STAR TREK ADVENTURES Public Playtest Launches

The public playtest for Modiphius' Star Trek Adventures tabletop RPG has launched worldwide with over 5,000 players in a storyline penned by writers including Dayton Ward (NYT bestselling author) and Scott Pearson. The living campaign will run until mid-2017, when the core rulebook is released, taking place in the unexplored Shackleton Expanse near Starbase 364. Different playtest experiences are available depending on which group playtesters signed up for, with different groups focusing on combat, diplomacy, and so on.

​

LONDON, ENGLAND (December 1, 2016): Modiphius Entertainment, publisher of the Achtung! Cthulhu, Mutant Chronicles, Conan, Infinity and John Carter of Mars roleplaying games, announces the missions for the Star Trek Adventures™ living campaign playtest, to develop the first official Star Trek RPG in more than a decade, are now live with more than 5,000 players and counting. To join the campaign, visit www.modiphius.com/star-trek.

Thousands of players around the world will adventure through the Star Trek universe like never before in an epic storyline written by New York Times Bestselling Star Trek author Dayton Ward and Scott Pearson (Star Trek novellas: The More Things Change, Among the Clouds, Terra Tonight), developed by Nathan Dowdell (Black Crusade, Mutant Chronicles 3rd Edition, Corvus Belli's Infinity: The Roleplaying Game and Robert E Howard's Conan: Adventures in an Age Undreamed Of) and lead writerDavid F Chapman (Doctor Who: Adventures in Time and Space Roleplaying Game, Conspiracy X 2.0, Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG). Joining them are an interstellar line-up including writers from all previous editions of the Star Trek roleplaying game, as well as big names from across the tabletop gaming industry including:

Shawn Merwin (Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition: War of Everlasting Darkness, Halls of Undermountain, Dungeon Delve), Jim Johnson (Lord of the Rings RPG, Mage: The Awakening, Shadowrun Augmentation), Jacob Ross (Legend of the Five Rings, Mongoose Traveller, Kaigaku), Patrick Goodman (Shadowrun: Fifth Edition, Shadowrun: Street Legends, Shadowrun: Storm Front), Ross Isaacs (Line Developer Star Trek RPG (Decipher) and Star Trek: The Next Generation Roleplaying Game (Last Unicorn Games), Ian Lemke(Changeling: The Dreaming, White Wolf Publishing, Earth Down), John Snead(Mindjammer: Traveller, Eclipse Phase, Star Trek Next Generation RPG Last Unicorn Games.), Dan Taylor (IDW Publishing's Star Trek comics), Bill Maxwell (Fading Suns, Star Trek Roleplaying Game, Mage: The Awakening), Tim Beach (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Red Steel, Maztica Campaign Set, Hail the Heroes, Dungeons of Mastery, City of Delights) and Andrew Peregrine (Doctor Who, 7th Sea, Victoriana).

As well as Aaron Pollyea (Battletech), Oz Mills (Fantasy AGE Bestiary, Dragon Age: Faces of Thedas), Ade Smith (Mutants and Masterminds: Atlas of Earth Prime - Northern Europe, Rogue Gallery. Fainting Goat Games: Extreme Earth), Chris Huff (Mutants & Masterminds Freedom's Most Wanted, DC Adventures RPG Heroes & Villains Volume 1, DC Adventures RPG Heroes & Villains Volume 2), John Kennedy (Ninja Crusade 2E, Infinity Tabletop Roleplaying Game, Myth Board Game), Kevin Mickelson (Mask of Death, A Learning Time, A Frightful Time, A Miraculous Time), Ryan Schoon (Fragged Empire, Edara: The Steampunk Renaissance, Baby Bestiary) and Chris Huff (DC Adventures, Mutants & Masterminds, Pathfinder).

The playtest gives fans of the legendary television series and films the opportunity to contribute to the development of the game; to sit in the captain's chair, seek out new life and new civilizations, give all they've got to a warp core breach, or explore their own adventures in the Star Trek universe.

The living campaign begins with playtest missions and will continue with the release of the core rulebook in the summer of 2017. The living campaign takes place in the Shackleton Expanse, an area of space vastly unexplored by both the Federation and the Klingons. Starbase 364, Narendra Station, named after the battle of Narendra III where the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-C was destroyed, serves as the keep on the borderlands for excursions out into the frontier of space.


As the crews of the U.S.S. Venture, U.S.S. Bellerophon, U.S.S. Thunderchild, explore strange anomalies and discover new life while uncovering an ancient civilization and mysterious technologies, those aboard the U.S.S. Lexington will shape historical events for those very ships.

Assignments are still open for Captains and Officers to take their place aboard the bridge and make Star Trek gaming history. Further, local game shops organizing an in-store playtest group will receive starbase status with pre-order promotions for the game's retail release. Fans attending Dragonmeet in London on Saturday will have the final chance to receive a free Captain Kirk or Captain Picard figure when they sign up for the Star Trek Adventures playtest.

To register yourself or your group online, visit www.modiphius.com/star-trek.

To register as a retailer, visit http://www.modiphius.com/retail-support.html

Under license by CBS Consumer Products, Star Trek Adventures is slated for a Summer 2017 release and the playtest crews will be listed in the Star Trek Adventures book manifest.

 

[aramis erak]

Mechanically, it's far smoother than FASA-trek... but so is Mongoose Traveller, D&D5, or GURPS... a very low bar. It's also easily abused, and not robust enough to stand up to even mild minmax...

Thematically, it's bland. More bland than even GURPS basic set. Tht may be part of the playtest.

And Nathan's insistence that only a narrative focused game can do trek is actively delusional.

 

[N01H3r3]

Could you stop casting aspersions about me as if you're talking behind my back? Also, if you have all these criticisms about the game, why not bring them to me - the tone of your comments here are radically different to the tone of your comments on the Modiphius boards (where I'm actively reading all the threads to gather feedback and observe discussions).

Yes, this is a narrative-driven game. That's entirely intentional as a means to recreate the stories we see on TV and in the movies (rather than trying to simulate the universe of Star Trek; we've had games that take that approach). I see no point in trying to recreate or usurp those, or simply to iterate upon them. If a narrative style of game doesn't suit your tastes, that's fair enough; not every style of game suits everyone, and I have never shied away from that.

 

[aramis erak]

Could you stop casting aspersions about me as if you're talking behind my back? Also, if you have all these criticisms about the game, why not bring them to me - the tone of your comments here are radically different to the tone of your comments on the Modiphius boards (where I'm actively reading all the threads to gather feedback and observe discussions).

Yes, this is a narrative-driven game. That's entirely intentional as a means to recreate the stories we see on TV and in the movies (rather than trying to simulate the universe of Star Trek; we've had games that take that approach). I see no point in trying to recreate or usurp those, or simply to iterate upon them. If a narrative style of game doesn't suit your tastes, that's fair enough; not every style of game suits everyone, and I have never shied away from that.

Not talking behind your back, just not being as tactful as the last time I voiced complaint about it. I also complained in the survey. And I'm aware you and Chris both frequent EnWorld.

The game as presented in the playtest is excessively vague. A design decision you have twice defended as "essential" for Star Trek. One which is provably false, with the commercial successes of LUG, FASA, and Decipher Trek games in the past.

It's useful to you, but for a large spectrum, it may be a major problem. I don't know if it will be the majority...
The tools within are useful, and ship combat makes a great stand-alone game... but that's the only tool so far that feels to me in any way superior to LUG or FASA.

I'll note as well that there is a strong pirate presence of FASA trek still - and lots of fan support for it.
The OSR movement has produced two mechanically strong supplements - one of which I've found ESSENTIAL to using the playtest - Where No Man Has Gone Before. (The promised monthly 2-3 scenarios/month not having manifest yet, the scenario generator has been essential for inspirational material.)

And it's not that I dislike narrative games - but this isn't really all that narrativist, either. Compared to Blood & Honor (by John Wick), or Mouse Guard (Luke Crane), or Fiasco, it's just low definition traditional with a few mildly narrativist elements.

 

[oneshot]

Well, instead of tactful, can you give some meaningful examples of what you mean, Aramis? As a criticism goes, "excessively vague" is, well, kind of vague. As is "bland" and "ill defined." I mean, can you point to something specific in the FASA or LUG or Decipher games that they had that you had wished was in this game? The game isn't as crunchy as 3.5 D&D or Rolemaster, sure, but it's certainly more crunchy than what are typically considered narrativst games, like Fate or Burning Wheel.

I actually thought Decipher's game was fairly bland. It was just a 2d6 re-skin of the d20 system, and in my opinion was significantly less tied to the source material than Modiphius's game. I also don't think DecihpherTrek was the commercial success you seem to think it was. As for LUGTrek, (again, in my opinion) that is about comparable in terms of crunch and flavor to Modiphius's game.

The only other thing I think you might mean is that some stats (traits, values, focuses) are player-defined instead of choosing off of a list. But even if Nathan had drawn up long lists for those stats and made players choose from the lists, game play wouldn't really change one jot.

Not that Nathan needs my defending, but about the only time I remember him saying a certain design decision was required to emulate Star Trek, he was talking about extended tasks and challenges, which doesn't really jive with your "vague/ill defined" comments. In fact, the main reason I stopped posting over there was that too many threads devolved into people complaining either about extended tasks specifically or just generally criticizing that entire system without any specific feedback beyond "I don't like it." Which is OK, you don't have to like every game, and this one might not be your cup of tea.

As for me, I really like the game and intend to buy it and play it as soon as it comes out. And I'm definitely not the type usually defined as a "narrativist" gamer.

 

[Lwaxy]

For some reason I got another mail about handing in playtest reports but I did that a long time ago

I may have to go over to their boards and check what was up with that, because I don't even have my notes anymore

 

[oneshot]

Lwaxy,

I think they just send the reminders to the entire list. I also got reminders after I submitted, and even got them after the previous deadline for submitting feedback had passed. However, if you're concerned, I would go ahead and just fill out the form again. You put your name and e-mail on it, so they will know if they have duplicates.

 

[Lwaxy]

Yeah I will do that. Last time I got no reminders so it got me a little confused.

 

[aramis erak]

I've also realized the biggest issue I've got - and it didn't sink in until I was singing Cam's praises -

It gets the reward cycle backwards.

In Cortex Plus, and in most of Wick's games, you get your plot points for BAD rolls and nerfing yourself; the GM gets them for bad rolls, too. It encourages regression towards the mean.

In 2d20, you're getting them for nerfing yourself (good), and for exceptional success (bad); you give the GM threat for bad rolls. So the game snowballs into a steamroller. On a good day, the momentum pool stays pegged; on a bad one, it's constantly empty and the penalties rack up horribly.

 

[oneshot]

In 2d20, you're getting them for nerfing yourself (good), and for exceptional success (bad); you give the GM threat for bad rolls. So the game snowballs into a steamroller. On a good day, the momentum pool stays pegged; on a bad one, it's constantly empty and the penalties rack up horribly.

I'm not sure if you misread the playtest documents or are working from your own houseruled version, but this is untrue. Threat comes from three sources:

1. The GM starts with a pool of 2 threat per PC at the start.
2. The GM banks unspent momentum from NPC rolls as threat.
3. The players can pay threat for certain momentum spends if they don't have or don't want to spend their banked momentum, or for certain effects that require buying off with threat (such as buying off a complication).

Players rolling badly never directly results in more threat for the GM. If what you're trying to say that when the players don't roll well, they dont generate enough momentum to bank and so may be forced to spend threat in order to buy extra dice to exceed on more difficult tasks, that may be true, but skipping that middle step is misleading. For starters, the basic task difficulty is 1, so the number of tasks for which you need extra dice to succeed should be few and far between assuming the GM is following the rules guidance. Also, a smart investment in threat early on usually yields momentum that can them be spent later for further momentum. Finally, the GM is never compelled to spend threat. So just because the threat pool has built up doesn't mean the players are completely screwed unless the GM is trying to make the scenario as difficult as possible for the players. But that's a play style problem, not a rules system problem. That same type of GM is also the kind who summons reinforcements in other games and/or gives the baddies extra hit points or abilities. At least 2d20 makes the GM spend metacurrency to do these things instead of just doing them by fiat.

I mean, sure, sometimes the dice don't work out and the PCs have a tough day rolling, but that's true of every dice-based RPG ever. That in and of itself isn't a problem, unless the GM wants it to be a problem. But that type of GM will always make a problem, regardless of system, with or without metacurrency.

 

[aramis erak]

OneShot - you need to reread the rules. Because you're grossly ignorant of what's in 1.36..

[quote="STA A1.36 p15]Complications are problems that crop up during the performance of a Task. They don’t prevent a character from succeeding, but they may impede later activities, or they may simply be inconvenient, painful, or even embarrassing. The normal effect of a Complication is to increase the Difficulty of related Tasks by +1, or to make it so that a Task that is normally possible cannot be attempted. Alternatively, if the character doesn’t wish to suffer an immediate problem, or the gamemaster doesn’t want to inflict a Complication at that point, the Complication can instead be ‘bought off’ by adding two points to the Threat pool (see below).[/quote]

Also, opposed rolls - if the GM wins, the unused momentum goes to threat pool.

Might want to actually READ the rules before telling others they got them wrong.

Also note: on page 16, the GM can use complications and threat to increase the threat range, which snowballs the problems of bad rolls.

It's a self-reinforcing loop.