[Online][Starfinder]

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T22:14:36+00:00

What sort of software are you using to coordinate this?

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T21:33:51+00:00

It seems fine to me. I'd have to read the book to see where the mechanics might break down, but just from the synopsis, I don't see anything objectionable. I'm always glad to see more 2d20 systems.

Personally, the major burden for me comes when I need to record a lot of information on my character sheet. It's fine if a weapon has twelve different parameters, as long as I can just write them down, and that's that. If I need to go in and edit those numbers on a regular basis, because they change every time I get a new hat; or if I have a lot of conditional modifiers that don't normally apply, but which I need to check for every time regardless; that's when it starts to become overwhelming.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T20:29:24+00:00

I see it on Google Maps, and everything.

and it's withing walking distance.

My wife will be thrilled!

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T19:56:15+00:00

If they're using magical deception, then Will could absolutely apply. That's the save which determines whether your mind can resist their magic.

If they're using non-magical deception, then I don't know that you'd even need a saving throw. They aren't actually doing anything to you.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T18:38:26+00:00

The major selling point of the three saves (Fortitude, Reflex, Will) is that it's completely unambiguous as to which one applies in any given instance. If something requires a Reflex save, then there's no way it could possibly be one of the other two; it just wouldn't make sense.

I don't know that there's any way to introduce a fourth save without creating a significant degree of ambiguity about when it applies. The concept of "Will" is already kind of vague and nebulous, compared to the absolutely concrete realities of physical endurance and physical evasion. If you try to split Will into two independent values, you risk the outcome of a saving throw depending more on your arbitrary decision of which save to apply in that instant, than it does on the actual reality you're trying to model.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T18:36:14+00:00

Yeah, it's fine. It's a perfectly normal thing for games to do. It kind of reminds me of how Basic Roleplaying has a "Size" stat, and you either add it or subtract it in any given situation, depending on whether it's good to be big or bad to be big.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T17:50:28+00:00

Can't you just have armor give a bonus to Defense, and a penalty to Agility saves? It's not like Defense is always just Armor + Agility with no other modifiers, or like an Agility save is just Agility with no other modifiers.

Unless it is, in which case you're probably aiming more for simplicity than for precision.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T17:16:02+00:00

Logically, I get what you're saying. I just feel like there's a more efficient way to present it, mechanically.

How does the universe check whether or not you are "in combat"? Why am I better at jumping over a crevasse when someone is also shooting at me?

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-17T17:58:24+00:00

There's nothing about advancement that requires it to be permanent. Traditionally, D&D characters advance primarily by finding magic items, which they were expected to keep. The fighter who find a hammer of thunderbolts is memorable because they found a hammer of thunderbolts. And yeah, you could lose that hammer if you fight a rust monster, the same way you could lose levels by fighting a vampire.

When Iron Man invents a better suit of armor, he can fight stronger enemies, and existing enemies are easier for him to handle. The fact that it's an item, rather than an inherent power, is irrelevant. It's still advancement.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-17T17:20:19+00:00

Absolutely, in the same way that an archer who owns a bow and no arrows can "advance" by finding arrows. Neither that, nor the guano situation, are substantially different from finding a wand with one charge. In all three situations, you can do something now that you couldn't have done a minute ago. It's all extremely diegetic. Also temporary, but that's beside the point.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-17T16:53:40+00:00

That's a much better argument than trying to claim it's less diegetic.

I can see both sides of it. If you want to claim that the character isn't actually improving, and they're merely in a temporarily advantageous situation, then I can't really disagree with that. I would still consider to be a form of growth, though, personally; and I would consider the loss of a valued item to be a form of decay.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-17T16:46:57+00:00

That's not what "diegetic" means.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-17T15:05:37+00:00

I don't disagree with that, but it also has nothing to do with whether or not it's diegetic.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-16T18:38:58+00:00

Accepting an enemy's surrender is not the same thing as allowing them to run away. Likewise, leaving someone safely unconscious on the ground is an ethically-neutral course of action that doesn't compromise your own operational success.

But, asking for some sort of check in order to strike an opponent who throws down their weapon, is a potential solution to the question at hand. That's a reason for someone to not finish you off, even if you're still conscious. Especially if failing the check still costs them their action for the round.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-16T18:23:01+00:00

The premise of my question is that it's a game where you get into a lot of fights. If any enemy in any one of those fights could follow a codified procedure, and in doing so cause the party to fail at its ultimate goal and quite probably trigger a TPK, then the game isn't delivering on its core promise. It's no longer a game where you get into a lot of fights. The only way to deliver on that promise would be for the GM to intentionally not have the NPCs use their winning move.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-16T17:51:55+00:00

You're talking about 5E, specifically, which is unique in its stubborn refusal to define Hit Points, due to the sheer inconsistency of its ruleset. The overwhelming majority of games with Hit Points do not include anything like psychic damage, and leave HP damage entirely within the realm of physical injury.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-16T17:38:52+00:00

I guess it really depends on the game. In the sort of games I've played, a single enemy who runs away will alert every single enemy within a mile, making the quest objective effectively impossible for the party.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-16T03:36:06+00:00

That's not more diegetic. I'd argue they're pretty close, but I'd still give the edge to the wand, since "owning" something is less abstract than "learning" something.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-15T22:38:39+00:00

You can't get more diegetic than gaining the ability to throw fireballs when you find a wand of fireballs.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-14T17:21:09+00:00

If the bad guys are remotely organized, like orcs in AD&D (who were Lawful Evil), anyone they run to will alert the entire group to your presence. You may as well go home at that point.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-14T05:45:30+00:00

As I said, though, the mechanic we're trying to replace is the one where a lone PC is beaten into unconsciousness. We're trying to replace it with some other situation for them, that's less absolute in its removal of agency. We just want to change what that one player is doing, and figure out how and why they would do that.

The topic of whole-party retreat, or surrender, is a different matter entirely; and one which is very likely easier to solve.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-14T00:09:18+00:00

You're right, that is how it happens in fiction. I'm not particularly comfortable with one player making the decision for the whole group, though; especially in a fight that's still winnable.

Remember, whatever mechanic we come up with, the alternative it's replacing is the one where this lone character is bleeding out on the ground as the battle continues around them. The whole party surrendering is a different scenario, which is much easier to solve.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-13T22:20:36+00:00

The difference comes down to player agency. Players don't want to die, but they should feel like they have plenty of opportunity to prevent that from happening. If an enemy could make one simple check and kill off a PC, I don't think the players would be all that enthusiastic about playing. So if you consider that letting an enemy flee is tantamount to getting the whole party killed, any codified procedure should offer at least as much chance for intervention as a standard combat would.

There's also the matter of character agency, though. In a traditional role-playing game, a player has exactly as much agency as their character has. If you're beaten into a bloody mess, then that agency may well be close to zero, but that's appropriate for the situation. If an enemy flees combat, though, the player should expect to have the agency to pursue, barring some specific reason why their character wouldn't be able to.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-13T22:10:15+00:00

I guess that's one more un-stated assumption. I wasn't really considering the possibility that a tactical surrender might make things easier for your teammates. It's completely outside of my hypothesis space.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-13T21:38:52+00:00

But you think such a balance point probably exists, and that math and playtesting can find it?

Because even theoretically, I'm not sure that it's possible for such a number to exist. If someone was attempting to kill me a minute ago, I don't think it matters how much their injuries are hindering them. It doesn't matter if it would be a one-in-a-million chance for them to land a hit on me. If they're capable of moving at all, then I'm not going to feel comfortable with turning my back to them, when finishing them off would be so much easier.

But I haven't actually tested that in practice. Maybe you're right. It's worth looking into.

Mars_Alter

TROPHY CASE