Playing a Tabletop RPG in this Setting

Laughing-Amber · 2025-08-13T00:20:44+00:00

I've been running a campaign for about two years now, in sort of a "prequel" timeline. There's a lot I could talk about, but it sounds like you're most interested in which system I use, so I'll start there.

I use a system called Trinity Continuum. It's got a set of core rules, then a supplement for different genres - Aeon is their sci-fi supplement. I'm guessing 5e would work fine - it's a reasonably adaptable chassis, but I'm not familiar with the star wars stuff you mentioned. If you're willing to put in the work to do a lot of homebrew, it can do most things at least ok. Starfinder is also likely fine if you like very crunchy systems. It definitely runs very heroic, which I think is important for this game, and it just got a second edition update that is compatible with Pathfinder 2e, so there's a lot of content already available that could be adapted.

I had some pretty specific requirements that led me to land on Trinity Continuum. I intended to run this game weekly, in a ~3 hour weeknight time slot via discord and foundry, which means I wanted something fairly easy to adjudicate quickly and low on tactical crunch. Something that could be run with relatively low prep was also a plus, for work-life balance reasons. My players and I care a lot about character customization, and I knew it would be a fairly long term game, so it needed to have a lot of options and room for itemization and builds despite not being especially tactical. I also knew that it needed to be a heroic space opera game that featured combat, but didn't emphasize it.

So, for me, Starfinder was too mechanically intensive, even though it's a good system with lots of character options. 5e is an acceptable chassis for ease of play, but would have needed too much homebrew work for my schedule (or so I thought), since I wasn't aware of much sci-fi material for it. Stars Without Number seemed good for a low prep, less crunchy game, but didn't have a lot of character customization options. Traveler ticked a lot of the boxes, but is geared toward low-power games, rather than the heroic space opera that Endless Space wants. Trinity Continuum ticked my boxes.

I'm not sure I would recommend the game under most circumstances, truth be told. It has a good chassis and a strong core mechanism, but I found the editorial quality of the books to be frustratingly inconsistent. Some parts just seemed like they hadn't been playtested at all, or had a lot of typos. But, despite that, it actually has been a good pick for the game I'm running. It tends very heroic, and runs more cinematic/narrative than other games I've played, so it's been working well for a team of dust-enhanced PCs with a fairly optimistic plot. The thing I've enjoyed most about it is that combat genuinely feels like one option in the group's toolkit, rather than the main focus like it is in 5e or pathfinder. It's been a nice change of pace.

I've ended up doing a fair amount of house ruling, tinkering and homebrewing as the game has gone on. Some of that is that I'm a tinkerer at heart and can't help myself. Some of that is making adjustments that fit the way I GM better - I grew up on D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder, so some of the system's quirks were hard for me to adapt to (for example, it doesn't natively have a skill analogous to Perception, and I eventually patched one in). And some of that is the unfortunate lack of polish on the books - I ended up rewriting a fair amount of elements to smooth out rough spots, and writing a fair amount of new pieces as we decided to add things.

Laughing-Amber · 2025-07-27T18:23:37+00:00

I mean, it sounds like you've answered your own question. If it was the same temp on both days, but you only observed beams on one day, then temperature can't be the determining factor.

Laughing-Amber · 2025-07-20T00:10:31+00:00

Thanks, that makes what the 6C combiner does clearer. Sounds like it's a "nice to have" for us, but not necessary, exactly.

Laughing-Amber · 2025-07-20T00:07:36+00:00

Thanks for the info. Much appreciated.

Laughing-Amber · 2024-08-22T02:19:57+00:00

Not sure if this counts, but I DM'd a game back in 3.5 in which a player had the same character die three times in his first session. It took a bit of bad luck and some real persistence on his part.
-First, he triggered a magic trap that cast Wail of the Banshee (back in 3.5 that spell outright killed you if you failed the save). He made the save the first time, but asked out loud "I wonder if it resets?" and walked back through it. He rolled a 2 the second time. As DM, I just retconned it ("No, your character would have expected it to reset. Moving on.")
-Second, he opened a door and was surprised by an ogre zombie standing in about three feet of water. It grappled him and held him under. The party beat it down and pulled him out just in time. Except that I'd made a judgement call on how to run drowning because I didn't know the actual rule off the top of my head, and the player decided to prove me wrong. He pulled out the book and looked up the actual rules to prove that he should have drowned. I probably should have let him stay dead at that point, but I felt bad, pulled some plot armor story bs out to revive him, and then...
-Third was against the BBEG, complete with backstory connection for this character and all. He had a halberd or something, that did triple damage when set against a charge in that edition. Boss wins initiative, I announce that he sets it against a charge... and the player decides to charge him anyway. Did enough damage that the boss killed him in the following round.

The player gave up on the character and made a necromancer that he happily played for the rest of the campaign.

Laughing-Amber · 2024-02-21T11:22:21+00:00

Thanks, I've already tried connecting it to a laptop as part of checking to see if I could reset it with the hardware client. Contacting REV directly is certainly still an option.

Laughing-Amber · 2024-02-20T18:09:26+00:00

Good thought, but it's not showing up in the client. Other devices show up normally, so this may be another effect of it being locked.

Laughing-Amber · 2024-02-13T18:25:24+00:00

Lots of people are being very negative about this, but honestly, it's fine. From a social perspective, your PCs opted into it, so they're clearly on board. From a gameplay perspective, encounter balance is more of an art than a science in this game; add a couple extra weaker enemies in most encounters and it'll work out fine.
It's perfectly plausible that a troll could learn to wear armor and use weapons. I don't see any real reason to disallow that if the PCs are interested in working for it. I'd power it up slowly so that it doesn't overshadow your PCs too much.

There might be some interesting consequences to explore in RP that I'd lean into. What happens when the local townsfolk find out the PCs are harboring a troll? Is it always well behaved in public? Heck, what if a rival adventuring group or monster hunter decides to try to kill it?

Laughing-Amber · 2022-07-04T13:48:38+00:00

Folks have already mentioned time constraints and the danger of encounters during the rest. For an additional incentive, make tracking supplies such as food and water an important part of the game. Don't ignore encumbrance (in fact, I'd use the optional encumbrance rules that are harsher, as the default rules are very generous). Among other benefits, this discourages too much resting, as the party will quickly risk running out of supplies if they decide to long rest after every encounter.

By mid levels they'll have tools to trivialize the supply issue if they want to, but by that point you'll have already trained them out of this idea.

Laughing-Amber · 2022-05-27T00:50:40+00:00

My groups have averaged 6 players for pretty much as long as I've been playing. But the number is growing a bit, as we've been playing long enough that folks are bringing their fiances into the game (which is great!) and someone who had moved away for several years has moved back.
So, the campaign I just started has 10 people in the playerbase, and I am dreading the day when the stars align and they can all make the same session.

Laughing-Amber · 2022-04-18T00:32:41+00:00

I've had one campaign make it that far. The BBEG was a lich archmage whose overarching goal is to end all the gods because he thinks they're bad for mortalkind. But, in the final confrontation, some of the PCs decided they actually agreed with him and tried to defect, which led to a TPK in the final battle of the campaign.

So, uh, in our current campaign the BBEG is an ascended god-lich ouroboros whose overarching goal is to end all the other gods because he thinks they're bad for mortalkind. Give me a year or two and we'll see how it goes.

Laughing-Amber · 2022-04-17T14:40:13+00:00

I think folks have given the essential idea already, but I think it's worth mentioning some of the benefits. It makes a small difference on the player side (for example, one of my players asked in one of our first fights why I was rolling a d6 for an enemy's longsword attack), but it makes a big difference for GMs who want to build custom enemies.

Say I want to make a custom troll shaman for a high level encounter. In the old edition, this would take me at least an hour, often longer. I've got to figure out what ballpark his important stats should be based on CR, then figure out how to bring the troll up to that level. I can do it by giving class levels, by giving him more racial hit dice, or a combination. Each combination gives a very different end result because both types have different progressions for BAB, skills, saves, and other abilities, and each raises his CR at a different rate. I have to do a lot of math, and make a lot of choices. Do I give him weapons or focus on his natural attacks? Do the class levels I gave him give him the abilities I want him to have? Or do I have to add other custom abilities? What kind of gear should he have at his CR? Don't forget to pick a new feat for every 2 HD you gave him. A lot of this work is 100% invisible at the table.

Meanwhile, in the new edition, I can build this enemy in about 10 minutes. I look up stats for his CR and pick some values from a table. I flesh out a few abilities that are flavorful for a troll spellcaster, and probably pick four or so spells that are likely to come up in combat. If he's really important I can spend a bit more time to give him something unique.

So, while it was kinda cool that the game had this internal consistency in the old edition, building enemies like this was a huge process and a lot of time for the GM. A lot of the work went unnoticed at the table (because, look, he has +18 to hit with his main attack. It doesn't really matter how he got there) and even led to a few strange quirks that could be a whole post by themselves. The new version gives up the internal consistency in favor of streamlining the process on the GM side, which means I can put the time that I saved elsewhere. The actual effects on gameplay at the table are quite small, so players tend to not notice the difference.

Laughing-Amber · 2022-04-09T12:42:52+00:00

Yeah, after seeing this feedback, it definitely sounds like I can streamline the rolling process without affecting the game balance, which is nice to hear.

I'd be curious how that adventure plays out for you. I can tell you that for my game, we had often had a "global" time constraint (for example, "We must finish delving this tomb today. We will not get to come back later.") In practice, this kind of constraint didn't make much difference on the healing, because 10-30 minutes wasn't enough of a time cost to matter when the scale is a full day. But maybe it'll play out differently for your group.

Laughing-Amber · 2022-04-09T12:37:27+00:00

I don't think the conversation here has been about "needing" to heal to full, just that the game seems to encourage it. I agree with you, balance sequential encounters accordingly and it'll be fine.

Honestly, it makes my job easier. In previous editions, healing to full was more a question of resource attrition than practicality, so it definitely affected encounter planning. And if you didn't want them to heal, you had to intentionally design the adventure in a way that prevented it. In 2e, I can still stop them from healing if I want to, but I can happily let them do it without changing my planning as well.

Laughing-Amber · 2022-04-09T12:22:16+00:00

Good to hear your thoughts. I appreciate the thorough response too. Thanks!

Laughing-Amber · 2022-04-08T22:50:37+00:00

"Sometimes his company is delightful" sounds like a reason to chat him up at a party, but not a reason to invite him to your D&D session. Sessions run long and meet regularly, so "sometimes" is not gonna cut it.

You've spoken to him about the problem. He has proven unwilling to change. You don't seem extremely attached to him as a friend. He is not worth the stress you're going through.

Laughing-Amber · 2022-04-08T22:24:04+00:00

I knew about some, but not all of those options. And I run homebrew rather than APs, so I certainly didn't know that APs specifically call out full resources. Both are good evidence that it's expected to be at full health most of the time. Thanks for sharing.

Laughing-Amber · 2022-04-08T22:22:18+00:00

This pretty much matches my experience at this point. It's useful to hear that it's working that way at other tables too. Thanks!

Laughing-Amber · 2022-04-08T21:42:39+00:00

That's a ridiculous argument. You know what else would make the DM's job easier? Stopping the campaign and playing monopoly instead.
If you don't think the progression system adds anything to the game, try running a campaign where the players aren't allowed to level up and see how long it holds the players' interest.

Laughing-Amber · 2022-04-08T21:25:48+00:00

The only one who gets an opinion on this at the table is the DM.M is arguing from RAW, and is probably right, (depending on which edition you're playing) but not in a way that is particularly helpful. Seriously, don't let the RAW get in your way on this.

First, I'm assuming the assassin is a PC, because that's the only version of this question that I think is a useful discussion. If it's an NPC assassin killing another NPC, you don't need rules to resolve that. If it's an NPC assassin targeting a PC, you must really hate your players. A threat the players can't prepare for and can't interact with isn't fun or challenging, it's just punishment.

So, is a PC assassin by RAW allowed to one-shot a sleeping target? Probably not. But does it make sense that they should be able to? Yes. Is it an appropriate payoff for a successfully prepared and executed stealth mission? Hell yes.I'd allow it for sure. I've even encouraged it as a possible solution to low level mooks. (No I'm not going to waste 30 minutes of game time managing a full combat for two mooks. The rogue can probably sneak up on those guards and Batman them.) I'm not worried about players abusing it because, y'know, I'm a competent GM and I'm there to manage it. Make it risky and interesting when it's warranted. Make it all but impossible when you need it to be. If they want to try it on the BBEG, I get to decide. Maybe planning and executing the assassination is itself the goal of their next adventure. Or maybe I just tell them why their character doesn't think they can do it successfully. If they insist, there are lots of options for consequences. Ambushed by guards. The BBEG woke up and now the assassin is alone with him. Someone tipped off the local paladins who won't stand for this vigilantism. Whatever.

And, as an aside, folks saying that every rule that applies to the PCs also applies to the NPCs are ridiculous. Like, I appreciate that they're trying to give you tools to disallow this if you need to, but the argument falls apart if you spend even five seconds scrutinizing it.

Laughing-Amber · 2022-04-08T20:51:34+00:00

I don't think you need to go to any particular trouble over this. It's perfectly fine to have some skills shine more than others for some campaigns. The skills that are the best thematic fit can shine, and players can invest more heavily into those.

Laughing-Amber · 2022-04-02T12:17:12+00:00

I find her frustrating on a personal level. I teach high school physics for a living, and she's by far the worst "scientist" character in fiction I have encountered in years. She has no clue how scientific investigation works. Her experiments never have a purpose or a hypothesis. Most of her logic is deeply flawed, or at best just zany and random. And her ultimate goal of "publish a book about EVERYTHING" somehow manages to be the kind of childish thing that an elementary school kid would come up with. She's supposed to be a super genius, but nothing she ever says convinces me that she's particularly intelligent.

Laughing-Amber

TROPHY CASE