I rather agree that the Star Trek universe is too internally-inconsistent to make a good RPG setting, at least given the sort of assumptions about how RPGs should go that I tend to make.

Oh, and this song is exactly appropriate: http://www.voltaire.net/mp3/Voltaire-The_USS_Make-Shit-Up.mp3*

(More Star Trek parody songs here.)



* (WARNING: GOTH CONTENT! If you think that listening to a goth singer like Voltaire will turn you into a fag or something, go fuck yourself.)

Quote from: James McMurrayI think this is your problem. If the players are only interested in breaking the pseudo-science of the Star Trek universe, the Star Trek universe is probably not the best choice for a game. RPG players all over the world wo "go with it" all the time though, so it can be done. It just might not be right for your group.

Close, and I have observed this, but it is more a case of, within the limitations of the "science" of ST and the ethical bounds, you can make it a win-win situation for players.

To Melingor's request and this might help out with the discussion.

1. Hand Phasers that destroy small buildings.

2. General Tecnobabble that solves ANY problem except those that the writers wish to be a problem.

3. Transporters that can replicate/repair/rebuild people and equipment.
3.a: Replicators take almost any reason to "adventure for gain" away. Not saying the "Kill 'em and take their stuff" is the only reasons for " adventuring. I would equate ST rpging to everyone playing a paladin or a fallen paladin/ranger. If you are with the Star Fleet, evil is not really that evil.

4. Inconsistent application of the Prime Directive. I have dealt with this in the past by killing the counselor outright and putting the ship on the edge of nowhere making consulting Star Fleet a case of "Do what you think is best".

5. Advanced robotics and computers but almost no automation. This would almost kill any level of adventure.

Those are off the top of my head but the big ones I can think of now. Unfortunately, I fear this will devolve into a disprove the above and all is well but it really is not just Star Trek. A whole genre that suffers from this is also the Supers genre. Same sort of thing.

Oh, and another point, I fully acknowledge the "Ethical Dilemma" scenario as valid. I could go with "You would NEVER replicate a person if they died because it is wrong!" if that was what the setting said. Again, going back to ST, this is not the case. They did not see Riker clone as wrong or evil. They used the transporters to rebuild the doctor in one episode. There is precedent for using the transporters to bring back the dead. It just is an inconvenient plot element.

hmm, I will be the first to admit I have trouble explaining this issue and I am sure there is some jargon that could be thrown at it but hopefully people will be able to make the leap to understand what I am trying to explain. Sorry if it is confusing.

Bill

Quote from: balzacqI rather agree that the Star Trek universe is too internally-inconsistent to make a good RPG setting, at least given the sort of assumptions about how RPGs should go that I tend to make.

Oh, and this song is exactly appropriate: http://www.voltaire.net/mp3/Voltaire-The_USS_Make-Shit-Up.mp3*

(More Star Trek parody songs here.)



* (WARNING: GOTH CONTENT! If you think that listening to a goth singer like Voltaire will turn you into a fag or something, go fuck yourself.)

Dude! You do not know how on that is!

"Bounce the graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish..."

Gold. Pure Gold.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltDude! You do not know how on that is!

"Bounce the graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish..."

Gold. Pure Gold.

Bill

Koltar needs to hear this part:

And what is with the Klingons? Remember in the day
They looked like Puerto Ricans and they dressed in gold lamé
Now they look like heavy metal rockers from the dead
With leather pants and frizzy hair and lobsters on their head

Quote1. Hand Phasers that destroy small buildings.

This shouldn't be a problem. Doesn't Star Fleet usually frown on violence? When violence rears it's head,  the game has stats for phasers. If they don't do exactly what happened in season 2, episode 4 of some random spinoff, that's just too bad.

Quote2. General Tecnobabble that solves ANY problem except those that the writers wish to be a problem.

How is this a problem?

Quote3. Transporters that can replicate/repair/rebuild people and equipment.

Not sure what the problem here is. I guess if it gets out of hand you just say "it doesn't work that way." and move on.

Quote3.a: Replicators take almost any reason to "adventure for gain" away. Not saying the "Kill 'em and take their stuff" is the only reasons for " adventuring. I would equate ST rpging to everyone playing a paladin or a fallen paladin/ranger. If you are with the Star Fleet, evil is not really that evil.

If you want to kill them and take their stuff, don't play the Federation. Or at least don't play a member of Star Fleet on a ship with working replicators or busted ones and the means to repair them.

Quote4. Inconsistent application of the Prime Directive. I have dealt with this in the past by killing the counselor outright and putting the ship on the edge of nowhere making consulting Star Fleet a case of "Do what you think is best".

Inconsistent application of the Prime Directive is what Star Trek is all about. Having a code of honor that doesn't work right, and then finding ways to make it work or get away with doing the right thing anyway.

Quote5. Advanced robotics and computers but almost no automation. This would almost kill any level of adventure.

Automation is apparently an evil thing in Star Trek. It's a humanoidocentric universe. That's not really a problem IMO.

I guess it boils down to: if it's a genre you can't emulate, stop trying to emulate it.

I think your basic problem here boils down to this:

Not following Star Trek's genre conventions results in a game that is decidedly un-Star Trek-like.

If you want to preserve Star Trek's genre conventions, you have to agree to do it (and thus be willing to at least some degree ignore valid solutions) or you have to accept that your game will be played in the Star Trek universe where the genre rules that the writers conveniently follow are not being observed by the players.

Which will result in a very different, and high-powered, experience than you see on the show.

The other solution is, as stated earlier, to tweak the actual setting so that it enforces genre rather than to arbitrarily impose limits on the players' actions when logic dictates more freedom.

I really don't think that you can have your cake and eat it too, because it's the nature of the beast.  If the show itself isn't logical, then trying to emulate the show won't be logical.

Actually, Bill, I was looking more for specific examples of how RRG systems fail to address these issues. The basic Trek phenomena you're talking about, I think I already have a handle on.

That said, you've enumerated some interesting points in your list, so let's look at that:

Quote from: HinterWelt1. Hand Phasers that destroy small buildings.

2. General Tecnobabble that solves ANY problem except those that the writers wish to be a problem.

3. Transporters that can replicate/repair/rebuild people and equipment.
3.a: Replicators take almost any reason to "adventure for gain" away. Not saying the "Kill 'em and take their stuff" is the only reasons for " adventuring. I would equate ST rpging to everyone playing a paladin or a fallen paladin/ranger. If you are with the Star Fleet, evil is not really that evil.

4. Inconsistent application of the Prime Directive. I have dealt with this in the past by killing the counselor outright and putting the ship on the edge of nowhere making consulting Star Fleet a case of "Do what you think is best".

5. Advanced robotics and computers but almost no automation. This would almost kill any level of adventure.

1. I'm not sure I've ever seen a hand phaser destroy a small building in any episode of any Trek show. Even so, is this really a problem? If phasers can destroy buildings in Star Trek, then phasers can destroy buildings in Star Trek. Is it a question of why characters don't take advantage of this more? If the goal of the game is "kill all teh bad guyz" then hellz yeah, milk that phaser! But Star Trek (even the original, more shoot-from-the-hip show), is focused more on "working out a social (and occasionally military) problem to the most amenable and morally palatable solution." If your players are down with that, there is no problem. If not, then you've got a problem, but it ain't with the game rules.

2. Yes, the "Technobabble solution" is famous in Trek, esp. Nex Gen. Thing is, the tecnical problem is usually nothing more than a backdrop or catalyst for the interpersonal problem of the episode. I mean, the scripts just say "insert technobabble here," right? The actual tecnical explanation of how the whatzit anomaly was stabilized by the framdingle array isn't important to the plot in the slightest. So in an RPG you do the same thing. Whether you're focussing on character issues or just plain rollicking adventure, the tecnical bits are just set dressing. So you do something like "Geordi rolls under Science +6, Subatomic Particles specialty +2, vs. Anomaly 15." Easy as pie. If you want to do the character issue thing, you'll be adding "I'm a valuable member of the team +3" or subtracting "Crippling self-doubts -2," but it's still the same ballgame.

3. The Transporter issue is a bit tricky, sure, but probably not as impossible as you're making it out to be. For one thing, the Federation probably would have restrictions on using the Transporters to duplicate humans. I don't recall how things went in the Riker clone eposide, but wasn't he created accidentally? In which case, isn't it possible that the crew's acceptance of the Riker clone was simply that--"you're here and you exist now, so it would be wrong to simply destroy you, but we still oppose deliberately creating someone like you"?

3a. Now I must admit that I'm simply confused. Yes, the replicators do eliminate the need (or even possiblity) of financial gain (though wasn't Latinum invented to patch this exact problem?) but if you're playing Starfleet officers, then no problem, you're not motivated by that. If you don't buy into this principle, thne frankly you don't buy into Star Trek.

I'm not sure what you mean by "If you are with the Star Fleet, evil is not really that evil" at all. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything else that you're saying.

4. Damn right the Prime Directive is inconsistent. So? Do you want a nice and tidy set of rules that tell you how your character is "supposed" to act in any situation, or do you want an "official policy" that can be put to the acid test in difficult circumstances, sometimes (and nearly always dramatically) leading to the controversial decision, "well, in THIS case, I think the rules should be broken"? That's A) Good Drama, and B) Character Freedom. Not a problem.

Not sure what you mean about killing the counselor. What the fuck does she (or he) have to do with it?

5. Huh? How does lack of automation kill adventure? You're going to have to explain that one to me.

Now, while I have answered point-for-point, I hope you won't take this as a "disprove the above and all is well" approach. I'm seriously trying to see how it is that you think these (and others, rest assured that I understand these aren't meant to be a list of the only possible issues with ST roleplaying) difficulties will somehow "break" Star Trek. 'Cause all I'm seeing is some vague worry that a certain kind of player is going to run wild, Phasering buildings with his army of Transporter-clones. And even then, I'm reading between the lines, and may well be wrong. If that's not the fear, then what is? In the absence of other concerns, it looks like a simple case of "don't play with jackasses."

Peace,
-Joel

[Edit: Cross-posted with James, who made mots of the same points, only more succinctly. Ah, well.]

Quote from: RedFoxI think your basic problem here boils down to this:

Not following Star Trek's genre conventions results in a game that is decidedly un-Star Trek-like.

What I was trying to say, but with better phrasing.

Quote from: Melinglor3. The Transporter issue is a bit tricky, sure, but probably not as impossible as you're making it out to be. For one thing, the Federation probably would have restrictions on using the Transporters to duplicate humans. I don't recall how things went in the Riker clone eposide, but wasn't he created accidentally? In which case, isn't it possible that the crew's acceptance of the Riker clone was simply that--"you're here and you exist now, so it would be wrong to simply destroy you, but we still oppose deliberately creating someone like you"?

That's how I see it. For a more modern comparison: there are a lotof people that hate but very few that will stab them in the face.

Quote from: RedFoxI really don't think that you can have your cake and eat it too, because it's the nature of the beast.  If the show itself isn't logical, then trying to emulate the show won't be logical.

And I believe, on the broader level, this is the summation to any argument I can make.

Essentially, you can
a) alter setting to limit the outrageous parts (and I think you still might have issues just be the nature of the technology)

or

b) limit the story in a very artificial manner. This can be done by the GM ala "It does not work that way" or "Star Fleet Regs do not allow that". It could also be accomplished by players saying "We wont bring the captain, chief medical officer and chief engineer back from the dead despite being able to and the ship desperately needing them because it would violate the genre".

It would seem that buy in, beyond what would be considered normal, is needed. Perhaps a contrast will help.

I can play a Jedi who is total bad ass. I can swing my light saber around and do certain things. If I act evil, I am sith. If not, Jedi. But there are things I can and cannot do within the setting. Not talking system here, setting. A Jedi can block blaster fire with his light sabre, move things with the Force and jump all over the place. Whether it is 20m I can jump or 200m really does not matter to me.

In ST, I can be an engineer. With my technobabble I can make the ship go infinitely fast, make it invulnerable to attack (unless the story calls for it not to be), move a moon with the tractor beam (unless the plot would make that inconvenient). Any problem you can come up with can be solved in this manner.

Now, I am not saying this is a bad thing. I know everyone must think I am but what I am saying and am much more interested in is how do you model a system based on that setting? Unless you drop just about any quantifiable elements and go with a free form system, it seems to me that you would just have a series of contradicting rules.

Hopefully that is clearer.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltIn ST, I can be an engineer. With my technobabble I can make the ship go infinitely fast, make it invulnerable to attack (unless the story calls for it not to be), move a moon with the tractor beam (unless the plot would make that inconvenient). Any problem you can come up with can be solved in this manner.

Now, I am not saying this is a bad thing. I know everyone must think I am but what I am saying and am much more interested in is how do you model a system based on that setting? Unless you drop just about any quantifiable elements and go with a free form system, it seems to me that you would just have a series of contradicting rules.

Hopefully that is clearer.

Bill

Perfectly.  The truth is that the rules of the Star Trek universe as such do not exist.  They exist only by writer fiat, because it's an episodic adventure (or drama, thinking of TNG) show where any given script writer just wrote whatever the hell she wanted.  Feel like exploring an alternate nazi germany where they have a fleet of spaceships to invade another planet in the solar system?  Why the hell not?  This week, we'll split the crew into two different personalities and see what happens, etc.

That makes for a great collaborative story or drama effort but a piss poor game or exploration of a sensical universe.  Consistency is pretty much out the window, because the setting is little more than set dressing.

You can't model that.  You just can't.  It's like trying to come up with "The Twilight Zone" as a roleplaying game.

Quote from: MelinglorActually, Bill, I was looking more for specific examples of how RRG systems fail to address these issues. The basic Trek phenomena you're talking about, I think I already have a handle on.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

Specifically, LUG Trek and Decipher Trek both have the same phaser problem. A hand weapon, easily available to anyone, capable of incredible destruction. Level sixteen, IIRC and I might not, could fire three times and leave a massive crater. All the other issues are pretty much as I stated them in the system. Since the problem, as I see it, is in the setting it bleeds to the system with out being addressed much.

Quote from: Melinglor1. I'm not sure I've ever seen a hand phaser destroy a small building in any episode of any Trek show. Even so, is this really a problem? If phasers can destroy buildings in Star Trek, then phasers can destroy buildings in Star Trek. Is it a question of why characters don't take advantage of this more? If the goal of the game is "kill all teh bad guyz" then hellz yeah, milk that phaser! But Star Trek (even the original, more shoot-from-the-hip show), is focused more on "working out a social (and occasionally military) problem to the most amenable and morally palatable solution." If your players are down with that, there is no problem. If not, then you've got a problem, but it ain't with the game rules.

An example would be the borg. Phaser fire against them is pretty ineffective. However, is you have a weapon that can vaporize huge parts of the ship, do it. For that matter, they often beam to a borg cube in order to save the captain, poke around or generally steal superior tech. Why not a photon torp? They did this once in Voyager but never again to my knowledge. Yes, shields but they caught them when the "remodulated their shields" and the save with technobabble again. The point being a combination of almost all my points in just one instance. Imagine modeling that in a system, then trying to keep the players from using it on every enemy they encounter. Not impossible but pretty tough with a traditional system. And yes, the system is not everything but it needs to provide the tools for the GM to run his campaign. To date, I do not think there has been a ST game that has done this.

Again, not trying to get into an argument about ST but it is just a common field.

Quote from: Melinglor2. Yes, the "Technobabble solution" is famous in Trek, esp. Nex Gen. Thing is, the tecnical problem is usually nothing more than a backdrop or catalyst for the interpersonal problem of the episode. I mean, the scripts just say "insert technobabble here," right? The actual tecnical explanation of how the whatzit anomaly was stabilized by the framdingle array isn't important to the plot in the slightest. So in an RPG you do the same thing. Whether you're focussing on character issues or just plain rollicking adventure, the tecnical bits are just set dressing. So you do something like "Geordi rolls under Science +6, Subatomic Particles specialty +2, vs. Anomaly 15." Easy as pie. If you want to do the character issue thing, you'll be adding "I'm a valuable member of the team +3" or subtracting "Crippling self-doubts -2," but it's still the same ballgame.

And in a story I agree. In a game, what happens, is you get someone who says:
"I use my Science + 6 combined wiht my Shield Mechanics + 2 to devise a new type of phaser that shoots through subspace and materializes int he enemies chest."

For the plots at that time, it might be necessary. In the execution of the game, the player will use it again and again if he is successful. The best you can do is say
"The borg adapt" and that gets tired after a while if you apply it to every race you come across.

Now, you can nip it in the bud and just keep saying, "No, that is impossible" but that seems pretty rare in the ST universe.

Quote from: Melinglor3. The Transporter issue is a bit tricky, sure, but probably not as impossible as you're making it out to be. For one thing, the Federation probably would have restrictions on using the Transporters to duplicate humans. I don't recall how things went in the Riker clone eposide, but wasn't he created accidentally? In which case, isn't it possible that the crew's acceptance of the Riker clone was simply that--"you're here and you exist now, so it would be wrong to simply destroy you, but we still oppose deliberately creating someone like you"?

3a. Now I must admit that I'm simply confused. Yes, the replicators do eliminate the need (or even possiblity) of financial gain (though wasn't Latinum invented to patch this exact problem?) but if you're playing Starfleet officers, then no problem, you're not motivated by that. If you don't buy into this principle, thne frankly you don't buy into Star Trek.

3a is more for a DS9 non-star fleet kind of thing. This is really an arguing the specific case more than the root issues. Suffice it to say, replicators can make resource issues non-existent if properly employed. This is like when you fantasy character finds a cornucopia. Sounds cool but that is one less thing you will worry about.

The important point about three is not so much clones, although that could be useful (Data could no longer be alone), but the "Come back from the dead" issue. I cannot fathom, and there is precedent for it in the series, that recreating someone with the transporter would be met with resistance in the setting. The captain, a considerable investment in training and experience, can be brought back from the dead with no more energy than that of a normal transport. Away teams would no longer need fear death.

Mostly, this is an example of the "character thinking" that I am talking about. Story tellers do not want this because it creates risk. Game designers might want a more rare form of resurrection but not this cheap since it creates a lack of risk.

I will forgo the rest since this is so long most folks have stopped readign by now.

To answer direct questions:
I meant an abundance of automation that should be readily available, and is if you look at it, in the form automated ships, probes, robots, etc.

In most of the ST games I have played the Counselor is the direct representative of the Federation;i.e. counsel to the captain.

The short version
My concerns, stated before and having another go at it here, is that elements in a story cannot always be translated to a codified traditional RPG. By codified traditional RPG I mean something DND like where you roll dice for resolutions and have a framework to adventure in.

So, essentially, unchecked power, immediately int he hands of the players, makes for a difficult if not impossible game, IMO.

Hopefully that is clearer.

Bill

Quote from: RedFoxPerfectly.  The truth is that the rules of the Star Trek universe as such do not exist.  They exist only by writer fiat, because it's an episodic adventure (or drama, thinking of TNG) show where any given script writer just wrote whatever the hell she wanted.  Feel like exploring an alternate nazi germany where they have a fleet of spaceships to invade another planet in the solar system?  Why the hell not?  This week, we'll split the crew into two different personalities and see what happens, etc.

That makes for a great collaborative story or drama effort but a piss poor game or exploration of a sensical universe.  Consistency is pretty much out the window, because the setting is little more than set dressing.

You can't model that.  You just can't.  It's like trying to come up with "The Twilight Zone" as a roleplaying game.

Thank you!

This is a much shorter and far clearer expression of my issues.

Thank you Redfox!

Bill

Meh, many of these issues arise due to TNG not making any sense, if you stick to an original series rpg I think it would be much easier.

Phasers kill anything they hit, yes, but the game isn't about combat, it's about coming up with solutions to conflicts by and large through the application of intelligence and determination.

Transporters, far less exciting in the original series.  Beam down, beam up, that's about it.

Prime Directive, often broken if other moral grounds apply.

Watch the original series, it's about the power of human ingenuity to make things work, it's about discovery, it's about going boldly where no man has gone before.  It is not about combat, about technology even slightly or about introspective sub-par soap operatic crap as TNG was.  It's about discovering new cultures and despite your differences coming to an understanding with them.

Are all Colonials immune to irony?

Quote from: SettembriniAre all Colonials immune to irony?

Nah, Canadians usually get it fine.