Following up with the poll, finally tally came out with Project 1701 on top of the list.
The original Project 1701 pitch came out of a summer of indulging in Netflix's newly added Star Trek collection, especially several reviewings of the Abrams Trek film, which I adore. As such the present draft of it is an incredibly system light, high action game, currently clocking in at 11 pages and likely to be no more than a 32 page pamphlet by the time it's finished.
But as this may be evolving into a larger commercial project, I've been looking over the original incomplete draft and thinking it might be a bit too light and abstract to really support a commercial project. I also wrote some amount of it while cripplingly ill and/or on high powered painkillers, so some amount of rewriting is going to be a necessity one way or the other.
As such I've been spending some brainstorming time on redesigning the system to have a little more meat on it's bones while still hopefully fulfilling the goal of a high-action, get out of the way Star Trek system. The setting will remain the same 70s retrofuturist alt-history concept, but a little more detail to the system would be nice I think.
But I'm also interested to hear some feedback from the community on the project, before I get too committed to one idea. If there's interest I could probably also share some of the notes I have for the present system.
What would you like to see in a Star Trek-esque game? Would you buy a game that clocked in at only 32-64 pages, so long as it was complete enough to run? Or do you expect, or even demand big chunks of fluff and huge page counts?
I'd be much more interested in mechanics and GM guidelines than fluff.
Star Trek fluff is readily available online or in print form.
The 32-64 page count would actually an incentive to buy for me.
120-180 pages seems to be the sweet spot for me. Allows room for rules and setting.
intrigued on a low page count trek. how would you do all the tech? a few sample items, and then a "well, this is what it can't/shouldn't do" thing?
the good thing about a classic take on trek, no need for economic systems and huge gear lists :)
The system as present is very light on crunch and fairly abstracted, and pretty generalized. Characters are defined by just 8 stats, there's no damage system beyond, essentially, "hit and not hit," and ships can be boiled down to just 4 adjectives with the included tables.
It's a bit of a quirky design, and still unfinished, I just worry that it may be too light to offer a rich enough experience.
Rules light, done well, can still count on a solid following. Both Icons and Barbarians of Lemuria are pretty amazing and neither of them leave me feeling I'm short changing the players.
I'd go with 64 pages. The original "staple" bound rules books were mostly that long.
Shorter is fine, but it depends on your price point. Want to charge me more than 5 dollars, and I start wanting 100 or so pages. However, a lot of that depends on good content too. Artwork, rules, setting evocative material. Setting fluff, might be cool IF you can do your own "Not Quite Trek" and make it interesting. As I'm not a huge fan of Trek on its own. (I like OST and DS9 alright, and the new movie was fun. Still always like pulp-sf books over TV shows)
Reliably produce A and B plots that have something in common, informing the name of the episode. Star Trek is big with those.
A random alien hottie chart.
Quote from: J Arcane;519643What would you like to see in a Star Trek-esque game? Would you buy a game that clocked in at only 32-64 pages, so long as it was complete enough to run? Or do you expect, or even demand big chunks of fluff and huge page counts?
The system was one of the more interesting parts of this proposal for me. That said, I recommend reading this thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?438190-quot-Federal-Space-quot-%96-Shadowjack-s-alternative-Trek-setting-Image-Heavy) at TBP and the Wiki created for it (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/FederalSpace:Main_Page), more as inspiration than as particular ideas to use. I'd also recommend watching Galaxy Quest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI5hi4c4y9k), which was also a parody of other 70s science fiction in addition to Classic Star Trek, as inspiration. If you want something more unique, I'd recommend mixing in some Space 1999 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WZW4groJro) sensibilities, both with respect to a more defensive and militant posture and more horror-like aliens and adventures.
And don't forget to listen to 1970s synthesizer music while writing it:
Synergy - Revolt at L-5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjpzSpbnagU)
Synergy - Ancestors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja7Zqu53kcA)
Synergy - Flight of the Looking Glass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa42vQtvgIw)
Synergy - An End To History (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7olrGc_BMA)
Synergy - Warriors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIZVgZv5DFg)
Synergy - Phobos And Deimos Go To Mars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnwfKSFCcyE)
Synergy - Delta Two (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul91n4okszA)
Vangelis - Alpha (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT5zCHn0tsg)
Vangelis - Cosmos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOf4SktPDak)
Vangelis - Pulsar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC4V2THNy3I)
Jean Michel Jarre - Oxygene Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek5u5jl7Ads)
Jean Michel Jarre - Oxygene Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_I2ch8_TXc)
Jean Michel Jarre - Equinoxe Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpWNimba344)
Tangerine Dream - Force Majeure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoXrN4XSabI)
Tangerine Dream - Stratosfear (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w8VsvJ40sM)
It's good to hear that maybe the path I was going for with the system isn't as misguided as I originally thought. I might still expand the damage system and add a few more points of crunch, but perhaps I won't start completely from scratch after all. Biggest changes I think may be dropping the group lottery chargen system for something else.
Since hearing of the loss of Ralph McQuarrie, I've also felt a bit inspired to try and avoid forehead aliens in my universe to some extent. I love Star Trek, to be sure, but visually, their aliens have always been rather, well, un-alien, something McQuarrie's Star Wars designs definitely beat it at.
For a Star Trek RPG, I'd like to see a system that could handle both the "standard" universe and the Mirror Universe equally well.
I've played several different Star Trek RPGs and what Players seemed to always end up wanting was to do the Mirror Universe and be evil, or the kick ass conquering all-Klingon game (set before they were pacified by the Federation).
If your system can handle that, then I'm all for it.
Quote from: jeff37923;519917For a Star Trek RPG, I'd like to see a system that could handle both the "standard" universe and the Mirror Universe equally well.
I've played several different Star Trek RPGs and what Players seemed to always end up wanting was to do the Mirror Universe and be evil, or the kick ass conquering all-Klingon game (set before they were pacified by the Federation).
If your system can handle that, then I'm all for it.
One of my players wanted to play a Klingon medic--post Next Gen..
I keep thinking of "Walk it off, its just a punctured lung!"
Quote from: Silverlion;519918One of my players wanted to play a Klingon medic--post Next Gen..
I keep thinking of "Walk it off, its just a punctured lung!"
"Really? That isn't even a second degree phaser burn! Throw some dirt on it."
"tchh!" you puny humans and your lack of redundant backup organs!
Rules-light can be great in the right context. I just don't think this is that context. Star Trek is so wide-spanning and intricate and detail oriented and tech-heavy that rules-light just wouldn't work very well.
Fluff is out there, in excess, for free. Crunch, however, is not. That's what a Star Trek system should provide, lots of crunch.
There is an unofficial Hero System version of Star Trek that is really quite good. Check that out. I agree that Star Trek is the type of fiction that is detail oriented. As long as the system supports the meaningful differentiation of Star Trek details, it will work fairly well.
If it's Original Series Trek, I think you might get away with a minimalist approach, but, the current Trek culture is gearhead. If your system can't support the difference between the Phaser Cellphone, the Phaser Cellphone-in-pistol-frame, and the Phaser Rifle, and all the Klingon versions of same, then you're in trouble I think. Go to newer forms of Trek and you're gonna need even more crunch.
For me, I wouldn't get a Trek game that didn't have a starship combat component (even if that component was just a way to plug into some other starship combat game).
Quote from: jeff37923;519917For a Star Trek RPG, I'd like to see a system that could handle both the "standard" universe and the Mirror Universe equally well.
I've played several different Star Trek RPGs and what Players seemed to always end up wanting was to do the Mirror Universe and be evil, or the kick ass conquering all-Klingon game (set before they were pacified by the Federation).
If your system can handle that, then I'm all for it.
What system could handle Normal Universe that couldn't handle Mirror Universe (as an example)? I just don't get what the distinction would be rules-wise, unless you're just talking different gear lists.
Quote from: CRKrueger;520187What system could handle Normal Universe that couldn't handle Mirror Universe (as an example)? I just don't get what the distinction would be rules-wise, unless you're just talking different gear lists.
I'm talking different starting assumptions. Most, if not all,
Star Trek games start with the concept that you are a member of Starfleet and serve the Federation on board a starship fighting for truth, justice, and the Federation Way. The majority of the fluff associated is about the United Federation of Planets and how awesome they are while also showing the Enemies of the UFP and how diabolical they are.
A Mirror Universe or Klingon All-Stars game would have totally different starting assumptions and fluff.
It isn't just gear lists, it is the background of the setting itself which also helps to determine how the Players will interact with it.
I think, although I may be wrong, that someone would most want to play a RPG in a franchise universe like
Star Trek because it is set in the universe of
Star Trek - or else they would be off playing
Traveller or another SFRPG instead.
i wouldn't worry about the "gearhead" tech thing. in trek, so much of it gets the plot-handwavium treatment, anyway. besides, if you really want that, there's always fasa trek.
Quote from: Mistwell;520145Rules-light can be great in the right context. I just don't think this is that context. Star Trek is so wide-spanning and intricate and detail oriented and tech-heavy that rules-light just wouldn't work very well.
Fluff is out there, in excess, for free. Crunch, however, is not. That's what a Star Trek system should provide, lots of crunch.
There are already three seperate crunchy Trek games out there, though.
And I find I kind of have to agree with beeber here. Star Trek fans maybe be obsessive about gearhead details, but are the actual shows? Because I really don't think so.
Part of the original motivation for this game was wanting a "get out of the way " system for a style more like Abrams Trek and the TOS movies, high action, short on plodding pace, and that really doesn't exist on the market.
The other thing to consider is that while I intend to keep the game's mechanics easy enough to house rule, thus will not be an official Trek game, there's no way I could get that license, so anyone expecting official crunch is going to be disappointed, and those wanting to homebrew it in won't care about a bunch or original content anyhow.
I think the actual shows are more focused on character development and good stories, many of which have a parable-like message behind them.
The gadgets are just the focus of Star Trek's geek culture because us geeks like shiny sparkly tech that does super whammy things.
What about some kind of drama mechanic that rewards actions that emulate the story-driven style of the series?
This reminds me of the time I told someone their computer system was working again after a short outage and they asked what we'd done to fix it. I replied with a completely Scotty-style explanation - something like "We reversed the polarity of the neutron flow through the anti-matter relays and re-routed primary power to the deflector shield." - which was received with much hilarity.
The setting (main characters, planets, cities, galactic powers, lifeforms, etc.) details are even more important than gear details (phasers, ships, etc). Both are important in a Star Trek game. Star Trek is one of the few science fantasy that fashion is important to the setting too, which fans talk about a lot, but they might not admit (uniforms, regalia, hair style even). Remember the Emmy awards Next Generation received for Hair Design. Science fiction is all about the details.
Quote from: Kuroth;520182As long as the system supports the meaningful differentiation of Star Trek details, it will work fairly well.
I respectfully contend that the Star Trek TV shows do not themselves support the meaningful differentiation of Star Trek details.
In other words, I'm in the "less gear-crunch" camp on this one.
Especially since we're talking not about a licensed Trek game, but a Not-Trek game - ie, a game is built to do hopeful-retro-sci-fi of a certain bent. I would use a game like this to do my own Trek/whatever pastiche, and I suspect others would as well.
Star Trek is one of my unfulfilled gaming dreams. I got into gaming wanting to play a Star Trek game. Here is is over 30 years later and I'm still waiting for it to happen.
I'm an old school Trek fan. I like the TOS Movies, TOS, TOS Animated, TNG, and the TNG Movies in that general order of preference. I'm kind of neutral about DS9. I dislike Voyager and Enterprise. I loathe the 2009 movie.
In terms of games, I never thought the FASA game was very good. I tried to run a game, but the system struck me as being a mess. However, I do like a lot of the source material.
I liked the Last Unicorn Games Icon system. I ran a non-Trek space pirate game with it and it worked quite well. However, I never thought the source material was very good.
I never ran the Decipher Coda system. Embarrassingly, I could never quite figure out how I was supposed to make up a starfleet character (it was an automatic prestige class sort of thing). I never put much effort into it either, because I preferred the Icon version. I thought the source material was a bit better than it had been by the same people under the LUG logo. In any event, I perceive there's more of it than the previous version.
If I were to run or play, I'd want to use the TOS Movie Era. That may be a large factor in why I like the FASA Source Material. The Icon and Decipher books treated TOS and TOS movie era as pure camp, and were notably sloppy on anything non-Next Gen.
I've had a long time to think about Star Trek campaigning in general. I mentioned recently that my gaming situation is focused on one on one gaming. I feel Star Trek is uniquely suited to this. In fact, I feel it's somewhat unsuitable for group play. Given my previous experiences, I don't feel I'd even attempt to run Trek again unless it was purely a one on one game. That's because Trek is almost entirely about the captain of the ship. It's about the guy who makes the decisions. The other characters, in game terms, are just single skills or narrow skill groups which the captain can order them to use. It's about Captain Kirk making decisions and taking action, not so much those other guys.
Given my personal preference, I feel a Star Trek game should be capable of making PCs with fairly broad capabilities, because the Captains and the occasional main characters like Spock and Data are extremely good at a large number of things. Kirk is an expert combatant, master of starship tactics, 3D chess master, can pilot a starship/shuttle/ancient automobile, orbital skydiver, and has basic proficiency in just about everything else. However, those main omni-functional characters can't do everything at once (with the possible exception of Data), so there are "Hireling" style characters with one area of expertise and maybe a couple of quirks which fill out starship crews and the rest of the universe.
Looking over the thread to give a more complete answer.
Quote from: 1of3;519684Reliably produce A and B plots that have something in common, informing the name of the episode. Star Trek is big with those.
This is a good concept to bring into a system that has been lacking in those that have been specifically designed for Star Trek. There are some more recent games that do this for other television shows. I imagine it will be a part of the next license holder's game, since it appears to be a trend in television inspired games.
Quote from: Mistwell;520145Rules-light can be great in the right context. I just don't think this is that context. Star Trek is so wide-spanning and intricate and detail oriented and tech-heavy that rules-light just wouldn't work very well.
Fluff is out there, in excess, for free. Crunch, however, is not. That's what a Star Trek system should provide, lots of crunch.
This is actually how I have always handled Star Trek campaigns, using the system that worked best for the campaign that was to be played, using all sorts of non-roleplay game resources.
Quote from: VectorSigma;520433I respectfully contend that the Star Trek TV shows do not themselves support the meaningful differentiation of Star Trek details.
In other words, I'm in the "less gear-crunch" camp on this one.
Especially since we're talking not about a licensed Trek game, but a Not-Trek game - ie, a game is built to do hopeful-retro-sci-fi of a certain bent. I would use a game like this to do my own Trek/whatever pastiche, and I suspect others would as well.
It’s not so much about rules, rather all the details that make up the universe. If there are no details, it stops being Star Trek, and it is just a generic science fantasy game. Now, if one is trying to achieve a game that emulates the episodic nature of television that is not really a decision process about the nature of a specific Star Trek focused game.
Quote from: Gabriel2;520435I've had a long time to think about Star Trek campaigning in general. I mentioned recently that my gaming situation is focused on one on one gaming. I feel Star Trek is uniquely suited to this. In fact, I feel it's somewhat unsuitable for group play. Given my previous experiences, I don't feel I'd even attempt to run Trek again unless it was purely a one on one game. That's because Trek is almost entirely about the captain of the ship. It's about the guy who makes the decisions. The other characters, in game terms, are just single skills or narrow skill groups which the captain can order them to use. It's about Captain Kirk making decisions and taking action, not so much those other guys.
Given my personal preference, I feel a Star Trek game should be capable of making PCs with fairly broad capabilities, because the Captains and the occasional main characters like Spock and Data are extremely good at a large number of things. Kirk is an expert combatant, master of starship tactics, 3D chess master, can pilot a starship/shuttle/ancient automobile, orbital skydiver, and has basic proficiency in just about everything else. However, those main omni-functional characters can't do everything at once (with the possible exception of Data), so there are "Hireling" style characters with one area of expertise and maybe a couple of quirks which fill out starship crews and the rest of the universe.
I have been along a similar line of reasoning about the group size for a Star Trek game. Too often the default 5 player character concept is focused upon, and I’m of the opinion a game focused on one to three player characters would make a better fit. I also feel smaller groups are the trend in in-person roleplay gaming. I also agree with the breadth and ability of the Kirk, Spock and McCoy model characters.
I mentioned the hair design Emmys before, partly because I always found it amusing and interesting at the same time, but the Emmy nominations and awards are a good way to see the ratio of aspects of Star Trek that are important. It might seem an odd concept at first, but the ratio between Emmy nominations and awards for special visual effects, make-up, hair design, outstanding performance, outstanding dramatic series, editing, costume, title sequence, cinematography and music are pretty much what makes Star Trek what it appears on screen.
Screw the Gear and Tech - just play.
Later on a player might help you work out the tech details.
Oh - my ST campaign is still going on.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;520737Screw the Gear and Tech - just play.
Later on a player might help you work out the tech details.
Oh - my ST campaign is still going on.
- Ed C.
I'm revoking your Star Trek Trekkers Credentials Card. Immediately.
You should be ashamed of yourself. :hand:
:D
Has anyone played the Star Trek Clix boardgame?
Any ideas worth stealing for a RPG?
Quote from: Spinachcat;521557Has anyone played the Star Trek Clix boardgame?
Any ideas worth stealing for a RPG?
You could use the ship models, but that's about it. The ships are very cool. The game is fun in a beer and pretzels type of way. I like it a lot and I've never been much of a clix guy. I've bought two 12-packs and a starter. The sculpts and prepaint quality is fairly good, although the scales on some of them are off so that they will fit on the stands.
I read that it was just Heroclix rules with Star Trek minis. Can anyone confirm or deny?
I was initally going to pick up a starter because it had the TMP Enterprise in it. But I found out they painted the ship blue, and that was a deal killer for me.
I want women crewmembers in minidresses and updos.
Seriously, women in the original series had a profound effect on my pubertal years.
Heh. "Pubertal". I never would have imagined that was a word.
Anyway, I agree with the rules-light, less crunch crowd. It's one of the reasons I didn't like GURPS ST even though I dig GURPS, and it's one of the reasons Star Fleet Battles drives me away screaming in fear. If other people like crunch in their space operas, that's cool - I don't, particularly. Give lots of rules for in-setting stuff (species, ship classes, outer space anomalies & events, etc), or the ability to create such things very easily (following a stock template, maybe), and leave the rest up to the GM or the players.
Fluff isn't needed; there's mountains of fluff out there already. Combine with an action-oriented system (with a well-thought out secondary social system, mind you), simple character creation, ship-to-ship combat rules and bam, away at the races.
Oddly, I think such a system could work for Warhammer 40,000 too.