How some stories do not transfer well to RPGs. In my on going search for a universal translator from stories I love to RPG rules sets I find Star Trek to be a but of a bugbear. I have started threads on it in the past and even come up with an attempt at a rules system to deal with the issues as I saw them. Still I feel the need to go into the breach once again and see what the folks hear think.

Problem
Elements of a story often do not translate at all to a codified game rules set. Attempts to do so result in:
1. Systems that a player may game. That is to say, more than usual. An example would be hand phasers that level buildings, transporters that can be used as disintegration weapons, "Magic Tech" that can be used to solve any and all player problems.

2. Setting to system and system to setting inconsistencies. To solve problem 1, this is turned to, essentially, a patch that specifically says, "Thou shalt not". For example, no Federation officer would contemplate duplicating his best soldier on the ship with the transporter in order to make an army of elite storm troopers.

Now, the most common argument I have seen used is that the above can be countered with cooperative play;i.e. If all the players buy in to the idea of playing Star Trek, then it works. The problem I have with that is you then do not need a system at all. If all of you agree, "My character is the doctor" and understand the limitation of the doctor on a ship, then you need not use any system. At some point, you are just sitting around chatting with your friends playing "what if". So, for the sake of this discussion, I am talking about stories to codified rules systems, meaning, "I roll dice" or "I spend drama points" or "I play this card" but not "We just all agree to play a ST based drama".

Questions
So, the questions, assuming I have made the problem clear:
1. Have you observed this in other stories? Examples?

2. Taking ST as the starting point, can we come up with a systematic solution for the setting inconsistencies and tech-no-logical issues?

3. Am I full of it and ST is just fine? Note: my experience is with LUG Trek, Decipher Trek and Fasa Trek. Of the three, FASA Trek is probably the closest to working but that might be more about sacrificing system to setting.

Look forward to hearing responses.

Bill

I would say, just rememeber what RPG's are about. Pretending.

Licenced RPG's give you the added dimesnion of "What if?'

"If I had a phaser, what would I do with it?"

"What if a Federation Officer used his telepoter to create an Army of clones?"

That sounds like the setup to a great Star Trek show. If the villians are the players, what's wrong with that?

It's a perfect setup for both the Campy original series, or the Morality play that was Next Generation.

*nods*

A slight tangent: I found Star Trek to not work well for me because the published rules seem to focus on combat, which often isn't a theme of Star Trek.  Most Trek episodes involve characters overcoming their own problems, diplomacy, drawing on hidden reserves, etc.  Most Trek characters are also broadly competent, highly trained individuals.  They're skilled at combat, starship operations, and extremely specialized in one or more areas.

So I went with PDQ.  And it worked really well.  Having stats like "Starfleet Operations Officer +4" "Android +6" "Emissary of the Prophets +4" and "Changeling +4" really worked well for my group.  Most Trek characters have one special thing going on in addition to being Starfleet Officers in a specific branch, and I found that with PDQ this was easy to work with while still having a rules system.

It may well not work for you, and you may not be interested at all.  I just wanted to share what worked well for me since I had a similar, but different problem.

With that tangent out of the way, yes players absolutely have to buy in.  If folk aren't on board for playing something that resembles the Star Trek shows then you're going to be playing space faring mercenaries and that's not the goal.  Just because all the players are on board conceptually doesn't mean you don't need or want a system, however.  Rather, I find that having at least some players who "get" the game concept is necessary to be able to play that to begin with.  THEN, once I have that, I can confront systems and ask which one will work best for what I'm trying to do in play.

IMHO,
This seems like less of a problem with established well known settings. There are set expectations that most likely all the players are aware of and would follow by reflex.
On the other hand, a homebrew setting or less well known setting, will have a better chance of diverging from the source. ( Especially as many will not know the source very well, if at all. )

Depending on the people involved, diverging may be a good thing.
Some with a "Rules Lawyer" streak will have issues with any deviation, while others will feel they are More Important due to the changes they make.
=

In the Star Trek case in particular my solution would be a prequel show.  Set at the earliest days of the Federation, before high powered phasers and safe matter transmission had become the norm.

Quote from: jrientsIn the Star Trek case in particular my solution would be a prequel show.  Set at the earliest days of the Federation, before high powered phasers and safe matter transmission had become the norm.

...I'm scanning for sarcasm, Captain, but the results are inconclusive...

Quote from: Erstwhile...I'm scanning for sarcasm, Captain, but the results are inconclusive...

I'm sorry.  I should have noted that I usually pretend Enterprise doesn't exist.  Otherwise, I was entirely serious with my proposal.

Quote from: jrientsIn the Star Trek case in particular my solution would be a prequel show.  Set at the earliest days of the Federation, before high powered phasers and safe matter transmission had become the norm.

You mean like... Enterprise?

-clash

Lots of technological handwaving. If they don't know how the transporters work, they can't argue that they'll be able to use them to copy people. Transporters take you places. In later eras holodecks surround you with cool stuff and that little box in your room creates coffee out of thin air. Why do you need more detail then that?

Quote from: flyingmiceYou mean like... Enterprise?

I wrote the following piece a couple of years before Enterprise was announced.

CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL
Star Trek: Voyages of the USS Saladin

Part I: Setting

The Federation is only five years old, with only a few dozen member-worlds.

The Romulan War ended barely two years ago. This war was the unifying event that turned the disparate navies of the Federation member-worlds into a single Star Fleet.

James Tiberius Kirk is a snot-nosed kid in Iowa. On faraway Vulcan a half-breed named Spock suffers under the taunts and torments of pureblooded Vulcan youths.

The Klingon Empire is a distant and indistinct menace, little more than a rumor.

The USS Enterprise is just a naval contract and some blueprints. The first Federation heavy cruiser is still years away from completion. However the first vessels built specifically for Star Fleet are starting to roll out of space dock.

The USS Saladin, NCC-500, is one of the very first starships christened as a Federation vessel. Built into the Saladin are the technical achievements of a dozen worlds: an advanced "space-warp" drive (cruising speed: Cochcrane Warp Factor 6!), dilithium-controled matter/anti-matter engine, energy shields, photonic torpedoes, phased plasma/laser batteries (or "phasers"), a multitronic computer,an experimental matter transporter, and the most complete sensor package ever assembled in one starship.

The newly assembled crew of the Saladin is as diverse as the Federation itself. Some of the crew may have actually fought against each other in Human/Kzin, Vulcan/Andor, and Earth/Centauri conflicts. Some earned their stripes in the recent Romulan unpleasantness. Still others are members of the first graduating class from the new Star Fleet Academy.

Part II: The Ground Rules

Assume nothing. No TV show, movie, book, or fan material will give you an insight into what has happened or what will happen in this campaign. Please don't try to tell me I am doing something wrong because it doesn't fit someone else's conception of the Star Trek universe. The main inspirations for the campaign are the Original Series (particularly the 2 pilots), the Animated Series, and Franz Joseph's original Star Fleet Technical Manual. Even these cannot be considered "canonical", merely helpful to see where I am coming from.

I am expecting the crew of the Saladin to have a direct impact on the fate of the Federation, the galaxy, and even the universe. The campaign is a Star Trek series and the PCs are the stars of the show. You are the Kirk. Go out and grab the galaxy by the gonads.

Quote from: C.W.Richeson*nods*

A slight tangent: I found Star Trek to not work well for me because the published rules seem to focus on combat, which often isn't a theme of Star Trek.  Most Trek episodes involve characters overcoming their own problems, diplomacy, drawing on hidden reserves, etc.  Most Trek characters are also broadly competent, highly trained individuals.  They're skilled at combat, starship operations, and extremely specialized in one or more areas.

So I went with PDQ.  And it worked really well.  Having stats like "Starfleet Operations Officer +4" "Android +6" "Emissary of the Prophets +4" and "Changeling +4" really worked well for my group.  Most Trek characters have one special thing going on in addition to being Starfleet Officers in a specific branch, and I found that with PDQ this was easy to work with while still having a rules system.

It may well not work for you, and you may not be interested at all.  I just wanted to share what worked well for me since I had a similar, but different problem.

Oh, no, I am interested. I still do not think that solves the problems I have but the right system can go much further to mitigating those problems. The root of the problem is some stories are very entertaining but do not (IMHO) translate to RPG settings well.

Believe, I want to be convinced other wise.

Quote from: C.W.RichesonWith that tangent out of the way, yes players absolutely have to buy in.  If folk aren't on board for playing something that resembles the Star Trek shows then you're going to be playing space faring mercenaries and that's not the goal.  Just because all the players are on board conceptually doesn't mean you don't need or want a system, however.  Rather, I find that having at least some players who "get" the game concept is necessary to be able to play that to begin with.  THEN, once I have that, I can confront systems and ask which one will work best for what I'm trying to do in play.

hmm, I will try to produce more detail. You could very easily function within the parameters of Star Fleet and still destroy any sense of risk. In essence, gaming the setting.

For instance, I go down to a planet with my away team. I get blasted. They make a new me with the transporters.

Answer:
1. Your pattern is degraded too fast in the transport buffer.
hrm? Scotty survived for like 60 years or more in the transport buffer of an out of date star ship. You are able to store terraquads of data and you can't store the away team? Get working on that.

2. It is not "real matter" and degrades after time.
Just not possible. You need to reproduce the matter for many things. They have replicators. You need to eat that matter, it had better be real. For that matter (no pun intended) YOU are that matter if you ever used the transporters.

Again, not trying to bust anyone's chops here. It really is a modeling problem. How do you model inconsistencies in a setting with a codified system. The best I could do was come up with a resource bid dice-less system that allowed dramatic play and codified as few setting elements as possible.

As to buy-in...well I guess what I am saying is that you can even have buy-in and still not make a viable game. Yes, if everyone agrees that they will play a certain way, do and not do certain things, and be blind to the potential of the technology present, then sure, but that seems counter to the freedom of action that role-playing (to me) facilitates. I do not want to perform a play, I want to explore a character, the setting and the technology (for a sci-fi setting).

If it is not clear, yes, this is about my hang-ups with past incarnations of the ST license but really is more fundamental. More about the difficulty of taking a  story and making an RPG. To me, this is not a one-to-one process.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltHow some stories do not transfer well to RPGs.

That happens when the stories are illogical and contain elements that make fans and critics alike roll their eyes in disbelief.  You've got a few options, at that point.  Figure out a way to explain away the illogical bits so that they seem logical, remove the illogical bits, by agreement steer clear of looking to closely at them, or use a system designed to promote story-logic rather than verisimilitude.  But there is no way you are going to make sense out of that which simply does not make sense.

Quote from: GreentongueIMHO,
This seems like less of a problem with established well known settings. There are set expectations that most likely all the players are aware of and would follow by reflex.
On the other hand, a homebrew setting or less well known setting, will have a better chance of diverging from the source. ( Especially as many will not know the source very well, if at all. )

Depending on the people involved, diverging may be a good thing.
Some with a "Rules Lawyer" streak will have issues with any deviation, while others will feel they are More Important due to the changes they make.
=

My experience, it actually is more of a problem. Players who know ST (and I am picking on ST a lot here) have thought of all manner of tricks and nasty things. For instance, The space creature is impervious to phaser fire? Blast the ground under it. You have a hand phaser that can level a school. It makes a big hole.

So, I do not doubt that you can mod the setting to make is work...but are you playing in the ST universe then or one where transporters, replicators and phasers are things of their sci-fi?

Again, some amount of buy-in is needed but the question is do the players limit their options just because it is not done in the setting? Why not disintegrate enemies on the surface of the planet instead of beaming down troops and frying them with phasers? For that matter, blast 'em from orbit.

Bill

I guess it's the same way people can play pulp games and not point out that a weird science gadget is impossible.  If a person approaches Star Trek from a realism perspective and tries to game the setting it's just not going to work well.

That said, I'd attribute the use of transporters to rules of ethics.  They may even be built so that they can only recreate a pattern one time and then erase it in order to prevent cloning and such.  This could be a perfectly reasonable result of the Eugenics Wars or something of that nature.

Not beaming the opposing ship's crew into space or beaming bombs aboard is not unlike Starfleet's opposition to the use of assassination and other dirty tricks.

It's not perfect, it doesn't even hold up against a few Next Gen episodes, but it's the best I can think of.  Otherwise I tend to agree that Star Trek isn't a setting for players who want to use the existing technology in a "logical" way to solve the problems.  I think it still supports players who want to do problem solving without clearly breaking the setting, however.

Quote from: HinterWeltOh, no, I am interested. I still do not think that solves the problems I have but the right system can go much further to mitigating those problems. The root of the problem is some stories are very entertaining but do not (IMHO) translate to RPG settings well.

Believe, I want to be convinced other wise.

hmm, I will try to produce more detail. You could very easily function within the parameters of Star Fleet and still destroy any sense of risk. In essence, gaming the setting.

For instance, I go down to a planet with my away team. I get blasted. They make a new me with the transporters.

Answer:
1. Your pattern is degraded too fast in the transport buffer.
hrm? Scotty survived for like 60 years or more in the transport buffer of an out of date star ship. You are able to store terraquads of data and you can't store the away team? Get working on that.

2. It is not "real matter" and degrades after time.
Just not possible. You need to reproduce the matter for many things. They have replicators. You need to eat that matter, it had better be real. For that matter (no pun intended) YOU are that matter if you ever used the transporters.

Again, not trying to bust anyone's chops here. It really is a modeling problem. How do you model inconsistencies in a setting with a codified system. The best I could do was come up with a resource bid dice-less system that allowed dramatic play and codified as few setting elements as possible.

As to buy-in...well I guess what I am saying is that you can even have buy-in and still not make a viable game. Yes, if everyone agrees that they will play a certain way, do and not do certain things, and be blind to the potential of the technology present, then sure, but that seems counter to the freedom of action that role-playing (to me) facilitates. I do not want to perform a play, I want to explore a character, the setting and the technology (for a sci-fi setting).

If it is not clear, yes, this is about my hang-ups with past incarnations of the ST license but really is more fundamental. More about the difficulty of taking a  story and making an RPG. To me, this is not a one-to-one process.

Bill

/me initiates Star trek geek mode

Those answers are stupid.

The simpler answer is that the transporter clone isn't you.  Much like Riker's clone, it's an entirely different person, that just happens to look like you and share your memories, and from that point on isn't even necessarily going to go down the same path in life, personality, or anything.

You could actually spin an entirely new character concept from the consequences of such an action.  The ethical questions of not leaving the dead to lie, and trying to replace him with a clone.  The internal conflict of trying to live up to the image of this other person that you've replaced.  The external conflict of the rest of the crew's difficulty with adjusting to the fact that this is a new being, clone or not.  

And bloody hell, you've already got a whole damn plotline in the real show to base the whole thing off of.  But more importantly, these kinds of dilemmas are exactly what the show is about, especially the NextGen era.  

The alternative solution, easier, but perhaps less fun, is that the transporter buffer only holds onto your matter pattern during the transport.  Once the transport is completed the buffer is empty: you aren't in it anymore.  Scotty's trick worked because he just didn't leave the bloody thing when he should have, so he was just floating around in the thing, and he very well could've died anyway as I recall, as he had to make some extensive modifications to the thing just to get the thing to reliably hold the patter buffer for that long.