Quote from: HinterWelt3. Drop system or game or whatever you wish to call consistent rules structure in favor of collaborative story telling;i.e. sitting around talking about what you wish Picard had done in that episode.

Again, I am not trying to rag on your favorite ST game (assuming it is) just trying to hash out an issue I had observed as a designer. I have heard a lot of arguments on the other side of this. A lot of people (Ineti of on RPG.Net especially) seem convinced I do not understand what ST is really about. Believe me, I do. The issue I have observed has been mostly due to players who want a consistent game structure behind the setting and discover that it is not viable. As Redfox aptly pointed out, you cannot apply a consistent game engine to inconsistent circumstances. Or that is my take on it anyway.

Bill

I think you can, but you're basically opting for #3 on your list.  It's going to be a game less concerned with exploring setting as it is exploring premise.  A "storytelling game" as you say, would do just fine with Star Trek, because plot device and setting inconsistencies could be handled mechanically in some way (some sort of bidding structure seems apt).

But as far as traditional roleplaying goes, the setting's a nightmare of loopy inconsistencies.

Me, I prefer traditional roleplaying games so I have difficulty navigating the hurdles that playing Star Trek presents.

Quote from: RedFoxI think you can, but you're basically opting for #3 on your list.  It's going to be a game less concerned with exploring setting as it is exploring premise.  A "storytelling game" as you say, would do just fine with Star Trek, because plot device and setting inconsistencies could be handled mechanically in some way (some sort of bidding structure seems apt).

But as far as traditional roleplaying goes, the setting's a nightmare of loopy inconsistencies.

Me, I prefer traditional roleplaying games so I have difficulty navigating the hurdles that playing Star Trek presents.

This has been the only solution I could come with, which is to say, not so much play as cooperative story telling. If the rules are too stratified then you end up with a great deal of exceptions needing to be pushed through.

I would even go as far as to say you need a free form system that specifically handles inconsistencies between scenes or episodes. Perhaps something like having a rotating setting moderator that sets premises for that episode. For instnce if the plot the GM proposes is "The Transporter malfunctions and sends you to the evil dimension" then the moderator could say "and the transporters are not the same in that world. You must be returned by someone from your own universe". I am just running with an idea. It still comes down to the three points I made.

Bill

if i ever ran a trek adventure or campaign, it would have to be an exercise in madness.  

start the players off as crew of a small federation ship, give them an assignment, and then watch the fun as they figure out how to resolve it.  invariably they would pull some typically trek techno-solution and we would then proceed to show all the flaws in the trek universe.  somebody would remember thing x from episode y, another player would get something else as well, and next thing you know they'd have summoned cthulhu or the like at starfleet HQ in san francisco.
:fhtagn:

and we'd laugh all the way, i'm sure.  it's a universe waiting to get fucked up.

hmmm. . . maybe something to do late summer, before the fall semester starts?
:devil:

Hinterwelt and Redfox:

I just wanted to point out that you two don't seem to mean the same thing by "Storytelling Game" here. Redfox is talking about a definite structured game, with rules and procedures, and Hinterwelt (all along, when using the term "Storytelling") is talking about more of a freeform, "everyone sits around making up what happens in an episode without any sort of System" affair.

Personally, I think it would be possible to design a Star Trek "Storytelling" game in the Redfox sense. Bill, obviously you don't. But I guess unless I were creative enough to actually do so, I can't really prove it's possible, eh? :shrug:

Quote from: beeberif i ever ran a trek adventure or campaign, it would have to be an exercise in madness.  

start the players off as crew of a small federation ship, give them an assignment, and then watch the fun as they figure out how to resolve it.  invariably they would pull some typically trek techno-solution and we would then proceed to show all the flaws in the trek universe.  somebody would remember thing x from episode y, another player would get something else as well, and next thing you know they'd have summoned cthulhu or the like at starfleet HQ in san francisco.
:fhtagn:

and we'd laugh all the way, i'm sure.  it's a universe waiting to get fucked up.

hmmm. . . maybe something to do late summer, before the fall semester starts?
:devil:

In my personal opinion, there's no way you could come up with anything funnier than Galaxy Quest. But hey, knock yourself out.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorHinterwelt and Redfox:

I just wanted to point out that you two don't seem to mean the same thing by "Storytelling Game" here. Redfox is talking about a definite structured game, with rules and procedures, and Hinterwelt (all along, when using the term "Storytelling") is talking about more of a freeform, "everyone sits around making up what happens in an episode without any sort of System" affair.

Personally, I think it would be possible to design a Star Trek "Storytelling" game in the Redfox sense. Bill, obviously you don't. But I guess unless I were creative enough to actually do so, I can't really prove it's possible, eh? :shrug:



In my personal opinion, there's no way you could come up with anything funnier than Galaxy Quest. But hey, knock yourself out.

Peace,
-Joel

Joe,
I think you might be able to get some structure. The question would be how much and in what manner. Much like DRATS, I think it would have to be adaptive meta structure by which I mean rules about rules. You could not have "A phaser does x damage" but instead "A piece of equipment has this dramatic effect".  So, it could be adaptive to the scene it is being used in.

That said though, IMO, that is a far cry from a traditional game since you would need a very different infrastructure and it would resemble, far more, a free form method of story telling.

Of course, just my opinion and I fully admit I might just be picking nits.

Bill

Firefights miss the point rather, Star Trek doesn't really have firefights and problems are not solved by violence, resorting to violence is typically indicative of some kind of failure.

That isn't a bug, it's a feature, Star Trek should be one shot one kill, and as such the PCs should not be intent on wading into combat.

The problems seem to me to be symptomatic of running it like any other rpg, but the point of running it surely is the setting which is not like any other rpg.

As for the Transporter, I don't recall anything in TOS indicating that you could store patterns for later reproduction.  It seems to me an assumption unsupported by the setting.

Edit:  Essentially, the problems seem to be with Next Gen games, not with TOS games, my fairly simple solution would be to run a TOS game.

Quote from: BalbinusFirefights miss the point rather, Star Trek doesn't really have firefights and problems are not solved by violence, resorting to violence is typically indicative of some kind of failure.

That isn't a bug, it's a feature, Star Trek should be one shot one kill, and as such the PCs should not be intent on wading into combat.

Sounds like Dogs in the Vineyard in space.

Quote from: jrientsSounds like Dogs in the Vineyard in space.

 Or should that be Targs In The Vineyard ?

Quote from: BalbinusFirefights miss the point rather, Star Trek doesn't really have firefights and problems are not solved by violence, resorting to violence is typically indicative of some kind of failure.

That isn't a bug, it's a feature, Star Trek should be one shot one kill, and as such the PCs should not be intent on wading into combat.

The problems seem to me to be symptomatic of running it like any other rpg, but the point of running it surely is the setting which is not like any other rpg.

As for the Transporter, I don't recall anything in TOS indicating that you could store patterns for later reproduction.  It seems to me an assumption unsupported by the setting.

Edit:  Essentially, the problems seem to be with Next Gen games, not with TOS games, my fairly simple solution would be to run a TOS game.

You limit the problem by doing this but do not eliminate it. TOS had its technobabble as well as phaser negotiation  (Die you Yangs! "...thousands fo dead surrounded him..."). I might add, that there was plenty of violence and it was occasionally the first resort if it suited the plot.

That said though, I have admitted that the "purpose" of the setting is the exploration of character personae, cultural issues and interpersonal issues. My issue is more how to model that in an inconsistent setting. It is difficult to lay down set rules when canon contradicts it..i.e. which version of phasers do we take?

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltwhich version of phasers do we take?

The version best suited to the kind of game we want to play?

Quote from: MelinglorThe version best suited to the kind of game we want to play?

At which point you get back to picking and choosing your setting. Why not make your own? Or, what difficulties does it make when you pick the phaser that disintegrate a human body mystically stopping at precisely the soles of his boots or maybe just leaving scorch marks but int he next scene you need the phaser that does not disintegrate but merely kills...

Again, not saying it cannot be done, just not with a fixed rules set.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAt which point you get back to picking and choosing your setting. Why not make your own?

So in character generation, if you pick and choose your character's skils, you may as well just make up your own skill list?

There's a difference between picking from a long list, and creating stuff from the ground up. The first is easy, the second is harder. That's why we have skill lists for character creation, instead of just "choose what you reckon."

Quote from: HinterWeltAgain, not saying it cannot be done, just not with a fixed rules set.

And yet, apparently people have done it.

Play experience trumps idle speculation any day. If you want to know how it can be done, maybe better to ask those who've managed it, rather than pretending it's never been done?

Quote from: JimBobOzSo in character generation, if you pick and choose your character's skils, you may as well just make up your own skill list?

There's a difference between picking from a long list, and creating stuff from the ground up. The first is easy, the second is harder. That's why we have skill lists for character creation, instead of just "choose what you reckon."


And yet, apparently people have done it.

Play experience trumps idle speculation any day. If you want to know how it can be done, maybe better to ask those who've managed it, rather than pretending it's never been done?

Any time you would like to have a discussion feel free to join in.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAny time you would like to have a discussion feel free to join in.

Talk nice, or I'll put d4s on your chair when you go to the loo.

When it was said,

Quote from: HinterWeltAgain, not saying it cannot be done, just not with a fixed rules set.

I got curious - because HinterWelt's original post had,

Quote from: HinterWeltAm I full of it and ST is just fine?

And then up in post #26 we heard from someone who said he'd had a long successful Star Trek campaign.

Quote from: Koltar"Star Trek" is RPG BUllshit ??

No it isn't - it can be done. I GM-ed TREK campaigns for a good 7 years or so in the mid to late 1980s. One of the players I had then is now in my GURPS:TRAVELLER game . Players being little snots has nothing to do with the setting, wheter TREK or not. Just gotta find players who don't play like little snots. An RPG is not a thing to be "broken" by looking for a loophole just because you spewnt too much time watching TV episodes related to the setting.

So, you know, HinterWelt's saying things, and we're responding - but he's not responding to people responding to his original questions, except those speaking abstractly.

HinterWelt's asking if Star Trek can be done with any particular fixed rules set. We've got Koltar saying that he did exactly that for seven years. You'd think HinterWelt might be curious about that, but apparently not. I guess HinterWelt wanted to have a discussion, but not actually about his original post. Which makes me kinda confused as to why he posted it.

Aren't you at all curious about Koltar's long and successful Star Trek game experience with a fixed rules set? Isn't that at all relevant to a discussion of... how to play Star Trek with a fixed rules set?

Quote from: JimBobOzTalk nice, or I'll put d4s on your chair when you go to the loo.
When it was said,

Quote from: HinterWeltAgain, not saying it cannot be done, just not with a fixed rules set.

I got curious - because HinterWelt's original post had,

Quote from: HinterWeltAm I full of it and ST is just fine?

And then up in post #26 we heard from someone who said he'd had a long successful Star Trek campaign.

So, you know, HinterWelt's saying things, and we're responding - but he's not responding to people responding to his original questions, except those speaking abstractly.

HinterWelt's asking if Star Trek can be done with any particular fixed rules set. We've got Koltar saying that he did exactly that for seven years. You'd think HinterWelt might be curious about that, but apparently not. I guess HinterWelt wanted to have a discussion, but not actually about his original post. Which makes me kinda confused as to why he posted it.

Aren't you at all curious about Koltar's long and successful Star Trek game experience with a fixed rules set? Isn't that at all relevant to a discussion of... how to play Star Trek with a fixed rules set?

So, as I have said, I do not doubt a group will trump system every time. Koltar's comments are what I expect of a group dedicated to playing an ST campaign. I also believe he could have played with no system at all. In his case, it appears, that system was little consideration.  Heck, he did not even mention the system he used for it. The point is not ST, it is as Redfox put it so well, inconsistent setting and applying such a story to a rules system. I did not respond to Koltar because his post was mostly about Sett's post. Now, I am sure you will accuse me of dismissing the obvious truth that proves me wrong...ah, well.

If you would like to paint me as some sort of theorist sitting on high and laying down my mighty and misguided wisdom on others, fine. I really do not wish to have a petty quibble with you. If Koltar wants to step up and let us know how I have maligned him and his actual play, let us in on the secret, I am all ears.

I have played some long running campaigns with ST as well, I have run successful ST adventures. I have never said it was impossible. I have given the conditions I have observed that made it possible for me. Most of the folks in this thread have agreed in one form or another (even Koltar in a way). I have gotten a lot out of this thread. Sorry you seem to see it in such a poor light.

Bill