Star Trek RPG Player's Guide [rant]

[Erekose]

I've just finished an initial read through of the new ST:RPG Player's Guide.

Previously I've posted on the need for good production values and the player's guide is a very polished product. However, I wonder whether this is a case of style over content.

The problem seems to be that rather than focusing on one Star Trek era and/or Star Fleet characters the book is trying to be all things to all people. What this means is that no one area gets enough coverage and the overall impression is of something quite lightweight.

In fact I'd go further, what the player's guide really reminds me of is a "conversion manual" for people who played the FASA Star Trek or LUGTrek. On that level it works admirably.

May be the Narrator's Guide will have the substance I was hoping for but I am a little disappointed. I just hope the real detail isn't eked out in a dozen or so supplements.

Finally, as has been said before the Coda system does seem very incredibly similar to the D20 system. I found it quite confusing in that I wanted to convert the terms used to D20 terms while I was reading it.

What do other people think?

 

[Erekose]

Oh dear looks like the supplements have already started:

http://www.decipher.com/startrek/rpg/strpgreleaseschedule.html

 

[Wolfspider]

Well, of course they'll be supplements. And lots of them. Decipher IS trying to make money, just like every other RPG company.

As far as the similarities between D20 and Coda--yeah, they're there. They're obvious. But it's amazing how far people will go to deny the relationship.

Of course, there ARE differences...and the differences are good if you don't like D20's way of handling level progression and combat ability.

But still...Yes, the two systems are similar. Very similar. Why can't people acknowledge that?

Grrrr.

(Sorry, I'm still suffering post-traumatic stress from posting on the Decipher message boards.)

 

[Erekose]

I suppose my comment on the supplements was more along the lines of how many you need to buy to create a reasonable campaign.

At least with D&D you can get away quite comfortably with justh the three core rulebooks. I'm not so sure with ST:RPG. At first glance it looks like you might need half a dozen books just to start (I appreciate you may be able to wing it with the PHB and the NG).

 

[Wolfspider]

Well, I don't think you really need a lot of supplements myself. If you have a working knowledge of Star Trek, some of the published non-RPG tech manuals and background books, and access to startrek.com, you have enough material to run a good campaign. Of course, gamers (if they're anything like me) tend to be completionists...so I'll probably end up buying every last book.

Sigh.

 

[enrious]

Erekose, first off, let me apologize in advance if I mis-characterize your complaints.

1) You don't like the generic approach made by Decipher and would seem to prefer the LUG method of releasing a core book for each setting.

I remember the LUG approach. Each book cost $35 and contained 35-50% of the same exact material in the other core books. This meant that if you picked up the DS9 book, long sections were verbatim from the TOS and TNG books.

They did that because they wanted every setting to be able to stand alone - thus they had to repeat the combat rules in every core book.

I much prefer the current approach, releasing one generic book covering the 4 series and then releasing smaller (and presumably cheaper) settings books that focus on a given era/series. That way I don't have to pay for stuff I already own.

Imagine it this way - what if WotC did not release the Players Handbook but instead released the Forgotten Realms Player's Handbook, Greyhawk Player's Handbook, and Ravenloft Player's Handbook, each with about 50-65% of new material, but each was $35? If you wanted to play in all three, you would likely have to purchase all three copies rather than just one generic PH and a few cheaper sourcebooks.

And that's not even mentioning the settings-specific DMG and MM...

2) Regarding how many books you need to run a ST game - I think the number is 3 as well. PG, NG, and the aliens book listed on the link you provided. There's 3 core. Of course you can, just like in D&D, decide to purchase additional supplements to cover material you don't want to create on your own. I really don't see the difference between this approach and WotC's approach.

3) The idea of supplements being announced already - I don't see this as a bad thing, it means they are planning on supporting the product. Come to think of it, didn't WotC do the same thing when they announced the PH? Didn't they announce that they would be releasing a DMG and MM? Plus they planned on releasing "splat" books?

4) The biggie - d20 and Coda similarities. They're there, no denying it - even one of the authors said that. However, there was no intent to "steal" ideas from d20 and put them in Coda, the simple truth is that good rules ideas have been reused for a long time.

Take d20 for example.

The task resolution system whereby you take Ability + Skill points + die roll are used in Twilight 2000 2.2 (even using a d20) which came out in '93 or '94. Before that, the Interlock system had the defender roll a die on the above mechanic to avoid the effect of the protagonist. I first played an Interlock game in 1988 (Mekton/Cyberpunk) but I have yet to see anyone suggest that d20's task resolution was stolen from Interlock or Twilight 2000's system.

The current multi-class system, where you advance one class level at a time was first seen by me in 1993. In all places, this was in the Palladium FRPG Revised Edition. Where's the outcry that WotC stole this idea to use in d20?

Those are just two examples. There are more. My point is that just because they have similarites doesn't mean one stole from the other; it is a result of either some very good ideas having been presented in past games or independant creation. My money's on the former but either could happen.

Wolfspider, I've said before that I think Coda would be a perfect model for anyone making a d20 leveless/classless game. I would recommend staying away from Decipher's forums as they're trash, IMO. Check out http://www.trek-rpg.net for some good quality, fair boards. One of them there even got me into d20!

Erekose, I know you've amended your earliest post so much of my post is aimed past you at those who have made arguments in the past. This just seemed like the right post to respond.

 

[mattcolville]

Oh dear looks like the supplements have already started:

http://www.decipher.com/startrek/rpg/strpgreleaseschedule.html

Yeah, we were all pretty surprised about that too. We thought they were just going to fire all of us. Then they said they wanted 'supplements.' We were shocked! "My god!" we said. "No-one's ever done supplements! We'll be crucified!!!"

We're crossing our fingers, though. Who knows, could be releasing more than one product for a line could catch on.

 

[coyote6]

We're crossing our fingers, though. Who knows, could be releasing more than one product for a line could catch on.

That's the kind of daring innovation we all expect from the company behind "Boy Crazy".

I'll have to buy the Mirror Universe book, even though I might not buy anything else. Gotta love the Mirror Universe.

 

[Erekose]

You make a few comments and then . . . BOOM!

Any way . . . enrious I agree with most of your comments although I must say I have no experience of LUGtrek. I used to referee the FASA Trek RPG in the dim and distant past which is why I was so hopeful for the Decipher version.

On reflection, I think a lot depends on what's in the Narator's Guide. If the supplements are merely expanding on concepts/rules presented there then this is no bad thing. However, at first glance the supplements sound like core facets of the game have been held back, e.g. starship combat, etc.

As for the Coda/D20 comparison . . . it really doesn't matter if they are similar (or the same) from a player's perspective. My only real comment is that they appear so similar that the differences in terminology make it confusing if you have already bought into the terminology of one of the systems.

 

[S'mon]

4) The biggie - d20 and Coda similarities. They're there, no denying it - even one of the authors said that. However, there was no intent to "steal" ideas from d20 and put them in Coda, the simple truth is that good rules ideas have been reused for a long time.

Take d20 for example.

The task resolution system whereby you take Ability + Skill points + die roll are used in Twilight 2000 2.2 (even using a d20) which came out in '93 or '94. Before that, the Interlock system had the defender roll a die on the above mechanic to avoid the effect of the protagonist. I first played an Interlock game in 1988 (Mekton/Cyberpunk) but I have yet to see anyone suggest that d20's task resolution was stolen from Interlock or Twilight 2000's system.

I have Traveller: The New Era (c) 1993 GDW, when I got the 3e PHB back in 2000 I immediately noticed that 3e's d20 task resolution system was almost exactly the same as that in TNE's 7 year old rules. It wouldn't surprise me that there was some 'inspiration' from TNE/Twilight 2000 in 3e's rules, although independent creation is possible too.