Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="uzirath" data-source="post: 7598614" data-attributes="member: 8495">It's worth talking to the players about what they would expect. Back in the depths of time, I ran a fair number of campaigns relating to Middle Earth. Never, in any of those campaigns, did the fellowship make an appearance. Often we set the game in different ages. After The Return of the King (the fourth age) was a popular one. That way, if you read the books, you'd know the history, and a few of the NPCs were still around, but it's not like anybody could say, "But how could Aragorn be over here because according to my copy of The Two Towers, he was supposed to be over there." We also played a game in the second age. These worked well. The flavor of the setting was there. But we tackled different stories and events. The fourth age story revolved around the clearing and rebuilding of Moria and a trade route between it and Erebor. There were many rich locations from the books—Moria, Mirkwood, the Beornings, the wood elves, Laketown, Dale, the Lonely Mountain, etc.—but the plot and challenges could be entirely new.  Does the Expanse RPG have any recommendations about this? Without knowing anything about the product, but having read the books and seen the show, I would want to keep any characters from the books as background material. I would definitely avoid having much interaction with the key protagonists of the series (Holden, Naomi, etc.). I could imagine having the PCs be plucky explorers on their way through the gate to a new world. Or, asteroid miners trying to get by. Or spies from Earth or Mars. Regardless, I would set things after the most recent season or book and then make it clear that the setting history is forking from the point at which the game starts. If a new book or season can fit nicely into the background, great, but if not, it doesn't count.I'm intrigued by your ideas of having "science challenges" at the table. My first instinct is to keep such things for after the game. I wouldn't want to bog things down at the table most of the time, and I like to have time to consider the implications of a change. If it were me, I'd say that I'm sticking with the game's assumptions. When in doubt, the rulebook is how it works (even if someone thinks it should work differently). If a question comes up in-game that isn't in the rules, I would make a call (usually with player input, or just put it up for a vote) but any debate would be postponed until after the game. If we later agree on a different solution, I would just say so and go with it. The previous call was just a fluke or an anomaly. It's helpful if any players with expertise know that you value them as resources in this regard.</blockquote>

Verification