Ask Gallant James S., Enduring Owen and Beloved Rob your Starfinder Questions Here!

[Anguish]

I'm not going to get into this deep as all of these discussions/arguments have been had before.

Malwing wrote:

1) Action economy is punishing to martials.

I've always believed that's a load of hooey. First of all, ranged martials are perfectly happy with the current action economy. Like casters, they just stand in the back and hurl problems at the enemy. It's mostly an issue with the move vs full-attack decision. Which isn't a decision very often, truthfully. Once you've engaged, you're usually good to go.

Quote:

2) Magic and how it works is overtly pervasive.

Here's the big one, and the main reason I'm replying. First, psionics is nothing like Spheres of Power. It's effectively a drop-in replacement for vancian casting that is very, very equivalent. It's not that every spell has an identical counterpart, but the key complaint about Pathfinder magic is that casters have WAY more narrative impacting abilities available because... magic. Well, psionics is the same. SoP dramatically reduces the breadth of what a given caster can do, cutting back their narrative impact.

Second, THAT'S what I love about Pathfinder. The guy who just wants to chew on pretzels and drink beer can play a barbarian and "I Power Attack, Full Attack" every round. The guy who wants to bend the world can play a more advanced class with abilities that do that.

It's rare to find a game where an advanced, experienced, motivated player can play at the same time as a casual beginner who is just there to hang out with the guys.

Martial/Caster Disparity is a feature, not a bug.

Quote:

3) Christmas Tree effect.

Meh. This is purely aesthetics. Spend 60% of your wealth on the big six and 40% on whatever fluff stuff you wish you could spend it all on. Pretend that 60% of your wealth-by-level is an automatic bonus progression. Done.

Quote:

4) Too many minute rules stacking.

Again, one of the big reasons I play the game. I don't want "advantage/disadvantage". I want a party of four characters who can each contribute a handful of different abilities that all stack up to get the job done in an amazing way.

Sure, it's slow, but what's the rush?

Quote:

5) Feats suck too often.

Well, yeah. I won't dispute that. Endurance as a prerequisite for anything, least of all something as reasonably powered as Diehard is a head-scratcher. But I get it. When those two were written in 3.0, there were very, very few good feats, so the developers were cautious. I'd take Iron Will and Great Fortitude over that pair any day, because you know you'll make a billion saving throws in your career, but be force-marched not at all, and below 0 but not dead only rarely. Meh.

I'd be okay with an optional system, not unlike the revised action economy, that rebalances feat requirements. That way statblocks would still be valid, unless a DM feels like doing the work to revisit them.

Anyway, I'm not going to drag this off-topic any further. I will read anything you care to reply with, but I probably won't clutter this up more.

[Sundakan]

Anguish wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

If it's different enough you might like the new game better than Numenera, no?

I mean, I take your point that you'd like a Scifi game created (pretty much) from the PF rules. But if that doesn't happen, it doesn't follow that you won't like the resultant game does it?

For the sake of conversation, no. That's just not how I work. Once I've found a restaurant or two I like, that's where I go. Once I've found a meal or two I like, that's what I order. Once I've found a set of toppings I like, that's what I put on it. But again, that's me.

But another point I've made elsewhere that links in, almost-compatibility is bad (for me) in another way. There are still differences from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder that the elders in my group occasionally stumble on. I almost never think of non-lethal as subdual damage anymore (a 3.0-ism), but we still struggle to remember that silence is now a one-round casting. I get it that change was made for balance purposes, but since the vast, vast majority of spells are Standard actions and that one used to be, it's difficult to unlearn what we used to KNOW was true. Some things, like changes to Power Attack or grapple rules are easy, because they're completely different. Small changes are... painful.

In closing, some of us play Pathfinder not despite its design idiosyncrasies but because of them.

So play Pathfinder. In space.

You don't need two game systems catered to you. Especially when in the process it will be a single game system with two different names slapped on the cover.

[2ndGenerationCleric]

I have a question for you guys: What are the odds of seeing a class similar to spiritualist, or summoner, with a machine for the companion? Or heck, a class with robot companions instead of animal companions? Or an alien companion? Cause it could have a lot of potential. Will we see something like that?

[Chris A Jackson]

As long as there are space pirates... I'm in!

[Torbyne]

Chris A Jackson wrote:

As long as there are space pirates... I'm in!

As long as the game has space and PCs there will be space pirates.

[Evan Tarlton]

Torbyne wrote:

Chris A Jackson wrote:

As long as there are space pirates... I'm in!

As long as the game has space and PCs there will be space pirates.

Murderhoboes IN SPACE!

[Naal]

djones wrote:

Cole Deschain wrote:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

I'm actually far more interested in what YOU ALL are interested in as your favorite space-magic groove.

Dune.(Bene Gesserit, Tleilaxu, Ixians...)

I liked the Dark Space setting for SpaceMaster/Rolemaster

Perhaps the only setting where you could buy church-approved tentacles.

[Malwing]

@Anguish: My main point was that even with 'cleaning up' some of the top percieved problems wouldn't really make it less of a d20 system.

That said I'm a bit torn between how different I think it should be and how similar it should be. If it has more tech then Pathfinder then we're already well on our way. If it's too similar, to the point where it might as well be 'Space Adventures' then I'd take it and would be able to use it more easily, but really I'm already doing Space Pathfinder right now. Having a totally new line is somewhat unnecessary, especially if we're just going to throw it into Golarion's future. The only real difference is that they can print something without fear that it will show up in PFS. But since we got confirmation that something will be different about AC, and my consolidation theory, I think something will happen differently while still conforming to basically being a d20 system and the basics stay the same. While I desire it to be a d20 game that's different from Pathfinder I also fear losing the third party material that I already have so that's a downside if conversion is too much of a pain in the butt. I'd rather just get new books than have to write up a bunch of conversion guides.

On the subject of the thread:

What do you expect the playtest to look like? As in, what kind of feedback would you be searching for? Basically for anyone involved, what format should playtest reports come in?

[williamoak]

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

I'm actually far more interested in what YOU ALL are interested in as your favorite space-magic groove.

This may be a bit late, but I cant help myself:

-Priests of mars, lords of mars, gods of mars (Graham Mcneill):
The 40k universe is a marvelous mix of technology, "magic", and technology so advanced it may as well be magic. If there is a class/archetype based on the 40k techpriest, I am sure to play it to death. Other 40k books I think fit well:
-Anything by Sandy Mitchell (of CIAPHAS CAIN: HERO OF THE IMPERIUM fame)
-The eisenhorn series (Dan abnett) is also a good techno-scifi mix.

-The X-wing novel series (Micheal Stackpole, Aaron alston): I would love to see a way to do the fighter pilots trope in a game.

That's all i can tink of for now, but I shall return with more!

[MMCJawa]

Anguish wrote:

I think the only way I'll really get disappointed with Starfinder is if they kind of don't repeat the mistakes from 3.5/Pathfinder.

I've said it elsewhere; if I wanted to play not-Pathfinder, there are a LOT of systems I could choose from. I don't play Pathfinder because of the setting. I play it because of the rules.

The more "cleaning up" that is done, the less compatible with the 3.x family of rules the system will be, and the less utility it will have to me.

Frankly, if Starfinder doesn't end up a reskinned Pathfinder (and I expect it absolutely will won't), it will not be a game for me. I'm okay with equivalencies, such as how Dreamscarred's psionics is completely equivalent magic but using a different mechanical system. But if say... a bunch of things are done to change how attacks of opportunity, or combat maneuvers, or the action economy works, well, pass.

Numenara is already on my shelf if I wanted to play a modern setting that isn't Pathfinder.

Oh, and yes, I get it that different people want different things. That's why I'm posting this.

I wouldn't phrase it the same way as anguish (and I don't care about 3.5 compatability), but I also want a game that isn't varying all that far from baseline Pathfinder. I think a science fiction space fantasy type setting just has rule elements that are either absent or severely modified from the default state of expectations for a fantasy game. Skills are different, vehicle type rules are much more important as is movement in 3D, powerful tech is present and available, people are most shooting at one another with guns versus getting into close combat, etc.

So I want only enough modification of the rules for this stuff to make sense.

As for caster-martial disparity, to me at least it's not really a feature of the types of setting I am hoping to pull off, if only because magic tends to be less prevalent than in fantasy (Jedi Knights, Telepaths and Technomages from Babylon 5, etc.) I am hoping it will correct this issue, but mostly just by having completely new classes and avoiding any sort of 9th level caster shenanigans. Given that they are starting from scratch on the classes I don't see this as being too big a pitfall.

[NenkotaMoon]

While we are at this, maybe some Dead Space style technology. If anything, that was what initially pulled me into sci-fi. That and maybe Alien and Aliens. Any Space stuff that is in the theme of being g mix of industrial and dirty while also having a sort of clean to it.

[thaX]

Has anyone mentioned Battlestar Galactica as an influence?

The old one, not the new.

[Aranna]

I have a question; Will you guys be doing a developers Blog? So we can follow along with the state of the game as you guys finish it?

[PathlessBeth]

Sundakan wrote:

Anguish wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

If it's different enough you might like the new game better than Numenera, no?

I mean, I take your point that you'd like a Scifi game created (pretty much) from the PF rules. But if that doesn't happen, it doesn't follow that you won't like the resultant game does it?

For the sake of conversation, no. That's just not how I work. Once I've found a restaurant or two I like, that's where I go. Once I've found a meal or two I like, that's what I order. Once I've found a set of toppings I like, that's what I put on it. But again, that's me.

But another point I've made elsewhere that links in, almost-compatibility is bad (for me) in another way. There are still differences from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder that the elders in my group occasionally stumble on. I almost never think of non-lethal as subdual damage anymore (a 3.0-ism), but we still struggle to remember that silence is now a one-round casting. I get it that change was made for balance purposes, but since the vast, vast majority of spells are Standard actions and that one used to be, it's difficult to unlearn what we used to KNOW was true. Some things, like changes to Power Attack or grapple rules are easy, because they're completely different. Small changes are... painful.

In closing, some of us play Pathfinder not despite its design idiosyncrasies but because of them.

So play Pathfinder. In space.

You don't need two game systems catered to you. Especially when in the process it will be a single game system with two different names slapped on the cover.

I suspect that that is exactly what Anguish will do.

Either that, or they will switch to Starfinder and use it for everything (since despite Anguishes claim that they don't switch games, even if the changes are small, they did switch at least twice from 3.0 to 3.5 and then from 3.5 to Pathfinder. They might have switched more than that, if they went through all six editions of the Core Rulebook.) Given Anguishes stated "one system only" preference, they will probably either switch to SF exclusively (as they switched to PF in the past) or ignore SF completely and stay with PF.

The rest of us can play both SF and PF for different things, though:)

[IonutRO]

137ben wrote:

Sundakan wrote:

Anguish wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

If it's different enough you might like the new game better than Numenera, no?

I mean, I take your point that you'd like a Scifi game created (pretty much) from the PF rules. But if that doesn't happen, it doesn't follow that you won't like the resultant game does it?

For the sake of conversation, no. That's just not how I work. Once I've found a restaurant or two I like, that's where I go. Once I've found a meal or two I like, that's what I order. Once I've found a set of toppings I like, that's what I put on it. But again, that's me.

But another point I've made elsewhere that links in, almost-compatibility is bad (for me) in another way. There are still differences from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder that the elders in my group occasionally stumble on. I almost never think of non-lethal as subdual damage anymore (a 3.0-ism), but we still struggle to remember that silence is now a one-round casting. I get it that change was made for balance purposes, but since the vast, vast majority of spells are Standard actions and that one used to be, it's difficult to unlearn what we used to KNOW was true. Some things, like changes to Power Attack or grapple rules are easy, because they're completely different. Small changes are... painful.

In closing, some of us play Pathfinder not despite its design idiosyncrasies but because of them.

So play Pathfinder. In space.

You don't need two game systems catered to you. Especially when in the process it will be a single game system with two different names slapped on the cover.

I suspect that that is exactly what Anguish will do.

Either that, or they will switch to Starfinder and use it for everything (since despite Anguishes claim that they don't switch games, even if the changes are small, they did switch at least twice from 3.0 to 3.5 and then from 3.5 to Pathfinder. They might have switched more than that, if they...

I think what he meant was that he didn't want to switch from the d20 system that OGC uses because it's a system that he's familiar with it already, and specifically that the Pathfinder version of that system (with how it handles maneuvers, class skills, etc) is just the best version of that system.

[Owen KC Stephens]

2ndGenerationCleric wrote:

I have a question for you guys: What are the odds of seeing a class similar to spiritualist, or summoner, with a machine for the companion? Or heck, a class with robot companions instead of animal companions? Or an alien companion? Cause it could have a lot of potential. Will we see something like that?

We're not revealing any new info about classes right now, but that's certainly an interesting idea.

[Owen KC Stephens]

Aranna wrote:

I have a question; Will you guys be doing a developers Blog? So we can follow along with the state of the game as you guys finish it?

We may do something like that later, but at the stage we are at, and with gen con looming, and with the schedule dsigned to ensure none of this will negatively impact any Pathfinder RPG releases, now isn't likely the right time to start.

[Shisumo]

Owen KC Stephens wrote:

Aranna wrote:

I have a question; Will you guys be doing a developers Blog? So we can follow along with the state of the game as you guys finish it?

We may do something like that later, but at the stage we are at, and with gen con looking, and with the schedule dsigned to ensure none of this will negatively impact any Pathfinder RPG releases, now isn't likely the right time to start.

I know you haven't done much like this in the past, but especially in the absence of a public playtest, I would dearly love this kind of insight into the game as it's coming along.

[Sundakan]

Owen KC Stephens wrote:

2ndGenerationCleric wrote:

I have a question for you guys: What are the odds of seeing a class similar to spiritualist, or summoner, with a machine for the companion? Or heck, a class with robot companions instead of animal companions? Or an alien companion? Cause it could have a lot of potential. Will we see something like that?

We're not revealing any new info about classes right now, but that's certainly an interesting idea.

Works pretty well for the Mechamage.

(If anyone's curious, it's from Thunderscape: World of Aden. Solid 3pp campaign setting book for Pathfinder.)

[ThePuppyTurtle]

If you intend to lump what is basically the core rulebook, bestiary, and Inner Sea World guide into one core rulebook, do you expect that core rulebook to be significantly longer than Pathfinder's?

[2ndGenerationCleric]

Owen KC Stephens wrote:

2ndGenerationCleric wrote:

I have a question for you guys: What are the odds of seeing a class similar to spiritualist, or summoner, with a machine for the companion? Or heck, a class with robot companions instead of animal companions? Or an alien companion? Cause it could have a lot of potential. Will we see something like that?

We're not revealing any new info about classes right now, but that's certainly an interesting idea.

If it's interesting enough that you want to bring a fresh mind in on the design team, you know who to message ;D

[nomotog]

I did a quick searched and apparently no one asked, but will starfinder be SRD content?

Also I am wondering how different starfinder will be then pathfinder. Like will it just be pathfinder with new paint or are you planing on tinkering with core systems?

[Owen K. C. Stephens]

2ndGenerationCleric wrote:

Owen KC Stephens wrote:

2ndGenerationCleric wrote:

I have a question for you guys: What are the odds of seeing a class similar to spiritualist, or summoner, with a machine for the companion? Or heck, a class with robot companions instead of animal companions? Or an alien companion? Cause it could have a lot of potential. Will we see something like that?

We're not revealing any new info about classes right now, but that's certainly an interesting idea.

If it's interesting enough that you want to bring a fresh mind in on the design team, you know who to message ;D

We actually settled on all the classes weeks ago, we just aren't discussing them all yet.

[Sarcasm Dragon]

Will this game be TOO ANIME?!?

[Steve Geddes]

Is there any timeline on when details of the playtesting will be announced?

[Grey Lensman]

Sarcasm Dragon wrote:

Will this game be TOO ANIME?!?

I want to be a Knight of Sidonia!

Or maybe a Knight of Cydonia instead?

[Tyinyk]

I'm with Anguish here, though maybe not as vehemently. I'm fine with some minor tweaks to the system, but at it's heart I want it to be the same system as Pathfinder. If not, I probably won't be playing it.

[CoeusFreeze]

Will there be mythic support for this setting?

Likewise, what mistakes do you hope not to repeat from Pathfinder?

[Torbyne]

CoeusFreeze wrote:

Will there be mythic support for this setting?

Likewise, what mistakes do you hope not to repeat from Pathfinder?

Aren't those comments redundant to each other? ;P

[ulgulanoth]

Oh, question, will technomancers be a thing?

[IonutRO]

ulgulanoth wrote:

Oh, question, will technomancers be a thing?

They were already name dropped in the original announcement.

[ulgulanoth]

IonutRO wrote:

ulgulanoth wrote:

Oh, question, will technomancers be a thing?

They were already name dropped in the original announcement.

Hype!

[James Sutter]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Is there any timeline on when details of the playtesting will be announced?

Nothing I can commit to yet, but before the end of the summer.

[jedi8187]

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

2ndGenerationCleric wrote:

Owen KC Stephens wrote:

2ndGenerationCleric wrote:

I have a question for you guys: What are the odds of seeing a class similar to spiritualist, or summoner, with a machine for the companion? Or heck, a class with robot companions instead of animal companions? Or an alien companion? Cause it could have a lot of potential. Will we see something like that?

We're not revealing any new info about classes right now, but that's certainly an interesting idea.

If it's interesting enough that you want to bring a fresh mind in on the design team, you know who to message ;D

We actually settled on all the classes weeks ago, we just aren't discussing them all yet.

Any idea when you will be discussing them?

[Steve Geddes]

James Sutter wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Is there any timeline on when details of the playtesting will be announced?

Nothing I can commit to yet, but before the end of the summer.

Cheers. That's specific enough for me.

[illumina3]

Oh goodness gracious, how have I not seen this earlier?

This looks like a fantastic idea. What can we do to help contribute to this? Are you accepting idea pitches and suggestions I assume?

[James Sutter]

illumina3 wrote:

Are you accepting idea pitches and suggestions I assume?

If you're talking about actually writing products, the answer is no—open submissions, even just ideas, require really time-intensive sifting processes, and can end up in weird legal limbo if you're not careful. So for now all Starfinder writing is invite-only. But you're welcome to post suggestions for the types of things you want to see on the boards, so that we know what you're into!

[Lord Fyre]

James Sutter wrote:

illumina3 wrote:

Are you accepting idea pitches and suggestions I assume?

If you're talking about actually writing products, the answer is no—open submissions, even just ideas, require really time-intensive sifting processes, and can end up in weird legal limbo if you're not careful. So for now all Starfinder writing is invite-only. But you're welcome to post suggestions for the types of things you want to see on the boards, so that we know what you're into!

In your opinion, is there a role for a Sci-Fi parallel to the Wayfinder?

[Prophet of Doom]

What's the publication schedule look like, and are you going to be cutting back on Pathfinder publications I'm kind of at the max on how many monthly items I want to subscribe to right now.

[jedi8187]

Prophet of Doom wrote:

What's the publication schedule look like, and are you going to be cutting back on Pathfinder publications I'm kind of at the max on how many monthly items I want to subscribe to right now.

It's been said that the Pathfinder will not be impacted by Starfinder. The Starfinder line itself will be the core book and an adventure path series that will feature most new content, although they've said a few hardcovers may pop up from time to time. THat is unless Starfinder is successful, in which case they will add more to the line.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

Lord Fyre wrote:

In your opinion, is there a role for a Sci-Fi parallel to the Wayfinder?

I am not Tim or Paris, editors in chief for Wayfinder, but they usually wait a bit to make sure the material has been in front of GMs and players before doing a themed-issue about it. I imagine a Starfinder-themed issue of Wayfinder will see the light eventually (assuming Tim, Paris, Dain, and Garrett don't succumb to exhaustion and/or madness first).

That said, right now, there is an open call for submissions for the next issue, which is Iron Gods-themed. Probably a bunch of stuff that'd fit in there could also work in Starfinder if you plan ahead, so I'd submit if you have the time and an idea(s) you are passionate about. Just be sure to read the submission guidelines in Tim's opening post and turn in your most polished, professional work. And if you do submit, good luck. :)

That said, I've gotten glimpses here and there about the massive amount of time, effort, and dedication that the core team puts into each issue... a Starfinder fanzine like Wayfinder would be a huge responsibility.

[lucky7]

Have any of you read "Dune?"

[Abraham spalding]

While there are plenty of others an irregular at magic high and a certain magical index (and its sister a certtian scientific railgun) are interesting places to look for gaps and melding of magic and tech.

Also I have seen and liked settings where magic is tied to land. the further in space the weaker the background magic. Magic batteries travel.

[Owen K. C. Stephens]

lucky7 wrote:

Have any of you read "Dune?"

All the Frank Herbert books, though none of those by others.

And only the first four multiple times.
They were actually a huge influence on my longest-running D&D campaign. :)

[Owen K. C. Stephens]

jedi8187 wrote:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

2ndGenerationCleric wrote:

Owen KC Stephens wrote:

2ndGenerationCleric wrote:

I have a question for you guys: What are the odds of seeing a class similar to spiritualist, or summoner, with a machine for the companion? Or heck, a class with robot companions instead of animal companions? Or an alien companion? Cause it could have a lot of potential. Will we see something like that?

We're not revealing any new info about classes right now, but that's certainly an interesting idea.

If it's interesting enough that you want to bring a fresh mind in on the design team, you know who to message ;D

We actually settled on all the classes weeks ago, we just aren't discussing them all yet.

Any idea when you will be discussing them?

Internally, we have an idea. But that isn't firm enough for us to want to talk about when that might be, since we're not yet sure we're right.

So, not to be too reductive, we're not yet ready to talk about when we may begin talking about the things we're not yet ready to talk about.

[Owen K. C. Stephens]

CoeusFreeze wrote:

Likewise, what mistakes do you hope not to repeat from Pathfinder?

What mistakes do I HOPE we don't repeat from Pathfinder?

All of them.

[Vic Wertz]

So you're saying that you're thinking about when you might be able to talk about when you can begin talking about the things you're thinking about?

[Owen K. C. Stephens]

Vic Wertz wrote:

So you're saying that you're thinking about when you might be able to talk about when you can begin talking about the things you're thinking about?

No, I'm not SAYING that, since we aren't ready to say when we are ready to think about when we'll be ready to say things.

:)

[Luthorne]

Hmm, some books I think would be interesting influences...

Piers Anthony's Cluster/Tarot series is certainly trippy, but involves some intriguing concepts, such as an advanced technology for cheaper faster-than-light travel involving projecting your mind into the body of a native's, rather than traveling there physically. Of course, we do have the Ythians with a similar conceit, but it would be interesting if the technology (or magitechnology) to perform similar deeds was available elsewhere, perhaps even acquired via trade by the ythians themselves? Though speaking of Piers Anthony, Prostho Plus is an immensely amusing space opera featuring dentist adventures...in spaaaaaaace.

Robert Asprin's Myth Adventure series. Probably less pun-filled, but it had a fun combination of magic and science fiction, and I can imagine some sort of marketplace demiplane that some alien races utilize for trading ala Deva. (Though mercanes do exist...perhaps they've become more important? Though there are also the witchwyrds already...) Hmm, if 'hyperspace' is a plane that can only be entered via technology, will technology allow access to other planes? Will some planes remain only accessible via magic? I can imagine the outer planes being only accessible via magic, while the inner and transitive planes are mostly available via both, though one wonders if 'hyperspace' is the only plane that's only accessible via technology, or if it's just the only one discovered at the time this takes place...?

Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan books, while very much science fiction, tackled issues regarding artificial wombs, body modification, genetic engineering, and the many other advents of technology, many of which I would like to see being possible and included where possible, in particular the various cultures' attitudes towards these technologies and their use, as well as magical variants. Though, of course, this does depend on the level of technology, but having base prices for biosculpting, gender reassignment, and similar things would certainly be nice. Also I would love to have there be a society similar to Cetaganda...whether human or not.

I think a demiplane similar to Jack L. Chalker's Well World would also be fascinating...perhaps a way to tie in the Elohim? That's actually something I would love to see, tying in races like the Anunnaki, Elohim, and perhaps even the Greys to the setting and what their roles are. I think a hypothetical Well World demiplane would make a good candidate for another dimension only reachable by technology, perhaps...?

Alan Dean Foster's Humanx Commonwealth series is definitely a fun source of inspiration with the wide variety of various worlds and races; I'd definitely love it if races like the AAan and the Thranx were included. Glory Lane and The Taken trilogy are also good examples of what I'd like to see on the science fiction side of things...plenty of things on the normal scale of things, many strange races with their own peculiarities, but also strange, vast, and inscrutable events that straddle the cosmic scale.

Keith Laumer's Retief books are also a pretty good source of various alien cultures, even if they're satirical in nature...and an organization of diplomats who are from a powerful yet rather oblivious and tone-deaf alien race would be a fun addition. And his more well-known Bolo books would be interesting as inspiration for perhaps a race of rare but benevolent and honorable robots/constructs...though they'd probably also make good Inevitabes.

Anne McCaffrey's Brain & Brawn series paints an interesting universe, and I think it would certainly be interesting to have at least one race if not something that was available to many races where people would be integrated into a ship or city, running it as if it were their own body far better than most AIs could.

And speaking of Anne McCaffrey, her Talents universe, where powerful psychics use technology to augment their powers to enable faster-than-light travel would also be an interesting approach to explore, whether as a possible alternate option to hyperspace and plane shift, or something an alien race utilizes in place of it.

Timothy Zahn certainly has a lot of books I'd love to see influence from...his Quadrail series is quite interesting, and a mysterious intergalactic 'railway' could be a fun element, while his Conqueror's trilogy involves the possibilities of faster-than-light communication via anchored 'ghosts' (though it is explained as being a biological ability for the aliens involved) is also pretty fascinating...

Can't think of too much in the way of television in particular, though I do generally enjoy the exploration-oriented bits of Star Trek and Stargate SG-1. A fairly out-there potential inspiration would be Samurai Jack, with its bizarre combination of technology, demons, a samurai from the past, and a cyborg Scotsman.

Comic books like the DC and Marvel universes certainly have a lot of alien races and interesting interactions on the interstellar level, with various shapeshifters and alien insect queens and what have you. And I definitely expect to see Hellworlds ala Apokolips, since we know that Hell has had its way on some worlds and taken them over, outposts of Hell in the material plane thanks to the effort of malebranches, which frankly sounds fascinating as antagonistic entities. I'd especially love one or more hellworlds that seem superficially to be utopias, taken over by particularly devious malebranches.

[Protean Milkshake]

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Internally, we have an idea. But that isn't firm enough for us to want to talk about when that might be, since we're not yet sure we're right.

So, not to be too reductive, we're not yet ready to talk about when we may begin talking about the things we're not yet ready to talk about.

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

So you're saying that you're thinking about when you might be able to talk about when you can begin talking about the things you're thinking about?

No, I'm not SAYING that, since we aren't ready to say when we are ready to think about when we'll be ready to say things.

:)

Ow. Reading this is like having a dictum-empowered trepanation. :)