After good responses to Chris' 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

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...

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! :)

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.

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.

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.

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

Valamir wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

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.

John Kim wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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?

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.

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote: 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?

John Kim wrote: 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".

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.

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

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

Mike Holmes wrote: 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.

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

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

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

AnyaTheBlue wrote: 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.

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).

RaconteurX wrote: 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,

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.

Strongly encourage the Captain player to read up on Naval leadership

Mike Holmes wrote:

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.

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.

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

clehrich wrote: 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.

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.

AnyaTheBlue wrote: Coda? Icon? Can't keep it straight...

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

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.

cruciel wrote: 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?).

I'm amazed that nobody's made a 'My Life With Starfleet' suggestion.

If systems are still an issue, then I'd wonder if there was some sort of compromise between BESM and Unisystem (specifically Buffy) where the Captain was hugely powerful because the ship was part of his character sheet, but his senior crew were equally powerful because they controlled their departments as extensions (so to speak) of themselves, and also had more 'drama points'. These might include sacrificing red shirts, rerouting the doohickey through the thingamajig, or (for the captain), taking damage to a part of the ship or evacuating deck 19, or whatever.

Part of the problem with Star Trek is that, whenever I encounter it, I'm of the opinion that obligation (to self, system of belief, or starfleet) is continually being tested, and something that made that nest of obligations more concrete would, it seems to me, be useful. Of course, my next reaction is to try and move Sorcerer over, but that way lies wicked madness. However, Champions/HERO might do a better job of it - if you imagine the Captain as owning a really really big vehicle, and give the heads of departments stacks of followers, it might even add up.

Of course, this may just be showing my bias more than it shows utility, but I can but try.

Honestly, I want to do a Star Trek-to-HeroQuest conversion. And/or Star Trek-to-InSpectres... :D