Trek gaming - what's that about?

[irdaranger]

Hey folks,

I'm here because Falconer posts at some of the same Old School D&D boards I do (he also has a mean Dragonlance repository I'm totally jealous of). But I don't play in a Trek game, and never have.

Here's the thing - I've played a lot of different RPGs, but the Trek ones were one category that never appealed to me. I liked TOS too, and thought the II, III and IV movies were awesome. There are only a handful of movies I've seen more often than Star Trek IV.

But like I said, I never felt the urge to play in the Trek universe, despite my interest in role playing generally. And I'm not sure why, or what others see in it.

This is an honest question, because I like and respect several of the posters on this board (especially Falconer, Finarvyn and Dan Proctor) but the appeal here is mysterious. Can anyone explain it? What do you do in a Star Trek RPG?

I guess I should make one thing clear - I have less interest in "licensed" games as a rule. I'm similarly disinterested in the Firefly or Babylon 5 RPGs, despite absolutely loving both of those shows (and the Serenity movie). Maybe there's something there that I'm missing, but I feel like "canon" or "the real storyline" often overpowers any attempts to play in the universe generally. The universe feels too small, whereas as in D&D there seem like more unlimited adventure.

What am I missing?

[gorillaspawn]

I only recently started to develop an interest in this. What I find appealing about the idea is mainly the idea that you can go on adventures to different alien planets, on various missions, exploring alien ruins, finding oddball technology, etc. IMHO the original series of Star Trek is a great model for essentially doing "D&D in space." There are all kinds of things that can happen, and I'd even say that many times we are dealing with science fantasy. I think each game table can emphasize different aspects depending on peoples' interests. Space combat may be more interesting to some people, or the military aspects to others, etc. I think one key thing is to decide what your basis is and toss out any "canon" that doesn't work for you. I think this is why some people have trouble with trek games, in trying to remember all of the races, politics, etc. etc. of the franchise. Also, I think this is a problem with Prime Directive. While it's true that the imagery is very TOS, there is so much added stuff to it that it's a bit overwhelming. I think starting out with the TOS, maybe the animated version too or some combination, is a great way to start.

[aramis]

Fundamentally, for me, the appeal is the genre, more than the specific trek setting. (Hence why I'm pulling together an S&S game, not properly a Trek game.) But then, my buddies and I played BSG, Trek and Star Wars instead of cowboys and indians or cops'n'robbers back before we knew there were such things as RPG's.

The appeal is to be the ones making the difference, I think, rather than playing the main leads (tho' I've run Trek games that way for demos). The licensed settings for Trek have the advantage of instant familiarity, and (in TOS) an impression that while the Enterprise might be the best in fleet, it isn't by a whole bloody lot. So, I'm gonna throw some challenges at a group of starting S&S characters, who are boldly going where no Confed Space Fleet Service ships have gone before. Assuming, of course, that they don't get themselves blown up, eaten, disintegrated, mind-melted, or otherwise mutilated along the way. (Yes, guys, this is the warning that PC's don't have script immunity. )

As a GM, I do like licensed games when, and only when, they support the setting well mechanically. Also, they need to provide enough information on the setting, but not force you into replaying the source show/novel/movie because there's no room left. They speed up teaching the setting, because the players already know the setting. They provide for additional hooks, since players already understand what "normal" is for the setting, based upon the show.

of the various licensed games I've run since I got married (15 years ago tomorrow)...
Some did it really well: Star Wars D6, BTVS, Angel, Ghostbusters, Mouse Guard
Some did it OK: Marvel Super Heroes, James Bond 007, Serenity, FASA Trek, LUG Trek, Decipher Trek
Some did it poorly or worse: TSR Conan, Red Dwarf, Buck Rogers, GURPS Ogre
Some stripped the license out, and left just the genre: S&S, V&V, Champions, Bunnies and Burrows.
A few hit what they were aiming for but that wasn't what many expected: DL5A, Prime Directive 1st Ed, Babylon Project.
And a few leave me wondering what kind of drugs they were on: Dallas, Necroscope, Tank Girl

And a few, I bought just for reading materials about the setting: GURPS Vorkosiverse, GURPS IOU, GURPS Prime Directive.

[Falconer]

Welcome, Irda Ranger!

Yeah, I totally agree with what Dan said. The reason I prefer to limit the basis of my game to TOS only (not even the movies, though I like the ones you mentioned well enough) is that TOS episodes tended to be stand-alone sci-fi stories, and as such there didn’t really develop much of a canon. So, it’s easy to make it your own, and easy to turn it in a lot of different directions. Sword & Planet? Age of Sail? Cold War? Pirates? Time Travel? High Fantasy? TOS did it all.

It’s true that you can do that with homebrew, too. And I think there is some validity to the idea that maybe it’s better in the long-run to do a homebrew based on Trek rather than Trek itself, because even minimalistic canon can stifle creativity. But, to quote Kanterman’s designer notes:

I chose to use Star Trek as a base for the design of S&S for two purposes. Most importantly, I felt that Star Trek was a well-known phenomenon with wide popular appeal. Therefore, the “rationale” and general course of play would be easily comprehended by players of the game. Prolonged explanations and rationalizations, as are employed in many other science fiction games, would not be necessary, and the gamemaster would not be faced with huge gaps in the designer’s intentions that he must divine before creating his corner of the galaxy. As an extra bonus, S&S has proven to be particularly well-suited to introducing novices and nongamers into the world of gaming: all the gamemaster has to say is, “this is a role-playing game based on Star Trek” and everybody knows what he’s talking about and can get into playing the game.

It’s like when you introduce a new gamer to D&D and say, “Have you ever read The Hobbit? It’s basically of like that.” Or whatever.

By the way, when I say limit it to TOS only, I mean only as far as Star Trek. I like to throw in ideas from other sources, like Burroughs or Brackett.

[tatterdemalion]

Apr 28, 2010 14:58:14 GMT -5 Falconer said:

because even minimalistic canon can stifle creativity.

Well, only if you don't feel like you have a firm hand on it. I'm pretty sure I could justify any damn thing I wanted and have it fit snugly within canon.

[lstyer]

For my part, I just feel like Star Trek's setting is a good fit for Roleplaying, particularly TOS, which had a sort of "wild west" feel. The military nature of Star Trek is very conducive to putting together a party who have reason to "adventure" together. There's a good chance that any given gamer is at least superficially familiar with Star Trek, so that provides an instant mental picture of the physical setting. Finally, again particularly in TOS, with few exceptions the episodes tend not to be so high stakes that "other stories" would seem unimportant.

[Grendelwulf]

A die of any-numbered sides rolls just as sweet...in any RPG!

I agree with many of the sentiments above. It depends on what you want from the genre. If you are a Trek loyalist, than hop right in aboard an Enterprise-like ship and warp away. If you want a darker, more combative game you can play Klingons, Romulans, etc. Maybe your a mercenary team traveling around on free-lance missions for the highest bidder. Maybe you are a part of a Federation "Special Security" squad that gets into espionage & high-priority "recovery" missions, etc.

Have fun crossing genres. Imagine the AD&D module S3: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks from the viewpoint of a Federation crew. Make the crashed spaceship a survey or colony ship that your ship just picked up a distress call from. Prime Directive falls into place & you have to "dungeon-crawl" with the natives so as not to arouse suspicion.

The possibilities are endless...

Ciao!
Grendelwulf

[finarvyn]

The thing about "licensed" settings for me is that when I read/watch them I don't want the story to end, and RPG gaming gives me the chance to keep the stories alive. When I read/watch Conan, Elric, Barsoom, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, or many others, I like the feel of the genre and want to play something that feels like the book/movie.

Perhaps it's the part of me who always wanted to be a writer. I think "hey, I'd love to write about that setting" and this gives me a way to do it. (Sort of.)

Settings designed to be RPGs don't have that same appeal to me. I love to play in Blackmoor and Greyhawk, but more for the experience than to continue a story.

Having said all that, I think that Star Trek is a particularly tough setting to do since so much of it relies on a military chain of command. A character can't just go off and adventure without some measure of permission from a superior.

[Drohem]

May 2, 2010 14:49:57 GMT -5 finarvyn said:

Having said all that, I think that Star Trek is a particularly tough setting to do since so much of it relies on a military chain of command. A character can't just go off and adventure without some measure of permission from a superior.

That's a very good point. I've found that it really takes a good mix of players to be able to pull off any kind of game where there's a chain of command and one of the PCs is in charge.

[Falconer]

I do not see how it is functionally any different from a Caller in D&D. I know to some people it is different, and some people do not like the concept of a Caller in the first place, but I have no problem with it, personally.

[Drohem]

May 3, 2010 11:01:52 GMT -5 Falconer said:

I do not see how it is functionally any different from a Caller in D&D. I know to some people it is different, and some people do not like the concept of a Caller in the first place, but I have no problem with it, personally.

YMMV, and all that. ;D

I'm sure that everyone's experience is a little different and unique to an extant. I played the party Caller for my group's AD&D games, and I was only acting as a single point of contact between the players and the DM for party decisions. Our group usually discussed issues and choices, and then I would relate our consensus to the DM.

IMO, and experiences, having a PC being in a position of command over other PCs in-game has been difficult, contentious, and tenuous at best. At least in my group, where we had two players that we called Chaotic Tim and Chaotic John.

[Falconer]

Well, it seems like half of the time spent on TOS is “discussing issues and choices” between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy (or whoever happens to be present in that episode). I’m just sayin’!

[Drohem]

Ah, I see. Yeah, in that regard, I see what you are saying.

[irdaranger]

May 3, 2010 11:01:52 GMT -5 Falconer said:

I do not see how it is functionally any different from a Caller in D&D. I know to some people it is different, and some people do not like the concept of a Caller in the first place, but I have no problem with it, personally.

I've never once been shot for mutiny for ignoring the Caller's orders and telling him to sod off.

May 2, 2010 14:49:57 GMT -5 finarvyn said:

The thing about "licensed" settings for me is that when I read/watch them I don't want the story to end, and RPG gaming gives me the chance to keep the stories alive. When I read/watch Conan, Elric, Barsoom, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, or many others, I like the feel of the genre and want to play something that feels like the book/movie.

I think this is key (for me, anyway). I don't have any wish to "keep the story going." Whether we're talking Han Solo, James Kirk or Mal Reynolds, I'm always content to let the writers for that property handle the story, even if they screw it up (cough, BSG series finale, cough, Jar Jar). I have too much fun making up my own characters.

So then the question becomes - is the inspirational source material "big enough" to accommodate stories other than the ones told in the original properties. For D&D it clearly is, if only because there are so many different inspirational sources. I also feel that Star Wars can do that, as well as Middle Earth. But Star Trek feels too limited to me, particularly with the Federation's pan-galactic chain of command.

I feel the same about Firefly and quintupley so for BSG.

Plus, let's me honest, while I'm a fan of Jim Kirk, I like playing Conan, Grey Mouser, and Nakor the Isalini. Those sorts just don't fit in well in any kind of hierarchy.

[finarvyn]

Where Jim Kirk "wins" is that he's captain of a ship far away from Federation authority. Sure, he eventually has a boss to report to, but in general he's the guy at the top. That's the same allure that Conan, Grey Mouser, etc, have -- they don't have to follow anyone's lead but instead get to blaze their own trail.

So, playing Jim Kirk in a RPG could be fun. Playing Scotty's third assistant engineer might not be so cool.