Why no official game?

[Umbran]

Star Trek may pretend to be all sciency with its gobbeldey-gook explanations where Star Wars makes due with a hand wave (pre-midicholrians, anyway) but that doesn't make it any less science fantasy than Star Wars. Trek is just trying to pretend it is something other than what it is.

I don't think I agree. Yes, Trek does do a lot of "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", but Trek also engages in quite a bit of the speculative "What if...?" that is a hallmark of science fiction, rather than fantasy.

The episode that is most obviously of that mold that most here might remember: "Measure of a Man"

 

[aramis erak]

I don't think I agree. Yes, Trek does do a lot of "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", but Trek also engages in quite a bit of the speculative "What if...?" that is a hallmark of science fiction, rather than fantasy.

The episode that is most obviously of that mold that most here might remember: "Measure of a Man"

I'll counter with Masks, Operation Annihilate, The Empath, every possession story in DS9 (both Pah-wraith and Symbiont-memory), and about half of Voyager. Oh, and the sentient planet episode of Enterprise...

Trek makes (usually) relevant social commentary. Star Wars seldom does, and then not in the big movies. Star Wars is "Make you feel good" while trek tries to be "Make you think." Well, Trek other than NuTrek, at least.

That makes it look more like Sci-Fi than Star Wars, but it's not. It's space fantasy with a realistic edge, and a lot of social messages. Well, excepting NuTrek.

NuTrek is an action story series. It's good, and it's equally close to TOS as is TNG... but in the other direction. It's just as fantastic, but it goes about things with an action movie vibe.

I think the last true Sci-Fi movie I've seen was Prometheus. It relies upon excesses of human stupidity, but plays far less loosely with technobabble.

 

[Morrus]

And I think this is why there is little interest at Paramount in a ST-RPG reboot. They can make 10s or 100s of millions in profit from one movie. They might make 10s or 100s of thousands from a RPG license. This is why WOTC/Hasbro keeps trying to make a GOOD D&D movie. The profits from one good movie would likely exceed their profits from the last several years of D&D publishing.

And yet there are Star Wars licenses, to which the same reasoning must apply. It seems to be enough for Disney, but not for Paramount. And, let's face it, Star Wars is going to dwarf the Star Trek box office.

You can buy Star Trek toys and mugs and all sorts of piddly little licensed stuff. Just not an RPG.

 

[Umbran]

That makes it look more like Sci-Fi than Star Wars, but it's not.

You have a right to your opinion, of course, but I just don't agree.

NuTrek is an action story series.

The most recent movies are an action story series, yes. No argument there. I think using a name like that comes across as dismissive, and thus mildly insulting and apt to cheese off folks who like them - so, such a name really shouldn't be in a good-faith, good-willed discussion of the franchise. We should treat them all, even the bits we don't like, with a modicum of respect.

I think the last true Sci-Fi movie I've seen was Prometheus. It relies upon excesses of human stupidity, but plays far less loosely with technobabble.

Well, I don't know if you saw it, but Interstellar played well with quite a bit of science, up until the very end.

 

[Umbran]

I'll counter with Masks, Operation Annihilate, The Empath, every possession story in DS9 (both Pah-wraith and Symbiont-memory), and about half of Voyager. Oh, and the sentient planet episode of Enterprise...

It isn't like I was making a comprehensive list - I mentioned one for purposes of demonstration. Naming several examples on the other side does not then somehow weight the argument in your favor. Especially because that's not how genre definition works. You don't say, "you have some fantasy tropes, and therefore you cannot be science fiction". Genre is defined inclusively, not exclusively. Which is why we have things like, "science fantasy" and "space opera", for things that take out the themes and plot structures commonly seen in iconic sci-fi, and replaces them with fantasy or action-adventure elements.

 

[Umbran]

And, let's face it, Star Wars is going to dwarf the Star Trek box office.

Yep. Simon Pegg, who, in addition to playing Mr. Scott, is working on the Trek script, and has been quoted as saying:

"They had a script for Star Trek that wasn’t really working for them. I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little bit too Star Trek-y. Avengers Assemble, which is a pretty nerdy, comic-book, supposedly niche thing, made 1.5 billion dollars. Star Trek Into Darkness made half a billion, which is still brilliant.

But it means that, according to the studio, there’s still one billion dollars worth of box office that don’t go and see Star Trek. And they want to know why. People don’t see it being a fun, brightly colored, Saturday night entertainment like the Avengers. [The solution is to] make a Western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with Star Trek characters so it’s more inclusive to an audience that might be a little bit reticent."

 

[innerdude]

The obvious solution to all of this, [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION], is for you to create an officially licensed Trek sourcebook/campaign setting for WOIN.

 

[innerdude]

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.

You may find it silly to use a Trek game if you aren't intending to have any Starfleet involvement. But, to many folks, playing a Star Wars game with no Jedi PCs seems similarly silly - after all, the movies and TV shows are set solidly surrounding the story of the Jedi. They are the similar raison d'etre of the Star Wars saga.

Honestly, the number of DS9 episodes I've watched could be counted on one hand, so I don't have a ton of experience with it. But I will say that taking into account just the different TV series, DS9 is the outlier. Pretty much every other TV series has a central focus on a starship, its captain and crew.

Also, "silly" is a bit too strong of a word to use regarding running a Trek game without Starfleet involvement. It's certainly viable. And there's no doubt that there are interesting stories to tell outside of Starfleet. But based on the bulk of the encompassing material, to me the general idea behind running a Trek RPG is that you're interested in recreating the experience of the officers and crew member of the U.S.S. Enterprise (or its fictional equivalent).

I just have a hard time seeing a GM, or a gaming group, sitting down and saying, "Hey, let's play an RPG in the Star Trek universe! Except we don't want it to be ANYTHING like any of the TV series where you're flying around in the U.S.S. Enterprise!" It's just such a core part of the seminal Trek experience. On some level the choice to play a Star Trek RPG seems to me an indication that the group WANTS to engage with the kinds of character-driven / procedural investigation driven / societal and moral thematics that are prevalent in the source material. If you don't want to engage with that "stuff," why do Trek at all? Wouldn't some other kind of sci-fi suit the need better?

And I think this would/should be reflected in an RPG system designed to work within the Trek universe. Something like Burning Wheel makes way more sense as a baseline starting point for a Trek RPG than anything remotely resembling D&D.

As far as the Jedi / Star Wars comparisons go, I know Edge of the Empire initially raised quite a stink on other RPG sites when people realized you couldn't play Jedi out of the box, and were going to have to wait 2-3 years to get rules where you could. It wasn't a big deal for some, but for others it was definitely "a thing." And Star Wars is far, far more amenable to writing Jedi out of the fiction than Star Trek is to writing Starfleet out of the fiction. There's never a large number of Jedi in any time period, but especially in the Rebellion Era and the time period shortly after.

 

[Umbran]

Honestly, the number of DS9 episodes I've watched could be counted on one hand, so I don't have a ton of experience with it. But I will say that taking into account just the different TV series, DS9 is the outlier.

It is true that all the other stuff is focused on the crew of a ship. But, it comes in as a quarter of the TV canon, and I think that makes it too much of the total to be considered an "outlier" any more.

I just have a hard time seeing a GM, or a gaming group, sitting down and saying, "Hey, let's play an RPG in the Star Trek universe! Except we don't want it to be ANYTHING like any of the TV series where you're flying around in the U.S.S. Enterprise!"

And there was discussion about just that when they announced the series. You want to do a show fixed on one station? And half the main characters won't be Federation? What are you thinking?!? But the result is arguably the best storytelling the franchise has produced.

On some level the choice to play a Star Trek RPG seems to me an indication that the group WANTS to engage with the kinds of character-driven / procedural investigation driven / societal and moral thematics that are prevalent in the source material. If you don't want to engage with that "stuff," why do Trek at all? Wouldn't some other kind of sci-fi suit the need better?

And, here's where we need to recognize something. "Starfleet officers on a ship" is not equivalent to "character-driven, procedural, moral thematics". Setting conceit does not strongly determine drive and theme.

You can do Starfleet officers on a ship, and have it be action-adventure "monster-of-the-week" stories. You can do societal thematics without being Starfleet officers on a ship (arguably, you can do it *better* with the mix DS9 had, as there was more cultural interplay on DS9 than you ever saw on the Enterprise).

As far as the Jedi / Star Wars comparisons go, I know Edge of the Empire initially raised quite a stink on other RPG sites when people realized you couldn't play Jedi out of the box, and were going to have to wait 2-3 years to get rules where you could. It wasn't a big deal for some, but for others it was definitely "a thing."

As I noted above, that was *very* much like what the intial reception for DS9 was. A chunk of the fans were annoyed and dubious with the concept. Others were fine with it.

And Star Wars is far, far more amenable to writing Jedi out of the fiction than Star Trek is to writing Starfleet out of the fiction. There's never a large number of Jedi in any time period, but especially in the Rebellion Era and the time period shortly after.

My point, however, is that, DS9 demonstrates that writing Starfleet out isn't nearly so hard. Voyager does it differently, by removing teh ship from anything vaguely resembling Federation space. Basically, it seems hard, until you realize that such experiments have already been done.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

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.