Of the next generation I only like Voyager, mostly thanks to 7of9 and Belana. So I watched never DS9 and only a few of Next Generation.
My favourite are NX-01 Enterprise and the new Kelvin timeline.
So please forgive me!
Heh. No problem. To each their own. For more information:
Although after looking at those pages, it only vaguely hints at the fact that Initiates go through a long and difficult process to become joined.
1 Like
I…I’m not sure we can be friends any more 
In all seriousness I feel Enterprise is given a bad rap. It aired right after Voyager and was very different, which caused contention as not being “proper Trek”. Personally I think it was a good series that aired at a poor time. I am re-watching now and think it has aged quite well.
1 Like
The problem of Enterprise was, that we all know how it ended: Human leading Starfleet and Federation, mistrust of Klingons and Romulans.
Iirc the main critic were, that the Xindi wars, one of corners of the Enterprise saga, were never mentioned within the original serie or with of the any other next generation stories. Imo Enterprise was good, because it shows the struggle of being the new kid on the block and that humanity, and especially Archer, will do (some) things totally different, then the Vulcans. My absolutely favourite was the slowly growing trust and I dare to say friendship between Archer and Thy’lek Shran.
My group is really stuck on the “advancement” system. Help me convince them to use the rules system instead of trying to create one themselves, please!
Why do they dislike the rules system?
Why do you want to use it, anyway?
1 Like
WOW, what a couple of question! I want to use it for consistency sake. I do not see ST:A as a game for creating Uber characters. I see it as a game of incremental character growth, as in the shows, which is what it models. My players are having trouble comprehending the mythic British style the section is written in. Frankly, it has taken me a while to try and figure it out as well; and I am not certain I understand it completely.
1 Like
This isn’t D&D or other such RPGs, character advancement is not a comparable thing.
“Advancement” comes primarily in the form of character growth and Milestones reflect that quite well. You don’t get better, you get more well rounded.
2 Likes
Further, we are a group used to Pathfinder or D&D style advancement. As one goes up in level, one gains abilities, improved stats and the like. I have striven to explain the lateral nature of the ST:A advancement system, and they do not seem to be able to get their heads around it. I suspect it is because of my limited ability to comprehend it, myself. We love the game, and it happily replaces the CODA system for our favorite! The Decipher system allowed for characters to add to their knowledge base with increased skill modifiers and additional skills. None of that is in ST:A.
Right, funny you should say that. Read my intervening reply to XMister. StehpenBirks, what is your experience with the advancement system in ST:A?
We play it slightly differently to RAW:
- Each story we get 1 Normal Milestone
- Every 3 stories we get a Spotlight Milestone
- Every 9 stories we get an Arc Milestone.
We have been playing this current game for around 1 year and haven’t gotten 2 Arc milestones yet.
This system is a definite departure from traditional RPG mentality and it took great effort to change my way of thinking. STA is a drama type system and it favours true character growth, not bigger numbers.
When you take away the XP advancement trope, you are left with a story, and all attention can be focused on that without the need to worry about what “level” the characters are. From my personal experience, this has made for a much better game.
I would urge you and your players to play STA as it is and let it challenge your preconceptions on what a RPG should be. By far the best sessions I have had are the ones where no rolls happen and we just roleplayed our characters
2 Likes
Actually, there is advancement with increased abilities, skills etc. It’s just not too often, so advancement is very much slower than compared to, e.g., D&D/Pathfinder. But, as far as I understand the rules, there is advancement in the totals of the numbers written down on your character sheet. The ‘shifting’ of points is the common method of character development in STA.
I as a GM like that very much, because of (a) no player complaining of having ‘mis-skilled’ their character and (b) no need to have some kind of ‘arms race’ between PCs and NPCs to keep encounters interesting (and difficult).
1 Like
Trust me, I do too! I like Pathfinder for its complex character creation and advancement. I am not a min/maxer, per se, but I do like getting the most bang for my buck. My problem is talking them into trying it, instead of throwing it out - sort of a baby with the bathwater thing.
It’s worth reminding your players that their characters are already exceptional, and amongst the best of the best, because otherwise they wouldn’t be Starfleet Officers. It’s not zero-to-hero like D&D is, where you have to earn the right to play the character you want to play by grinding through levels. Because a starting Star Trek Adventures character is already plenty capable, they haven’t got far to grow beyond that, so advancement is more about occasional fine-tuning than getting infinitely bigger numbers to fight increasingly-difficult foes.
4 Likes
With respect, Nathan. I have made that point, several times. I must reiterate that I like the concept. The problem is convincing them. I think, in part, it may be mis-understanding the rules. Perhaps I need to re-write them…I don’t know.
Now, we heard a lot about you and your opinion on the rules, why to use them etc. And I think we all kind of agree with you.
But I had a second question. 
What in particular do your players dislike?
Is it the ‘British’ style of the wording (on a side note: Examples, please! I think I can’t tell the difference in style between British and – presumably American? So I’d be interested in learning something new. )?
Is it the speed (or slowness) of progress?
Is it the intensity (or lack thereof) of progress?
Something mixed? Something I did not come up with?
And how do they respond to you, stressing that their characters are already heroes and that there is no need for so much progress in the game as they are expecting/requesting?
2 Likes
If they are really that ‘amped’ up to need more of a feeling of progression, have their characters changed to reflect them starting at a base 6 instead of 7 in Attributes, and 0 in Disciplines instead of 1. Then keep the normal progression.
That’d be my suggestion to give them more of a Pathfinder/D&D feel for progression.
1 Like
I would disagree with that suggestion. It doesn’t sound like much if you haven’t played, or even if you have and haven’t looked at something similar, but those 2 points are huge! And its not just 2 points, its 12 whole points in total.
For context, I did try something similar - I ran a game to test out and learn the system, pitching each player as a cadet, and reduced the amount of points they could put into their characters by removing the career events section. Seems harmless and makes sense right?
Nope! It made it incredibly hard for them to complete a lot more tasks, and generally made the game frustrating. Adding and taking away points only really works if you are setting the DC of a check, rather than a number of successes.
1 Like
My players dislike the lack of advancement first, and the slow pace second. It is hard to say exactly, because when asked, these communicative and intelligent folks respond by saying “I just don’t like them.” Or “It is the weakest part of the game.” I have explained that the characters they have in their hand are the best at what they do. I get the same response. As we play, they have not run across a situation they could not handle, or did not have a value or talent that could come into play.
As previously stated, I can only assume that I have done a bad job in explaining them. A couple more folks have the rules, and are reading them so perhaps, that will ease the matter.
Yes, we are Americans. It is not “y’all talk funny.” Or anything like that, it is a differing style of writing. I do not intend to be critical or slighting the authors in any way. Honestly, many of the concept in this game are new and very innovative. At least to me.
So, this might be your best argument. ‘Guys, there is no need for advancement in terms of numbers on the sheets because the game is designed that way. Look, even freshly rolled-up characters can survive and even win encounters with a borg cube.’
Maybe you can even convey this within an adventure.
Have them do a tactical training mission on the holodeck where they need to infiltrate a Borg Cube on a search and rescue mission. If there is any ‘Boss Monster’ in Star Trek, it is the Borg. Use standard rules for Cube and Drones from the books. After the adventure, tell them that these were standard Borg Cube rules and that they would have performed equally well if there has not been a holodeck tactical training mission but an actual mission with the borg.
Consequentially, if you can beat ‘Boss Monsters’ with unimproved characters, there is no need for improvement. This is Vulcan-approved logic. 
Anyway, basically, the system is designed to have virtually no improvement, since improvements are going veeery slow. The system’s balance works that way. If your players want fast and notable advancements, then, frankly speaking, they want to break the game. There is nothing wrong in telling them that. If they still want to break the game, simply let them. There is nothing wrong with it.
Just don’t feel obliged to enter that arms-race with them, improving all your NPCs and threats, accordingly. If they want to change the mechanics of the game, then they (a) should change all the mechanics or (b) live with the boredom they produce themselves by easily outperforming every NPC/Threat the GM could ever throw on them. Just be transparent about that.
On a side-note: I share your sentiments. I GMed Dungeons & Dragons for years now and our play-style very much differs from the system, as designed. Not that we have any notable house-rules or stuff like that. It’s just that our style of play differs. There is much more in-character play than throwing dice around, many social encounters and virtually no dungeon-crawls (we recently did one and they actually hated it). Thus, the system as designed does not completely work. E.g. if there is only one combat encounter per ingame-day, the magic-users can throw out every spell they have, since they can easily rest after the battle and prepare all the spells again. We are very content with this style of game, but as a consequence, I award less treasure and slowed down improvement a bit. They do not have any problems and they did not run across any situation they could not handle. But some still complain about having not so many gold coins at hands as they ‘should have, according to the rulebook’. It worked for me/us looking at the encounters and how hard they actually were to see that the advancement actually is sufficient.
But if the players just want to see numbers rising high fast, then the system is just wrong for them. So they actually should rewrite it. And/or live with the consequences.
I did not understand it that way, don’t worry. It’ just that I obviously missed something a native-speaker recognised. And now my thirst for knowledge (or at least language skills) kicks in. These small differences are very hard to notice for non-native speakers like me, which is why I asked in the first place. 
1 Like