RULES REVIEW
On the Three Pillars
Like most neo-traditional games, Changed Stars uses the Three Pillar Experience. If you are unfamiliar with this terminology, it is a game design style that posits that roleplaying, combat and exploration are to
be given equal significance during play. While this was formally codified in Dungeons and Dragons Fifth Edition, this is how neo-traditional games have played for nearly thirty years now. Those of you who are
familiar with Deadlands or World of Darkness likely recognize the structure already. Changed Stars does more than codify it within the text though, it outright supports it. Not only are there mechanical benefits
to exploration which are not generally present in many neo-traditional games of this era, there is also an expansive game master's section at the end of the book. This clarifies the authorial intent and why some
of the decisions of the book were made.
Writing a gamemaster's section is difficult. There is a fine line between informing and ordering and it is one that games often cross. Of course, it's a good thing for a game to have opinions about its genre and
mechanics and to inform gamemasters of the ideal way to play. But there are limits to everything. Art relies on subtlety, the idea that there are certain things which the participants can understand without being
directly told. When authors insist on telling gamemasters everything they can do, and everything they shouldn't, it gives off a similar feeling to a child's television show. On the other hand, there is also a
contigency of game books which are written as if they are afraid to hold an opinion at all. The authors of Changed Stars are brave enough to give a robust play opinions section without ever becoming patronizing or
uncharitable to readers. Everything in the section is useful. It varies between play opinions, tips for good management and table etiquette, aids such as roll tables and gamemaster facing mechanics. And it does all
of this is a mere twenty five pages. Quite impressive for a book of its size, with the mechanical and setting depth presented.
Much of the writing in this section aligns with my personal beliefs on etiquette and how to run a good game. It does not put everything on the onus of the gamemaster. It merely provides advice for how to keep things
engaging and fun, which is something that I wish more independent ttrpgs would consider. Not everyone has the same cultural background or ttrpg touchstones as you (generalized to mean ttrpg authors). So sections like
this help to ground it. These are also helpful to me as a reviewer. In order to properly judge a work, it's important to evaluate what the work meant to say, what it failed to say and what it said without realizing.
I can always guess these things but having written confirmation helps my analysis. If I know that a book is about combat, then it is a failure on my part to say that its social rules are failing.
It is typical in neo-traditional games that while all three pillars are kept in mind during play, the game itself is not designed to provide them all equal space. There is a reluctance among gamers to open the floor
to social mechanics. If included at all, these are often relegated to the realm of "your roll versus by roll". Which is certainly not an engaging form of play. While Changed Stars intends for there to be equal validity
in nonviolent solutions, in practice, the mechanics push players towards combat. It is natural that players will seek to engage with the game's mechanics. The more mechanics a system has, the more likely players
are to focus on it. In the case of the combat system, there are a number of subsystems which round it out. Ships are disabled by destruction, medical emergencies are created through injuries and the majority of character
creation options involve combat or supporting combatants. This is without considering the stat blocks for various creatures to defeat and the visual interest that maps bring. Altogether, these form a picture; most
encounters should be resolved through violence. I do not have any issues with games that take this stance. My issue is when a game tries to support other playstyles but fails to give them the same robustness as the
combat scenarios.
But still, Changed Stars does truly put in an effort to accommodate alternative play. First, players are given the option to create noncombatants. These characters are not useless, they can provide mechanical support
in fights, they simply might not be able to participate in them as directly as others. While this may sound to some as a punishment, that's not the case. There are plenty of people who thrive on playing tank and healer
characters in MMORPGs. The same is true for the TTRPG realm.
Second, there is one mechanical subsystem that the social system has and the combat does not. This is the Cope system.
Because a Shock can occur from any roll that accumulates too many Edges, it is vital to the wellbeing of characters that they are able to relieve this. While it is possible to participate in play without having a
team member who can help with this, the party will be worse off for it. This is similar to how it would be without a doctor. The ability to get a specific type of negative or positive coping mechanism and the fact
that these have real effects on play adds a dimension to social skills that other games do not have. While I wish that this section was more robust and offered more mechanical variety, I can see the direction that the
game was going for and I sincerely appreciate the effort.
Book Formatting
This is a minor complaint but it was notable enough for me to mention. I would have preferred if the Playing the Game section came ahead of the Creating a Character and Equipment sections. It was difficult on my first readthrough to understand the significance of Copes, Shocks, Edges and so on until I read further. On my second and third readthroughs, I found myself opening a second copy of the PDF in an additional tab so that I could cross reference terms. The more complex a game is, the easier it is to lose oneself within the terminology. At the level that Changed Stars is at, it would be impossible to create a character without first a very thorough understanding of the rules. But the structure of the book encourages making a character before one has come to understand the rulings.
Ships, Medicine and Hacking
The two notes above are my only true complaints about the mechanics. Anything else I would have to say would be nitpicking. When it comes to the general structure of the game, I found it more than adequate. While
the base combat system is familiar to me, and will be to anyone who has seen more than a handful of TTRPGs, there is a reason why this type of gameplay is frequently used. It's good and it's fun. Players understand
what they are doing, what they should be doing and what they want at all times. It's a system that tells everyone where they stand and gives clear goals. Changed Stars adds further tactical interest to it with the
inclusion of talents and edge breaks, which players are free to take on character creation, lending to some interesting character combinations. For players who are a little more indecisive, the archetypes allow
fast character creation too.
Where the game really shines though are in the combat subsystems. Other spacefaring games treat ships as extensions of the player characters or as an additional player character. The same mechanisms, perhaps
renamed, that are used to run fast and hit hard are recycled to drive fast and shoot hard. Changed Stars does not do this. Instead, a separate subsystem is created, where every part of a ship is a valuable component
with its own skills and the ability to use these skills is contingent on that part remaining intact. This is a part of the game that I enjoyed and hope that other games will take from.
There are a few reasons why this system in particularly stood out to me. First and foremost, the components are intuitive. It logically follows that if something you were using to do x is destroyed then you cease
to be able to do x. Multiple concurrent systems can become cluttered or difficult to understand, particularly if there is no strong engagement between those and the base system. In making the system small and simple,
these issues are avoided outright. As is the case with components and hardpoints.
