 October 21, 2012 - 6:48am | I have been thinking about how differently SF would be if there was no shadowy adversary like the Sathar, nor a major multilateral government force like the UPF. There would still be mysterious aliens, but not as the ominous, overarching threat as presented with the Sathar. I never liked the Sathar, as they always felt shoehorned in, and they go above and beyond the keep them mysterious, thus robbing them of any real dimension or playability. Naturally, they where the product of making the game kid-friendly, as its easier to have a clearly evil enemy, then a world cast in shades of gray. In fact, the Alpha Dawn modules plays much better without them! The bast enemy the Frontier has, are themselves. Beyond the cliché nature of the Federation, they only really serve the setting to be the good guys. They fight-off the Sathar, and they keep hostilities between worlds and megacorps in check. They are the shinning light of hope in a world surrounded by dangers and darkness. Without them and the Sathar, the worlds of the Frontier would be fairly chaotic, with those in power trying seize more power. Such a climate is perfect for adventuring! Removing them is not that hard. There are enough planetary governments, corporations, criminal groups, and independent groups to fill the vacuum of both. If you sill what your worms, take an unexplored system or two and mark them as S'sessu worlds (in Dragon Magazine #96, they suggest "two stellar systems (each with one small inhabited planet) lying ten light years from the Gruna Garu system, on a line running from Dixon?s Star to Gruna Garu and on to the S?sessu worlds", and they called one of the worlds Phri?'sk). As for Star Law, they can work like normal, but they lack the support of a major multilateral government council and large space fleet. Although, planetary defense forces could get a way with larger fleet sizes - as opposed to the dinky little Militia fleets. So what do you guys think of such an alternative it the setting? |
 October 21, 2012 - 8:10am | You're almost setting it up like a Babylon 5 scenario at the beginning, where each race have their own planets, cultures and governments. They might clash with each other from time to time, the on going struggles between the Yazarians and Dralasites. Something the Vrusks may not even want to deal with. Might have to include more races to make things more interesting however. Consider it a pre-UPF galaxy, might even have some planets as former colonies have an indenpendant view of how they want to go from the direction their homeworld has. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
 October 21, 2012 - 9:58am | Ever since I read the interview with Mr. Cook in Starfrontiersman 18 that the "Frontier" was actually just an example that got used by lazy people not wanting to create something of their own, I have been seriously considering what should change about the setting to make it more realisitic and more playable. Changing K'aken-Kar, Araks, White Light and Fromeltar to the Homeworlds of the races would be my first change. The Sathar would remain a shadowy enemy but would have a little more defining done. Earth has had the enemies which appear and disappear mostly in ancient times when many lands were not known by other lands. How much the four races cooperate would seem to be a product of how much a threat the Sathar are. One thing would be the fleets would be much more race specific. The age of the UPF (in Alpha Dawn)does not lend itself to ships constructed on a multi-racial front. Not to mention the difference in bodies which would require generic ships to have alot of wasted space and duplicate items. Spacefleet would need to be closer to the UN forces of today with limited and specific missions. The ships would be drawn from the planets. How they would serve is something I would have to think on more. But the fact Spacefleet is supposed to be superior to the Militias needs more justification especially if the crews are supposed to be the scum of the Frontier. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
 October 21, 2012 - 11:39am | Interesting that you started this conversation! Because the editors of the Frontier Explorer have uncovered notes from teleconferenced interviews given by Lawarence Schick and Kim Eastland a Sci Con '99. Unfortunately we only have notes composed by the interview moderator and not an actual transcript but they are extremely interesting none the less. If you are a registered subscriber of FE then you already got notice of the advance copy of the zine and have access to these very enlightning notes but if you have not yet subscribed to the FE then you have to wait for the offical release which is coming out shortly. All I can say is Schick's comment bare greatly on this discussion. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 October 21, 2012 - 1:39pm | In the mid 80's my gaming group decided to abandon Alpha Dawn altogether when the game system was discontinued by TSR. The ideas we developed became the eventual basis of my Titan Rising fictional universe. Of course I made some changes from the original campaign material but one of the most important parts was that every race was playable. Even now, my work with TR in gaming development allows all races to be playable. Now true, some of the races are viewed as adversarries more than others but it's also a matter of prospective. The Fen view the Alliance as an adversarry because their brethern refugees have become entrenched in their society losing their individual identity which in their opinion is no better than life under the Shi'an. It's a matter of perspective for them. But you do need an adversarry to drive the story but it should be open for interpretation as to who the adversary is. |
 October 21, 2012 - 4:58pm | Ever since I read the interview with Mr. Cook in Starfrontiersman 18 that the "Frontier" was actually just an example that got used by lazy people not wanting to create something of their own, I have been seriously considering what should change about the setting to make it more realisitic and more playable. I had a similar experience. I had not played SF since I was a teen and when I started GMing for my kids, started by doing what I remembered. But reading here, especially in the projects where ideas get distilled down to their essence, and reading that article has caused me to think a lot. I'm using the sathar for now, as the pre-preinted modules all use them, but as we run out of the modules, I plan to have the UPF fleet begin to beat them back and find some of their core worlds to take them out of the pucture at least as bring "front burner" enemies. From there I plan to expand the scope of the frontier to include contact with other areas of space to cause the UPF to be a little more marginalized. |
October 21, 2012 - 5:07pm | Ever since I read the interview with Mr. Cook in Starfrontiersman 18 that the "Frontier" was actually just an example that got used by lazy people not wanting to create something of their own, I have been seriously considering what should change about the setting to make it more realisitic and more playable. Yeah, that interview got me thinking the something. But even before it, I had no love for what I called the "Red (alien) menace," but the interview opened a better alternative for me then just omitting the worms - namely the S'sessu. Amoral and mercantile, but not outright evil. That makes for great character dynamics, and helps contrast some of the nicer aliens. Consider it a pre-UPF galaxy, might even have some planets as former colonies have an indenpendant view of how they want to go from the direction their homeworld has. Belive it or not, I started a project like that called Age of Adveture, which is a pre-Sathar, pre-UPF setting, styled like Golden Age science fiction (think pulp-era covers). Its not a huge effort, as all you need to do is dumb-down the tech (e.g. I made the polyvox look like an old chest-mounted radio with a funnel-mic and language tracks on tapedecks - its all bulky as hell!). Oddly enough, some of the art in the old AD rulebooks conveys that classic style quite nicely. Interesting that you started this conversation! Because the editors of the Frontier Explorer have uncovered notes from teleconferenced interviews given by Lawarence Schick and Kim Eastland a Sci Con '99. I would be quite interested in reading them, once they become public. I'm not a registered subscriber of FE, nor do I have access to their 'zine. Such materials might make great additions to that SF Wiki I have working on (oh yeah, update: I added a table to the front page to make the site easier to navigate). I will have to check it out! Thanks for the heads up! |
October 21, 2012 - 5:28pm | FE is free for the PDF, print on demand if you like hard copy, and we put each issue on line so you should be able to view it one way or another. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
October 21, 2012 - 7:00pm | I have looked it up, and I forgot about that 'zine. I downloaded issue #1 back when you first announced it. I quite enjoyed the article on the Lossend Rangers. I just signed-up to that site. |
October 21, 2012 - 7:11pm | I have looked it up, and I forgot about that 'zine. I downloaded issue #1 back when you first announced it. I quite enjoyed the article on the Lossend Rangers. I just signed-up to that site. if you are now a subscriber and logged in you can now see the preview PDF for issue 2: http://frontierexplorer.org/magazines its missing the covers front and back but the purpose is because Tom and I have looked at the material so much that we sometimes miss misspellings so if you email us at ---I cant locate the email address (it was in the email that went out to the subscribers and I'm in too much pain from workt to sit still and try to locate it. but anyway you dig into issue 2's preview I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 October 21, 2012 - 7:21pm | The e-mail jedi couldn't remember is editors@frontierexplorer.org. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
 October 21, 2012 - 8:32pm | I have been thinking about how differently SF would be if there was no shadowy adversary like the Sathar, nor a major multilateral government force like the UPF. So what do you guys think of such an alternative it the setting? I did exactly that with my setting. Granted it starts with the UPF and Sathar, but as the campagin moves along they both get "replaced". In my game I have an upstart dictator who served under Louis V. Jameson who is theorized to have clan-blood ties to Hilo Headow of Streel and resulting support from Streel as well as the Free Frontiersmen Foundation. After sacking the outpost world of Histran and eventually getting unseated, he makes a few feints around the Frontier and eventually manages to sack Laco and imposing a tight iron fisted dictatorship rule, effectively establishing a blockade that cuts off Truane's Star and Zebulon. The conspiracy theories go full tilt as Streel begins offering passage-escort to any craft wishing to traverse Dixon's Star. SpaceFleet executes a major offensive against the new Laconian government after they seceded from the UPF and CoW...establishing their own sovereign domain authority (referred to as SDA throughout the campaign). UPF forces are overwhelmed and humiliated thanks to larger-than battleship carriers and capital ships combined with massive fighter squadrons. Granted UPF had enabled similar programs but too little too late, SDA had the jump on them in terms of production. One by one UPF systems fall untilthe last remnants of the UPF are routed into hiding. The sathar make the mistake of striking soon after that war, believing the defending disctatorship being severely weakened, and are summarily routed back to their worlds. SDA follows them home but the war ends in a stalemate. With a mutual understanding that neither side can intrude into the other territory, each force keeps to their own. It's sort of Star Warsy, in the sense that former UPF Loyalists are the "rebellion". There's a bionic enhanced mentalist serving as a Vader-esque stooge to the dictator, Princess Leotia Valentine XXII makes an attempt to cross the Frontier to deliver vital UPF Loyalist intel to an operative a la Princess Leia, and everyone's favorite Lucas knock off makes a return as well (the Malthar) albeit serving to disrupt SDA via maintaining a secret smuggling empire. Basically there is no UPF or Sathar over a 30 year stretch. Read all about it in my timeline here: |
 October 25, 2012 - 6:48pm | The Sathar are boring because they are one dimensional and were overused in the modules. I don't think it has to be an all or nothing with them. They can be used to create a reason for the UPF and create some tension, but their appearances should be very rare. The real interesting stuff are the planetary and corporate wars; pirates; exploration and exploitation of new worlds etc. That was one positive thing to come out of Zebulon's Guide: the PGC was no longer your friend. It was now The Company along the lines of the Alien universe. As to the UPF, it seems more like a UN or confederation rather than an actual government. I've always had the impression that the UPF is a naval version of the militia; a volunteer organization with funding for fleet building and maintenance being subject to the whims of the frontier governments. That explains why the UPF has such low recruiting standards for the enlisted crews. The UPF is chronically short on funds and so it spends what it has on new ships and a core group of officers to serve as the nucleus of a larger fleet should the need arise. A good analogy would be NATO or any other coallition force with each member trying to minimize its contribution and divert funds to its own needs; until the ballon goes up and then they come together to the common defense, we hope. Based on descriptions of the First Sathar War, mobilization doesn't always go smoothly. Based on frontier history as described in Alpha Dawn Basic and Expert manuals, the races reached out to each other and got along reasonably well long before the Sathar showed up. I don't think the Sathar are a requirement for the 4 races to live in harmony or something like that. |
October 25, 2012 - 7:55pm | For the time period SF was different from other games in that their was not a horde of intelligent races for the players to confront. SF had only the Sathar. Since they were not well defined in terms of culture that well and actually had some ridiculous aspects (they could speak all Frontier languages and no one could understand them). Still they can work just need to know how you want to use them and start writing a background from there. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
 October 25, 2012 - 9:03pm | I started to work out a back story for sather years ago. Lost the papers i had fror them, but it went somthing like: The sather have androngenouse sexual reproduction and reproduce quikely (like slugs). This made the history of their world one of constant conflict as the various liniages/factions constantly competed for resources. When they started to expand into space the Sather leadership, wanting to unite the Sather for the sake of progress, turned to the neighboring species as convenient common enemies. This is why they seem to be at war with everyone. They are at war with the UPF because otherwise they would go back to tearing themselves apart. Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The world is changed by unreasonable men. Edwin Louis Cole |
 October 26, 2012 - 12:59am | Really it comes down to how you want to use them in your campaign. there is no right or wrong way to use them. As we saw with the David cook interview, the S'Sessu is probably the closest thing to the original idea for the sathar. If someone has a more in depth sathar and someone has none, really does it matter? I think there are some inherent problems with the sathar as they were drawn. That little flipper for a hand does not really work for me. I have seen some other fan drawings of the sathar and they have some digits on those flippers and it is more realistic to my senses. as rattraveller pointed out the language issues also did not make sense. I like having an enemy for a campaing, but that could be a megacorp, the Malthar, even the UPF. It just comes down to what you want for the game. |
October 26, 2012 - 5:52am | From a KHs perspective it might be interesting to have the S'ssesu so that you could write KHs scenarios that include UPF and Sathar ship designs on the same side- sort of like some of the scenarios in Star Craft where humans and Protoss might be working against the zerg. But for that to really work well you need better faction design and distinct racial weapon's/defense mix of a kin to what Star Fleet Battles had- only Romulans and Gorn had plasma weapons (and what fun plasma weapons were!) I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
October 26, 2012 - 7:18am | From a KHs perspective it might be interesting to have the S'ssesu so that you could write KHs scenarios that include UPF and Sathar ship designs on the same side- sort of like some of the scenarios in Star Craft where humans and Protoss might be working against the zerg. But for that to really work well you need better faction design and distinct racial weapon's/defense mix of a kin to what Star Fleet Battles had- only Romulans and Gorn had plasma weapons (and what fun plasma weapons were!) I wish I could draw. I'd love to draw up some different ship designs for the different factions. It is definitely lacking in the original game art. Maybe introducing the S'ssessu would be a cool way to introduce the GAUSS weapons we were discussing in the Needler thread... In my campaign, the Mechanon fighters and their advanced tech are going to be how the ship POD LASER gets introduced into the frontier. I'm going to use the mutual defense treaty between the UPF and the RIM coalition to be the introduction of SPACE ELEVATORS to the frontier. EDIT - This just in...the Humma will be how scatter guns get brought into the setting. Hop in...BLAM...hop back. |
October 26, 2012 - 4:56pm | Once again we are struck by the fact SF was meant for a younger audience so many things were simplified, such as everyone using the same weapons. This isn't bad if you just tweek them alittle. Take guns. the US and Soviets both used assault rifles as their main weapons. Both were 5.56 mm. After that they were completely different. Their safeties were even different. The same thing could be done with laser weapons or anything else. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
October 26, 2012 - 6:19pm | Once again we are struck by the fact SF was meant for a younger audience so many things were simplified, such as everyone using the same weapons. This isn't bad if you just tweek them alittle. Take guns. the US and Soviets both used assault rifles as their main weapons. Both were 5.56 mm. After that they were completely different. Their safeties were even different. The same thing could be done with laser weapons or anything else. I remember when I was in the Army we used to have flash cards with sillouetes of Nato and Warsaw Pact ground vehicles on them. We used to practice with them for IFF drills. The big spotlights always gave them away... |
October 27, 2012 - 9:15am | Once again we are struck by the fact SF was meant for a younger audience so many things were simplified, such as everyone using the same weapons. This isn't bad if you just tweek them alittle.
Take guns. the US and Soviets both used assault rifles as their main weapons. Both were 5.56 mm. After that they were completely different. Their safeties were even different. The same thing could be done with laser weapons or anything else. Agreed, that is something GMs can tweak on their own to add flavor. Actual differences between the AKM series and M-16 were enormous, however, in game terms they are synonomous: 30round magazine, 3 round burst or full automatic fire. 3d10 DMG for the burst or 10d10 for full auto. Just like a sword is a sword in DnD. It's up to the referee to create the world and add details like a colt .45ACP instead if just a handgun. SF actually worked well in that everything was generic and let the gamemaster fill in the details. Too many games got carried away with all kinds of weapons that were really no different other than their names. |
October 27, 2012 - 1:37pm | Too many games got carried away with all kinds of weapons that were really no different other than their names.
<cough> Top Secret </cough> |
October 28, 2012 - 12:25am | Too many games got carried away with all kinds of weapons that were really no different other than their names. Yeah, I see game that get so into different weapon types, they have long lists of pistols, rifles and such. In some cases, the list gets so crazy, they list them like catalogs for real products within the rulebooks. Of all the most egregious example, is Cyberpunk 2020 -- although, it is in keeping with the ubiquitous commercialism of the setting, but all the extensive list becomes a real clusterfuck after awhile. |
October 28, 2012 - 1:54am | an early example was AD&D and the endless list of different pole arms that Gygax worked up; I loved Arnson's comment on it; "Really, its a long stick with a sharp pointy thing on the end." I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
October 28, 2012 - 2:31pm | an early example was AD&D and the endless list of different pole arms that Gygax worked up; I loved Arnson's comment on it; "Really, its a long stick with a sharp pointy thing on the end."
AD&D wasn't the only one, Mentzer's Master Rules box set did this as well (the supplement that followed Basic, Expert, and Companion rules). In the end pole arm mastery and damage was universal but there were sub-categories of special abilities after that. |
October 28, 2012 - 3:08pm | Funny I use the weapons list as a rating about whether to purchase the game. If it has a basic list of pistol, rifle, machinegun than it is not a combat heavy game and the focus is on other gaming elements. If there are ten different pistols listed for left handed shooters than that is a hack and slash written by members of the NRA. Depending on what I am looking for in the game say "Starship Troopers or Doctor Who" The rating of available weapons should compliment the setting. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
October 29, 2012 - 1:05am | an early example was AD&D and the endless list of different pole arms that Gygax worked up; I loved Arnson's comment on it; "Really, its a long stick with a sharp pointy thing on the end." I'm not surprised. Besides his well known love for pole arms, Gygax's approach to D&D was more tactical then Arnson, who was more of a "pure" (as in loose and abstract; plot-driven) role-player. |
October 29, 2012 - 4:56am | @Malcadon: Yeah, Gygax was a wargamer first and as a kid I was always baffled as to why the company he started was Tactical Study Rules! Then I grew up and encountered the attitude that was all nose in the air about getting way from miniatures, wargaming elements and becoming truly story driven for the the hobby to prosper. Which the story driven croud had some good points that I listened too and took ideas from like the good little idea whore that I am BUT their strident assertion of the superiority of their ideas had the smell of extreme elietism and I took their "dump the clap trap and legacy of wargaming" with a grain of salt I want to run story driven games and I like a good tactical encounter. If you have never played a good wargame with beautiful terrain, and painted figures with 5 other like minded hobbyist around the 4'X8' (or larger) table then I can tell you that it is story telling but on a grand scale and yes dice and a set of rules are being used to work out combat but with a good set of rules strategic and tactical dicisions are what the story is and its can be a glorious 4 or 5 hours spent enjoying your hobby with like minded men who come from all walks of life but have a love of the genre you are gaming in (in my club its history and the fact that we are actually refighting historic battles has the added mental stimulation of exploring the history and finding out possible "what ifs" because we have hind sight and try different decisions then the generals who lived it). I'm not against stroy driven games nor against tactical games; I'm for them both. The big difference between me and a story driven gamer is while we can both enjoy a story driven game I can slap some miniatures and terrain on a table and enjoy a tactical game, he's stuck with a story game. There are some huge differences between wargaming on the massed combat and the squad level and then role playing but its all gaming and if you recognize the differences between the different scales of action you can have fun with all of them. GASLIGHT is a beer and pretzels colonial steam punk game that when it first came out did this beautifully with a series of cheap little books each dedicated to different level of combat- massed battels, squad level, and RPG with the RPG supliment having rules for integrating you PC into squad and massed battle games. You bought and used the level of rules you were interested in or bought all three. Since then there have been a couple more suplements and they did a hard bound compendium rules which turned out to be a little bit confusing. I do get a kick out of the Vampire the Story croud though when the get their nose in the air over tactical elements. Finally, I'd like to point out one thing- when introducing role playing to children who are a little prone to make believe kind of games, having "playing" pieces is a plus. Younger children have a harder time thinking in abstract terms (or at least the one psych course i took in college outlined brain development in children and how they cant think in abstract terms before certain ages) having a miniature and a battle mat or even better if you build a little terrain goes a long way toward brining the game alive to the child. Teen agers can handle a more abstract and cerebral game and they probably have goth friends at school so the Vampire the elietist gathering kind of game will appeal to them more but younger children below 10 will enjoy and "get" a game with more playing pieces (though if they are over 10 you can abstract more). Plus children will "get" the attraction that I get from wargaming with other like minded amateur historians: they enjoy playing games with their parents and 2-3 hours spent focused on a game or "toys" will be 2-3 of the most glorious hours for them. Its really just about having fun. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
October 29, 2012 - 8:27am | Then I grew up and encountered the attitude that was all nose in the air about getting way from miniatures, wargaming elements and becoming truly story driven for the the hobby to prosper That's the difference between Advnaced D&D and regular D&D. Once you thow that "advanced" into the title, you deal with the elitist attitude that goes with it. Let's do a brief summary. Back in 1980 a mere $12 got you the Moldvay Basic boxed set that contained a 64 page rulebook, dice, and a module. That same $12 could also get you a 250+page AD&D DMG, 100+ page Player Handbook, or a 100+ page Monster Manual. Then you sank another $5-6 on a module, but you still can't play because another buck or two went toward some dice. That's well north of $40 before you can start playing, my first minimum wage job in 1985 paid $3.25/hour so we're easily looking at two days of work to buy all that stuff...or in my case at the ripe age of 12 when I bought my first D&D stuff that translated to at least eight lawns I had to mow. Fortunately I received my first boxed set as a Christmas gift, but I was on my own for getting those pricy hardcovers. I didn't have the bare neccesities for AD&D until I was 14...meanwhile I was both DM-ing and playing name level characters in the B/X boxed sets as my group dabbled in the AD&D on occasion. Already we can see where the elitist attitude comes from, you needed to be well off just to get the basic starter gear. Miniatures? Who has money left over for that stuff? You needed to be independantly wealthy and socially secure to afford the whole nine yards, not to mention time: you could easily paint a dozen boxes worth of miniatures in the time it takes to digest one of those hardcover books. I was pretty busy with school at the time and only had enough room in my backpack for the 64 page rulebook, dice, and my adventure that we ran during lunch breaks. I'm pretty sure the DMG had more pages than my Social Studies textbook... Now take a gander at the complexity. That boxed set is streamlined and easy to digest, navigating those three hardbound books is something of a challenge at first, it's easy to get lost and to this day I still get overwhelmed by all the info in those hardcover books. It took me all of fifteen minutes to generate my first boxed set PC when I discovered the game, it took a full hour for my first AD&D character (and that was with the benefit of already knowing the basics of the game). While the "little boys" are knee deep into their expert level playing (having spent another paltry $12 on the Expert set that has another streamlined 64 page rulebook, dice, and module), the "big boys" are still digesting their massive tomes and have yet commenced actual play. Knowing which book and which page to turn to in a heartbeat takes a certain degree of mastery, and those who attain it often lend themselves to a certain air of arrogance. And then, of course, the complexity ramped up with each new edition (sure, Mentzer made some changes as well, adding three more boxed sets to the revised Basic and Expert sets, but it's still a night and day comparo to 1e AD&D). Now we're at the point where a "boxed set" adventure takes less time to complete on a play by post forum over the real time portrayal of 4e AD&D. One four hour session of regular D&D can be a start and finish session, meanwhile the 3e or 4e table is still determining which fingernail the fighter broke in that last melee...all in the name of "elitist realism". Knowing where all that could fit into a story takes far more than I'm willing to commit. They can have it, just like cars and motorcycles bigger doesn't translate into better. But forget trying to convince someone who has already bought into that philosophy, bigger is elite and for that mindset there simply is nothing that can be elite enough. What does that translate to? Simply put, the original D&D from Arneson & Gygax was intended to be a customisable game. Gygax's later AD&D was meant to be a by-the-book game with little room for changes (and by golly if you made a change you'd better have a good explanation for your group). If EGG penned SF we woudn't be having this conversation. I like customizable, that's what makes every game so unique. |
October 30, 2012 - 10:40am | With both wargames and role-playing games, I like to keep both simple and abstract. With PRG rules, I prefer open-ended, rule light systems, then with exhaustive rules and rule modifiers. I find character-driven, story-based adventures better then mindless hack-and-slash, as I can play a beer and pretzels game for that (think HeroQuest). With wargames, I like skirmish-level games, like Battletech and Necromunda, but I'm the sort of player that would rework (the hell out of) the system to make it more streamline or sensible. I like skirmish-level wargames, over the big-battle games, because I would rather focus on individual heroics, and I like the character-developments that comes with a number of games like these. When I do play big-battle games, it would play like a hex-and-counters game, but with those inter-locking hex-tiles from HeroScape, and with a single miniature representing a whole block of troops. I like beer and pretzels games because they have the right balance of both - simple tactical system, with an elementary RPG mechanics (if available). As much flack a game like Dragon Strike gets (seen as TSR's poor-ass answer to HeroQuest), but it had a good, functional game system, and had something HeroQuest didn't: role-playing mechanics! You could preform physical feats in an open-ended way, with a sipmle dice roll, and you can question monsters. Its not much, but it really opens-up possibilities. In the end, I see tactical rules in a RPG as means to help conduct a fight, and to that, everything else (skill rolls and such) derived from that, to help resolve uncertain situations. I would rather have the game mechanics than is resolved quickly, to maintain the flow of the narrative, and to be open-ended enough to allow characters to do cool and unusual things. Thats how I "role!"  |
 October 31, 2012 - 5:21am | LOL - We all seem to be old school here! I am definitely on the same page. Started gaming with the little booklets, then the box sets, then the hardcovers. I still run a 1st edition D&D game. That's what I like about Star Frontiers - straightforward & simple, with enough wiggle room for the game master to use his own ideas. My group partially adopted some things from 2nd edition (we had a 1st/2nd hybrid campaign), but it was primarily 1st edition. When they started introducing the Skills & Powers (which we jokingly called 2.5 edition), I stopped buying most of their stuff. 3rd edition was the nail in the coffin. Don't even talk to me about 4th and 5th. I like Alternity, but only the basic hardcovers & the fastplay rules. Forget all that weird FX stuff, and the additional rules every time a new book came out. The basic rules are simple and consistent, and work well. Used it ever since it first came out. So, I'm guessing there's no one here under 30?  |
