Jump to content

Hobbster

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • GM Points

    0

Reputation

2 Neutral
  1. I have to read another episode before I can do that. Because at the moment it is my (the GMs) expectations, that are not met at all. Usually the greatest fun as a game master/gate master/dungeon master is, when unexpected things happen, when the players are creative and use stuff in an unexpected way and i have to adapt the story on the fly: role play my way out of it! The first episode however is a lot like a TV show, story driven, very little left and right and a lot of "if users don't do that, torture them, implant a Goa'uld, kill them". An RPG however is character driven, which means: the players are the heroes, the GM is responsible for the scenery and things to do, to judge the actions and to play NPCs, but the players decide where the story goes. I had hoped for something like that in an episodic form, defined start and end, but let the players have options how to solve the problems given. The first episode - as it is written - strangles everything fun, our last group (with me only as a player, I took a hiatus after 5 yrs GMing) dissolved after ~10 sessions because the GM did railroad too much, nothing was of consequence and it simply wasn't fun for anybody anymore. This episode is even more railroading. It's a TV show, prewritten. GMing not required. I'll check another episode. I really hope you're right, that it's only the introduction. Most of the side missions seemed okay. If not.. maybe I'll try something like adapting Rubit's Stargate:Horizon
  2. Yes, this way you can kind of homebrew a recovery, but the text states that they cannot continue the episode, not the act or the scene.. That's what surprised me, since the goal is to get players involved in the system, not push them right out. Episodic structure: I was looking for such a RPG, since GMing an RPG with a complete arc over years is not only a lot of work but also sometimes frustrating, because players keep forgetting everything (that's normal and to be expected as they are invested differently into such a game). So I wanted to tone that down anyway, get more defined endpoints. Based on the idea of RPG shows like Relics&Rarities I was planning on switching to more complete mini stories with a general story arc stitching those episodes together. The structure of the Stargate RPG fills this gap perfectly, so I'm very happy about the system and the rules feel just great so far - it just needs some balancing now and then because of the additional structure and the danger to suffocate the RP part with rules, but in general this can be leveled out with a bit experience of each encounter type and the flow of the story. And since my players and me already know Stargate by heart, this is a perfect match. Given the episodic structure and the scenic progress however you have to balance out the adventures more, otherwise the players get the feeling pretty soon, that they are more like participating viewers instead of the protagonists influencing and changing the world. And I'm not sure, if a series like the living season is the right approach in the long run - that's an experiment, we'll see how this turns out. This will take weeks or even months to surface, but I'm having some doubts about the current approach. To counter the effects however - given the tighter structure - it is important to define start and goal of a scene more clearly and then offer a wide spread of possible solutions, to give the players opportunities to experiment and freedom to decide. Kicking players out right in the beginning of an episode, a campaign even without a recovery scenario, that's a catastrophy and an absolute no go! I kind of expect the opposite of the episode descriptions: lots of information about the worlds to have tools and options for the players to experiment with, play around with - and less solutions. As a GM I start reading the episodes and know nothing about each world either. Of course I can make things up but they won't fit the big picture, maybe even contradict following episodes. Creating a whole world for a relative short episode is also a bit too much work and there's too little reusability of skipped scenes due to the closed scenarios. On the other hand, solutions have to be flexible and are due to change by player's decisions. So as a GM I'm also somewhat railroaded by the current episode approach too with the strict "go there, do that". What I'm missing is a section of background information of worlds, characters, technology, culture etc. The GM background section at the beginning of a chapter is a good approach but is still lacking hooks for different ideas, this hasn't to be much, a sentence is usually enough. Also there should be a lot more basic information. The specific solution however should be toned down somewhat (albeit I recognize this helps newer GMs who just follow the text). It is only important that players reach a goal, the fun part is finding out, how! That's what keeps a game interesting for players and GM! And some arc information would be really appreciated as a GM tool. This is something unknown to other RPGs, but they usually don't have a storyline like that. We'll see how this series will turn out. At the moment I'm really happy with the rulebook and that there are stories at all. And the nature of Stargate feels perfect for an RPG. Now we need to find a balanced way between predefinition of stories and the degrees of freedom to live those stories.
  3. "This means any PCs who did not go off-world are not fit to continue with the episode." You really expect any GM to tell his/her players that they cannot continue with the episode? Really?? Honestly, who did think of something like this at the beginning of the first episode? Neither players nor the GM have any experience with the system at this moment. To tell a GM to kick PCs out of the party for not jumping blindly into the gate without the instructor is not only a very bad style but most probably the end of the campaign before it has begun, since no one is gonna sit around at the table for the rest of the evening and do nothing. So my first task in this new season is to a) railroad my players to blindly jump through the gate and b) injure one PC in the process, giving them a bad experience. Both are things I cannot do as a GM, which is why I made the following changes: First, the introduction already leads the players through the gate, since I know these guys will try to repair the coolant leak if given the chance, with the risk of getting injured and - following your rules - getting kicked out instead of a recovery. And second, they get an additional "red shirt" who gets the injury. I know the episodic structure forces a tighter story telling, but using just the methods that you yourself told us in the rulebook to avoid in our gameplay .. that's not the way.
  4. Page 6, Column 2: The first perception check ends mid-sentence with "if failed" All side missions: Rewards section "Players typically gain three MPs per episode unless they do not succeed at a portion of the episode." ....and then only 2 are awarded since this is not an episode.
  5. Yeah.. since CO has a 200 times higher affinity to bind to hemoglobin than O2 and a 0.1% CO concentration in the air in your lungs is enough to reduce O2 transport in your blood by 50%, I'd say everyone's pretty dead way before the end of the first hour alotted in the rules for one period. "Bad example" Col. Jack O'Neill, "Window of opportunity"
  6. Acrobat or Librera Pro, I have unleashed the tablet
  7. I just worked my way through the Side Mission "Birthplace" to get a feeling how you intend to run the series and I'd like to comment this a bit and make a few suggestions. I try not to spoiler anything of the content beyond the default text on the store page. Store: please consider a category for side missions in the store. There is no way to list those missions at the monent, except in the "new" section. Edit: Side missions are inside the season folder now. Background story: While the first half describes pretty much the known background story of Reese in the show - it is logical and comprehensible - the second half begins - without a new paragraph - with quoting keywords no one has heard about, persons one knows little to nothing about and it confused the hell out of me. This felt like bullet points of the document pressed into sentences. Did not enjoy that part. It somewhat got clear after reading the whole document, but that's not the purpose of a background story at the beginning. Please consider adding a few explaining sentences to give at least some context. And write it for someone who hasn't read the document yet! Because no one has at this point! Otherwise just leave it out. Design: Standard front page, default picture, default content etc., standard back page. This is ok. Rest of the document: No design at all! This looks like a Word document with ugly default boxes and bullet points. Just looking at it made me sad. And no graphics at all! No image, nothing! From a design point of view this is an F. Same with the monster boxes. It just requires a default design like the pages in the core rulebook, nothing fancy. Please consider giving it at least a minimal design. Opponents: No descriptions in the appendix, no characterization, nothing to work with, not even the default character questions answered. It's just the technical monster values which just isn't enough for an RPG that has Moxie encounters as it's defining characteristic. There should be at least some background text for any opponent. Story: It's a short story, but I liked it. The overall direction is good, it felt like an SG mission. I'm missing a bit of a visual description now and then or some tiny story hooks for players to side track, which happens regularly on my table. But the core mission description is good. Encounters: well, you started it, now where can I get an encounter deck? Playing cards work technically, but now I want an encounter deck and there isn't one in your store!
  8. Hm, isn't there something already on Roll20? I haven't tried it yet nor do I know a lot about Roll20, but I have just watched the Dial the Gate-Game on youtube to get into the system a bit and they used Roll20 for their game, with character sheets, maps, direct rolls by clicking on sheet and so on... Edit: Quick search revealed this: https://wiki.roll20.net/Stargate Maybe this helps?
  9. Tried to look that up out of curiosity. I only found some tutorial explaining that some third party software might be able to read DRM protected pdfs on a Kindle Fire, but the Kindle itself does not. This seems to be a restriction of the Kindle Fire, not of the pdf. If this is true, support won't be able to help you, because there's nothing they can do (except maybe release the books on amazon kindle one day, but that's not a support decision since this requires contracts with amazon etc.). I myself read it on a Fire 10 which works just fine. I'm sorry that I cannot give you any other advise but to try it on any other device/pc/notebook/tablet capable of opening drm protected pdf files.
  10. Thanks for pointing to that tool. Voxal Voice Changer is free for non-commercial home use by the way (there is a special free version on their home page, don't know if there are any differences though). Some settings seem to get pretty close to a Gua'uld voice. Will play around a little more for sure and most probably use it in my online games.
  11. Several of the conditions (paralyzed, prone, unconscious) on pages 128/129 show effects in 5 feet distance instead of meters. Carbon Monoxide is not "unhealthy" as is suggested in table "Breathing" on page 130, but pretty much a poisonous if not deadly gas.
  12. Hi, I'm just working my way through the core rules. On page 107 it is is stated "Characters have a Proficiency bonus determined by level. At level 1 this bonus is +2, and by level 20 it has grown to +6." This seems to be a d&d5e artifact since there are no levels beyond 5 in SG-1 hence no level 20 and no comparable proficiency boni. How is this supposed to work? If this relates to MP spent, is there a table somewhere? Is there an errata document somewhere?
×
×
  • Create New...