QuoteThe fact that there have been FOUR more ST series since the first one actually makes doing an RPG of that universe easier.

You can´t be serious. You contradict yourself.
As does the ST franchise more and more the longer it gets.
You said so yourself.

Look, I´m not saying your game was bad.
I say if your game was good, then inspite of being ST-based.

Look at the story structure of an episode. It´s bullshit in an RPG.
Like the LOTR is bullshit as a fantasy RPG.

Quote from: KoltarThe fact that there have been FOUR more ST series since the first one actually makes doing an RPG of that universe easier.

I've heard this before from folks who enjoy playing in the ST universe and let's not forget about the books...although I have to admit, I don't know whether the books are considered canon or not or even if it matters if they weren't for the purpose of running a ST campaign. BTW I think Koltar's ideas for running a ST campaign sounds really cool.

Regards,
David R

Look guys, I GMed oodles and loads of Star Wars D6 back in the day.
But I did so while altering the basic premises George Lucas laid out!

I played in the Star Wars universe, but it stopped being true to Star Wars in the case of doubt.

Anyhow, I think this point has been hammered, and I will stop to harass you with it.

Quote from: David RI've heard this before from folks who enjoy playing in the ST universe and let's not forget about the books...although I have to admit, I don't know whether the books are considered canon or not or even if it matters if they weren't for the purpose of running a ST campaign. BTW I think Koltar's ideas for running a ST campaign sounds really cool.

Regards,
David R

 Thats for a GM of an RPG to decide.

IF I was still running STAR TREK as an RPG these days I know that I would tel my players that almost all Peter David novels are automatically "canon" in my version of things. (Many of his books were submitted as scripts for NEXT GEN, but they would have the broke the budget of the show. They told Pocket books these stories were pre-approved.)

 This the same problem someone running the STAR WARS universe might have - how much of the Expanded Universe stuff do they allow in their game?
 Again, to me that seems to fall under the judgement of the individual GM.

 Thanks for your words about my game ideas.
 Just because I don't run it anymore  that doesn't mean I stopped thinking about what I might do if I was GM-ing TREK again.


- Ed C.

Gonna weigh in late here.

The issue with Phasers is what exactly? That they are mondo powerful? Bah.

Phasers, in Star Trek, make everyone mooks. If you get hit, you go down, and it's up to the guy who shot you to determine if you are dead or not. NPC's often shoot to kill.  That makes 'phaser fights' lethal if you get hit...

The solution, if your problem is excessive lethality, is to shift your paradigm (ooh... big word) away from 'HP-take the hits' combat to something where you have plot immunity points or some shit.  Risk your ass too often and you will get nailed.  Seriously, your combat engine, to truely emulate the series, should not be that tactical at all. Only for space battles, if then.   Just remember that some things are 'immune to phasers' for some reason. The physics are baffling.


Transporter problem: Don't see the problem. Lay out that transporters are used to... transport people. Mention that they don't work through shields. Ignore everything else... neither prescriptive nor proscriptive, and let each table work out the weird shit for themselves.


Technobabble: I suspect this one can be dealt with by providing lists of approved technobabble terms and instituiting a mechanism where TB is a valid, quantifiable solution to specific problems.  


In the end the biggest problem you probably have with Star Trek RPG's is how you think of it.  Star Trek can NOT look like D&D. You won't have long combat chapters, you won't have a huge number of tactical rules. You won't have hit points or strength.  It doesn't have to be... should not be... collaborative storytelling (someone has to provide the NPC's and situations the crew finds themselves in...).

As much as this style of play does not appeal to me, I think it is the correct one. Here is how I see it going down:

GM sets up the situation, including any Big Bads that will show up.

Players: They have ratings that limit the number of problems they can solve/types of problems they can solve. Geordi never takes command of the ship to fight space battles, say, but the Captain (almost?) never goes to engineering to fix the Warp Coils to prevent them from overloading.  Problems include the military/leadership based things, the technical things and the social things (data being very weak at those... he can participate but never solve them alone?)  Obviously this is stripped down.

Now, remove restrictions. Geordi can solve a military problem (Big Bad Evil Guy on the bridge killing crewmembers) with a technical solution... involving requist technobabble, but that eliminates his ability to solve the warp coil overloading later in the 'episode' forcing, say, the Captain (who could have talked the BBEG down, leading to a different set of problems using his 'Social Scene') to have to try to use his Social Scene instead to find a way to 'lead the crew' out of being blow to peices. Maybe he reminds the engineering staff that the lives of the crew depend on them....






Just a thought.  Like I said, not my style of play, but its probably the best way to emulate a 'wriggly' show like Star Trek if you have these sorts of problems.

Quote from: SpikeAs much as this style of play does not appeal to me, I think it is the correct one. Here is how I see it going down:

GM sets up the situation, including any Big Bads that will show up.

Players: They have ratings that limit the number of problems they can solve/types of problems they can solve. Geordi never takes command of the ship to fight space battles, say, but the Captain (almost?) never goes to engineering to fix the Warp Coils to prevent them from overloading.  Problems include the military/leadership based things, the technical things and the social things (data being very weak at those... he can participate but never solve them alone?)  Obviously this is stripped down.

Now, remove restrictions. Geordi can solve a military problem (Big Bad Evil Guy on the bridge killing crewmembers) with a technical solution... involving requist technobabble, but that eliminates his ability to solve the warp coil overloading later in the 'episode' forcing, say, the Captain (who could have talked the BBEG down, leading to a different set of problems using his 'Social Scene') to have to try to use his Social Scene instead to find a way to 'lead the crew' out of being blow to peices. Maybe he reminds the engineering staff that the lives of the crew depend on them....






Just a thought.  Like I said, not my style of play, but its probably the best way to emulate a 'wriggly' show like Star Trek if you have these sorts of problems.

Beating a dead horse but what the hey. Essentially, you have come to the conclusion I stated back near the beginning of this thread. Essentially, structured story telling. It seems to confirm that a structured traditional game (like the ones I have mentioned that have been produced for ST) do not work as written. Note: that does not mean you cannot run a game with them, they just do not do a good job of translating the setting.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltBeating a dead horse but what the hey. Essentially, you have come to the conclusion I stated back near the beginning of this thread. Essentially, structured story telling. It seems to confirm that a structured traditional game (like the ones I have mentioned that have been produced for ST) do not work as written. Note: that does not mean you cannot run a game with them, they just do not do a good job of translating the setting.

Bill

Yes and no.  Storytelling, even with structure, can either be (with a loose enough definition) exactly what any RPG is... or it can be the opposite of what an RPG is.

I propose not to throw out the RPG model, which is what you are asking for when you say 'storytelling'... as I read it anyhow... but to alter it to fit the needs of genre.  You will still have rolls to resolve conflicts, results of the rolls will have impact on the play... in other words, there will be risk.  Death might not be a major risk, as it often isn't on the shows, but the risk of failure is certainly there.

Just to be clear, that's exactly what I'm trying to say in my post in the Sherlock Holmes thread, which I wrote before noticing that Spike has argued the same thing in more detail in this one.

More generally, there are bound to be "inconsistencies" (unbalanced weapons and powerz, wacko physics) whenever you try to map a hardish system onto a softie license, no? Never having played it, how does Star Wars d20 handle that?

Quote from: SpikeYes and no.  Storytelling, even with structure, can either be (with a loose enough definition) exactly what any RPG is... or it can be the opposite of what an RPG is.

I propose not to throw out the RPG model, which is what you are asking for when you say 'storytelling'... as I read it anyhow... but to alter it to fit the needs of genre.  You will still have rolls to resolve conflicts, results of the rolls will have impact on the play... in other words, there will be risk.  Death might not be a major risk, as it often isn't on the shows, but the risk of failure is certainly there.

I suggested eliminating system. That is one solution I have suggested but you can have structured story telling with dice, without or any form of alternate randomizer. That said, to me, structured story telling is more about the story elements taking precedent over any system resolution. So, for example, if the doctor fails her Medicine roll and the Captain will die, the party can choose to ignore that as an event in the story that would cause undesirable outcome. It is the GM's call if there is one.

An exaple of what I mean would be the oWOD system. You do not play the oWod system, you play the Vampire Setting or World of Darkness setting and the system is there as support to ease the story telling. D&D 3.5 you play the system and the setting is there as support. Setting supplies you with situations to use you skills, feats and monster to kill with your weapons. You play in FR or Eberron to suit your tastes for the nature of the game. Much like a chess player plays on different boards. Not precisely but it is just an analogy. And again, I have to say, play trumps design always. You can play these games however you wish.

Now, the root of the problem is what happens when you have elements of the story that do different things at different points. Tactical evaluation of phasers aside, technology had a widely ranging and inconsistent effect in the ST setting. This works with a story but makes it difficult to reduce it to an effect in a game. I have always held, you can abstract the elements of the setting to the point of a meta game much as in your example. This is a solution but does not fit past models nor what, I would think, most RPGers would recognize as a "game". Not arguing the Role-Playing part, I question the game part.

Again, this may not fit with your definitions. Sorry if I am using my own definitions but that could even be sited as an example of the problem.

Bill

Quote from: Pierce InverarityJust to be clear, that's exactly what I'm trying to say in my post in the Sherlock Holmes thread, which I wrote before noticing that Spike has argued the same thing in more detail in this one.

More generally, there are bound to be "inconsistencies" (unbalanced weapons and powerz, wacko physics) whenever you try to map a hardish system onto a softie license, no? Never having played it, how does Star Wars d20 handle that?

I have always thought Star Wars handles it well. An important aspect there is the limited number of movies the RPGs are set in. Another point is not that the physics are wrong but that the technology is consistent. You have hyper drive, it zooms you to the next planet. You have blasters. They work like a gun. You have ridiculous over the top sized ships. Modeling Star Wars is not a big problem. Please, though, point out if I am missing something. I very well might.

I still think Redfox nailed it. Episodic story with multiple writers makes a story a tough conversion.

Bill
Bill

Well, even emulating Star Wars can be problematic if Luke is killed by the Tusken Raider in the A New Hope.  

But there is, yes, a huge difference in the emulations. Still, I think that you simply should not worry about the wargaming history of RPG's, with all that entails, when trying to emulate a character driven show, like Star Trek. Not going to work.

I don't think games that I've seen that try to play out television get it right either, however. Too much breaking the fourth wall. I don't want to play an actor playing the Captain, i want to play the fooken Captain!  On the other hand, there is some good stuff to be gained from studying them.


One example is Buffy, where they took a show with a central character and managed to make playing supporting characters not only palatable, but balanced without ruining the tone of the show. Mind you, I never watched buffy and I haven't played that version of Unisystem, but from all reports this is very much the case.  The key is to acknowledge the wonky stuff that goes on without getting bogged down by it.

Quote from: SpikeWell, even emulating Star Wars can be problematic if Luke is killed by the Tusken Raider in the A New Hope.  

But there is, yes, a huge difference in the emulations. Still, I think that you simply should not worry about the wargaming history of RPG's, with all that entails, when trying to emulate a character driven show, like Star Trek. Not going to work.

I don't think games that I've seen that try to play out television get it right either, however. Too much breaking the fourth wall. I don't want to play an actor playing the Captain, i want to play the fooken Captain!  On the other hand, there is some good stuff to be gained from studying them.


One example is Buffy, where they took a show with a central character and managed to make playing supporting characters not only palatable, but balanced without ruining the tone of the show. Mind you, I never watched buffy and I haven't played that version of Unisystem, but from all reports this is very much the case.  The key is to acknowledge the wonky stuff that goes on without getting bogged down by it.

See, I am not sure this is practical in an applied sense. Are there even GURPS level success for episodic translations. Buffy could be the argument but I am woefully unfamiliar with the property. Star Trek, yes, licensed for many years but in a perpetual series of failure and rebirth. This could be more due to licensing then anything. Dr. Who, again, one shot I believe, in the eighties? maybe. There are some smaller properties but those are the ones I can think of. I talk with a number of game store owners and they often say that such properties sell strong out of the gate but rapidly dwindle indicating to them that the sales are license driven based by collectors and a few gamers. Now, I have actually heard more Buffy AP threads than ST but that could be the boards I go to.

As to your solution, yes, an important aspect of any setting design is knowing where to cut off the detail and just hand wave. The tricky part is not to do it so late that the palyers/GM are left stranded without a mechanic should they wish to use it or to go so far that only rules lawyers will bother to play.

As an aside, one of the reasons I pursued this thread is that I have seen a trend in design to target experienced players. This is often done via abstracted meta rules or low level definition of rules. My experience, and yours may vary, is that new players are often comforted by a mid level of rules. The prefer a more concrete system. I am not saying you cannot do it with a rules lite or meta rules system, just my experience points towards the Monopoly player wanting to know that X does a certain thing and Y does a different thing. A property like Star Trek would do well by the hobby to introduce a lot of new players (and has done so to an extent). It would be nice to have a long running and sustained system behind the setting.

Meh. Such are my rambling thought patterns.

Bill

removed.

The Buffy situation: Buffy, or any 'Slayer' character is going to be much more powerful than any other potential supporting character (the rest of the cast).  There can only be one Slayer (genre convention).  To emulate the show, there needs to be a Slayer, and supporting characters who cross a spectrum of power down to the boringly mundane. Who wants to be boringly mundane when you can be a powerful witch or even the Slayer?

The solution used was to give the 'white hats'... er, the mundanes, more 'plot points' by a wide margin, giving them a LOT of influence over events in game even without the ability to directly affect things via their character.  Slayers, conversely, could accomplish a lot of shit, but had to do it by more traditional means (whopping ass and taking names being the primary one).

As far as I know, other than the way plot points are used, there wasn't a huge effort to mechanically model episodic play, which I don't even feel is an issue in game design. It's either easy or irrelevant, I'm not sure which... possibly both.

One thing that strikes me as problematic is the episodic nature of the setting.  Each location the Enterprise visits is often defined by a whole new set of rules and (in the original series, at least) part of the show's plot and running time, if not all of it, often dealt with learning what those new rules were.

The crew's encountered a powerful being claiming to be the greek god Apollo.  He appears omnipotent.  Kirk uses a female crewmate to distract him while they figure out how he gets his power and how they might disrupt it.

These sorts of things happen all the time.  It's like a cowboy show where the cowboys end up in entirely different movies every week and force them to work to their conventions.