Sacrifice the Trek or Sacrifice the Game?

[Falconer]

Here’s a sort of philosophical train of thought for you guys to weigh in on:

1) Would you agree that D&D—a game based on a mixture of Middle-earth, Conan, Dying Earth, and more—is more fun than those games based solely on Middle-earth or Conan or Dying Earth?

2) Could it be, under the same logic as #1, that a “generic sci-fi” RPG has inherently more potential than a game based solely upon Star Trek? Both because it could use elements from any and all fictional sources, and because it can ignore any and all of them, in order to maximize the fun of the game.

3) To what extent are you willing to sacrifice the needs of the game in favor of a correct or pure Star Trek experience? To what extent are you willing to sacrifice being true to the Star Trek universe (I hesitate to use the word “canon” since that’s a whole ’nother can of worms) in favor of what makes a fun game?

No right or wrong answers here. Just curious if you have thought about this.

[finarvyn]

Think about it this way: the writers of Trek episodes were guided by, but not limited to, the other works in the Star Trek Universe. In other words, if a RPG is only allowing things that actually occured in Star Trek to exist, the universe would be a little stiff and boring. And maybe too predictable.

Allowing a mix of things makes things interesting. Is there any reason why the Star Trek characters couldn't encounter something like a Battlestar or some dark Sith trying to conquer the galaxy? They aren't in the Trek canon, but could make for interesting adventures with unpredictable outcomes.

That's why I'm intrigued about Thousand Suns, a generic scifi RPG which has some ideas taken from many sources and all put together so that I can do what I want with it. I tend to scrap the setting info in the book and simply apply the parts I like to the setting I like and play.

So: what I'd say is that a "true" Trek game needs to have the Federation, Vulcans, Romulins, Klingons, and other similar races. It should focus around Enterprise-like cruisers and use phasers, photon torpedoes, and the like. There should be transporters and communicators and tricorders. From there, one can allow things to get more loose and allow other elements to creep in. With the key elements in place, it's still recognizable as Trek and not some other SciFi universe.

Just my two GalactoBucks.

[rflowers]

Jan 18, 2010 18:52:22 GMT -5 Falconer said:

1) Would you agree that D&D—a game based on a mixture of Middle-earth, Conan, Dying Earth, and more—is more fun than those games based solely on Middle-earth or Conan or Dying Earth?

I do agree with that, although it's kind of hard to explain why. I have always felt like the elements of a certain "world" were too restrictive. There's something about the eclectic mix of fantasy elements in D&D that is more appealing.

Jan 18, 2010 18:52:22 GMT -5 Falconer said:

2) Could it be, under the same logic as #1, that a “generic sci-fi” RPG has inherently more potential than a game based solely upon Star Trek? Both because it could use elements from any and all fictional sources, and because it can ignore any and all of them, in order to maximize the fun of the game.

However, for science fiction, I would rather play in the Star Trek universe, rather than a generic setting. I just like the universe that Star Trek posits. (I would probably rather play a generic sci-fi game over a "Star Wars" game, though; "Star Wars" is only tangentially science fiction.)

Jan 18, 2010 18:52:22 GMT -5 Falconer said:

3) To what extent are you willing to sacrifice the needs of the game in favor of a correct or pure Star Trek experience? To what extent are you willing to sacrifice being true to the Star Trek universe (I hesitate to use the word “canon” since that’s a whole ’nother can of worms) in favor of what makes a fun game?

The issue of command, and obeying orders has been brought up elsewhere in this forum. I will gladly sacrifice that aspect of the Star Trek world - the hierarchy imposed by Starfleet - in order to enjoy the game more. As was mentioned before, landing parties, etc. behave more like old school D&D parties anyway...

[Grendelwulf]

Jan 18, 2010 18:52:22 GMT -5 Falconer said:

Here’s a sort of philosophical train of thought for you guys to weigh in on:

1) Would you agree that D&D—a game based on a mixture of Middle-earth, Conan, Dying Earth, and more—is more fun than those games based solely on Middle-earth or Conan or Dying Earth?

The playing field is certainly bigger. The canvas a bit broader. But one has to be careful; too may ingredients spoil the soup. Mixing elements, while fun, can take away some of the original source's charm. If you can meld them together in a sensible fashion, then it certainly can be more entertaining.

2) Could it be, under the same logic as #1, that a “generic sci-fi” RPG has inherently more potential than a game based solely upon Star Trek? Both because it could use elements from any and all fictional sources, and because it can ignore any and all of them, in order to maximize the fun of the game.

Of course, but then again if you take away the Klingons or Romulans as the chief baddies, so goes an element of time-honoured Trek. You can create new & unusual villains, but certain pillars of the mythology must be maintained.

3) To what extent are you willing to sacrifice the needs of the game in favor of a correct or pure Star Trek experience? To what extent are you willing to sacrifice being true to the Star Trek universe (I hesitate to use the word “canon” since that’s a whole ’nother can of worms) in favor of what makes a fun game?

I had a nearly 5-year campaign that started out with seperate playing groups in D&D, Marvel SuperHeroes, & Star Trek. Slowly I brought the playing groups & their RPG worlds together into one massive campaign where they all realized they were facing the same foe. It broke many 'canon' barriers, but it was as fun and wild as anything could be. I wouldn't change a thing. Well, maybe a few dice rolls if I could...damned heroes; no what matter what genre, they can all be a real pain!

Play is paramount. You can bend elements without letting things get too silly. Besides, it's fun to watch canon-rules-lawyers' heads explode.

Ciao!
Grendelwulf

[Falconer]

So it sounds like you want to keep some trademark familiar elements from Star Trek, but beyond that it’s a pretty wide-open universe where anything can happen and anything can be incorporated if you’re not too uptight about it. And this approach is supported in TOS itself. Right?

[rflowers]

Well, you wouldn't want to... oh I don't know, let's pick an outrageous example - destroy the planet Vulcan, for instance.

[Falconer]

Oh, you’re good!

[rsaintjohn]

Great set of questions and line of thought, and good answers so far. I've given some of this a lot of thought over the past year, but never got around to doing much philosophizing over on the Groknard blog.

Jan 18, 2010 18:52:22 GMT -5 Falconer said:

1) Would you agree that D&D—a game based on a mixture of Middle-earth, Conan, Dying Earth, and more—is more fun than those games based solely on Middle-earth or Conan or Dying Earth?

What I have grown to love about OD&D is the ability to play any of these settings, or settings like them, within the same basic ruleset. I look forward to playing in both the Athanor and Planet Algol settings this year because they are really evocative. But it's the custom settings and what comes with it (classes, weapons, monsters, etc.) and the players that ultimately make the game fun.

2) Could it be, under the same logic as #1, that a “generic sci-fi” RPG has inherently more potential than a game based solely upon Star Trek?

I don't think it's inherent, and I think a system and its mechanics will impact on a setting and its world-rules, for better or for worse. I would argue that a good RPG should have the ability (or flexibility) to support its setting and its tropes. That does not preclude the right RPG from being generic, though. Example: OD&D is well-suited for either Middle Earth or the Hyborian Age. But it takes some tweaking (classes and magic system, for instance) to do the respective setting justice. Fortunately, it's a system that lends itself to that.

Further, especially for pre-established settings, it takes some tweaking of the setting to make it gameable. And I think that's what we're getting to here with Star Trek.

Take BRP for instance. It's a system that has served a number of games extremely well over the years. But RuneQuest is not Call of Cthulhu, and both benefit from a customization of the basic ruleset.

And look at CoC itself. Brilliant game, IMO, that somehow (I suppose arguably) captures the Lovecraftian setting. But the CoC "investigator" approach to a game bears little resemblance, structurally, to an Lovecraft or Mythos story. So in order to make a great game, the designers both tweaked BRP, and constructed a gameable approach to the setting.

(really, this is all my opinion, I don't mean to state it as fact and admit I could have details wrong)

3) To what extent are you willing to sacrifice the needs of the game in favor of a correct or pure Star Trek experience? To what extent are you willing to sacrifice being true to the Star Trek universe (I hesitate to use the word “canon” since that’s a whole ’nother can of worms) in favor of what makes a fun game?.

Sooooo, having said all the above, my approach would be:

1. Find the system that the players like, and that lends itself to their playstyles and the Star Trek setting
2. Construct a gameable approach to playing in the Trek universe.

For #1, there is no end of systems to choose from, both licensed and homebrewed. Personally, I feel that emulating the TOS universe benefits from leaning toward light and flexible, rather than crunchy. For me, that means more focus on the adventure at hand, and less on the use of rules to construct rich character backgrounds and careers (D20, CODA, even FASA to some extent). At the same time, I'd prefer the system can address the things that make Star Trek different than Star Wars. We're talking about those things on this board right now. How should a phaser work? Command structure FTW? Starship combat?

#2 is the bigger issue, I think. Is the structure of TOS's weekly episodes and characters really well-suited to gaming? I think lots of people don't think so. The game Prime Directive (now being discussed here) took a clever approach through the construction of PC "Prime Teams" (the away team/landing party). FASA created supplements for merchants and Starfleet Intelligence. Uncle Bear argues that the game should be built around a small ship with a small crew with a starbase dispatching them on adventures (and others reply that that is not Trek, but DS9!).

Damn, this wasn't supposed to be so long.

I don't have the answer. I know that as much as I enjoyed playing in the Star Trek playground, a mismatch on the elements above could keep it from being fun. That says nothing of players who don't have matching visions of command structure and how to play it, how much time to spend arguing about canon, and so on. For me, system is important in that it support the setting very well. And I'm perfectly happy to play in and be true to the Trek setting. But I'm not convinced that the right structure for a fun game is built around the weekly adventures of a bridge crew about a Constitution-class heavy cruiser.

[Falconer]

Jan 19, 2010 0:36:46 GMT -5 rsaintjohn said:

Damn, this wasn't supposed to be so long.

It is an excellent post, and exactly the sort of musing I hoped to see. (It could have been a blog post!) I’ll try to take some of what you said and run with it rather than respond point-by-point.

Personally, I feel that emulating the TOS universe benefits from leaning toward light and flexible, rather than crunchy. For me, that means more focus on the adventure at hand, and less on the use of rules to construct rich character backgrounds and careers (D20, CODA, even FASA to some extent).

This is obviously something I agree with. I love how in The Conscience of the King, a situation comes up and it just so happens that Kirk and Riley, both characters we have seen before, have a personal history with it. The writers and the audience agree to delight in uncovering new details of the past (as well as present and future) as the storytelling proceeds. I love when a RPG works that way, too.

At the same time, I'd prefer the system can address the things that make Star Trek different than Star Wars. We're talking about those things on this board right now. How should a phaser work? Command structure FTW? Starship combat?

Right, but I think what you’re getting at is that these things are left somewhat vague in the show. Some basics need to get nailed down, enough so the players know what they can’t do, but so that what they can do is left open enough to allow them to be innovative. If you study all the episodes and connect all the dots and nail down exactly what you can do, then you have simply straightjacketed the players into recreating the show.

And look at CoC itself. Brilliant game, IMO, that somehow (I suppose arguably) captures the Lovecraftian setting. But the CoC "investigator" approach to a game bears little resemblance, structurally, to an Lovecraft or Mythos story.

I’m glad you brought this up, because it is an excellent example and I agree with you 100%. (Well, I still think skills are infuriating, but they haven’t interfered too much with my enjoyment of the game!) CoC has a great mood and character to it. At the end of the day, you don’t care that the story that has emerged from your game ended up a lot more like Indiana Jones than anything Lovecraft would ever have penned. You like CoC how it is because it’s a fun game. It feels Lovecraftian because the GM is able to immerse you in creepy 1920s New England somehow mixed with gods and ruins of the ancient near east delivered in a quaint, too-articulate Anglophile dialect. Or something.

This goes back to the whole question of what a RPG is. I have made the case that, just as no-one expects Star Fleet Battles to encompass the totality of Star Trek (of course it’s just a battle simulator... of course it is more warlike that Star Trek is otherwise...), neither does a RPG need to encompass the totality of Star Trek.

A RPG carries some base assumptions that go back to OD&D, and they just work. One is the “party”—the convention of usually 3-8 players each portraying one character. They work non-competitively towards mutual goals. Each character’s skills are unique and complement the others. Through clever play, they succeed. They improve their skills and gain importance over time.

That paints a picture of a story arc which reads nothing like a Lovecraft story. (Most aspects of Lovecraft are better simulated through board or card games.) It reads a great deal like some of Middle-earth. (Other aspects of Middle-earth are better simulated through war and other games, but the RPG aspect probably best simulates Middle-earth.) And it reads somewhat like a Star Trek story.

The point is, you can graft the “RPG story” onto any story setting and make it work. “It’s the window dressing, stupid!” The good news with Star Trek is that you don’t have to bend it backwards so far to make it work the way you do with CoC.

The game Prime Directive (now being discussed here) took a clever approach through the construction of PC "Prime Teams" (the away team/landing party).

I have no problem with that. Many episodes of Star Trek begin with just such a landing party reporting back (or failing to report back!) due to unusual circumstances. Presumably, for each such incident which forced the involvement of Kirk and Spock and McCoy, there were hundreds of routine or uneventful landings. My point is that what you spend your “game time” doing only represents a small fraction of what happens to a starship crew.

I would make the case that it matters very little whether or not you accept the silly Star Trek television convention that the “main characters” function both as a ship’s “prime team” and command staff. I have often read it suggested that players create two or more PCs, one for command and one for landing party situations. Personally, I figure why not suspend your disbelief and just go with the convention, and let the PCs stand in for Kirk and Spock and McCoy, i.e. “doing everything”. With the understanding that the “weekly episode” that they star in does not really represent an ordinary “day in the life”.

(Now this really wasn’t supposed to be so long!)

[Badelaire]

I've always been a setting scavenger at heart. For me, playing a Star Trek game would not be about Star Trek, but about all the things that make me like Star Trek (and I feel there is a distinction between the two).

It also depends on your player base. I've so often found that RPG campaigns based on specific source material can be more trouble than they are worth. Trying to hit the right blend of authenticity and playability is nigh impossible, not just from a GMing perspective, but from the POV of the players. The more "into" the Star Trek universe a player is, the more annoyed they might be when something they love is changed. Likewise, a character who cares little for the canon might get annoyed or frustrated with setting conventions that everyone wants to adhere to.

This is why I'd aim for a home-grown ST-like campaign setting that gives the "flavor" of ST without it actually being set in the ST universe. Once you take that one-step removal, a lot of the squabbling can be circumvented.

[My Name is Mudd]

Personally, I like a setting with breathing room for creativity. The best part about the classic ST setting over the latter series, was that it was a frontier in the truest sense - full of uncharted mysteries, and never before seen strangeness!

I have no issue with incorporating elements of other fiction into an established fiction. When I played a Gamma World/AD&D game based on the classic Thundarr the Barbarian cartoon, a player said "I don't remember seeing any blood or half-naked (topless) women on that show?", and the Ref said "Thundarr was a show made for Sunday morning programs, and was bound by censorship; here, its a vary open-ended setting for adults, and not bound by Broadcast Standards and Practices!". Upholding the spirit of a setting is one thing, being a slave to it is another!

I'm also not above added a bit of TNG into the TOS. I'm not a fan of what they did with TNG, but I did like what they did with the Ferengi before they made them into "Jews in Space" styled super-yuppies. I kinda liked how they started of as super-strong troll dolls, that played out like little greedy/savage Hyborian raiders; who's greed (and enjoyment of naked ladies) seemed more of a well-deserved cultural stereotype, then religious dogma. That might be the only thing I would incorporate into the TOS setting - that and Risa, the pleasure planet.

[finarvyn]

Jan 19, 2010 11:10:42 GMT -5 Badelaire said:

I've always been a setting scavenger at heart. For me, playing a Star Trek game would not be about Star Trek, but about all the things that make me like Star Trek (and I feel there is a distinction between the two).

This is an excellent point. I once ran a fantasy game which I patterned strongly after Star Trek, but the players never knew for certain what was my inspiration.

I had the players in a flying steamship called the D.S.S. Endeavor (D.S.S. = dwarven steam ship) which was crewed by a bunch of dwarves (which we called "redshirts") and a bunch of officers who were mostly player-characters. The ship mostly sailed and/or steamed on the water, but sometimes would activate a "levitation drive" where they could stay aloft for a few hours before they ran out of levitation power and had to drop down again to recharge. I used spell points from the magic users as "fuel" to recharge the batteries.

The ship would appear in a place, have a short one-or-two session adventure, then next time would be somewhere else entirely. I didn't worry about mapping things out, but instead just let them appear places and assume that the time in between game sessions was spent in boring travel from place to place. Some of the missions required that they go get something needed by the ship, sometimes they would encounter a city and negotiate for supplies, or whatever.

Anyway, the point is that in many ways Star Trek is a style of storytelling as much as it is a collection of specific characters.

[coffee]

Jan 21, 2010 14:42:23 GMT -5 finarvyn said:

Anyway, the point is that in many ways Star Trek is a style of storytelling as much as it is a collection of specific characters.

This is exactly the sort of insightful distillation of information that I've come to appreciate from you. Have an exalt for this!

[finarvyn]

Jan 25, 2010 2:59:07 GMT -5 coffee said:

Jan 21, 2010 14:42:23 GMT -5 finarvyn said:

Anyway, the point is that in many ways Star Trek is a style of storytelling as much as it is a collection of specific characters.

This is exactly the sort of insightful distillation of information that I've come to appreciate from you. Have an exalt for this!

Yeah, but I had to ramble for 3 paragraphs before I got to that insightful distillation of information. Maybe you just need to skip most of my post and just pop down to the closing line...

[michaeltaylor]

Jan 18, 2010 18:52:22 GMT -5 Falconer said:

Here’s a sort of philosophical train of thought for you guys to weigh in on:

1) Would you agree that D&D—a game based on a mixture of Middle-earth, Conan, Dying Earth, and more—is more fun than those games based solely on Middle-earth or Conan or Dying Earth?

2) Could it be, under the same logic as #1, that a “generic sci-fi” RPG has inherently more potential than a game based solely upon Star Trek? Both because it could use elements from any and all fictional sources, and because it can ignore any and all of them, in order to maximize the fun of the game.

3) To what extent are you willing to sacrifice the needs of the game in favor of a correct or pure Star Trek experience? To what extent are you willing to sacrifice being true to the Star Trek universe (I hesitate to use the word “canon” since that’s a whole ’nother can of worms) in favor of what makes a fun game? 

1) Not at all. Even as a kid I thought the ridiculous hodge-podge of "Gonzo D&D" led to ...well nothing but boring Hack & Slash games. Far, far less fun that actually roleplaying in an internally consistent world.

2) Not at all. It doesn't get more "generic" than Traveller and I can tell you from a lot of playing and running that it's very openness is in fact a liability. It tends to become a hodge-podge of settings, but ultimately the games are usually the same - pretty much exactly like "Firefly". 

3) That's kind of a loaded question. What is "correct or pure" Star Trek? I can't think of anything more FALSE to the Star Trek Universe than TNG, Voyager, Enterprise and only slightly less DS9, so really it's already well-established that the Star Trek Universe is pretty much whatever each author wants to add. I don't think the needs of the game and the flavor of Star Trek are incompatible at ALL. In fact, Star Trek is about the perfect gaming universe. 

You could argue that you can't be criminals in Star Trek like you can in Traveller, but I'd completely disagree. There ARE criminals in Star Trek (Mudd, Cyrano) and if that was the direction players wanted to take it in, it could certainly be done. But ultimately Starfleet by its very nature meets all the needs of the game in a way that a more open-ended setting just can't.