System for a Star Trek Game?

[Mike Holmes]

The one advantage that the old FASA game had was it came with these "display" sheets. You put the weapons one in front of the weapons officer, the science one in front of the science officer, etc. The most important was the engineering officer display as he was responsible for divvying up power.

The captain didn't get a display, and just barked orders. I would put a timer on the group, and they'd have to work together to make everything happen in short order. Yeah, the combat system isn't that good, but the real time teamwork element was great fun. It became less about finding the perfect tactical decisions, and more about just making any decision work.

So, what I'd do, is find a system that you like. And then make up the simulator elements on the computer - shouldn't be hard for most systems. You'll find that this adds all sorts of interest to your starship combat.

Mike

[John Kim]

So, what I'd do, is find a system that you like. And then make up the simulator elements on the computer - shouldn't be hard for most systems. You'll find that this adds all sorts of interest to your starship combat.

Yup.  This is exactly what I did using SFB in my earlier Star Trek campaigns.  The engineer did power allocation (including reserve power) and allocating damage to the PC's ship.  The navigator did movement.  The helmsman did weapons firing.  An interesting twist that I did was that the science officer was responsible for the enemy ship SSD(s).  In some ways he was being used to help on the GM's side, but this meant that he then became a source of information for both the GM and the other players.  

Anyhow, I found that this all worked pretty well.  So it is definitely something that I want to emulate -- but with a simpler underlying game system.  However, I would prefer that system to be more interesting to play out in its own right.  I'll definitely have a look at Full Thrust.  Alternatively, I may try simplifications of SFB, such as eliminating the hex map and impulse chart and going with miniatures-like movement on a table.  As I said, I like having the visible display of ship systems (i.e. the SSD).

[clehrich]

As you know, John, I think the role of Captain is the linchpin of the game, and it's exceedingly difficult to do well.  Let me fill in a little bit of campaign history for those other than you and me:

First Draft
The Captain was a player sometimes referred to as the Master of Small-Group Dynamic.  This really meant that he could get along with everyone, always.  No conflict.  Unfortunately, this was a big part of why he was a weak, wishy-washy Captain, unable to hand out orders and stick to them.  As Ralph warns, what happened was that we all had these kind of communal briefing sessions, everyone would make suggestions, some argument would happen, and then we'd all wait for a decision.  Which wasn't forthcoming, because the Captain just couldn't bring himself to say, "We do X, now."  Everyone was rather dissatisfied, most especially this player himself.

Second Draft
I played the Captain, and as I'm sure nobody will be surprised to hear, wishy-washy wasn't exactly the right word for me.  Autocrat occasionally was, but I did try.  The game ran very well, overall, and people had fun.

A Totally Different Game
Another game I was in more recently (not John's) had me as first officer, with another player as Captain.  We got an almost exact repeat of the First Draft thing above, plus the difficulty that certain players had decided in advance that all forms of strong authority were inherently bad.  That was painful and a pretty crappy game, but admittedly not just for those reasons.

So How Can It Work, If It Does?
Here's a good example where John (GM) and I (Captain) made a great episode happen, without advance planning by me (I don't know what John's planning was).  We went to the planet of the Horta ("Devil in the Dark"), the rock critters that Spock managed to talk to through Vulcan mind-meld, whose eggs the Enterprise crew were stealing, etc. etc.  Turns out this place produces the only Something-ium which is necessary for hull shielding on warships.  And the supply has dropped to essentially zero, and Horta are wreaking havoc.  Background: the war is kicking up a notch, with the Klingons and Romulans getting pissy on their respective borders, and Star Fleet needs that Something-ium.  All clear?

Okay, so we get there and discover that basically the eggs have hatched and you have a lot of annoying teenage Horta running around being teenagers.  "It's exploitation by Imperialist aliens, blah blah," and that's why no Something-ium.

We investigate, and find that there are essentially two basic solutions (with lots of variants):

1. Negotiate some sort of deal with the Horta so that production can get back on schedule.
2. Torpedo the place from orbit enough that it kills all the Horta, then mine the rubble.

We have 72 hours before we absolutely have to leave for our next scheduled rendezvous.

Discussion ensues, for a little while, and various proposals.  Captain D'Arbeloff (that's me), lays down a pretty typical order:

"Find me a #1 solution, i.e. some way to get the production back on schedule with the Horta around.  Otherwise, in 72 hours, it's solution #2.  Believe it."

They did.  I mean, they were a little aghast and all, because I was talking about wiping out a sentient species, but they knew I'd do it.  So boy howdy did they get working like busy bees to find a good #1 solution!

Now the cool thing about this is that the Captain really had no relevant skills here, apart from maybe some diplomacy (he could be tactful when he wanted to, after all).  No science, no xeno-anything, no engineering, no nothing.  That was everyone else's problem.  So I just tried to contribute helpfully to the discussions and let everyone else handle it.

And they did.  We got a deal with the teenagers in the zero hour, and rolled off knowing we'd done our duty well.

[In the interests of full disclosure, I wasn't always that good, by any means, but this was a great example of where it worked.]

-----

So what do you learn from this?

1. Structure the episode such that the choices are simple and potentially ugly.

2. Have a Captain willing to make the ugly choice -- for which he or she will take responsibility, of course.

3. Set a time limit.

4. Do not permit mutiny ("No, we can't do that, blah blah, moral code, blah").  People who start in on this should be asked, early and directly, whether they intend mutiny.  Lay stress on that word, incidentally, reminding them all that it's a capital offense.  If you have players who say, "Yes, screw it, my morals are more important than treason," this game will not work.

5. Do not structure an episode such that the Captain's skills are 90% of the issue.  Similarly, do not permit a generalist Captain; make him or her specialized, focused, and driven.

6. Encourage delegation.

In short, the Captain is the Premise-engine.  The GM lays down a situation; the Captain turns it into a Premise; everyone else addresses the Premise.

Done well, the Captain is a weird, vaguely hybrid type of character who often sits things out a bit but can be relied on for absolute certainty.  The universe is unstable and messy; the Captain makes his ship neither.

Two last points:

7. Strongly encourage the Captain player to read up on Naval leadership, which isn't quite the same as Army/Navy leadership.  Explain, in detail, the responsibilities and the difficulties of this role.  Impress upon the player that there will be times when he or she must simply forgo the opportunity to resolve a situation, even though he or she has the authority to do so.  This role borders on a GM role, in a strangely focused sense.  If you detect much reservation or hesitation, do not give the role to this player.  The Captain is the game-breaker.  The Captain basically has to delegate everything cool whenever possible, but make decisions about the not-cool stuff very fast.  It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.

8. If you have a player who thinks authoritarian structures, like military structures, are inherently a bad thing, get rid of the player.  Period.  Here's what happens: in the recent, bad campaign (not John's, let me stress again!), the Captain player decided to bail one fine day, without warning, and I got promoted (bad idea, in this group, as I told the GM...).  I found myself having to order the gunnery officer not to fire on someone because of a set of concerns I wasn't allowed to tell anyone (another wonderful thing not to do to a group, incidentally).  The gunnery officer gave me a lot of crap about this, and I said, "That's an order.  Stand down your guns."  The player turned to the GM and said, "OK, as soon as he's not looking, I'm targeting the right engines; let me know when I've got range 'cause I'm firing."  I noted to the GM that the command board would show that this was going on, which the player ignored and the GM said, "Yup, that's true.  The guns are hot and targeting right now."  I turn to the gunnery officer: "Mr. Jones, please stand down from your post.  You are relieved."  Jones: "No, I'm right and you're wrong, forget it, you can't make me."  "Sgt. Smith, please relieve Mr. Jones of his post."  Smith, the marine, goes, "Uh oh" and draws his pistol.  Jones: "I'm gonna fire."  Me: "Sergeant, relieve Mr. Jones of his post, now, and clap him in the brig."  Gunfire, Jones imprisoned and wounded, open hatred between me and Jones's player, nothing good going on here.  It all ended with the player leaving the campaign because the GM forced us to take it to a court-martial, which the player took personally.  Do not let this happen.

'Nuff said.

Chris Lehrich

[lumpley]

a) It may be late in the thread to be shouting out System suggestions; b) this suggestion won't meet Chris's desire for a central captain, but'll make an "away team" of individual Premise-addressers; and c) John, I suspect it'll be very difficult for you to take seriously, but:

Trollbabe.

They travel, they're caught between two worlds, and wherever they go they get embroiled in local conflicts.  Swap the Federation vs. the various planetary cultures in for humans vs. trolls, swap technology in for magic, and you're all set.

-Vincent

[jrs]

Ha! I can so totally see a Star Trek variation of Trollbabe.  And the central captain concept would work if it were a one player/one GM set-up where the Trollbabe *is* the captain.

Doesn't everyone want to be Captain Kirk?

Julie

[Alex Johnson]

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.

Instead, consider Savage Worlds.  As I call it, "D6 done right."

It all depends on the focus of your game.  I think other people here have given much better suggestions for your type of gaming.  I use d20 (a slight variant I wrote myself for Star Trek and other sci-fi games I might want to run).  It is good for one style of play, but I think something else would be better for yours.

[RaconteurX]

I have never participated in a campaign in which the decision to go with a player-captain was regretted by either players or gamemaster. Our group just finished one such using the Decipher rules... which, by the way, have an extremely cool starship combat system (albeit one which may be a tad more abstract than John desires) which spreads the spotlight around. The three types of ship maneuver are Helm, Tactical and Command, but there are plenty of things to keep crewmembers not in those positions very busy during starship combat (such as emergency repairs and rerouting power, at the very least).

[John Kim]

I have never participated in a campaign in which the decision to go with a player-captain was regretted by either players or gamemaster. Our group just finished one such using the Decipher rules... which, by the way, have an extremely cool starship combat system (albeit one which may be a tad more abstract than John desires) which spreads the spotlight around. The three types of ship maneuver are Helm, Tactical and Command, but there are plenty of things to keep crewmembers not in those positions very busy during starship combat (such as emergency repairs and rerouting power, at the very least).

Well, I have to admit I'm doubtful whether I would like it.  I haven't seen the Decipher Star Trek, but I have the Last Unicorn Games Star Trek -- and it seems to have been very much the same people who did them, as well as overlap with the Decipher LotR RPG people.  As you recall, I hated the LotR RPG.  The LUG Star Trek seemed OK, but had a number of annoying points.  A drama emphasis lead them to make a huge amount always depend on whether a single die comes up "6" -- which washes out a lot of modifier and skill effects.  It also is geared for only a single level of play (i.e. PCs start as junior officers, not captain and department heads), which seems mysterious to me.

[AnyaTheBlue]

John,

While I can't argue that the Decipher LotR is a, well, a big mess (although it sure is pretty), I think the Star Trek version of the system (Coda?  Icon?  Can't keep it straight) is rather better.  It seemed pretty clearly to have made very different design decisions from the LUG system.  In fact, I really think it was heavily influenced by Classic Traveller, believe it or not.

Anyway, I'm not really suggesting it for a Trek Game.  I think it's far more a "Next Gen" sort of approach than a Classic Star Trek Kirk/Spock/McCoy troika approach, so I don't think it would match your desired goals very well.

[Mike Holmes]

Strongly encourage the Captain player to read up on Naval leadership

Would time as a crew chief on an M109 Self-Propelled Howitzer be good enough?

It's funny, I don't like to play the Captain. But when I don't I constantly want to tell the current Captain how to do their job right. So it makes these sorts of games hard for me to play. I either have to be the Captain, or shut my mouth.

Why can't everybody have military experience. Y'all would benefit from it. ;-)

Chris, that issue with the player in question leaving the game is really messed up. I mean somewhere along the line actual player competition got mixed in. That shouldn't have happened. If you'd been co-operating together, then you could have exactly the same scene, and thank each other for the experience when you're done. My point is that I think that that sort of character vs. character conflict ought to be encouraged, much less prevented. Themes of mutiny or anti-authoritarianism can play out just fine if done right. It just had to occur in an environment of player co-operation.

Mike

[clehrich]

Strongly encourage the Captain player to read up on Naval leadership

Would time as a crew chief on an M109 Self-Propelled Howitzer be good enough?

Oh sure, no problem.  You think I'm going to argue with a guy with an M109?  :)

It's funny, I don't like to play the Captain. But when I don't I constantly want to tell the current Captain how to do their job right. So it makes these sorts of games hard for me to play. I either have to be the Captain, or shut my mouth.

Exactly my feeling, actually, although I do enjoy the Captain role.  I've never been in the military, but I did a bunch of research for John's game, and it sort of got out of hand: I read something like 8 lengthy textbooks and manuals on naval leadership, and one of these days I'll try to make an article out of it....

Chris, that issue with the player in question leaving the game is really messed up. ... Themes of mutiny or anti-authoritarianism can play out just fine if done right. It just had to occur in an environment of player co-operation.

Yes, you're quite right -- there were a lot of crappy things about that situation.  My only point in this thread was that the player in question had an absolute notion that all authority-structures were inherently bad, period.  It has since become clear to me that this is one of the player's personal tenets in life, and has gotten her fired from more than one job (basically she mouths off at or ignores what the boss says because "that's authoritarian and Nazi and wrong" -- yes, that's a quote).  While this particular player is certainly an extreme, the GM knew in advance that this player and one other had such views, and were not likely to bend them for the game's sake.

It seems that strong authority structures do push some folks' buttons in a real ugly way.  Do not run a game like this with such a player -- that's going nowhere good, I promise.  Not everyone is willing to take orders in any context, and it can be even more difficult in a game (where it's one of your friends giving you orders).  Make sure everyone realizes that this will happen and will be an issue.  Then if people want to play with things like mutiny, that's fine -- just so long as everyone understands and accepts the norms of the universe.

Hope that clears up some of the confusions of my long post!

Chris Lehrich

[AnyaTheBlue]

It seems that strong authority structures do push some folks' buttons in a real ugly way. Do not run a game like this with such a player

I'm going to disagree.

It's okay to play this sort of game, but you really need to find a niche to keep these players attitudes insulated in such a way that they don't break the setting.

For example, such a player would be perfect playing someone like Quark or Harry Mudd.  Perhaps a civilian research scientist who isn't part of the command structure, or a medical doctor, or something.  Basically, color-type characters as opposed to Starfleet characters.  There are plenty of ways to do this, up to and including having the character be the significant other/partner of a Starfleet officer (that probably wouldn't work for Classic Trek, but it would for Next Gen and DS9).

Removing someone from the command structure makes that person more or less the same rank as whomever is the Captain and there's the bonus that, for the most part, the Captain can't issue this person direct orders most of the time, nor will the player be in a position to directly affect starship operations without knowingly crossing a boundary between the civilians and the crew.

Of course, it isn't going to work if you have a majority of your players outside the command structure, as this will significantly affect the tone of the game.

[John Kim]

My only point in this thread was that the player in question had an absolute notion that all authority-structures were inherently bad, period.  It has since become clear to me that this is one of the player's personal tenets in life, and has gotten her fired from more than one job (basically she mouths off at or ignores what the boss says because "that's authoritarian and Nazi and wrong" -- yes, that's a quote).  While this particular player is certainly an extreme, the GM knew in advance that this player and one other had such views, and were not likely to bend them for the game's sake.

It seems that strong authority structures do push some folks' buttons in a real ugly way.  Do not run a game like this with such a player -- that's going nowhere good, I promise.  

Hmm.  None of my players are like that per se, but they are all pretty much hippy-esque bleeding-heart liberals who would never think of joining the military in real life.  (I'd include myself in category, too, BTW.)  So it's certainly something that I should consider, perhaps.  Still, I think they're OK with it.  I mean, none of them are likely to go out on a naval slave-taking raid either -- but they're all enjoying the current vikings campaign.  There is something here to consider, but I suspect I'll just go ahead with it and deal with any problems if they arise at the time.  

I do think that real-life differences of belief can cause stress in a true social-allegory game.  For example, there was one session of my old Star Trek campaign where Chris and I came to extremely heated terms -- when his PC (Captain D'Arbeloff) broke truce with a bunch of NPCs to attack them.  I was quite upset I think because I sympathized with them and the attack came as a sudden shock for me.  Our eventual conclusion was that I would better be able to detach if I had known about it in advance.  

At the same time, I think that it is to some degree an inherent risk.  We got really mad at the time, but that itself showed the degree of emotional investment in the game and the power of the social allegory.

[Jason Lee]

Interestingly enough, in our campaign (homebrew) we are current addressing leadership themes.  Working from a long period of independent wackos roving around on a spaceship, a couple characters with military backgrounds have finally gotten sick and tired of chaos and internal squabbles endangering us.  A command structure is actively being created, ranks are being decided, and authority is becoming inescapable.  The process and resistance to it has actually been rather interesting.

This process has highlighted issues within a couple of the players, which Chris has mentioned and I'd like to echo.  It's a fear and control issue.  In our case, partially caused by bad previous gaming experiences.  Seemly, the point of view is that player character authority figures deprive other players of authorial power (control).  This doesn't need to be true, but the lack of trust that the other players aren't going to use their character's rank to 'cheat' or deprive you the player of your decisions causes a strong negative reaction (fear).

We're taking the sink or swim approach.  We are pushing forward with the theme, regardless of the minority's fear (not expressed, denied actually, but still obvious as ned).  The social contract is strong enough to hold the group together, and those with the issue cannot adequately express it (other than pure reactionary or insulting statements).  So, the hope is that old habits will be broken in the process and things will actually be better.  We'll see, we've already had an incident with a grenade threat in the med-bay when the current commander told one of the characters to leave.  But, that was that character's last chance - she's being left behind somewhere if she pulls anymore crap.  Sink or swim.  Hard decisions.  Proves to be interesting.

Anyway, something to think about.  Some people do have issues with authority, for one reason or another.  Poor real world/SIS seperation can easily cause that to intrude on the in-game, just as any other personal issue can.  Chris is right to warn of it.

*****

On a related note, I recommend the delegation approach.  If the person playing the captain does nothing but assign tasks they can still get as much spotlight time as the other players, without hogging it.  I'd skip on a comms officer in that case though - route communication directly to the captain.  He can stay on the ship, the away team can call and say, "I need a Such-and-Such", he can assign Ensign Melanoma to build a Such-and-Such.  With constant communication the captain still gets to interact with the characters and make decisions.  The player of the captain will just be playing at the strategic level, instead of the tactical (have I got those in the right order?).

The delegation approach can also help mitigate the fear and control issues.  The other players still get all the tactical level spotlight, so the decisions close to their perceptions will be under their control.

*****

As far as your system question goes, it sounds like your original idea of Action or Fuzion (not that there is much of a difference) is a good one.  Fuzion probably has more plug-ins to choose from for vehicles/space.

[RaconteurX]

Coda?  Icon?  Can't keep it straight...

CODA is the Decipher system. ICON was the Last Unicorn system.

It seemed pretty clearly to have made very different design decisions from the LUG system.

Indeed it did. The intent was to streamline, simplify and create a starship combat system that was more roleplaying- than boardgame-oriented. It succeeded admirably, in my opinion.

I think it's far more a "Next Gen" sort of approach than a Classic Star Trek Kirk/Spock/McCoy troika approach, so I don't think it would match your desired goals very well.

We played an Enterprise-era campaign and it worked quite well. The rules support all eras equally well, from the variety of campaigns I have read about on TrekRPG.Net, with little adjustment.