Star Wars, Star Trek, and Gaming

[Jester David]

I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said a traditional rpg system wouldn't do it.

From here, it sound like your players ("knowingly and blatantly") did the work, not the system. If you're players are all in, then the system isn't as relevant. Which is fine. (Although, certainly, some systems can put up a bigger fight than others.) We've seen people doing things like that with all sorts of traditional systems for years...usually by fudging rolls or making increasingly weird house rules. For example, most traditional rpgs have all sorts of problems with recurring enemies.

I would also say that I'm not 100% sure how I categorize Gumshoe games wrt being a traditional rpg. (I'm also not familiar with Ashen Stars, in specific, but have Night's Black Agents and a few others.) The investigative portions and the fairly procedural GMing instructions in the Gumshoe games that I have seem fairly untraditional to my eyes, but the "action" portions seem to go more traditionally. So what is that? Demi-Traditional?

Is there something about Ashen Stars that extends the Gumshoe model to specifically create they kind of player buy-in necessary for some of those ST plots, or that obviates it? I have definitely not witnessed anything similar in the Gumshoe sessions that I've run, but I wouldn't be surprised if the basic Gumshoe mechanics could be extended that way. This conversation has already piqued my interest in the game.

What do you mean by “traditional RPG”?
Skill based RPGs without levels and with minimal advancement have been around for years. Call of Cthulhu has been around since 1981.

Star Trek does work well with D&D and similar d20 level based games. But that’s a tiny percentage of RPGs...

 

[Umbran]

I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said a traditional rpg system wouldn't do it.

Reading this post, I will summarize - I think you are conflating "system" with "adventure". I think a great many systems will produce Trek-like play, if you feed it a Trek-like adventure.

From here, it sound like your players ("knowingly and blatantly") did the work, not the system. If you're players are all in, then the system isn't as relevant.

Note that I said that the players *didn't recognize* the scenario. They were not "all in" in that sense. From their point of view, they were playing teh adventure du jour. It played out like Trek, even though they only knew it was Trek after the fact.

I would also say that I'm not 100% sure how I categorize Gumshoe games wrt being a traditional rpg. (I'm also not familiar with Ashen Stars, in specific, but have Night's Black Agents and a few others.)

Ashen Stars is pretty regular GUMSHOE. Just Space Opera themed. There's a spaceship combat system layered on it, but groundside, it plays like GUMESHOE.

The investigative portions and the fairly procedural GMing instructions in the Gumshoe games that I have seem fairly untraditional to my eyes, but the "action" portions seem to go more traditionally. So what is that? Demi-Traditional?

My players actually don't really enjoy the investigative scenarios much, so we are playing it more as action space opera. The mechanics still hold, but the investigation is not a large part of play for this bunch. This scenario was more social role-play, leading into some action-adventure stuff after the Okana section is resolved.

Is there something about Ashen Stars that extends the Gumshoe model to specifically create they kind of player buy-in necessary for some of those ST plots, or that obviates it?

The thing is, I don't know what you mean by "the buy-in necessary". You mean, a buy in that the game isn't all killing things and taking their stuff, or something? The thing that does that isn't the *system*. It is found in the generic campaign conceit for Ashen Stars - you are playing a team that takes on jobs to resolve issues. Rather than needed to take loot from monsters, the PCs are contracted for jobs, and get paid for them.

This is not something mechanical - you can do it in D&D. You're the crew of a sailing vessel sent out on the seas by the Crown to explore or resolve issues for the Throne.

The moral/theme focus is done not in *system*, but in adventure design. The game's advice is to put the PCs in places where there are moral grey areas or ethical questions. This is why I say this isn't system dependent. Sure, if all you feed into the system are dungeon crawls where the main motivator is loot, you'll get a classic murderhobo experience. But the system doesn't make you do that.

This conversation has already piqued my interest in the game.

I happen to like it, so sure, go check it out! It is available in pdf form on RPGNow< iirc.

In this case, I'm talking about the semi-regular increases in character ability vs. the opposition.

That's a myth. Characters don't generally increase in ability vs. the opposition. They increase in ability vs the opposition they have already beaten. Typically, the next opposition is scaled up to meet the PC power, or the game gets easy and dull quickly. I am pretty sure you aren't sending your 17th level wizards and paladins through Lost Mine of Phandelver, right?

As for semi-regular. Note that D&D's level system is the exception, not the rule. Few games use level packages. Skill point systems are far more common.

Nor does it seem to me that the challenges particularly escalate to compensate for any subtle character improvements. If anything, the reverse happens. The Borg, for example, first show up as an absolutely monstrous threat, but the more we are exposed to them, the more "normal" they become. They gain a "queen", they become vulnerable to "infections" of various sorts, including "individuality"! Their amazing technological adaptability turns out to not be such a bad thing, despite its first appearances.

Ah. I think you may be confusing the mechanics with the resulting narrative. As a game construct, it is more like - the borg looked to be an implacable enemy at low level. A higher level, when we have greater abilities, we are able to detect and exploit those vulnerabilities. The Enterprise crew learns to adapt to the Borg adaptability - with rotating frequencies and the like.

In a GUMSHOE sense, starting characters don't have many Investigative or General skill points to throw at things, so the Borg look like a brick wall. Later, when you have more ranks, you can spend more points on your actions, and you can detect, reach, or outright create, those vulnerabilities you couldn't manage before.

It is much like... Tomb of Horrors. There's a demi-lich at the end. And it will simply chew up 1st level characters. Only a group of high level characters will have the knowledge of such a creature's vulnerability to Shatter, and opportunity to stack up spell slots and scrolls and stand long enough to cast them.

 

[Ratskinner]

Reading this post, I will summarize - I think you are conflating "system" with "adventure". I think a great many systems will produce Trek-like play, if you feed it a Trek-like adventure.



Note that I said that the players *didn't recognize* the scenario. They were not "all in" in that sense. From their point of view, they were playing teh adventure du jour. It played out like Trek, even though they only knew it was Trek after the fact.




Ashen Stars is pretty regular GUMSHOE. Just Space Opera themed. There's a spaceship combat system layered on it, but groundside, it plays like GUMESHOE.



My players actually don't really enjoy the investigative scenarios much, so we are playing it more as action space opera. The mechanics still hold, but the investigation is not a large part of play for this bunch. This scenario was more social role-play, leading into some action-adventure stuff after the Okana section is resolved.



The thing is, I don't know what you mean by "the buy-in necessary". You mean, a buy in that the game isn't all killing things and taking their stuff, or something? The thing that does that isn't the *system*. It is found in the generic campaign conceit for Ashen Stars - you are playing a team that takes on jobs to resolve issues. Rather than needed to take loot from monsters, the PCs are contracted for jobs, and get paid for them.

This is not something mechanical - you can do it in D&D. You're the crew of a sailing vessel sent out on the seas by the Crown to explore or resolve issues for the Throne.

The moral/theme focus is done not in *system*, but in adventure design. The game's advice is to put the PCs in places where there are moral grey areas or ethical questions. This is why I say this isn't system dependent. Sure, if all you feed into the system are dungeon crawls where the main motivator is loot, you'll get a classic murderhobo experience. But the system doesn't make you do that.



I happen to like it, so sure, go check it out! It is available in pdf form on RPGNow< iirc.



That's a myth. Characters don't generally increase in ability vs. the opposition. They increase in ability vs the opposition they have already beaten. Typically, the next opposition is scaled up to meet the PC power, or the game gets easy and dull quickly. I am pretty sure you aren't sending your 17th level wizards and paladins through Lost Mine of Phandelver, right?

As for semi-regular. Note that D&D's level system is the exception, not the rule. Few games use level packages. Skill point systems are far more common.



Ah. I think you may be confusing the mechanics with the resulting narrative. As a game construct, it is more like - the borg looked to be an implacable enemy at low level. A higher level, when we have greater abilities, we are able to detect and exploit those vulnerabilities. The Enterprise crew learns to adapt to the Borg adaptability - with rotating frequencies and the like.

In a GUMSHOE sense, starting characters don't have many Investigative or General skill points to throw at things, so the Borg look like a brick wall. Later, when you have more ranks, you can spend more points on your actions, and you can detect, reach, or outright create, those vulnerabilities you couldn't manage before.

It is much like... Tomb of Horrors. There's a demi-lich at the end. And it will simply chew up 1st level characters. Only a group of high level characters will have the knowledge of such a creature's vulnerability to Shatter, and opportunity to stack up spell slots and scrolls and stand long enough to cast them.

Phone makes it hard to edit quotes so pardon the general response.

Re: the Borg
First to be clear. There are no underlying mechanics. Its a tv show. And I just can't interpret the narrative that way at all. The Borg basically stop adapting by the time Voyager is dealing with them. I mean, these techno zombies with their much vaunted ability to adapt have to come to Voyager for help adapting to species 8472? In another episode we see some clever farmers have infected their kids with an antiborg virus? The decreasing threat that The Borg present has a lot more to do with the writers backing off after they realized they painted themselves into a corner, than the characters "leveling or anything similar". I mean they start "rotating frequencies" very quickly....and that just sorta ends that problem.

Regarding opposition. In D&D, yes, there is (or can be) the treadmill. But again, Trek doesn't really fit that model. The planet-of-the-week really doesn't fit any curve of advancement. All we can really guarantee is that the transporter will only work if and when it is dramatically expedient.

Regarding buy-in: yes. I'm willing to say that you have a handle on what I'm getting at. My experience with players in multiple systems doesn't match yours. In a traditional combat-centric game (D&D (multiple editions), Boot Hill, Savage Worlds, GURPS, etc.) I always see the players reverting to murderhobo methods, especially if they come to feel untouchable by law enforcement (as setting appropriate). In part, I think this because "it only takes one" of the PCs to start shooting/torturing/whatever. In another part, traditional games tend to lack clear non-combat resolution systems and thus there is a lot of "when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail" going on. IME, players choose concrete resolution over talking, whenever possible.

And that's where I do think system matters, in the absence of player "buy in". Gumshoe, since we're there, starts with a wholly different mindset for its design. Its focus is on the narrative/logical flow of investigative scenarios, not on being a combat engine. And that changes how the players can approach the game wrt resolving their problems. When you put your players in moral grey areas, they might actually have better answers that "I kill them all."

Whew. Sleepy now gotta go.

 

[Umbran]

Most of the Star Trek "PCs" do not seem to accumulate loot, they don't even seem to consistently remember their innovations and discoveries from one episode to the next

Trek characters don't generally accumulate loot, because material wealth is not meaningful in the context of their world. There's no need to buy anything most of the time.

We should note that innovatiosn and discoveries are often forgotten between D&D adventures, too. A great many of the innovative applications of abilities a D&D player may come up with are one-shot solutions to one-shot problems or puzzles. D&D PCs may fight only one vampire in their entire adventuring career, and the new lessons learned in doing so are not all that applicable to other undead that don't turn into mist of have coffins lying about. The only innovations and discoveries that you are sure to carry around with you are the things you get from character advancement, and those flow from XP, not from the explicit action of the adventure.

 

[Ratskinner]

Trek characters don't generally accumulate loot, because material wealth is not meaningful in the context of their world. There's no need to buy anything most of the time.

We should note that innovatiosn and discoveries are often forgotten between D&D adventures, too. A great many of the innovative applications of abilities a D&D player may come up with are one-shot solutions to one-shot problems or puzzles. D&D PCs may fight only one vampire in their entire adventuring career, and the new lessons learned in doing so are not all that applicable to other undead that don't turn into mist of have coffins lying about. The only innovations and discoveries that you are sure to carry around with you are the things you get from character advancement, and those flow from XP, not from the explicit action of the adventure.

The nature of the innovations and the technological contexts are different. TNG was to my eyes the worst offender here. In a magical universe, against a specific foe, we often will see what you are talking about. But in a tech universe, where most of the innovation involves changes to your own gear, there's no reason to give that up.

I remember the fan base as TNG went into its later seasons. Very often an episode or even season cliffhanger would end with fans saying: "Why don't/didn't they just do that thing they did or call that species they met in season two?" Heck, the fans on my college campus came up with a rather lengthy list of "things they already know that could defeat the Borg" before Wolf 359.

Personally I've never witnessed a D&D party giving up anything they might think is remotely useful.

When it comes down to it, its just not that kind of show. The show is fundamentally about the moral and ethical conflicts, and alien threats and challenges are primarily caricatures of aspects of our society's troubles. It is not actually about the crew growing as individuals. Later shows drifted a bit for a variety of reasons, but the fundamental framework never changed much.

The Kelvin timeline might work better, but I try to purge that from my memory whenever possible.

 

[Umbran]

The nature of the innovations and the technological contexts are different. TNG was to my eyes the worst offender here. In a magical universe, against a specific foe, we often will see what you are talking about. But in a tech universe, where most of the innovation involves changes to your own gear, there's no reason to give that up.

People in military organizations typically use standard issue gear in the field, for several good reasons. In addition, it is already just about the best out there - narrative details vary, but in effect it doesn't matter too much if it is a Starfleet phaser, a Klingon (or Romulan, or Cardassian) disruptor. The target is usually down in one shot - dead or stunned, your choice. What's to improve? A gun that will kill the enemy *before* you draw it?

In a meta-game sense - you're looking for a Trek-like experience. That means you are looking for an experience where the tactical combat is simple and generally quick. Your friendly engineering and science departments (or your party wizard or artificer, if you are doing fantasy) will develop other capabilities for you if you need them for particular issues.

Heck, the fans on my college campus came up with a rather lengthy list of "things they already know that could defeat the Borg" before Wolf 359.

I find that a bit boastful. The Borg first show up in "Q Who" in Season 2, in which the Enterprise fails to beat the Borg, and they are rescued by Q. The Borg don't appear again until "Best of Both Worlds", and Wolf 359 is early in Part 2. So, I am not so sure there's anything they *know* would beat the Borg at that point, because they had never beaten them before Wolf 359.

When it comes down to it, its just not that kind of show. The show is fundamentally about the moral and ethical conflicts, and alien threats and challenges are primarily caricatures of aspects of our society's troubles. It is not actually about the crew growing as individuals. Later shows drifted a bit for a variety of reasons, but the fundamental framework never changed much.

None of the shows are particularly about the growth in tactical combat prowess/power agree - but there are lots of "traditional" RPGs in which the power curve is slow, such that the game isn't really about personal power. DS9 is very much about the growth of characters as people, but you don't need a bundle of mechanics for that.

So, you choose a game that natively has slow power growth, or you use a D&D variant that has a steep curve, but you play it E6 or the like.

 

[Umbran]

Re: the Borg
First to be clear. There are no underlying mechanics. Its a tv show.

We are talking about getting results similar to the show in an RPG - so we should then talk about the game-representations we can use for things.

And I just can't interpret the narrative that way at all.

Well, if you can't think in new ways and directions, that'll get in your way here. My answer becomes, "if you think about your game differently, you can get these results."

The Borg basically stop adapting by the time Voyager is dealing with them.

Well, perhaps we have different ideas of what Borg adaptability really is....

The Borg (with the exception of the Queen) have no individual or original thought, no imagination*. They create nothing new, and are thus incapable of R&D. They adapt by assimilating new technologies and biologies. They are adaptable in the way that a spellcaster with a large and varied spellbook is. If you hit them with a weapon, they run through their list of tricks, and apply one that will work. But, if you hit them with something truly novel, that isn't in their book, they are stuck. So, standard phasers, or other beam weapons? Psha! That's easy, because energy beam weapons are a dime a dozen, and they've seen hundreds of variants already.

But, for example, with Species 8472, the issue is that they are resistant to Borg nanoprobes. Sp.8472 are from a different dimension the Borg have never seen, and have a biology unlike anything in normal space. They can swap in all their different nanoprobe tech, but if none of those work, they are stuck. The crew of the Voyager, however, are full of individuality and imagination and the ability to pull new concepts out of their butts.

Regarding opposition. In D&D, yes, there is (or can be) the treadmill. But again, Trek doesn't really fit that model. The planet-of-the-week really doesn't fit any curve of advancement.

My point is that, from the outside, if your advancement isn't accompanied by highly visible pyrotechnics, you may not notice advancements in the resulting narrative. If the character can hit targets better, the GM provides targets that are harder to hit, and in the end your overall hit percentage doesn't rise. In your first session, you hit 25% of the time. In your 100th session, you hit 25%. From the outside, it looks like the character has not advanced! But, the reality is that your 1st session character would get eaten alive by the forces seen in the 100th.

Which is to say, the end narrative does not fully specify what the mechanics of the game look like. Just because you don't see advancement on the TV show, doesn't mean it doesn't happen in the game.

Regarding buy-in: yes. I'm willing to say that you have a handle on what I'm getting at. My experience with players in multiple systems doesn't match yours. In a traditional combat-centric game (D&D (multiple editions), Boot Hill, Savage Worlds, GURPS, etc.) I always see the players reverting to murderhobo methods, especially if they come to feel untouchable by law enforcement (as setting appropriate).

Okay, I'm pretty sure that's got little to do with the mechanics, and has much to do with what your players want, and what behaviors you reward.

In part, I think this because "it only takes one" of the PCs to start shooting/torturing/whatever.

You see, that's your players, but not mine. If someone tries to torture a prisoner in my group, this will result in an hour-long discussion of the ethics, and if the torturer doesn't back down, that's probably a party-breaking crisis. That's just not who they want to be.

In another part, traditional games tend to lack clear non-combat resolution systems and thus there is a lot of "when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail" going on. IME, players choose concrete resolution over talking, whenever possible.

With respect, again, that's your players. I used to run classic Deadlands, which is more combat-centric** than its descendant, Savage Worlds. And my players shot a lot of things. But, all the things they shot were bad, and they didn't go around torturing people. They could have - this was the lawless Wild West, and they eventually got to the point where they'd be an even match or better for the game's Wyatt Earp and other lawmen. But the players wanted to be heroes. They didn't shoot things and take the gold. Of their own volition they made their home in Dodge, KS, and became its protectors.

But that choice has NOTHING to do with the mechanics used.

And that's where I do think system matters, in the absence of player "buy in".

I strongly disagree. While a game can support a playstyle choice, the game will not make that choice for you. If you don't want to play a good guy, no game will produce the result of you being a hero, because your choices will be non-heroic ones. If you don't have buy-in, the mechanics are irrelevant, and probably annoying.






*This is actually much like some old-school versions of the fae.

** The largest chapter in the classic Deadlands players rules is titled, "Blowin' Things All to Hell".

 

[Ratskinner]

But that choice has NOTHING to do with the mechanics used.

Obviously, I disagree.

The murderhobo behavior, IME, correlates highly with the system used. When we play with newer systems, the behavior is much lessened. Systems (Boot Hill, I'm looking at you) without any non-combat resolution systems seem particularly susceptible.

The simple matter of modern games like Fate mechanizing things like motivations and morality in ways that the players can engage with changes things drastically. Mechanics that take a broader stance on narrative like Fiasco or Capes, can open things up even more. Even limited non combat resolution (which is very common) seems to help.

Philosophically, I twitch a little at the idea that we're still playing a game if players are resolving things without engaging the mechanics. So when a game drops off and basically says "figure it out", I feel like that's the end of the system. (Which is not to say that all mechanics involve randomizers and stats, etc.)

 

[dustinlay]

Yep, 'Ashen Stars' is definitely my 'Star Trek' RPG full netbet review you can read at this website

So as mine.