Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 9865421" data-attributes="member: 6779310">Man, skip a day or two and threads get LONG...For me, the nature depends upon what the system models... what's right for Star Wars isn't what's right for Star Trek... Star Wars needs the chance for epic side effects, for weirdness to happen. In WEG, that managed (barely) with the Scaling and the Wild Die rules... with FFG, the custom dice gave that same whacky anything-can-happen-within-reason feel. Two, totally different, yet equally potent approaches.Trek, on the other hand, needs to be more about effort being rewarded; this is why I think FASA, good as a simulation of TOS combat as it was, fell flat outside that - no room for the system to recognize effort and help... and 2d20 STA manages to reward helping and effort, via the metacurrency systems... STA isn't perfect for Trek, but it's good enough to feel right. Ironically, I feel that Trek would be best served by Cortex Prime... Effort, via plot points and adding additional assets and skills, as a sign of effort.Star Wars is about being where you're needed and naughty word happening to and around you.Trek is about overcoming the plot of the week's major obstacle... and the systems for it that do it best are LUG and STA of the published games; STA does it better than LUG, which does it better than Decipher, and all three better than FASA... Prime Directive does Trek as Trek sorta poorly, but it does Starfleet Seal Team the Trivid beautifully. It's better than FASA or Decipher, IMO. GURPS gets both entirely wrong for me - it doesn't have an effort cycle at all, and it has a 6 stage outcome, but it's single axis, so GPD not only fails the Generic Trek game, but due to choices of the IP holder for the SFU, can't do all the things which are important to trek, as it denies access to ships as part of play in G<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />D. And GURPS outcomes are far too mild for the wild that Star Wars should have.I can see why people like doing Star Wars with Savage Worlds… but in so doing, they seem to be increasing the value of raises beyond what the SavW mechanics suggest...  tho' for a pure Rebel Squadron game, I could see it; that's a very narrow subset, and I'm one who likes the wilder side of TCW/CW, Bad Batch, and Rebels... and Eps 1 and 2. Even as I hate Darth Jar Jar in all  his silly, I like the tone of BB and TCW/CW... and the slightly less silly and more epic Rebels... I can't see doing those with SavW... as written. Especially the extremely broad competence of Ep 1-2, ep 4, BB, TCW, CW, and Rebels characters... tho' solving that? Change the Wild Die from d6 to dAttribute... and no unskilled penalty. But then it's not SavW anymore... but a close variation.For grim and gritty, I like percentile systems... no nonsense, know your odds going in...Grim and Silly, again, percentiles, but with obnoxious crit charts and extreme chances of criticals - a la WFRP, Dark Heresy, or Deathwatch.For total silliness, 2d6 with plenty of silly chart options, exemplified by KAMB... and it's sibling, the SAKE system version of Ninja Burger.</blockquote>

Verification