Why no official game?

[innerdude]

There's also something beyond even the licensing for me----what "vibe" should a Trek RPG put out in the first place?

Savage Worlds can run about 80% of any genre I've ever seen, and I love the system......but I'd NEVER use it to run Trek. It just.....doesn't feel the way I envision a Trek game running.

I've never viewed Trek as being "pulp" sci-fi or "space opera." It's character-driven, with a more "procedural" and investigative feel. And it certainly shouldn't be a "high death" type of game---the PCs should have large amounts of "plot protection" coupons all over the place.

Of all the systems currently out there, if was looking to run a Trek game I'd do it with Fate Core or Ashen Stars.

 

[aramis erak]

Last I heard, working with Paramount was a bit of a pain in the ass for FASA. The wikipedia article says Paramount disapproved of some of FASA's treatment of Next Generation stuff and pulled the license. If true, I can see Paramount deciding that going into the depth of treatment that would be needed for an RPG isn't worth their time and I can see just about any RPG company deciding that Paramount's level of management would be too restrictive on interesting content.

That sounds like the Guy McLamore version.

Task Force published some interesting bits that run a bit counter - namely, that the approvals process was apparently non-existent, and that FASA got sued for violating their TOS/TAS license with the TNG stuff. They mention this because it set a precedent that affected their own suit's outcome. Paramount v ADB ended with Paramount ordered to license ADB with a non-expiring license, but only to TOS/TAS and the FJD materials.

Now, I've been told by a designer (who had looked into a new Trek license) that the current rights holders aren't willing to license RPG's because the approvals process will take too much time for the return on investment. They also have a robust fan policy, and unofficial RPGs are flourishing.

And then, there's the ADB games, which are, technically, licensed.

 

[Lwaxy]

There are so many versions of Star Trek RPG already, why would we need more? Same question I ask of Star Wars, too, though

 

[Morrus]

There are so many versions of Star Trek RPG already, why would we need more? Same question I ask of Star Wars, too, though

Need? No. Want? Sure! A currently supported modern game would be awesome!

 

[amerigoV]

There's also something beyond even the licensing for me----what "vibe" should a Trek RPG put out in the first place?

Savage Worlds can run about 80% of any genre I've ever seen, and I love the system......but I'd NEVER use it to run Trek. It just.....doesn't feel the way I envision a Trek game running.

I've never viewed Trek as being "pulp" sci-fi or "space opera." It's character-driven, with a more "procedural" and investigative feel. And it certainly shouldn't be a "high death" type of game---the PCs should have large amounts of "plot protection" coupons all over the place.

Of all the systems currently out there, if was looking to run a Trek game I'd do it with Fate Core or Ashen Stars.

Going to have to revoke your Savage Worlds card

On the other hand, my reading of the Last Parsec felt like a cross between Mass Effect and Star Trek. To me Savage Worlds + Scifi Companion does it spot on. As you say, its character driven and less action oriented. From a SW perspective, more social skills would come to the forefront and the plot protection would could from more bennies available from less fighting. Maybe toss in Gritty Damage to emphasize that its better to think/talk than fight.

But I might just be too Savage to run anything else - so that is my bias.

 

[Morrus]

I'd agree that Trek has a slightly more technical feel that bizarrely is conveyed better by slightly more technical rule sets.

 

[innerdude]

Going to have to revoke your Savage Worlds card

LOL, dangit!! Come on, I've long since sacrificed my soul to Supreme Overlords Pinnacle, Triple Ace, Evil Beagle, and Gun Metal Games...... What else DO YOU WANT FROM ME, @amerigoV????

On the other hand, my reading of the Last Parsec felt like a cross between Mass Effect and Star Trek. To me Savage Worlds + Scifi Companion does it spot on. As you say, its character driven and less action oriented. From a SW perspective, more social skills would come to the forefront and the plot protection would could from more bennies available from less fighting. Maybe toss in Gritty Damage to emphasize that its better to think/talk than fight.

But I might just be too Savage to run anything else - so that is my bias.

Okay, the Mass Effect vibe I totally got from the Sci-Fi companion. More like a Mass Effect/Aliens/Serenity mash-up, but almost no Trek vibe for me. I guess part of me thinks no Star Trek RPG should assume miniatures/grid-based combat as its default play mode.

Now all that said, if someone wanted to do a full-on setting treatment---a la Interface Zero 2.0 (which continues to be one of the best RPG sourcebooks I've ever owned)---that's a whole other story. A full campaign setting treatment would be able to fill-in the technology gaps, set up some additional rules for social combat (isn't one of Star Trek's defining characteristics the ongoing "weight" of the Starfleet Prime Directive?), and generally be able to give it the right vibe. I suppose if I wanted to do the work, I could probably come up with something.....But I dropped $60 on IZ 2.0, and I'd be more than willing to drop the same on a full-fledged Star Trek conversion for Savage Worlds as well.

Of course, it wouldn't be CALLED "Star Trek." It'd be called "Savage Galaxies," it would just incorporate game mechanics that emulate Star Trek.

 

[innerdude]

I'd agree that Trek has a slightly more technical feel that bizarrely is conveyed better by slightly more technical rule sets.

I don't know if it's the "technical" part of it that's the issue, per se. It's more about the basic premise of problem/solution that most of the Star Trek TNG episodes I watched followed (TNG is the only series I really got into). Solving problems isn't based in fighting in Star Trek, it's based in researching technology (or combing existing technology in novel ways), and building political and social relationships.

Even if the ultimate solution to a problem ends up being, "Blow it up with photon torpedoes," there's always a labyrinth of negotiation and lead-up to that end point. A game that really "works" for Star Trek needs to try and model this dynamic. Most RPGs operate from a "shoot first, mind the consequences later" mindset that's antithetical to the Trek universe.

 

[Umbran]

I guess part of me thinks no Star Trek RPG should assume miniatures/grid-based combat as its default play mode.

Agreed. I mean, Khan thought in a grid-based mode in STII, and see where that got him?

 

[Umbran]

I don't know if it's the "technical" part of it that's the issue, per se.

I think I have to agree with you. I am not sure a "more technical" ruleset is called for - especially because Trek technology isn't real enough. "Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow," is an entirely acceptable Trek solution to a problem, but it is actually theatrical gobbledigook. Players cannot count on the technical areas to actually be things they can consistently manipulate through simulation rules.

That's part of why I was thinking the Atomic Robo science brainstorming mechanic would work very well here - it only has to *sound* good and hang together from the player's point of view, not from the rules point of view. Or maybe use GUMESHOE-based science and engineering investigation, but that requires the GM to actually make up the science details, which would probably kinda stink in the long run.

It's more about the basic premise of problem/solution that most of the Star Trek TNG episodes I watched followed (TNG is the only series I really got into). Solving problems isn't based in fighting in Star Trek, it's based in researching technology (or combing existing technology in novel ways), and building political and social relationships.

Even if the ultimate solution to a problem ends up being, "Blow it up with photon torpedoes," there's always a labyrinth of negotiation and lead-up to that end point. A game that really "works" for Star Trek needs to try and model this dynamic. Most RPGs operate from a "shoot first, mind the consequences later" mindset that's antithetical to the Trek universe.

Agreed. In most episodes, the guns fire when all other options are exhausted - and that means those options need some pretty solid representation in the mechanics. It isn't enough to have one "Diplomacy" skill and then seven different types of gun you can fire.

It occurs to me that Atomic Robo also gives us some hints on how starships might work. In AR, the characters have an organization that can take consequences for them if they get in too deep - in this case the characters have a *ship* that could take (perhaps some stress and) consequences for them....