"Rogue Stars Review" Topic

Summary:

There is a kernel of a good game here, but it was not well executed and not enough testing time and text was dedicated to making it fun and fair. The activation system is fantastic and I hope to see it used again in a better game.

Pros:

Activation and reaction system are fun and provide for lots of good decision points
The open setting and potential for character creation are deep
The mission creation system has potential if more space were devoted to explaining it

Cons:

Very dicey and good strategic play often not rewarded
Way too many tables and modifiers
Characters die too easily and it would be hard to get attached to them
Overall lack of balance to missions, traits and weapons
No real campaign system

Full Review:

Rogue Stars is a game with 4-6 figures per side for 2 players. There really is no easy way to play with more figures or more than 2 players.

I've played Rogue Stars 3 times. 2 times on the first day, and I would say I learned the system during those 2 games. For the 3rd game I felt like I had a pretty decent understanding of how it worked, but i needed to look up some rules and refer to the tables constantly, there being no QRS provided with the game (although there are some fan-made ones available for download now).

To start with, you need to build your force out of a possible 200 points. There are 10 possible "themes" for your force from pirates to police to cultists. Each theme has a list of possible starting abilities and equipment and then you also choose a special "tactical discipline" such as free removal of pins or morale re-rolls. You can spend the 200 points on "traits" such as marksmanship or leadership or equipment such as weapons or armor. There are about 70 traits and about 50 weapons, plus armor and other miscellaneous equipment. It's a pretty daunting task the first couple of times around.

There are 20 possible scenarios, 20 possible locations and 20 "complications." Each of these is covered in the space of a few sentences due to space constraints. In fact the other talked about the overall constraints on the length Osprey imposed leading to some of the ambiguity in the rules. After this is done you start your game using a d20 initiative roll to see who is attacking.

The best part of the game is the action/reaction system. On your turn you nominate a figure to activate and roll up to 3 d20 (in my experience you always roll 3). You get an action for each 8+, however you have a negative modifier for each action you've already taken that turn. Each action causes a "stress" marker on that figure. On each failure the opponent can choose to try to react on a 10+. The reactions can be pretty much anything, but usually moving or shooting. You can also choose to try to steal initiative on a 16+, however you get a bonus of 1 for each stress marker other team as a whole has taken. You can always take a chance to steal initiative early on, but the opponent gets to remove a stress marker for each time you fail to steal. It's a great system and provides good tactical decision making, especially on the defender.

Many things, except moving, require a roll on a base chance of 10. There are some modifiers on this, but not many. For example, shooting has a base chance of 10, with modifiers for traits on both sides (marksmen vs. "difficult target") The max benefit you can get from traits is a +3 or 15%. One of my main problems with the game is the modifiers. Usually you are going for around a 10 roll since the modifiers are small or offsetting. But for example hard cover only provides a +2 modifier or 10%. In the open 50% chance of hitting, but if you're hiding behind a stone wall you are still hit 40% of the time? It just doesn't make sense and the game play depends much more on the dice rolls than our your decisions such as using cover or buying traits.

After you hit, you figure out your possible hit locations depending on how much you exceeded your goal (refer to the table). Then the damage results depend on adding and subtraccting a damage modifier, armor and traits (refer to the table). then you cross-reference your damage roll to the hit location (refer to the table) and then finally to a "hit location damage table" describing what happened. You may also have an endurance roll after that. The results might be as exact as knocking a weapon out of your hand or causing superficial damage, which has yet another table.

There are 5 tables involved if you hit someone with a shot, with potentially 2 more depending on the results. There is about a 15% chance of each hit knocking you out of the game. This doesn't seem unreasonable until some characters start wielding 2 weapons with 2 shots each. With the small modifiers for doing so, you're chances of getting knocked out of the game increase dramatically. If a character is killed the others must make a morale check which can lead to additional pins or surrendering/routing.

Because it is a d20 system with small modifiers and there are a wide range of outcomes and the game is very dicey. Your plans will be more affected by dice roles than any other game I'm familiar with. This can make for some great cinematic moments, but you also don't feel rewarded for good play and you can easily end up on the wrong side of the dice.

As others have mentioned you need to track stress, pins and wounds for each character leading to a lot of markers or dice.

There is one page of campaign rules which basically says what to do in between games with your XPs and describes what happens to wounded characters. There's not much to it.

There are so many weapons, missions and traits in the game there it would be very difficult to thoroughly playtest and this shows. Some of the missions are very one-sided and could be over before the other side has a chance to move. Also some of the traits are clearly better than others for the cost, especially the ability to wield multiple weapons. Other traits and equipment are overpriced or redundant.

The XPs gained from the missions are also out of whack. One side will often get quite a few with the other side getting none. If your character dies you have a clone of the original character as they were when they were created or you can create a new one for the same XP.

Shortly after the game was released an errata was created which clarified some things and also attempted to fix some of the more problematic issues. It's always concerning when rules changes come out shortly after publication.

There is obviously a big demand for a game such as Rogue Stars. Most of the discussion happens on the facebook page and the author posts often. He has even proposed a slew of new Traits already.

Steve

Link to Facebook group for Rogue Stars: link

Excellent, in different depth review.

Thankyou.

John T

Agreed, a very good review Steve. One question, do you think it would be a better and more balanced game if run as RPG lite with a GM to set scenarios, run NPC's and moderate the campaign and XP irregularities a bit?

I was very much looking forward to this. Now that I have it, I was waiting for a QRS (good to know some are now avaialble) before I attempt a game. Too many charts to do otherwise.

I think a set of well designed scenarios would be a great addition to the game. Maybe 10 scenarios that branched depending on the previous result. Scenario 1 you have to repair a starship drive before the opponent stops you. If you succeed in the repair, the next battle takes place on the spaceship in space. If you fail then you have to steal a part from a warehouse etc.

I've heard a supplement is planned already, but I'm not sure what might be included. I think I read it on the Facebook page, but it's impossible to find things on there.

I don't see the need for a GM unless the scenarios would call for some complex actions by NPCs. I've only played one mission with an NPC and that was a monster that just moved toward the closest person and attacked.

Thanks for the review. I was interested in getting a copy but the reviews Ive seen havent been favorable.

Overall Ive been underwhelmed by the Osprey games. With all the buzz over Dragon Rampant and Frostgrave I bought copies of each. I really wanted to like them but found them both to be very bland.

Chuck

Thanks for your review. I found it very helpful. I did not know game relied on so many tables, for example. I don't think that's quite what I'm looking for in a skirmish game.

Brad

thanks. I think I'll buy and try based on your review.

Thank you for the review. The scenarios in the book are intended as an idea springboard – these are 60 page books, and the format can't be changed (Osprey was very gracious with me accepting to extend the word count). However, I have seen plenty of players try them, developing them as they played, and it worked for them. Certainly this is a complex game to balance -- the other ways to do it would be to make it bland (keep things abstract so you don't need lengthy rules, but at the expense of variety) or to limit what kind of characters can be played (again, not a good choice for a generic game with no fixed background). Regarding the testing: all the scenarios in the book have been played, but all the combinations of mission, location and complications (over 8000 if my math is correct) would have been impossible. The thing I have seen in my playtest group is that no player was ever too ahead of others, and advancement was interesting enough to keep people playing over a period of two years (the game was written three years ago). The rules reflect the bias of a particular gaming group, and it is honestly impossible to cater for all gaming styles (for example, you say it is not possible to get too attached to characters because they die too easily, while I have had just two deaths in a 12+ game campaign in my squad, and I am the guy who always loses…) Remember that all characters who are brought off the table survive, so it's a good idea to stabilize your out of action figures and carry them home, and also run away when a battle is too difficult.

I am planning a supplement and , as you said, I am releasing some free/playtest material. I intend the game more like a toolbox that people can use to create their own stories than a competitive wargame system (just my personal bias, but I do not think that it is possible to have a game be varied and balanced at the same time, and I do not believe much in point systems, besides a general usefulness as a starting point for character creation).

About the activation system -- the same engine will be used in my Rogue Knights fantasy game later this year, but without the book-keeping aspect (the fantasy version will have the same variability of character creation but fewer modifiers and will not use Stress and Pin, the only markers will be wounds).

Steve,
in the supplement I am planning a branched scenario system, the idea is two factions are forced to land in a spaceship graveyard of sorts and must collect enough spare parts to repair their ships and go home. But there are some nasty local lifeforms who don't agree to that.

The supplement will also introduce ways to simplify the game for those who do not like the book-keeping and plenty of new character traits, weapons etc.

I do not know at the moment if the supplement will be produced by Osprey or by my own Ganesha Games.

That sounds promising, I'm looking forward to seeing the new ideas. The one "pro" I should have mentioned is the low cost of the rules.

Steve

…the idea is two factions are forced to land in a spaceship graveyard of sorts and must collect enough spare parts to repair their ships and go home.

Do you have a reason for why two at the same time and place? Sounds a bit contrived as is.

May be tired, but sudden surfacing of evidence for treasure may be easier to swallow. Especially if there's a patron whose signature is 'come back with the goods, or don't expect to come back at all.'

Come to think of it, and if I missed it, sorry, but only two?

Steve, assuming a 'toolkit', do you think someone could come up with a subset to share that a newbie could use to get started? My impression is the fans, and there are a heck of a lot of them, stumbled on something like that.

Doug