limits are for.

Let's not forget the main reason 4E failed in the first place: Designers who were too obsessed with "Game Balance" at the expense of fun.

On levelling equipment; this is the equivalent of fame limits. It also means that if a character is consistently bad at earning prestige, they aren't equipment limited.

I would be shocked if the equipment limit isn't level + something

The Mad Comrade wrote:

The artwork for the two ships above is excellent.

I agree! I'm also excited to be involved in naming them! I proposed a lighter "Pegasus class" ship and a heavier "Drake class" ship in my outline for Into the Unknown, and I'm happy to see them become so critical to the Starfinder Society.

It would be interesting to see ship nomenclature follow along a similar vein. Pegasus, Griffon or Gryphon, Hippogriff with Alicorn at the top of the chain. Drake, Manticore, Wyvern with Dragon at the end.

Modern ships... they all look like electric razors.

So true. So much so I now can't unsee it!

"I liked it so much I bought the squadron"

It's humorous that infamy will only hurt melee based character's. Caster's will only be slightly inconvenienced.
Har Har Har