Rules discussion

Since this is a playtest of a system that is new for all of us, it might be nice to have a place for rules discussion and clarifications. Thus, enters this thread. Let the discussions begin!

They really could have used a good example of the Extended Task gameplay in the rules. I appreciated how they had them elsewhere, and this seems like a sufficiently complicated mechanic, that an example would help here.

Yeah. They seem to have some interesting mechanics, but as they are written right now some of them does take some time to parse. But then again, I guess that's why you have playtests, so you can improve both rules and wording. I expect things to get more clear as we start playing.

On a side note, It's interesting to see how much of the rules are non-combat conflict like diplomacy/deception etc. They are really trying to encourage us to play like the show, so will be interesting to see how that turns out. Just like in your One Ring game, having the connection to a well established universe will probably do a lot to set the stage (and expectations) for us.

It definitely took some parsing to get through, especially as the dice mechanic they use is backwards from the "normal" d20 method of "roll and hope for a high number". It's certainly interesting.

First two rules discussion points for me:

Momentum
The TN you will be rolling against will always be your ability and skill (piloting could be Conn + Helm Operations for example), so you already know that. The difficulty of the task will be set by me though, so I'll probably ask you to do a task of difficulty x (where x is 0-5). As I understand it tasks of difficulty 3 or higher are hard to make without using momentum, determination etc. When it comes to checks you ask if you can make, it makes it a bit harder to do, as you don't know the difficulty, and you have to choose "purchase dice" before you roll. One thing we could do if you want to make a roll, is that you could say that you'll roll additional dice if it is harder than some threshold. For example: Determination
The first adventure looks to be a 1-session adventure as I see it, so I think we'll refresh determination on adventures. If an adventure looks to be longer than what I think a 1-session adventure should be, I'll give you a refresh at a point that looks suitable. Does that sound good to you?


As a side note, should we make a resource tracking thread for tracking momentum, determination etc? Since the momentum pool is common for all of you it might make sense to have a pool?

I think a momentum thread is a good mechanism.

Having a pool thread makes sense.

I'll set up a resource tracking thread as we get going. The GM threat and player determination can be tracked there as well

Sounds good. I'm ready to roll when you've got the info you need to proceed!

How do we feel about the combat in a PbP format? Too cumbersome, or ok?

I was thinking of maybe saying that the player (or GM) initiating melee combat would roll for both, that might help with the slowdown of melee. How do you think the initiative order system works? Any ideas for making this more smooth in a PbP format?

The initiative order is hugely clunky feeling. Once I get to a point with a real keyboard I can expound more.

I don't think the problem is dice rolls as long as players take their complete turn when posting either by editing their initial post for the round after seeing the 2d20 results to add the roll for damage, making a second post for the damage roll immediately after posting the 2d20 roll, or just assuming they succeeded in the 2d20 roll and include the damage roll in the initial post whether it is needed or not. So far, I think we're doing good here.

The free-form back and forth initiative order (any pc, any npc, any other pc, any other npc, etc...) works as long as the GM can comment to checking the thread and posting frequently, which I believe you've done well with so far. I use a very simplified initiative system in my LUG Star Trek campain (in person, not PbP) where I have one entire side go at a time (all pcs in any order, then all npcs in any order, then next round). That might help speed things up, but I'm not sure how that would impact the flow of combat for this system. Also, it's important to keep in mind that Modiphius asked we not make any tweaks or house rules to the system since it can skew playtesting reports.

More in depth discussion:

Init wise, I found that the side-based initiative works about the best for PbP speed. It can require some slick-handedness in terms of mincing the scene together by the GM when everyone, say, focus-fires on one particular baddie. The biggest thing with the current design of init is that it makes it really wonky to manage in PbP when you don't know if someone is writing up an action and you end up having to delete/retcon your whole bit. Possibly something like a quick post of "WIP, Coming Up" to let everyone know you are starting your action could make it smoother?

As for the rolling attacks and damage, I'm a huge proponent of roll it all up front as much as possible. Not so much an assumption of a hit, but an expedience bit of "here's my attack, and if it hits, there's the damage". Just keeps it all bundled together as much as possible.

I'm fine not tweaking the provided mechanics because it will absolutely skew playtesting reports to switch to a different mechanic. But tweaking the way we approach that mechanic (a quick tag post of "hey, I'm responding") isn't a breakage so much as reflecting table talk that you would have in a live game.

I'm also a big proponent of rolling it all up front, as best you can.

As far as alternating initiative, I think it may be an important part of the mechanic because one side could build up their momentum and use it against the enemy while the enemy doesn't get a chance to take out a player or two. The designers must've thought it was important enough to give my pregen a special ability to keep initiative, and give anyone the ability to keep initiative by spending some momentum.

I think where possible opposed rolls can be rolled as part of the action. The dice in this game is a computer, so player agency isn't really impacted when the GM rolls (say for my melee defense) or when the player rolls for the NPC defense in melee.

I agree that the back-and-forth nature of initiative is important to the game mechanic because of momentum. I'm okay with the back and forth -- and it can be helpful when there's an active GM (as you are, Azira). But with the right (wrong?) mix of players and GM activity it will mean combat will be drawn out.

That said, this is Star Trek, so combat shouldn't be what the story is really about. I mean, sure, we need to use our phasers, but so much of the ST universe is about not-combat.

Good point about not tweaking the system. As I understand it you're ok with the alternating initiative (and as Cmbrian noted, it's an important mechanic for at least one of the characters), so let's keep that. Doing "WIP, Coming Up" is a good suggestion, let's go with that. When we're in combat mode, post a WIP and if we have two who posts a WIP at the same time, the second to do so deletes their post.

When it comes to opposed rolls, the one who initiates the action rolls for the other party. I'll remember to post the necessary stats for NPCs you may want to thwack, prompt me if I forget. You'll see the melee TN and damage at some point anyways. One problem with this is that the recipient of an opposed roll can't spend momentum. I'll assume you won't spend momentum unless you state otherwise. If anyone has a better solution to this, let me know.

Noted and agreed with all of the above

How shall we handle assistance? Technically the assisting characters should roll before the assisted character. In the case of the ravine crossing this worked out great anyway, but we should probably have a system for the next time.

Yeah, it didn't seem right for me to roll the assistance, since the GM makes a call on whether or not to allow it based on the assisting player's description of their character's action.

It also felt weird to ask for assistance, bossing other players around, although I suppose a character may actually do that in a scene.

Should I have held the roll, waiting for an assistance post and the GMs verification of available momentum ? I just went for it, mostly because I was anxious to see the result, a little because I liked the odds, but partly because a pause didn't seem right for narrative flow.

I think there are two questions posed:

(1) Should you demand a roll beforehand for assistance. In PbP this is very difficult to do. After all, you don't know when the person taking the action will be able to post so perhaps you have a 50/50 chance of beating them. What's the potential harm in a delayed assitance roll? I think it could be that someone wouldn't roll if they saw a success which reduces the chance for a complication. But since there are other mechanisms (threat? IIRC) that enable the GM to add complications if he/she wants then I think the "roll first" aspect has limited utility.

(2) Should you wait for the GM to tell you your assistance works before rolling? Again, with PbP you want speed of resolution, rather than a lot of table time. As a result, I'd assume everyone should roll with their assist and the GM can incorporate it or not as he sees fit (e.g. narratively rather than saying "No, that doesn't work." You can say "So and so shouts unhelpfully at you all about how to get it done..." and toss in an OOC note that you don't think that form of assistance is valid).

My 2 cents.

Oh, and I should be home this evening from our ski trip. Tomorrow is a family day for us, so not really active 'til Monday, likely.

Good points. Regarding (2) and if it works, I think I'd rather give you players a lot of leeway than having the rules get in the way of the game. As a general rule, i'd much rather let things work by default, and correct you if there is a good reason it wont (assuming you don't come up with ridiculous assistances ofc). So, I suggest:

The player that initiates a task declares that he wants assistance, and from who. Then proceeds to roll his dice. The other players then decide if they will assist (may say, "I cannot, captn', busy with this Nausicaan" if they can't/won't). The GM will then resolve the action when everyone has assisted, if applicable. The GM may decide that the assistance can't be done, and come up with a story for it (the commands for assistance were all but lost in the commotion of the battle scene).

How does this sound? It will still be able to generate momentum/threat as normal, but reduces the waiting for others part?

I like it

How does the assist change things?

You potentially get two additional success (from one d20). I'm afraid Dramasailor misunderstood the rules though, you don't get to make a full task, only roll a d20.

I thought it was wrong. My fault for not going back to the rule book.