roysier's page

Goblin Squad Member. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 729 posts (945 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 39 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 729 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Marco Massoudi wrote:

Wizkids have announced their 13th Icons of the Realms set "Volo's & Mordenkainen's Foes" for december 2019.

It is still priced at $15.99 per booster.

Pathfinder Battles set 17 "Legendary Adventures" is priced $17.99.

That seems to be the new price for PFB boosters going forward.

There is no word yet on "Starfinder Battles" pricing, but i expect the first set in early 2020.

Wizkids has als announced starship & space station interior as part of their 4D line for 2020.

The quality of the PF battles sets is normally superior to that of the Icons of the Realms sets. I buy the PF Battles sets knowing I'm paying a higher price for a better quality. If the quality went down in the PF sets I would probably stop buying boosters all together.

What is the point of having 14th level characters make a DC 15 perception check? In some areas it says if they beat it by 10 but other areas it's just a straight up 15 roll. This is requested numerous times in the AP. DC 15 checks is something that you normally see at low levels.

***** ⦵⦵

Stanislas Lazarski wrote:

Finally the 4 house the Gnome apparently owed several thousand of “dollars”

Yep, one of my groups found this to be awfully funny.

***** ⦵⦵

Goblins being included as a core race and a public comment made from a Paizo employee where it was said they are aware they have an older customer base then other organized societies and it is something they were going to address.

It's just a guess on my part but it would be a smart marketing strategy.

***** ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My mind has been changed on this issue. Tag away if someone thinks it's needed. But, It looks from an outsider that pf2 products are targeted at a younger and with more light-hearted/silly themes then previous material so tags might not be needed as much.

I don't think Paizo should be the ones doing it on previous scenarios. That's a lot of work to tag hundreds of products. There is something like 300 PFS/SFS scenarios in publication. And then there is something like 140 Adventure paths and somewhere around 30 modules.

But I still believe people who don't want to be reminded of something terrifying to them (and not others) avoid taking actions that puts them at risk of re-living the terrifying moment. I'm aware that PTSD often comes on with a trigger that was previously unknown.

I still haven't met a person in my gaming circles that think 3% of PFS/SFS players are at risk of a trauma trigger that involves an in-game situation. That is different then saying 3% of players have PTSD.

People also play the game differently. some play if very mechanically and it's all about rolling dice. Some play in the moment within the game. Others play with detailed descriptions with use imaginative imagery.

In my area the most common GM complaint is GM's who go out of their way to kill characters. The most often heard content complaints that I hear is something is too hard or the content was written in such a way that a certain party make-up is needed. Sometimes I hear some of the season 5 Demon stuff box text items are disgusting.

But maybe I live in a bay area bubble where things are different here.

***** ⦵⦵

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
roysier wrote:
RealAlchemy wrote:
And then there's that guy who was tripping so hard he thought he was a Prince.
Maybe I should put warning tags on my characters? Hey?
I do. I have even toned down my ifrit supremacists since starting them.

I have 2 characters I have toned down an alcoholic who is bitter at men and my priestess of Calistiria. Others I watch for table reaction and taper off the silliness if it's not being received well.

***** ⦵⦵

I Asked 4 players from my home Runequest game who play multiple different kinds of games at conventions and apparently there was a situation in Adventures League where at the end of the scenario a 8 year old child walks up and blows himself up to kill a mind flayer. And at a table at a convention a vietnam vet had a traumatic mental/physical reaction where an ambulance needed to be called and he was taken to the hospital. Adventures League pulled the scenario from publication/Adventures League.

***** ⦵⦵

RealAlchemy wrote:
And then there's that guy who was tripping so hard he thought he was a Prince.

Maybe I should put warning tags on my characters? Hey?

He's delusional a mental condition. He's also reincarnated and was once a prince in Scotland. At least so he believes.

"I'm Prince Malcolm and I am a handsome prince."

I play to have fun, if it's not fun I don't play it's pretty simple.

***** ⦵⦵

I think I've hogged this conversation too long. It is my impression that paizo never intended their product for a mass audience it was for grown up 3.5 players. (I think that mindset has changed in the last couple years).

With the inclusion of silly goblins in PF2 it appears to me they are now targeting a general audience.

So moving forward no R rated content at all from Paizo unless something is "horror" themed and tagged as such. (thus targeting a niche horror market.)

For PF1 leave as is and move on. There is no need to spend any resources on a product that no longer receives support.

Starfinder is much more light hearted with the exception of The Diaspora strain (horror themed) and one early SFS scenario where the protagonist was on hallucinogenics the entire scenario (even I was uncomfortable running a drug induced NPC when kids were at the table).

***** ⦵⦵

2 questions if you have ptsd and Paizo does not change their current policy about tags how would you suggest a gm alleviate trauma triggers when they are not known.

2nd question if Paizo implements trauma triggers how would you suggest they do it if people with PtSD does not want to re-live it and share what triggered it and no one at Paizo is qualified or understands them?

I still do not believe 3% of organized players have active PTSD. It implies that Paizo organized players are the same population as the general population when every demographic study in the industry implies otherwise.

There is also plenty of market research that making a pg-13 movie is the best rating to appeal to a wider audience. An R or X rating hurts attendance. There is no reason to believe that would also not apply to the gaming industry. Why do movies do it?to target niche markets.

***** ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well,by your count you are saying 3% of PFS players have active PTSD issues. That would be 1 in every 3 tables. Honestly I would have to rethink my comitment to organized plau at that rate. It would better to play in Home games then risk triggering severe trauma in somone accidentally.

***** ⦵⦵

Let me talk about content warning. I put s horror content warning on a local store game summary and several players said they read it and didn't wanted to Play something else instead. So yes I believe content warnings can have a impact on sales and excitement. How much I don't know. But I do knos only Paizo would be doing them in organized play format and it even wouldn't look good when parents are selecting what games there teens should play.

Pathfinder And Starfinder are both out of the top 5 in top roy games sales for the first time since 2012. Pf2 is not marketing well so I have no doubt their are financial concerns. This data can be easily Google searched. I'm on the road I can attach links to this data when I get home.

I'm saying people make choices. People who are afraid of flying don't normally get a pilots license, i an suprised to find oriole with serious PTSD issues playing organized play with strangers.

***** ⦵⦵

Ok, maybe not. It sure would help me understand what triggers people. I'm personally concerned about the mention of PrSD and how to avoid it as a gm. Since I'm under the belief that people make choices and choose their hobbies, hence people self select themselves out of hobbies that they are not comfortable with. Is there situations where that is not the case. Are people for whatever reason dealing with severe emotional trauma and sticking with Orgsnized play? Is it a one time thing? Are their triggers that are impacting many people. Thus a content warnings at the start of games may be warranted. I only want to do it in severe situations not in cases where someone is uncomfortable with the content that is common in the game system.

I'm not sure it's wise for Paizo to negatively tag their own products in a competitive market place. For something that is very rare. They subtly do it for horror conten already.

***** ⦵⦵

Someone really should start a thread dedicated only to exactly what scenarios create the biggest stress problems and what the trigger kind is. Warning others of the exact same thing. Such as Temple of emperial enlightenment. Suicide room. Should be avoided by those with ptsd involving Suicide. If changed change to save or victom under Murderous Command.

***** ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep, it's Paizo's choice about published content before any tags are considered.

I prefer gritty over sanitized that's why I choose to play pathfinder over Toon the role playing game or 5e.

If I had a loved one who had ptsd triggers I would choose another game to play (like miniply or magic) with them or ask someone who already played the scenario if such and such comes up or I would play in a home game or I would gm.

I think someone in the community who cares enough should create a database of scenario issues. Paizo needs to make money to stay in business. They are losing market share big time. It all won't matter if they go out of business.

Someone should care enough to do it, don't wait for Paizo.

***** ⦵⦵

And then a percent of the percent would be willing to risk doing something with an unknown story based on violence and good vs. evil.

I'm not saying don't put tags. I'm saying it's very rare to encounter in organized play. As mentioned above I'd say put a general warning tag and if someone is concerned a reference to the more exact nature that an individual can choose to read or not read if they don't want to see it.

***** ⦵⦵

And then a percent of the percent would be willing to risk doing something with an unknown story based on violence and good vs. evil.

I'm not saying don't put tags. I'm saying it's very rare to encounter in organized play. As mentioned above I'd say put a general warning tag and if someone is concerned a reference to the more exact nature that an individual can choose to read or not read if they don't want to see it.

***** ⦵⦵

I am going to double down on the under 1%. Today I asked each of 4 players as they came into my own game. We criss iver in some organized play games but not many. Between us we have about 2,500 games of irganixmzef experience. Between gming, playing and overhearing between us we know 2 peipke who spoke up about spiders. No one has ever heard someone speak up about a tramatic trigger.

***** ⦵⦵

I've had my say I will step out of this conversation. I do want to point out that Paizo does not live in a vacuum. If they are the only RPG company publishing caution tags it can very well turn people away just as much as gain trust.

From my understanding Paizo wants to target a younger crowd so I would expect the future products to be more light hearted in themes. With the exception of when they post "horror content" cautions.

***** ⦵⦵

Tom Parker wrote:
This isn’t about screening content for children. You’re really making some very broad generalizations about a segment of the population you seem to know nothing about.

I don't agree. Screening for content is the same activity. What you are looking for is the only difference.

***** ⦵⦵

Adam Yakaboski wrote:
roysier wrote:
I've gmed over 400 organized play games and it has only applied to 1 player.
I mean conversely that could just be that people don't trust you which knowing a bunch of people with triggers in Pathfinder Society seems to be a common complaint.

OK, your reality is different then mine. I assume people who have content problems have pre-screened the content so they don't get surprised. They sign up for scenarios that appeal to them.

I do believe Rape and Suicide should be excluded all together from all scenarios. It's too harsh for too many.

***** ⦵⦵

Tom Parker wrote:
This isn’t about screening content for children. You’re really making some very broad generalizations about a segment of the population you seem to know nothing about.

I don't know trauma triggers I know nothing about it. I do know Phobia's pretty well.

***** ⦵⦵

I should add that this is already being handled is a fation with parents screening content for teens. It's normally handled with the parent asking the organizer or the gm prior to signing up if the content is suitable for children.

***** ⦵⦵

I've gmed over 400 organized play games and it has only applied to 1 player.

***** ⦵⦵

I think the best way is to not change scenarios but instead have a reference page with Trauma and Phobia triggers. And thus allowing people with severe issues a method of avoiding their trauma reminders. or have someone else look it up for them and let them know what scenarios to avoid.

Anyone with severe phobia's/Trauma triggers I can't even imagine playing organized play at all.

We're talking a very small percentage of PFS/SFS players. My estimate is <1%. Most people with these kinds of things would not risk a public organized play and instead play home games where the GM knows what issues he/she is dealing with.

***** ⦵⦵

If it's going to be done. I personally think general warnings similar to something HBO might have at the start of their TV shows. "Adult content", "extreme violence", etc. Any more detail than that should be put in a separate file for people who care can see them.

I care but I don't want to be concerned with other people's issues unless they are severe. I'd rather not see them unless someone asks.

Phobia's are severe reactions. I know someone with Agoraphobia and she cannot leave her house without strong anti-anxiety medication. I don't really know how someone with a stong phobia could play anything in organized play with a fear of facing their phobia straight on.

There clearly is a difference between Phobia's/adult content/horror themes. They should proably be treated in seperate categories and clearly defined.

For phobia's a trained profesional is in order to address. Otherwise it won't be done correctly it is a psychological disorder.

For tv here are the warnings. Obviously not all of them apply to published material but some of them do:

Adult content
This indicates that the film or program may contain suggestive dialogue, crude humor or in extreme cases, drug references or depiction of drug and/or alcohol use that may not be suitable for children. Films rated "PG" or TV series rated "TV-PG" or higher often use this descriptor.

Adult language
This suggests that the film, special or program may contain profanity, ranging from either mild profanity (such as "damn", "prick" or "ass") to expletives, with or without a sexual meaning; more than four uses of two or more expletives like "s%~!" or "f~@!" in a film/program, may result in the program being assigned a "GL" descriptor. Films rated "PG" or TV series rated "TV-PG" or higher often use this descriptor.

Graphic language
This descriptor suggests that a movie, special event (for example, a stand-up comedy special) or series will contain a heavy amount of profanity, with relatively to very frequent usage of expletives with or without a sexual meaning. Criteria for the "GL" description is usually for films or television programs that contain the use of two or more expletive profanities (such as "s%*&", "c$%@" or "m@&!+#@+@+@#") more than four times during the run of the program. The use of this content descriptor is usually exclusive to films that are rated "R" or television series rated "TV-MA".

Mild violence
This suggests that a movie or series contains a mild amount of violent content, either comedic or non-comedic in nature, that may or may not include some bloodshed. Films rated "PG" or TV series rated "TV-PG" or higher often use this content rating, however this descriptor is seldom used in "R" or "TV-MA" rated programs.

This is indicative of the program containing a moderate to significant amount of violent content (such as a physical altercation or shooting), which may include mild to moderate amounts of bloodshed. This does not necessarily account for incidents in which scenes may contain gory material or the depiction of dismemberment.

Graphic violence
This means that the program or film may contain a heavy amount of violence, blood or gore,[6] that is unsuitable for younger audiences or those who are squeamish to such content. The usage of this descriptor depends on how long the blood or gore is actually shown and how much of it is included. The use of this content descriptor is typically exclusive to films that are rated "R" or television series rated "TV-MA", though there is rare use of this descriptor for films with a "PG-13" rating. Most American premium channels typically limit the usage of this particular content descriptor for "R"-rated films or "TV-MA" rated television series, based on the above description.

Brief nudity
This is indicative that the film or program contains a minimal amount of moderate nudity, that may either be depicted in a sexual or non-sexual nature (such as a brief glimpse of a man's buttocks); nudity seen in the program or film may not necessarily be full-frontal in nature. The use of this content descriptor is commonly for films that are rated "PG-13" or "R", and television series or certain films rated "TV-14" or "TV-MA", but is sometimes used in films rated "PG" or television series or made-for-TV movies rated "TV-PG".

This means that a live-action or animated film/program contains a moderate to significant amount of partial or full-frontal nudity, that may either be depicted in a sexual or non-sexual nature. This may either be for anything such as the display of topless women or exposed male buttocks, to in some cases, exposed genitalia. The use of this content descriptor is generally exclusive to films that are rated "R", and television series or certain films rated "TV-MA", and only occasionally used in films rated "PG-13" or television series or made-for-TV movies rated "TV-14". On softcore adult programs airing on channels such as Cinemax and The Movie Channel, this descriptor is generally referenced alongside the descriptor "SSC", for strong sexual content, as films that contain simulated or graphic depictions of sexual intercourse will often contain some degree of nudity, whether partial or full-frontal.

Strong sexual content
This signifies that the program may contain graphic sexual situations,[6] particularly scenes of simulated (or in rare cases, actual) sexual intercourse that is often of a pornographic nature (though in some instances, the sexual intercourse depicted may be in a realistic and artistic style), with the incorporation of moderate or full-frontal nudity. Scenes of men (or sometimes women, although this is not often shown) receiving oral sex may also fall within the criteria for an "SSC" rating. An "SSC" rating means the sexual content in the program may be unsuitable for those under the age of 18. The use of this content descriptor is strictly exclusive to films that are rated "R", and television series or certain films rated "TV-MA". On softcore adult programs airing on channels such as Cinemax and The Movie Channel, this descriptor is generally referenced alongside the descriptor "N", for nudity, as films that contain simulated or graphic depictions of sexual intercourse will often contain some degree of nudity, whether partial (for example, a female wearing clothes covering only the top half of her body for a portion of or throughout the scene, but whose breasts are exposed) or full-frontal.

This denotes the film or program may contain graphic scenes of rape and/or other forms of sexual assault, depicted in a realistic and often violent, but fictional nature. Any program that contains such content is not likely suitable for anyone under the age of 18, or anyone who objects to and/or is uncomfortable with visual depictions of sexual abuse. The use of this content descriptor is fairly rare, and is strictly exclusive to films that are rated "R" or television series rated "TV-MA". The "RP" descriptor is often used with the "SSC" descriptor.

***** ⦵⦵

Top 10 Phobia List
1. Fear of Spiders – Arachnophobia
2. Fear of Snakes – Ophidiophobia
3. Fear of Heights – Acrophobia
4. Fear of Open Spaces – Agoraphobia
5. Fear of Dogs – Cynophobia
6. Fear of Thunderstorms – Astraphobia
7. Fear of Small Spaces – Claustrophobia
8. Fear of Germs – Mysophobia
9. Fear of Flying – Aerophobia
10. Fear of Holes – Trypophobia

***** ⦵⦵

Phobia's are pretty clearly defined:

Phobia, an extreme, irrational fear of a specific object or situation. A phobia is classified as a type of anxiety disorder, since anxiety is the chief symptom experienced by the sufferer. Phobias are thought to be learned emotional responses. ... Psychotherapy may also be useful in the treatment of phobias.

***** ⦵⦵

I've never seen it in the guide but I have been hearing people quoting this rule recently. I think it grew on it's own legs. And grew out of pregens should be selected in the tiers after the tier level is selected.

Just as mentioned above. If you are playing a tier 1 to 5 and the actual characters are in the 1 to 3 range, 4th level pregens shouldn't be selected to bump up the scenario tier played.

***** ⦵⦵

If Paizo is going down the path of trigger warnings please put them in a separate "parental warnings" file. When I view scenario summaries I want to get excited and get a positive vibe not see a bunch of tags that create negative impressions.

Also, I would clearly define why/what a trigger warning is used for. For example I don't think homophobia deserves a tag. But some people are homophobic.

Personally I would highly recommend Paizo staff seek advice from a trained psychologist/psychiatrist and not leave it up to amateurs to figure it out.

***** ⦵⦵

The issue is no one is ever going to be happy. The Arachnid warning is used when exactly? I have a player in my region who gets creeped out by any picture that kinda looks like a spider. I don't think he'll be happy when there is no arachnid warning for a kinda looks like a spider picture.

I have several friends who died form alchohol related incidents. I don't like being reminded of alcohol but I can deal with it. Can we get a alcohol/Bar tag?

I mean where would you draw a line and make eveyone happy? You can't.

Ho do people with extreme triggers watch TV or movies? Are there really arachnid warnings avalialbe on the internet somewhere?

***** ⦵⦵

Honestly if someone has traumatic triggers that are outside a normal person in society they should check with the GM before play begins.

***** ⦵⦵

Bob Jonquet wrote:
That may be true, but we are just volunteers for the OPF and have no say in what the incentives are. All we can do is manage the resources available to us as efficiently as possible.

I don’t think it’s too late. The event is in August.

You essentially went from a model where the supply and demand has changed. Decisions were based on being able to turn people away based on your set criteria. That is no longer the case and everything should be re-evaluated.

A few brainstorming ideas. Most would require Paizo itself to step up it’s game.

Let them know things are not working the same in the past - the volunteer situation to meet demand is now broken.

Send an email to GM's from the past few years appreciating their time and asking for much needed help.

Allow PF1 Only GMs to run their choice of slots based on all past criteria. (but not the tier-1 gm’s) Communicate this via email to past Gencon GM’s. Your current official stance is we will accommodate this but we are not communicating it. change the volunteer form to communicate the change

Have Slot 0 Convention special & PF2 games either the day before Gencon or weekend before at different locals through VO’s. But only if a certain criteria is made.

Provide PF2 GM’s a shortened condensed pre-print manuscript version of the rules under a NDA weeks before gencon to allow GMs more time to familiarize themselves with the rules. (Learning 300+ pages of rules in less then 2 weeks is daunting and overwhelming).

Some kind of future redeemable prize and special recognition for being the “first to the PF2 party” for GM”s who are willing to spend many, many, hours digesting new rules in a very short period of time.

***** ⦵⦵

Bob Jonquet wrote:
roysier wrote:
Considering we have an extreme shortage of 2E GMs as well, its not as "hilarious" as you would think. Had we allowed the trend of 1E only GMs to continue, we would have had less than half of the 2E/SFS events that are listed and someone would be complaining about more of those. Its easy to say we woulda, coulda, shoulda, in hindsight now that ticket sales are indicating demand. Its another thing entirely to try and predict it in advance. And given that this is the lowest volunteer turnout in the past four years, our options are limited. So the solution is clear, if we want more games, we need more GMs. Period.

I don't know, if it's important enough and people are'n't volunteering it might be time to up the ante and make it more appealing. What worked in the past is now longer working.

***** ⦵⦵

Hilarious, someone decided they needed more PF2 judges and decided to cut off people who wanted to run PF1 only for whatever reason. Now there is an extreme shortage of PF1 judges. Sounds pretty self imposed to me.

***** ⦵⦵

James Anderson wrote:
Our notorious Captain Sempet.... doesn't have Profession Sailor.

It's an imposter he also has ten fingers.

***** ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Corps is a great title. But it should be corpses.

I would suggest Press corp in Karlsgard now that would be a twist.

***** ⦵⦵

In my area when D&D 4e stopped putting out scenarios for their organized play society, it went on for another 2 years before the organized play stopped.

***** ⦵⦵

+1 Love the tier 18 scenarios. That means I get to pull out my Twisted level 18 Dark Tapestry oracle once more.

***** ⦵⦵

Robert Hetherington wrote:
Thank you all for helping dispel my 7/10th of my confusion.

..Obviously he regenerated those lost fingers using divine magic to avoid being recognized.

***** ⦵⦵

Part-2 is a great section but it will run longer then 4.5 hours. I ran it and played it. Both times it took around 6 to 7 hours.

Part-3 if well prepped can be done in 4.5 hours.

***** ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are other things I do. Such as when the players are sorting out who is taking what role in the ship I'm writing down DC's to accomplish the probable star ship crew actions. (Restoring shields, evade roll, re-balancing shields, etc.)

If the players are moving first I'm rolling my science officers re-balance roll. If it's failed it'a already done with it. If it succeeds I move my ship and see which side end up facing the players and re balance shields in that direction.

As soon as I see the players are not doing something tricky with their movement such as trying to move right in from on my ship I roll evade. Since I'm doing that action 95% of the time anyway.

***** ⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In this case the 4 players and myself have all played 20+ starship combats. The exact same crew just went through another starship combat at the start of the adventure.

I speed things along by trusting the players are being truthful on what they are doing and I make my rolls while they are moving their ship or talking among themselves. Basically listening to what they are doing without looking at what they are doing and deciding and rolling for my guys at the same time. It helps when a player keeps the other players honest. I call engineering phase and we both do it at the same time. Not one then the other, I call gunnery phase and they roll while and determine results at the same time I'm rolling and determining results, etc.

***** ⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Roysier wrote:
The Starship combat lasted 5 battler rounds and about 20 minutes of real time.
You know I'm wondering if that's where a lot of the disconnect is coming from. Getting 5 mixed nuts geek sudukoed into their starship rolls usually takes longer than 10 minutes, much less doing 5 rounds of combat. A too short of a time for you has been a LOT longer for groups in my experience.

I already said that I understand that things can shift one way or the other easily. I think the fast healing vampire post portrayed the problem beautifully. This particular combat was more even then others due to the players were not min/maxed for Startship combat.

So, yeah I agree starship combat can be a super easy waste of time for one group and a long drawn out borefest for another due to the system being to hard to pin point a CR that works well for all groups.

This combat would have been over much faster with a 5th player being a 3rd gunner on the front arc gun.

Also, I'm known for the speed I run things due to being super well prepared. So real time is impacted by my GM style. I should have left that out 5 battle rounds should be the focus.

But I will stand by my statement that pairing a tier 8 Drake vs. a tier 6 bad guy ship is way to easy and should stop.

Having 2 turret guns in the tier 2 Drake is way too easy for tier 2 combats for experienced players but maybe it's needed for beginners.

I also believe if the players are having a s$$%ty time due to a 2 hour Starship Combat the GM is at fault. That combat should have been called long ago and the players given a victory.

***** ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
roysier wrote:
My point is the new tier 2 Drake is overpowered with 2 turret guns and a foreward gun. You have a tier 2 ship averaging 23.5 points of damage a round. There are tier 2 ships who max in their forward arc doing 24 points if all dice are rolled max. That's the problem. I'll count up damage dealt and taken in next weeks Starship combat.looking at the enemy ship I know the damage will be less then 50% of the tier 2 drake. Probably around 35% of the damage output.

Following up on this post.

After action report. Spoiler for Book 1 of Against the Aeon Throne.

Roysier’s Starship Troopers vs. Azlanti Star Empire


This is the tier 2 starship combat in Against the Aeon Throne - book 1

The new tier 2 Drake with 4 players vs. a tier 2 Vanguard Voidsweeper.

The Starship combat lasted 5 battler rounds and about 20 minutes of real time.

The tier 2 Drake, averaged 21.6 points of damage a round against 20 total shield points on enemy ship

The Azlanti Vanguard sweeper, averaged 16.2 points of damage a round against 40 total shield points on enemy ship.

The players New tier 2 Drake took some hull damage but did not reach a critical threshold.

The players lost 4 out of 5 pilot rolls. The Drake was only using turret weapons so facing only mattered for which side was hit.

First round player actions; Science officer Scanned, Captain successfully Taunted the helm phase, pilot, and 1 turret gunner.

Round 2 through 5 player actions; Pilot, Engineer, and 2 gunners manning the 2 turret weapons.

***** ⦵⦵

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Getting enjoyment out of the game in a different way is okay. Even when I disagree with you, I think you have very interesting points to make.

Same with Roysier, by the way.

Roysier, if you are still reading this, I do hope you can figure out a way of balancing things for yourself so that you can keep enjoying your GMing. We need great GMs to be able to love what they are doing, because it will be a loss to your community and to all of us if you decide that you can no longer GM.


I'm still here. Enjoying reading everyone else's' comments. I can see why things can tip so easily one way or another. I also see why some characters are simply left out with no role to play as given in the Solarian example in a previous post. The solution seems pretty simple. Allow a new starship roll "assistant" that Role can assist any other crew nember.

I started playing a different sci-fi role playing game but am still playing SFS also. I'll play them both for a few months and see where I fall.

Thanks for the compliment and it was nice meeting you at Gencon.


***** ⦵⦵

Thursty, have you though about changing scenario design so that starship combat might be the best option but not the only option for the players. (Starship encounters seem to take less then a page of space so scenario word count wouldn't be a big issue).

Things like players have to accomplish 3 of 4 goals and one of those is a starship combat. Or players are on a 12 hour time limit going around the sector with the enemy starship takes up 3 hours instead of 1 hour by going through it, etc.

I've played but haven't run all the scenarios. The only scenario I know of where Starship Combat is a players option is in the Special. One of the early scenarios the one with the drugged up rich kid I know starship combat happens if the players fail a lot of skill checks but it's not really a player's option.

***** ⦵⦵

I'm glad I opened this discussion. I might have missed something before, but it's the first time I've seen people being really honest about how things are going on this subject.

***** ⦵⦵

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kevin Willis wrote:


1. Engineer uses Overpower to charge weapons, gives Science Officer a +2 bonus, and boosts shields/engines as needed.

Boosting the weapons is terrible and has almost negative scaling. As ship die damages increase the odds of getting a 1 drop, as does the effect of getting one more point of damage. If you need shields and engines for some reason its worth it, but the damage boost is minimal.

2. Pilot moves as normal.
3. Science Officer uses Lock On (with +2 bonus from Engineer) to give gunners a +2 bonus on all attacks this round.
4. Captain uses Encourage or Demand (depending on skills) for the check on the biggest gun.
5. The best gunner fires a Broadside (-2 from Broadside, +2 from Lock On cancel out) and uses all the nodes available (one per check) and the Captain bonus (on the big gun) to wreck the enemy.

The problem there is that the best gunner is probably either the engineer (dex int skill guy) the captain (charisma dex skill guy) the pilot (dex something guy). With the paradigm presented in the book, that i see a lot of people go with, someone thats a good captain becomes the captain even if they'd be a better gunner than the gunner. By 6th level almost everyone can assist the gunner on a 1 . which is no big loss compared to +4 on 1 round and +2 on every other round.

After 6 when your weapons can reliably punch through even max shields, you don't need to fly around to hit the same quadrant it isn't nearly as important to keep up fire on the same quadrant.

2-3 rounds sounds right for spaceship combat. It takes more setup than most other combats.

Nice, looks like this would also be a good strategy for the bad guys. If the players don't know it maybe it will even the odds a bit.

***** ⦵⦵

For the players if you find yourself in a ship that outguns the enemy (which is almost always) and you move first in piloting if you can move right in front the the enemy's facing and point right at it (face to face) is a great tactic. The enemy must always move 1 square forward before turning.

This forces the enemy to stay there and fire in the face to face arc (which it will lose due to player ships overwhelming fire power) or force it to try a maneuver other then evade which could cause it to move right through your square and let the players get an AOO on it.

And I would add if the bad guys have a crappy pilot and is having problems making maneuver rolls you may even want to move first if you can get into this position.

1 to 50 of 729 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>