# Star Wars, Star Trek, and Gaming



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 28, 2018)

A gentle correction in another thread got me thinking: why does it seem like in gaming there are a lot more Star Wars-based games (video games, RPGs, other tabletop games) than Star Trek-based games?

This is totally unscientific -- I have no idea the size of the respective fanbases, though it does seem to me that Star Wars has been the more heavily merchandised property. Is it as simple as licensing and willingness to extend to game genres?

It certainly seems to me that Star Trek has more media to mine.  Star Wars has what, ten movies now, about three animated series, and some made-for-TV dreck; Star Trek has 5-6 TV series spanning multiple seasons, and animated series, plus at least as many movies (I've honestly lost count). Both have had lots of spin-off novels, fandom, conventions, etc. But when I compare gaming ... about two Trek RPG interations vs four for Wars, Star Fleet Battles and Attack Wing certainly, but a lot more SW miniatures games, lots more other SW products and especially the Lucasfilm game lines.

All else equal, is there something about Star Wars that lends itself more readily to gaming than Star Trek?

(This all could just be confirmation bias on my part -- though I'm a fan of both, my own personal nerddom leans less Trekkie and more Warsie. Warrior? Wart? What do you call a Star Wars nerd, anyway?)


----------



## Umbran (May 28, 2018)

Well, these two pages might help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_video_games

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_games

I don't doubt that in the world at large, more folks are more interested in playing a video game where they can insert themselves as a laser-sword wielding bad@ss than a redshirt with a phaser and bound by the Prime Directive.


----------



## Morrus (May 29, 2018)

I know nothing of the comparative size of each franchise, and I’m a big Trek fan, but I feel like Star Wars is much, much bigger than Star Trek. A new Star Wars movie is a much bigger event than a new Star Trek movie (though that may well change once they start churning them out).

There’s definitely ,ore Star Wars toys in general than Trek. Is there a Lego Enterprise? You’re right in that’s it’s much more heavily merchandised. Historically, merchandising has always been a massive part of Star Wars’ identity. While there are Trek toys and models, it’s not in the same league.


----------



## Blue (May 29, 2018)

My take is that Star Wars is Space Opera, and focuses on specific heroes changing the universe.

Star Trek, while having heroes, often seems like those heroes only have local influence and it's the groups that have the power.

Yes, you have the Rebel Alliance, but it's rag-tag - if it didn't have individual heroes it wouldn't be so effective, while the Federation would be hit for losing any of it's famous crews and captains but would continue on.  Even the Empire fragments when Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader are lost to them.

So for RPGs and video games, where you're playing a specific individual, the Space Opera is a more common fit.  When Star Trek does it, you need to bend the universe to get starting captains (RPGs, Star Trek Online), or just play as whole ships (many ST video and strategy games).

Not saying you can't play ST, but it's a narrower niche.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 29, 2018)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> All else equal, is there something about Star Wars that lends itself more readily to gaming than Star Trek?



Imho, because 'Star Wars' is basically just 'Fantasy in Space'. 
Star Trek also feels a lot more restrictive, since all PCs have to belong to the Star Fleet.


----------



## delericho (May 29, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Imho, because 'Star Wars' is basically just 'Fantasy in Space'.
> Star Trek also feels a lot more restrictive, since all PCs have to belong to the Star Fleet.




One reason all of the Trek series* take place right on the frontier of known space (whether because it's on a "five year mission", an outpost right by a newly-discovered wormhole, or because Voyager has been dragged into a whole other quadrant) is precisely to reduce the impact of Starfleet - both in that the heroes can't rely on the fleet to come back them up, and also in that the fleet can't just impose their morality on the crew. If Kirk wants to impregnate alien cultures with his influence, there's nobody around to stop him.

* I should note that I haven't seen Discovery, so that might be an exception.


----------



## Umbran (May 29, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Star Trek also feels a lot more restrictive, since all PCs have to belong to the Star Fleet.




Given that many of the characters on DS9 and Voyager were not Star Fleet, there's a misconception there.  

Kind of like saying that it isn't Star Wars unless there are Jedi PCs.  And then considering Solo.


----------



## Janx (May 29, 2018)

side note on ST vs. SW games.  Both Star Wars and Star Trek have a space battle game licensed from Fantasy Flight (Star Trek Attack Wing and Star Wars Miniatures I think it's called).

Nobody plays STAW, you can't find figures or players in any FLGS.  But you can find SW players and product quite readily.

The rules are mostly the same.  One problem I see with that is that Star Trek isn't dog-fighting in space.  But the game is.  Kind of misses the point, and misses the market.  While I have STAW, it's not what the market is looking for.


----------



## Nagol (May 29, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Given that many of the characters on DS9 and Voyager were not Star Fleet, there's a misconception there.
> 
> Kind of like saying that it isn't Star Wars unless there are Jedi PCs.  And then considering Solo.




Even when not officially part of Starfleet, the characters still needed to respect and adhere to the hierarchy.

My best guess is the stronger organizational structure of Star Trek is a disincentive compared to the more free-wheeling style offered by Star Wars.  Many players make pretty poor managers; many players balk at taking orders from another player.  It's not a good mix.

If Star Trek were to have a few media properties working around the edges of Starfleet -- something like _Solo_ or _Firefly_ -- then I would expect the universe to see better traction in the RPG market.


----------



## Umbran (May 29, 2018)

Janx said:


> The rules are mostly the same.




Well, that's a problem in and of itself.  If the rules are mostly the same, why have both games?  It would be like owning several Monopoly sets.  Why bother?

The fact that Star Wars largely portrays combat as one-person dogfights with capital ship support (which is just perfect for a minis game) while Trek typically portrays it as two capital ships slugging it out toe to toe is also relevant.  Trek starship combat is actually good for an RPG, as it is complete in only a couple of exchanges, and you get on with the the character focus.  It is less appealing as a starship tactical battle game, though.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (May 29, 2018)

That’s one of the points the Netflix series The Toys That Made Us makes. Star Wars was just plain more toy-friendly. Star Trek didn’t have a lot of gear, whereas Star Wars had all sorts of blasters, lightsabers, helmets, and so on. But the vehicles in particular were the sticking point. Star Trek pretty much just had giant ships like The Enterprise and Klingon Birds of Prey, or little shuttles. They just weren’t on the same scale. Star Wars had so many vehicles the action figures could just jump into.



Morrus said:


> There’s definitely ,ore Star Wars toys in general than Trek. Is there a Lego Enterprise? You’re right in that’s it’s much more heavily merchandised. Historically, merchandising has always been a massive part of Star Wars’ identity. While there are Trek toys and models, it’s not in the same league.


----------



## cmad1977 (May 29, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Well, that's a problem in and of itself.  If the rules are mostly the same, why have both games?  It would be like owning several Monopoly sets.  Why bother?




Because Fantasy Flight can’t resist producing anything with minis, tokens, chips and buttons.

MOAR STUFF!!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 29, 2018)

I think _part_ of it is that Star Trek characters- in film & TV- are kind of glass cannons.  They have great offensive power in their hands, but poor defenses.  They can kill thousands or disintegrate things with their sidearms.  They can stun just as easily.  Their phasers (and some of the others sidearms in the setting) have adjustable fields of fire, so you basically aim with pinpoint precision or a wide spread AoE.

...but if you get the drop on someone?  Well, they pretty much have to drop their weapons.

IOW, if one side has a tactical/positional edge like that, that’s pretty much ending the fight.  Most of the fun character level combats in that setting occur hand to hand, without their gee whiz gear.

In Star Wars?  Blasters, lightsabers, etc. all over the place in personal combat.  It’s not just space opera, it’s like action from the Wild West.


As for the toys themselves...  I never had any of the action figures for either franchise (or BSG, for that matter).

I used to have a phaser when I was a kid.  The gun-like one with the removable mini one attached.  

Never had a lightsaber, though.  I couldn’t see the point in having ones like they had in my youth.  Now, those polycarbonate ones?  That’s a different story.


----------



## Umbran (May 29, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In Star Wars?  Blasters, lightsabers, etc. all over the place in personal combat.  It’s not just space opera, it’s like action from the Wild West.




True.  n Trek, if someone aims a phaser at you, you're pretty much done unless you are in a space with lots of cover. But note how rarely in the movies we someone take a blaster bolt, and still keep moving - that is still rare.  The difference is that in Star Wars, almost everyone is a horrible shot (or the weapons are not terribly accurate).  It's liek a G.I. Joe cartoon, with blaster fire everywhere, and nobody getting hit.  Very cinematic, at least.  Pew!  Pew!  Pewpewpew!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 29, 2018)

Certainly!  I mean, in Trek, that stun setting comes in handy- the sci-fi equivalent of “winging” someone in a western or cop drama.  SW doesn’t really have _that_.

But again, any one of those Trek phasers can be used as an AoE weapon, a rock heater, a disintegrator, etc.  SW sidearms aren’t so useful.  They’re just sci-if sixguns with nigh-infinite ammo.  I think that makes them more “fun” in a sense, they mesh better with our childhoods.  They’re more like what kids think of when playing cops & robbers or cowboys & Indians.


----------



## Jester David (May 30, 2018)

It's worth noting that the *best* opening for a _Star Trek_ movie was $75 million. Compared to _Solo_, which is a disappointment at only $85 million.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 30, 2018)

Which Trek movie was that?


----------



## Jhaelen (May 30, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Well, that's a problem in and of itself.  If the rules are mostly the same, why have both games?  It would be like owning several Monopoly sets.  Why bother?



Yet, many people do own several variants of the same game, including re-themes: Risk, Risk Legacy, Risk: Europe: Risk: The Lord of the Rings, etc.

One of my friends owns every edition of 'Axis & Allies'. Once a player has determined that she likes a certain (kind of) game, she tends to look for games that are similar. I'm seeing this every day in the Recommendations section on BoardGameGeek.

Imho, 'Star Trek' simply isn't sexy. Personally, I have no desire to play a game of 'Star Trek'. I would be very interested in playing 'Ashen Stars', though, despite it being rather obviously inspired by 'Star Trek'. The reason? It's set after the 'Star Fleet'-equivalent has been disbanded after a galaxy-wide war against an alien aggressor that was only barely repulsed. Now, the player characters represent freelancers hired to do the jobs the 'Star Fleet' used to look into. So, instead of playing officers in a rigid organization with restrictive laws, you're troubleshooters looking for a mostly legal way to make easy money. I.e. it's really closer to Firefly in theme.

And even in FFG's Star Wars RPG, which has been split into three different 'settings', 'Edge of the Empire' is by far the most popular. In it the players are smugglers and bounty-hunters at the fringes of the known worlds. While I don't have the numbers to prove it, I'd bet that 'Age of Rebellion' is the least popular because it shares many of the problems that the 'Star Trek' setting has. 'Fate and Destiny', the third Star Wars setting assumes all players are Force-Sensitives (aka aspiring Jedi) and most closely resembles a fantasy RPG. Jedi are nothing but knights with light sabers after all, and 'The Force' is a kind of magic.


----------



## Umbran (May 30, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which Trek movie was that?




_Star Trek_, from 2009, the first in the "Kelvin timeline".  

We should note, however, that Trek's not really intended as a movie franchise.  It is designed first and foremost as a TV property.  And if we want to compare incomes, we should probably talk about how much money the _550+ hours_ of TV Trek has pulled in over the years.


----------



## Umbran (May 30, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> One of my friends owns every edition of 'Axis & Allies'. Once a player has determined that she likes a certain (kind of) game, she tends to look for games that are similar. I'm seeing this every day in the Recommendations section on BoardGameGeek.




Meh.  Using BoardGameGeek to imply things about the general game-playing population is like using EN World to talk about the general RPG crowd.  Most players aren't posting on either site, so the sites aren't representative.



> Imho, 'Star Trek' simply isn't sexy. ... So, instead of playing officers in a rigid organization with restrictive laws, you're troubleshooters looking for a mostly legal way to make easy money.




Okay, so "sexy" is "being able to act without oversight".  

What "restrictive law" does the Federation have that doesn't appear on pretty much any world other than the Prime Directive?   You realize that only applies in a small number of the possible scenarios a Trek game can cover, right?  

And the Jedi, they have no rules at all, right?  

Remind me - which game has a mechanic that has you turn into an NPC if you don't behave nicely?  Hint:  it isn't a Trek game


----------



## Jhaelen (May 30, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Remind me - which game has a mechanic that has you turn into an NPC if you don't behave nicely?  Hint:  it isn't a Trek game



Hmm, perhaps D&D?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 30, 2018)

Umbran said:


> _Star Trek_, from 2009, the first in the "Kelvin timeline".
> 
> We should note, however, that Trek's not really intended as a movie franchise.  It is designed first and foremost as a TV property.  And if we want to compare incomes, we should probably talk about how much money the _550+ hours_ of TV Trek has pulled in over the years.




Agreed.  I was just curious as to whether it was one of the older ones, in which case, you’d really have to account for inflationary effects.


----------



## Umbran (May 30, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Agreed.  I was just curious as to whether it was one of the older ones, in which case, you’d really have to account for inflationary effects.




You'd also have to account for the fact that opening weekend beign teh big thing is a fairly recent phenomenon.  Back in the 70s and 80s, opening weekend was not seen as a major indicator.


----------



## Umbran (May 30, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Hmm, perhaps D&D?




I was, of course, referring to turning to the Dark Side in Star Wars games.  Talk about your restrictive rules - can't even force choke people!  What's up with that?


----------



## Eltab (May 30, 2018)

The fundamental conceit of _Star Trek_ - what if the better angels of human nature were in the ascendant? - doesn't mesh well with "beat 'em up and steal their stuff".

I liked playing _Star Fleet Battles_ way back when (until the rulebook got too thick to fit in a 5" ring binder), but the General War was what happened when everything broke down and went horribly wrong, not a natural outgrowth of the arc of history.


----------



## Eltab (May 30, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Talk about your restrictive rules



And the guy who is the ultimate mastermind getting other people to do the hard work for him, is the Dark Lord of the Sith.

That's a crummy role model for us who want to, Octavian-like, shut down these destructive and dangerous Galactic Civil Wars.


----------



## Erekose (May 30, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Certainly!  I mean, in Trek, that stun setting comes in handy- the sci-fi equivalent of “winging” someone in a western or cop drama.  SW doesn’t really have _that_.




Hmm ... I have a distinct memory of stormtroopers taking Leia down in Episode IV by setting their blasters to stun. Mind you, it never happens again in any other SW film!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 30, 2018)

Erekose said:


> Hmm ... I have a distinct memory of stormtroopers taking Leia down in Episode IV by setting their blasters to stun. Mind you, it never happens again in any other SW film!



Could be.  Don’t remember.


----------



## Jester David (May 31, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Agreed.  I was just curious as to whether it was one of the older ones, in which case, you’d really have to account for inflationary effects.




I checked _The Motion Picture_ and _Wrath of Khan_ and adjusted for inflation, and the 2009 one was still the one with the biggest box office. 
The 2009 made $450,415,047.40
ST:tMP made $283,877,783.98
ST:tWoK made $204,884,219.98
ST:tVH made $250,804,620.16
All adjusted for inflation. 

In contrast, _Solo_ is sitting at $179,993,024 after a single week. And _Deadpool 2_ is $502,989,378 after two weeks. _Star Trek_ has never been a huge cinematic moneymaker. 



Umbran said:


> _Star Trek_, from 2009, the first in the "Kelvin timeline".
> 
> We should note, however, that Trek's not really intended as a movie franchise.  It is designed first and foremost as a TV property.  And if we want to compare incomes, we should probably talk about how much money the _550+ hours_ of TV Trek has pulled in over the years.



I imagine that would be tied to advertising and syndication costs. But movies also get a fair amount from being aired on TV as well as media sales. 
No idea what the numbers are. 

But Star Wars is an exceptional phenomena. There's no shame in Star Trek being slightly less popular in terms of ticket sales, merchandise, and money.


----------



## delericho (May 31, 2018)

Erekose said:


> Hmm ... I have a distinct memory of stormtroopers taking Leia down in Episode IV by setting their blasters to stun. Mind you, it never happens again in any other SW film!




Leia stuns Poe in "The Last Jedi".


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 31, 2018)

Star Trek is thematically about exploration (not neccessarily literal space exploration, but exploration of themes, morals and ethical questions and so on). I feel that doesn't really lend itself that well to typical Roleplaying Games, because stories like that are usually very... constructed and only work if everyone behaves according to script. 
You can of course forget about this aspect and still play some rogue xeno-archeologist, a Ferengi businessman, a former Bajoran resistance fighter and a Breen outlaw and fly through space to do adventures, but it doesn't really feel like that is what I'd associate with Star Trek. And once you become part of a starship crew, things feel more constrained. Traditional villains are rare, violence as conflict resolution is rare. 


Star Wars really seems to have room for an intrepid group of adventurers that carve out their own place in the universe. It's based on fantasy type heroic journeys, from being a lowly moisture farmer to the most powerful (well, only) Jedi in the galaxy, from a rag tag group of rebels to the ones toppling the rule of the evil Empire.


I really prefer Star Trek over Star Wars, but I think Star Wars just is the nicer setting.


----------



## Jester David (May 31, 2018)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Star Trek is thematically about exploration (not neccessarily literal space exploration, but exploration of themes, morals and ethical questions and so on). I feel that doesn't really lend itself that well to typical Roleplaying Games, because stories like that are usually very... constructed and only work if everyone behaves according to script.



It can work quite well with good players and a decent GM. I play in an online game (streamed live on Twitch and archived on YouTube) and it's a lot of fun.
But you do need more world buy-in from the players, as they can't be traditional murderhobos or the traditional free rein to do anything they want.


----------



## Deset Gled (May 31, 2018)

Most D+D adventures can be summed up as a small band of adventurers traveling across the countryside to fight against a Big Bad Evil Guy.  They save the world by killing dudes and taking their stuff.  At the end of the adventure, the characters are more powerful than they started.

Most Star Wars movies can be summed up as a small band of rebels traveling across space to fight against a Big Bad Emperor Guy.  They save the galaxy by killing Imperials and blowing up their stuff. At the end of each trilogy, the main characters are all more powerful than they started.

Most Star Trek episodes can be summed up as the Big Good Federation Guys arriving at one location in order to solve the problems of a small colony.  They save the settlement by using science and rhetoric, and lose if anyone dies or gets blown up.  At the beginning of each episode, every character is reverted back to their starting point.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2018)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Star Trek is thematically about exploration (not neccessarily literal space exploration, but exploration of themes, morals and ethical questions and so on). I feel that doesn't really lend itself that well to typical Roleplaying Games, because stories like that are usually very... constructed and only work if everyone behaves according to script.




Oh, these things are easy to do in an RPG.

The way to explore themes of morals and ethical questions is to merely put the PCs in situations where they have to make choices on moral and ethical issues.  You, as GM, don't get to *control* what the resulting statement is, like the author of a Trek episode would, but the subject would get explored.

How do I know this?  I run the aforementioned Ashen Stars, which has this explicitly as something the game is designed to accomplish, and while you can play it as a high action, low quandary game, their GMing advice steers to the exploration of such themes.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 4, 2018)

Umbran said:


> How do I know this?  I run the aforementioned Ashen Stars, which has this explicitly as something the game is designed to accomplish, and while you can play it as a high action, low quandary game, their GMing advice steers to the exploration of such themes.



Yep, 'Ashen Stars' is definitely my 'Star Trek' RPG system of choice


----------



## Eltab (Jun 5, 2018)

Deset Gled said:


> At the beginning of each episode {of Star Trek}, every character is reverted back to their starting point.



Almost.  The relationship between McCoy and Spock changes over time.  McCoy began with sharper barbs and references Spock's "inhuman" side more.  This notably changes after the Tholian Web episode, where they watch Kirk's "in event of my death" video; he tells them both that he needs both of them to be the best he (Kirk) can be - and why.  After that, McCoy lays off the nasty-grams and Spock develops a better sense of irony.


----------



## Ratskinner (Jun 12, 2018)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Star Trek is thematically about exploration (not neccessarily literal space exploration, but exploration of themes, morals and ethical questions and so on). I feel that doesn't really lend itself that well to typical Roleplaying Games, because stories like that are usually very... constructed and only work if everyone behaves according to script.




This, I think, is the critical issue. Obviously, you can write a traditional rpg that has Trek's trappings, but it just won't re-create anything like the episodes. (Secondarily, rpg-style advancement is unusual in Trek. Only a few characters really go through any.) 

I do think there is room maybe for a non-traditional game, like Fiasco. That recognizes and utilizes that sort of structure up front. In fact, I think there's a lot of (particularly TV) genres that would fit that kind of framework better than a traditional rpg.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 12, 2018)

Ratskinner said:


> This, I think, is the critical issue. Obviously, you can write a traditional rpg that has Trek's trappings, but it just won't re-create anything like the episodes.




Oh?  I think that needs to be unpacked a bit.  What, exactly, from episodes can't be re-created at an RPG table? 

I ask because in my Ashen Stars game, in the last adventure I knowingly and blatantly ripped off the plot of ST:TNG, Season 2, Episode 4: "The Outrageous Okana".  My players, not being as into Trek as I, didn't get the reference, but it played out almost exactly like the episode.  I would like to know how I managed that, if it cannot be done. 



> (Secondarily, rpg-style advancement is unusual in Trek. Only a few characters really go through any.)




What do you mean by "RPG-style advancement"?  Many (perhaps most) games don't have the meteoric rise in power seen in D&D.  If the GM is scaling challenges to PC ability, the result may be largely invisible when rendered in narrative form.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 12, 2018)

Ratskinner said:


> This, I think, is the critical issue. Obviously, you can write a traditional rpg that has Trek's trappings, but it just won't re-create anything like the episodes. (Secondarily, rpg-style advancement is unusual in Trek. Only a few characters really go through any.)
> 
> I do think there is room maybe for a non-traditional game, like Fiasco. That recognizes and utilizes that sort of structure up front. In fact, I think there's a lot of (particularly TV) genres that would fit that kind of framework better than a traditional rpg.



You can't do it as easily with D&D. But D&D isn't the only RPG out there. 
RPGs without formal levels work best. Like the current _Star Trek Adventures_ game or even something like _Dread_. Or a skill based game, like _Call of Cthulhu_ where experienced characters are better at their field. 

As far as plot, that's just a matter of setting up the tone of the episode. 
For the ones when they _science!_ a solution, that is harder. But all it requires is figuring out the mystery and making enough checks or spending enough storypoints to technobabble a solution.
For other episodes that are solved by clever plans and out thinking the enemies, an RPG will work just fine.


----------



## Ratskinner (Jun 12, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Oh?  I think that needs to be unpacked a bit.  What, exactly, from episodes can't be re-created at an RPG table?
> 
> I ask because in my Ashen Stars game, in the last adventure I knowingly and blatantly ripped off the plot of ST:TNG, Season 2, Episode 4: "The Outrageous Okana".  My players, not being as into Trek as I, didn't get the reference, but it played out almost exactly like the episode.  I would like to know how I managed that, if it cannot be done.




I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said a traditional rpg system wouldn't do it.

From here, it sound like your players ("knowingly and blatantly") did the work, not the system. If you're players are all in, then the system isn't as relevant. Which is fine. (Although, certainly, some systems can put up a bigger fight than others.) We've seen people doing things like that with all sorts of traditional systems for years...usually by fudging rolls or making increasingly weird house rules. For example, most traditional rpgs have all sorts of problems with recurring enemies.

I would also say that I'm not 100% sure how I categorize Gumshoe games wrt being a traditional rpg. (I'm also not familiar with Ashen Stars, in specific, but have Night's Black Agents and a few others.) The investigative portions and the fairly procedural GMing instructions in the Gumshoe games that I have seem fairly untraditional to my eyes, but the "action" portions seem to go more traditionally. So what is that? Demi-Traditional? 

Is there something about Ashen Stars that extends the Gumshoe model to specifically create they kind of player buy-in necessary for some of those ST plots, or that obviates it? I have definitely not witnessed anything similar in the Gumshoe sessions that I've run, but I wouldn't be surprised if the basic Gumshoe mechanics could be extended that way. This conversation has already piqued my interest in the game.



Umbran said:


> What do you mean by "RPG-style advancement"?  Many (perhaps most) games don't have the meteoric rise in power seen in D&D.  If the GM is scaling challenges to PC ability, the result may be largely invisible when rendered in narrative form.




In this case, I'm talking about the semi-regular increases in character ability vs. the opposition. Most of the Star Trek "PCs" do not seem to accumulate loot, they don't even seem to consistently remember their innovations and discoveries from one episode to the next, although DS9 dabbled in it and Voyager and Enterprise seemed to work it into the show's premise a bit more with plotlines that actually extended across multiple episodes and seasons. The movies don't seem to engage in it, and I haven't seen Discovery.

Nor does it seem to me that the challenges particularly escalate to compensate for any subtle character improvements. If anything, the reverse happens. The Borg, for example, first show up as an absolutely monstrous threat, but the more we are exposed to them, the more "normal" they become. They gain a "queen", they become vulnerable to "infections" of various sorts, including "individuality"! Their amazing technological adaptability turns out to not be such a bad thing, despite its first appearances.

Not that the characters don't advance or improve _ever_, but when they do its usually a dramatic "thing" not just taking you mid-season level-up. Most of this is just a side-effect of writing for TV shows, AFAICT. However, I contrast it with a show like Grimm (US urban fantasy) and those characters sure do seem to "level up" fairly regularly and as a direct consequence of interacting with the supernatural....and in the process, they keep revealing new supernatural threats that keep pace with their new capacities while taming older ones. Grimm, to me,  seems very much more traditional rpg-style advancement oriented.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 13, 2018)

Ratskinner said:


> I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said a traditional rpg system wouldn't do it.
> 
> From here, it sound like your players ("knowingly and blatantly") did the work, not the system. If you're players are all in, then the system isn't as relevant. Which is fine. (Although, certainly, some systems can put up a bigger fight than others.) We've seen people doing things like that with all sorts of traditional systems for years...usually by fudging rolls or making increasingly weird house rules. For example, most traditional rpgs have all sorts of problems with recurring enemies.
> 
> ...



What do you mean by “traditional RPG”? 
Skill based RPGs without levels and with minimal advancement have been around for years. _Call of Cthulhu_ has been around since 1981. 

Star Trek does work well with D&D and similar d20 level based games. But that’s a tiny percentage of RPGs...


----------



## Umbran (Jun 13, 2018)

Ratskinner said:


> I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said a traditional rpg system wouldn't do it.




Reading this post, I will summarize - I think you are conflating "system" with "adventure".  I think a great many systems will produce Trek-like play, if you feed it a Trek-like adventure.



> From here, it sound like your players ("knowingly and blatantly") did the work, not the system. If you're players are all in, then the system isn't as relevant.




Note that I said that the players *didn't recognize* the scenario.  They were not "all in" in that sense.  From their point of view, they were playing teh adventure _du jour_.  It played out like Trek, even though they only knew it was Trek after the fact.




> I would also say that I'm not 100% sure how I categorize Gumshoe games wrt being a traditional rpg. (I'm also not familiar with Ashen Stars, in specific, but have Night's Black Agents and a few others.)




Ashen Stars is pretty regular GUMSHOE. Just Space Opera themed.  There's a spaceship combat system layered on it, but groundside, it plays like GUMESHOE.



> The investigative portions and the fairly procedural GMing instructions in the Gumshoe games that I have seem fairly untraditional to my eyes, but the "action" portions seem to go more traditionally. So what is that? Demi-Traditional?




My players actually don't really enjoy the investigative scenarios much, so we are playing it more as action space opera.  The mechanics still hold, but the investigation is not a large part of play for this bunch.  This scenario was more social role-play, leading into some action-adventure stuff after the Okana section is resolved.



> Is there something about Ashen Stars that extends the Gumshoe model to specifically create they kind of player buy-in necessary for some of those ST plots, or that obviates it?




The thing is, I don't know what you mean by "the buy-in necessary".  You mean, a buy in that the game isn't all killing things and taking their stuff, or something?  The thing that does that isn't the *system*.  It is found in the generic campaign conceit for Ashen Stars - you are playing a team that takes on jobs to resolve issues.  Rather than needed to take loot from monsters, the PCs are contracted for jobs, and get paid for them.  

This is not something mechanical - you can do it in D&D.  You're the crew of a sailing vessel sent out on the seas by the Crown to explore or resolve issues for the Throne.  

The moral/theme focus is done not in *system*, but in adventure design.  The game's advice is to put the PCs in places where there are moral grey areas or ethical questions.  This is why I say this isn't system dependent.  Sure, if all you feed into the system are dungeon crawls where the main motivator is loot, you'll get a classic murderhobo experience.  But the system doesn't make you do that.  



> This conversation has already piqued my interest in the game.




I happen to like it, so sure, go check it out!  It is available in pdf form on RPGNow< iirc.



> In this case, I'm talking about the semi-regular increases in character ability vs. the opposition.




That's a myth.  Characters don't generally increase in ability vs. the opposition.  They increase in ability vs the opposition they have already beaten.  Typically, the next opposition is scaled up to meet the PC power, or the game gets easy and dull quickly.  I am pretty sure you aren't sending your 17th level wizards and paladins through Lost Mine of Phandelver, right?

As for semi-regular.  Note that D&D's level system is the exception, not the rule.  Few games use level packages.  Skill point systems are far more common.



> Nor does it seem to me that the challenges particularly escalate to compensate for any subtle character improvements. If anything, the reverse happens. The Borg, for example, first show up as an absolutely monstrous threat, but the more we are exposed to them, the more "normal" they become. They gain a "queen", they become vulnerable to "infections" of various sorts, including "individuality"! Their amazing technological adaptability turns out to not be such a bad thing, despite its first appearances.




Ah.  I think you may be confusing the mechanics with the resulting narrative.  As a game construct, it is more like - the borg looked to be an implacable enemy at low level.  A higher level, when we have greater abilities, we are able to detect and exploit those vulnerabilities.  The Enterprise crew learns to adapt to the Borg adaptability - with rotating frequencies and the like.

In a GUMSHOE sense, starting characters don't have many Investigative or General skill points to throw at things, so the Borg look like a brick wall.  Later, when you have more ranks, you can spend more points on your actions, and you can detect, reach, or outright create, those vulnerabilities you couldn't manage before.

It is much like... Tomb of Horrors.  There's a demi-lich at the end.  And it will simply chew up 1st level characters.  Only a group of high level characters will have the knowledge of such a creature's vulnerability to Shatter, and opportunity to stack up spell slots and scrolls and stand long enough to cast them.


----------



## Ratskinner (Jun 13, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Reading this post, I will summarize - I think you are conflating "system" with "adventure".  I think a great many systems will produce Trek-like play, if you feed it a Trek-like adventure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Phone makes it hard to edit quotes so pardon the general response.

Re: the Borg
First to be clear. There are no underlying mechanics. Its a tv show. And I just can't interpret the narrative that way at all. The Borg basically stop adapting by the time Voyager is dealing with them. I mean, these techno zombies with their much vaunted ability to adapt have to come to Voyager for help adapting to species 8472? In another episode we see some clever farmers have infected their kids with an antiborg virus? The decreasing threat that The Borg present has a lot more to do with the writers backing off after they realized they painted themselves into a corner, than the characters "leveling or anything similar". I mean they start "rotating frequencies" very quickly....and that just sorta ends that problem.

Regarding opposition. In D&D, yes, there is (or can be) the treadmill. But again, Trek doesn't really fit that model. The planet-of-the-week really doesn't fit any curve of advancement. All we can really guarantee is that the transporter will only work if and when it is dramatically expedient. 

Regarding buy-in: yes. I'm willing to say that you have a handle on what I'm getting at. My experience with players in multiple systems doesn't match yours. In a traditional combat-centric game (D&D (multiple editions), Boot Hill, Savage Worlds, GURPS, etc.) I always see the players reverting to murderhobo methods, especially if they come to feel untouchable by law enforcement (as setting appropriate).  In part, I think this because "it only takes one" of the PCs to start shooting/torturing/whatever. In another part, traditional games tend to lack clear non-combat resolution systems and thus there is a lot of "when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail" going on. IME, players choose concrete resolution over talking, whenever possible.

And that's where I do think system matters, in the absence of player "buy in". Gumshoe, since we're there, starts with a wholly different mindset for its design. Its focus is on the narrative/logical flow of investigative scenarios, not on being a combat engine. And that changes how the players can approach the game wrt resolving their problems. When you put your players in moral grey areas, they might actually have better answers that "I kill them all."

Whew. Sleepy now gotta go.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 13, 2018)

Ratskinner said:


> Most of the Star Trek "PCs" do not seem to accumulate loot, they don't even seem to consistently remember their innovations and discoveries from one episode to the next




Trek characters don't generally accumulate loot, because material wealth is not meaningful in the context of their world.  There's no need to buy anything most of the time.  

We should note that innovatiosn and discoveries are often forgotten between D&D adventures, too.  A great many of the innovative applications of abilities a D&D player may come up with are one-shot solutions to one-shot problems or puzzles.  D&D PCs may fight only one vampire in their entire adventuring career, and the new lessons learned in doing so are not all that applicable to other undead that don't turn into mist of have coffins lying about.  The only innovations and discoveries that you are sure to carry around with you are the things you get from character advancement, and those flow from XP, not from the explicit action of the adventure.


----------



## Ratskinner (Jun 13, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Trek characters don't generally accumulate loot, because material wealth is not meaningful in the context of their world.  There's no need to buy anything most of the time.
> 
> We should note that innovatiosn and discoveries are often forgotten between D&D adventures, too.  A great many of the innovative applications of abilities a D&D player may come up with are one-shot solutions to one-shot problems or puzzles.  D&D PCs may fight only one vampire in their entire adventuring career, and the new lessons learned in doing so are not all that applicable to other undead that don't turn into mist of have coffins lying about.  The only innovations and discoveries that you are sure to carry around with you are the things you get from character advancement, and those flow from XP, not from the explicit action of the adventure.



The nature of the innovations and the technological contexts are different. TNG was to my eyes the worst offender here. In a magical universe, against a specific foe, we often will see what you are talking about. But in a tech universe, where most of the innovation involves changes to your own gear, there's no reason to give that up. 

I remember the fan base as TNG went into its later seasons. Very often an episode or even season cliffhanger would end with fans saying: "Why don't/didn't they just do that thing they did or call that species they met in season two?" Heck, the fans on my college campus came up with a rather lengthy list of "things they already know that could defeat the Borg" before Wolf 359. 

Personally I've never witnessed a D&D party giving up anything they might think is remotely useful. 

When it comes down to it, its just not that kind of show. The show is fundamentally about the moral and ethical conflicts, and alien threats and challenges are primarily caricatures of aspects of our society's troubles. It is not actually about the crew growing as individuals. Later shows drifted a bit for a variety of reasons, but the fundamental framework never changed much.

The Kelvin timeline might work better, but I try to purge that from my memory whenever possible.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 13, 2018)

Ratskinner said:


> The nature of the innovations and the technological contexts are different. TNG was to my eyes the worst offender here. In a magical universe, against a specific foe, we often will see what you are talking about. But in a tech universe, where most of the innovation involves changes to your own gear, there's no reason to give that up.




People in military organizations typically use standard issue gear in the field, for several good reasons.  In addition, it is already just about the best out there - narrative details vary, but in effect it doesn't matter too much if it is a Starfleet phaser, a Klingon (or Romulan, or Cardassian) disruptor.  The target is usually down in one shot - dead or stunned, your choice.  What's to improve?  A gun that will kill the enemy *before* you draw it?

In a meta-game sense - you're looking for a Trek-like experience.  That means you are looking for an experience where the tactical combat is simple and generally quick.  Your friendly engineering and science departments (or your party wizard or artificer, if you are doing fantasy) will develop other capabilities for you if you need them for particular issues.  



> Heck, the fans on my college campus came up with a rather lengthy list of "things they already know that could defeat the Borg" before Wolf 359.




I find that a bit boastful.  The Borg first show up in "Q Who" in Season 2, in which the Enterprise fails to beat the Borg, and they are rescued by Q.  The Borg don't appear again until "Best of Both Worlds", and Wolf 359 is early in Part 2.  So, I am not so sure there's anything they *know* would beat the Borg at that point, because they had never beaten them before Wolf 359.



> When it comes down to it, its just not that kind of show. The show is fundamentally about the moral and ethical conflicts, and alien threats and challenges are primarily caricatures of aspects of our society's troubles. It is not actually about the crew growing as individuals. Later shows drifted a bit for a variety of reasons, but the fundamental framework never changed much.




None of the shows are particularly about the growth in tactical combat prowess/power agree - but there are lots of "traditional" RPGs in which the power curve is slow, such that the game isn't really about personal power.  DS9 is very much about the growth of characters as people, but you don't need a bundle of mechanics for that.

So, you choose a game that natively has slow power growth, or you use a D&D variant that has a steep curve, but you play it E6 or the like.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 13, 2018)

Ratskinner said:


> Re: the Borg
> First to be clear. There are no underlying mechanics. Its a tv show.




We are talking about getting results similar to the show in an RPG - so we should then talk about the game-representations we can use for things.



> And I just can't interpret the narrative that way at all.




Well, if you can't think in new ways and directions, that'll get in your way here.  My answer becomes, "if you think about your game differently, you can get these results."



> The Borg basically stop adapting by the time Voyager is dealing with them.




Well, perhaps we have different ideas of what Borg adaptability really is....

The Borg (with the exception of the Queen) have no individual or original thought, no imagination*.  They create nothing new, and are thus incapable of R&D.  They adapt by assimilating new technologies and biologies.  They are adaptable in the way that a spellcaster with a large and varied spellbook is.  If you hit them with a weapon, they run through their list of tricks, and apply one that will work.  But, if you hit them with something truly novel, that isn't in their book, they are stuck.  So, standard phasers, or other beam weapons?  Psha!  That's easy, because energy beam weapons are a dime a dozen, and they've seen hundreds of variants already.

But, for example, with Species 8472, the issue is that they are resistant to Borg nanoprobes.  Sp.8472 are from a different dimension the Borg have never seen, and have a biology unlike anything in normal space.  They can swap in all their different nanoprobe tech, but if none of those work, they are stuck.  The crew of the Voyager, however, are full of individuality and imagination and the ability to pull new concepts out of their butts.  



> Regarding opposition. In D&D, yes, there is (or can be) the treadmill. But again, Trek doesn't really fit that model. The planet-of-the-week really doesn't fit any curve of advancement.




My point is that, from the outside, if your advancement isn't accompanied by highly visible pyrotechnics, you may not notice advancements in the resulting narrative.  If the character can hit targets better, the GM provides targets that are harder to hit, and in the end your overall hit percentage doesn't rise.  In your first session, you hit 25% of the time.  In your 100th session, you hit 25%.  From the outside, it looks like the character has not advanced!  But, the reality is that your 1st session character would get eaten alive by the forces seen in the 100th.  

Which is to say, the end narrative does not fully specify what the mechanics of the game look like.  Just because you don't see advancement on the TV show, doesn't mean it doesn't happen in the game.



> Regarding buy-in: yes. I'm willing to say that you have a handle on what I'm getting at. My experience with players in multiple systems doesn't match yours. In a traditional combat-centric game (D&D (multiple editions), Boot Hill, Savage Worlds, GURPS, etc.) I always see the players reverting to murderhobo methods, especially if they come to feel untouchable by law enforcement (as setting appropriate).




Okay, I'm pretty sure that's got little to do with the mechanics, and has much to do with what your players want, and what behaviors you reward.  



> In part, I think this because "it only takes one" of the PCs to start shooting/torturing/whatever.




You see, that's your players, but not mine.  If someone tries to torture a prisoner in my group, this will result in an hour-long discussion of the ethics, and if the torturer doesn't back down, that's probably a party-breaking crisis.  That's just not who they want to be.



> In another part, traditional games tend to lack clear non-combat resolution systems and thus there is a lot of "when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail" going on. IME, players choose concrete resolution over talking, whenever possible.




With respect, again, that's your players.  I used to run classic Deadlands, which is more combat-centric** than its descendant, Savage Worlds.  And my players shot a lot of things.  But, all the things they shot were bad, and they didn't go around torturing people.  They could have - this was the lawless Wild West, and they eventually got to the point where they'd be an even match or better for the game's Wyatt Earp and other lawmen.  But the players _wanted to be heroes_.  They didn't shoot things and take the gold.  Of their own volition they made their home in Dodge, KS, and became its protectors.

But that choice has NOTHING to do with the mechanics used. 



> And that's where I do think system matters, in the absence of player "buy in".




I strongly disagree.  While a game can support a playstyle choice, the game will not make that choice for you.  If you don't want to play a good guy, no game will produce the result of you being a hero, because your choices will be non-heroic ones.  If you don't have buy-in, the mechanics are irrelevant, and probably annoying.






*This is actually much like some old-school versions of the fae.  

** The largest chapter in the classic Deadlands players rules is titled, "Blowin' Things All to Hell".


----------



## Ratskinner (Jun 16, 2018)

Umbran said:


> But that choice has NOTHING to do with the mechanics used.




Obviously, I disagree.

The murderhobo behavior, IME, correlates highly with the system used. When we play with newer systems, the behavior is much lessened. Systems (Boot Hill, I'm looking at you) without any non-combat resolution systems seem particularly susceptible.

The simple matter of modern games like Fate mechanizing things like motivations and morality in ways that the players can engage with changes things drastically. Mechanics that take a broader stance on narrative like Fiasco or Capes, can open things up even more. Even limited non combat resolution (which is very common) seems to help.

Philosophically, I twitch a little at the idea that we're still playing a game if players are resolving things without engaging the mechanics. So when a game drops off and basically says "figure it out", I feel like that's the end of the system. (Which is not to say that all mechanics involve randomizers and stats, etc.)


----------



## dustinlay (Jun 18, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Yep, 'Ashen Stars' is definitely my 'Star Trek' RPG full netbet review you can read at this website




So as mine.


----------

