Modiphius Announces Star Trek Adventures 2nd Edition

[Swanosaurus]

Please.

It is clear why the language of "edition" with D&D is important, and is less so with other games like Star Trek Adventures. Historically, each "edition" of D&D is significantly different from the edition prior, resulting in splitting the audience as some stick with the earlier edition and some move forward with the new. The D&D 2024 rules could certainly be called an "edition", but WotC is avoiding that terminology for obvious and good reasons. Modiphius doesn't have to worry about that with Star Trek Adventures.

You're probably right ... I just find it confusing, because to me, a new edition simply was ... well, a new edition with whatever big a small changes the publisher deemed necessary (like Call of Cthulhu going through six editions with virtually no rules changes at all); I really can't say why something like this suddenly has to be a "remaster" or a "reload" or whatever other words are out there. On the other hand, I have very little experience with D&D, so I'm just not that invested.

Anyway, it's cool that Star Trek gets a 2nd edition and that they can (hopefully) call it a 2nd edition without antagonizing anyone!

 

[Dire Bare]

You're probably right ... I just find it confusing, because to me, a new edition simply was ... well, a new edition with whatever big a small changes the publisher deemed necessary (like Call of Cthulhu going through six editions with virtually no rules changes at all); I really can't say why something like this suddenly has to be a "remaster" or a "reload" or whatever other words are out there. On the other hand, I have very little experience with D&D, so I'm just not that invested.

Anyway, it's cool that Star Trek gets a 2nd edition and that they can (hopefully) call it a 2nd edition without antagonizing anyone!

If WotC decided to call the 2024 D&D rules the "6th Edition", it wouldn't be wrong. And for gamers who haven't had much experience with D&D prior to 2014, its understandable if they don't understand what the drama is about.

But if you've been following the game since 1974 . . . . the game was "reimagined" dramatically four times (and less dramatically even a few more times) with prior editions not really being compatible with the new rules. And thus we got the "Edition Wars" where fans got toxic with each other over which rules edition was better . . . lots of inter-fan toxicity, and lots of toxicity aimed at the D&D publisher (first TSR, later WotC).

Understandably, WotC would prefer to avoid all of that nonsense with the new rules later this year. Other games don't necessarily carry that baggage.

 

[Swanosaurus]

Understandably, WotC would prefer to avoid all of that nonsense with the new rules later this year. Other games don't necessarily carry that baggage.

I totally get it with regards to D&D ... it's just that these days, people seem to be arguing all of the time of something can or should be considered a new edition or not, whether something is falsely advertised as either a new edition or a remaster. It's not just D&D. And with most other RPGs, all these terms are so subjective that it seems to be there's a lot of discussion about the expections people are having tied to these terms, which in many cases just serves to make things more nebulous, with stuff like a 2.5 edtion of Earthdawn ...
To me, it would just seam easier if advertising called a new edition a new edition and then pointed out whether there are just minor changes or whether it's a complete overhaul or even a new ruleset.

Anyway, that ship has probably sailed, and watch me complaining about people arguing about the term "edition" while I'm doing just that

 

[TrippyHippy]

Ditch the effect dice. Just have the system use 2D20.

 

[eyeheartawk]

But if you've been following the game since 1974 . . . . the game was "reimagined" dramatically four times (and less dramatically even a few more times) with prior editions not really being compatible with the new rules. And thus we got the "Edition Wars" where fans got toxic with each other over which rules edition was better . . . lots of inter-fan toxicity, and lots of toxicity aimed at the D&D publisher (first TSR, later WotC).

Changing what noun they use instead of "edition" will have no effect on whether or not that happens. There will be a new iteration with different rules, people are going to argue about the changes whether they call it a new edition or not.

 

[Divine2021]

It’s a pretty taxing system on the GM, I hope they really streamline it.

 

[Reynard]

Ditch the effect dice. Just have the system use 2D20.

Please do not listen to this person.

It’s a pretty taxing system on the GM, I hope they really streamline it.

I don't think 2d20 is overly taxing. it is a nice medium crunch game with some solid narrative elements that elevate it.

 

[Divine2021]

Please do not listen to this person.





I don't think 2d20 is overly taxing. it is a nice medium crunch game with some solid narrative elements that elevate it.

I don’t find D20 as a system too taxing, but having run multiple campaigns in Star Trek Adventures, I do think, based on my experience, that it can be seriously streamlined and cleaned up.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Please do not listen to this person.





I don't think 2d20 is overly taxing. it is a nice medium crunch game with some solid narrative elements that elevate it.

I don’t think the system is too taxing. It’s just poor. There is no functional advantage to rolling an additional, custom dice type for damage rolls.

 

[Reynard]

I don’t think the system is too taxing. It’s just poor. There is no functional advantage to rolling an additional, custom dice type for damage rolls.

Except that you are binding togetehr the success level and the damage plus effect total. Given the nature of the Momentum and Threat system, that doesn't work great.