TheRPGSite

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2314) 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.

Star Trek is bullshit from the grounds up, from an RPG view.

There is no way to keep it Star Trek and be a decent Adventurery Gamey thing, just like it is with Superheroes.

Either you fully go down the road to Thematic Story Creation, or you leave the Emulation of Genre to actually play in a closely related but not the actual franchise universe.


It´s that easy.

Quote from: J Arcane/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.

I counter with ?not the same thing". Riker's duplicate had been separated for years. Of course this would duplicate someone who would have their own life but you would also have someone with the same motives, goals and training so you would have one of the best soldiers many times over. However, from a game point of view, it is the "I die and am instantly reborn" that makes it tough. The "matter stream empties out of the transport buffer" is just weak. Terribly so. It is information and to claim otherwise is being purposely evasive. As information, it can be stored. They once recovered the doctor's pattern from several months earlier so they could cure her of the old aging disease. The problem here is that you would not have the crew eye-balling you, since there would not be a duplicate...the last guy is dead.

And in the end, it is not about this specific ability, the game would fall apart on a mechanical level (and has IMO at least two times) from a number of issues ranging from tactical to skill resolution to basic adventure motivation.

Again, I hope to be convinced otherwise but so far not happening. I would like to think in the grand scheme of things, that any story can be translated to an RPG but I fear that this is not the case. I am only picking on ST here because it is the easiest example of the issues.

Bill

Quote from: jrientsAssume 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.

:pundit: I consider this essential with dealing with any detailed setting. Such detail and materials are helpful of course for a GM looking for a springboard and there should be internal consistency within the campaign, but keeping that sense of wonder and openness while at the same time preventing setting lawyering is key IMO.

QuoteThe 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.

:cool: Yes please! :cool:

QuoteI 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.

That's what I hoped Enterprise would be, it rarely did that. IMO the best episode was the warp drive test flashback episode & even that had the Vulcan Overseer types. :deflated:

I've attempted a FASA Trek based campaign (swapping out the AP & counters combat with simple CoC combat) set before the movies loosely based in FASA's Triangle. Folded in detail and attitude from Prime Directive/SFB 'verse and other early period sources (similar to jrients writeup) and centered around a starbase. It didn't go far due to RL. While I'd like to revisit it some winter I'd also like to try the even earlier days setup sometime. :cool:

Quote from: SettembriniThere is no way to keep it Star Trek and be a decent Adventurery Gamey thing, just like it is with Superheroes.

I like reading your posts. Giggling is fun, especially when it's at another's expense. :D

Revisit Jeff Rients post, read how much he stays true to the series, how much emulation he plans.

Then revisit my post and learn of my superiour intellect that put it all in words before you can even begin to understand.

There is no Superhero roleplaying that

1) is truthful to the story structure of SH comics
AND
2) is following the three pillars of RPGing (D&D/RQ/Champions) design principles.

Superhero roleplaying is a chimera as is any genre emulation. They are the satanic evil idea that brought people into the Forgers vile clutches, after letting them burn in the purgatory of WhiteWolf.

Think what makes a Superhero comic, and compare to an Adventure RPG.
Either you violate the rules of the genre, or you go down the long and ugly way to   "collaborative story-telling".

Look, if you want a good Star Trek RPG, you just need to recalibrate the intertial dampers, set up a phase variant inhibitor, and hook up Geordi's visor to the canteen microwave.  This ain't rocket science*, people.

'Cause they don't use rockets, they use warp nacelles, obviously.

Quote from: SettembriniRevisit Jeff Rients post, read how much he stays true to the series, how much emulation he plans.

Then revisit my post and learn of my superiour intellect that put it all in words before you can even begin to understand.

There is no Superhero roleplaying that

1) is truthful to the story structure of SH comics
AND
2) is following the three pillars of RPGing (D&D/RQ/Champions) design principles.

Superhero roleplaying is a chimera as is any genre emulation. They are the satanic evil idea that brought people into the Forgers vile clutches, after letting them burn in the purgatory of WhiteWolf.

Think what makes a Superhero comic, and compare to an Adventure RPG.
Either you violate the rules of the genre, or you go down the long and ugly way to   "collaborative story-telling".

Yeah, but who gives a shit about this arbitrary "Adventure Game" label you've imposed. Of course if you set up a definition so that something doesn't fit you'll be able to come along later and say "see, it doesn't fit my definition!". And the giggling continues.

Quote from: SettembriniEither you violate the rules of the genre, or you go down the long and ugly way to   "collaborative story-telling".

If you go with the Settings as Backdrop and the game is about the "people", then you may be able to do it.  Painted secenry does not Have to work it serves its function by establishing the location for the scene.

It doesn't have to be "Story-telling" if the focus of the GAME is not the background items.  Maybe by being DitV like and dealing with violations of the Prime Directive.
=

Quote from: GreentongueIf you go with the Settings as Backdrop and the game is about the "people", then you may be able to do it.  Painted secenry does not Have to work it serves its function by establishing the location for the scene.

It doesn't have to be "Story-telling" if the focus of the GAME is not the background items.  Maybe by being DitV like and dealing with violations of the Prime Directive.
=

The problem is though, that back drop is fundamental to the interaction of the characters with their environment. The tools at the disposal of the savvy ST fan are formidable. The TV series has a convenient "Forgot how we did that" factor that RPG players will not go with. Yes, you could argue that Ensign Newbie does not have that information but that is seldom how it plays out.

And although I do not go to planet Hyperbole I with Sett, in essence this is the issue. I do not doubt you could get a group of friends around a table who are ST fans and play out scenes from the series or even improv scenes but, IMO, that is not role-playing it is collaborative story telling. Nothing wrong with that, but it is not a game. Originally, I was looking for other examples of settings that do not translate well and to see if others felt this transition was an issue.

So, no matter if you push the boundaries and make the game as much as possible about the personal interactions I believe that the issues still remain. For a physical representation of this phenomenon just look to the Lug Trek and Decipher Trek books. Weapons are too strong, technology too poorly defined, and no means of dealing with setting inconsistencies.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI counter with ?not the same thing". Riker's duplicate had been separated for years. Of course this would duplicate someone who would have their own life but you would also have someone with the same motives, goals and training so you would have one of the best soldiers many times over. However, from a game point of view, it is the "I die and am instantly reborn" that makes it tough. The "matter stream empties out of the transport buffer" is just weak. Terribly so. It is information and to claim otherwise is being purposely evasive. As information, it can be stored. They once recovered the doctor's pattern from several months earlier so they could cure her of the old aging disease. The problem here is that you would not have the crew eye-balling you, since there would not be a duplicate...the last guy is dead.

And in the end, it is not about this specific ability, the game would fall apart on a mechanical level (and has IMO at least two times) from a number of issues ranging from tactical to skill resolution to basic adventure motivation.

Again, I hope to be convinced otherwise but so far not happening. I would like to think in the grand scheme of things, that any story can be translated to an RPG but I fear that this is not the case. I am only picking on ST here because it is the easiest example of the issues.

Bill

Frankly dude, it sounds like you just really WANT this to be a problem for some reason.

Can't help someone who doesn't wanna be helped.

Quote from: SettembriniStar Trek is bullshit from the grounds up, from an RPG view.

There is no way to keep it Star Trek and be a decent Adventurery Gamey thing, just like it is with Superheroes.

Either you fully go down the road to Thematic Story Creation, or you leave the Emulation of Genre to actually play in a closely related but not the actual franchise universe.

It´s that easy.

 "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 spent too much time watching TV episodes related to the setting.

 "Adeventurey Gamey" ?  Again with that awkward term . Either its a game or its a roleplaying game. (usually if someone is "gamey" they tend to take a shower to be kind to their friends)


"Thematic Story Creation" (?!!?)  - Is that a euphemism for agreeing on a setting and not being a dick if you're a player?

 "Emulation of Genre"  ?   - You mean trying to get the game to seem like well-written Star Trek episode? Gee , thats just being a good GM.

  What is it all these funky phrases anyway ?  Plain english works just fine.

 Sorry for ranting folks....


- Ed C.

Koltar, Sett's just a Forgeite in sheep's clothing, as married to stupid jargon as the rest of them, and as prone to hypocrisy and prejudice.

He's not worth your time, and it's not even worth your time to bother puzzling out just what the hell he's babbling this time.

Quote from: HinterWeltThe problem is though, that back drop is fundamental to the interaction of the characters with their environment. The tools at the disposal of the savvy ST fan are formidable. The TV series has a convenient "Forgot how we did that" factor that RPG players will not go with. Yes, you could argue that Ensign Newbie does not have that information but that is seldom how it plays out.

I 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.

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, no matter if you push the boundaries and make the game as much as possible about the personal interactions I believe that the issues still remain. For a physical representation of this phenomenon just look to the Lug Trek and Decipher Trek books. Weapons are too strong, technology too poorly defined, and no means of dealing with setting inconsistencies.

You know, it might help to have an actual discussion about these issues if you'd give some specific examples. Like, in what way is "technology too poorly defined"? Or what's lacking in the "means of dealing with setting inconsistencies" department? What, in your opinion, would satisfactory "means of dealing with setting inconsistencies" look like?

Sett: Same goes for you, dude. You're fond of making these very general statements about, say, Superhero roleplaying, but you never explain specifically what you mean. The attitude I usually see is something like, "Oh, you know what I mean." Explaining your superhero point in too great a detail here would probably be off-topic (then again, you brought up Superheroes, Lord knows why), but it'd be nice to see you actually explain yourself once in a while.

Then again, if this is your only goal:

Quote from: Settembrinilearn of my superiour intellect that put it all in words before you can even begin to understand.

. . .then I suppose you're doing just fine. Keep on truckin' brother.

peace,
-Joel

Quote from: J ArcaneFrankly dude, it sounds like you just really WANT this to be a problem for some reason.

Can't help someone who doesn't wanna be helped.

See, I would say you do not want it to be a problem and if so, you will not see a problem. Believe me, I have tried to make it work and yes, if everyone is willing to play their part, it does. But let me stress what that means.

To play their part in settings of this nature means: To ignore, purposely, solutions that would be pursued in another setting.

For instance, teleportation spell is much like a transport except for some game balancing points.
1. No buffer. You (usually) cannot take a teleport spell and resurrect yourself.
2. Resource intensive. I just saw an episode that stated millions of people transport every day. Teleportation spells tend to be difficult to get and used sparingly.

Let me stress, when I have played successful ST games it has usually been when you turn off your tactical side and shoot for emulating the setting. My experience has always been an eventual breakdown, not really of the system, so much as attempts to quantify the setting.

In the end, I just may not be communicating it well, you do not seem to understand the issue if I understand you correctly. Perhaps it is more of a case that you have never observed the circumstances I have. That is also the kind of response I have been looking for. Either way, sorry to have wasted your time.

Bill

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 (http://www.voltaire.net/mp3/Voltaire-The_USS_Make-Shit-Up.mp3)*

(More Star Trek parody songs here (http://www.projekt.com/projekt/product.asp?sku=PRO00149&dept%5Fid=10).)



* (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 (http://www.voltaire.net/mp3/Voltaire-The_USS_Make-Shit-Up.mp3)*

(More Star Trek parody songs here (http://www.projekt.com/projekt/product.asp?sku=PRO00149&dept%5Fid=10).)



* (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

:D

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.

QuoteNah, Canadians usually get it fine.

:D

Quote from: SettembriniAre all Colonials immune to irony?

That's just us USA type Americans - you know us people who drink cold weak beer, chant USA all the time, shout more loudly in English at foreigners who don't speak English, think every culture's ambition in life is to grow up and be 'Mercan, wear ugly clothing, drive only SUVs, eat steak and hot dogs and bar-b-q and cheeseburgers, and think they fought both World Wars with a little help from the British. Y'know, God's chosen. All we can manage is a weak sarcasm.

-clash

Mmm, cheeseburgers.

They're wrong, but they're a good wrong.

QuoteThat's just us USA type Americans - you know us people who drink cold weak beer, chant USA all the time, shout more loudly in English at foreigners who don't speak English, think every culture's ambition in life is to grow up and be 'Mercan, wear ugly clothing, drive only SUVs, eat steak and hot dogs and bar-b-q and cheeseburgers, and think they fought both World Wars with a little help from the British. Y'know, God's chosen. All we can manage is a weak sarcasm.

Well it´s sometimes more polite to attribute a certain bad trait to heritage instead of the individual. If it´s X´s upbringing, that let´s him do Y, it´s more comforting. It´s not his fault.
It´s an easy way out, compared to attack any person that is stupid enough to take:

"I´m the brain god, bow before my wisdom and insight, mortal!"

seriously.

I like American Games. I think no one does cool games like those midwesterners!

FASA & GDW especially.

EDIT: Red Fox, I´m with you.

Quote from: SettembriniWell it´s sometimes more polite to attribute a certain bad trait to heritage instead of the individual. If it´s X´s upbringing, that let´s him do Y, it´s more comforting. It´s not his fault.
It´s an easy way out, compared to attack any person that is stupid enough to take:

"I´m the brain god, bow before my wisdom and insight, mortal!"

seriously.

It's really not my fault, I'm 'Mercan. We're all brought up to be Yahoos. I blame our parents, who are also 'Mercans, and thus not to blame for their Yahooness either. They blame their parents. It's a vicious cycle, sort of a bucking bronco on two wheels that we keep falling off of - or, rather, off of which we keep falling - which makes it more of a turnip truck. Since we are bumpkins who have no history, there's nothing there to be ashamed of - I mean, nothing of which we can be ashamed - so we have to do shameful things to catch up. Ketchup. Mmmm, cheeseburgers!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceIt's really not my fault, I'm 'Mercan. We're all brought up to be Yahoos. I blame our parents, who are also 'Mercans, and thus not to blame for their Yahooness either. They blame their parents. It's a vicious cycle, sort of a bucking bronco on two wheels that we keep falling off of - or, rather, off of which we keep falling - which makes it more of a turnip truck. Since we are bumpkins who have no history, there's nothing there to be ashamed of - I mean, nothing of which we can be ashamed - so we have to do shameful things to catch up. Ketchup. Mmmm, cheeseburgers!

-clash

Hey, if you blame parents and then parents of parents eventually you get to the British.

The irony however is how much of your previous post with minimal changes can be made to apply to us:

You know us people who drink warm beer, chant Enger-land all the time, shout more loudly in English at foreigners who don't speak English, think every culture's really rather wishes it were British, wear ugly clothing, drive only SUVs particularly when picking the kids up from school, eat fish and chips and Indian takeaways, and think they fought both World Wars with a little help from the Americans.

Quote from: BalbinusHey, if you blame parents and then parents of parents eventually you get to the British.

Since my Grandfather was a Frisian, I'm almost as much German as English, so I can spread the blame even further.

Quote from: BalbinusThe irony however is how much of your previous post with minimal changes can be made to apply to us:

Ah! So that's Irony! I knew the name, but never could put a face to it.

Quote from: BalbinusYou know us people who drink warm beer, chant Enger-land all the time, shout more loudly in English at foreigners who don't speak English, think every culture's really rather wishes it were British, wear ugly clothing, drive only SUVs particularly when picking the kids up from school, eat fish and chips and Indian takeaways, and think they fought both World Wars with a little help from the Americans.

No, no! That's not right! English drink tea with crumpets, shout out "Rahther!" and "Whot?" at random intervals, wear monacles, play cricket, carry umbrellas everywhere, have bad teeth, insert random "u"s into words, and view the world with the amused detatchment of a people who know most cultures at one time were English.

Jeez! I teach you everything I know and you still don't know nothin'!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceSince my Grandfather was a Frisian, I'm almost as much German as English, so I can spread the blame even further.



Ah! So that's Irony! I knew the name, but never could put a face to it.



No, no! That's not right! English drink tea with crumpets, shout out "Rahther!" and "Whot?" at random intervals, wear monacles, play cricket, carry umbrellas everywhere, have bad teeth, insert random "u"s into words, and view the world with the amused detatchment of a people who know most cultures at one time were English.

Jeez! I teach you everything I know and you still don't know nothin'!

-clash

I think you'll find that's the upper classes old chap, they died off in the late 1960s, the lower orders are quite different.

Well, apart from the teeth bit I suppose.  I believe they drink a lot of gin.

Going back to topic, are we talking original series, next gen or DS9?

Also, in actual play, what went wrong with LUG Trek and Fasa?

Quote from: BalbinusI think you'll find that's the upper classes old chap, they died off in the late 1960s, the lower orders are quite different.

Well, apart from the teeth bit I suppose.  I believe they drink a lot of gin.

Bah! Can't fool me! I watch Masterpiece Theatre! I eat yogurt! I'm cultured!

-clash

Oh, I get that you're trying to be funny, Sett. It just rings rather sour when the "joke" seems to be your only real, substantial point in post after post.

And you still aren't offering an ounce of constructive input, I see.

Max: I'm with you; original Trek is where it's at. I'd venture to say that other Trek series are successful only insofar as they capture the original spirit.

(A possibly controversial addendum: I thought Enterprise early on was actually really promising in this regard, though I didn't get a chance to watch much vfurther than a handful of episodes.)

Also:

Quote from: BalbinusAlso, in actual play, what went wrong with LUG Trek and Fasa?

I think this is the most important question to be answered for this discussion.

Peace,
-Joel

Clocking in a little late in the second round here.

I know how to play Star Trek.

Don't be a pixel-bitch and have fun!

The series has plenty of inconsistencies, because the writers only created the elements to serve the story and help suspend disbelief. A GM should do the same.

Uh-oh. . .

Roleplaying Star Trek relies on Trekkies not pixel-bitching?

I concede, Hinterwelt; it IS impossible. :D

Peace,
-Joel

Sorry, I had given up on the thread so it took a bit for me to notice the questions.

First, from the start, I have acknowledged that if a group is close knit, any setting, no matter how nonsensical, can be made to work. My line of supposition is can you have a game for such a setting? I still believe there are cases where rolling the dice/flipping a card/spending resource points is not a viable solution.

As to limiting it to one series, yes, this helps but does not solve it. This is not about my preferences or if I can run ST the RPG, it is about the difficult of translating cannon of your favorite story into a game system. I have had games in ST that worked but it was primarily a re-enactment of an episode. I actually had players say "Bit that is not what Riker would do" or pick you favorite character. It was not because they could not do something, but because they chose not to and made it harder on themselves. Specifically, I am thinking of a plot that revolved around the death of a crewman and another where they needed a specific ore from a low tech planet.

As to AP, well, I have given examples through this thread. Short and sweet:

A cavalier attitude erupts once players realize that all it takes to come back from the dead is transporter trickery. Yes, you can use GM fiat to screw with this.

Any firefight has beyond ridiculous lethality. "Take cover behind that building" is useless in LUG Trek and Decipher Trek. Again, GM fiat can solve this one also.

Replicating nigh anything (except the inexplicable latinum which somehow can go through transporters) made resource based missions tough. It seems beyond illogical to be able to disassemble an entire human body and reassemble it but you cannot make a simple dilithium crystal. Having dilithium mines (or mines of any type) just does not seem to be a logical extension of the setting. I have run up against this many times. Again, GM fiat solves it but I think you see a pattern forming.


In the end, Red Fox really summed it up. Inconsistant writing in the series makes it difficult (IMO impossible) to create a game from some settings (Star Trek being the easiest example). I fully concede that to resolve these issues you can:
1. Change the setting. Either put it in the dim past where canon is less of an issues although I tend to think the root of the problems still exist or just out ant out eliminate some aspects of the setting by denying canon.

2. Whatever you want to call it, GM fiat or player buy in, the group agrees to ignore some viable alternatives that have been proven in the past either by canon or by the group themselves. The "I forgot we have a shuttle that can travel through suns" issue.

3. 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

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=90363&postcount=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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=90363&postcount=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

Okay I'll post again in this thread.  I just got sick of the TREK bashing. If I want that I can go find some Sci-fi fans in the area and get that in spades - but that gets boring fast.

  STAR TREK is possible as an RPG.
 It just takes a flexible GM and players who are casual fans of one of the versions of "Star Trek".  Learned the hard way that Ga-Ga /gung-Ho TREKKIES make the WORST players in an RPG of "STAR TREK".


My most successful mini-campaign was a bunch of characters that were merchants in what FASA called the Triangle back in the early 1980s version of things.  
 I ran one group that was the Bridge crew and officers of a Constitution-class starship in the time period just after the original series. In that group my best players were 2 young women who had played in a Tunnels & Trolls before I met them.  They knew the  conventions of an RPG, they knew how to play a character. The WORST player I had in that group is the leader of a local ST fan club.  She was a supreme headache - she was playing the ship's doctor and we kept telling her to ignore what she had seen McCoy do on the show and just play what was in front of her.  One time I had to tell her : "NO , you are not going to your TV room just to find one  VHS tape to prove a poiint ...you sitting here and making the character's decision jusat based on what you remember. "  

My point is that an anal-retentive STAR TREK fan/player  is the same thing as a  Rules Lawyer in a regulkar role playing game.

 Only reason I really stopped running those games is that I left college and my circle of friends changed.  We also had conflicting work schedules at the time. Then I got into the costuming side of  "star Trek" fandom and I didn't want to overdose on that uninverse.

 Anybody have the copy of STARLOG magazine that focused on TERMINATOR II:JUDGEMENT DAY on the cover ?
 Look in the letters column in there. You will find a letter from an Ed Charlton defending the STAR TREK RPG and giving an example of a successful convention scenario.  Thats me , it was my letter.

- Ed C.

QuoteAn 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.

Yanno, I missed this before because I basically ignore Koltar, but this really nails it for me.

The problem is going into things looking to break them.

Actually, I think that Koltar's comment about a Setting Lawyer being just as destructive to a game session as a Rules Lawyer is a very acute one, and really gives an answer to HinterWelt's original posted questions.

Yes, pedantic and quibbling players will fuck up your game session. Whether that's setting or system ain't that important.

Quote from: KoltarOkay I'll post again in this thread.  I just got sick of the TREK bashing. If I want that I can go find some Sci-fi fans in the area and get that in spades - but that gets boring fast.

  STAR TREK is possible as an RPG.
 It just takes a flexible GM and players who are casual fans of one of the versions of "Star Trek".  Learned the hard way that Ga-Ga /gung-Ho TREKKIES make the WORST players in an RPG of "STAR TREK".


My most successful mini-campaign was a bunch of characters that were merchants in what FASA called the Triangle back in the early 1980s version of things.  
 I ran one group that was the Bridge crew and officers of a Constitution-class starship in the time period just after the original series. In that group my best players were 2 young women who had played in a Tunnels & Trolls before I met them.  They knew the  conventions of an RPG, they knew how to play a character. The WORST player I had in that group is the leader of a local ST fan club.  She was a supreme headache - she was playing the ship's doctor and we kept telling her to ignore what she had seen McCoy do on the show and just play what was in front of her.  One time I had to tell her : "NO , you are not going to your TV room just to find one  VHS tape to prove a poiint ...you sitting here and making the character's decision jusat based on what you remember. "  

My point is that an anal-retentive STAR TREK fan/player  is the same thing as a  Rules Lawyer in a regulkar role playing game.

 Only reason I really stopped running those games is that I left college and my circle of friends changed.  We also had conflicting work schedules at the time. Then I got into the costuming side of  "star Trek" fandom and I didn't want to overdose on that uninverse.

 Anybody have the copy of STARLOG magazine that focused on TERMINATOR II:JUDGEMENT DAY on the cover ?
 Look in the letters column in there. You will find a letter from an Ed Charlton defending the STAR TREK RPG and giving an example of a successful convention scenario.  Thats me , it was my letter.

- Ed C.

Hmm, It was not my intention to ST bash. Really, my point is not about ST but about translating some stories to RPGs and difficulties that arise. ST is the easiest example of this, IMO.

Let me ask some pointed questions then, if you are interested.

You mention that your greatest difficulty is with ST fans. Would you say that inexperienced RPGers are less problematic? The reason I ask is that experienced RPGers are going to game the system and, possibly, the setting a bit more than someone who is inexperienced and relying ont he GM for guidance. In other words, experienced RPGers will look at mechanic/tool/piece of equipment and ask themselves how they can use it and still be within character.

Second, do you think there are stories that make great stories but not so good RPGs? I am not asking about ST nor will I take an affirmative as an admission that ST is in this category. I am interested on your take on the difficulties or lack there of when translating a long running story with inconsistencies to an RPG.

Finally, you played FASATrek? Have you looked over or played LUGTrek or DecipherTrek? Do you see any difficulties with Next Gen/DS9/Voyager settings as RPGs? Again, this is really just my own curiosity as I have played all three and found FASATrek by far more sustainable than the others.

Thanks for posting again and sorry if you took this thread as merely a bashfest on ST.

Bill

Bill,
 You're alright.

 The difficulties that might arise translating stories to an RPG, ST in particular.

 Well, an ongoing TV show is pretty close to an ongoing RPG campaign - especially these days with so many Telewvision series trying to do the continuing story arc style of things.  They've have also discovered that shows with "arcs" sell better on DVD collections. When STAR TREK and STAR TREK:THE NEXT GENERATION were being produced , the "arc-style" of storytelling was not yet the fashion.  Thats one difficulty you are going to have right there.
 The original ST was being produced during a time when shows were supposed to be re-set to status quo after each episode.  that doesn't work so good for an RPG campaign - people expect an ongoing storyline.

 Your best model for a STAR TREK RPG is going to be either  DS9 or ENTERPRISE. Both shows had stories that carried over whole seasons in their consequences.

 As for RPGers , experienced ones vs. beginners. I can game with anyone who is well behaved and not a snot.  When you say they are going to want game the system or setting . Isn't just another way of saying they are looking for a loophole ? (like I  phrased it in my earlier post?)

I think I have avoided that issue in the past by asking experienced players to assist me in acclimating the new players. That seems to work out no matter what setting I am running.  Also, my group of players TRUST that I am not out to screw them...and they let new players in on that fact. There is no reason to jimmy with the fictional equipment or seting if you know that the GM isn't an adversary.

 As to inconsistencies in a long running story ?
 If you have spotted that TREK writers made mistakes - than you can correct that in an RPG campaign ...if you feel like doing that.  Or create friendly retcon explanation for an inconsistency  or work some way that your players solved the small issue . (whatever it is)

I played an GMed the FASA version of  Star Trek in the mid '80s to early '90s. At the time there was only one version of STAR TREK around.  I stopped gaming TREK around 1992. I did buy some of the LUG and DECIPHER books. (mainly for the maps and some were gifts)

The biggest problen with the later settings in the timeline is that they made the Federation TOO Utopia-like and the humans got  boring. There is even  dialogue on a DS9 episode stating that.

 Here are some situations/scenarios that might be doable :

A group of Bajoran resistance fighters in combat with the Cardassians BEFORE the Federation shows up to help them out. They have limited access to high-tech weapons and the ones they have aren't always reliable.

 A group of 5 top 6 MACOs - these were the Ground Troops Starfleet types that were put onboard the first ENTERPRISE just after the Xindi attack on Earth.  This group is stationed onboard the Intrepid and many times are fighting the Klingons and other races.

DS9/During the Dominion war  : The players are a mixed group, 2 Klingons, 2 romulans, 1 Bajoran, and 1 Starfleet officer human assigned on an intelligence gathering mission behind enemy lines. They have to pretend to be smugglers or pirates and get info on the Vorta and the Jem Hadar in the area ....and make it back to a Starbase alive.  

 Well those are just a few ideas.


- Ed C.

Bill, by-the-way I was born in your city. Dupage County Hospital  in the 1960s, middle of winter.

Koltar, you have indeed proven my point:

Star Trek is bullshit as an RPG. Now there might be a good game to be had within the Star Trek Universe, like yours.

But it will not be anything like the TV shows.


Which is exactly what I said, and what you now gave proof too.

Oh , quite the OPPOSITE , Sett.

 There has been SO MUCH "Star Trek" stories over the years  - that a lot more qualifies as being "Star Trek" than used to in the 1970s or 1980s.
 Even the TV SHOWS  aren't "like the TV Shows".


  The Tribbles episode classic STAR TREK is a LONG way from the Deep Space Nine episode  "In the Pale Moonlight" in both tone and style.

 There is a lot more variety to what qualifies as "STAR TREK" these days. There are book series set completely in the klinhon Empire, there is one series that just focuses on the Starfleet Corps of Engineers. I haven't read either one of those - because I burned out on TREK a few years ago ...but they just prove there is more than is dreamt of in  your TREK philosophy.

- Ed C.

Did you actually think it through?

You weren´t accepting the actual show as a source for common understanding of the Universe. You bitched and moaned about that "setting-lawyer". But that´s the point: you didn´t play Star Trek in that sense. And the one player who actually cared about Star Trek saw that. Now don´t tell me how succesful your Star Trek was, when you yourself provide the proof that it wasn´t really Star Trek.

It doesn´t get much clearer than this, that you can´t have a decent game and also emulate the genre at the same time.


So Star Trek remains bullshit as an RPG.

QuoteMy most successful mini-campaign was a bunch of characters that were merchants in what FASA called the Triangle back in the early 1980s version of things.

See. Merchants. Not Star Fleet Officers. I wonder why.

QuoteThe WORST player I had in that group is the leader of a local ST fan club. She was a supreme headache - she was playing the ship's doctor

So the person desperately wanting emulation of their show was the worst fit?

Quoteand we kept telling her to ignore what she had seen McCoy do on the show and just play what was in front of her.

...because Star Trek is bullshit as an RPG. That´s why you did that.

So if you don't play a Star Trek doctor as McCoy you're not being true to the Star Trek genre?

Does that mean that if I don't play Drizzt I'm not being true to the D&D genre?

QuoteSo if you don't play a Star Trek doctor as McCoy you're not being true to the Star Trek genre?

No, but in a Star Trek emulation, I should be able to do stuff that McCoy did. Elsewise it´s not Star Trek, but some RPGes derivate.

Now with Drizzt, he´s derived from an actual character. D&D purposefully is not emulating fantasy literature. That´s why it´s succesful.

You got it backwards, JimBob.

And if you would actually think things true, you would see that I´m right.

Quote from: KoltarBill,
 You're alright.

Good. I did not want you to feel this is all about ST. It has been something I have struggled with for some time, had discussions with a lot of folks who own games they feel do not work for the story and such. My goal was not to go after ST, just explore the problem one might face taking a story and applying it to an RPG rules set.

Quote from: KoltarThe difficulties that might arise translating stories to an RPG, ST in particular.

 Well, an ongoing TV show is pretty close to an ongoing RPG campaign - especially these days with so many Telewvision series trying to do the continuing story arc style of things.  They've have also discovered that shows with "arcs" sell better on DVD collections. When STAR TREK and STAR TREK:THE NEXT GENERATION were being produced , the "arc-style" of storytelling was not yet the fashion.  Thats one difficulty you are going to have right there.
 The original ST was being produced during a time when shows were supposed to be re-set to status quo after each episode.  that doesn't work so good for an RPG campaign - people expect an ongoing storyline.

 Your best model for a STAR TREK RPG is going to be either  DS9 or ENTERPRISE. Both shows had stories that carried over whole seasons in their consequences.

I agree very strongly. DS9 even more so. I am not sure what the root of that is but it may be as you describe that they had long story arcs. I do not know if they had the same writers for many of their episodes but that would be another factor.

Quote from: KoltarAs for RPGers , experienced ones vs. beginners. I can game with anyone who is well behaved and not a snot.  When you say they are going to want game the system or setting . Isn't just another way of saying they are looking for a loophole ? (like I  phrased it in my earlier post?)

Hmm, I may not have been clear on this. My point was merely an experienced player would have a better knowledge overall of how /RPGs work in general and thus know to look for certain advantages. For instance, a new player may not immediately understand that you need to know how to heal up and if you can come back from the dead. They may just assume you die and it is done (and that may be so with some settings). An experienced player is going to, most likely, pick their weapons based on damage potential instead of how it looks or "I want a phaser like Picard". Not always. I fully admit that I tend to think in terms of my character as opposed to the system but I have to admit, I do not always take the dagger as a thief.;)

So, yeah, someone gunnign for your game, either from system or setting side, is going to trash the campaign. I really am not talking about them. The opposite can be said about a group that does not care if a phaser can level buildings or transporters can bring you back from the dead, they just want to play ST the way they know it. Not rabid fans but just players who like the setting. I will always say, group trumps system and even setting every time.

Quote from: KoltarI think I have avoided that issue in the past by asking experienced players to assist me in acclimating the new players. That seems to work out no matter what setting I am running.  Also, my group of players TRUST that I am not out to screw them...and they let new players in on that fact. There is no reason to jimmy with the fictional equipment or seting if you know that the GM isn't an adversary.

 As to inconsistencies in a long running story ?
 If you have spotted that TREK writers made mistakes - than you can correct that in an RPG campaign ...if you feel like doing that.  Or create friendly retcon explanation for an inconsistency  or work some way that your players solved the small issue . (whatever it is)

I played an GMed the FASA version of  Star Trek in the mid '80s to early '90s. At the time there was only one version of STAR TREK around.  I stopped gaming TREK around 1992. I did buy some of the LUG and DECIPHER books. (mainly for the maps and some were gifts)

The biggest problen with the later settings in the timeline is that they made the Federation TOO Utopia-like and the humans got  boring. There is even  dialogue on a DS9 episode stating that.

I wont argue too hard on this. I have issues with the perfect society and the troubles it seems to cause, even for the writers of the shows. They desperately want the dashing rogue but what is he being rogue-y about? Meh.

I think the later series also suffer from a much higher reliance on tech and an over all political correctness. Yeah, you had racial tolerance with TOS but that was cool. It was during a period of history(when the shows were filmed and written) when you had serious racial violence. Next Gen always struck me as too polite. Kirk got in there and did some nasty (as nasty as ST gets) business. If you have not guessed, I am more of a TOS fan. ;)

Quote from: KoltarHere are some situations/scenarios that might be doable :

A group of Bajoran resistance fighters in combat with the Cardassians BEFORE the Federation shows up to help them out. They have limited access to high-tech weapons and the ones they have aren't always reliable.

 A group of 5 top 6 MACOs - these were the Ground Troops Starfleet types that were put onboard the first ENTERPRISE just after the Xindi attack on Earth.  This group is stationed onboard the Intrepid and many times are fighting the Klingons and other races.

DS9/During the Dominion war  : The players are a mixed group, 2 Klingons, 2 romulans, 1 Bajoran, and 1 Starfleet officer human assigned on an intelligence gathering mission behind enemy lines. They have to pretend to be smugglers or pirates and get info on the Vorta and the Jem Hadar in the area ....and make it back to a Starbase alive.  

 Well those are just a few ideas.

Good ideas but I worry when ever i introduce combat into the ST and remove the Star Fleet moral structure. Not to focus on ST but it is the topic at hand. The issue with Bjoran rebels is that they were all about improvising ways to kill Cardassians. That gets nasty with the tech available. Still, it would be an interesting campaign to run. Some ideas would be:
- A run to get antimatter to make some suitcase MAM bombs.
- A run on a biowarfare lab to liberate some elements for a cardaissian viral agent.
- Building a network of programmed sleeper agents made up of cardaissian soldiers. Manchurean candidate stuff.

Possible but I think again, mostly from a "limit their resources a lot" point of view.

Quote from: Koltar- Ed C.

Bill, by-the-way I was born in your city. Dupage County Hospital  in the 1960s, middle of winter.

I was born in Maywood but at 7 I moved to the upper peninsula of Michigan. Beautiful country up there.

Bill

Look,
 I  "emulated the genre" (gods I hate that phase!) BETTER than some of the writers of the TREK Novels did.  My players and some friends told me so.

  As for that one player. Her only frame of reference was what he smal narrow mind saw on VHS videotapes or LaserDisc circa 1983.
 Since then we've had Dr. Crusher, Dr. Pulaski, Dr. Bashir, Hologram Doctor, and Dr. Phlox. Different ways have been  shown of doing that type of character now.

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


 - Ed C.

Y'know, I want to ignore ST almost entirely and play in a game based on the aliens in Assignment: Earth.

Yeah, sorry that's so tangential.

Oh, and mrlost has told me some horror stories about running ST in the past.  From the Vulcan first officer who went completely insane and took over the ship to the engineer who decided to put a hand-held phaser on wide-array overload setting and "accidentally" cut the ship in half.

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.:p

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.

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?

Star Wars doesn't really present the kinds of problems that Hinterwelt describes, because Star Wars never made the mistake of bothering to explain itself.  

It lacks the internal conflict of presenting the setting as some detailed whole, when the underlying is just as simple as Star Wars pulp, like Star Trek has.

Quote from: RedFoxOne 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.

This is exactly what I was getting at in the other thread when I described Star Trek as being nothing more than an adventure serial.

It puts on sci-fi airs, and does a decent job of fooling you for the moment that there's more complexity to the technology and such, but in reality it's all just made up as it goes along as the needs of the plot and story require.

Quote from: flyingmiceIf I were doing Trek in the StarCluster System, which advances by year, I'd do something like allow the player to pick one noun and one verb dealt with by that profession per skill rank advanced, including training.

Example:
Engineering Profession

Nouns:
Deflector, Array, Warp, Core, Impulse, M/AM, Containment, Holodeck, Buffer, Transporter, Coil, Junction, Tube, Phase, Induction, etc.

Verbs:
Recalibrate, Reconfigure, Decouple, Align, Detune, Dump, Transpose, Transfer, etc.

For each word the PC can work into the solution, up to a maximum of the years spent in that profession, the PC earns a +5 to chance of success or quality of success.

Example: Lieutenant Reina Burns, Engineering, 5 years
Relevant skills: Electronics+2, Drives+3, Mechanics+2

Nouns known: Warp, Coil, Containment, Buffer, Junction, Phase, Array
Verbs known: Recalibrate, Dump, Detune, Transfer, Align, Reconfigure, Transpose

Problem: The Jandarian Scout is able to penetrate the shields

Lt. Burns: "Captain, it's possible... maybe we can Decouple the Phase Buffer and reAlign the shield generator Array..."

Captain: "Make it so, Lieutenant."

GM: "That sounds good! I'll give you a +20, but this is a long term task. I'll need 250 points of success each for Electronics and Mechanics, roll once every 2 rounds."

Lt. Burns' Player: "Ow! That'll take too long! I'll take a penalty to my chance of success and roll once per round!"

GM: "Cool!"

Captain: "Better get started, Lieutenant, we haven't much time before the Jandarian catches up to us. Once he does, we won't last long."

-clash

Good idea Clash and what I was trying for. However, to throw a wrench into it, here is how I would have dealt with it as a player.

Bring the industrial replicators on line in the cargo bay. Replicat 50 million tennis ball size neutronium spheres. Go to warp 5 (219 times the speed of light). Allow the scout to close. Transport the spheres at 0 relative velocity (transporters adjust for relative velocities in normal transports all the time) to meters within the approaching ship. Rinse, repeat as necessary.

Not as sexy as your solution Clash but something that could be reproduced ad nauseum with no chance of failure.

Bill

Quote from: J ArcaneStar Wars doesn't really present the kinds of problems that Hinterwelt describes, because Star Wars never made the mistake of bothering to explain itself.  

Except for the Midichlorians :D  (or however the fuck it's spelt)...(think of a happy place..think of a happy place)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RExcept for the Midichlorians :D  (or however the fuck it's spelt)...(think of a happy place..think of a happy place)

Regards,
David R

And thus we get "the exception that implies the rule".  The reason midichlorians piss everyone off so much is that they're trying to do the very thing that Star Wars is usually so good about not doing.  It's out of place, and horridly so.

Quote from: J ArcaneAnd thus we get "the exception that implies the rule".  The reason midichlorians piss everyone off so much is that they're trying to do the very thing that Star Wars is usually so good about not doing.  It's out of place, and horridly so.

I remember after Phantom, hearing stories from SW GMs of normally cool players getting all disruptive when it came to in character talk about the force.

"May the Midicholirians be with you"

"Can I get a shot or something...sounds nasty?"

"I thought you told me I didn't need to wear protection"

etc, etc

Regards,
David R

This thread reminded of something. A couple of months back, I worked up Jim Kirk in GURPS stats.  It was just after watching an enhanced epiisode of the original series that I did this.

Name: James T. KIRK
Race: Human

Attributes [80]
ST 10
DX 12 [40]
IQ 12 [40]
HT 10

HP 10
Will 12
Per 12
FP 10

Basic Lift 20
Damage 1d-2/1d

Basic Speed 5.5
Basic Move 5

Ground Move 5
Water Move 1

Social Background
TL: 12

Cultural Familiarities: United Federation of Planets (Native)

• .

Languages: English (Native)

• .

Advantages [79]
3D Spatial Sense [10]
Appearance (Attractive) [4]
Charisma (1) [5]
Combat Reflexes [15]
Luck [15]
Military Rank (Starship Captain) (6) [30]

Disadvantages [-125]
Chummy [-5]
Code of Honor (Professional) [-5]
Curious (12 or less) [-5]
Duty (To the Federation ) (15 or less (almost always)) [-15]
Enemy (Harry Mudd , irritating scoundrel ) (Less powerful than the PC) (9 or less) [-5]
Enemy (Klingon  Ship Commanders ) (medium-sized group, some formidable or super-human) (9 or less) [-30]
Enemy (Romulan Ship Commanders) (Small group (3-5 people)) (9 or less) [-10]
Fanaticism (Patriot , the Federation ) [-15]
Lecherousness (12 or less) [-15]
Sense of Duty (Comrades and Shipmates) (Large Group) [-10]
Stubbornness [-5]
Workaholic [-5]

Quirks [-6]
Chauvinistic [-1]
His shirt always gets torn in a fight [-1]
Likes to quote old Earth Authors [-1]
Not lock-stepped into the Prime Directive [-1]
Proud [-1]
Sweeping arm gestures [-1]

Skills [147]
Acting IQ/A - IQ+0 12 [2]
Administration IQ/A - IQ+2 14 [8]
Beam Weapons/TL12 (Pistol) DX/E - DX+2 14 [4]
Beam Weapons/TL12 (Rifle) DX/E - DX+2 14 [4]
Brawling DX/E - DX+3 15 [8]
Carousing HT/E - HT+1 11 [2]
Choke Hold (Judo) Tech/H - def+0 9

Computer Operation/TL12 IQ/E - IQ+2 14 [4]
Diplomacy IQ/H - IQ+0 12 [4]
Disguise/TL12 (Human) IQ/A - IQ-1 11 [1]
Elbow Strike (Brawling) Tech/A - def+0 13

Electronics Operation/TL12 (Communications) IQ/A - IQ+0 12 [2]
Electronics Operation/TL12 (Security) IQ/A - IQ-1 11 [1]
Electronics Operation/TL12 (Sensors) IQ/A - IQ+0 12 [2]
First Aid/TL12 (Human) IQ/E - IQ+0 12 [1]
Games (3-D Chess) IQ/E - IQ+0 12 [1]
Games (Poker) IQ/E - IQ+0 12 [1]
Intelligence Analysis/TL12 IQ/H - IQ-1 11 [2]
Judo DX/H - DX-1 11 [2]
Jump Kick (Karate) Tech/H - def+4 10 [5]
Jumping DX/E - DX+0 12 [1]
Karate DX/H - DX-2 10 [1]
Leadership IQ/A - IQ+6 18 [20]
   includes: +1 from 'Charisma'
Mechanic/TL12 (Aerospace) IQ/A - IQ-1 11 [1]
Mechanic/TL12 (High Performance Spacecraft) IQ/A - IQ-1 11 [1]
Mechanic/TL12 (Warp Drive) IQ/A - IQ-1 11 [1]
Navigation/TL12 (Hyperspace) IQ/A - IQ+2 14 [2]
   includes: +2 from '3D Spatial Sense'
Navigation/TL12 (Space) IQ/A - IQ+2 14 [2]
   includes: +2 from '3D Spatial Sense'
Piloting/TL12 (Aerospace) DX/A - DX+1 13 [2]
   includes: +1 from '3D Spatial Sense'
Piloting/TL12 (High-Performance Spacecraft) DX/A - DX+1 13 [2]
   includes: +1 from '3D Spatial Sense'
Power Blow Will/H - Will-2 10 [1]
Public Speaking (Oratory) IQ/E - IQ+3 15 [4]
   includes: +1 from 'Charisma'
Savoir-Faire (Military) IQ/E - IQ+3 15 [8]
Savoir-Faire (Servant) IQ/E - IQ+0 12 [1]
Sex Appeal HT/A - HT+2 12 [4]
   includes: +1 from 'Appearance'
Shiphandling/TL12 (Spaceship) IQ/H - IQ+0 12 [3]
Shiphandling/TL12 (Starship) IQ/H - IQ+1 13 [7]
Spacer/TL12 IQ/E - IQ+3 15 [8]
Stealth DX/A - DX+0 12 [2]
Strategy (Interstellar) IQ/H - IQ-1 11 [2]
Strategy (Land) IQ/H - IQ-1 11 [2]
Strategy (Space) IQ/H - IQ+1 13 [8]
Swimming HT/E - HT+1 11 [2]
Tactics IQ/H - IQ+0 12 [4]
Vacc Suit/TL12 DX/A - DX+0 12 [2]
Wrestling DX/A - DX+0 12 [2]

Stats [80] Ads [79] Disads [-125] Quirks [-6] Skills [147] = Total [175]

So, praytell, when in the series did Kirk ever fail a roll?
When was there ever any doubt that he´d win?
Is the GURPS: damage model suitable to model Kirk´s fights?

Quote from: SettembriniSo, praytell, when in the series did Kirk ever fail a roll?

 He failed a roll pretty often.  I don't feel like going through every story . (and he isn't my favorite Captain, anyway)  But he did have some failures along the way . You're saying this after 30 years of 20/20 hindsight.  The  version of Kirk that I did stats for would be circa the 4th year of that original 5 year mission.

QuoteWhen was there ever any doubt that he´d win?

 There was doubt - the first time you saw a story. Not after seeing it 12 or 14 times and becoming jaded. Example: Khan beat Kirk by being sneaky in their very first meeting. I'd say Kirk's player failed his perception roll that time.

QuoteIs the GURPS: damage model suitable to model Kirk´s fights?

Sure it is  - ever heard of something called GURPS:Prime Directive ?

- Ed C.

Yeah, gotta agree with Koltar.  I've been watching the original series every morning on TVLand for the last couple of weeks now (it's on right now actually) and I gotta say, Kirk doesn't win every round.  Far from it.  Even two-fisted as he is, he'll lose fights a lot too.

So, which episode ends in defeat?

Quote from: SettembriniSo, which episode ends in defeat?

Oh, there is one?

Quote from: RedFoxOh, there is one?

 Yes , "Errand Of Mercy " . No one wins and the damn Organians impose that treaty on both the Federation and the Klingons.  This set up the Cold War analogy for the rest of the original series.

 Also  the sort of follow-up episode "A Private Little War" - no one really wins in that one.  Starfleet and Kirk didn't "lose" , but  I would n't call that a win.

Most of Kirk's defeats took place in the middle of the episode. Then (IF they had a tad of good writing) we then saw him learn from his defeat or mistake and solve the problem by the end of the episode.


- E.W.C.

I wouldn't say he entirely "won" in "City on the Edge of Forever" either.

Yeah, like I said I'm still working my way through 'em.  I've never been a huge Trek fan.

My favorite episode so far is The Naked Time.

Oh, what was the name of the Oreo Twins episode? Where you had the "Police" oreo chasing the "Rebel" oreo. They get back to their word after millenium of the chase to find their world destroyed. That seemed a loss for Kirk. He wanted understanding and tolerence but the oreos really hated each other because they had different halves (one black on the right and the other black on the left). You think they would like that, they could use each other for mirrors. Oh, and one oreo was the Joker.

Kirk does not always win but usually his defeat was not total. That is the nature of a tv serial.

Bill

At least  they Show Toupee-boy (oops!) I mean Capt. James T. Kirk actually getting stressed or getting headaches about some of the situations he gets into.
 
 Thats the kind of thing a GM might want to give to a group of players.  you don't want to kill them off or  anything like that  - but do want them to actually think about the decisions their characters make. If they get REALLY into playing thir characters , then sometimes that stressed out or having a headache effect happens at the game table.


- E.W.C.

Quote from: HinterWeltOh, what was the name of the Oreo Twins episode? Where you had the "Police" oreo chasing the "Rebel" oreo. They get back to their word after millenium of the chase to find their world destroyed. That seemed a loss for Kirk. He wanted understanding and tolerence but the oreos really hated each other because they had different halves (one black on the right and the other black on the left). You think they would like that, they could use each other for mirrors. Oh, and one oreo was the Joker.

(geek) "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"  (/geek)

Hinter: The counter technobabble for your neutronium spheres idea is that the deflector sheilds are much more effective against physical debris at warp speeds... that's what they were invented for after all.  

One could also point out that 'sandcasters' SHOULD be the weapon of choice in FTL 'dogfights', but they obviously aren't in Star Trek for good reasons... they don't work, or tactics have moved beyond them for some reason. (deflector sheilds).

Quote from: SpikeHinter: The counter technobabble for your neutronium spheres idea is that the deflector sheilds are much more effective against physical debris at warp speeds... that's what they were invented for after all.  

One could also point out that 'sandcasters' SHOULD be the weapon of choice in FTL 'dogfights', but they obviously aren't in Star Trek for good reasons... they don't work, or tactics have moved beyond them for some reason. (deflector sheilds).

I doubt that there is enough energy in any starship to counter an impact of an object with the density of neutronium at 219 times the speed of light. Interstellar dust is one thing, tennis ball size objects with a mass of several tons is a different matter entirely.

Still, this is the kind of problem where the GM would just have to say "No. That does not work because I say so." Personally, I do not think it is "calculated to break the setting" just a good solution given available tools.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI doubt that there is enough energy in any starship to counter an impact of an object with the density of neutronium at 219 times the speed of light. Interstellar dust is one thing, tennis ball size objects with a mass of several tons is a different matter entirely.

Still, this is the kind of problem where the GM would just have to say "No. That does not work because I say so." Personally, I do not think it is "calculated to break the setting" just a good solution given available tools.

Bill

Umm, starships are powered by matter/anti-matter reactors.  I'm willing to believe that kind of power output can do a lot.

Quote from: SpikeHinter: The counter technobabble for your neutronium spheres idea is that the deflector sheilds are much more effective against physical debris at warp speeds... that's what they were invented for after all.  

One could also point out that 'sandcasters' SHOULD be the weapon of choice in FTL 'dogfights', but they obviously aren't in Star Trek for good reasons... they don't work, or tactics have moved beyond them for some reason. (deflector sheilds).

 Damn!! I SO wish I was running a TREK game right now, this week.  I'd steal that 'sandcasters'  thing and put it into the game as a "What The Fuck?" moment.

 Either the technology moved on....or after so many decades  they no longer have ways around that because they forgot about  the possibility of that defense.
COMMANDER:
"Science Officer, why aren't our beam weapons effective ? "
SCIENCE OFFICER:
 "There appear to be partuculate matter in the billions  that is rendering our weapon ineffective."
 COMMANDER :
 "They shot SAND at us ??!!?"

 You get the idea.

Quote from: RedFoxUmm, starships are powered by matter/anti-matter reactors.  I'm willing to believe that kind of power output can do a lot.

Agreed. However, there is a limit to their power generation...um, yeah, I have the same issue.

That said, they have beam energy weapons that can defeat the shields. Interstellar dust would be diverted (I believe stated in Enterprise and Voyager and possibly even Next Gen) by magnetic fields. Essentially, causing the dust to flow around.

Now, I was not suggesting you through dust at them. Neutronium is hyper dense. It is pur neutrons tightly packed in a fixed lattice. Teenis balls of this stuff would be formidable in rail guns but not practical since accellerating them to an effective velocity would not be feasible. However, if you could essentially materialize them with a relative v of 0 so that a ship moving at 219 times c you end up making a terrible boom. Even ST would not be able to handle that. Also, remember, I am not talking 1 but say, 50 million. Not all are going to hit but you would expect multiple hits at incredible velocities. Heck, the pursuing ship would not even see the balls before they were in their face.

Not trying to bust chops. I am enjoying the back and forth but I really think this is a deadly strategy. Many others could be applied but aren't because it would not make good tv.

I just saw part of a DS9 which is an excellent example. You had a good 15 seconds warning that a satellite was going to fire on a warp capable shuttle. Why did the not go to warp? Heck, they could even have kept examining the planet from the other side. However,the writer needed them on the planet and had to kill the holy person with them. In an RPG you would have to change that to be fired upon before you know it which is fine but one of the differences I have been trying to point out between stories and games. If a player has a tool, he should be expected that he will use it.

Again, just my silly observations on the matter.

Bill
(As an aside, do you ever notice that it is often difficult to have a discussion on this site vs an argument? I mean, it seems our first take is that our fav whatever is being attacked. I never meant this thread as an attack on ST but as a discussion on how to deal with inconsistent story elements in tradition RPGs. For the record, I think the thread has come around and posts from Koltar, Redfox and Clash are right on, good discussion stuff.)

Quote from: HinterWeltOh, and one oreo was the Joker.

wasn't it frank gorshim, the riddler?

:raise:

Quote from: beeberwasn't it frank gorshim, the riddler?

:raise:

Oh, yes, you are correct sir. Got my campy batman mixed up.

Thanks,
Bill

Well, Hinter, I'm not defending Trek by any means, but if the player were to suggest that Neutronium is too dense to be deflected then you have to point out the power requirements to make the stuff and the difficulties faced by the Enterprise when the tennis balls fall through several decks, wrecking the replicators in the process....

:D

But I agree with out, Often Trek used damn sloppy writing and it can make playing it as a game hard.

More ideas , some partially already used somewhere :

 The player group has to rescue a lost child in the tunnels of Janus VII  - the planet where the race of Horta live.  This takes place maybe 30 to 40 years after the classic show episode . The Horta can beplayed as NPCs...they are willing to help search - but their burning method of making new tunnels could be a problem...plus the still somewhat difficult language barrier.


2) The players are Star Fleet veterans reluctantly reactivated during the Dominon War . (Things are going that BADLY. ) Reluctant as in these people thought the war wasn't going to touch them or their worlds and they may be as far as 20 years after the Starfleet retirewment age. They are the crew of 3 to 4 Runabout -style ships intended to guard a convoy of merchant ships... then the Cardassians attack.....Chaos /all hell breaks loose...

3) The players are a team of Starfleet Corps of Enginers or Salvage team. This takes place immediately after the events of STAR TREK:GENERATIONS. The team has to get the old saucer section of the Enterprise flight-worthy, fly it slowly on impulse out of the star system so that the primitive culture bnearby doesn't notice.
 The player characters are all tech-types...not normally trained for combat or are Private contractors that Starfleet normally trusts.
 There is a waiting temporary warp ring waiting at the edge of the star system to take the saucer to the nearest starbase/shipyard.
Unknown to the players - there are Piratews waiting to try and steal the saucer to either sell it or convert it for their own use. (Or it could be Klingon allies of the Duras sisters, or Ronulans...etc..)


- Ed C.

Back when this thread was first active.... My manager at work was thinking of starting an RPG campaign setduring or just after the series STAR TREK:ENTERPRISE.

I asked him about it yesterday - and he said he just has got too much going on with the current campaigns he is in as a player  to start this.
 For awhile there he was really enthused. He even designed an Endeavour ship crew patch to use in the game.

I still think that is a good time period to explore - the era between ENTERPRISE and the Original Series.

 Its very "PRO-HUMANS" as the good guys ...and we can overcome almost anjy obstacle if we put our minds to it .

 Also, this vid always cheers me up :
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUmO-ELaR_o

 Gotta have faith to believe....you can reach any star.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarBack when this thread was first active.... My manager at work was thinking of starting an RPG campaign setduring or just after the series STAR TREK:ENTERPRISE.

I asked him about it yesterday - and he said he just has got too much going on with the current campaigns he is in as a player  to start this.
 For awhile there he was really enthused. He even designed an Endeavour ship crew patch to use in the game.

I still think that is a good time period to explore - the era between ENTERPRISE and the Original Series.

 Its very "PRO-HUMANS" as the good guys ...and we can overcome almost anjy obstacle if we put our minds to it .

 Also, this vid always cheers me up :
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUmO-ELaR_o

 Gotta have faith to believe....you can reach any star.


- Ed C.

First of, Ed, you need help. ;) That theme song sucked!!!!!

As for the time period, hrm, must say I do like it but for different reasons. I prefer the underdog aspect of the scrappy little starfleet and the alternative solutions it forces on the story. The Kirk Trek always struck me as being equals facing off, more of a cold war sort of thing. Enterprise strikes me as more of a facing what we can and running from what we must.

That said, I think you kind of described most of the ST universe. It has always struck me as a place where the rally cry was "We shall over come by routing auxiliary power through the main deflector!".

Bill