{. . .}
*I've been playng PnP rpgs for 35 years. They don't get better, they don't get worse. Fashions come and go. Gamma World was something very similar to Starfinder back in the 80s, a conversion of (1st edition) D&D to a post-apocalyptic SF setting. It was D&D with mutants and ray guns.
No, I'd say that Pathfinder was a step up from D&D 3.5, which was in turn a step up from 2nd Edition, which in turn was a step up from 1st Edition. So they do get better in some cases. Now 4th Edition on the other hand . . . pulls the average down . . . But then again from what I've seen of 5th Edition, it is definitely better than 4th Edition, although I still prefer Pathfinder to it.
We have been over it before. But you don't seem to understand that there is a greater difference between science fantasy and space opera than there is between generic fantasy A and generic fantasy B, or are unwilling to accept that Starfinder isn't going to be better* than the space opera rpg systems that are already available (or you have unlimited funds, which I guess is also a possiblity).
Well, two generic fantasies should be nearly identical, or they could hardly be described as generic.
But space opera/ space fantasy aren't all that different. At best there are some tone issues that aren't necessarily present in space fantasy, but they aren't particularly unique to space operas. In general that's a ill-defined genre which isn't all that special.
Part of the problem is that "space opera" and "science fantasy", at least as they are used here, aren't describing the same thing.
Science fantasy is being used explicitly as a cross-genre setting description. Science fiction + fantasy. Space Opera is a subgenre of science fiction. Starfinder looks like it's intended for space opera crossed with fantasy. Shadowrun is science fantasy, but not at all space opera, it's fantasy crossed with cyberpunk. There are plenty of space operas that maybe soft science fiction, but don't have the explicit fantasy elements I expect from Starfinder.
I might want to point out here is that it's sometimes healthy to cross-genres in writing speculative fiction. What Paizo is doing is healthy. They are hoping to do to Space Opera what Shadowrun did to Cyberpunk. And I say that they should have a good crack at it.
I can't wait until August when joe blow gamer is confronted with Starfinder. Will they accept it? Will it be welcomed with open arms? It's yet to be seen. But all the advance signs I've been reading on Facebook and here tells me that there is hope that Starfinder will be successful. People have playtested the game at GAMA this year and they say they can't wait to see it published.
I might want to point out here is that it's sometimes healthy to cross-genres in writing speculative fiction. What Paizo is doing is healthy. They are hoping to do to Space Opera what Shadowrun did to Cyberpunk. And I say that they should have a good crack at it.
I can't wait until August when joe blow gamer is confronted with Starfinder. Will they accept it? Will it be welcomed with open arms? It's yet to be seen. But all the advance signs I've been reading on Facebook and here tells me that there is hope that Starfinder will be successful. People have playtested the game at GAMA this year and they say they can't wait to see it published.
Agreed, it can't come out soon enough. I'm hoping my cautious optimism pays off. Even if it doesn't, I reckon I can at least mine the books, particularly the adventure paths, for ideas.
Developer, Starfinder Team
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Often the question of how far you can vary from an RPG's intended default is a matter of what you are willing to work on, what you are willing to overlook, and what you are willing to accept.
I ran a pulp-adventure campaign set in an alternative timeline 1930s using Star Wars Saga. Blasters because pistols, the Force became rare ESP talents, the Jedi class was restricted to people playing someone with strange backgrounds and powers (if you wanted to use a Jedi to be a masked hero with Mystic Powers, like the Shadow, that was fine), and starships became fighters and airships.
We had to decide how to handle medpacs and their advanced healing potential, and everything else worked fine as a reskin.
Often the question of how far you can vary from an RPG's intended default is a matter of what you are willing to work on, what you are willing to overlook, and what you are willing to accept.
I ran a pul--adventure campaign set in an alternative timeline 1930s using Star Wars Saga. Blasters because pistols, the Force became rare ESP talents, the Jedi class was restricted to people playing someone with strange backgrounds and powers (if you wanted to use a Jedi to be a masked hero with Mystic Powers, like the Shadow, that was fine), and starships became fighters and airships.
We had to decide how to handle medpacs and their advanced healing potential, and everything else worked fine as a reskin.
That's pretty much what I see myself using Starfinder for, if I end up liking its ruleset. "Reskin" is going to be a key phrase.
I don't think anyone here is expecting Starfinder to be able to emulate Traveller or more straight sci-fi settings well, and certainly not me. If I did, I wouldn't even allow the technomancer, solarian or mystic as classes, and at that point it wouldn't even be worth it. I like those classes as concepts a lot and I'd use them in my own setting. Maybe finally I'd get a decent system to run the Destiny setting with. They use the term "mythic science fiction" to describe their setting, but that's just a fancy way to say science fantasy, even if I prefer how "mythic sci-fi" sounds more :P
I guess, after reading the posts here, I should be less interested in the amount of Sci-Fi to Fantasy flavor (which we all can tailor to our own tastes) than the mechanics of the game, which, in my opinion, has never been done right in any Sci-Fi game since.... ever.
Things I want, which I have never seen together in one SciFi role playing game:
1. Interesting character progression
2. Miniature support for characters and starships
3. Interesting starship design from fighters to capital ships
4. Fully fleshed out available stories (don't tell me about the planet or the city only. What is in that ROOM? How many bad guys, their stats and tactics and what is that computer console on the wall for?)
Every game I've tried from Traveller until Savage Worlds: Space has fallen completely flat in at least one of those categories.
As a bonus, I also want to be able to play a full starship campaign 4x type game AND a Privateer type game with the system, which Traveller did a decent job of, but fell flat in almost every other way...
What is 'interesting' in this context for characters and starships?
I can see some being turned off because it's D&D progression with levels and hit points, rather than classless and wound bars, and others excited that it keeps those things.
As for ship design, I can't think of anything but aesthetic taste there. Usually the more 'interesting' ships are, the more non-functional they look.
levels and hit points are ok with me, but I did like the Savage Worlds interesting progression of abilities. But Traveller had basically... nothing so anything is a step up....
I have never played a Pathfinder adventure path. How detailed is it? Macro? Micro? Can it be played with minimal setup or is the adventure path just an over view?
Reading Cepheus Engine, which is a retroclone of T1, there were rules for increasing skills. You could also get some stat boosts, but the importance of progression was based more on getting more money and doing the adventure, rather than getting experience for better stats. Which for me, I've honestly preferred adventuring and gaming for fun and the excitement rather than getting loot and XP.
Yeah, the original Traveller (which I played a lot) did have some rules for improving skills, but it wasn't as a reward for adventuring. Basically, you had what you got at character creation (which tended to lead to PCs being quite old at the start of the game). But players aren't expected to be motivated by xp gain.
Star Trek is a more extreme example, since not only is skill progression minimal, there is no gold or loot either. Players are expected to be motivated simply by a desire to resolve the story. That worked fine for our group, but I'm sure there are some players who won't move unless there is the prospect of fat loot on the table. Indeed, I suspect that is the reason for D&D being more successful than other PnP rpgs.
Honestly, I always found that mindset silly, especially in a game where everything including the loot is imaginary. That's why I play the game to have fun, face challenges, and chill with friends. Because gp isn't real.