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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CF07" data-source="post: 9694212" data-attributes="member: 7052262">Some not totally connected thoughts about this. There's a good bit of a balancing act going on. A game that's only supposed to be run one or a few times should be simple to get into and pick up. However, if you want to run over the course of a campaign there needs to be some room for growth and that's often best represented by power growth. I've followed (and played in the case of Star Trek Adventures) Modiphius' various incarnations of the 2D20 system. It started pretty complicated/crunchy with games like Infinity or Conan, simplified with STA, got even more simple in games like John Carter or Dishonored, and then equilibrated back on the medium complexity level with games like Achtung Cthulhu, which is where it sits best IMO. That said, it really does benefit from an experienced GM who's comfortable making judgment calls about what difficulties are, what are good advantages and disadvantages, etc. STA doesn't really have any notable power growth for the characters, which can be quite disconcerting for players used to having power growth be equivalent to character growth. The players need to embrace the fact that growth will mostly be via RP. With a good GM and bought in players STA nails the feel of the TV show, though. One thing to note is that simpler RPGs leave room for more player creativity but are, IMO, much more demanding of the GM. In a lot of ways I see what WotC was trying to do with 3.X and 4E was to "DM proof" the game by providing lots of rules. This was attempting to rectify the common complaints about DMs being arbitrary. But a side effect of that was developing a ton of feats, powers, etc., to represent things that might well have just been DM judgment calls in prior editions.</blockquote>

Verification