|
I wanted to know what kind of space setting this was going to be, 'cause I was actually mulling over making a Star Wars adventure for my group, but now that I know this is coming out, I'm thinking about putting the brakes on my project until I know more about it. Because I've seen my fair share of awkward, clunky, downright bad space settings for RPGs and I got really excited about this project when I saw the announcement, but I hope it isn't going to be, like, Flash Gordon, or something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the focus on Absalom Station, it may be closer to Babylon 5 or Deep Space 9.
A science fiction setting with the feel of Flash Gordon would be 100 kinds of AWESOME!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that they're interacting with 3pp to some extent, and how Pathfinder functions I think at the very least it will support what the main setting is and otherwise be able to be whatever the hell you want it to be. I mean look at Pathfinder. We're looking at the unveiling of a new RPG line as if it's a new and revolutionary thing for Pathfinder when all the pieces are already in place to do it to one extent or another with Pathfinder alone. Last year, we had a Kickstarter project effectively doing this very thing that successfully funded past a $50,000 price tag. If Starfinder is anywhere near as flexible as Pathfinder then you can play it as Firefly, Star Wars, Dune, Star Trek, Barsoom, Babylon 5, or what have you. In fact there's one d20 mecha book that could potentially fall in that lets you go to Gurren Lagaan levels of insanity.
They did mention that it will be closer to Star Wars than Star Trek, with technology being a bit more "rusted" than slick and smoothly working.
:(
I quite like Star Trek.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the designers like star trek a lot also, and my paraphrasing may have lost some details, but I think they were getting at the fact that you'll have a ship more like the Millennium Falcon which is a bit cobbled together, has a handful of rooms/modules, and doesn't always work as smoothly as you want, and less like the Enterprise which has everything you can imagine, and is all glossy slick and clean.
There was still talk about the system handling and including capital ships, but there's still a big difference in feel between a star destroyer and the Enterprise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the designers like star trek a lot also, and my paraphrasing may have lost some details, but I think they were getting at the fact that you'll have a ship more like the Millennium Falcon which is a bit cobbled together, has a handful of rooms/modules, and doesn't always work as smoothly as you want, and less like the Enterprise which has everything you can imagine, and is all glossy slick and clean.
And the PCs are unlikely to be the commanders of a ship with hundreds of crew-members.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the designers like star trek a lot also, and my paraphrasing may have lost some details, but I think they were getting at the fact that you'll have a ship more like the Millennium Falcon which is a bit cobbled together, has a handful of rooms/modules, and doesn't always work as smoothly as you want, and less like the Enterprise which has everything you can imagine, and is all glossy slick and clean.And the PCs are unlikely to be the commanders of a ship with hundreds of crew-members.
Once they hit mid level, just give them all the Leadership feat. Their cohorts are the 2nd or 3rd shift bridge officers and the followers are the crew. Security has security followers, the Doctor has nurses and other doctors and psychiatrists, Chief engineer has swarms of engineers.....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the designers like star trek a lot also, and my paraphrasing may have lost some details, but I think they were getting at the fact that you'll have a ship more like the Millennium Falcon which is a bit cobbled together, has a handful of rooms/modules, and doesn't always work as smoothly as you want, and less like the Enterprise which has everything you can imagine, and is all glossy slick and clean.And the PCs are unlikely to be the commanders of a ship with hundreds of crew-members.
At least starting out. Gotta work your way to that :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that they're interacting with 3pp to some extent, and how Pathfinder functions I think at the very least it will support what the main setting is and otherwise be able to be whatever the hell you want it to be. I mean look at Pathfinder. We're looking at the unveiling of a new RPG line as if it's a new and revolutionary thing for Pathfinder when all the pieces are already in place to do it to one extent or another with Pathfinder alone. Last year, we had a Kickstarter project effectively doing this very thing that successfully funded past a $50,000 price tag. If Starfinder is anywhere near as flexible as Pathfinder then you can play it as Firefly, Star Wars, Dune, Star Trek, Barsoom, Babylon 5, or what have you. In fact there's one d20 mecha book that could potentially fall in that lets you go to Gurren Lagaan levels of insanity.
Thanks. That's good to know. I really didn't think about that, the versatility of the game.
Once they hit mid level, just give them all the Leadership feat. Their cohorts are the 2nd or 3rd shift bridge officers and the followers are the crew. Security has security followers, the Doctor has nurses and other doctors and psychiatrists, Chief engineer has swarms of engineers.....I'm pretty sure the designers like star trek a lot also, and my paraphrasing may have lost some details, but I think they were getting at the fact that you'll have a ship more like the Millennium Falcon which is a bit cobbled together, has a handful of rooms/modules, and doesn't always work as smoothly as you want, and less like the Enterprise which has everything you can imagine, and is all glossy slick and clean.And the PCs are unlikely to be the commanders of a ship with hundreds of crew-members.
That is if Starfinder supports the Leadership Feat. Not a given ... (I am of the opinion that Starfinder is actually Pathfinder 1.5)
|
|
That is if Starfinder supports the Leadership Feat. Not a given ... (I am of the opinion that Starfinder is actually Pathfinder 1.5)Once they hit mid level, just give them all the Leadership feat. Their cohorts are the 2nd or 3rd shift bridge officers and the followers are the crew. Security has security followers, the Doctor has nurses and other doctors and psychiatrists, Chief engineer has swarms of engineers.....I'm pretty sure the designers like star trek a lot also, and my paraphrasing may have lost some details, but I think they were getting at the fact that you'll have a ship more like the Millennium Falcon which is a bit cobbled together, has a handful of rooms/modules, and doesn't always work as smoothly as you want, and less like the Enterprise which has everything you can imagine, and is all glossy slick and clean.And the PCs are unlikely to be the commanders of a ship with hundreds of crew-members.
Do you think they'll have something similar to the Leadership feat? Like, maybe you have levels in the leadership? So, you go from, say, corporal, and you work your way up to like Captain, Commander, Admiral, etc.?
.... There doesn't need to be a leadership feat for you to be able to have underlings, just have underlings.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I feel it's a mistake to go into this expecting Pathfinder 1.5. Rather, this should really just be here to add options for a science fiction/fantasy game, with some changes made to emulate the genre. Expecting this to be a new edition that overwrites the previous stuff with errata is just asking for disappointment. Not to mention it would split the fanbase. I can actually understand why they don't want a public playtest now.
This isn't the product to be championing Pathfinder 2e.
.... There doesn't need to be a leadership feat for you to be able to have underlings, just have underlings.
But then the joke of the crew being your followers isn't as funny. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think they'll have something similar to the Leadership feat? Like, maybe you have levels in the leadership? So, you go from, say, corporal, and you work your way up to like Captain, Commander, Admiral, etc.?That is if Starfinder supports the Leadership Feat. Not a given ... (I am of the opinion that Starfinder is actually Pathfinder 1.5)Once they hit mid level, just give them all the Leadership feat. Their cohorts are the 2nd or 3rd shift bridge officers and the followers are the crew. Security has security followers, the Doctor has nurses and other doctors and psychiatrists, Chief engineer has swarms of engineers.....I'm pretty sure the designers like star trek a lot also, and my paraphrasing may have lost some details, but I think they were getting at the fact that you'll have a ship more like the Millennium Falcon which is a bit cobbled together, has a handful of rooms/modules, and doesn't always work as smoothly as you want, and less like the Enterprise which has everything you can imagine, and is all glossy slick and clean.And the PCs are unlikely to be the commanders of a ship with hundreds of crew-members.
That would be sorta the way Ultimate Charisma works (great book).
I really have no clue if leadership is there, I just was amused by the idea of Kirk having leadership and the red-shirts are his followers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He'd get a lot of negative modifiers to Leadership if that were the case lol
|
|
.... There doesn't need to be a leadership feat for you to be able to have underlings, just have underlings.
OK, but if you get underlings at 1st level, you could call on them to soften up tough opposition. I find that overpowered. That way, you continually are going in for the final punch and getting the credit for the kill. And all your crew are dead or unconscious. And they still follow you around. And you don't lose any. Even when they realize that they're going headfirst into the danger, they still follow you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, but if you get underlings at 1st level, you could call on them to soften up tough opposition. I find that overpowered. That way, you continually are going in for the final punch and getting the credit for the kill. And all your crew are dead or unconscious. And they still follow you around. And you don't lose any. Even when they realize that they're going headfirst into the danger, they still follow you.
What idiot put a level 1 character in charge?
They should really handle henchmen like many of the retroclones do, especially Adventurer Conqueror King. There are still moral checks that are lowered due to doing stuff like letting them die. And if you have more people, you can throw tougher opponents at them. It really balances itself. It's not really as unbalanced as people believe.
|
There was still talk about the system handling and including capital ships, but there's still a big difference in feel between a star destroyer and the Enterprise.
Not the least of which is that an Imperial Star Destroyer houses 100,000 crew, over 100 TIE Fighters, multiple shuttles, and enough weaponry to liquefy a continent in an hour of bombardment.
The Enterprise D held 1014 people, including civilian families.
.... There doesn't need to be a leadership feat for you to be able to have underlings, just have underlings.OK, but if you get underlings at 1st level, you could call on them to soften up tough opposition. I find that overpowered. That way, you continually are going in for the final punch and getting the credit for the kill. And all your crew are dead or unconscious. And they still follow you around. And you don't lose any. Even when they realize that they're going headfirst into the danger, they still follow you.
I don't think the game can or will emulate that sort of thing except at very high level. Your party is probably going to be a lot closer to the crew of the Serenity or Moya at level 1.
I mean you wouldn't start out a Pathfinder game at first level with everyone in charge of an entire kingdom, including its armies/spellcasters/nobles/etc. Why would it be different for a science fiction game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I feel it's a mistake to go into this expecting Pathfinder 1.5. Rather, this should really just be here to add options for a science fiction/fantasy game, with some changes made to emulate the genre. Expecting this to be a new edition that overwrites the previous stuff with errata is just asking for disappointment. Not to mention it would split the fanbase. I can actually understand why they don't want a public playtest now.
This isn't the product to be championing Pathfinder 2e.
Yeah I have stated the same thing about starfinder a couple of times now. But then again people do this with like every book, take vague descriptions and decide that means the book is going to fix whatever specific problems they have that week with the game, and judge it poorly if it doesn't.
My favourite approach to followers in RPG's is to leave rules out if it entirely. Set up some base rates of monthly pay and let the DM and players sort it out through roleplay.
One thing I don't like about PF is that a mechanic is expected for every type of interaction. This makes things really start to bloat and it has a negative effect on storytelling flexibility. I hope Starfinder takes some cues from D&D 5e and leaves a more old school / open-ended style of play.
I think PF is constrained by the organized play PFS stuff which requires more consistency between groups. Do away with that and hopefully it allows for more flexibility from table to table.
My favourite approach to followers in RPG's is to leave rules out if it entirely. Set up some base rates of monthly pay and let the DM and players sort it out through roleplay.
One thing I don't like about PF is that a mechanic is expected for every type of interaction. This makes things really start to bloat and it has a negative effect on storytelling flexibility. I hope Starfinder takes some cues from D&D 5e and leaves a more old school / open-ended style of play.
I think PF is constrained by the organized play PFS stuff which requires more consistency between groups. Do away with that and hopefully it allows for more flexibility from table to table.
I don't hope this. Or at least not to 5e levels. I'm often caught with interactions with no basis for resolving in 5e and its fairly frustrating when the same option doesn't do the same thing between tables. There's some degree that Pathfinder could have more categories of interactions that are generalized with some kind of standard for resolution but I came away from D&D because I was struggling with the 'rules for everything' situation and then found myself spending years in a quagmire of indie games that might as well not have rules before I got to Pathfinder and other games that are specific but have enough codified interactions to have a real basis for resolving the interactions that they don't cover.
|
|
.... There doesn't need to be a leadership feat for you to be able to have underlings, just have underlings.OK, but if you get underlings at 1st level, you could call on them to soften up tough opposition. I find that overpowered. That way, you continually are going in for the final punch and getting the credit for the kill. And all your crew are dead or unconscious. And they still follow you around. And you don't lose any. Even when they realize that they're going headfirst into the danger, they still follow you.I don't think the game can or will emulate that sort of thing except at very high level. Your party is probably going to be a lot closer to the crew of the Serenity or Moya at level 1.
I mean you wouldn't start out a Pathfinder game at first level with everyone in charge of an entire kingdom, including its armies/spellcasters/nobles/etc. Why would it be different for a science fiction game.
True, true.
I assume it'll be most like Spelljammer.
I hope Starfinde will be different from Star Wars at least in one key point: The bottleneck of the Jedi/Force drama.
From a storytelling point, that´s actually a very terrible situation for RPGs, where you want to tell lots of different stories and people being able to tell their own stories. It´s also the main problem i have with the FFG SW game or similar games which play in the Skywalker Era, but it´s more a problem of the story than of the games system.
Starfinder doesn´t seem really suited for a Star Trek approach to me. Absalom space station indicates people have been in space for quite some time, they aren´t new spacefarers exploring the galaxy with fresh tech.
And somehow at some point that planet must have vanished. At least parts of the station must have existed at that time and parts of the population must have been in space or somewhere else. Or there has been some side effects. Can´t imagine the planet vanished leaving people and animals behind^^
I assume it'll be most like Spelljammer.
I doubt it. Spelljammer is less technological than what's been described so far. The descriptions seem to suggest at the most a 60%/40% tech/magic ratio. Also Absolam Station looks more like a techno-crystal sky palace than the old-timey and animal-based design in Spelljammer. I would say it would be at least closer to He-Man/Thundercats than Spelljammer.
|
|
Starfinder doesn´t seem really suited for a Star Trek approach to me. Absalom space station indicates people have been in space for quite some time, they aren´t new spacefarers exploring the galaxy with fresh tech.
Those aren't exclusive states. Golarion's races could have been kicking around the solar system - by the way, can we get a name for the system's primary, so we can call it something besides "Golarion's solar system"? - for centuries, but without FTL had no way to go beyond. Once the hyperspace dimension opens up, suddenly there's a galaxy full of planets to explore, even though space travel in-system is basically old hat.
I'm hoping for a setting to be able to make a world akin to eternia (he man series) or future earth (thundarr). Oh the possibilities.....
I assume it'll be most like Spelljammer.
From the write up from Paizo themselves, this is exactly what it sounds like.
It certainly does not read like a generic, modern SciFi game.
Personally, I would have preferred a modern ruleset, closer to d20 Modern Future.
You can make a Spelljammer thing out of existing materials with just a little work. You don't need a whole new division/edition to make that happen.
Oh well. I'm already hip deep in my own Pathfinder Modern mod, anyway, so I guess I'll just get back to it.
I assume it'll be most like Spelljammer.I doubt it. Spelljammer is less technological than what's been described so far. The descriptions seem to suggest at the most a 60%/40% tech/magic ratio. Also Absolam Station looks more like a techno-crystal sky palace than the old-timey and animal-based design in Spelljammer. I would say it would be at least closer to He-Man/Thundercats than Spelljammer.
No. It sounds like Spelljammer.
No doubt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping for a setting to be able to make a world akin to eternia (he man series) or future earth (thundarr). Oh the possibilities.....
You can do Thundarr The Barbarian right now with Iron Gods.
This makes me think so much of Firefly.... I mean, c'mon people!!!! They had their healer, the leader, the face, the murderhobo (Jayne), the psychic...etc. I call dibs on Wash...
This makes me think so much of Firefly.... I mean, c'mon people!!!! They had their healer, the leader, the face, the murderhobo (Jayne), the psychic...etc. I call dibs on Wash...
im a leaf on the wind....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping to see some elements of Alternity in there somewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This makes me think so much of Firefly.... I mean, c'mon people!!!! They had their healer, the leader, the face, the murderhobo (Jayne), the psychic...etc. I call dibs on Wash...Im a leaf on the wind....
Watch how I soar
I don't hope this. Or at least not to 5e levels. I'm often caught with interactions with no basis for resolving in 5e and its fairly frustrating when the same option doesn't do the same thing between tables. There's some degree that Pathfinder could have more categories of interactions that are generalized with some kind of standard for resolution but I came away from D&D because I was struggling with the 'rules for everything' situation and then found myself spending years in a quagmire of indie games that might as well not have rules before I got to Pathfinder and other games that are specific but have enough codified interactions to have a real basis for resolving the interactions that they don't cover.My favourite approach to followers in RPG's is to leave rules out if it entirely. Set up some base rates of monthly pay and let the DM and players sort it out through roleplay.
One thing I don't like about PF is that a mechanic is expected for every type of interaction. This makes things really start to bloat and it has a negative effect on storytelling flexibility. I hope Starfinder takes some cues from D&D 5e and leaves a more old school / open-ended style of play.
I think PF is constrained by the organized play PFS stuff which requires more consistency between groups. Do away with that and hopefully it allows for more flexibility from table to table.
Actually this issue is a major thing I wanted to fix, but you know what I found in studying the issue. That the rules expect one form use and players used it differently. Players seem to think that since disable device exists and can be used to disable traps, that it somehow means you must use it for disabling every trap. But really, I think the original intent is for it to be used only if the player's attempt at disabling the trap isn't a sure thing and there isn't a better fitting check.
The original 3e mechanics are basically designed to put in real world numbers and get back real world results, and then that scale simply got extended to demigod levels. This means there lots of various points of information on how difficult things should be. I mean after all, how many players/gms know just how high a jump check you need to compare to Olympic jumpers? Probably not many, therefore the system needs to put in guidlines for that.
However, My solution for my system was rather simple, I put up a section on what the numbers mean, so that all check results for any check could be compared to this one number scale whicg basically marks points for what an average person can do, a professional, a master, a legend, a demigod, etc. Then I rely mostly on that for the core, but then include an appendix with the numbers that compare to real world for those that really like being able to do that. It makes it easy to use, clear that certain rules aspects are mere guidelines, and yet includes more detailed info for when it is desired.
Do we know how much fantasy/magic will be in this setting?
I would like to see them pull off a d20 game in a high tech setting with no magic. But I don't expect it to happen.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
.... There doesn't need to be a leadership feat for you to be able to have underlings, just have underlings.OK, but if you get underlings at 1st level, you could call on them to soften up tough opposition. I find that overpowered. That way, you continually are going in for the final punch and getting the credit for the kill. And all your crew are dead or unconscious. And they still follow you around. And you don't lose any. Even when they realize that they're going headfirst into the danger, they still follow you.
What are you Zap Brannigan? Sending wave after wave of soldiers until the killbots reached their maximum kill count and claiming victory?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.... There doesn't need to be a leadership feat for you to be able to have underlings, just have underlings.OK, but if you get underlings at 1st level, you could call on them to soften up tough opposition. I find that overpowered. That way, you continually are going in for the final punch and getting the credit for the kill. And all your crew are dead or unconscious. And they still follow you around. And you don't lose any. Even when they realize that they're going headfirst into the danger, they still follow you.What are you Zap Brannigan? Sending wave after wave of soldiers until the killbots reached their maximum kill count and claiming victory?
An excellent strategy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assume it'll be most like Spelljammer.I doubt it. Spelljammer is less technological than what's been described so far. The descriptions seem to suggest at the most a 60%/40% tech/magic ratio. Also Absolam Station looks more like a techno-crystal sky palace than the old-timey and animal-based design in Spelljammer. I would say it would be at least closer to He-Man/Thundercats than Spelljammer.No. It sounds like Spelljammer.
No doubt.
More Dragonstar than Spelljammer. Spelljammer was fantasy in space with no tech, completely fantasy based. Starfinder (based on everything they have said) has high tech, powered armor, lasers etc, but with magic co-existing with the high tech. They keep saying Science Fantasy, not Science Fiction.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides we don't want a new Spelljammer, we want ACTUAL technology alongside the magic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assume it'll be most like Spelljammer.I doubt it. Spelljammer is less technological than what's been described so far. The descriptions seem to suggest at the most a 60%/40% tech/magic ratio. Also Absolam Station looks more like a techno-crystal sky palace than the old-timey and animal-based design in Spelljammer. I would say it would be at least closer to He-Man/Thundercats than Spelljammer.No. It sounds like Spelljammer.
No doubt.
I know I just kinda glossed over this but its been bugging me, but seriously 'how?'.
How is anything described so far 'like Spelljammer'?
I feel like we have all of science fiction to work with but whenever we talk about it in a D&D context we can only describe it in terms of Dragonstar and Spelljammer. But Spelljammer is wildly 'fantasy in space' than sci-fantasy to the point where it seems awkward for a straight metallic space ship to be around. We're talking about a setting where ships are squids and whales and barges and stuff. I'm looking at supplements now and I see no guns, or even a technician or technomancer class.
I understand that Spelljammer was popular but with all the science fiction out there why is that the D&D limit? Because as psychedelic as Spelljammer is, it is very limited in terms of expressing tropes and playing different types of sci-fantasy. I feel like what's described of Starfinder so far relates more to Dragonstar than Spelljammer because we got some mechanists and technology and stuff but even then I feel like there's two extremes trying to be avoided or embraced, those extremes being, just doing Pathfinder again, only in space, which feels lazy and not really needing a whole new system to me, and Getting full blown hard scifi, at which point you might as well play the dozens of other RPGs already doing that.
I guess my main point is that Dragonstar and Spelljammer were unique but kind of limited to their own end of the spectrum between scifi and fantasy so why are they constantly referenced? Is it because Pathfinder is related to Dungeons and Dragons so we need Dungeons and Dragons examples to comprehend what's going on?