Why no official game?

Morrus · May 20, 2015

Stacie GmrGrl said:
Take a look at Ashen Stars... sure its not exactly Star Trek but its very, very close even if its set in its own universe. I could easily see doing a Star Trek game using it.

There are lots of games you can do Star Trek with. The question was why there's no current officially licensed version. It's a conundrum wrapped in an enigma!

Stacie GmrGrl · May 20, 2015

If they made this Trek into a rpg I'd be all over it. I don't know if any of you have seen this but this Trek looks awesome.

[video=youtube;OjeX5drV9ms]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjeX5drV9ms[/video]

Man in the Funny Hat · May 22, 2015

Umbran said:
Did you watch DS9? Major Kira, Odo, Quark, and Garak - all major players in the show, but not a one of them in Starfleet. They interact with Starfleet on a regular basis, yes, but that is by no means the show's only perspective. Much of the value in the series, in fact, is stepping outside the all-Starfleet all-the-time view.

Yes, DS9 did a better job at actually indicating that a wider world existed, much of that made possible by the simple trick of actually having regular characters who are NOT Starfleet. But the show overall is still centered relentlessly around interactions with Starfleet because the plot arcs revolve around the station... which is administered by Starfleet. It's certainly not that show's only perspective, but as Quark and Garak said in one of the DS9 episodes, Starfleet is like root beer - bubbly and cloying and happy, and it's insidious because if you drink enough of it you get to like it. Well I'd say that if you drink TOO much Starfleet you eventually get to where you feel like you might vomit if you have to watch one more show with the cloying and insidious Starfleet as the focal point. You want coffee, or beer, or Champagne, or orange juice, or simple mineral water. There are other drinks in the galaxy but we've never been given more than a few sips before you get handed yet another big mug of (now room temperature) frothy, freakin' root beer.

Not trying to hit the point too hard, but there is an undeniable wealth of potential that is just ignored in the ST universe because it never, ever gets out of sight from Starfleet, that's all.

innerdude · May 22, 2015

Man in the Funny Hat said:
Not trying to hit the point too hard, but there is an undeniable wealth of potential that is just ignored in the ST universe because it never, ever gets out of sight from Starfleet, that's all.

Exactly. Spot on.

And to me, that's kind of the point of the whole exercise---someone who wants to play a Star Trek RPG is probably looking for a "classic," Starfleet-centric experience. They're not looking for "Star Trek: Starfleet Black Ops Commandos," or "Star Trek: Scum and Villainy of the Gamma Quadrant."

The One Ring succeeds at what it does so well because the authors clearly and unequivocally attempt to emulate the sensibility of Tolkien's fiction. Someone who doesn't enjoy the play experience of The One Ring may not like what they're getting from it, but it's not the fault of the rules leading them astray---they're getting exactly what the rules were designed to do.

The experience is paramount.

To be successful a Star Trek RPG needs to take the same approach. Rules and mechanics will need to be subsumed into the needs of deriving a "Trek experience" in play, and anyone who makes that game should be completely transparent about it.

Having given it some thought in this thread, I'd sum up the answer to the OP as follows:

Why isn't there an official, actively supported, licensed Star Trek RPG system in 2015?

The licensing is nebulous, with some reports that the intellectual property owners are setting a somewhat high barrier to entry.
To stand apart in the market, the system has to offer a clearly differentiated Trek sci-fi experience versus existing systems.
Due to conceits of the fiction, creating that experience mechanically is more difficult than is immediately apparent on the surface.
The "core" Trek experience is somewhat limited in its ability to address story narratives beyond the purview of Starfleet.
The narrowness of scope limits the potential mass appeal of the system, even should one get made.
The net result is that game companies don't see the license as profitable. If someone really thought they could make money doing it, I'm 110% certain they'd be doing it.

aramis erak · May 22, 2015

innerdude said:
Exactly. Spot on.

And to me, that's kind of the point of the whole exercise---someone who wants to play a Star Trek RPG is probably looking for a "classic," Starfleet-centric experience. They're not looking for "Star Trek: Starfleet Black Ops Commandos," or "Star Trek: Scum and Villainy of the Gamma Quadrant."

The One Ring succeeds at what it does so well because the authors clearly and unequivocally attempt to emulate the sensibility of Tolkien's fiction. Someone who doesn't enjoy the play experience of The One Ring may not like what they're getting from it, but it's not the fault of the rules leading them astray---they're getting exactly what the rules were designed to do.

The experience is paramount.

To be successful a Star Trek RPG needs to take the same approach. Rules and mechanics will need to be subsumed into the needs of deriving a "Trek experience" in play, and anyone who makes that game should be completely transparent about it.

Having given it some thought in this thread, I'd sum up the answer to the OP as follows:

Why isn't there an official, actively supported, licensed Star Trek RPG system in 2015?

The licensing is nebulous, with some reports that the intellectual property owners are setting a somewhat high barrier to entry.

To stand apart in the market, the system has to offer a clearly differentiated Trek sci-fi experience versus existing systems.

Due to conceits of the fiction, creating that experience mechanically is more difficult than is immediately apparent on the surface.

The "core" Trek experience is somewhat limited in its ability to address story narratives beyond the purview of Starfleet.

The narrowness of scope limits the potential mass appeal of the system, even should one get made.

The net result is that game companies don't see the license as profitable. If someone really thought they could make money doing it, I'm 110% certain they'd be doing it.

Really, the only company that needs to be convinced there's profit in it is the one that has turned down several game companies...

The thing is, unless Paramount sees it as worth the time to do the approvals they won't bother. And they've turned away licensees.

Lets look at the benefits ...
There's up front license fees - probably the best reason - and the non-computer gaming industry really doesn't make enough to turn heads with what they can offer.
There's profit share - probably pretty weak
There's training new authors for the Extended universe - Trek's got no shortage of passable authors already.
There's appeasing the fans - not enough to matter.
There's growing the universe - Not something they really want to do. If anything, they want to drop large parts.

And the costs -
A license compliance person with approvals authority. (Probably 1/2 FTE at about $100 to $150 K per year... so estimate $50K to $75K)
The attorney time to hash out the license itself. (Probably under $15K)
And the potential bad press if the game sucks.
And the issues of pinning down what is/isn't canon (which could be minimal or frightful)

Unless WotC or FFG get a wild hair to do it, it probably ain't gonna be an offer worth Paramount's time to deal with. The only benefit they really need is the financial side, and the non-computer games industry just cannot cough up enough cash to get noticed. And WotC already has the boardgame license.

Morrus · May 22, 2015

aramis erak said:
Really, the only company that needs to be convinced there's profit in it is the one that has turned down several game companies...

The thing is, unless Paramount sees it as worth the time to do the approvals they won't bother. And they've turned away licensees.

Lets look at the benefits ...
There's up front license fees - probably the best reason - and the non-computer gaming industry really doesn't make enough to turn heads with what they can offer.
There's profit share - probably pretty weak
There's training new authors for the Extended universe - Trek's got no shortage of passable authors already.
There's appeasing the fans - not enough to matter.
There's growing the universe - Not something they really want to do. If anything, they want to drop large parts.

And the costs -
A license compliance person with approvals authority. (Probably 1/2 FTE at about $100 to $150 K per year... so estimate $50K to $75K)
The attorney time to hash out the license itself. (Probably under $15K)
And the potential bad press if the game sucks.
And the issues of pinning down what is/isn't canon (which could be minimal or frightful)

Unless WotC or FFG get a wild hair to do it, it probably ain't gonna be an offer worth Paramount's time to deal with. The only benefit they really need is the financial side, and the non-computer games industry just cannot cough up enough cash to get noticed. And WotC already has the boardgame license.

So the question then, is what's the difference between Disney and Paramount? Why is the former willing to do it for Star Wars, and the latter not for Star Trek? Everyone one of those many items applies to both, yet there's licensed Star Wars games of various types coming out the wazoo, and nothing for Star Trek. What's the difference?

Some people cited lack of mass appeal due to a limited scope of play above. However much less popular properties get games - Firefly, which is awesome, but not as big as Trek. And Trek itself has had a number of games in the past. I find this particular line of reasoning hard to believe for that reason.

Umbran · May 22, 2015

Morrus said:
What's the difference?

One possibility I noted above is that they may not be interested in relinquishing creative control at this time. The fact that their current use of the property is in an alternate timeline that may or may not resolve may complicate their thoughts n the matter.

There may be some licensing complication that gets in the way of them offering an RPG license at this time.

Another possibility is that... they just aren't interested, period. We discuss this as if, "It makes money, therefore a company will do it," is a truism, but it isn't. Companies take a pass on possible profit-making ventures all the time. The money they're apt to make from it may be relatively low-effort, but it is also just small money, and it just doesn't register on their "give a crap" meter, and all the VPs or whoever makes such decisions have sufficient things on their plates they just don't care about a piddly RPG project. Whoever makes the decisions may simply not think the RPG market is a place they care about or want to be. Or, if they have a goal of becoming even more mainstream, a nerdy RPG may be seen as an obstacle, as well.

Another possibility is that... no game developers have *asked* to make a game. RPGs may not be a high enough priority for them to bother seeking a partner to license them to, but perhaps if a partner of quality showed interest, they'd be willing to do so.

innerdude · May 22, 2015

aramis erak said:
Really, the only company that needs to be convinced there's profit in it is the one that has turned down several game companies...

The thing is, unless Paramount sees it as worth the time to do the approvals they won't bother. And they've turned away licensees.

Lets look at the benefits ...
There's up front license fees - probably the best reason - and the non-computer gaming industry really doesn't make enough to turn heads with what they can offer.
There's profit share - probably pretty weak
There's training new authors for the Extended universe - Trek's got no shortage of passable authors already.
There's appeasing the fans - not enough to matter.
There's growing the universe - Not something they really want to do. If anything, they want to drop large parts.

And the costs -
A license compliance person with approvals authority. (Probably 1/2 FTE at about $100 to $150 K per year... so estimate $50K to $75K)
The attorney time to hash out the license itself. (Probably under $15K)
And the potential bad press if the game sucks.
And the issues of pinning down what is/isn't canon (which could be minimal or frightful)

Unless WotC or FFG get a wild hair to do it, it probably ain't gonna be an offer worth Paramount's time to deal with. The only benefit they really need is the financial side, and the non-computer games industry just cannot cough up enough cash to get noticed. And WotC already has the boardgame license.

Well, I think that just goes back to the barrier to entry for the person who requests the license---in order for Paramount to agree to license the property, the company asking for it has to present Paramount with an offer that adds enough value. If the amount of "value add" Paramount asks for is too prohibitive, then game companies aren't even going to bother asking.

Morrus said:
Some people cited lack of mass appeal due to a limited scope of play above. However much less popular properties get games - Firefly, which is awesome, but not as big as Trek. And Trek itself has had a number of games in the past. I find this particular line of reasoning hard to believe for that reason.

To me this is the exact converse of the situation with Trek. Firefly isn't nearly as "big" of a property to the general public, even if its fans are just as (if not more) rabid as Star Trek. The difference is Firefly/Serenity is a "dead" IP. There is no active television series or movie, and is unlikely to ever be one again (knock on wood). I believe Fox still owns the general IP rights (Universal owns the right to make movies). In this case, Fox is likely much more inclined to leverage a revenue stream from an RPG property, because until there's an active TV series or another movie, the only way Fox makes money on it is through licensing (and sales of the TV Boxed set and movie discs / movie streaming, obviously).

I also happen to believe there's a wider variety of available "narratives" in the Firefly universe than Trek, but that's just me.

aramis erak · May 23, 2015

Morrus said:
So the question then, is what's the difference between Disney and Paramount? Why is the former willing to do it for Star Wars, and the latter not for Star Trek? Everyone one of those many items applies to both, yet there's licensed Star Wars games of various types coming out the wazoo, and nothing for Star Trek. What's the difference?

Some people cited lack of mass appeal due to a limited scope of play above. However much less popular properties get games - Firefly, which is awesome, but not as big as Trek. And Trek itself has had a number of games in the past. I find this particular line of reasoning hard to believe for that reason.

THe big difference I see:
Star Wars has a tight canon (albeit not entirely consistent) of 6 movies. Soon to be 7. About 20 hours total film. The Rebels TV show is also canon - so it's about another 5 hours of film. Adding TCW adds another 20 hours.
Trek has a very loose canon of 450+ HOURS of film, and lots of contradictions.

Trek has so much in canon that it takes a lot more effort on the checking. In other words, it's more work to do it right and verify all the art that needs royalties gets them.