Good Star Trek RPG for the kind of player/GM I am.
fanboy2000
Adventurer
Last Unicorn Games did, IIRC, three Start Trek Based games. One based on TNG, one on DS9, and one on the Original Series. While they all used the same system, each book was a self contained game with character gen, rules, and GM advice.
While I have the TNG and DS9 books, plus an adventure, I haven't had a chance to play it.
The Decipher game covered all of ST up to that point. (First Contact, IIRC) So, it's a little more unified.
But like you said, SFB also has Prime Directive. Prime Directive comes in three flavors: GURPS, d20, and d20 Modern. So take your pick, really.
Also, if you like miniature game, there is a light version of SFB called Federation Commander. I've played it and it's a lot of fun.
While I have the TNG and DS9 books, plus an adventure, I haven't had a chance to play it.
The Decipher game covered all of ST up to that point. (First Contact, IIRC) So, it's a little more unified.
Glad you brought this up. SFB is based on The Star Fleet Technical Manual, and they don't have a license to cover anything past the original series. (Long story.) Unless your hard core miniature war gamer, I'd recommend against it.
But like you said, SFB also has Prime Directive. Prime Directive comes in three flavors: GURPS, d20, and d20 Modern. So take your pick, really.
Also, if you like miniature game, there is a light version of SFB called Federation Commander. I've played it and it's a lot of fun.
mattcolville
Adventurer
I think if you're a fan of D&D4 you're going to be super-disappointed.
Ultimately, Star Trek does not in any way reflect a universe concerned with tactical play. So that kind of robust system, where each player has several different and unique options, each with mechanical hooks, is difficult for me to imagine. Though if someone could crack it, I'd be first in line.
To give you an example, the line developer for the CODA Trek game was arguing with one of the company's owners about how much damage a phaser should do in this new system. I was working on the Lord of the Rings Adventure Game at the time and when I walked by to grab a print out, they roped me into their argument. Should it do this X damage or Y damage?
"Ah...it shouldn't do either of those," I said. "If you hit someone with a phaser, they die. They don't just die, they often EVAPORATE. Your only hope is a Dodge test."
"That's not going to make for very satisfying combat encounters."
"Nope! It's Star Trek! If someone pulls a phaser on you, your response should be 'OMG I'M GOING TO DIE' and you should immediately begin wondering how everything went critically wrong and how to avoid this situation in future, should you live."
That's the reality on the ground in the setting. Star Trek characters rarely get in fights and when they do it's just as likely to be with fists and swords because the writer took away their phasers for exactly that reason.
So you're stuck with Skills, really, which I think someone who really liked D&D4 would find unsatisfying. You know, in D&D4, if you use Athletics to jump across a chasm, you roll the die and do some math and that unambiguously determines how far you jump. No GM interpretation necessary.
In all the Trek RPGs, the ENTIRE GAME is GM interpretation. The GM picks a target number based on no objective mechanism, the player rolls.
But since Trek is a highly *narrative* setting, failing a skill check can be a problem. "Well, you didn't ask the right question of the Guardian of Forever, so even though we've only been playing for 15 minutes, we're done."
Which leads to, across every Trek game I've played in, a tendency toward "The GM asks you to make a Skill check, and you roll dice until he is satisfied."
So what I'd do is wait for a post-D&D4 Mass Effect RPG.
Ultimately, Star Trek does not in any way reflect a universe concerned with tactical play. So that kind of robust system, where each player has several different and unique options, each with mechanical hooks, is difficult for me to imagine. Though if someone could crack it, I'd be first in line.
To give you an example, the line developer for the CODA Trek game was arguing with one of the company's owners about how much damage a phaser should do in this new system. I was working on the Lord of the Rings Adventure Game at the time and when I walked by to grab a print out, they roped me into their argument. Should it do this X damage or Y damage?
"Ah...it shouldn't do either of those," I said. "If you hit someone with a phaser, they die. They don't just die, they often EVAPORATE. Your only hope is a Dodge test."
"That's not going to make for very satisfying combat encounters."
"Nope! It's Star Trek! If someone pulls a phaser on you, your response should be 'OMG I'M GOING TO DIE' and you should immediately begin wondering how everything went critically wrong and how to avoid this situation in future, should you live."
That's the reality on the ground in the setting. Star Trek characters rarely get in fights and when they do it's just as likely to be with fists and swords because the writer took away their phasers for exactly that reason.
So you're stuck with Skills, really, which I think someone who really liked D&D4 would find unsatisfying. You know, in D&D4, if you use Athletics to jump across a chasm, you roll the die and do some math and that unambiguously determines how far you jump. No GM interpretation necessary.
In all the Trek RPGs, the ENTIRE GAME is GM interpretation. The GM picks a target number based on no objective mechanism, the player rolls.
But since Trek is a highly *narrative* setting, failing a skill check can be a problem. "Well, you didn't ask the right question of the Guardian of Forever, so even though we've only been playing for 15 minutes, we're done."
Which leads to, across every Trek game I've played in, a tendency toward "The GM asks you to make a Skill check, and you roll dice until he is satisfied."
So what I'd do is wait for a post-D&D4 Mass Effect RPG.
DumbPaladin
First Post
It may be completely too off-base for you, but have you considered Star Trek-based simulations online? They don't involve dice, skills, or any of that ... just roleplay in the Trek world.
Just out of completeness' sake, I'll mention that Prime Directive RPG by Amarillo Design Bureau had several different versions, including a D6, GURPS and D20 versions, as well as its original. I have NO idea if any are still available- check here to find out: Prime Directive RPG
MarkB
Legend
If I had to run a Star Trek campaign with any of the systems I'm familiar with, I'd probably choose Mongoose Traveller. The military careers cover much of the type of background a Star Trek character would have, and the system is at least capable of dealing with the sort of ship sizes seen in Trek.
However, the space combat rules are still a little too flaky for my taste. They do handle the concept of ships with multiple control stations reasonably well, doing a better job of giving everyone something to do than, say, Star Wars Saga Edition. But there's a tendency towards Pyrrhic victories ("Yay, we blew them to pieces! Pity we lost all our fuel and our comms in the process, though"), and it can get very 'swingy', with a couple of lucky hits turning things around unexpectedly.
However, the space combat rules are still a little too flaky for my taste. They do handle the concept of ships with multiple control stations reasonably well, doing a better job of giving everyone something to do than, say, Star Wars Saga Edition. But there's a tendency towards Pyrrhic victories ("Yay, we blew them to pieces! Pity we lost all our fuel and our comms in the process, though"), and it can get very 'swingy', with a couple of lucky hits turning things around unexpectedly.
Those are all very very excellent points, though I'd like to point out that it is a mistake to assume that I would expect Trek combat to be D&D combat.
Also, saying that D&D4 skill checks are just roll a number and determine the result makes it sound like that is a bad thing which other systems are exempt from. Shadowrun depends on the number of successes to resolve skill use and Cortex makes use of Difficulties.
If anything, the only difference between the 'lame skill check' you described and a Trekian puzzle solving scenario is the creativity of the GM and players involved, usually determined by whether or not a system's skill resolution system has comprehensive mechanics and whether or not they are constrained or creative because of it.
On a more constructive note, I'd say that your ideas are thought provoking and I would honestly take away phasers from the players or constrain their ability to resolve things through direct physical confrontation. And if they cry foul, then I will make it a trope. Which makes the entire game in keeping with the Trek spirit.
Oh sure, the ENT series and Abrams movie have phaser fights, but I would probably ensure that the PCs are extremely mortal, and the only reason why Archer or Alternate Kirk survived their adventures was because they burned a lot of Plot Points/Karma/Destiny Points to survive their fights.
Cerebral Paladin
First Post
I might consider looking at some Indie style games as possibilities. I've played in a Star Trek: TNG game using Dogs in the Vineyard as the rules system--that was very successful. I think it works better for Next Gen, though, where it makes sense to make the key issue in an "episode" be the moral conflict within the crew. Prime Time Adventures might also work well, although I personally don't much like that system.
Rel
Liquid Awesome
lol - Has my reputation gotten so bad so fast?!
Actually if I were going to run a ST game then I'd probably consider Traveler first. Mainly because it is already built for the genre in general, has a set of space battle rules and I'd really like to try out that system in actual play.
I also think that Risus might be a good option as mentioned above if you want something very rules light and fast.
One idea that is system independent that I had for running this type of game is either multiple characters per player or a "PC pool".
Basically Star Trek (and a lot of other shows too including Firefly) has an ensemble cast and each week's episode is likely to focus on some characters and not others. I put some thought into this dynamic when I was considering a Firefly-esque game and thought it might be wise to have each player have two characters. Thus each "episode" or adventure might involve a different cast of characters than the last by mixing and matching those pairs of characters.
Another, admittedly more radical, idea is to have a "PC pool" with the whole cast of characters in it and each player can essentially opt to play whatever character seems appropriate in each scene. So if this one involves the First Officer, the Chief Engineer and the Science Officer trying to sort out some anomaly in the Engine Room then those are the PC's that the players can grab out of the pool and the same player doesn't necessarily have to play the same character every time. This is a very different take on character ownership than is traditional in most RPG's but, with the right group of players, I think it could be very cool. If I were going this route then I'd definitely choose a rules light system so that the players wouldn't stumble over any of the crunchy bits when grabbing a character they'd never played before.
fanboy2000
Adventurer
I don't think that true. People like a variety of games and play styles. I like 4e and LUG's ICON system.
I would like to point out that phasers have a "stun" setting. For some reason, Star Fleet officers seem to keep it there.
I can't help but wonder if we've be watching the same shows.
This, however, I think is spot on.
Similar Threads
