Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Stars Without Number (No…Really!)

Last weekend I was down at Gary’s, browsing the used game section (as I am wont to do) where I found not one, not two, but THREE copies of Dark Heresy in the bin. What the heck?

I went and asked Tim about this: Is there a 2nd edition coming out or something? No. Is the game going out of print? No…in fact there was a new published adventure for Dark Heresy on the display shelf. Did the people that sold the game SAY anything about why they were returning it? No…in fact there were several postings on the bulletin board looking for Dark Heresy games. Why the sudden exodus from the hot, young system then? A mystery, certainly.

Maybe those people have recently discovered Stars Without Number.

Even though it takes place in the year 3200, the game feels more like the Warhammer 40K RPG than any game I’ve yet seen…and that includes the Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, and Death Watch books. Beautifully produced as those GW volumes are, if *I* were going to run a space opera game set in the 40K universe, Stars Without Number (SWN) would be the way to go. It just needs rules for titans and possession by warp entities.

SO…that’s a good thing. But for me, it’s about ten to 15 years too late…or more. Back when I first discovered 40K (in the late 80s) or when I RE-discovered it (in the late 90s) I would have leaped through hoops of fire to get an RPG like SWN. These days? Not so much. My tastes in RPGs and gaming have changed somewhat over the last decade, especially with regard to game design, and there are more than a couple red flags for me here.

Not that the game isn’t an amazing piece of work. Kevin Crawford has put together something every bit as good as Proctor’s Labyrinth Lord and offered it for free on the internet. Scratch that…what Crawford has done is even more astounding, as Labyrinth Lord is really just a rehashing of B/X D&D (and an adaptation of AD&D to B/X with the Advanced Edition Companion). Crawford isn’t “retro-cloning” anything at all. He’s created a SciFi themed RPG using the rudiments of the D&D system.

And I mean REAL rudimental. You’ll find the following familiar terms: class, level, XP, the Big Six ability scores, hit points, saving throws, initiative (using a D8 dice)…aaaand that’s about it. Most everything else is pretty darn new. Especially, SWN’s approach to adventure design and the designer’s objectives in the matter (more on this in a moment).

So back to my “red flags” (since I’m sure I piqued some folks curiosity). Let me first start by admitting up front: I am not a science fiction fan. Not really, no. I enjoy the hell out of “space fantasy” like Star Wars. I enjoyed Asimov’s Foundation because it’s a good yarn, NOT because I enjoy Asimov’s real physics approach to SciFi (for the most part, I’ve dislike Asimov’s writing for many, many years). Planetary romances like Stirling’s recent books? Good. Military SciFi with emphasis on the non-SciFi aspects (Starship Troopers, Armor)? Great. Visual storytelling (i.e. movies and TV)? My usual cup o’ tea.

But I am NOT into cool technology or “technobabble,” or even pseudo-technobabble. My buddy Steve-O is a reader of SciFi literature and combs the internet for the latest breakthroughs in computers and alternate fuels and space travel. When I started writing my space opera game he wanted me to include all these actual and theoretical technologies like plasma rockets and solar sails and a bunch of other stuff that I really didn’t bother to retain in my memory. I’m more of the “Lucas School” of SciFi terminology: blasters (they blast things), transports (they transport things), speeders (they speed around). I don’t need no dilithium crystals to power MY spaceship (I don’t even care how it’s powered…so long as it gets around!).

Crawford appears to be more like Steve-O.

The book is stuffed with cool technology, pseudo-scientific terms, and hard SciFi jargon. Me? I have a hard enough time saying “Griffon’s Crag Keep” in my weekly D&D game…I am just too lazy (or too unconcerned with specifics) these days to worry about the difference between mag pistols and rail guns and spike throwers. Now if YOU are like my buddy Steve in your love of nano-tech and whatnot, SWN does a pretty bang up job…I definitely give it a thumbs up over A LOT of SciFi games with extensive gear lists (better than or on par with ShadowRun, CyberPunk, Blue Planet, and Mongoose Traveller). For me, I find it incredibly tedious to the point of stupefaction.

Let’s see, other Red Flags for me personally…I didn’t bother reading the psychic section extensively, but it appears to be done well enough (Crawford takes a similar approach to my own game, though his categories are more classic SciFi: see WH40K or Mongoose Traveller for examples powers. Of course he uses Big Words for powers (even if the titles aren’t very intuitive, this is fine as there are a lot fewer psychic powers than types of tech). However, he uses a point (resource pool) system for psychics which is just one more record-keeping exercise I don’t find terribly interesting.

[oh, yeah…there’s also a lot of other tracking in the tech section regarding cost, availability, ammo, power clips, etc…ugh! I am too old and lazy for this kind of book work!]

Another red flag is the inherent skill system, though (and I found this to be very cool) Crawford provides optional rules for junking it! Neat…but with skill packages such a major part of character distinction, I’m not sure what chargen looks like without it.

Ah, chargen…you could sneeze a hole through a 1st level character in this game. From where I’m reading, the game combines some of the worst pieces of Old School and New School. Character creation is pretty long/cumbersome (New School) and character mortality is pretty near the surface (Old School)…the worst of both worlds! To make up for characters fragility you’ll find some metagame mechanics (combat re-rolls for warriors), high (i.e. good) armor classes, “Lazarus patches” (resurrection tech) and psychic healing, plus an admonishment to GMs to encourage playing smart, setting ambushes, and hiring meat shields.

Now this isn’t totally bad…again, I think the rules as written would be of great use in modeling Warhammer 40K (where life is cheap, and space marines are the most likely to make it through with their power armor, psykers, and apothecaries… though they still get wasted, too). But not everyone wants to play 40K…and I’m not sure the game works as well for, say, Star Wars or Firefly or Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica.

And advancement is its own weirdness.

But rather than talk about THAT, I want to talk about the new and innovative part of the game…at least new and innovative from a design perspective. That is, new to ME. Crawford’s main objective (other than writing a cool SciFi RPG that uses D&D as a base)…his MAIN objective appears to enable real and useful “sandbox” play. Several chapters of the game (including the GM Section, Factions, Adventure Creation, World Creation, and Aliens) are all written in aid of enabling the GM to run an organized sandbox campaign right out of the box.

I won’t beat around the bush…it’s a lot of work. But if you don’t mind the work AND you aren’t really feeling especially creative yourself AND you want to run a sandbox saga, then this is the game for you.

Sector creation, world creation, alien creation…all these feel very similar to Traveller (for me anyway), save that there are key words and phrases associated with various choices designed to act as indicators and hooks. “Factions” are a bit different, being a way for the GM to create influential power organizations (from pirates and cultists to Imperial hegemonies and rebel alliances), all of which are tracked in their own mini-game (complete with phases and turns) so as to keep third party action occurring on the sidelines, even when the players’ actions/attention divert them elsewhere.

It’s all very interesting. While Crawford acknowledges different ways to play SWN, I infer from his writing that he prefers (or at least idealizes) the old school “let the chips fall where they may” sensibilities. His text cautions GMs not get attached to favorite NPCs who might get dropped at any time, and players are cautioned the same about their own characters. It would appear that the faction system is a way to bring the neutrality and impartiality of The Rules to the GM’s management of the game universe. Factions have X number of resources and Y number of “hit points;” player actions deplete these resources, possibly disrupting or demolishing the faction…all as governed by the rules. It IS interesting and I’m curious to know how it plays in practice.

Not that I have an interest in practicing it. Running a game is as much an art as a science, and GMs of SWN are still expected to artistically integrate all the faction, planets, and alien hooks/key words along with player motivation.

And that last bit is where the whole house o cards starts collapsing for me. Players are supposed to give their characters motivations, something that drives them forward into adventure…but no hard and fast rules are given for this. Nor is there any game mechanic that manages it. Nor is it tied in any way, shape, or form to a reward mechanic (the main motivating factor for long-term play of an RPG). GMs have this huge swath of tools that allow them to craft and manage the sandbox universe (with a lot of work), all so the characters can putz around, maybe get the gumption to go do something, or maybe sit around doing nothing and saying, “huh what do we do now?”

I look at this game, the way it’s written (and it’s written well by the way; you definitely won’t find typos the way you would in the first printing of my book!)…I look at this game and I get this image in my head of the author. I see him as a highly creative individual, a person with a deep passion for his subject matter and his ability to create worlds, who has decided to codify his normal GM actions/prep-work, designing a game that will make his life easier in the future. He has put together a system that will allow him to manage (and micro-manage) vast galaxies of stars without number, so that no matter what the players in his game do, his created universe can continue on and on...sometimes behind the scenes, sometimes out in the open.

Man, I hope he has players that appreciate it. I sure hope they are down with his type of game and don’t whine “Ugh! You can sneeze a hole through my first level character!” My players bitch when I don’t let clerics have a spell at 1st level.

I hope they appreciate it because that is a CRAZY level of work to run a giant, galaxy-spanning sandbox that operates in such semi-independent faction. It’s like wanting to create (not play, but design and program) an MMORPG for the table-top…a living one with constant updates based on the actions of the NPC characters/groups. It’s like playing “Sim-Civilization” on a galactic scale.

Crazy. But GMs and game designers have been known to have a certain level of “crazy” in ‘em (look at that Tekumel guy).

Okay, the last thing I want to write about is the advancement system. Character behavior is often shaped and almost always influenced by reward mechanics present in a game…I don’t care if it is a game designed to facilitate a simulationist creative agenda. If anything clued me in on this being a sim-style game it was the scant attention paid to rewards (at least compared to other sections of the game).

Characters gain levels through experience points (XP). XP awarded are determined on a “per mission” basis, based on the highest level party member and the total number of player characters. Per the XP guidelines, at least half of the XP that would be awarded should be “hidden,” contingent on the performance of the player characters. From the writing, it would appear the XP reward = treasure found/awarded though this isn’t explicit in the text…it simply says here’s the reward (number) and that only profit from this (number) awards XP to characters.

Whatever…it appears that there are various ways to profit in SWN, but only a set number of points per mission will provide XP…and that number can be adjusted arbitrarily by the GM depending on the GM’s whim/preference per the text.

What is the net effect of this? Um…that PCs don’t know how or when or what they’ll do to advance. Level is tied to both effectiveness (in combat and skill use) and survivability (hit points and saves), but characters impetus to adventure is supposed to be some chosen “drive” that is unenforceable and unmanageable by the rules as written. And the reward mechanic doesn’t promote a particular in-game behavior because PCs are simply being rewarded for showing up at the table…if then (depending on the whim and designs of the GM).

This IS sim gaming, but it is pretty weak. That is to say, the drives of the characters are only going to be as strong as what the players bring to the table based on their own investment in the game. The detailed chargen system will help provide some initial investment (assuming players have at least some character concept to begin), but since a 1st level character has a maximum 10 hit points (warrior with max hit points and an 18 Constitution) and even a greatsword does 2D6 damage (not to mention a non-energy rifle which does D10+2), it’s hard to believe players are going to want to invest TOO much in their characters.

Now this post is not really a review of the game: I don’t really do reviews. I just talk about my personal likes and dislikes and thoughts and feelings. If a lot of this sounds negative, it’s because I’m explaining why the game doesn’t work for ME. A lot of these things…skills, technobabble, 220 page books with pretty pictures…are going to appeal to people besides me. Do I think the game is any worse than other SciFi RPGs that have been published? Not really…and it’s quite a bit better than some.

But it certainly wouldn’t work for ALL types of space opera and SciFi fantasy. I would certainly use SWN for any game modeled on the Warhammer 40,000 universe (the included setting knocks off more than a bit of the 2nd edition fluff). I found myself drooling a LOT at the thought of using it for a series that modeled Marion Zimmer Bradley’s Darkover series (at least the later books with the interaction between the Terrans and Darkoverans).

I would NOT use it for Firefly or Star Wars or a Heavy Metal-inspired mutant mash-up, nor for planetary romances like S.M. Stirling’s recent Venus and Mars books, and it’s a little limited for trying most military SciFi (like Starship Troopers and Nu-BSG). I mean, you could use it…but I would think it needs some hardcore tweaking to model certain serials effectively.

As for whether or not it can model hard core SciFi literature, I really couldn’t say. I don’t read that much, probably because I’m not a big SciFi fan.
; )

22 comments:

  1. "Man, I hope he has players that appreciate it."

    He does. Frankly, I think SWN is about the best space opera RPG available, and I can't wait to pay cash money to have it in hardcopy. And I guess what you see as weaknesses I see as either a) geared toward different playstyles and purposes; b) opportunities to expand the game to better fit a particular style or setting (because there will simply never be one RPG that fits all style of SF), or; c) a difference of opinion.

    Your criticisms are very well-qualified (moreso than others who have said "OSR SFRPG? This isn't the droid you're looking for."), but I have to say that 4 or 5 posts in on this subject, and I still don't think that you or others have made it clear what are better approaches. More than that, I keep seeing "Wait 'til you see *my* game".

    Still waiting.

    I guess the thing that gets me is that SWN is a really astounding work that came out of nowhere, is better written, designed and edited than so much "pro" work out there, and meets the challenge set forth by so many associated with the OSR who say "let's see something new". And I get it, you've acknowledged this and said many of the same things, but usually followed by "...but,". It just feels like I'm starting to see more negative words than positive directed at SWN, much of which seems to come down to a matter of taste (which is somewhat typical of the hobby itself, isn't it?). What especially grates is that SWN is *exactly* what it says on the box, and a lot of the criticism seems to be based on what SWN is not, and never said it was.

    I feel like you're on the cusp of saying something important and cool here -- "give me a reason to adventure", and mechanics that back it up -- but it's getting lost in the SWN crit.

    Apologies if I offend, it's your blog and offense is not intended. I just felt it was time for someone to step up and offer some positive reinforcement for one of the better things to come out of the OSR, and one of the better games to come out in 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really appreciate the time and close reading you've done on SWN, and I think a lot of your criticisms are justified from the perspective you're bringing to the game. But as has been mentioned, I think that SWN is just fundamentally designed to do something you don't especially want done.

    For example, as you point out, 1st level SWN characters are extremely fragile. I discuss some ways to deal with that under the Death section of the GM guide, but honestly, that degree of fragility is exactly what old-school D&D gave 1st level PCs. For the first twenty-five years of the game, the novice magic-user got 1d4 hit points and AC 9, and that was what he lived with. One can argue that that's unplayably lethal and corrosive to character development, and the Death section discusses ways of getting around it, but that's the heritage the game is coming from. A 1st level fighter in 1981 kept his chain-mailed rear out of the line of fire unless he _had_ to fight, and there's a reason that module B1 has a couple pages full of cannon-fodder henchmen listed in back.

    I'd also agree that the game is simply not designed to mechanically define character motivations, or relate them explicitly to advancement. Systems that do that can be great systems, but they have absolutely nothing to do with OSR design in my mind. Old-school D&D had one motivation linked to advancement- getting cash, with trivial amounts also gained for killing stuff. The GM has always decided when characters would advance by determining how much loot there was for them to find; I just decided to abandon the pretense that it ever was anything but arbitrary GM fiat.

    I think your comments were useful and interesting, and there's a lot more I could say about them. But I think it important to underline that SWN was never intended to be the game you seem to be looking for, and trying to find something other than "OSR sandbox sci-fi adventure" in it isn't likely to work out well for anyone.

    @Robert, allow me to note that SWN's just gotten hardback and perfect-bound versions available at DriveThruRPG, if you're interested in either.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ Robert:

    SWN was good enough to prompt me to write a blog post specifically about it, and thought provoking enough to (along with certain other games) prompt me on a tangential discussion of new-old school SciFi in general. Certainly, I wasn’t trying to offend (I generally only TRY to offend when it comes to 4th and 2nd edition D&D).

    I AM in the process of developing my own “space game” and people kept mentioning SWN. Personally, I prefer to NOT duplicate work; for me, I don’t think it is “the best space opera game available” but one that is quite good at a few specifics. My discussion was less about tearing it down than about…mmm…”sharing my thoughts” on certain design choices. That way when people see MY design, they’ll understand a bit of my choices.

    In all seriousness, I was actually hoping to stir up a bit of discussion on other people’s view of SWN. I mean, I HAVE been known to change my mind/opinions with a little discussion.
    ; )

    [and no, you don’t offend. Thanks for bothering to read!]


    @ Sine:

    Hey, man, I didn’t read the box…I was just told it was a fantastic space opera game! I’m not really sure WHAT I expected to find!

    Now, if I take you at your word…that the game is no more than an “OSR sandbox SciFi adventure” game…I’m not sure it meets your own description. By which I mean: it appears a little too sophisticated for that. Customizable skill packages, metagame mechanics, and the Faction rules are NOT things that I’d call “old school.” And the tone of the game (especially Design Notes) shows a lot of what I would consider “new school” (or, at least, “Old School Nouveau”) mentality.

    My own B/X-based space opera game is anything but Old School. Just having classes/levels/saving throws doesn’t make a game “old school” even if it’s being designed by ranking members of the OSR. My judgments/critique was based on 21st century design thoughts. Your game appears to juxtapose Old and New ideas, and not always successfully (in my opinion).

    For example, abandoning the pretense of “GM fiat” XP awards is definitely “new school iconoclasm” from my perspective. And not totally accurate, in my opinion. After all, monsters in old school D&D have assigned “Treasure Types” that each have an “average yield.” Of course, these are guidelines that can be tweaked by a DM, but (for example) players know that a dragon hoard will usually net a greater reward than a pack of gnolls…and can thus weigh risk/reward pros and cons. In a D&D “sandbox” this gives players an impetus to take on different challenges based on their degree of comfort with relative risk. In SWN, there is no such motivation (all missions yield the same reward) and so it is left to players to find their own motivation.

    This is a criticism of the game, but it’s not enough to flush it…the fact of the matter is that SWN appears to be well suited for a number of SciFi styles (as I pointed out), and I think it is a good piece of work. As far as free games go? I don’t think I’ve seen a single work that is in the same class.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In truth, I don't feel that abandoning the XP pretense is in any way noveau because the goal is not to do something new, but to do something old with less cumbering. Old-school editions had treasure types, yes, but everything the party encountered was there by GM fiat. If the GM decided that there were no dragons to slay, there were no hoards to plunder. Rather than go all the way round Robin Hood's barn to get to the point that the GM decides how much potential XP is to be had, I decided to skip to the end result. The crucial element is that there is nothing a player can do to invariably earn advancement. There's no mechanic to advance due solely to player resource expenditures or play choices. In both old D&D editions and SWN, the GM is the font of all advancement, and SWN just makes fewer bones about it.

    I know you don't much care for skills, either, but they're in the OSR tradition too as much as some people detest them. Right from the 1e DMG and its list of background professions, through RC BECMI skill lists, 1e OA/WSG/DSG nonweapon proficiencies, and 2e core nonweapon proficiencies. Since so much of the distinction between sci-fi heroes is often in their particular set of talents, I didn't feel much inclination to jettison skills from the heritage I included.

    As for the faction rules, a constant complaint I'm hearing from retroclone enthusiasts is that so few of them even nod toward "name level" PCs and the development of their holdings. Well, this is it, right down to the mention of 9th level as being a good time for PCs to start one. It takes up a few more pages than the domain rules in BECMI's Companion set, but not too many more.

    In all the above, I think that metagame considerations existed from the first time that somebody wrote in to Dragon complaining about Monty Haulism. Refusing to include them in a game simply means that the participants won't all necessarily know what those metagame considerations _are_.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ Sine:

    I see where you're coming from and I wasn't really wanting to debate. I'm more interested in knowing how the game works in practice. Was there a particular book, movie, style, etc. that you were hoping the game would model? How has it worked out for you?

    ALSO (on the subject of player drives): do your players have a difficult time investing in your particular high concept? Do they tend to play "scurrilous rogues in space?" Have any of them reached "faction" level?

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you'll pardon an intrusion, I have a few thoughts on what might be a "better" approach.

    ("Better" not in an objective sense, but in what JB is looking for.)

    Skills - In the source material JB cites - Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, etc - characters typically have broad areas of competence. Princess Leia can fire a blaster, bluff Darth Vader, fly a hovercycle, plan and participate in a commando raid, rig an explosive and probably fly a ship if needed. Kirk has basic competence at engineering, navigation, etc. So going by a standard skill system would produce characters with long and mostly overlapping skill lists. Instead, handle most skill checks with ability checks, modified by level and possibly class. Everyone is assumed to have a broad level of adventuring competence. To distinguish exceptional talent, allow characters to take Specializations that represent particular expertise. A specialization a. gives bonuses to ability checks and b. may allow the character to perform tasks otherwise not allowed. So a Medicine specialization gives bonuses to ability checks for medical tasks and allows the character to diagnose diseases and do surgery. The idea is characters start with only one or two specializations.

    Classes - d20 Modern (which I do not have) had classes linked to abilities, which might fit what JB likes - Agile Hero, Strong Hero, Tough Hero, etc. Presumably such classes Alternately, go with Warrior (good at combat and best hit points) and Expert (gets more specializations) classes, and add specialized classes depending on specific material. So psi abilities might fit a SWN style Mystic class. Aliens might get their own classes - think of Vulcans as working like the SF version of red box elves.

    What I'm trying for is something that lets you quickly define characters from fiction in game terms. Examples:

    James T. Kirk: High level Warrior, high Charisma, specializations in Leadership and Dilpomacy

    Spock - high level Vulcan

    McCoy and Scotty - high level Experts with specializations in Medicine and Engineering, respectively. McCoy has high Wisdom, Scotty has high Intelligence.

    Luke Skywalker (as of Star Wars) - mid level Warrior with high Dex and Pilot specialization.

    Princess Leia - mid level Expert with Diplomacy and Spy type specializations.

    Mal Reynolds - mid level Warrior with Leadership specialization.

    Etc.

    Hope this isn't disrupting the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If you'll pardon an intrusion, I have a few thoughts on what might be a "better" approach.

    ("Better" not in an objective sense, but in what JB is looking for.)

    Skills - In the source material JB cites - Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, etc - characters typically have broad areas of competence. Princess Leia can fire a blaster, bluff Darth Vader, fly a hovercycle, plan and participate in a commando raid, rig an explosive and probably fly a ship if needed. Kirk has basic competence at engineering, navigation, etc. So going by a standard skill system would produce characters with long and mostly overlapping skill lists. Instead, handle most skill checks with ability checks, modified by level and possibly class. Everyone is assumed to have a broad level of adventuring competence. To distinguish exceptional talent, allow characters to take Specializations that represent particular expertise. A specialization a. gives bonuses to ability checks and b. may allow the character to perform tasks otherwise not allowed. So a Medicine specialization gives bonuses to ability checks for medical tasks and allows the character to diagnose diseases and do surgery. The idea is characters start with only one or two specializations.

    Classes - d20 Modern (which I do not have) had classes linked to abilities, which might fit what JB likes - Agile Hero, Strong Hero, Tough Hero, etc. Presumably such classes Alternately, go with Warrior (good at combat and best hit points) and Expert (gets more specializations) classes, and add specialized classes depending on specific material. So psi abilities might fit a SWN style Mystic class. Aliens might get their own classes - think of Vulcans as working like the SF version of red box elves.

    What I'm trying for is something that lets you quickly define characters from fiction in game terms. Examples:

    James T. Kirk: High level Warrior, high Charisma, specializations in Leadership and Dilpomacy

    Spock - high level Vulcan

    McCoy and Scotty - high level Experts with specializations in Medicine and Engineering, respectively. McCoy has high Wisdom, Scotty has high Intelligence.

    Luke Skywalker (as of Star Wars) - mid level Warrior with high Dex and Pilot specialization.

    Princess Leia - mid level Expert with Diplomacy and Spy type specializations.

    Mal Reynolds - mid level Warrior with Leadership specialization.

    Etc.

    Hope this isn't disrupting the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you'll pardon an intrusion, I have a few thoughts on what might be a "better" approach.

    ("Better" not in an objective sense, but in what JB is looking for.)

    Skills - In the source material JB cites - Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, etc - characters typically have broad areas of competence. Princess Leia can fire a blaster, bluff Darth Vader, fly a hovercycle, plan and participate in a commando raid, rig an explosive and probably fly a ship if needed. Kirk has basic competence at engineering, navigation, etc. So going by a standard skill system would produce characters with long and mostly overlapping skill lists. Instead, handle most skill checks with ability checks, modified by level and possibly class. Everyone is assumed to have a broad level of adventuring competence. To distinguish exceptional talent, allow characters to take Specializations that represent particular expertise. A specialization a. gives bonuses to ability checks and b. may allow the character to perform tasks otherwise not allowed. So a Medicine specialization gives bonuses to ability checks for medical tasks and allows the character to diagnose diseases and do surgery. The idea is characters start with only one or two specializations.

    Classes - d20 Modern (which I do not have) had classes linked to abilities, which might fit what JB likes - Agile Hero, Strong Hero, Tough Hero, etc. Presumably such classes Alternately, go with Warrior (good at combat and best hit points) and Expert (gets more specializations) classes, and add specialized classes depending on specific material. So psi abilities might fit a SWN style Mystic class. Aliens might get their own classes - think of Vulcans as working like the SF version of red box elves.

    What I'm trying for is something that lets you quickly define characters from fiction in game terms. Examples:

    James T. Kirk: High level Warrior, high Charisma, specializations in Leadership and Dilpomacy

    Spock - high level Vulcan

    McCoy and Scotty - high level Experts with specializations in Medicine and Engineering, respectively. McCoy has high Wisdom, Scotty has high Intelligence.

    Luke Skywalker (as of Star Wars) - mid level Warrior with high Dex and Pilot specialization.

    Princess Leia - mid level Expert with Diplomacy and Spy type specializations.

    Mal Reynolds - mid level Warrior with Leadership specialization.

    Etc.

    Hope this isn't disrupting the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If you'll pardon an intrusion, I have a few thoughts on what might be a "better" approach.

    ("Better" not in an objective sense, but in what JB is looking for.)

    Skills - In the source material JB cites - Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, etc - characters typically have broad areas of competence. Princess Leia can fire a blaster, bluff Darth Vader, fly a hovercycle, plan and participate in a commando raid, rig an explosive and probably fly a ship if needed. Kirk has basic competence at engineering, navigation, etc. So going by a standard skill system would produce characters with long and mostly overlapping skill lists. Instead, handle most skill checks with ability checks, modified by level and possibly class. Everyone is assumed to have a broad level of adventuring competence. To distinguish exceptional talent, allow characters to take Specializations that represent particular expertise. A specialization a. gives bonuses to ability checks and b. may allow the character to perform tasks otherwise not allowed. So a Medicine specialization gives bonuses to ability checks for medical tasks and allows the character to diagnose diseases and do surgery. The idea is characters start with only one or two specializations.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Really sorry about the double post. Blogger was being unfriendly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The game has worked quite smoothly thus far, which is unsurprising to me, since so much of the basic mechanical framework is just a restatement of a model that's worked handsomely for near forty years. None of the activities it addresses specifically require the game's mechanical support- GMs have been building sandbox sci-fi worlds for decades, and have been handling player domains and creating alien races and strange beasts for just as long. In my experience, the rules have been helpful for GMs who are trying to do such things, and have let them do more, more easily than they could otherwise.

    The game makes no attempt to emulate any particular book, film, or series. Bits and pieces of such things make excellent grist, but the fundamental, underlying structure of a sandbox game world has always seemed to me to be utterly incommensurate with a book or TV series. It is something very, very different on a fundamental level, and trying to replicate those shows or books with a sandbox game is a doomed effort. You can take the parts and profit by them, but the sandbox gaming model I used for SWN operates by its own militantly anti-predestinarian rules.

    Because of this, I have a very difficult time imagining how any SWN player could be so devoid of imagination and drive as to be unable to come up with his or her own motivation for a PC, unable even to establish something as simple as the default "accumulate wealth and power". It's the GM's responsibility to make the world, but it's the players' responsibilities to have a reason to interact with it. In one game, players started out with a "Rogue Trader" premise in a Star Wars backwater region. The goal was to build a trading power in Hydra Sector, and that motivation was plenty to provide the characters with all reasons they needed. Players in a sandbox game have to be willing to act upon the world or they're failing the game as badly as a GM who doesn't bother to prepare the game world.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Heavy Metal-inspired mutant mash up"

    That wouldn't have anything to do with this (http://cyclopeatron.blogspot.com/2010/08/heavy-metalpocalypse-in-gamma-world.html) post on Cyclopeatron, would it?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dark Heresy...I did the same: bought the book, read it, sold it back. Nice setting, HORRID rules. It's really, really rules heavy; skills, talents, traits, combat. I thought it was as streamlined as WFRP2e. Instead, they went a completely different route, and for the worse, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ Antonio: I was pretty excited when DH came out...until I flipped through the rules. Never bought it.

    @ C'nor: Nope. I just read a lot of Heavy Metal magazines as a kid. But thanks for the link!

    @ Infornic: No problem. I'm not sure there's a "better" approach, so much as different approaches. I'm interested in discussing those.

    To me, "class-based" systems would feel "right"...but then I look at something like Trinity and say, no-no, this does NOT work for me.

    Everything else is negotiable.

    @ Sine:

    (regarding the players building a trading power in Hydra)

    ...and did you use the random adventure seeds for developing scenarios? Did you shape these to match the players' ambitions...or were the players given free reign to ignore them in pursuit of other goals?

    It just seems like two different things are going on here...in one sense, we have text that discusses creating "conflicts that the PCs can help resolve" (i.e. adventures), which is very "old school" (players show up, scenario is presented, players "do their thing"). But on the other hand players are told "every character should have a goal from the very start" and it is emphasized that this goal is the driving force of the character. What happens when the goal and the adventure scenario don't jibe? Has this been a non-issue in your games? Or am I perhaps missing some part of the text that joins these ideas?

    Thanks for your thoughts!

    ReplyDelete
  15. As for the group building a trading power in Hydra, I'm not sure what the GM used to build specific adventures. I believe she simply looked at the list of friends/enemies/complications/things/places for a given world and cooked something up out of the raw parts, depending on where the players decided to go and why they decided to go there.

    I believe it's in the adventure creation section that I discuss how the first adventure a GM runs for a given group might not map well to their goals because it's assumed that PCs will be created in the first ten minutes of the first play session. Character creation takes all of ten minutes if you dawdle over it- roll 3d6 six times in order, pick a class, swap a prime attribute for a score of 14, pick a background, pick a training package, and roll hit points. Buying gear is the lengthiest part of the process, and that's if you have the credits for more than essentials. Because the GM doesn't know what the characters are interested in, I advise him or her to make it an adventure based on fairly universal ambitions, such as making money or getting passage off-planet. At the end of the adventure, the party then tells the GM where they plan to go and what they want to accomplish there, and the GM uses that information to make the next session's adventure.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ By the Sword: Hey, I think it's a good game. I was just down at Gary's today asking if they had a hard cover copy. No dice I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  18. JB, I deleted my post because I misspelled your initials.

    It was your review that led me to this game after all.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ BTS: No worries. Hope you're enjoying it!

    ReplyDelete
  20. So I am wondering, what WOULD you use for a star wars esque game?

    ReplyDelete
  21. @ Aeromer: Haven't found one yet...at this point, I've resigned myself to writing my own. It's just tough finding the time with everything else going on in my life. It's not like I get paid for this stuff!
    ; )

    ReplyDelete
  22. What about using the really old-school X-Plorers with the Stars Without Number sandbox guide?

    ReplyDelete