So, the intent of the rule is that the Threat pool is visible at all times - the characters may not know how much Threat there actually is (because it’s an abstract measure of peril and tension), but there are moments in all fiction where characters ‘have a bad feeling’ about a situation, or are able to judge if something was ‘too easy’.
In my experience, being able to see the rise and fall of Threat is part of the desired dynamic: players are more willing to take risks when Threat is low, but more cautious when Threat is high, echoing the waxing and waning tension of a story. This doesn’t necessarily work if the GM doesn’t spend Threat (because players either never add to it as they’re waiting for the hammer to fall, or they add to it heedlessly because they don’t expect the GM to do anything with it). It also doesn’t necessarily work if the players can’t see the pool, because they don’t have an ability to gauge the risk in the same way. The game’s more fun and more interesting if Threat flows back and forth regularly.
A lot of how Threat works falls into normal tropes of fiction and drama. Threat is as much a tool for tension and suspense as anything else, and it’s there in large part for the way players interact with it (a way for them to take calculated risks - something fairly integral to the way Star Trek episodes often play out); the GM-side constraints are a secondary part of that, as the limitations make the player-side effects of Threat meaningful (adding to Threat doesn’t have any consequences if the GM ignores Threat and just makes things happen).
It is a multi-use mechanic. Think of it as a situation in which your players are rolling like they have never rolled before. As hot as T’Pol and Tripp in the Isolation Chamber…In other words loads of one’s and they are slicing and dicing your mobs like there is no tomorrow. AND, they are LAUGHING at you! (Or something like that) You need to give them an additional challenge or the night will end VERY quickly, and you have nothing else planned; (Or something like that). Think of it as, your players have not had a taste of combat and they are really loving the experience, and laughing and carrying on like an Ensign on his first trip to Risa. You don’t want that to slow down or stop too soon, do you? SO, as a brilliant GM, you reach for your Threat pile and you come up with a hunk of conduit, knocked loose from the last miss, falls in front of the BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy) and it blocks your players killing shot. Something like that…
I LIKE a challenge. Our group are truly veterans. We have been playing Star Trek RPG in various forms, in the same campaign, for about 12 years. Most of us have been Captains at one time or another, and we all have about six characters that we have played in that time, but I digress. We still manage to surprise each other. It would simply not do for the players to have too easy a time with my plot, so a little extra tabasco sauce is never a bad thing. (Personally, I like Chipotle and Habaneros, but that is me). The mechanic of Threat always leaves players guessing. There is always that threat (pun intended) of an additional wrinkle that will upset their carefully laid out plans.
The whole idea of the system is that player characters are baseline very competent. This means that when challenges present themselves, they know the difficulty of those challenges and can make reasoned decisions on whether or not they’d like to attempt it.
This means that unlike other system, a GM always tells players before they roll what the difficulty is. Threat is there to add a twist to things once players are committed to an action.
So for example, a GM can tell the ship’s chief engineer that the difficulty to repair a damaged warp core is 3. So player thinks yeah no problem, i have a focus. He picks up his dice to roll … and then the GM plops down two Threat to increase the complication range … cause that warp core sure does look rusty, don’t it?
Same applies to dealing with hostiles in combat. Your ship could be faced up against a Bird of Prey, and the players know what the ship is capable of (it helps that the stats are in the core book, lol) and think they can take it on … until the GM starts throwing down a ton of threat every round to prove them wrong.
This is important because aside from the 2xPlayers threat a GM gets at the start (on average), every single other threat that goes into his pool is generated by the players. So a player choosing to add Threat rather than spend Momentum on a roll is basically helping the GM bank their own future pain
not true.
The GM’s NPC’s can turn their momentum directly into threat.
Some NPC’s generate threat when added. (Menacing; p 306; Threatening, ibid.)
Some NPCs special abilities generate threat in specified conditions in play (Wrathful, p. 306, Victory is Life p. 331)
Note that, in playtest, I had a couple sessions end where I had 20+ threat, and only half of it was from players. The rest was from hot rolls on my part. And I wasn’t scrimping, either.
Yes! This is a collaborative storytelling game. The momentum gives the players tools to alter the story by attempting certain tasks they wouldn’t have been able to do. To balance this, the GM has Threat to add foes, add hazards, go from stun to lethal. Yes, you could do all these things in a different system, but this method gives us limits to what’s appropriate for a Star Trek adventure and how much we can push things… and how much the players are willing to sacrifice to know they’re putting themselves in greater risk, to accomplish something. It’s the tools of the give and take in contributing to the story. Savage Worlds and Fate gamers recognize these tools. Jay Little, who designed 2d20 also did the new Star Wars RPG for FFG, and there are elements of collaborative storytelling based on dice rolls in that game!
Garrett
We have done a little starship combat, not a lot. Even in an even fight the characters ship has a distinct advantage. Don’t tell my players this, but starship combat is designed to go pretty much as it did on the show - i.e. the good guys always win.
Yeah, an NPC ship on the same scale as the PCs, with anything less than a really elite crew (the stat 11/discipline 4 version) is gonna lose. Two of them may well still lose, especially if you have more PCs than your ship’s scale. Three of them, or a couple of larger ships, or a truly elite crew? Things are suddenly looking a lot more dicey for our heroes.
It’s not that PCs automatically win (they can easily lose if sufficiently outnumbered), but they sure tend to win ‘fair’ fights with equal sized ships who lack truly elite crews (which is most such ships), especially if you have more PCs than your ship’s scale.
It is also stressed (as in most rpg games) that it is your game and you can play it however you like. They strongly suggest not hiding it, but in some situations having a hidden threat pool may provide an interesting gaming session.
2 PCs on a scale 4 ship are not a match for another scale 4 ship… because the PC’s get two actions per turn, and the scale 4 threat gets 4. (core p. 225, SB)
4 PC, however, it’s a good fight, slanted towards the PC’s only because of damage tracking.
Having had 2-4 PC’s per session, ship combat against ships is a fair fight if the total number of actions and damage-opponent resistance are equal.
Oh, I’m not disputing that at all, you’re totally right on small groups. Though the folks at Modiphius have previously said you should maybe allow them to use Supporting Characters to get up to 4 characters/actions, which is sort of the minimum they intended for ship combat.
Even numbers favor the PCs strongly, though, not only due to damage but due to better PC stats than almost any NPC default crew.
There are many forum posts on here where the creators at Modiphius say play the game how you want to. If you want a specific page in the core book or elsewhere, how about the final paragraph on page 273 of the core book? Do remember that in all cases, the Gamemaster has the final say in rules decisions — even if that decision contradicts a rule in this book.
In fact, looking back through the sections on Threat, I don’t see anywhere where it says the amount of threat in the pool needs to be visible to the players. I mean, sure… Tell the players when you are using threat, how much you are spending, and when something is adding to threat and how much is added. But keeping threat tokens in a bowl that is difficult for players to see into, and they may have a hard time determining exactly how much threat the GM has, which may increase the overall tension if you wish to create a more tense feel for a session or two.
The only place I ever saw it commented on the threat pool remaining visible to players was here on the forums, Modiphius staff did comment on that being the intention and purpose. However, I don’t see a problem with an occasional session or adventure with a hidden pool. The players would still see threat being spent and on what, and see threat being added, but the full amount of the pool would not be known.
I think it depends entirely on the mission you are running. Generally, keeping the Threat pool visible lets players know how dire the situation is (or can be).
However, I can imaging a diplomatic conference or something involving an unknown alien species. In that case, the GM might like to keep the Thread pool hidden as not to reveal what angers the aliens.
Doing something insulting towards the aliens would generate Threat, but the players don’t necessarily know what actually is insulting. So the GM keeps the Threat pool hidden to keep the players into the dark about the mood of the aliens.
That’s just an example from the top of my head, but I think it is in the spirit of “do whatever you want as GM to make the experience better”.
I accidentally keep it hidden. My game is on a VTT, and I have icons for the Momentum but use actual tokens on my desk for the threat. I tell how much threat there is if asked, no questions asked, but it isn’t as up front as Momentum.
Garrett
