I thought it better to spin-off a new topic thread from why-does-the-d-d-system-get-so-much-hate discussion, comparing/contrasting the feel/theme/mechanics of the two rpgs

((I really like the Star Trek Adventures rpg, been GM'ing a group for almost (?) a year.))

Pros: greatly encourages cooperative problem solving, in the spirit of Trek and mechanically in the Momentum dice pools... big fan of how you "mix" your stats for a roll (Attrbute+Discipline such as "Daring+Security" or "Presence+Medicine")... character creation ("lifepath") makes the character feel like a real Starfleet personnel, with dramatic instances in the characters past giving it a fleshed out feel

Cons: core book is difficult to read through with its formatting... purchasable adventures (while VERY well priced) just strike me as VERY railroad-y... could be perceived as "intimidating"  to a non-Trekkie or only casual fan of Trek  due to the sheer amount of Canon throughout half a century of tv shows and movies

Thoughts? Pros/cons, compare/contrast? 

That's a group I'd like to join! :) Actually bought my daughter the books and she dm's one very short session, it's a fun system the little I played it. Wish i could provide more input on your questions.

Well, regarding the railroady nature of purchased STA adventures -- and note, although I have now ordered the core rules (collectors' edition even, because I never do anything halfway) and the command manual, I have not played it nor read these books -- a lot of purchased D&D adventures have reps for being railroady as well (not all of them, but several).

I've only read the rulebook, not played any games yet, and haven't looked at the adventures. Have to agree with your comments though - layout and style for the book are bad, really bad, but the mechanics seem to do a great job of capturing the classic Trek feel. The issues with the adventures are probably unavoidable to a point though: it's a long-running, well beloved IP with a fanbase that (respectfully) geeks out over the lore and canon like nobody's business. Galaxy Quest was hyperbolic for comedic effect, but the average Trekkie arguably won't stand for adventure modules that aren't steeped in the official universe. 

Admittedly, I ought to have opened the discussion thread with a bit more specifics and/or thoughts, but in a general sense I just got super-excited seeing others mentioning ST:A in a different thread and wanted to re-direct into a dedicated thread in a bit of an impulsive manner.

There's two volumes of adventures in hardback, plus a dozen or so 20-odd page adventures available via Modiphius website purchasable separately as pdfs. My group "finished-up" (for lack of a better phrase) the module "Stolen Liberty". When I mentioned railroad-y, it's evident in this particular module

 Altogether though, the adventures are interesting and compelling, and gives GM guidance on adaptation across the various trek eras  (Original Series vs. Next Generation) to better approximate the technology involved during those periods, the political atmosphere, and the relevant alien species that were more pronounced at different times. All are written with a bit of mystery involved, some tense hand to hand or phaser/ship combat, and ethical dilemmas with the Prime directive. With intent (and buy-in from the group I GM), I've specifically centered my Trek games around character development, exploration, mystery, technical/engineering fiascos, and ethics, and we've barely done any combat. ST:A seems to handle non-combat very well, but combat rules still make a lot of sense, flow easy, and the initiative system is great too.

I thought it pretty interesting when someone had alluded to the command hierarchy structure potentially feeling restrictive. It hadn't been a problem at all for my group. No one wanted to play as the Captain, so we have an NPC as captain, and it's worked out probably for the better. I can definitely see how the wrong (or pushy, mean, etc.) player who is suddenly a captain can really wreck the fun time of everyone else. I think a Starfleet hierarchy actually helps keep a game session and adventure "on-track" much easier than say an ordinary d&d campaign, simply because there is a Mission the ship is held accountable-for. But, I can also easily see a ship and/or PC's  "going rogue", maybe joining up with Maquis for example, and that could make for one helluva spontaneous campaign specifically to be anti-Federation.

ST:A can easily handle any made-up magic, ancient relics, diety-level antagonists, in probably the same or similar manner as D&D can and still feel like Trek. There's precedent in Trek canon (especially in a lot of TOS) for Strange creatures, extinct civilizations of long-abandoned temples and artifacts, the Q, Metrons, Organians, all super powerful.

Here's a thought: while setting-up your new ST:A adventures game, the crew can *always* hop into the Holodeck for a good ol' fashion fantasy adventure and play D&D. Because, why wouldn't you want to see a Ferengi playing as and pretending to be Rogar the Halfling wizard?

I can definitely see how the wrong (or pushy, mean, etc.) player who is suddenly a captain can really wreck the fun time of everyone else.

Although this is certainly true... I suspect that same person would be equally damaging to a group playing any game, because we are talking about a certain type of player, and pushy/mean people are not going to just stop being so because they don't have an in-game command structure.

In terms of linearity -- and not, I did not read any of the spoiler stuff because I hope to maybe, one day in the 23rd century or beyond, perhaps, be able to play STA rather than GM it (yeah, right, but hey, I can dream) -- but I would point out that most episodes of Star Trek are kind of railroady. It starts with, the ship is in orbit around some planet, Beta Seti Omega 4, and there is some anomaly on the planet, and the away team is beaming down to investigate. That's functionally not any different from the old school D&D days of "You start at the entrance to the dungeon."

Maybe this is not what you meant -- again, I did not read the spoilers and won't, and thanks for doing that so I don't read stuff I shouldn't. 

But I think the whole "anti-railroad" thing in RPGs these days is misguided. Some of the best adventurers I was ever on were fundamentally railroads. On one podcoast I listen to by a pair of old school vet DMs, they both said they prefer things to be on rails because it's easier to run, and they talked about how a rollercoaster is on rails but is super fun and exciting. So as long as the adventures are fun, I would not care if they were on rails.

Bio--- my appreciation to you, for phrasing the comparatives in such an easy to understand manner, you're very correct in those regards.

"Railroading" is a strange and charged concept for rpgs. The spoiler added was simply one direct sentence from one particular scene within that one particular module, as a directive for the GM. Just rubbed me personally the wrong way, like the unintended consequence would always be no matter what clever, brave, or daring ideas the players made it wouldn't have mattered, and a knock-on effect would be to make me as GM look like a jackass. Similar to your discussion above, there's really nothing "wrong" (or "right") how an adventure, module, or campaign should be designed or played, because ultimately the definition of Fun is a broad spectrum based on individual (and group) preferences. 

I do like how you also deconstructed a typical (but by no means 100%) Star Trek episode and how they typically play out. ST:A really, in my opinion at least, is a great system and game to lean-in for a casual one- to three-shot episode adventures, even if broadly tying them together somehow in a larger themed campaign of sorts. In D&D of course your character can level up 'til vl 20 and be nigh on unstoppable, an epic campaign sort of feels more natural as your PC grows in strength & skill, and that mechanical growth can still occur during side quests and other one shots to break-up a campaign every now and then. ST:A, conversely, is absent of any sort of similar approach. The character might get a promotion at some point, stats can change somewhat, but mechanically your character on day 1 is going to often times look very similar to your character on day 365 which at least does fit stylistically and thematically with Trek and the actors/characters season after season.

My personal hope for you is to one-day get to play rather than GM :) You deserve it!

Quote from Kotath >

That said there is a difference between a pushy player and a pushy player playing a character that your character is legally expected to obey. 

Yep, This about sums it up accurately. Takes a mature player (not necessarily experienced rpg player) to be a good Captain. Insightfully, the Command divisions supplement had this to say:

"In addition to their other duties, captains are expected
and required to see to the professional development of
the officers under their command. While captains do not
necessarily monitor and evaluate crew on a day-to-day basis
like the XO, they are expected to offer ample opportunities
to everyone aboard that are designed to help them grow in
their Starfleet career. They are also encouraged to help them
develop as individuals, but the primary task for captains is to
contribute to the development of officers."

Issuing orders is one thing, but the roleplay opportunities to actively be expected to be involved in the development of OTHERS? 

I haven't played ST:A, but reading through the rules and watching the Clear Skies stream, I found that I really liked how the game handles values, and keep meaning to find a way to fit that into D&D to replace the personality/ideals/etc. Mainly I really like the idea of certain things that character is good at/personifies the character that doesn't apply to just a certain skill, but instead can cut across any sort of roll if the situation fits.

"Railroading" is a strange and charged concept for rpgs. The spoiler added was simply one direct sentence from one particular scene within that one particular module, as a directive for the GM. Just rubbed me personally the wrong way, like the unintended consequence would always be no matter what clever, brave, or daring ideas the players made it wouldn't have mattered, and a knock-on effect would be to make me as GM look like a jackass. Similar to your discussion above, there's really nothing "wrong" (or "right") how an adventure, module, or campaign should be designed or played, because ultimately the definition of Fun is a broad spectrum based on individual (and group) preferences. 

Right -- to me, railroading is, "No matter what the players do, they will be attacked by the aliens." That shouldn't be... there should always be a chance to ambush them, or talk to them, or negotiate, or pay tribute, or what have you.

But, "We start with the opening scene being you have just been transported to the surface," is not a railroad. It's the start of a typical Star Trek episode.

Just like, "you start at the entrance of a dungeon" is not a railroad, but is the start of a typical old-school dungeon adventure.

Yeah, I've running a few sessions of STA with different groups, and people have generally enjoyed it. I didn't run any of the pregen adventures as written but I did use one or two as inspiration for plot. I like the Modiphius 2d20 System in general, and STA is one of the sleeker implementations of it. I think the corebook is the strongest, but the various supplements are good as well. I've run the old Last Unicorn Games system as well, which was fine, but I think STA is the better of the two overall.

The Momentum / Threat system is nice and gives a good mechanical carrot and stick for game tropes, like not taking phaser rifles on every away mission.

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from BioWizard >>

"Railroading" is a strange and charged concept for rpgs. The spoiler added was simply one direct sentence from one particular scene within that one particular module, as a directive for the GM. Just rubbed me personally the wrong way, like the unintended consequence would always be no matter what clever, brave, or daring ideas the players made it wouldn't have mattered, and a knock-on effect would be to make me as GM look like a jackass. Similar to your discussion above, there's really nothing "wrong" (or "right") how an adventure, module, or campaign should be designed or played, because ultimately the definition of Fun is a broad spectrum based on individual (and group) preferences. 

Right -- to me, railroading is, "No matter what the players do, they will be attacked by the aliens." That shouldn't be... there should always be a chance to ambush them, or talk to them, or negotiate, or pay tribute, or what have you.

But, "We start with the opening scene being you have just been transported to the surface," is not a railroad. It's the start of a typical Star Trek episode.

Just like, "you start at the entrance of a dungeon" is not a railroad, but is the start of a typical old-school dungeon adventure.

 

Exactly. The term gets very overused. 

I think the three of us are on the same page in our approaches, fully agreed on all points mentioned. In hindsight maybe I could have chosen my words or phrasing more deliberately and purposefully.

Expanding the conversation a bit more,

KenMarable further up made a good mention of the Values and Focuses (in-game mechanic terms for ST:A for any lurkers out there unfamiliar with the rule set). They do a good job of being somewhat broadly applicable to a variety of situations, giving a looser but (in my opinion only, of course) stronger tie-in with a characters overall personality and background and applying it for a mechanical bonus. D&D has done a great job of expanding Backgrounds for better effect in a more customizable way, as well, if I'm also being honest with myself. Whereas a D&D backgroundngives6 a perk it does so being in a specific manner (such as a Skill Proficiency in Insight, Investigation, etc., or ability to add one or two more Langauges known). Of course, there's no right or wrong way to approach how a background, personality, skillsets, etc. can or should be applicable in a mechanical sense among any rpg, but I feel satisfied that both ST:A and D&D (other rpgs do similar or different approaches, but I'll stick to just the comparison germane to this topic post) are purposeful in addressing the subject.

Nihilogos touched on the Momentum / Threat dice pools, momentum is a shared dice pool of "extra" dice earned by the gaming players for their benefit when needed to try to make successful rolls, with threat being the "extra" dice the GM has on the opposite side  the screen to do just the same thing or change parameters to heighten tension. I've played or GM'd other games systems that do the same or similar things. My opinions are mixed. I think the Momentum pools for players is great, and at least insofar as my star trek group for whom I GM, has really been a shining example of emphasizing the cooperative teamwork experience that captures the theme and essence of Star Trek. On the flipside, I'm sorta at a point where I "get" how to best utilize Threat in my own games, but often still don't see a "point" for having it in the first place because any GM can always arbitrarily raise the stakes to increase tension, add more baddies, or introduce new hiccups at any moment. Of course, this is personal opinion based on just my own personal experience. I have heard and read great examples of how many people enjoy the interplay between opposing dice pools, and many enjoy knowing the reasoning and design between them and prefer to see "all cards on the table" in a mechanical sense to gauge a better idea of how the session is Going, and there's the sense that the GM is being fair and NOT just simply being arbitrary like previously mentioned. I'll like to emphasize again, there's never a right or wrong approach, everyone's definition of Fun is valid. Sure would be interesting to think how such dice pools could be implemented within D&D, for example. Because D&D is the "biggest" rpg out there, it attracts the most criticism and attracts a fair amount more "bad" players by default, as so broadly mentioned in the original "why does d&d system get so much hate" big thread. A beneficial group dice pool, earned through good teamwork, could potentially blunt-off the spectre of greedy, selfish players, and give an actual mechanical incentive to be a good teammember, looking beyond just the one-time Action that is known as Help. And, potentially help out new DM's who feel the need for or could benefit from the comfort of some sort of mechanical permission to do what they want to do.