Sacrifice the Trek or Sacrifice the Game? Jul 19, 2016 14:14:30 GMT -5
Post by aramis on Jul 19, 2016 14:14:30 GMT -5
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.
If you Say "Thundar–based", I'm going to assume Broadcast S&P limits on the gore and nudity, unless you're explicit about adding those before the pitch. That's not being a slave, that's pare of the feel of Thundar vs, oh, say John Carter or Conan... both of which have looser apparel standards and far more purple prose.
Prime Direcrive maintains the tone but changes genre. What you've described is maintaining the genre but not the tone.
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.
1) D&D is its own genre, but is closest to Dying Earth, and only notably so prior to Suplement I.... Adapting D&D to ME or to Conan can be made to work, but is always inferior to a game modeling the realities of the settings. D&D doesn't even do Dying Earth all that well. Which is part of why I have GRAVE MISGIVINGS about the "D&D 5e compatible" line coming from C7. I know, being C7, it will be pretty. I doubt it will be close enough to D&D for the hardcore D&D fans, and I doubt it will be ME enough for me.
2) Potential as a game? yes. Appeal as a game? no. GURPS Space made almost no inroads in the market until it got tied to a decent setting. Spacemaster likewise. Alternity, also. Generic Sci Fi is a recipe for both commercial and artistic failure.
3) If I play a game focused upon an established setting, it better bring big chunks of setting feel in the mechanics. Decipher's trek failed at this, FASA's and LUG's worked rather well (FASA's better than LUG's). Prime Directive isn't actually modelling Trek (It models the SFU of SFB), but for me, it feels better than FASA for the action-TV-show model. When I get the Urge to run the Trek Genre sans the Trek Setting, I grab S&S 1E. (I think 2E is a dog tht should be taken out back and shot.)