Given the overall reduction of complexity and the designs so far revealed seeming to make combat faster do you think the that there is a likelihood of Starfinder games going more than to level 12ish, where most people seem to stop in Pathfinder/3.X?
Most of the time the big complaints are the level 7-9 spells, too many attacks to work out and so many abilities slows the game to a less than fun pace but it seems like a LOT of that has been addressed in SF.
Will higher level play become even common?
I doubt it. From what I hear and my own experience most campaigns end because of real-life interruptions or people just running out of steam.
That combined with people's strange desire to seemingly always start at level one makes reaching high levels difficult.
Can't know til we see the game.
Big question for me is this:
Will spaceship combat scale?
Assuming they get class progress under control, I think one of the biggest deterrents for high level play will be the off-chance your whole party dies because space battles have as much agency at level 20 as they have at level 1.
Can't know til we see the game.
Big question for me is this:
Will spaceship combat scale?
Assuming they get class progress under control, I think one of the biggest deterrents for high level play will be the off-chance your whole party dies because space battles have as much agency at level 20 as they have at level 1.
Not to worry. If your ship blows, the higher level armors can keep you alive for days in the vacuum. And the GM will likely have whatever blew up you ship take you prisoner, so you'll already be aboard your next ship. You just have to break free and clear off the current crew.
Like spring cleaning.
But if level 20 spaceship combat is boring, that's a whole wasted part of the game.
Again, if starship combat becomes "lol if we fail it doesnt matter", then the subsystem is a failure.
Again, if starship combat becomes "lol if we fail it doesnt matter", then the subsystem is a failure.
There will be consequences for losing space battles (loss of time, cargo, favorite knick-knacks, etc). Death doesn't necessarily have to be one of them.
But it CAN be one of them. If you dont evacuated the ship in time you explode bye bye along with it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The cost of failure in a starship battle isn't death; it's homelessness. Is that a permanent setback? No, it's not, but it can certainly be frustrating and an excellent motivation. PCs without a starship have less agency than PCs with a starship, and any loss of agency in a game designed about the concept of power creep really stings.
Yes, the PCs will survive, but they need to put time, effort, and resources into climbing back up to the level they were at before they lost their ship. It's not unlike a group-wide negative level.
Personally, I'm a fan of punishment that allows the group to fail forward instead of toss their collective character sheets in the bin and roll up from scratch.
Yeah Im npt a fan of tpks.
But it should be noted that the group as a collective whole runs the ship, not any individual. So it really does come down to group failure. I really hope they expand the hell out of the system in future books so we can gey into massive fleet baattles ala Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica.
You are all hang up on the death part, and not the part that matters:
Will high level spaceship combat be any more engaging than low level spaceship combat? Will characters feel increased agency in it, as they level up?
If my 20th level Envoy is just manning the turret, or managing the shields, or sweeping the floor or whatever he was doing at level 1, then what's the point?
You are all hang up on the death part, and not the part that matters:
Will high level spaceship combat be any more engaging than low level spaceship combat? Will characters feel increased agency in it, as they level up?
If my 20th level Envoy is just manning the turret, or managing the shields, or sweeping the floor or whatever he was doing at level 1, then what's the point?
Not being jettisoned into the harsh blackness of the void. Also blowing things up.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are all hang up on the death part, and not the part that matters:
Will high level spaceship combat be any more engaging than low level spaceship combat? Will characters feel increased agency in it, as they level up?
If my 20th level Envoy is just manning the turret, or managing the shields, or sweeping the floor or whatever he was doing at level 1, then what's the point?
Maybe they're fed up trying to answer you because you've already decided that space combat is terrible based on nothing at all.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
High level space combat will probably mean more options for science officer, more options for the engineer, more options for the pilot, more options for the gunners and more options for the captain, just like players will have more options as they level up.
I'd say wait until the system is actually known and picked apart before yelling doom :)
Will high level spaceship combat be any more engaging than low level spaceship combat? Will characters feel increased agency in it, as they level up?
Well, this is purely conjecture, but I would assume that the starship combat roles (pilot, engineer, etc.) gain abilities with increasing character level and that starships themselves gain additional abilities as average party level increases (in addition to straight numerical increases).
I'm basing this conjecture on (1) starship combat has been billed as a major tentpole of this game, and (2) given the chance to create an entirely new and unique combat system from scratch, a group of professional rpg designers are gonna come up with something more interesting than flat scaling bonuses from level 1 to level 20.
In reality, we've seen very little in terms of how starship combat works, especially in comparison to what we're been previewed about (regular) combat mechanics and class features. I wouldn't correlate a lack of information on a subject with its lack of depth.
Maybe they're fed up trying to answer you because you've already decided that space combat is terrible based on nothing at all.You are all hang up on the death part, and not the part that matters:
Will high level spaceship combat be any more engaging than low level spaceship combat? Will characters feel increased agency in it, as they level up?
If my 20th level Envoy is just manning the turret, or managing the shields, or sweeping the floor or whatever he was doing at level 1, then what's the point?
What are you talking about? Chill.
Will high level spaceship combat be any more engaging than low level spaceship combat? Will characters feel increased agency in it, as they level up?Well, this is purely conjecture, but I would assume that the starship combat roles (pilot, engineer, etc.) gain abilities with increasing character level and that starships themselves gain additional abilities as average party level increases (in addition to straight numerical increases).
I'm basing this conjecture on (1) starship combat has been billed as a major tentpole of this game, and (2) given the chance to create an entirely new and unique combat system from scratch, a group of professional rpg designers are gonna come up with something more interesting than flat scaling bonuses from level 1 to level 20.
In reality, we've seen very little in terms of how starship combat works, especially in comparison to what we're been previewed about (regular) combat mechanics and class features. I wouldn't correlate a lack of information on a subject with its lack of depth.
I wouldn't make such a claim either, just stating that this is my concern for high level play.
I know for a fact the designers should have enough information to make high level PC-based gameplay engaging, and I hope they have learnt the lessons from 3.5e (and 5e as well).
But vehicular combat stands to me as the place where the largest pitfall could be, particularly because I remember how terrible was the ship combat subsystem from Skulls & Shackles.
Haven't browsed through Aquatic Adventures to know if they made any changes to it though.
A salient example on this topic is World of Warcraft. They introduced vehicular combat in the third expansion (Wrath of the Lich King). It was the worst thing ever. You'd build a relationship to your PC and your kit, optimize around it, learn rotations and build your own playstyle... and suddenly a lot of vehicular encounters appeared, where you ended up having 3 buttons to press with little to no interaction of your part.
So these are my reasons to believe that, while completely in the dark about how it works, high-level spaceship combat is where the big problem could arise in making high level play fun.
You could always IGNORE it, I guess. But that just subtracts from the game I think.
You've made 5 posts in a 20 post thread about all the issues you've arbitrarily decided space combat may have, based on nothing at all. I'm fairly sure I'm not the one that needs to chill.
Have you played Skulls & Shackles?
That's not really a good basis to form an opinion for a different system in a different line.
As to the question I think the answer itself just isn't at all answerable based on what little info we have. All we can do is speculate that at higher levels advanced ships will have capabilities to do things lower level ships cannot and high level crew members will simply have more ways to push their ships in new ways from short Drift jumps to diverting power systems into weapons for an extra kick to literally cutting off your life support for a minute to empower the shields briefly and survive a devastating missile barrage.
At the moment all we can really do is wait and see what the foundation is before we get into specifics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are all hang up on the death part, and not the part that matters:
Will high level spaceship combat be any more engaging than low level spaceship combat? Will characters feel increased agency in it, as they level up?
If my 20th level Envoy is just manning the turret, or managing the shields, or sweeping the floor or whatever he was doing at level 1, then what's the point?
You've made 5 posts in a 20 post thread about all the issues you've arbitrarily decided space combat may have, based on nothing at all. I'm fairly sure I'm not the one that needs to chill.
I'm leaning more towards the sentiment expressed by Evilgm. You're worried about a system that has "next to no information" about it. What we *do* know, however, is that a team of very accomplished RPG-makers have systematically tackled this problem from every angle and constantly revise it.
Hell, in August we may come to find that even what was shown up until now has been changed, adjusted, or scrapped.
I think it speaks volumes that the ship gets its own character sheet. Why would a robust upgrade/customization/build system be mentioned if it wasn't going to alter the experience *in* said starship from levels 1 to 20? And ship-to-ship combat doesn't stop being interesting simply because you can blow up a ship "easier" than you could at previous levels.
A dynamic progression needs to account for more than just numbers on a piece of paper. The combat itself is what is engaging. The fact that you also need members to work together to pilot a ship speaks volumes of how, even if you're all "on the same page", the battle can be engaging, fun, and different every time.
The starship is a home, first and foremost. Your "legs" in the vast space that surrounds the PCs. Taking care of it isn't about "having agency" during battle. It's about giving a $h!t. Period.
I believe you're seeking certain answers with the wrong question. If you're worried about space combat: don't be. A GM's job is to make it engaging, fun, and more importantly... well, important... period.
Scaling is meta-gaming. As a GM myself, I've never found meta-gaming to ever help players unless it was offline (out of game) and simply to understand mechanics to better participate in the next session.
Lastly (I know I've been on this soapy-box for a while) I would urge you to wait until the rules are released. I am so excited for the ship aspect, regardless of combat, that I am 99.99% sure it will capture a lot of peoples' hearts like it has mine.
If the game's attempts at streamlining work (such as iterative attacks) then yeah Starfinder will play faster which will mean that more groups will get farther into their campaigns before real life or burnout catches up!
I'm leaning more towards the sentiment expressed by Evilgm. You're worried about a system that has "next to no information" about it. What we *do* know, however, is that a team of very accomplished RPG-makers have systematically tackled this problem from every angle and constantly revise it.
Neither of us knows anything about the spaceship system. Given that we are talking about a purely hypothetical affair, I think it's pretty warranted to voice an opinion which is super simple: I haven't seen many systems that can deliver engaging experiences in a PC and collective-PC (which is what a spaceship is) level simultaneously, as they are usually at odds with each other because spending time with one forgoes spending time with another.
I am still going to get this damn book because it looks fantastic so far – no prep casters, only 6 max level, really great ability distribution –, but that doesn't make me ignore my past experience. There's one thing I never done hit off the park, so until I have more experience about that specific thing, I'll be wary about the prospects of high level play.
I think it's pretty warranted to voice an opinion which is super simple: I haven't seen many systems that can deliver engaging experiences in a PC and collective-PC (which is what a spaceship is) level simultaneously, as they are usually at odds with each other because spending time with one forgoes spending time with another.
This I can certainly understand. I'll admit, I'm really biased in my optimism, because I really want it to happen - I think the PC/collective-PC combo will be really engaging for my players and really draw them into the game.
If Piazo does pull it off, I think Starfinder will really have a hell of an impact on the sci-fi RPG genre. If ship combat & progression is really tight and engaging at all levels, you may see people running campaigns where the PCs never leave the ship and ship combat is the only combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whoah... what if the PCs are different personality aspects of an AI ship Jimbles? The PCs ARE the ship!
That would make an interesting concept...and a kind of freaky one
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whoah... what if the PCs are different personality aspects of an AI ship Jimbles? The PCs ARE the ship!
The PCs are holograms on a ship with multiple sentient AIs, but they don't know it! They never eat, never sleep, and this never bothers the players because they never role-play that stuff anyhow. They receive commands from some central authority. Big assignment comes through to take down a capital ship. Something goes wrong, PCs are boarded, discover that the boarders can't see or hear them. Holy crap, the PC's aren't really people at all! Cue moment of self discovery. Spend third act hunting down corporate headquarters to gain their own freedom.
Boom! Great plot line, courtesy of Azih and myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a whole AP right there! You're welcome everyone!
:p :)
|
I think it's pretty warranted to voice an opinion which is super simple: I haven't seen many systems that can deliver engaging experiences in a PC and collective-PC (which is what a spaceship is) level simultaneously, as they are usually at odds with each other because spending time with one forgoes spending time with another.This I can certainly understand. I'll admit, I'm really biased in my optimism, because I really want it to happen - I think the PC/collective-PC combo will be really engaging for my players and really draw them into the game.
If Piazo does pull it off, I think Starfinder will really have a hell of an impact on the sci-fi RPG genre. If ship combat & progression is really tight and engaging at all levels, you may see people running campaigns where the PCs never leave the ship and ship combat is the only combat.
The example of starship combat in the demo from GAMA appeared to be as engaging as personal combat. There were several options for the pilot, engineer, and gunner. I would assume those multiple options would carryover to the other roles of captain, science officer, and so on.
I would like the option to have a few personal fighters instead of being stuck with a multiple crew ship, but the starship combat demo looked fun.
I think it's pretty warranted to voice an opinion which is super simple: I haven't seen many systems that can deliver engaging experiences in a PC and collective-PC (which is what a spaceship is) level simultaneously, as they are usually at odds with each other because spending time with one forgoes spending time with another.This I can certainly understand. I'll admit, I'm really biased in my optimism, because I really want it to happen - I think the PC/collective-PC combo will be really engaging for my players and really draw them into the game.
If Piazo does pull it off, I think Starfinder will really have a hell of an impact on the sci-fi RPG genre. If ship combat & progression is really tight and engaging at all levels, you may see people running campaigns where the PCs never leave the ship and ship combat is the only combat.
The example of starship combat in the demo from GAMA appeared to be as engaging as personal combat. There were several options for the pilot, engineer, and gunner. I would assume those multiple options would carryover to the other roles of captain, science officer, and so on.
I would like the option to have a few personal fighters instead of being stuck with a multiple crew ship, but the starship combat demo looked fun.
Would this scale is my question? Would I feel I'm putting the rest of my character on hold, or would I have more tools to interact with this as I level up in more engaging ways?
Like, I'm sure a Soldier has more cool things to do in combat at level 20 than at level 1. Does it apply to spaceship combat?
I like the idea of personal fighters later on with nifty tricks as a way to compensate. Like, you have so much money you can buy a ship with many more options in offensive and defensive terms.
Would this scale is my question? Would I feel I'm putting the rest of my character on hold, or would I have more tools to interact with this as I level up in more engaging ways?
Like, you have so much money you can buy a ship with many more options in offensive and defensive terms.
I'm not sure if you know this, but starship upgrades do not cost cash - the devs didn't want players to have to choose between their personal gear and the group starship. Instead, the group gets a certain number of "starship points" to spend on upgrading their ship, and this number scales with average party level.
Didnt know that! Thats great to hear.
All I'm saying is that if I can't strap about two dozen 9th level soldiers with null blades onto poles attached to the hull, and have them Smash from the Air away enemy laser fire to act as our defense matrix, I'm not satisfied with this system.
I can envision the ship rules to be solid, but not too comprehensive. This means we will have a lovely splat book coming with more ships, fleet battles, etc. Can't wait!
You could run entire campaigns with no ship fights, or campaigns with a lot of ship fights, and everything in between. So I'm okay with the rules being solid but not robust.