Episodic or Storylines?

[lstyer]

Star Trek, itself, was pretty episodic -- I've read somewhere that the original idea was that the show would be "about" the guest stars with the main cast acting more as connectors between the episodes.

That said, there were a few bits of continuity that popped up as significant story factors (as opposed to just background stuff). The Organian Peace Treaty certainly provided the dramatic underpinning of "The Trouble with Tribbles," though I can't recall if it was mentioned by name. Harry Mudd actually made two separate, though not particularly connected, appearances. Memory Alpha says that Kor was originally intended to return for "Day of the Dove," and Kang was created because John Colicos was unavailable. So continuity wasn't totally unknown in Star Trek.

The question, then, how episodic do folks think an "Old School Trek" campaign should be?

I tend to think that to duplicate the feel of the series, continuity and recurring "guest stars" should probably be kept to a minimum. To be honest, though, when I think about running a Star Trek game, while I'm generally interested in an "old school" feel, I have to admit that I'm drawn to the idea of recurring "guest stars."

[finarvyn]

My main campaign would be episodic, but there can still be a grand overlying theme. In other words, each main adventure should be quick and to the point, with some measure of resolution at the end, but there is no reason why some sort of "big picture" couldn't slowly unfold as the episodes continue.

I ran a game which was fantasy but (in my mind, at least) was designed to follow the Star Trek model. It featured a ship sailing from port to port, and each time they stopped there was some adventure to be had. Eventually a pattern emerged, that the captain was sending the crew out to acquire things at each port, and the crew figured out eventually that the captain was trying to assemble some sort of new weapon. So there was a behind-the-scenes storyline but not obviously at first.

To a certain extent TOS does this since there are reoccuring baddies like the Klingons, who are always trying to get their fingers into something they ought not be touching. TNG and other later Trek shows were obvious more about this, with more clear two-part episodes and/or story arcs that stretched over several episodes.

[aramis]

Due to the nature of Roleplaying Game advancement, I think the continuity needs to be slightly higher than TOS had. (Not to the point of DS9, tho'.)

More important, tho', is the sense that the PCs are the stars; unlike the shows, where guest stars are part of the episode focus, in RP the focus needs be on the PCs, tho' guest star PC's ARE possible (I've done so).

[finarvyn]

But in many of my RPG campaigns I've started characters off at 3rd or 4th level and never advanced them throughout the campaign. This could be a lot like TOS, where characters end each episode pretty much the way they started them and episodes could have been aired (or played) in any order.

My players don't seem to worry so much about advancement. They are more interested in the play of the game.

[thedungeondelver]

I'll be honest: I couldn't not run a story-line based RPG. Bablyon-5, and the new (heck, even the old!) BSG spoiled episodic for me. I always watch episodes of Star Trek with a keen eye for "continuity" now days, hungry for it!

(this doesn't mean I like it any less, though!)

[coffee]

I could easily run an episodic campaign, but I don't think the average player would wear it. I think the nature of a role-playing campaign demands some sort of continuity beyond the merely episodic.

[Falconer]

Personally, my players have never been able to remember anything from session to session. That is, nothing plot-wise that basically originated with me, the DM. What they absolutely do remember is the PCs, both their own and each others’. And those random, unexpected stories that result from the luck of the dice, reckless behavior, exceptional player cleverness, and so on—again, originating with the players or resulting from their interaction with me and with each other. Not planned by me.

So, I don’t know if that answers the question, but let’s break it down. Recurring NPCs? “It’s the PCs, stupid!” Oh, no doubt there will be recurring NPCs, including other crew on the ship, villains that made a strong impression on the players, and anyone else that the players choose of their own volition to contact as a source of information or assistance. In this sense, it may play out closer akin to TAS (which seemed to bring back a TOS guest star at least every other episode) than to TOS Season 1 post-Rand (where each episode was completely standalone).

I have to admit, as an excuse to transition back and forth with OSFB, I would be tempted to involve Romulans, Gorns, Klingons, and Kzinti more often than I would otherwise.

1 game session = 1 episode? I wouldn’t push that. I would say an episode is like a module. It can last two sessions or twenty. I like to run a pretty relaxed game with lots of exploration. A TV episode would, quite properly, show the cast walking through ruins or creeping through caves or running about the planet surface for mere seconds before “getting to the point” of the episode. However, in the RPG medium, to me, it’s delightful to make maps and discover things in every nook and cranny. So, each “planet” consists of a town, a wilderness, and a dungeon (or some variation of that formula). You explore them, get out of it what you get out of it, and move on to the next planet.

I do like the idea of an “endless dungeon” that it is always worth going back to to mine for artifacts when stumped. For Middle-earth Third Age, I would use Moria. For Battlestar Galactica, it would Kobol. For Star Trek, Orion.

The DS9 formula has been brought up a few times lately as an alternate format for a campaign. It is worth some consideration (though I would prefer to think of it as a The Trouble with Tribbles/The Ultimate Computer format campaign). I think a starship-based campaign is far more exciting. But perhaps at higher levels, when the Captain becomes a Commodore and the Lieutenants become Captains, it would be neat to look at those episodes and run a space station based, fleet-scale campaign. Much as in Gygaxian D&D you are expected at Name Level to basically graduate into Chainmail/FFC-style wargames.

Just musing aloud...

[finarvyn]

The other nice things about an "episodic" campaign is that you can use it as a default adventure if the regular game falls through for some reason. In other words, run whatever regular campaign you like, but if a couple of players can't make it then dust off the Star Trek game and run that. Even if months go by in between ST sessions, that's okay since there may not be a sweeping "big picture" plot to forget.

[theredpriest]

I like the idea of a game being episodic yet having recurring elements. Specifically, I'm talking about stuff like Space Seed/Wrath of Kahn or Mudd's Women/I, Mudd. There'd be the series of episodes, played over just 1 to 5 sessions, but elements from that can pop up a few (or many) episodes later to bite the bunch on the butt or to help them out.

I've recently hit the wall with long story line gaming. Over the past 2.5-ish years I ran my group though the Masks of Nyarlothtep and Beyond The Mountains of Madness. The first ran for about half a year and the second ran for over a year. Massive scenarios, such as these, contain an enormous amount of data, and tracking all that stuff is a pain in the butt for everyone involved. By the end, it was grueling for me and players, and while everyone had a good time, there was a collective sigh of relief when it was over.

[Drohem]

Just me two cents, but I would also do an episodic game with a few over-arching story lines in the background that bubble to the forefront every once in a while. This allows for dissociated adventures, player characters to come and go, and yet being tied together by a sense of campaign continuity.

To sum up, I would do both in conjuction with each other.

[aramis]

For me, an episodic campaign has no episode longer than 2 sessions. Otherwise, the hermeneutic of continuity kicks in, as people being present session to session becomes too important.

[finarvyn]

Mar 15, 2010 2:13:46 GMT -5 Falconer said:

Personally, my players have never been able to remember anything from session to session. That is, nothing plot-wise that basically originated with me, the DM.

I end up putting together newsletters and such just to remind the players what happened last time. A lot of my time is wasted in this, but otherwise it's like we start over each session.

I like the "Character Diary" idea from Amber Diceless, where players can earn XP for their characters by putting together game write-ups and things like that.