System for a Star Trek Game?

[John Kim]

After good responses to Chris' http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9999">Setting seeks System thread, I thought I'd pose my own dilemma.  So I am planning a new campaign which will be based on original series Star Trek.  I ran three similar campaigns previously in 1994-95.  I originally used a variant of CORPS, then wrote up my house rules as their own system.  I was using a simplified variant of Star Fleet Battles as my ship combat system.  

Now I want to run something similar, though implementation may differ.  Since I have an entirely new set of players, I plan to re-use adventure/story ideas from the previous campaigns -- so that much should be similar.  My original approach was episodic:  each session was one episode.  My original episode formula was combining (1) a social allegory; and (2) a trope of science fiction -- like cybernetics, immortality, nanotech, and so forth.  Often the trope was taken from original Star Trek episodes.  So for example, one episode I took the trope of "virtual reality" and allegory for cultural imperialism.  The result was the PCs being asked to arbitrate with representatives of a planet which wanted to reinstate computer protocols which allowed a virtual war (the planet Eminiar VII from "A Taste of Armageddon").  

Importantly, this was/is a re-interpretation of Star Trek rather than just imitation.  I had re-cast a lot of concepts from the original series and made them into more complex background issues.  For example, in my game the Federation was really a democracy -- which meant that it had politics and squabbles and factionalism.  There was no single "good" ideology which Star Fleet represented.  It also meant that the Prime Directive was in many ways a political expedient.  It prevented more technologically advanced Federation members from dominating less advanced members and thus co-opting their votes.  

This worked pretty well to some degree.  Things I particularly liked:
1) Players dealt well with the command structure and the responsibilities of command.  They got into their roles and responsibilities.  
2) The riffing and commentary on Star Trek was very interesting, and personally satisfying for me as GM.  
3) Ship combat actually worked fairly well with an interesting dynamic of splitting up the running of the ship among the players (i.e. energy allocation to the engineer, etc.).  

There are some things I would like to do better, though.  
1) Somehow I would like to encourage players to take more decisive stands on issues.  This one is very tricky.  Inherently I paint things in shades of grey, and I want to keep that.  However, the episode closes better if rightly or wrongly the PCs make a firm decision.  I think this is largely a matter of decisiveness on the part of the PC captain.  Splits among the PCs are fine and in fact encouraged -- but the captain has the final call and it should be decisive.  
2) I'd like to encourage stronger relationships among the PCs and shipboard NPCs.  I did this some in the previous campaigns by detailing out the junior officers who worked under the PCs.  The leadership connections didn't always click, although a few did.  
3) I'd like personal combat to be funner.  My model here is definitely HERO system combat.  
4) I'd like shipboard combat to be simpler, but I don't have an exact vision for what it should be like.  I like the visceral capabilities and damage from using the SFB SSD, but the SFB rules are far too much for my current players.  

So I'm currently leaning towards something in between the Action! System (which imitates HERO combat) and my earlier homebrew.  I'm still debating over what rules to use, though, and I'd be interested in discussion of related experiences.  I'd like to simplify the skill system somewhat.  I'd like to expand and improve my house-rules meta-game experience system, which allowed players to spend points for improvements to the ship, favors from commanders, and so forth.  I'm considering having psychological limitations (to use the HERO system term) to encourage more emotional but decisive PC thinking.  

I've looked at Prime Time Adventures, but it is rather self-referential for what I am looking for.  Much of my vision here is of a reconstruction of the Star Trek universe with added depth in things like politics and philosophy.  I am paralleling the spirit of the original to a degree, but in a very changed perspective.  In other words, I don't want to emphasize "this is a TV show".  

- John

[AnyaTheBlue]

Hm.

I think our criteria for 'fun combat' must be different if you're satisfied with Hero.  But, then, I haven't tried Hero 5 yet, so maybe that's just me.

I realize that you are trying to provide a bit more depth, but one of the hallmarks of Star Trek is that, much like most Pulp, violence is semi-frequent and nobody gets seriously injured unless it's a plot point.  Of course, with Federation medical technology, you've got some help there.

I'd think about using WEG Star Wars D6, which is fairly simple to pick up, has the 'force point' mechanics to improve your odds when you want to.

BRP could also work, but it tends to be a bit more deadly than I would want, so I'd probably add in the Zero Dice mechanics from Spaceship Zero.

My final suggestion is probably least like what you're looking for.  I think something like Over the Edge or Unknown Armies could work really well for something like this.  Very flexible, low barrier to entry, low complexity in task structure, and you can sort of tune the lethality in play.

Space combat is something that I've never gotten a good handle on.  But for a fairly simple system, you might look at BTRC's Slag, which I think is simple and elegant for non-wargamers.

Those are my ideas, for what they're worth...

[RaconteurX]

I know you had a bad experience with Lord of the Rings, but Decipher's Star Trek is quite well-done. The starship combat rules play very quickly and allow for a modicum of detail without overtaxing anyone who prefers their rules on the lighter side.

You could also adapt Ian Marsh's Time Lord very easily. I myself did just that, at one point, but lost my notes to a drive crash. There is also a nice FASATrek-inspired FUDGE variant out on the Web somewhere, and you can always adapt FATE with little trouble as well.

The one change I would make in DecTrek is doing away with the hit-point system in favor of a Stamina test to shrug off the effects of damage. As I know you are familiar with James Bond 007 and believe you are familiar with Ars Magica, you likely understand the kind of system to which I am referring.

Best of luck, and have fun! :)

[Valamir]

There are some things I would like to do better, though.
1) Somehow I would like to encourage players to take more decisive stands on issues. This one is very tricky. Inherently I paint things in shades of grey, and I want to keep that. However, the episode closes better if rightly or wrongly the PCs make a firm decision. I think this is largely a matter of decisiveness on the part of the PC captain. Splits among the PCs are fine and in fact encouraged -- but the captain has the final call and it should be decisive.

I think there are quite a few ways to accomplish this actually.  One would be to have a debriefing session where Starfleet Command (you) critiques the captains performance.  Wishy washy, un-captain-like behavior, would be criticised and decisive leadership encouraged.

This would also be an avenue for involving items of broader politics and career ramifications.  Some of the best moments in B5 were when Sinclair / Sheridan  would call home and talk to various senators who each had their own agenda.  I think that technique would work well to portray a de-sissyfied Federation.

2) I'd like to encourage stronger relationships among the PCs and shipboard NPCs. I did this some in the previous campaigns by detailing out the junior officers who worked under the PCs. The leadership connections didn't always click, although a few did.
3) I'd like personal combat to be funner. My model here is definitely HERO system combat.

One option here is to make sure that the PCs are held responsible for the actions of the juniors.  Make it clear that as the superior officer, the buck stops with them.

My experience playing Star Trek back in the FASA days was that it always worked better for me when the Captain was an NPC.  Only rarely was a player Captain willing to actually dress down other players appropriately for inappropriate behavior.  Even though Star Trek pretty much played havok with concepts of naval discipline, I found it better to take a more martial approach to crew relationships.  The "commune in space" idea is about as silly as the Federation Utopia.

4) I'd like shipboard combat to be simpler, but I don't have an exact vision for what it should be like. I like the visceral capabilities and damage from using the SFB SSD, but the SFB rules are far too much for my current players.

The old FASA rules were alot simpler than SFB.  I'm also a big fan of Full Thrust and I know there must be dozens of FT to ST mods out there to use.  Full Thrust is probably my single favorite space combat system for being tactically interesting and yet still really simple and quick playing.

[komradebob]

You might look at a site called warpspawn games. They have a bunch of rules for homebrew card games. At least a couple were based on Star Trek.

[newsalor]

I've pondered this problem too and I've come to the conclusion that I may use HeroQuest. I'll write more after tonights game is over, but my main point is that HQ is very well suited to capturing the feel of a tv show.

[AnyaTheBlue]

My experience playing Star Trek back in the FASA days was that it always worked better for me when the Captain was an NPC

Another way to handle this, possibly, is to provide two strong NPC factions, with the players required to pick between them.

For example, if all the players comprise the senior StarFleet officers on the ship, and there is both a diplomatic complement lead by a Senior Diplomat or Senator and a Science Division lead by a respected Research Director.  Make the two other divisions NPC groups, and have the Starfleet Officers have to play 'peacemaker' between the other two factions -- the Captain and the Senior Staff are the tie-breakers.

This puts the players in a position where they have two strongly held, opposing arguments to pick between, or a third way of developing an alternative that everybody can live with.

There's more work for the GM, but I think it could be a fun way to enable having a PC captain.  Otherwise, I kind of agree -- handling rank in an RPG is tricky.

[John Kim]

I think there are quite a few ways to accomplish this actually.  One would be to have a debriefing session where Starfleet Command (you) critiques the captains performance.  Wishy washy, un-captain-like behavior, would be criticised and decisive leadership encouraged.

This would also be an avenue for involving items of broader politics and career ramifications.

I like the second part, but I think that the first part is rather mixed.  My problem was a bit different than you imply.  I found that the captain tended to be diplomatic.  Indeed, for non-war missions, diplomatic behavior seems much more reasonable than Kirk-like blatant violations of the Prime Directive and overblown posturing.  However, while it was interesting and realistic to think through larger ramifications of the PC's actions, the diplomatic answer usually made for a less satisfying end-of-session.  What I want to encourage is a bit of the opposite -- i.e. independence from higher judgement and the freedom to go out on a limb in the name of the Federation.  

One option here is to make sure that the PCs are held responsible for the actions of the juniors.  Make it clear that as the superior officer, the buck stops with them.

My experience playing Star Trek back in the FASA days was that it always worked better for me when the Captain was an NPC.  Only rarely was a player Captain willing to actually dress down other players appropriately for inappropriate behavior.  Even though Star Trek pretty much played havok with concepts of naval discipline, I found it better to take a more martial approach to crew relationships.

Here the first point I agree with.  Actually, I am considering now having ratings for each ship's department as a group with stats like "Efficiency" and "Morale".  These could be improved with effort/experience in some way, of course.  As for an NPC captain, though, I can't see it.  I can't play the leader of the PC party as well as the opposition.  Frankly, the assumption of this is something I hated about several published Star Trek RPGs.  It takes away choice from the players, and I'm not clear what the advantage is.  Is it that players will take orders from the GM but not from a fellow player?  

The old FASA rules were alot simpler than SFB.  I'm also a big fan of Full Thrust and I know there must be dozens of FT to ST mods out there to use.  Full Thrust is probably my single favorite space combat system for being tactically interesting and yet still really simple and quick playing.

Aha!  OK, I'll have to look Full Thrust up.  As I recall, I was not very fond of the old FASA rules, though I haven't tried them since high school or college.  It seemed to come down to damage being dealt back and forth without interesting decisions.

[Nuadha]

I ran a Star Trek campaign in GURPS that lasted for a few years.   I found GURPS worked pretty well for it since:  1) Most problems should be solved by creative applications of skills.  Hence, the detailed skill lists and system of skills defaulting to other skills gives a great variety of skill options for characters.    Rather than take a general "repair" skill, we can know whether the engineer is specialized in warp technologies or transporter technologies.   Does the Doc have a lot of experience with Xenobiology or does he just know human medicine and have problems when doing surgeries on the vulcan first-officer.   2) As a previous poster stated, combat is rare and usually quick in Star Trek episodes.   If it turns into a fight, Captain Kirk can take out most opponents with a kick,  a rabbit punch and a karate-chop to the neck.   To handle this, I treated most hand to hand combat as stun damage and rules that any "thug" would fall unconcious at 0.   GURPS combat doesn't (in my opinion) move very smoothly, but with combat being something to be avoided and a majority of fights involving phasers set to either stun or "atomize" (the original series phaser commpletely atomized their targets when set to kill), you won't usually need anything more than the rules of gun combat which is very simple.   3) GURPS: Aliens and the "worldbooks" for GURPS: Space were a great source of inspiration and the rules handles unusual races very well.   In my game, the crew of our ship eventually ended up with a spider-like creature,  a telepathic midget brontosaurus and colony of nano-bytes living in an android body.   Two of these three characters (the first and third) were PCs.  

Things I would do differently now: I would add some form of "player control" like Drama Points, Fate Points, etc..   I really like systems that give players a little more control over their fates than just the roll of the dice.

Other systems I'd consider for Star Trek:   I would seriously consider Eden's All Flesh Must Be Eaten mixed with the combat rules and Drama Points from their Buffy RPG.   I'd want the expanded skill list AFMBE but the cinematic combat of Buffy works much faster and simpler.   You can use the zombie creation rules from the various AFMBE books for creating alien races or the demon-creation rules from the Angel RPG.  WEG's Masterbook system would work extremely well, but it is out-of print.  Part of it's combat system allowed for a knock-out without having to beat your opponent half to death and it's a fairly fast-moving system.   The problem with using Masterbook would be creating the alien races as the system never had in-depth or "balanced" rules for creating alien races.    There are some, but they may leave you unsatisfied.   Also, the original version of the Prime Directive RPG would be excellent for a more action/strategy oriented style of gaming and the character creation does an excellent job of giving a military-feel to the game since players choose what service branch their character went into and then receives the skills they's receive from the basic training plus whatever their specialized training was in and some "freebie" skills.

[Valamir]

I like the second part, but I think that the first part is rather mixed.  My problem was a bit different than you imply.  I found that the captain tended to be diplomatic.  Indeed, for non-war missions, diplomatic behavior seems much more reasonable than Kirk-like blatant violations of the Prime Directive and overblown posturing.  However, while it was interesting and realistic to think through larger ramifications of the PC's actions, the diplomatic answer usually made for a less satisfying end-of-session.  What I want to encourage is a bit of the opposite -- i.e. independence from higher judgement and the freedom to go out on a limb in the name of the Federation.  

In that case, I think the solution would be to present more "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of decision choices.  Make the players choose between the rock and the hard place with valid "the Federation will back you up" results either way, with "hanging around in the middle" being the choice that results in the most collateral damage.

One option here is to make sure that the PCs are held responsible for the actions of the juniors.  Make it clear that as the superior officer, the buck stops with them.

As for an NPC captain, though, I can't see it.  I can't play the leader of the PC party as well as the opposition.  Frankly, the assumption of this is something I hated about several published Star Trek RPGs.  It takes away choice from the players, and I'm not clear what the advantage is.  Is it that players will take orders from the GM but not from a fellow player?  

I had the opposite issue.  It wasn't that players wouldn't take orders from a player captain, but that a player captain wouldn't give them.  Every decision turned into an ad hoc Briefing Room and the ship's command structure became a committee with the captain being relegated to chairman at best, and, where the hierarchy put the PCs above everyone else regardless of rank or department.

As I recall, I was not very fond of the old FASA rules, though I haven't tried them since high school or college.  It seemed to come down to damage being dealt back and forth without interesting decisions.

...which pretty much sums up combat in the Trek universe, no?

[Nuadha]

Two other things:

In my first campaign, I had the ship be a small ship of 20 people (slightly larger than DS9 runabout) and one of the PCs be the captain.   They were a Starfleet "trouble-shooting" team.   I found this worked really well by giving the players some autonomy and a smaller cast of NPCs to work with.   As an alternative, I really like Prime Directive's ideas of Prime Teams, special forces teams that beam down to planets or to other ships for special missions.  It structured it so that PCs would not have to worry about the running of the starship or the ship-to-ship combats and could focus on being the ultimate away-team.

[John Kim]

What I want to encourage is a bit of the opposite -- i.e. independence from higher judgement and the freedom to go out on a limb in the name of the Federation.  

In that case, I think the solution would be to present more "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of decision choices.  Make the players choose between the rock and the hard place with valid "the Federation will back you up" results either way, with "hanging around in the middle" being the choice that results in the most collateral damage.

Yeah, I'd agree with this.  It's more how to reasonably accomplish it that is tricky.  I want to downplay the feeling of an artificial dilemma being imposed.  With a shades-of-grey approach, it seems hard to force such decisions without it seeming artificial.  Riffing off your review idea, I might have meetings with superior officers where the superiors back up the PC's decision -- i.e. making explicit the "Federation backs you up either way" stance.  

I had the opposite issue.  It wasn't that players wouldn't take orders from a player captain, but that a player captain wouldn't give them.  Every decision turned into an ad hoc Briefing Room and the ship's command structure became a committee with the captain being relegated to chairman at best, and, where the hierarchy put the PCs above everyone else regardless of rank or department.

I suspect this is a social issue with the group.  For example, if you were a player playing the captain, do you think you would have trouble giving orders?  Would you prefer that the captain be an NPC run by the GM?  I think some people and indeed some groups just might not like playing in a military command structure.  I intend to be clear with the group before I run that I expect a command structure, and that thought should be put into who is captain and how he commands.  

As I recall, I was not very fond of the old FASA rules, though I haven't tried them since high school or college.  It seemed to come down to damage being dealt back and forth without interesting decisions.

...which pretty much sums up combat in the Trek universe, no?

It depends on the series and episode.  Several episodes in the original series took the analogy of WWII ship combat that gave some basis for decisions (like "Balance of Terror" which was a submarine hunt).  OTOH, The Next Generation has a tendency that using weapons was futile and they have to jury-rig the plasma coils to short out the opponent's sensor array or somesuch (silly, but still a decision).  The point is that regardless of the TV precedent, I want ship combats in my game to have interesting decisions -- and it will be based more on episodes like "Balance of Terror".

[AnyaTheBlue]

Several episodes in the original series took the analogy of WWII ship combat that gave some basis for decisions (like "Balance of Terror" which was a submarine hunt). OTOH, The Next Generation has a tendency that using weapons was futile and they have to jury-rig the plasma coils to short out the opponent's sensor array or somesuch (silly, but still a decision). The point is that regardless of the TV precedent, I want ship combats in my game to have interesting decisions -- and it will be based more on episodes like "Balance of Terror".

One of the reasons that wargame-derived space combat systems seem to lack this kind of decision-based playing, I think, has a lot to do with the fact that they are designed far more like a video game than anything else.

All the PCs are on one ship, and that ship does what the captain wants, and that's that.  It's like giving the pilot a joystick, another guy the firing button, and the captain sits between them telling them when to dodge, and where to go.

I've always wondered if there might not be a way to actually generate a more involving system involving order propagation and non-combat task resolutions to enable the ship to actually perform certain maneuvers -- something like having the crew members have skills relating to their position which affect things like sighting enemy ships or over-powering the warp drive, or whatever.

Of course, the trick would be to make this fun to play.  I've never managed to balance all these factors into something I was happy with, and I generally have attempted to avoid ship combat in my SF games altogether, focusing instead on character-scale conflicts.

[Nuadha]

Of course, the trick would be to make this fun to play. I've never managed to balance all these factors into something I was happy with, and I generally have attempted to avoid ship combat in my SF games altogether, focusing instead on character-scale conflicts.

I've also never found the ship battles to be that interesting for anyone besides the captain.   Character-scale seem to make for more interesting roleplaying decisions where operating sensors on a straship tends to be nothing more than making a skill role when the captain or GM tells you to.

[Doctor Xero]

A few things I did when I ran my Star Trek campaign for a group of people who loved Classic Trek, Next  Gen, DeepSpace 9, Babylon 5, and the original Star Wars in which Han Solo shoots first :

All the cool stuff is done by Kirk and company, so I devised a chart of Classic Trek episodes and had each player roll twice on that chart, crossing off an episode once someone had rolled it.  Each player and I then discussed how his or her character had been involved in that episode (I ruled that none of the original cast existed in this game universe, so often the player-character replaced Kirk and company or one of the walk-ons), and I handed out free skills which related to that episode.  Thus, I ended up with a player-character who had personal experience with the first appearance of the Klingons, one who had  been the originally-xenophobic ambassador sent with Balok to the First Federation for a couple of years, one who had been kidnapped by androids and knew (and loathed) Harry Mudd personally, etc.  It worked astonishingly well.

I had each player build two characters, one an officer and one a landing party character.  Since red-shirts always die, I didn't allow anyone to play a security officer, but one player convinced me to allow her to play head of security.

When necessary, I created new positions just for the players since our goal was enjoying this universe rather than mindlessly replicating it.  I imported a few positions from Next Gen, DeepSpace 9, and Babylon 5 for the players.

Finally, of course, the most important thing was that the player who played the captain be someone who shared my vision, who had the respect of the players (or they would have trouble respecting her or his character), and who was comfortable with that level of "crowd control" and authority (you might be surprised by how many players flee from having any overt authority!).  I gave that character an NPC aide who could remind the player of any Star Trek lore she or he had forgotten (usually when asked) but who had built-in disinterest in making decisions for the captain even when so ordered.

I've noticed that players tend to prefer Sisko's habit of delegation over Kirk's heroic delegate-nothing style.

I know this last part about the captain character is more a meta-gaming concern, but I think it is in some ways the most crucial other than the ethical/thematic concerns -- and you've already received excellent advice on those!

Doctor Xero