Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;927511Not to mention the "intelligible to trekkies" shit started in Pepsi Generation.  Roddenberry wasn't even involved at first, and by then was believing his own hype anyway - not to mention Roddenberry died in 91.  Frankly, as time has gone on, each iteration of Star Trek has sucked worse and worse.

So you agree that Roddenberry ruined his own master creation, gotcha. Paramount just finished the job on the TV series.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927512The thing I hated about the New Khan movie is the same thing I hated about other ST movies and series, that has the Klingon capital world 20 fucking minutes from Earth.  Yeah I realize Abrahms, fast-paced, bang boom pow, etc.  Even Star Wars the supposedly less cerebral space film series, had scenes and time pass between Tatooine and Alderaan.

Not going to disagree. "Starships travel at the speed of plot" doesn't work for me either.

Quote from: jeff37923;927542Not going to disagree. "Starships travel at the speed of plot" doesn't work for me either.

Trek ships have always traveled at the speed of plot.

To be honest Star Wars has a certain amount of ships travelling at the speed and location of plot too. It's just usually less noticeable. Star Wars has other storytelling flaws to distract you.

Quote from: jeff37923;927327Yes, because the intelligible-to-trekkies-only bullshit that was Star Trek was made accessible to everyone again by JJ Abrams. That bastard.

If Trek were unintelligible to all but a few geeks, then I doubt it'd still be around. It's always been accessible to everyone, because the stories are human stories. I'll put it this way, I watched my first Trek Episode in reruns, when I was 11 or 12, I think. Grokking the show took no special knowledge.

Abrams is perfect for Star Wars. It shows in the way he approached the new Trek (how much shit does he need to blow up?). I'm all for their monetary success, since I want to see the franchise continue. So, yeah, it's going to see some changes. But it isn't the Trek I know (it isn't intended to be, because I am old, and don't go to the movies anymore). However, I just don't think Abrams cares that much about Trek. It's just another toy he can play with to gives us the same movie 3 times.

On another note, Gronan, you are often intentionally full of shit, but the shit is particularly high on your claim that every iteration of Trek is worse than the first. Enterprise was not as good as its predecessors, certainly. But DS9 took the franchise to places it had never gone. Most consistently best written version of the franchise, by far. Just look at the stable of writers. That said, you can easily say the show didn't really count as a true Trek show due to its less than fully optimistic look at the future. It wasn't what Roddenberry woulda done. But then, Gene's stuff came from a different time.

One thing I'll readily admit about Original Trek: there never has been anything, in any of the other series, that is quite like the Kirk-Spock-McCoy synergy (you can think Gene Coon for a lot of that).

Quote from: yosemitemike;927546Trek ships have always traveled at the speed of plot.

 He's right, of course. And that explains why Romulan cloak, Dominion dampening device, and Klingon shock troops are no biggy. They can never outrun PLOT! :-)

Quote from: cranebump;927592If Trek were unintelligible to all but a few geeks, then I doubt it'd still be around. It's always been accessible to everyone, because the stories are human stories. I'll put it this way, I watched my first Trek Episode in reruns, when I was 11 or 12, I think. Grokking the show took no special knowledge.

OK, I will buy that the stories were human stories, but the problem was that most of the situations and complications were from established canon that kept getting deeper and more complicated with each episode to the point that only a hardcore trekkie could follow it.

Quote from: cranebump;927592On another note, Gronan, you are often intentionally full of shit, but the shit is particularly high on your claim that every iteration of Trek is worse than the first. Enterprise was not as good as its predecessors, certainly. But DS9 took the franchise to places it had never gone. Most consistently best written version of the franchise, by far. Just look at the stable of writers. That said, you can easily say the show didn't really count as a true Trek show due to its less than fully optimistic look at the future. It wasn't what Roddenberry woulda done. But then, Gene's stuff came from a different time.

That and Gene Roddenberry could not adapt to the newer audience. The DS9 episode "By The Pale Moonlight" could never have happened under Gene Roddenberry, and that episode should be required watching for every science fiction screenwriter. The entire subplot of the Maquis vs the uneasy alliance between the Federation and the Cardassians would never have been allowed under Gene Roddenberry.

EDIT: Found the best part of the episode on Youtube.

This scene would NEVER have happened under Roddenberry, because it questions the founding principles the Federation is supposed to champion.

[video=youtube;K-YyL7X4CWw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-YyL7X4CWw[/youtube]

Quote from: jeff37923;927594OK, I will buy that the stories were human stories, but the problem was that most of the situations and complications were from established canon that kept getting deeper and more complicated with each episode to the point that only a hardcore trekkie could follow it.

Ah. Yeah, I can see that.

QuoteThat and Gene Roddenberry could not adapt to the newer audience. The DS9 episode "By The Pale Moonlight" could never have happened under Gene Roddenberry, and that episode should be required watching for every science fiction screenwriter. The entire subplot of the Maquis vs the uneasy alliance between the Federation and the Cardassians would never have been allowed under Gene Roddenberry.

Man, was that a great episode. To your previous point, I'd have to agree that diving into DS9 after the Dominion War was cranked up (perhaps sometime before), would have required knowledge of what hath come before. The same argument could be applied, I guess, to the THG movies. So, if the argument is that Abrams made Trek accessible by divorcing it from cannon, I would say that's true. I just think he went a step further by divorcing it from what I thought were "Trek sensibilities." But my own view on this is firmly ingrained, having watched all those shows multiple times now (thanks to Netflix). Of course, my personal antipathy for Abrams as a soulless minion of modern cinematic orthodoxy has nothing at all to do with my opinion of what he did with Trek.:-)

Quote from: jeff37923;927594OK, I will buy that the stories were human stories, but the problem was that most of the situations and complications were from established canon that kept getting deeper and more complicated with each episode to the point that only a hardcore trekkie could follow it.

You don't really need to know any of that stuff to watch and follow the shows though.  In the case of Enterprise, knowing the canon just makes the show more confusing because Enterprise doesn't give a fuuuuck.  Only a hardcore Trekkie would get everything referenced and know its full meaning but that's not necessary to watch the shows at all.

So do you think 1) the OP was a troll, 2) we scared the OP away, or 3) the OP has died from boredom?

Quote from: CRKrueger;927109Yeah 5e can't be evaluated without comparing it to 4e, compared to which, it looks like a miraculous return to sanity.  In reality it's just that your head feels "better" because it's no longer being currently hit with a hammer.  Shadows of the core design ethos of the things that made 4e a different game entirely are still there.

So true. But it still harkens back to the TSR era better than 3 or 4.

Back on topic.

So what did the other players think of the session. Did they think it was boring? One player baulking does not a boring game make. It may make for an annoying game though for the rest.

I gamed with a player who got bored with any sort of negotiation with NPCs or monsters and tended to try and sabotage it when they got bored. The other players were having fun till all hell breaks loose or they get denied entry to the temple to be healed.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;927317Yes, wandering monsters gave XP.  But ALL monster XP was chump change compared to 1 GP = 1 XP.

If you could sneak 1000 GP away from the 10 Orcs you were better off than killing the Orcs and getting the gold, because it didn't cost you any hit points, which meant you could stay in the dungeon longer.

Right. Much the same in BX. 30 orcs is 150 exp. But their lair could net you on average 1000 GP worth of EXP. Sometimes lots more, sometimes lots less)

Quote from: jeff37923;927327Yes, because the intelligible-to-trekkies-only bullshit that was Star Trek was made accessible to everyone again by JJ Abrams. That bastard.

Intelligible to everyone and and totally inane idiot plots. Oh and the explosions and hey lets make the enterprise fucking enormous and hey lets remove interracial relations and replace it with an alien and hey time travel again! etc ad nausium.

Quote from: yosemitemike;927546Trek ships have always traveled at the speed of plot.

Quote from: DavetheLost;927581To be honest Star Wars has a certain amount of ships travelling at the speed and location of plot too. It's just usually less noticeable. Star Wars has other storytelling flaws to distract you.

I think in some cases its not speed of plot. Its just lazy time skips. It took a week to get from point A to point B. But on screen it looks like they made it there in minutes.

To be fair sometimes they do say "it will take three days to reach planet redshirt death..." and then segue to orbit of destination.

Quote from: cranebump;927597Of course, my personal antipathy for Abrams as a soulless minion of modern cinematic orthodoxy has nothing at all to do with my opinion of what he did with Trek.:-)

I disagree with you on Abrams, but damn if that isn't a nice insult.
I'm going to steal it!