Drift Crisis

[Yakman]

keftiu wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

I repeat myself:

"There are plenty of evil factions though but they don't really have figure heads."

Point is, none of those factions leaders are really iconic leaders that people remember existing or have gotten mentioned outside of faction articles.

Pathfinder fans want to punch Tar-Baphon in the face, or see Abrogail Thrune sent to Hell where she belongs - but Starfinder doesn’t have the same, basically?

I think Drift Crisis - which appears to be detailing a number of factions - will address some of this concern.

[Leon Aquilla]

Speaking of which, based on Paizo's new policy going forward I think that means that the Android Abolitionist Front doesn't exist anymore -- not that they ever did anything with it.

[Xenocrat]

keftiu wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

I repeat myself:

"There are plenty of evil factions though but they don't really have figure heads."

Point is, none of those factions leaders are really iconic leaders that people remember existing or have gotten mentioned outside of faction articles.

Pathfinder fans want to punch Tar-Baphon in the face, or see Abrogail Thrune sent to Hell where she belongs - but Starfinder doesn’t have the same, basically?

Don't threaten my girl Abbie with a good time.

[Inqui]

I assume you mean the "not making slavery a central theme" policy?
If yes, how is that different than before? I can't think of any place where androids were specifically enslaved and the abolitionist front was active. Probably the Azlanti, but they enslave anyone.

[Leon Aquilla]

It's different in that the AAF was mentioned in the core book and it likely will never be mentioned again. That's how it's different.

Not interested in discussing it because that's just going to bring moderators in to delete posts.

[Ashbourne]

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Speaking of which, based on Paizo's new policy going forward I think that means that the Android Abolitionist Front doesn't exist anymore -- not that they ever did anything with it.

Does that include banning plot lines from the matrix and Westworld as well, where you're a prisoner to a system you don't even know to exist?

[BigNorseWolf]

Ashbourne wrote:

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Speaking of which, based on Paizo's new policy going forward I think that means that the Android Abolitionist Front doesn't exist anymore -- not that they ever did anything with it.

Does that include banning plot lines from the matrix and Westworld as well, where you're a prisoner to a system you don't even know to exist?

Its not banhammered it's just not emphasized.

[Leon Aquilla]

If your org gets a blurb in the core book and then is never referenced again as an editorial choice, it's effectively dead.

[John Mangrum]

I think the AAF could still play a role going forward, if Paizo so chose, by focusing on the group's current activities defending the rights of emergent sapient AIs. (Although the AAF didn't factor in, Starfinder Society recently published a scenario dealing with a starship VI that spontaneously became self-aware, for example.)

Here we aren't dealing with traditional "slavery" so much as Qs of "what does it mean to be a person" as in Star Trek's "Measure of a Man."

[Ashbourne]

Leon Aquilla wrote:

If your org gets a blurb in the core book and then is never referenced again as an editorial choice, it's effectively dead.

To keep it in character terms it's been gapped.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

John Mangrum wrote:

I think the AAF could still play a role going forward, if Paizo so chose, by focusing on the group's current activities defending the rights of emergent sapient AIs. (Although the AAF didn't factor in, Starfinder Society recently published a scenario dealing with a starship VI that spontaneously became self-aware, for example.)

Here we aren't dealing with traditional "slavery" so much as Qs of "what does it mean to be a person" as in Star Trek's "Measure of a Man."

And of course nothing's stopping players and GMs from discussing these things in their own campaigns, so long as they're respectful to each other's perspectives and comfort levels.

Part of me does kind of struggle with why people take Paizo's decision regarding this stuff as prescriptive for their personal tables when it's merely descriptive of how they'll be writing going forward. If there's one thing the various devs and writers have said in interviews and AMA threads time and time again, it's "I'm not going to tell you how to play your game."

[FormerFiend]

There are some groups I think that works with better than others.

Any faction or group or element of the game can be expanded via homebrew development & sometimes it's best to do that specifically with the elements you know the actual published material is never going to touch so that way you don't have to worry about contradiction

The AAF is a good group for it because there's a lot of interesting plots & stories to be told with that group, but mechanically there's not a lot to do with them. They're unlikely to be in an antagonistic role & even if they are, they're ultimately just people fighting for a cause so they're not going to have special, unique monsters just to them. There's no mechanical ability you could come up with that would necessitate being a part of that faction to be part of the game. So it's easy to include them narratively & the mechanical aspect is a light load for it.

Compare another group that hasn't gotten much attention since their blurb in the CRB, the Dominion of the Black, where you can homebrew a lot about these guys but eventually, sooner or later, your players are going to need some monsters to fight. Which, some dms don't mind doing the heavy lifting of monster design, some do, so it'd be nice if Paizo did that heavy lifting for them.

[kaid]

What if the gap was caused by the crash of the drift 1.0 and what we have been using is drift 2.0. Maybe triune is quiet working on drift 3.0.

[Unseelie]

It would break my existing campaign, so I'm skipping it.