Search results

Again, it depends on why you're buying the adventure. If you're here for the lore and/or to pull elements for your own homebrew (as I am), more is better. More bang for your buck, more material for your reading enjoyment. If you're just there for an easy adventure to run, a lot of that will be...

No, I mean any skills not directly associated with physical combat, magic or technology (in a utilitarian role similar to magic). So infiltration skills, but also social skills, trade skills, and exploration skills outside of infiltration (like navigation, vehicles, and survival).

I'm just glad they aren't specifically talking about D&D, or I wouldn't be allowed to participate.

You don't have to call it "thief" or "rogue" (to use the modern parlance), but in order to have a reasonable simulation of a world, fantasy or otherwise, IMO a skill-based character is very important, to complement the combat or magic/technology-based characters. If those things are all aspects...

Since I only use modules as fodder for my homebrew campaign, I prefer they be made to read rather than made to run as a single piece I'm not going to use like that anyway. Perhaps others feel the same.

Of course, if the narrative movement isn't of interest to you, RPGs become that much more "solved".

Agreed. All my own design starts with the fictional concept and then tries to find a way to make that work mechanically, with a closer eye on simulation than PC balance.

As I said above, good thing I love Oregon Trail. I do agree though that RPG-style adventure goes well with the traditional kind, and can enhance the experience without abstracting the exploration part of the game away.

Yeah, if I had my way I would use more detailed rules for Supply than those to which Level Up defaults, but I don't have the right players for that unfortunately.

My second RPG read was MERP. My second RPG played was TNMT & Other Strangeness I think, both after the "B" in BECMI and AD&D 1e.

How close is too close though? Everyone has their own line, and the only ones that should matter to you in your own game (which is what we're talking about) IMO is yours and your players.

Fair enough. To each their own, but I generally take play too seriously to enjoy fourth wall breaking unless comedy is the point.

The rules for journeys in several games (mentioned by me above) do a great job of handling stuff like that as exploration challenges.

I loved Oregon Trail, so comparing RPG play to it doesn't dissuade me. And boring is of course relative. Lots of folks enjoy a planning session in live play, and once you're on the expedition it's just a matter of using exploration rules that work for you. I'm fond of those in Level Up, The One...

Which is why planning your route and supplies is so important, to make up for the stuff you can plan for, like blizzards and ice devils.

Trek has plenty of stuff in the narrative layer, no doubt. But not the examples you gave. Those are scientific, natural phenomenon within that universe. Noted exceptions to the reality we know, like magic. Nothing like that is true of characters with plot armor. Lara Croft isn't inherently...

My issue here though is that all those things you mentioned for Trek are considered scientific facts (and in fact are such) in universe. The principles of reality allow for those things, and the people in setting know it. That isn't necessarily true for something like Lara Croft. Instead, it's...

I love STA (mostly because I love Star Trek), but for me it is a specific departure from the type of gaming I usually enjoy, with all its narrative mechanics and character focus. Running it (which I haven't done yet but is my plan) is an explicit move outside my comfort zone.

Spider-Man vs. Batman is an excellent comparison, and IMO characters like Spider-Man area big reason behind Marvel's early popularity. I wouldn't want to play a superhero game in a setting where Batman-style personalities (ie, paragons of something or other) are the norm.

Whereas I want my fiction to resemble reality unless there's an in-setting reason it doesn't.