Why aren't Star Wars and Star Trek dominating the RPG market?

[d4]

So why isn't Star Trek ruling the roost? Because many younger players don't like being told what to do by other players, and most of all, because it is a lot of work for any GM to keep interesting on a weekly basis when compared to a FRPG.

While problem #1 can be made to go away in Star Wars, problem #2 persists in both genres.

i strongly disagree. i've "ad-libbed" several Star Wars campaigns before, and had no real problems doing it. i've played in another GM's setting that was very "Trekkish" in which he ad-libbed the great majority of our sessions, and thoroughly enjoyed myself. neither of us had any trouble doing so.

i think your first point (RP'ing a military structure is difficult for some gamers) is spot on, but your second (it's hard to design / ad-lib sci-fi adventures) is a bit off.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Something I've been wondering about a lot lately...

Why aren't Star Wars D20 and Star Trek (Decipher) dominating the RPG market?

Short form, the games often suck. Ignoring conflicts with cannon or continuity, the games are rarely that appealing outside of fanboys.

I flipped through SWd20 and my impression was that it didn't have as much systemic "flare" as 3.x. The Jedi didn't seem to have the option to be as flashy as a Fighter, Rogues seemed to trump Scoundrels, and the Barbarian seemed to lack any equivalent (seemed perfect for a Wookie). The characters didn't have any coolness outside of the Lucas(tm) logo. They just barely seemed more than the NPC classes I was accustomed to in 3.x. (Personally I'd have made a couple of 3-5 level Jedi PrCs to up the Jedi class power level without affecting overall balance)

Trek is, well, it's a messed up universe for gaming. The average character on the shows are exemplary people. Star Fleet officers are far and away some of the best of the best (both logically and in cannon) so the everpresent NPCs shine just as brightly, or moreso. Heck, most of the episodes were based on the idea of "isolated SF officers fight to return home." That was the *entire* premise of Voyager. Which means your character has to be like Timmy on Lassie to always fall down the well or be resigned to a non-decision making role.

Games work well when your characters are special (PCs vs NPCs, Supernatural vs. Natural, Cake vs. Bread) and stand out from the norm. In SW non-Jedi characters really aren't anything special and the Jedi's nifty only because he's the only one with the Force. In Trek you are a tall person amoung giants.

 

[midknight12]

Well, i haven't read the last three pages, but I will answer the question from my group's perspective even though I dont agree with them. First, they are both Science Fiction. All gamers in my group and many i have found do not like science fiction especially in roleplaying. This seems to extend to MMO's. Next, each member of my group already has predisposed opinions of both properties. While the opinions are not totally negative, they have no desire to play characters in the setting. So, that is the opinion from my group and why we dont play in those settings.

As for the answer to the broader question, i think several have already said it. The population of sci-fi fans and roleplayers do not overlap. They may overlap a little, but not to the degree where either of the games could ever be bigger than d20 or D&D. Most fans i know do not like roleplaying, and most roleplayers I know are not not big fans of either sci-fi property.

P.S. I would love to play in a star trek or star wars rpg. Just dont have the group.

 

[d4]

I flipped through SWd20 and my impression was that it didn't have as much systemic "flare" as 3.x. The Jedi didn't seem to have the option to be as flashy as a Fighter, Rogues seemed to trump Scoundrels, and the Barbarian seemed to lack any equivalent (seemed perfect for a Wookie). The characters didn't have any coolness outside of the Lucas(tm) logo. They just barely seemed more than the NPC classes I was accustomed to in 3.x.

i think you should've taken a closer look. Jedi have a number of flashy powers available to them. A wide selection of Force feats and Force skills (as well as two very different Jedi base classes) means Jedi can be individualized quite well in the system.

i think Scoundrels are just as versatile and interesting as Rogues, but that's just my opinion.

Wookiees don't need a Barbarian-like class because they can already Rage as a racial ability. Outside of them, i don't see much in Star Wars that would require a Barbarian-like class.

i don't think the Star Wars classes are anything like NPC classes -- NPC classes don't get class abilities, and Star Wars base classes all get a class ability or improvement nearly every level.

(Personally I'd have made a couple of 3-5 level Jedi PrCs to up the Jedi class power level without affecting overall balance)

you mean like the Jedi Ace, Jedi Investigator, and Jedi Master PrCs (in the core rulebook) and the Force Warrior, Jedi Healer, Jedi Instructor, Jedi Scholar, and Jedi Weapon Master PrCs in the Power of the Jedi sourcebook?

 

[kigmatzomat]

i think you should've taken a closer look. Jedi have a number of flashy powers available to them. A wide selection of Force feats and Force skills (as well as two very different Jedi base classes) means Jedi can be individualized quite well in the system.

i don't think the Star Wars classes are anything like NPC classes -- NPC classes don't get class abilities, and Star Wars base classes all get a class ability or improvement nearly every level.

Sort of. The Jedi didn't seem to be much more than a d20 Adepts. Yeah, I know a wizard is mind-numbingly powerful, but I got the impression the weenie caster of the d20 universe could trump a Jedi.

I didn't spend a lot of time on the book but I don't recall any bonus feats for the Jedi class and the feats I did look at didn't seem to keep pace with the PsiHb.

(Personally I'd have made a couple of 3-5 level Jedi PrCs to up the Jedi class power level without affecting overall balance)

you mean like the Jedi Ace, Jedi Investigator, and Jedi Master PrCs (in the core rulebook) and the Force Warrior, Jedi Healer, Jedi Instructor, Jedi Scholar, and Jedi Weapon Master PrCs in the Power of the Jedi sourcebook?

I meant insted of a Jedi base class. Make the Jedi something you do after being something else and condense the class to something meatier.

All in all, the book didn't wow me in any way shape or form and it had the same impact on the people who were SWd6 gamers. Which is why I/they/we don't play it.

 

[Dogbrain]

In the long, long-ago, before the Statue of John Elway began to demand sacrifices, the big SF RPG was Traveller. It wasn't any of the big-market settings, and that was much of its success. Star Trek and Star Wars do not lend themselves well to gaming, for much the same reason that Middle Earth does not lend itself well to gaming. Gamers want freedom to play as they like. Settings with the One Really Big Plot already built in, along with the Really Big Heroes, have limited appeal. Playing second fiddle, or knowing that, whatever you do, you are purely peripheral to the Important Action generally doesn't appeal to most people. That handicaps Star Wars and Middle Earth. Star Trek has more potential, given that we get some idea that Other Stuff Happens, but we still have the "Not Really Kirk" problem. Likewise, as has been mentioned before, those gamers who like the settings enough to play them are likely to disagree with the design decisions in the licensed games. They may very well be the best possible design decisions, but that won't stop gamers from disagreeing with them. In addition, fictional settings do not have to worry as much about internal consistency or widespread implications of setting features as much as does a game setting. Writers just don't let their characters "play the quirks" as fanatically as gamers are prone to doing.

In essence, many of the traits that make these settings so good for conventional fiction weaken them for gaming.