Off the Shelf: Dungeon Crawl Classics

Off the shelf? Well, I wanted a feature for pulling games I may have had off the shelf and giving them another look. Dungeon Crawl Classics (DCC) is one I have had, but never really had the time to give it proper consideration. Sometimes my schedule only allows me a quick look at a game, I give it a very wrong first impression, and I pick it up later to discover I was completely wrong and this deserves another look.

I shelved DCC because of its size and the perceived complexity of the magic system. It seemed like "too big of a game" to really wrap my head around. I felt the siren's call of Old School Essentials, simple, direct, clean, and that did OSR about the best of any other game.

The truth is, DCC's non-magic rules are about 10% of the game and ultra-simple. 80% of the rest are magic spells and their casting charts. And to compare this to OSE as an old-school game I feel is unfair to both genres - though it can be an OSR style game if you want it to be, but can be a lot lot else too.

A 3.5E Game

DCC shares a lot of design improvements with the classic Basic Fantasy, where the improvements made in 3.5 edition that improved play were kept. Ascending AC. The DC system. Fort, reflex, and will saves. It sticks closer to 3.5 than does Basic Fantasy, so if you can follow the Pathfinder 1e design language everything feels right at home here.

It is clearly a game that uses existing design language and elements to create a new experience. There isn't a B/X emulation here, though it could be played that way for sure.

Gonzo Deadly

The game is gonzo crazy, deadly, and as off the wall and out there as you can imagine it to be. Run a Paranoia-style fantasy RPG parody? Got you covered. Run a serious, deadly, classic Warhammer FRP meat grinder? We can do that too. Do a fantasy world like the Heavy Metal movie? Yeah, it works. Horror? It works. Conan? It works. You want to go more middle of the road?

Depends.

It can do generic fantasy, but I feel the beauty of this games lies in the extremes. If I were to do a sort of B/X fantasy I may want to use Old School Essentials, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, or other games where there is that safety net of expectations present - just for the players sake. You know, the class options, the what can happen in the world, the standard B/X style script of adventure and dungeon.

The B/X feeling.

This is like if satanic panic AD&D came along, ate Warhammer, went insane reading Rolemaster crit charts, got drunk with Tunnels and Trolls, destroyed several licensed properties along the way, had a kid with Cthulhu, and sat across the table wearing a vintage Van Halen 1980 concert t-shirt as your DM.

This is the Pathfinder I always dreamed of playing. Just anything goes crazy and free, deadly, with corruption and incredible feats and failures happening on a regular basis. With a lot less rules. I bring up Pathfinder because I had to buy three shelves of books to get it to that gonzo-crazy point, and I only use about 10% of the pile of books on my shelves I have to get it there.

Everything is Unique

One thing I love about the design language here is everything is unique. There is no real standard list of monsters and magic items. This is like that wonderful time for us when the D&D 4th Edition game only had a player's handbook and DMG and the monster manual came out months later. We had fun. The game was ours. We could make up any monster using the guidelines given, even space aliens, mirror a couple character powers, and we were playing a unique, crazy, and incredibly fun game that was ours.

And then the books started coming out for 4th Edition and ruining things for us slowly.

But DCC recaptures that. They constantly tell you to change things, make up your own monster stats, and use the book's creatures as starting points. None of this is written in stone. They purposefully don't give stats for a large number of the "fantasy standards" because they want you to make your own and make them yours.

Make a eyeball on a foot monster, give it a touch save poison effect, a few HD, a good AC, some attacks, a few special abilities and defenses, a d6 power chart, some save numbers, an initiative number, and go. This is probably the only one of these in the world so it doesn't really matter if the PCs kill it and your forget the stats, or it kills the PCs and you forget the stats.

The magic items are similarly unique. Every time a wizard learns a spell it is unique. If you can figure out a way to use a chart of random tables and make something else unique, it is unique. All the better.

Nobody knows what to expect.

Remember when I said "that B/X feeling?" To me, B/X is sort of like classic rock these days. Oh, I love my classic rock to hell and back, just like I love my B/X. But for some players they may come for that B/X feeling and not want all this potential insanity flying around. Spells corrupting their casters. Spells misfiring horribly. Monsters and treasures they can't predict. Character power that swings wildly. Nothing is known or can be predicted. Death could be through that next door.

Like the incredible Mork Borg, this is a game that shocks our senses and slaps us in our face, screaming at us to wake the heck up from our nostalgia-induced sleep.

With pen-and-paper games pretending to be lifestyle brands and MMOs, and character protection built in as a player retention strategy, I feel this is a good thing. B/X still is incredible, but there are times I want to break free, like the Queen song goes.

Change is good. Like a great horror movie, I don't want my feelings protected and I want to feel fear again. I need to feel alive.

We need that fear of the unknown in our gaming and that sense of wonder back.

Lots of Dice

I bought a standard set of Zocchi dice and I use these to play. Before I had a bucket and could never find the one I needed. Make sure yours all match in style, and cut down the number you play with to one or two sets so you can learn them. Don't do what I did and buy two types of d14 and d16 and never be able to find the right one. Buy different colors and make sure the d16 is unique. Trust me on this, it makes the game a lot easier to learn and you start being able to recognize the dice faster.

One Book

Another thing I love is you only need one book to play. You can buy modules and expansion, mutate them to your liking, but part of the game's philosophy is to give you the base DNA for your game, and you take it from there. There won't be dozens of expansion books for this game. You can go out into the community for that and go crazy if you want new material. But to keep that "the game is yours" feeling, they stuck with the core book and tell you to make up the rest.

Where Does This Fit In?

For me, this is my gonzo Pathfinder 1e replacement. It is a lot easier to learn and play correctly, the power levels are there, and it checks all the boxes for a wild and unpredictable game with corruption, dark powers, and insane monsters and worlds. I still play Pathfinder 1e, but this does what I wanted that game to do much easier.

I am sad I did not pull this out earlier and give it a go.

Wow.

Lesson learned.

A great game and now one of my go-to games for the gonzo genre.

The +3 Modifier at 18

 

One of the reasons I avoided playing Swords & Wizardry for the longest time as the lack of a ability score modifier of higher than a +1 (at 15), and this modifier only applies to specific things for specific classes. For instance, the fighter is the ONLY class that gets a +1 to-hit and damage in melee with a strength score of 15 or higher.

Contrast this with the majority of B/X, which is based off of books later than the original "Chainmail" and white box style rules which did not have the 13-15 is +1, the 16-17 is +2, and the 18 is +3 modifiers (and the similarly decreasing negative ones). I grew up with these modifiers, so I thought if a game did not have these, it wasn't really good enough for me.

This is another reason I did not play Stars Without Number and the Worlds Without Number games, as I felt the +1 and +2 modifiers of these games did not feel up to my "standard" of needing that +3 at an 18.

Looking Back

I can see why the original games never had these generous ability score modifiers. They apply to every class, and scale to three times the original +1 modifier. When you have these modifiers, you are putting a huge upwards pressure on ability score inflation, and to get these "cool bonuses" the 4d6 drop lowest ability score generation method was likely created.

And with strength, you factor in a +1 essentially raises your weapon damage by one die, given the averages. A 1d4 dagger with a +1 STR mod is equal to a 1d6 weapon, since they have the same average  roll (3.5). A 1d4 dagger with a +3 modifier is like a 1d10 weapon. Note I am NOT taking into account the +5% extra to-hit bonus per +1, which would make a 1d4+1 dagger with a +1 to-hit superior to a 1d6 short sword with a +0 to-hit (3.675 vs 3.5 average damage). 

That d4+3 to-hit and damage? A 6.325 average damage versus the d10/+0 weapon's 5.5, almost a full point of damage more on average (factoring the to-hit bonus on repeated attacks), with a minimum nearly the average of the 1d10 weapon's at a full 4 points.

Those B/X modifiers are VERY generous, especially when combined with magic items. Get a +3 STR mod with a +2 weapon and you are doing serious damage with high averages.

Back to white box Swords & Wizardry. Basically, no real special modifiers unless you are a fighter with STR 15 or higher. That class gets it because that is why you play a fighter. Magic weapons? All classes benefit from to-hit and damage bonuses, and those modifiers become VERY valuable. As a consequence, magic items become highly desirable.

Also, the game feels better balanced because at low levels, ability score bonuses are not guaranteeing one hit kills versus many weaker monsters (especially 1d4 hp ones). Also, there isn't this great push to pump those ability scores up, and a 3d6 generation method feels fine here.

+2 at 18?

A few white box style games feel like they are making a compromise with a +2 at the highest scores (Stars Without Number, Worlds Without Number, and another one is White Space). Original Swords  & Wizardry sticks to the +1 all the way up. I can see this as a special nod to the need to have some difference there to make the upper range compelling, but it doesn't really bother me that much. Now that I understand the why, the exceptions can be a lot better rationalized.

It's What I Grew Up With

So I had this bias based on the games I grew up with, and that was coloring how I saw these games. Because Swords & Wizardry did not have the +3 bonus, it felt like less of a OSR game to me. And I will admit, I was wrong. There are times I feel those generous B/X ability score bonuses are too much, they put too much pressure on players to roll high, and they make the low level game with high scores more of a blowout than something with a predictable balance and less-spiky damage rolls.

I see why the "white box" lineage is popular, and this is one of those key differences. This is also one of the huge differences between B/X and the Stars/Worlds Without Number games, since they also pull down those modifiers and flatten that modifier curve.

I still like my +3 at 18, but I can see how that puts a lot of pressure on ability score inflation and makes low-level/high-modifier games easier. There is less "ability score swing" with games, and when you design a class you get to say what that 15+ score +1 goes to. Saving throws? Attack and damage? Reaction rolls? There is a model here that is followed and a standard practice.

So this is more of how I came to understand the "why" of white box style games' modifier system, and how those games don't feel like they have a problem to me anymore. They exist in a flatter design curve, and given how more games are moving towards that model (such as D&D5's bounded accuracy model, and also the excellent Stars/Worlds Without Number), the original white box rules we all started with feels more like the ultimate design goal rather than a system without that +3 modifier ideal.

It is honestly making me wonder what the "true" OSR style game is to me and that tighter balance curve. Is it B/X with the higher range of modifiers and stacking bonuses? Or is it more of a Swords and Wizardry style game with less of a focus on ability scores and more on play style, strategy, and tactics?

What is the idea OSR balance level, especially with low-level play?

Once you make a point that ability score modifiers are very generous in B/X (and create that ability score inflation), are very powerful at low levels, and compare that with a flatter model game like white box, you wonder where the game plays and feels the best.

I am really wondering now if the white box model has the best feeling versus the B/X games I grew up with. It may not matter at all, but I can clearly see the white box fans' view now on how less is more.

Mail Room: Worlds Without Number

I got this in the mail today, the offset print version of Worlds Without Number. I like both this and its sibling game, Stars Without Number, and it is nice to have an offset print (higher than POD) quality book for this game.

This is the fantasy version of Stars Without Number and it is a very cool sort of "dying Earth" fantasy game, so far in the future technology and culture of today's world has crumbled into the dust and only magic remains. We are way past destroyed future style games such as Gamma World or Rifts and into a savage new world where you are free to create your own continents and lands, strange alternate parallel realities, and an almost dream-like world of fantasy where alien runs cross the world and there are no such things as laser pistols, 20th century culture, roads, cities, and computers.

It is like like the Earth has been terraformed a million times by a million star civilizations, many with magic, and then the tired world forgotten and left to its feudal ways.

Or, you can play traditional fantasy with this with orcs and elves on a new world. Or use it as a world generator for Old School Essentials. Or 5th Edition. Or Mythras. Or Aftermath. Or Gamma World. Or Pathfinder 1e or 2e. Or AD&D.

Whatever floats your boat.

It is a game that gives you a cool setup, simple but expressive rules, the best world generation tools out there, and then lets you play however you want.

Which is cool.

More on this soon.

First Look: Traveller Core Rulebook Update 2022

Okay, I am happy I took the leap of faith on this one. Above left is the 2016 book's table of contents. On the right is the 2022 book's ToC. Here is a short list of the first things that jumped out at me with this version of the main rulebook:

• 23 pages added
• Lots of flowcharts and how-to diagrams were added
• Better artwork throughout
• All of the bad pieces and eye-cringe are gone
• Much better presentation
• Use of facing pages where they can!
• Cleaner layout overall
• Bullet points!
• The all-black pages that ate toner are gone
• Much more printer friendly
• Style does not jump around between sections
• Less confusing
• More color in the artwork
• Looks "happier"
• Less of a dreary, dark "Alien RPG" look
• Getting a Star Frontiers vibe overall
• Better equipment and starship images
• The weapons, suits, and tech look "cool" now
• Spacecraft construction is back in the main book!

Overall, it feels like a team of graphic designers went over the 2016 book and made a lot of hard choices on presentation, and the work they did looks great. The bulleted rules and facing pages layouts help a great deal, and the cleaner and consistent presentation overall helps the organization of the book tremendously.

And the universe, ships, gear, and guns look cool too. Not overly high-tech and clean, but rugged, functional, dirty, and functional designs that do not look too "concept art." Great job on the art revamp.

It feels like someone took a long, hard look at Old School Essentials and ask themselves, "What did they do right?"

Granted, they would need to rewrite a lot of the book and rules to get this to an OSE-level of cleanness, but with the  game they have and keeping it compatible, they did a pretty good job here.

I can't wait for my hardcopy coming in January 2022, this is one I am looking forward to. I am pleasantly surprised by this one.

News: Traveller Core Rulebook Update 2022

 

https://www.mongoosepublishing.com/us/traveller-core-rulebook-update-2022.html

Oddly enough, I say the words "I wish the Traveller core rulebook was reorganized like Old School Essentials" and I learn of this. From the above link:

Traveller is a science fiction roleplaying game of bold explorers and brave adventurers. The Traveller Core Rulebook Update 2022 contains everything you need to create one of these adventures and begin exploring the galaxy.

Spaceports, ancient civilisations, air/rafts, cold steel blades, laser carbines, far distant worlds, and exotic alien beasts – this is the futuristic universe of Traveller, the original and classic science fiction roleplaying game.

Come visit the far future.

The Traveller Core Rulebook Update 2022 has been fully revised for this edition and contains many tweaks and rules updates, as well as a brand new, highest quality interior format with lashings of top tier art to immerse you in the far future.

Now, this is still 2nd edition, so it DOES NOT invalidate your other books, which I feel is a good thing. They redid the organization, put in new art, and cleaned up the presentation.

Compelling?

I am on the fence. I don't play enough Traveller to justify it, honestly, and I have a 2nd edition rulebook. And there is Stars Without Number to play with too, and that is OSR, so I have tons already compatible with my other OSR games.

If I get bought into playing a 3rd Imperium setting, yes, I would get it. For generic sci-fi I would not. Then there is that question in your mind, if the game were easier to use, would you play it more?

Ouch.

Yes. The current 2nd Edition rulebook I have is not really the easiest thing to use. The confusing layout and hard-to-find rules is a reason I did not play this version more, and also a reason why I went looking for alternatives. Like Starfinder. Like Stars Without Number.

It is nice to see some love and care given to the game with the update, and I hope this is a huge improvement, since it would mean I would get something out of my investment in the other books in the 2nd edition line.

This is expected to release in January 2022.

Empires & Federations (Without Number)

From the Stars Without Number rulebook we get this quote: 

Above all, Stars Without Number is your game now. There is no one “correct” way to play it. There is only your way to play it, and you should feel free to make it the game you want to play.

Let's take this great OSR space game and turn it into a quick OSR Star Wars or Star Trek style game. Yes, I know there are official licensed games for both of these, and they are great, but back in my day when all we have was Basic and Expert D&D, we hacked that game to play whatever we wanted to play. If the numbers and systems were "close enough" and "like the movies" then that was mission complete.

Note: None of this is official material, Stars Without Number and all content is property of Sine Nomine Publishing, and Star Trek and Star Wars are properties of their respective license holders. This is presented for free as fan material for simulating genres "like" the ones mentioned. The names of weapons and defenses from the Stars Without Number game are NOT presented in their entirety, but only as names for possible conversion notes between genres, and are not official.

Generic Genres

Because we don't want to step all over licensed products, we will be using generic genre names for our new universes, such as "Star Federation" for a genre like Star Trek, and "Space Empire" for a genre like Star Wars. This way the genres are a bit more generic and we can use the standard names for what they call things here, like "blaster" or "phaser" since those are generic sci-fi terms but some more closely associated with one genre than another.

Also note, while those two properties are used as examples, there are plenty of other movies, books, anime, and games in those genres you could be simulating. Never get stuck on the names given in the book, and if you want to change them - this is your game and do so!

Remember, what we are trying to do here is OSR-ify the genres and make them play like an OSR game. We are not looking to create a game that plays like a licensed game, or create anything super complex and detailed. All we want is an "OSR hack" for each genre, and only making minimal changes and fixes to make things work.

When it comes down to it, being able to quickly spin up an OSR space hero and jump into an iconic starship and start having adventures is what the goal is with this project.

Rename Everything!

So, what is the strategy? Well, since I don't want to be creating huge lists of items and equipment lists for each new genre, I am just going to change the names of what we have in the main rulebook to make what we have - and what is tested and well-balanced - into the things we need for each genre.

For example, we need a hand-blaster for out Space Empire setting. I would use the laser pistol, and the laser rifle for a larger blaster rifle. What about the hand phasers of Star Federation? We have those too in the thermal pistol and the rifle-like plasma projector for our "phaser rifle."

Is this cheating? Heck yes it is cheating. But when you look at it, calling a Vortex Tunnel Inductor a "Heavy Ion Cannon" in the Space Empire setting or a "Heavy Disruptor" in our Star Federation setting makes sense from a movie perspective. The main, heavy energy gun in each setting if used in a movie would produce approximately the same dramatic effect. Also, since the source material, the VTI weapon in the main game, was play-tested, our balance in play is guaranteed.

And this is quick-and-easy, we don't want to get bogged down in creating huge lists and conversions, and we are done.

Limit Genre Equipment

The Stars Without Number has a lot of cool personal and starship equipment, such as the perfect for our use "teleportation pads." We need to limit equipment availability by each genre and this is just asking the question, "Does this item work in this universe?" For teleportation pads, yes for Star Federation and no for Space Empire. Cold sleep pods? Have not really seen them used in either setting that much unless they were medical stasis pods, so limit them for that use only. 

Most items are dual use in either genre, such as cargo space or luxury cabins, so just use them as-is. If you need something genre-specific, such as a holo-deck, use the closest approximation, such as an advanced lab or workshop - whatever feels closest in terns of function and technology, rename it and use that. Write it in like "holo-deck (advanced lab)" and you are good.

Again, convert something already there that is close enough and get playing.

Defenses

One issue that may come up is shields, which are prevalent in both genres. I say, these are included with the ship's AC and hit points. There will be some inconsistencies with things said in the movies like, "max power to shields" or even "shields full forward" but when you get right down to it that all could be just letting the audience know the ship has shields and a dramatic device. If the ship's AC is ever lowered by a crisis, that means the shields are down.

As an option add a "Full Power to Shields" combat action for 2 CP under Engineering Actions and make it work exactly like Evasive Maneuvers, adding the engineer's Fix skill level to the ship's AC, usable once per round. Note this may affect balance if stacked with evasive maneuvers, so if you find is it causing issues only allow one or the other (or better yet, the higher of the two) to be used in a round.

So, a list of suggestions? Sure, let's do that, and your may vary but here is a start that I could come up with:

SWN Defense	Star Federation	Space Empire
Ablative Hull Components	Enhanced Shields	Enhanced Shields
Augmented Plating	Armor Plating	Armor Plating
Boarding Countermeasures	same	same
Burst ECM Generator	Electronic Countermeasures	Jammers
Foxer Drones	Decoy	Decoy
Grav Eddy Displacer	Angled Shielding	Deflector Screens
Hardened Polyceramic Array	Super Dense Hull	Hardened Armor
Planetary Defense Array	NA	NA
Point Defense Lasers	Point Defense Phasers	Point Defense Lasers

You could use the planetary defense array as an anti-orbital bombardment screen, a large solid force field projector, or a sort of energy projector that can stop fission reactions, so this is still useful as a plot device or "large defensive thing" replacement.

Starship Weapons

Given all the crazy things they did in the movies, you could come up with really any reason for something to "work" and fit in the genre. For example, point defense lasers as anti-starfighter weapons are pretty apparent in the Space Empire genre. In a Space Federation genre they would be anti-torpedo weapons, and while not really seen too much in films, it is possible they exist so use them if you want to in this genre or don't - it is up to how you see the genre working.

Some ships in Space Empire have these "forward mounted turbolasers" so that is like a spinal mount. Could a Star Federation ship possibly have a single large phaser mounted forward? It could, though we haven't see this too much, it could be done.

Also in Star Federation you see a difference between the accurate "phaser" style ship weapons versus the more destructive and clumsy "disruptor" style weapons. In Space Empire these are Ion Cannons.

Also, some weapons are listed as NA since they don't have a great match in each genre. This doesn't prevent you from using them, or you may know of some obscure weapon that was used in a TV show, movie, or book that fits into that space, so just fill it in yourself. So let's do my suggested list of replacements for each genre, and yours may vary:

SWN Weapon	Star Federation	Space Empire
Multifocal Laser	Phaser (small craft)	Laser Cannons (starfighter)
Reaper Battery	Disruptor Beam (small craft)	Ion Cannon (starfighter)
Fractal Impact Charge	Photon Torpedo (small craft)	Proton Torpedo (starfighter)
Polyspectral MES Beam	NA	NA
Sandthrower	NA	NA
Flak Emitter Battery	Point Defense Phasers	Point Defense Lasers
Torpedo Launcher	Photon Torpedo Launcher	Proton Torpedo Launcher
Charged Particle Caster	Disruptor Cannon	Ion Cannon
Plasma Beam	NA	NA
Mag Spike Array	NA	NA
Nuclear Missiles	Atomic Mines	Orbital Bombardment Bays
Spinal Beam Cannon	Phaser Cannon	Turbolaser Cannon
Smart Cloud	NA	NA
Grav Cannon	NA	NA
Spike Inversion Projector	Phaser Battery	Turbolaser Battery
Vortex Tunnel Inductor	Heavy Disruptor	Heavy Ion Cannon
Mass Cannon	Heavy Photon Torpedo	Heavy Proton Torpedo
Lightning Charge Mantle	NA	NA
Singularity Gun	Anti-planetary Phaser	Anti-planetary Laser

Sandthrowers and mag spike arrays make good "gauss weapon" replacements for universes that use those. The Polyspectral MES beam could be seen as a high-tech phaser or laser variant that is highly armor piercing. The plasma beam seems like an ion cannon or disruptor variant that sacrifices power for aim, so if you had a "light" version this would be a good fit. Smart cloud is like a laser armed drone cloud and that was used in at least one modern Star Federation movie. A grav cannon is like a weaponized tractor beam, so again, use it if you need it. The lightning charge mantle is an energy field weapon, good for an alien force field weapon.

Again, we are not trying to be sci-fi nerds here and asking the question, "Is a phaser battery better than a turbolaser battery?" In movie effects these are similar enough to a "large energy weapon for a large ship" that we just handwave away the differences and call them functionally equivalent. The weapon names are deliberately generic, since through the source material of these genres they do change frequently.

Federation versus Empire

This is where the fun begins. Now that you have a common set of rules and conversion notes, you could run a campaign where the Star Federation takes on the Space Empire. You know all those memes where the universes get crossed up and the what-ifs start flying around? Those are all yours now, and the OSR nature of the game provides the common framework for everything to work together.

The characters can all interact, the ships can fight each other, and given a little care on converting personal equipment, everything just works and you can even play a sandbox campaign where the two sides fight for control of various worlds, work together, or get caught in situations on neutral worlds where they are forced to interact.

Want a battle between a Space Destroyer and Federation Cruiser? You got it. Want a transhuman science officer facing off against a dark space knight? You got it. The OSR has you covered as a compatibility layer between the genres.

This is one of the great things about hacking the game to simulate the genres, in general no two licensed games will every be cross-compatible with each other (unless they are the same publisher). Here, because we modded the base game and renamed a few things to say "X is really Y" we can have a system that handles either or both in the same setting and with the same rules. You cold play OSR Star Federation one night, and OSR Space Empires the next with the same rules. You could do the "versus" campaign. You could further refine and modify the weapons and equipment to better fit an era with in the genre, or just use it all as-is.

As the book says, there is no "one" correct way to play the game.

Sci-Fi: What I am Playing

I am currently playing Starfinder, and while it is that good-ole d20 fun, I find the need to use the Starbuilder computer program to manage my characters taxing. I know, the program makes it easy, and I do highly recommend this one if you are bought into Starfinder (with a subscription) like I am.

I miss the days of DIY, sheet-of-paper no computers needed character sheets, so I am giving Stars Without Number another look. The OSR seems universally against character building apps, and the games are so simple they rarely need them.

There are times I feel the model Paizo, Wizards, and a lot of other companies are using by using system complexity as lock in makes me tired. I love the complexity, and who am I to complain having a complete collection of Pathfinder 1e and 2e books, but there are times when I feel all that complexity gets in the way and is 99% of the time fluff, unneeded minutia, and gets in the way of stories and playing.

Ultimately the fun in some of these big-box complex systems "is" navigating the rules and figuring out the puzzle. Pathfinder 2E has this appeal of building a valid character and seeing how they work as a part of a team. I am feeling the same thing in Starfinder, it is fun building your character and working through the adventures the team wrote for you to have fun with. It is a sort of "turn on the steaming movie and watch" sort of fun for me, where you build your team, make theories and plans on your group, and play through and see what happens.

What worked? What didn't? What could we do better next time? What is our next step? What gear do we need? What do we do when we level up?

On a lower mechanical level it is fun, and the tinkerer and builder part of my brain loves this stuff.

But I do like systems that step out of the way and focus on story. Stars Without Number can even be used "with" Starfinder as the "space generation game" part of an exploration game. However, when I started reading deeper into the rules, which are only about the first 25% of the book and under 100 pages, the system started to grab me. The starship combat system especially, being a d20-style space combat system that I am feeling I prefer to Starfinder's system.

To be fair, I also have the excellent Traveller system, and also the fan favorite classic, Star Frontiers. While I love Star Frontiers I feel the system needs a revision, especially in the area of unarmed combat. I played the first Volturnus module and having a group of unarmed, unskilled in melee adventurers pound on space pirates with their fists and do 2 points of damage a turn to 45 STA with a 23% chance to-hit (knockouts on 01-02, and every tens rolls, 10 and 20 in this case) was pretty painful.

I know, grab a club, but having a group with the martial artist getting the space pirate in a hold while three other characters beat on the poor idiot turn after turn felt sloppy and not the fun, pulp-adventure sci-fi that I crave. At that point I may just swap out the older rules and use Savage Worlds instead. I love the universe and the aliens of Star Frontiers, but the rules I am not so tied to. I am currently playing in this universe with the Starfinder system and it is different, but fun.

Traveller I have a good set of books with, but I have not played as much lately. The system feels deeply tied to the 3rd Imperium, and while I am fond of the setting, I have not found it compelling enough to start a game in yet and explore. The layout and organization could be better, and I find myself struggling to find things and wishing someone would do an Old School Essentials style reorganization of the rules and split the system from the setting.

I know, heresy, but I like the split between rules and setting since it makes everything ten times easier to find during play, and the setting book becomes very useful and rich by not having to sacrifice page-count for basic rules concepts.

Stars Without Number seems like it holds a lot of promise, and with a little work I could reskin this to cover either Star Trek or Star Wars - or both. Or not, and just play it as-is. There is something to be said for generic sci-fi adventures with a simple-to-play system, and this game seems like a great fit. I know there is a licensed Star Trek game out there and it has good reviews, but I remember the days where people hacked Basic D&D to play Star Trek style games and it worked just as well, without the need to use computer programs or an hour's worth of work to generate a character.

Or buy a new book, though I like doing that too.

Again, the DIY sort of "play a Space Federation" style Star Trek game with an OSR rules set appeals to me, and I just may do that with this game for fun. And also, an OSR Star Trek style game would take the focus of the game off of "getting cash" - which the other three games discussed here all focus on, to a more adventure and mission based game that is not so focused on profits and space cash.

If there is one flaw in a lot of sci-fi games, and Starfinder has a really strange way of dealing with this (keep pocket cash poor and give ship upgrades for free), it is the constant focus on wealth equals power. Admittedly Star Frontiers in a Star Law style campaign can also sidestep this (and you could do this in other games), but still, having the cash to load up on the best weapons and defenses is still the path to victory. Traveller is very "space capital" focused and you often start the game in debt and struggling to make mortgage payments on your ship.

Is that fun? For some, but I don't feel it is a reason to get out and explore the stars since it is just a numbers game.

Yes, fantasy games have this "cash equals power" problem too. It is part of the genre, honestly, and there is that Diablo-style fun to equipping your character and powering up.

I like the stories, and I like the OSR style space games that I can mod into anything I like. For this reason I am giving Stars Without Number another look since it checks a lot of boxes and can sim most anything I want to play in a fast and easy way, a lot like Savage Worlds but this game has a structured d20 style ship combat system that I find interesting.

More soon as I hack, mod, and play.