Why no official game?

Olgar Shiverstone · May 17, 2015

Back to the original question ... I suspect because the potential return can't pay for the licensing fees.

AverageCitizen · May 17, 2015

Umbran said:
That is, as has been noted, a bit of an overstatement and strawman.

But, to be clear - for purposes of this thread, and considering game publishing, for this divisiveness to be relevant to whether a game is made, the folks who didn't like the movies would largely also have to be the people who are apt to play a game based on the property. The lines of division must match for it to be a relevant point.

Do we have any evidence of that?

Two people in this thread. So it is anecdotal, but you don't have any evidence to say I'm wrong. So unless we get a market researcher or a Paramount executive in here, speculation is all you get.

I think that's just incorrect. I think the gaming world *swarms* with folks who appreciate summer blockbusters.

That's fair.

Ah, here's the thing. The *old* fans are not the kind of fans who "demand" TRPGs, either. Heck, name a single game out there that was created because fans "demanded" it. I can't think of a single fan-based movement to have a game produced, much less one that succeeded.

"adding demand" in the market sense, not in the sense that they are writing letters demanding a product.

It is not the case that Trek fans, in general, are RPG players. The bulk of *any* market for one medium will *not* be RPG players. RPG players are a *small* market, compared with just about any major media seen in the world.

[/quote]

I know gamers are a small component of any market. I am suggesting that Star Trek might be weird. The people who are out there writing Star Trek hacks for Twilight Imperium aren't doing it for JJ's Trek, they are doing it for TNG and the other old ones. I am suggesting that the old fanbase and the new MAY be more divided in this case than others. Neither of you have given me any evidence to the contrary. There is no burden of proof here, man. I don't have to appease you. I was just suggesting a possible explanation.

Umbran · May 17, 2015

AverageCitizen said:
So it is anecdotal, but you don't have any evidence to say I'm wrong.

At this stage I don't need evidence. Reasoning showing that your assertion doesn't match what we'd generally suspect is sufficient to question an unsupported assertion.

I know gamers are a small component of any market. I am suggesting that Star Trek might be weird.

And that's the thing you need significant support for if you want others to accept it.

The people who are out there writing Star Trek hacks for Twilight Imperium aren't doing it for JJ's Trek, they are doing it for TNG and the other old ones.

Um... Twilight Imperium, even the 3rd Edition, predates JJ's Trek. It is kind of hard to write a hack for something that doesn't exist.

Oh, and also - JJ's trek is not materially/mechanically different from TOS, as it is set in the same time period, with what should be the same technology in the fictional universe. Broadly speaking, any TOS hack will do for JJ's.

There is no burden of proof here, man. I don't have to appease you.

Who said anything about appeasement? I'm just engaging in pretty standard discussion and debate. You made an assertion, and since this is a discussion board, it is open for discussion. I question the assertion, with some reasoning of how that is a bit extraordinary, and therefore requires some better support.

The next step would be for you to either provide some better support, or just let it lie. Your choice. But if you give us, "You don't have evidence saying I'm wrong," as defense, we will reject it, because it doesn't actually support your position.

HobbitFan · May 18, 2015

Olgar Shiverstone said:
Back to the original question ... I suspect because the potential return can't pay for the licensing fees.

I'd imagine that's a big part of it.....or at least that interested parties at least think it is so.

Umbran · May 18, 2015

Olgar Shiverstone said:
Back to the original question ... I suspect because the potential return can't pay for the licensing fees.

That's one major possibility.

I can think of two others. One is that the Studio is not interested in allowing anyone other than the moviemakers creative control.

Another is the question of franchise fatigue. Toward the end of Enterprise, there was a lot of talk about whether there'd be another series, or whether we had, collectively, had too much Trek. There was some recognition that there's only so much you can squeeze out of a property before it becomes moribund.

That shows a bit in the new movies - they aren't expanding the canon in any meaningful way. They are retreading old characters and areas in a way that will have no conflict with existing canon, because it is *explicitly* alternate, in such a way that they can even finish it off so that it "never happened" if they want, by closing the time loop of the alternate's creation.

And, having written that - I see a third possible issue. If they have not decided if the alternate will become the new canon universe, they may not be in a position to tell a game publisher which universe to set the game in! Or even if they have, they may not want to telegraph that before it is established for the franchise.

innerdude · May 18, 2015

I think ultimately I have to agree with @Olgar Shiverstone. If there's not an "active" Trek RPG system at the moment, it's because there's not a game company out there that sees it as being able to produce a decent ROI.

The REASONS game companies view it that way may be some, all, or none of the reasons covered in this thread. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the two most likely reasons are highly intertwined---legal/licensing, and then determining which of the Trek series are relevant to be included in the system.

Even if you have a license for the entire property, and not just for say, Next Generation, what kind of game to make out of it? Do you try and make it a "fully canonical," kitchen-sink system where every flavor of Trek is represented in some way? Or do you only focus on the Kirk/Spock era, or the Picard era, etc.?

Either way, you're kind of setting yourself up for fan dissatisfaction. If it's kitchen sink, the die hards of one era or another may feel their favorite piece of the canon is underrepresented. If you focus on just one flavor/era, does it appeal to the fanbase at large? Plus, a kitchen sink system is going to be a huge, heavyweight, expensive game to produce.

And really, all this assumes that the effort of creating this game system will be valuable enough to differentiate itself in the market from any number of existing sci-fi systems that can be tailored to emulate a Star Trek system. Is there any reason to believe that a fully dedicated Trek system will be better at doing its job than simply using GURPS Prime Directive, Savage Worlds, Traveler, Star Wars Saga, D6 Space/West End Star Wars, Ashen Stars, or Fate (Starblazer Adventures, Diaspora)? Or how about this whole What's O.L.D. is N.E.W. thing that somebody on this web site seems to think is a big deal?

aramis erak · May 19, 2015

Morrus said:
That's not even slightly what I said, as you know. And the sarcasm is not appreciated.

It WAS how you came across, tho'. And Umbran came off even worse.

Troll around the various Trek boards, and it becomes pretty clear that, indeed, they made a bunch of money by ignoring the fans of the older versions and doing something new, even tho it pissed off a HUGE chunk of the pre-extant fanbase.

EXACTLY the same way that nBSG did. Made the money by building a new fanbase by getting lots of free press from pissed off fans screaming about it on the 'net.

TarionzCousin · May 19, 2015

I firmly believe that I have absolutely no idea why there isn't a current Star Trek tabletop RPG.

Umbran · May 19, 2015

aramis erak said:
It WAS how you came across, tho'. And Umbran came off even worse.

Yes, well, you seem to be basically concerned with how fans were upset. And in this thread, I'm concerned with statistical assumptions and rhetorical form. Certainly, I'm going to seem unsympathetic.

Troll around the various Trek boards, and it becomes pretty clear that, indeed, they made a bunch of money by ignoring the fans of the older versions and doing something new, even tho it pissed off a HUGE chunk of the pre-extant fanbase.

Yeah, but, as we mention ever so often, the population of messageboards is self-selected to be a particular type of person, and you have to do some real statistical work to demonstrate if they are actually representative enough to take as a measure. Similar issues arise with the assumption, "old fan = gamer, new fan = not gamer".

I don't argue that they didn't cheese off some people. I merely note that you have to go a bit farther to use that to support why there isn't a current game out there. It would be a lot stronger support for why a game based on the new property *failed* than why one wasn't attempted.

billd91 · May 19, 2015

Umbran said:
I don't argue that they didn't cheese off some people. I merely note that you have to go a bit farther to use that to support why there isn't a current game out there. It would be a lot stronger support for why a game based on the new property *failed* than why one wasn't attempted.

Maybe the answer lies in the track record of other licensed games. While there are still plenty out there, how well are they really doing? The recent Marvel one barely seemed to get off the ground before that license was gone. At least one LotR license RPG fizzled out. Star Wars, probably the most evergreen of licenses, rapidly cycled through 3 systems, the license was allowed to lapse, and is now on a 4th incarnation in 15 years. The DC license with Green Ronin was over pretty quickly (though I would say it was well-managed). Are licenses really as attractive now as they once were?