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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8129378" data-attributes="member: 42582">Prince Valiant has mechanical advancement - via Fame, with every 1,000 points allowing a new skill point - and so differs from Classic Traveller at least in that respect. Also in respect of mechanical complexity, as you note.It's not clear how many Fame per session Greg Stafford envisaged, but I think less than what I've been awarding in our game (about 800 Fame per session, so that in 14 session Fame totals for the two PC knights have grown from the starting 800 to 12,000-ish).I'm not sure how long our Prince Valiant game can last, but not 20 years! Likewise Classic Traveller.The issue with progression in Traveller compared to D&D was noted back in the late 70s/early 80s - I'm thinking multiple observations to that effect in early White Dwarfs. D&D has dungeon-bashing and XP-earning as a default activity that Traveller lacks.These days I actually see this more as a strength of Traveller! But the players have noted the lack of progression options. (Though also seem to have missed that they've picked p a NPC with Instruction-2 and Liaison-2).There is some resemblance between Maelstrom/Story Bones and Fate, though the former has tighter scene resolution. But is perhaps a bit stingy on Descriptors.It's dice pool system makes it closer to Prince Valiant than Fate, but Prince Valiant doesn't have anything like Descriptors.It's also got some resemblance to HeroWars/Quest - free Descriptors, and scene resolution - though HW/Q doesn't have an analogue to burning a Descriptor, which is more like a Burning Wheel call-on trait or a 4e encounter power.PbtA is not scene-based. Of the classic games I think it's more like Traveller in its resolution, but with a theme/story orientation that Traveller is lacking.</blockquote>

Verification