New Star Trek movie --> New Star Trek RPG?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tobian

OOh! I've never had a mortal enemy before! How fun? Hmm I didn't get the instruction pack in the mail? Is there a FAQ somewhere on what one does? :p

---

One rule: we don't facemeet. If we do, only one of us leave alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tobian

I kind of agree with you on the licensed thing, except with the 4e - it's all a bit in flux: a lot of companies have been burned by the move, and the design of 4e and the new equivalent of the OGL are a lot less flexible.

---

It's not even close.

With the OGL, it permits limited content sharing (anything designated as Open Game Content, or OGC), not only of WotC's OGC but third-party's OGC as well.

I have read and reread the GSL, and it has NO MENTION of content sharing. Correct me if I'm wrong.

They say they're revising the GSL, hopefully for the better. The only way it can be better is to permit content sharing, at least among 3PP sources.

Well like I said - it's less flexible - as in you can't change anything, making stuff like Mutants and Masterminds impossible in 4th edition! Hmm so another rule - you have to disagree with me, even when agreeing with me hmmm. :D

Ok since you live where? thousands of miles away, shouldn't be a problem :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tobian

Well like I said - it's less flexible - as in you can't change anything, making stuff like Mutants and Masterminds impossible in 4th edition!

---

Well, I like it that way, since Mutants and Masterminds only use the OGL, not the d20 System Trademark License.

Woe be the day MnM is 4e compatible and applies the GSL. Again, I read the GSL and it specifically state that if you make your product line 4e compatible, you can't go back to the existing OGL version.

The D&D GSL is meant be rigid, strictly 100% compatible with the D&D 4e rules. It doesn't leave much room to make variant d20 rulesets like MnM or Spycraft 2.0.

Unless they loosen up the GSL restriction and applies content sharing, I cannot accept it. I will continue to support OGL.

They could just put out a 4e-compatible game called Aberrations and Archvillains : P

Considering that not that many people are actually interested in just doing adventures for 4e (except for Goodman, i think?) and instead did a lot of tweaking to the core system, it doesn't sound like there's much creative energy flowing inside the new license. As it stands, at least.

Which is a shame, 'cause 4e is the best D&D I've ever played...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

Which is a shame, 'cause 4e is the best D&D I've ever played...

---

I've yet to see. I'm still fond of 3e.

Many of my friends who have seen/played preferred Star Wars Saga Edition rules to be the improved 4e.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

Which is a shame, 'cause 4e is the best D&D I've ever played...

---

I... disagree. I kind of like 4e, as a game that essentially emulates something like World of Warcraft or Magic: The Gathering for roleplaying. It's got a different and sometimes nice feel to it, and it's certainly easier for GMs to balance (since they sanded off the high spots and filled in the low spots, making characters much more similar). However, I can't call it the best version I've ever played. For storytelling flexibility within a nice supporting rules structure, that nod has to go to 3e.

But 4e has this advantage: because it is simpler, it is easier to run. Which means it can bring in more gaming groups, and I'm sure that was a big design goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Balok

I... disagree. I kind of like 4e, as a game that essentially emulates something like World of Warcraft or Magic: The Gathering for roleplaying.

---

Well, they realized that powers that can't be described on a 3.5x2.5 card are probably too complicated for a semi-casual RPG.

Quote:

---

However, I can't call it the best version I've ever played. For storytelling flexibility within a nice supporting rules structure, that nod has to go to 3e.

---

Why?

Having played 4e I do like it, and I like a lot of the improvements they've made with it, enough to not go back to 3e, except maybe to resolve legacy campaigns, which can't easily be upgraded. But I don't think it's got nearly the flexibility that 3.5 had for character. For bad guys yes, it's wonderful, and MUCH clearer, but for actual PC's it's a lot more linear, and I've got quite used to having character flexibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tobian

Having played 4e I do like it, and I like a lot of the improvements they've made with it, enough to not go back to 3e, except maybe to resolve legacy campaigns, which can't easily be upgraded. But I don't think it's got nearly the flexibility that 3.5 had for character. For bad guys yes, it's wonderful, and MUCH clearer, but for actual PC's it's a lot more linear, and I've got quite used to having character flexibility.

---

I've had problems in 3e in that it unintentionally punished you for suboptimal builds. It didn't mean to, of course, but when Bob across the table is spewing extra damage out his nose and you're still annoyed the the Run feat sounded like a good idea the frustration cuts into the feeling of effectiveness. And frankly, having to navigate chargen correctly to avoid combat shutout before I've even started playing isn't really fun.

I do wish there were more worldbuilding components in the core books, though. Like guns!

Yes I know just what you mean. 4e has fixed most of those issues, and we all use point build now (and had for a while with 3.xe) to iron out the awful rolling punishment too :D Self inflicted is one thing, but bad luck which cripples you during the whole game just plain sucks :D

The only major gripe I have with 4e is it's not a very flexible system, unlike 3e, you can pretty much use the main classes as only D&D, it would take WAY more work to re-work it into another setting type. Maybe they will make a modern or Future rules set, but it doesn't feel like it would work so well. it's too streamlined into the fantasy groove :)

The lack of a craft skill is also annoying :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

I've had problems in 3e in that it unintentionally punished you for suboptimal builds. It didn't mean to, of course, but when Bob across the table is spewing extra damage out his nose and you're still annoyed the the Run feat sounded like a good idea the frustration cuts into the feeling of effectiveness. And frankly, having to navigate chargen correctly to avoid combat shutout before I've even started playing isn't really fun.

---

Then make a new feat, Improved Run, or create a Run feat tree.

OR make the Run feat a level-based feat (personally I'd like to avoid such but I can agree in some cases if it is reasonable).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tobian

The only major gripe I have with 4e is it's not a very flexible system, unlike 3e, you can pretty much use the main classes as only D&D, it would take WAY more work to re-work it into another setting type. Maybe they will make a modern or Future rules set, but it doesn't feel like it would work so well. it's too streamlined into the fantasy groove :)

---

I like that and I don't like that. I like it because it allows D&D to be about what D&D is about (ie the dungeons and the dragons) but I don't because it has a too narrow focus right now. I grew up on stuff like Narnia and Myst and Song of Albion, which sometimes involves things like cars, or gas lamps, or guns. I have no problem with playing Robin Hood and his Merry Band of Riflemen, so the lack of stats for stuff like gas masks or *cough* guns bothers me.

But they have non-magical healing sources, so I can forgive them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REG

Then make a new feat, Improved Run, or create a Run feat tree.

OR make the Run feat a level-based feat (personally I'd like to avoid such but I can agree in some cases if it is reasonable).

---

Yeah, but once you start that process you end up with your own edition of the game. And I already have two of those : P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

Yeah, but once you start that process you end up with your own edition of the game. And I already have two of those : P

---

Perhaps, but I enjoy creating new feats for D&D -- or d20 -- than creating new spells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REG

Perhaps, but I enjoy creating new feats for D&D -- or d20 -- than creating new spells.

---

Why do you think that is?

Um, guys? You want to argue the fine points of D&D, a Trek forum is NOT the best palce to do it. There is a general "Other RPG" forum here. This started out as a discussion of whether or not a new Trek game was likely, NOT an arguement over Dungeons and Dragons.