I love Starfinder. Starfinder kind of sucks.


General Discussion

151 to 200 of 226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

*raises hand*

I can offer one of my own Character Creation comments:

I think character creation is very stingy on ability scores. You get effectively a total of +5 to distribute between your ability scores, and with a cap of +4 to each stat, you end up with many characters that max their primary stat and add +1 to one survivability stat and then have to make do with 10s everywhere else. Even if you drop your primary stat to +3, you don't get much more wiggle room.

I liked PF1 point buy better since you could trade a little bit off your highest ability score for a 13 or 14 in some tertiary one that you felt like your character would have. "I want a technomancer that's a suave rogue" is a very tricky 1st level concept, since a 16 or 18 INT leaves you with very little for CHA or any survivability ability score like DEX or CON.

PF2 just offers far more ability scores in general (+9 total in terms of bonuses), so you don't feel so constrained.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Claxon wrote:
From my personal experience, I don't understand what there is to dislike, especially specifically with "race and subrace" that you mentioned.

*shrug* You're not me. As Dracomicron said, I dislike what I dislike. I am not trying to say the process is bad or fails at some objective standard, simply that I disliked it enough that I got bored and stopped several times during what should have been a fairly quick process. I am also not trying to convince anyone else that they should dislike it; my post was merely sharing my own reaction, and that I was surprised to have it.

I am also not asking you to defend it, or try to convince me to give it an additional look, which is why I am purposefully dodging this question. Any answer I give, I assume you'll try to have an answer for, or explain how PF1 or PF2 is worse, and I don't want you to trouble yourselves.

I'm not saying you can't dislike it, but I just have trouble understanding. If you were okay with PF1's character generation rules, I can't see why Starfinder would have been more difficult or given you any problems. Honestly I feel Starfinder's character generation rules are easier then even PF2 but that's a different topic.

I was mostly just looking to understand someone else's opinion, even if I didn't share it. I'm not looking for a fight, but maybe a discussion.


Much like PF1 had varying point buy levels, if you want more points in SF, why not up the point buy?

I don't think I ever played 15 points for PF1, always 20+.


I do wish there was some version of the PF2 ability score generator in SF. That is one thing I would love to see. As it is, races with good ability scores for the build (say, STR/CHA for solarians) are typically much better at that build than other races.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah I definitely agree with the ability scores thing. In pf1 you'd often have something like 18 14 14 12 10 8, in pf2 you might have 18 16 12 12 10 10, and in starfinder 18 14 11 10 10 10.

It definitely makes it harder to have a unique feeling character when you don't have any excess ability points to put in elective choices. You're stuck with filling the basic requirements and it's not until level 5 where you get those optional points to customize your character to be different then every other 1st level character of the same class.

Starfinder still feels very new to me, but if I played it a lot I could definitely see felling like yup, already made one of each possible character. I guess which one do I feel like repeating for this game.


I do have some dislikes when it comes to SF character generation, mainly that in the end the ability modifiers of races do not matter as with 10 points to freely spend you can achieve nearly any ability array with every race. Coupled with 18 being the limit for abilities, even when the race gets +4, it does make them all a rather similar.
I do see the advantage though as it allows to easily add new aliens as playable races.

Not sure if the PF2 character creation system would improve things or retain the advantages SF has.


Ixal wrote:
I do have some dislikes when it comes to SF character generation, mainly that in the end the ability modifiers of races do not matter as with 10 points to freely spend you can achieve nearly any ability array with every race.

I feel the opposite.

A race with synergy has 18/16/11/10/10/10

A race without has 18/14/11/10/10/10- maybe one of those 11s or 10s is a 13/12 at best.

A race with anti-synergy has 18/11/10/10/10/8 at the worst.

Of course there are variations with 16s instead of 18s, but that's the baseline maxed ability options.


Ixal wrote:

I do have some dislikes when it comes to SF character generation, mainly that in the end the ability modifiers of races do not matter as with 10 points to freely spend you can achieve nearly any ability array with every race. Coupled with 18 being the limit for abilities, even when the race gets +4, it does make them all a rather similar.

I do see the advantage though as it allows to easily add new aliens as playable races.

Not sure if the PF2 character creation system would improve things or retain the advantages SF has.

I actually like that aspect. It means that races aren't railroaded into classes or roles. You can have a badass melee stellifera or a vesk mad scientist.

And the modifiers DO matter. My Brakim Vanguard with +2 Con, +2 Dex, -2 Cha is never going to buy up that Cha, but can go 18/16 with his two most important stats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*cough* Honestly, this mostly sounds like an argument for why taking 18 at start really shouldn't be treated as the norm. Ability increases are really, really generous, there's strong reason to trade out absolute min maxing for flexibility.


Metaphysician wrote:
*cough* Honestly, this mostly sounds like an argument for why taking 18 at start really shouldn't be treated as the norm. Ability increases are really, really generous, there's strong reason to trade out absolute min maxing for flexibility.

On the other hand, a 16 start is pretty much necessary, and if you had a penalty in that stat you have to waste 8 points instead of 4 compared to someone with a +2...

That's one aspect where I really do like PF2's system better, it allows for fixing an ability penalty much easier than starfinder does.


Garretmander wrote:
Metaphysician wrote:
*cough* Honestly, this mostly sounds like an argument for why taking 18 at start really shouldn't be treated as the norm. Ability increases are really, really generous, there's strong reason to trade out absolute min maxing for flexibility.

On the other hand, a 16 start is pretty much necessary, and if you had a penalty in that stat you have to waste 8 points instead of 4 compared to someone with a +2...

That's one aspect where I really do like PF2's system better, it allows for fixing an ability penalty much easier than starfinder does.

I really don't like being told what stats to take. If you want an alchemist to have an uber int, give me a reason to have an uber int instead of dex.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
Metaphysician wrote:
*cough* Honestly, this mostly sounds like an argument for why taking 18 at start really shouldn't be treated as the norm. Ability increases are really, really generous, there's strong reason to trade out absolute min maxing for flexibility.

On the other hand, a 16 start is pretty much necessary, and if you had a penalty in that stat you have to waste 8 points instead of 4 compared to someone with a +2...

That's one aspect where I really do like PF2's system better, it allows for fixing an ability penalty much easier than starfinder does.

I really don't like being told what stats to take. If you want an alchemist to have an uber int, give me a reason to have an uber int instead of dex.

And that's my one complaint about the PF2 abilities system, but the PF2 system does compensate for racial penalties well, it just doesn't support dumping the class' key ability score.


Garretmander wrote:


I really don't like being told what stats to take. If you want an alchemist to have an uber int, give me a reason to have an uber int instead of dex.

And that's my one complaint about the PF2 abilities system, but the PF2 system does compensate for racial penalties well, it just doesn't support dumping the class' key ability score.

For starfinder despite Ysoki having a racial penalty for strength you can start with an 18 in strength. Hows PF2 compensate better for the penalty?

Shadow Lodge

yeah I don't see that one. Starfinder human gets 18 14 11 10 10 10. Most other races get 18 16 11 10 10 8. Maxing out your races -2 ability gives you the exact same as a human.

For pf2, if you max out your -2 ability you start with a 16 in it. You can get it to an 18, but you have to take an additional penalty of -2 to two other stats, giving yourself worse ability scores than anyone else.

So I'd say starfinder is more forgiving on making up racial penalties than pf2.


Having a 18 in Str or Dex is pretty great when combat starts.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
For starfinder despite Ysoki having a racial penalty for strength you can start with an 18 in strength. Hows PF2 compensate better for the penalty?

Starfinder fixing a penalty:

18/12/12/10/10/10
or
18/14/10/10/10/10 depending on race

PF2 fixing a penalty:
18/16/14/12/8/8
or
18/14/12/12/10/10
or
18/16/12/10/10/8

Dataphiles

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cellion wrote:

*raises hand*

I can offer one of my own Character Creation comments:

I think character creation is very stingy on ability scores. You get effectively a total of +5 to distribute between your ability scores, and with a cap of +4 to each stat, you end up with many characters that max their primary stat and add +1 to one survivability stat and then have to make do with 10s everywhere else. Even if you drop your primary stat to +3, you don't get much more wiggle room.

I liked PF1 point buy better since you could trade a little bit off your highest ability score for a 13 or 14 in some tertiary one that you felt like your character would have. "I want a technomancer that's a suave rogue" is a very tricky 1st level concept, since a 16 or 18 INT leaves you with very little for CHA or any survivability ability score like DEX or CON.

PF2 just offers far more ability scores in general (+9 total in terms of bonuses), so you don't feel so constrained.

IN my Starfinder home games which I run the various AP's. I give an house rule option that players can get 12 points to start but at the end of creation no stat can be 17+. Or the can use the standard 10 point buy. This has allowed more player choices and less min maxing so I can run more of the AP's as is vs buffing things up as the players get stronger. This allows at lv 5 for the PC to get the +2 bumps in any stat and the players like that. At level 10 the primary and maybe secondary stats only get the +1.

So far through 7 AP's this has worked really well.


I wonder if it would be too unbalanced if you brought in a modified version of the PF2 ability score generation system to Starfinder.

That is, you get ability boosts based on your species, theme, class, and then some free boosts to round things out.


Ventnor wrote:

I wonder if it would be too unbalanced if you brought in a modified version of the PF2 ability score generation system to Starfinder.

That is, you get ability boosts based on your species, theme, class, and then some free boosts to round things out.

I'd like the class ability boost to be a free boost instead of the key ability score, but yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*Is sitting here wondering why people are complaining about point buy when she's only ever used dice roll for ability score generation* >.>

P.S. Just looked at the ability generation systems of all 3 SF, PF1, & PF2 and... PF2 got rid of rolled ability scores all together... As if I couldn't like it any less O.o (Is still sore over the Multiclassing system cuz is someone who LIKES going 50/50[maybe a bit more like 45/55 or 65/35 but still, close enough].)


Dracala wrote:

*Is sitting here wondering why people are complaining about point buy when she's only ever used dice roll for ability score generation* >.>

Personally with every single character I've ever stated out, for both players and myself, we roll out our Stats..

We Live and Die by The Dice.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dracala wrote:
PF2 got rid of rolled ability scores all together... As if I couldn't like it any less O.o

PF2e DOES have optional stat rolling rules.

They will never get rid of rolling stats as optional option in any of the systems xD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracala wrote:
*Is sitting here wondering why people are complaining about point buy when she's only ever used dice roll for ability score generation* >.>

For the record, I would never complain about a point buy system unless it didn't give enough points for a character to actually do their job (Starfinder does give enough points), because die rolling for permanent character statistics leads to too many disparities and hard feelings.

We don't really need to talk about it, since it's been discussed to death many, many times before, but suffice to say only certain kinds of games (and gamers) are appropriate for die rolling character stats. For example, the newest Gamma World is exceptionally random (in keeping with the theme of the game), but even there you always start with an 18 or a 16 in your main stats so you can do your job.


gnoams wrote:

Yeah I definitely agree with the ability scores thing. In pf1 you'd often have something like 18 14 14 12 10 8, in pf2 you might have 18 16 12 12 10 10, and in starfinder 18 14 11 10 10 10.

It definitely makes it harder to have a unique feeling character when you don't have any excess ability points to put in elective choices. You're stuck with filling the basic requirements and it's not until level 5 where you get those optional points to customize your character to be different then every other 1st level character of the same class.

Starfinder still feels very new to me, but if I played it a lot I could definitely see felling like yup, already made one of each possible character. I guess which one do I feel like repeating for this game.

You make an excellent argument for rolling stats rather than using point assignment. Which I approve of, at least with 4d6, drop lowest, assign as desired. The OSR's 3d6 in order fetish struck me as masochistic even in 1975. This game's math is not so exacting that every PC needs an 18 primary stat at character generation, and it's pretty generous with stat bumps as you level up compared to its ancestors.

I would suggest two homebrew changes with rolled PCs:

1) Just give everyone 4 base resolve points before level, feats, etc. RP budgeting is tight enough, and one of the main arguments for starting with an 18 prime.

2) When bumping stats at level 5 and later, if you select a stat whose current score is less than 10, that stat increases by 3. Lets the unlucky "fix" negative stat mods more rapidly if they want to, although a truly awful score has always struck me as a roleplay opportunity more than a direct handicap.


CorvusMask wrote:
Dracala wrote:
PF2 got rid of rolled ability scores all together... As if I couldn't like it any less O.o

PF2e DOES have optional stat rolling rules.

They will never get rid of rolling stats as optional option in any of the systems xD

I can see why I didn't see that while looking at the character creation steps... Cuz it's not there, it's above it in the Ability Score Overview, which in my opinion is just weird.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dracala wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Dracala wrote:
PF2 got rid of rolled ability scores all together... As if I couldn't like it any less O.o

PF2e DOES have optional stat rolling rules.

They will never get rid of rolling stats as optional option in any of the systems xD

I can see why I didn't see that while looking at the character creation steps... Cuz it's not there, it's above it in the Ability Score Overview, which in my opinion is just weird.

I think it might be to not confuse people looking for character creation with "Oh and there is also alternate way to do this"? Iirc in actual book it is a sidebar


A sidebar again, Not with the character creation steps but in the above section with the Ability Overview (owns the book too, which is where I'd been looking in the first place) >.>

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Going off on a tangent on ability score rolling:

I've played a lot of different rpg systems. Some form of point buy is far more common then randomized stats. Games that use random generation tend to be ones that assume a high level of pc mortality. Randomization reduces decision making, which reduces character creation time. In Ad&d, you picked a race, class, rolled stats, purchased equipment, and were good to go. There was very few choices to be made, so you could pump out replacement characters quickly when yours inevitable died.

Also, in early versions of D&D where rolling stats was the only method, ability scores only mattered if you rolled high or low. For most stats, rolling in the 7-15 range meant no modifiers. 3-6 gave you penalties, 16-18 gave bonuses, and the penalties and bonuses were fairly small (in the 1-3 range). Intelligence didn't even do anything unless you cast spells.

In paizo games, every 2 points of stats matters, and while some stats are more important than others for each different class, they all do something for everyone. There's a big difference between a 7 and a 14, while in d&d there might have been none depending on the stat. Most of your stats would have zero mechanical effect on the game. So it didn't really matter that they were random.

Moving away from the throw away pcs of old school gaming to the heavy investment that players put into their characters these days coupled with mechanics that make ability score differences larger, random generation doesn't make a lot of sense to use.


Plus, in the good old days, if you didn't like your stats, you could always just get them killed off quickly and replace them.

They may have meant less than they do in PF, but still remained important enough to take seriously.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I used 4d6 drop lowest for the better part of 20 years. It's just not worth the nostalgia. I like to be able to plan out a character without finding out it's unplayable because I rolled bad.


Hey! Feel pretty much the same as the OP, except in the opposite direction. All of the stuff I hate in Starfinder are the elements that led to PF2.

Starfinder took everything that was great about Iron Gods and threw it out the window leaving whatever that is. Star Trek-finder, I guess.

Wanted to like it. Loved Iron Gods. Wound up hating Starfinder.


To go back a bit...

Claxon wrote:
Ixal wrote:

And just because there are martial arts masters and concealable weapons in the real world doesn't mean that all weapons are allowed everywhere as you can't make totally sure someone doesn't go armed.

Sadly the game assumes that wearing heavy armor and shouldering a rocket launcher everywhere is the norm and that people just roll with it. As I said "Don't think about it, its a game" which I find not very immersive.
Pathfinder (both 1 & 2) have this same issue though.

Oh god they really do. I played a PFS1 mission where we were supposed to infiltrate an opera and see what was up. None of the players had a lot of practice at this, so we went in lightly loaded - concealed armour, concealed weapons, everything else loaded onto the summoner's eidolon so we could bring it in if we needed it. We thought we'd be sneaking around and breaking into places, but it just went blam, fight scene, oh, you're not ready? Time to get wrecked!

We survived, but that first fight was the hardest bit of the scenario, even though it was against the most basic enemies. These days of course that would never happen - because as players we know that going in armed would never be an issue.

Which brings me back to an idea for my own games: you have levels of armament: unarmed, concealed, street, and overt. Unarmed is when you're going to be frisked and have scanners waved over you, so you aren't carrying anything. Concealed is when you're pretending to be unarmed but aren't. Street is when you're socially allowed to carry a sidearm and do. And overt is when you show up with a rocket launcher.


Are you talking about:
1-using a different gear/combat stats sheet as a player for each setup
2-using the expected level of armament to create encounters as a DM
3-using a character's level of armament to determine how much they are violating the laws in an area
4-using a character's level of armament as a modifier for skill tests

or some combination (or something completely different)?

As further delving into this may derail the thread, please respond directly or start a new thread in the houserules forum.


I was amused by a scene in a recently published AP where a gang shakes you down for protection money after you dock in the seedy portion of a corporate owned and operated space station. There are apparently zero consequences to just gunning them down unless the GM wants to make them up.

Which is...potentially plausible in this particular area of this particular station, maybe, but what's to stop the same security risk (i.e. PCs) from setting up bombs to blow up that underpoliced arm of the station rather than just gunning down some gangers?


kadance wrote:

Are you talking about:

1-using a different gear/combat stats sheet as a player for each setup
2-using the expected level of armament to create encounters as a DM
3-using a character's level of armament to determine how much they are violating the laws in an area
4-using a character's level of armament as a modifier for skill tests

or some combination (or something completely different)?

2 and 3, but also formalising the concept in players minds, so they actually think about it.

And also, it must be acknowledged, not in SF or PF because game assumptions exist.


WatersLethe wrote:

...and Pathfinder 2nd Edition does most things better.

If the title wasn’t clear, here is my warning that a rant is incoming.

For about a year I ran a starfinder campaign, but my players got sick of the rule system and wanted to go back to PF1e.

Starfinder has amazingly awesome concepts-- great aliens, races, story arcs, factions, monsters, a super cool setting. But the rule mechanics are horrible.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:
kadance wrote:

Are you talking about:

1-using a different gear/combat stats sheet as a player for each setup
2-using the expected level of armament to create encounters as a DM
3-using a character's level of armament to determine how much they are violating the laws in an area
4-using a character's level of armament as a modifier for skill tests

or some combination (or something completely different)?

2 and 3, but also formalising the concept in players minds, so they actually think about it.

And also, it must be acknowledged, not in SF or PF because game assumptions exist.

Problem is that this only works as long as there is someone to threaten the PCs who violate the law which gets a bit awkward with the level system.

The bigger problem imo is though that the classes are balanced with their full loadout in mind. The more you restrict it the stronger the already powerful operative and casters become.

I really wish Starfinder had been designed with this in mind, then you wouldn't have all those problems.
Still, you might want to look at Shadowrun how it works there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
S. J. Digriz wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

...and Pathfinder 2nd Edition does most things better.

If the title wasn’t clear, here is my warning that a rant is incoming.

For about a year I ran a starfinder campaign, but my players got sick of the rule system and wanted to go back to PF1e.

Starfinder has amazingly awesome concepts-- great aliens, races, story arcs, factions, monsters, a super cool setting. But the rule mechanics are horrible.

I'm confused... I find starfinder to be the 'fixed' version of pf1. How are it's mechanics horrible compared to pf1?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been playing Owlcat's Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which is (mostly) Pathfinder 1E, and I keep finding that the 1E rules barely work for a video game, much less for a pen & paper system. Just far too many modifiers, corner cases, and assumptions. I spend longer prepping for opening a door than I do in the fight on the other side of it. A lot of fights boil down to who gets the lucky crit first.

Nah, Starfinder is better in my book. Even the broken stuff is largely innocuous.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

I was amused by a scene in a recently published AP where a gang shakes you down for protection money after you dock in the seedy portion of a corporate owned and operated space station. There are apparently zero consequences to just gunning them down unless the GM wants to make them up.

Which is...potentially plausible in this particular area of this particular station, maybe, but what's to stop the same security risk (i.e. PCs) from setting up bombs to blow up that underpoliced arm of the station rather than just gunning down some gangers?

This problem is not unique to Starfinder. I have played everthing from original DnD to Top Secret, To Deadlands, To Kingdoms of Kalamar to PF1 to Starfinder now.

It has been my experience that most systems do not do much in the way of crime and punishment. Even less is covered in an adventure due to page count issues. Actually Ptlous was good at an incredibly detailed background with crime and punishment. It was also 806 pages and $100.

It is the GM's job to know the setting with the given printed materials and them make judgements and them apply it to his game.

In my game if the PCs were to gun down the thugs, then they would most likely be in trouble with the authorities.

I feel that if you read the background books like the Pact Worlds and items like the article on Cuvacara in The Penumbra Protocol it gives you enough of a feel that it is relatively easy to determine what the local authorities would do when the PCs take certain actions.

In my opinion it is the GMs job to keep the players in line, not the authors of Starfinder


Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

I was amused by a scene in a recently published AP where a gang shakes you down for protection money after you dock in the seedy portion of a corporate owned and operated space station. There are apparently zero consequences to just gunning them down unless the GM wants to make them up.

Which is...potentially plausible in this particular area of this particular station, maybe, but what's to stop the same security risk (i.e. PCs) from setting up bombs to blow up that underpoliced arm of the station rather than just gunning down some gangers?

This problem is not unique to Starfinder. I have played everthing from original DnD to Top Secret, To Deadlands, To Kingdoms of Kalamar to PF1 to Starfinder now.

It has been my experience that most systems do not do much in the way of crime and punishment. Even less is covered in an adventure due to page count issues. Actually Ptlous was good at an incredibly detailed background with crime and punishment. It was also 806 pages and $100.

It is the GM's job to know the setting with the given printed materials and them make judgements and them apply it to his game.

In my game if the PCs were to gun down the thugs, then they would most likely be in trouble with the authorities.

I feel that if you read the background books like the Pact Worlds and items like the article on Cuvacara in The Penumbra Protocol it gives you enough of a feel that it is relatively easy to determine what the local authorities would do when the PCs take certain actions.

In my opinion it is the GMs job to keep the players in line, not the authors of Starfinder

Of course, the fact that this part of the docks has gangs that shake down new arrivals for protection money might be a clue that the authorities aren't likely to do that much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:


This problem is not unique to Starfinder. I have played everthing from original DnD to Top Secret, To Deadlands, To Kingdoms of Kalamar to PF1 to Starfinder now.

It has been my experience that most systems do not do much in the way of crime and punishment. Even less is covered in an adventure due to page count issues. Actually Ptlous was good at an incredibly detailed background with crime and punishment. It was also 806 pages and $100.

It is the GM's job to know the setting with the given printed materials and them make judgements and them apply it to his game.

In my game if the PCs were to gun down the thugs, then they would most likely be in trouble with the authorities.

I feel that if you read the background books like the Pact Worlds and items like the article on Cuvacara in The Penumbra Protocol it gives you enough of a feel that it is relatively easy to determine what the local authorities would do when the PCs take certain actions.

In my opinion it is the GMs job to keep the players in line, not the authors of Starfinder

But it is also not a universal problem. See Shadowrun for example where this is integral to the system.

The thing this, the game has to be build with this in mind. Sadly Starfinder has not. Despite the science fiction setting Paizo paid no heed to futuristic or even modern concepts and technology and instead just copied over fantasy assumptions with the PCs being the heroes and that there is no one else to rival them in power.

This leads to the PCs walking around armed all the time, the adventures encourage it after all, and that there is no authority to stop the PCs and that the classes are very unbalanced when you introduce concepts like weapon restrictions as they were build under the assumption that PCs always have their full arsenal.

The Penumbra Protocol is a very good example of how badly Starfinder handles this.

Spoiler:

The PCs dungeon crawl through an office building, have multiple gunfights in the streets and receive a mail bomb which possibly detonated in a hotel. And not only does the police not intervene, the adventure even tells you that they are disinterested in the PCs story so that they do not do their work for them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ixal wrote:


But it is also not a universal problem. See Shadowrun for example where this is integral to the system.

The thing this, the game has to be build with this in mind. Sadly Starfinder has not. Despite the science fiction setting Paizo paid no heed to futuristic or even modern concepts and technology and instead just copied over fantasy assumptions with the PCs being the heroes and that there is no one else to rival them in power.

This is not true for my game. I use futuristic and other sci fi concepts. The PCs are not the most powerful thing in my universe.

At times they are the big fish in a small pond, but I don't hesitate to show them that that they are plankton in the vast ocean when needed.

Ixal wrote:


This leads to the PCs walking around armed all the time, the adventures encourage it after all, and that there is no authority to stop the PCs and that the classes are very unbalanced when you introduce concepts like weapon restrictions as they were build under the assumption that PCs always have their full arsenal.

The PCs only walk around fully armed all the time is because YOU allow it and don't create scenarios and situations that call for them being unarmed.

If the is no authority to stop them then it is because YOU did not put the authority there.

There are hundreds (thousands?) of planets out there with thousands (tens of thousands) of nation states and aliens out there. If you think you are going to get rules to cover every societal laws, crimes and punishments you will have a long wait.

It is YOUR job time come with a system of actions and consequences.

Ixal wrote:


The Penumbra Protocol is a very good example of how badly Starfinder handles this.

You could not be more wrong here.

Did you read the Pact Worlds book about Verces?
Did you read the article about Cuvacara in The Penumbra Protocol?
And finally did you read the adventure in The Penumbra Protocol?

Based on comments you have made many, many, many................many times about this I am not convinced you read it or understand it

**************************************************************************

SPOLIER ALERT

**************************************************************************

Eclipse Innovations Building exterior door trap.

You do realize the the exterior door is locked right?

You do realize that the building is mostly abandoned correct?

You do realize that all that is inside the building are killer robots, zombies and stupefied workers right?

This building is not meant to be entered at any point in time by the general public.

Easy GM fix: Sign on door. "This building is closed pursuant to an Eclipse Innovations internal investigation in cooperation with The Cuvacara Police Department. No Trespassing. Active video monitor and anti-intrusion devices are active. Media inquiries should be directed to 867-5309. Thank You."

So no random NPC getting fried because they opened the door seeing if they could use the restroom.

The package bomb.

If it goes off. They manager of wherever they are stay phones the police. Cuvacara detectives arrive in 1d3 hours to question them.

If it doesn't go off the PCs have a bomb to use later.

The first ambush.

They are disguised as Cuvacara police. The ambush takes place normally.

Fact: the average police response time in the US to an active shooter situation is 4 to 11 minutes.

Easy GM fix: the actual Cuvacara police arrive in 4d4 minutes. If they PCs are still there they have some explaining to do.

Keep in mind in the Cuvacara article it does say that well armed corporate mercenaries are common. Authorities generally look the other way as long as innocents are not harmed.

The second ambush.

It takes place in The Shade where the buildings are described to have bullet holes in them.

Also the police seldom if ever patrol here.

Easy GM fix: Cuvacara police "Shade Pacification" convoy comes through The Shade. Residents of The Shade scramble indoors, while those who don't get hit by water cannon fire, rubber bullets and tear gas.

*************************************************************************

END SPOILERS

**************************************************************************

You either want to work with what Starfinder gives you or you don't.

I don't think you like Starfinder. I actually don't know why you come here to continually bash it.

One final question.

Did you hate Star Wars when Han shot Greedo on Tatooine and no police showed up to question him?

Of course not!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
Nonsense

Your defense of the adventure is really comical. You leave out so much stuff and make up others.

Spoiler:

- There is no police investigation against the company, the adventure specifically says they won't interfer, and the trap is fixed. And even if it would be as you describe the police still does not leave deadly traps in public areas.

- Shooting up a office building, abandoned (not really though) or not attracts attention, yet no such things happen in the adventure. There is also no investigation for breaking and entering.

- The enemies have their full gear so the adventure assumes that the PCs have their full gear too even while shopping for items.

- Despite being involved in multiple shootings, at least one on a busy open street while shopping and possibly a bombing in the "generally safe city" the OCs are never detained (time critical adventure) or questioned (adventure tells you the police, described as vigilant against violent crime, is desinterested)

Oh sure, I can alter large parts of the adventure to make it sensible, but that it is written the way it is shows Paizo's mindset and their complete disregard for how modern societies work and instead stick to heroic fantasy scenarios with the PCs being the only competent people and having all freedoms and no limits.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The PCs being the heroes are boon, not a bug. No one wants to play a game where the NPCs solve everything and the PCs are superfluous.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, don't forget that part of the suspension of disbelief for the game is supposed to be that the player ARE the BIGDAMNHEROS and are supposed to be the ones doing everything. That's how Starfinder is written.

You can play a game where that's not the case, but that's not the default assumption for Starfinder.

And that's why people aren't stopping the PCs, or asking a bunch of question, or generally getting in their way. It doesn't make for a fun game typically. That doesn't mean you can't run the game to make that happen, and honestly it's on the GM in my opinion if you want to run that game world. But it's up to you. The AP writers would have to go to a lot of extra trouble to encapsulate all that kind of stuff and APs are already lengthy and time consuming as they are.

To me this is much more a problem that falls on the shoulders of a GM than a problem of the system or setting.

Starfinder eschews verisimilitude in exchange for (what I feel is) a fun game and enhances the parts of the game I'm after without punishing me for doing so.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd also point out that in Shadowrun premise is that you are mercenaries hired for corporation black ops operations :p Reason why system has more detailed rules for law enforcement is that game is pretty much built around subtle vs unsubtle approach and law enforcement is punishment for failing at subtle approach.

Pretty much any rpg system that assumes combat as the "default" way to play the game really ignores law enforcement existing in the system itself.

That said, while I do think this is your pet peeve that you are way too insistent on bringing up, I do actually agree you that paizo writing adventures around police ignoring pc shenagigans IS ridiculous. I don't think there is any problem with starfinder being focused on "pcs are the heroes who save the day"(since again, if galactic threats were dealt by pact world's government, you'd be looking at game like shadowrun instead where players characters are considered for most part just cogs in machine and unimportant in grand scheme of things even in the shadowrunner community), but I do however think that if starfinder adventure is set in urban area: 1) police should react to pcs like they would in real life 2) if they don't, there must be realistic explanation for it(e.g. like them being corrupt and just taking bribes for pcs or someone else has ordered them to not interfere)


My in setting way of dealing with it is having the PCs work as part of the Starfinder, and Starfinders generally being extended some measure of legal protections across all pact worlds governments so long as they are found to be acting within their directives.

So police might question you, you show them your Starfinder badge, they say "Let me make some calls". They come back later and say, "Okay, you're story checks out but KEEP YOUR NOSE CLEAN in my jurisdiction".

So I guess I treat Starfinders like Interplanetary FBI/CIA.

Acquisitives

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the biggest problem is that people try to apply real-world7modern concepts to a hero fantasy world (yes, Starfinder is a (Science-)Fantasy-Setting, no Cyberpunk or Hard Scifi setting).

I would take a look at movies and shows and look how they handle hero actions. E.g. in Firefly everyone runs around with open carried weapons, in most movies the hero shots around an no cops show up (unless it's important for the story) and even in Star Trek some people carry open weapons on a Federation Base (e.g. Klingons on DS9).

So I see Starfinder more like a "Space Western/Fantasy Movie" regarding law, licenses and society.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My home game is more cyberpunky than average, but the PCs are the stars of their own reality show, using it as a cover for their activities. At one point they got jumped by a jealous rival, and ended up killing his corpsefolk goons. The were panicking, because it was on the street in full view of security cameras. They ended up fleeing, and waiting for the other shoe to drop.

It didn't. They're famous, on a corporately-controlled planet, and there was a self-defense justification. Nobody even came to ask them about it.

Now they're paranoid about the other shoe dropping and everything is going as planned.

151 to 200 of 226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / I love Starfinder. Starfinder kind of sucks. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.