I’m wary of that word in general, as it often means “we’re doing less and shifting it on to you as the consumer”. Hopefully that’s not what is meant (either explicitly or in effect) and they just mean they’re making it more accessible.
I’d agree, but it is the MO for a lot of companies. Frustrating to be sure, and I wished they’d announce it when they’re ready to discuss it - the later AMAs should be to field questions on the details rather than to reveal intentions (so the AMAs should be like “you mentioned that you’re changing the CD, what are those changes?” “So yeah, they’re going to be d8s rather than d6s, and they’ll look like this…” Rather than “What do you mean by it being a 2e?”.
Still, it’s a common tactic to manage hype. I’m not going to hate on them for it, even if I wished they’d do things a bit differently. It’s not going to change anything on the long run. I’m kind of torn as to whether I want new stuff or for it to be a consolidation of the mechanics that already exist - although I’d have called that 1.5e or even 1.1e rather than 2e.
That ship has sailed with the Klingon Core Rulebook and the Tricorder Digest that essentially merged the developments of the Klingon Core Rulebook into Starfleet-flavoured territory. They were essentially the 1.1e / 1.5e books. Good times.
I fully and wholeheartedly agree on the communications part. This is the first STA product I’m not totally hyped about from the very beginning and not remotely in any “shut up and take my Latinum”-mood. For exactly the reasons you mentioned.
@Caranfang In principle, I concur. Yet, Modiphius’ announcement is open enough to be both interpreted as announcing a new edition of the existing game OR announcing an entirely new game. Both concepts are known to be described as “a new edition”. Also, the boundaries of both concepts are blurred, to say the least.
True…I guess I’d call them 1.1 collectively though. They updated some stuff, but it didn’t massively alter the game…at least from what I’ve seen. Perhaps then, if they’re consolidating all the major mechanics updates into the CRB, I’d call that 1.5?
To me, 2e is a reimagining of the rules. If you look at The One Ring (TOR), there was an overhaul between 1e and 2e. The mechanics were shifted around a bit, new things added and some stuff removed. You can’t play one straight with the other - there is some conversion necessary, although it’s not massive because it’s the same design philosophy underneath.
I don’t feel we’ve come even particularly close to that with STA. Sure, some of the mechanics have received polish and in some cases overhauled (new character progression, I’m looking at you with grateful eyes), but it also very much feels like the same game, just improved a bit. Like, D&D24e feels a lot more of a fundamental change compared to 5e than what I have in my STA collection Vs CRB (not in terms of quantity of content, but in terms of how it changes the gameplay on a fundamental level).
So yeah, I think KCRB/Tricorder would be 1.1, a consolidated CRB would be more 1.5. To make it 2e for me, it would have to have significant amounts of new material that substantially change how the game is played. Perhaps that’s what’s happening. Who knows!
Do you subscribe to their email newsletter? I’ve received announcements for Star Trek Adventures products months in advance many times.
For example, on Aug 6 2021 I received a newsletter announcement titled “Star Trek Adventures: 7 new products announced + dice sets & bundles beam in!”, announcing the Tricorder Set, Shackleton Expanse Guide, and the Gamemaster and Player’s Guides months before they were released.
I’d have to go back through my emails but I have tons of newsletter announcements from Modiphius, most well in advance of the products being released. Sometimes you have situations like the Federation-Klingon War Tactical Campaign, announcing a preorder with PDF available right away, but that’s great! I like being able to purchase/preorder products when they’re announced, and not having to wait for more info.
Maybe you’d like them to present a more long-term publishing schedule, which I agree would be cool, but it’s not accurate at all to say/imply that they don’t announce their Star Trek products in advance.
Ok, I don’t understand all the concern about the 2e. I’m wondering if I’m missing something?
A lot of people seem to be concerned that they’ll drastically change the mechanics, but they say clearly in their email announcement:
“While Star Trek™ Adventures second edition’s core mechanics have been streamlined, they remain fundamentally the same as the first edition, just snappier and smoother to play.”
and
“Compatible with 1E supplements and books (more on this later!)”
I too would like to know what they’re changing, but this seems a pretty clear statement from Modiphius that the rules mechanic changes will be minimal. Do we have good reason to doubt them? I don’t feel like Modiphius has ever mislead me on a Star Trek product, so I’m not sure where all the distrust on this is coming from.
But I DO agree that it would have been good if they had been prepared to explain the changes in more detail when they made the announcement. They have the STA blog which would have been a great place to at least highlight the basics, and how exactly their ensuring backwards compatibility.
Though honestly I’m surprised at the backlash and negative reaction to the announcement I’ve seen online, and I wonder if they are too?
Personally, I’m excited about it! I found starship combat to create very screen faithful results in-game, but to be a little clunky and slow to actually play out. I’ve been working on an overhaul to the system before running any more STA, and I’m hoping 2e will actually save me time on that! Also I can definitely see room to bring over some tweaks from Achtung! Cthulhu and Homeworld (both very similar to STA), as well as incorporating things from the Klingon and Tricorder rules.
Ok, stepping back from Modiphius at the moment (because I don’t have any such experience with them in particular) and just look at how companies behave in general.
Companies tend to use weasel words and play on ambiguity and equivocation. For example - I recently backed a Kickstarter. They announced a month beforehand that there would a special bonus for those that would back it in the first 24 hours, and that it would “be revealed shortly”. So, a couple of days, right? No, it was revealed as the KS went live and we were offered it. I guess shortly means something very different for them than for us.
Now, back to Modiphius. They say it’s compatible. Great. I’d take that to mean it works seamlessly straight out of the box. It could also mean that you have to sit there for an hour with a small novel converting the mechanics to work with the other. I wouldn’t say that’s even resembling compatible - but a company whose bottom line is dependent on it might well do so.
I’ll repeat that’s not my expectation of Modiphius or experience. However, I can see why people get edgy. Until we have something solid and defined as to what things like compatible actually means… it’s kind of up in the air. Like people are talking about removing CD… that’s not compatible in my view, but it’s Modiphius that matters.
I’m not worried and it’s not a major issue to me…but that’s where the concerns are coming from. Once things are nailed down with statements that can’t be explained away by “well, what we meant was…”, then things will calm down.
It’s March 2024. But I stand corrected. The last time I remember Modiphius announcing products in advance wasn’t back in 2017, it was back in 2021.
It is. But that’s not an announcement, that’s a release.
I say that Modiphius announcing Star Trek products in advance is not the rule, but the exception.
Then why call it “2E”? As has been pointed out many times, a company in the TTRPG industry calling something “2E” with big letters on the front often (not always, but it happens, especially with big firms and big lines) change rules mechanics drastically.
Apart from them naming the product “2E” in big letters? No.
Actually, one poster here voiced a pretty strong opinion to trust Modiphius in this matter:
Because calling something “2E” in big letters while at the same time telling there will only cosmetic changes might be interpreted as a contradiction.
You can take this for granted. @Modiphius-Jim stated in this forum that the Klingon Core Rulebook was essentially the updates for a second edition (as in: reprint with errata, not “EVERYTHING IS NEW IT’S 2E!!!”) and that the Tricorder Digest was the backport of these rules into a Starfleet-flavoured setting. Both of which were very good decision imho.
This.
Incidentally, please let me quote from Captain’s Log, Modiphius’ Star Trek Solo RPG that doesn’t need CD, Talents, Stress, Equipment and Resistance (which is perfectly fine and works for the system very well, my point here is the interpretation of the word “compatible”) is said to be “largely compatible” (Captain’s Log, p. 137) to “the full version of Star Trek Adventures roleplaying game” (Captain’s Log p. 223). For what it’s worth, the somewhat restricting adjective “largely” is missing on Captain’s Log’s p. 138 where “the compatibility of the characters between the two games” is further discussed.
I, personally, share @Linklite’s understanding of “compatibility” that it means that I can use published material seamlessly without converting stats or mechanics.
We do not know about Modiphius’ understanding of “compatibility” and despite a thread of about 30 posts in the official forums and probably more on media like Facebook or Discord etc. Modiphius has not yet felt the necessity to make their understanding of “compatibility” clear.
There is another reason to call new “slightly polished/streamlined” core book 2ed - to differentiate it from other rulebooks: Fed Core, Klingon Core, Rules Digest. I know that this is not enough to justify it, but I wanted to raise this argument.
And of course 2ed is much better for marketing, that calling it Core 1.2 or 1.5.
That’s a good point, especially from the POV of new players. What book would they buy now to start with? I think most would buy the Fed Core Rulebook, but that’s actually the worst one (rules-wise). So having a single 2nd edition rulebook would make it clear to new players what they should start with.
First video, like… four minutes in, after the host read out loud the press release:
Drives me nuts.
Yet, there’s another tidbit a few sentences after the above quote:
If(!) this is the major difference between the two editions, we’re probably about to see changes in mechanics predominantly in character creation (Roles) and advancement (Reputation!), but not in the STA-flavoured 2d20 mechanics. Or, how I put it in my first post: A second edition of the Core Rulebook, not a second edition of the whole game [mechanics] aka “a completely new game mechanics-wise”.
I shall not ask @PGoodman13 for clarification as this could provoce the ire of Sloan aka the holder of ALL the NDAs.
Second video is one and a half hour, I’ll check that one tomorrow.
You actually sat and transcribed my stream-of-consciousness babbling? You are dedicated… (Also, we see “second edition” somewhat differently, but that’s neither here nor there). Also, I read the whole thing because, as of the time of shooting that one, it was fairly fresh and not everybody had actually seen it. Certainly not something I intend to repeat with any great regularity, unless the release merits it.
The second video is long; Jim and I have known each other for decades, and it’s extremely easy for us to slip into random conversational tangents. Me being somewhat ADHD doesn’t help. The first chunk of the video is us talking about the Federation-Klingon War Tactical Campaign. If you want to cut directly to the discussion about Phase II, it starts at approximately the 39 minute mark.
Let’s say, I suffer (at least) from an extensive form of what the French call déformation professionelle.
Besides that, it is information, so…
Actually, in this whole thread, I try to find out which one of the at least two different definitions of “second edition” I can make up (in essence: “new game” vs. “reworked core book”) is the one Modiphius shares. So… I’d say we do not necessarily see “second edition” somewhat differently, but that we can discuss the term “second edition” somewhat differentiating.
Actually love that book, so I’ll probably watch that bit anyway. But thanks a lot for the timestamp, much appreciated.
Since my campaign has its focus on colony development with mostly civilian characters, a core book which does concentrate less on Starfleet and which streamlines the game mechanics somewhat would be most welcome - especially when it makes the Traits a little more useful and contains a little more gear.
@PGoodman13 Actually, it’s about the 35 minute mark where the Federation-Klingon War Tactical Campaign is discussed to be “the last book of first edition”. @Modiphius-Jim explains that he told Al Spader to mine the 2d20 SRD for as much ideas as possible to squeeze into this book “to do that one last push, to make sure that players of first edition just got as many tools as they could get their hands on. […] Obviously, at that point, we were already into development of the second edition and I wanted to make sure that we finished first edition on a really good strong note […] .”
Discussions of “players of first edition” vs “players of second edition” fosters my fear of “second edition” being an entirely new game than being the umbrella-term for development backports into the core rules.
But I’ve yet to reach the 39 minute mark and there’s a lot more to listen to. So I shall see. (Later. Got some work to do, sadly.)
Finally got to it. Interesting talk, will definetly come back to the channel for more.
Lots of background of the development and even some spoilers (i.e. “solid inferences” from the cover ) on the upcoming book. Sadly, either the compatibility topic wasn’t touched or I missed it.
Trying to read “between the lines”: Most of the discussion regarding the upcoming book revolved around presentation, from “LCARS-style light text on dark background was hard to read” over “rules were hard to find” to “series xyz didn’t get the love it deserved”. The upcoming book was presented/discussed in contrast to the old core rulebook, starting development when there were talks of a reprint of the original core rules.
So, there’s still the possibility it will be an entirely new corebook to an unchanged game. Yet, I still have no clue what Modiphius is trying to sell me, here. Not that I eventually won’t throw my latinum at them the second the book releases. But I’m curious, amongst other feelings.
It sounds like the core of the rules will remain? While I was a playtester for Dune and love the system, I feel that the current system really feels like Star Trek. Haven’t had a chance to read Captain’s Log yet.
I am hoping that character advancement becomes part of the core book? My players hope so at least. But them you always run into the issue of making encounters harder to design.
Probably should have callled the update 1.5 if the core of the system hasn’t changed. Us old grognards still have nightmares about D&D 4e.
Speaking of which, hopefully the new licenses can bring some new blood into the system.
It’s not a Star Trek Adventures Book, but a completely different game. And yet it’s one of the best Star Trek Adventures books Modiphius has published.
If core rules remain basically the same, then character advancement is one of the things that will definetly change in comparison to the “old” corebook and also subsequent releases. Character advancement is the core mechanic of STA that was subject to the most frequent revision.
When STA was published, character advancement based, in principle, on a “who was the best roleplayer this evening” mechanic to award “milestones”, which are the currency for advancements so to say. Generally not my taste and especially not the spirit of Star Trek, if you ask me, personally.
First amendments were made to character advancement with the Command Division supplement, when Awards were introduced.
The system as a whole was revisited (and turned out pretty, pretty well!) with the Klingon Corebook. This was one of the few major changes the Klingon Corebook introduced. The system still works with miletones, but is based on the use of values and directives in-game. Changes were so big that a small PDF “translating” it to Starfleet was published.
The Klingon Corebook’s system was then integrated into the Starfleet-flavoured Rules Digest that initially came with the Tricorder Set and stayed untouched until recently, when the Federation-Klingon War Tactical Campaign was released. Said book features a slightly different (and faster, I’ve read) optional ruleset for character advancement. It’s still based on values, yet takes a different approach, carving “scars” into characters for the challenges the war poses to their values. I have yet to delve deeper into this system to make up my mind about it and whether it’s an improvement on the system presented with the Klingons, or not.
So, we’ll most likely either see the Klingon/Tricorder advancement rules, the adapted version of the recent Federation-Klingon War Tactical Campaign, or something completely new.
Also, the boundaries of both concepts are blurred, to say the least. 
