Ranger REG
Explorer
Personally, the FASA version has a militaristic feel of Star Trek. I'm also not fond of the random duty assignment chart. LUG is a bit more freeform and the development of character shows greater promise than the open-ended d100.
d20 Star Trek??
- Thread starter Oberton
- Start date
Erekose
Eternal Champion
I guess my bias is that we always played Star Trek in the timeline of the original TV series or the original cast films and so the FASA game fit the bill nicely. I can appreciate that if you want to roleplay in the Star Trek universe but not as part of Star Fleet you might be better off elsewhere.
Last edited:
Ranger REG
Explorer
Who said you can't play the other aspect of Star Fleet without being militaristic? 
Yes, you are correct, the FASA version fit the Film Series very nicely, but I'd like to think that Star Fleet is not strictly military. Then again, I tend to favor the cerebral approach.
Yes, you are correct, the FASA version fit the Film Series very nicely, but I'd like to think that Star Fleet is not strictly military. Then again, I tend to favor the cerebral approach.
s/LaSH
First Post
Ranger REG said:
Does the Federation even have an official standing army? I always thought Starfleet was a gang of scientists with big guns. Thus its enduring geek appeal, I suppose. (By which I mean people like myself.)
I can't say much as per a recommendation, but Blood And Space has some neat crew mechanics that I reckon could handle Star Trek quite well. Plus you get rules for saying 'Helm! Evasive maneuvers!' It won't be perfect, but it'll be d20.
Erekose
Eternal Champion
Well in the original tv series/films you have Star Fleet as a benevolent military organisation. Particularly STII:TWOK onwards to VI Star Fleet was portrayed very much along current US Navy lines IMHO. TNG was much more cerebral and Jean-Luc could be described more as a "scientist with guns" than a "military officer with an interest in science".
Last edited:
Thimble the Squit
First Post
Decipher and CODA
Regarding Decipher's CODA system, I have the Lord of the Rings RPG and I have played their Star Trek. I have to say that I MUCH prefer their treatment of Star Trek to their utter mishandling of the Lord of the Rings.
While the rules might be (on the surface) identical, the difference in quality between the two systems is astonishing. The LotR RPG is rushed and surreally unbalanced (who'd ever play anything other than an elf?) with frequently unreadable text squeezed amongst too much artwork (which is either gorgeous shots of Peter Jackson's divine movies -- or truly heinous comic drawings). The layout for their Star Trek game is clean, elegant and very colourful, with plenty of great photos liberally splashed throughout -- but not interfering with the typesetting.
Even the attributes are different -- for some insane reason, Decipher saw fit to replace Star Trek's Intelligence score with something called Wits -- this is Tolkein not Deadlands, for crying out loud! Worse: Agility becomes Nimbleness! Whoever believed these were sensible names for attributes obviously suffers from low Wits and critical Stupidness.
While the science stuff in Star Trek is neat and tidy (although I do think that the single skill Technical Operations covers a few too many bases), magic in LotR is extremely weak. After about an entire page preaching how magic is used very rarely even by the most powerful wizards, for risk of corruption and weakness, the rules themselves then utterly fail to punish over-use of spellcasting. Words of power (such as "Elbereth") can assist your heroes in their actions -- but the rules fail to limit their use to heroic deeds, only suggesting the referee remind players not to exploit this loophole.
Decipher's Star Trek Roleplaying Game is great. It works very well: it's clean and concise and easy to play; it captures the setting very nicely and it looks fabulous. Conversely, The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game is clumsy and ill-conceived; a hasty attempt to cash in on the New Line Cinema franchise, which fails in almost every manner. It looks fabulous too, but that's thanks to all the still shots from the films -- the typesetting and bespoke artwork is terrible.
That's my two pence. Buy Star Trek. Avoid LotR. Go back to MERP.
MERP's (Rulesmaster Lite) game system might have been messy and over-deadly, with magic far too weak at low levels whilst far too powerful at the higher ones; it might have had cheap production values with awkward organisation; it might have had all those silly and gross critical hit and fumble tables ("Tremendous crsuhing blow -- try a spatula", "Trip over unseen imaginary deceased turtle", "Groin strain -- foe stunned 3 rounds laughing"); it might have been all these things -- but at least ICE respected Tolkein's work. Their artists were better too.
Regarding Decipher's CODA system, I have the Lord of the Rings RPG and I have played their Star Trek. I have to say that I MUCH prefer their treatment of Star Trek to their utter mishandling of the Lord of the Rings.
While the rules might be (on the surface) identical, the difference in quality between the two systems is astonishing. The LotR RPG is rushed and surreally unbalanced (who'd ever play anything other than an elf?) with frequently unreadable text squeezed amongst too much artwork (which is either gorgeous shots of Peter Jackson's divine movies -- or truly heinous comic drawings). The layout for their Star Trek game is clean, elegant and very colourful, with plenty of great photos liberally splashed throughout -- but not interfering with the typesetting.
Even the attributes are different -- for some insane reason, Decipher saw fit to replace Star Trek's Intelligence score with something called Wits -- this is Tolkein not Deadlands, for crying out loud! Worse: Agility becomes Nimbleness! Whoever believed these were sensible names for attributes obviously suffers from low Wits and critical Stupidness.
While the science stuff in Star Trek is neat and tidy (although I do think that the single skill Technical Operations covers a few too many bases), magic in LotR is extremely weak. After about an entire page preaching how magic is used very rarely even by the most powerful wizards, for risk of corruption and weakness, the rules themselves then utterly fail to punish over-use of spellcasting. Words of power (such as "Elbereth") can assist your heroes in their actions -- but the rules fail to limit their use to heroic deeds, only suggesting the referee remind players not to exploit this loophole.
Decipher's Star Trek Roleplaying Game is great. It works very well: it's clean and concise and easy to play; it captures the setting very nicely and it looks fabulous. Conversely, The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game is clumsy and ill-conceived; a hasty attempt to cash in on the New Line Cinema franchise, which fails in almost every manner. It looks fabulous too, but that's thanks to all the still shots from the films -- the typesetting and bespoke artwork is terrible.
That's my two pence. Buy Star Trek. Avoid LotR. Go back to MERP.
MERP's (Rulesmaster Lite) game system might have been messy and over-deadly, with magic far too weak at low levels whilst far too powerful at the higher ones; it might have had cheap production values with awkward organisation; it might have had all those silly and gross critical hit and fumble tables ("Tremendous crsuhing blow -- try a spatula", "Trip over unseen imaginary deceased turtle", "Groin strain -- foe stunned 3 rounds laughing"); it might have been all these things -- but at least ICE respected Tolkein's work. Their artists were better too.
Well,
While I respect Thimble on the Spit's opinion.
1. As far as the balance issue... Why wouldn't anyone play anything other than an elf? Because unlike standard fantasy, Tolkiens world has races that are "unbalanced" compared to each other. In most dnd/fantasy world, elves are merely humans with pointy ears that need to have enough disadvantages to equal a human. Elves in Tolkiens world are more perfect creations and more powerful... but they are also otherworldly, surreal, and vastly different. If a player wants to roleplay that challenging role, then they could be an elf in my game. Most players can't or don't want the "restrictive" nature that LOTR elves have. The cost is two high. Only a few are up to the challenge. In short, this is a balance issue sure. If you can handle games in which players are of different power levels then it is a great strength. If you can only p[lay games that are "perfectly balanced", which I personally have never seen, then it is not for you.
2. The artwork and text. This is a judgement call and is subjective. I thought it one of the more beautiful RPG products I had ever had.
3. Atribute names changed for "feel". Again, subjective. I liked it. A hobbit is nimble far more than agile in my opinion.
4. Magic. It is an RPG, after all, and I had no problem with a wizard doing "more" than we see gandalf do. More important to me was that the magic "felt" like middle earth. To me it did.
5. MER. Ahhh thimble in the spit, we might agree some here. MERP supplements are far more meaty than what as been released by decipher. While Decipher's Fellowship of the ring supplement is more pretty than content (something that the trek supplements are as well, IMHO), some of that has something to do with the nature of the liscence and what they can put in the game. They only have access to LOTR (and maybe the hobbit, can't remember). All of the rest of tolkiens work is held by Tolkiens son, who refuses to grant the rights, and disklikes RPGs as I understand. MERP grabbed stuff from everywhere they wanted, with little restraint. Even places they weren't supposed to. This violated the copyright liscences, something that Decipher isn't doing, whether by choice or contract. I think that the designers would love to dip into that material, they just can't.
Soooo.....................
In short, LOTR assumes that a GM is running a story, and has fluid rules that help guide the story cinematically. Where as D20 is more of a rules heavy toolkit with rules to adjudicate every thing. D20 tries to have a rule for everything. Coda assumes that the GM will have the control and wisdom to adjudicate effects cinematicallyh for the benefit of the story. Both have their strengths, both have their weaknesses. It depends what you like, and what kind of story you like to tell.
I like them both. I actually run D20 more in Coda's style which is rules light. That is the beauty of D20 and any game. It is YOUR game.
Razuur.
While I respect Thimble on the Spit's opinion.
1. As far as the balance issue... Why wouldn't anyone play anything other than an elf? Because unlike standard fantasy, Tolkiens world has races that are "unbalanced" compared to each other. In most dnd/fantasy world, elves are merely humans with pointy ears that need to have enough disadvantages to equal a human. Elves in Tolkiens world are more perfect creations and more powerful... but they are also otherworldly, surreal, and vastly different. If a player wants to roleplay that challenging role, then they could be an elf in my game. Most players can't or don't want the "restrictive" nature that LOTR elves have. The cost is two high. Only a few are up to the challenge. In short, this is a balance issue sure. If you can handle games in which players are of different power levels then it is a great strength. If you can only p[lay games that are "perfectly balanced", which I personally have never seen, then it is not for you.
2. The artwork and text. This is a judgement call and is subjective. I thought it one of the more beautiful RPG products I had ever had.
3. Atribute names changed for "feel". Again, subjective. I liked it. A hobbit is nimble far more than agile in my opinion.
4. Magic. It is an RPG, after all, and I had no problem with a wizard doing "more" than we see gandalf do. More important to me was that the magic "felt" like middle earth. To me it did.
5. MER. Ahhh thimble in the spit, we might agree some here. MERP supplements are far more meaty than what as been released by decipher. While Decipher's Fellowship of the ring supplement is more pretty than content (something that the trek supplements are as well, IMHO), some of that has something to do with the nature of the liscence and what they can put in the game. They only have access to LOTR (and maybe the hobbit, can't remember). All of the rest of tolkiens work is held by Tolkiens son, who refuses to grant the rights, and disklikes RPGs as I understand. MERP grabbed stuff from everywhere they wanted, with little restraint. Even places they weren't supposed to. This violated the copyright liscences, something that Decipher isn't doing, whether by choice or contract. I think that the designers would love to dip into that material, they just can't.
Soooo.....................
In short, LOTR assumes that a GM is running a story, and has fluid rules that help guide the story cinematically. Where as D20 is more of a rules heavy toolkit with rules to adjudicate every thing. D20 tries to have a rule for everything. Coda assumes that the GM will have the control and wisdom to adjudicate effects cinematicallyh for the benefit of the story. Both have their strengths, both have their weaknesses. It depends what you like, and what kind of story you like to tell.
I like them both. I actually run D20 more in Coda's style which is rules light. That is the beauty of D20 and any game. It is YOUR game.
Razuur.
Similar Threads
