I played last Thursday in a Star Trek RPG, run by one of our rotating GMs.

I must admit, the game had a lot going against it (from my perspective). It involved time travel, which, as I think I had pointed out to the person running the game, was not a subject I liked in the genre. In fact, I pretty much made fun of it as a rediculous excuse for the writers of the shows.

But I sat down and determined that despite all of that, I would still have fun. I decided to decide give my PC an opinion regarding the situation given, and to engage full throttle.

Now, the GM thought the game was not good - but we still managed to have fun. There was a LOT of joking around and whatnot. We felt confused an utterly useless - we were essentially reliving the first 10 minutes of one of the movies. Yes, yes we see a Borg ship. Ohh, it's killing us. Ah ha! Time stops... then what?

(As a tangent, I also noticed that at one point, the GM leaned over to one player and whispered conspiratorally to another player reagrding a pre-generated PC's background. I heard every bit of it. I thought it was funny that this normally un-power-gamerish person would suddenly revert to power-gamer mode and act as if I would use the information to screw over the other player. I loudly began to cackle and announced such a plan - all in good fun. I had NO such plans.)

There was plenty of us staring at each other and the GM and wondering aloud "What the frik do we do now?" This was very similar to the situation I described in http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5962&highlight=angry+pinball.

This time, I took a step back, breathed slowly, and thought carefully about what was happening. I think I realized that if the GM had come forward at start and asked "Hey, I have these leftover railroad ties..." and given us a chance to know what was happening, it would have saved him a lot of gried. Oh well.

Comments? Anything I should carify?

Hiya,

That's an interesting post. One of the topics I'm forever maundering about concerns the plain-old-people dialogue that surrounds or grounds a role-playing session, during play. I'm usually trying to help someone see that such dialogue is not only helpful and enjoyable, but often central to play, whereas they are struggling with their training which insists that such dialogue is very wrong and bad for role-playing.

However, what I see here puts me in the uncharacteristic position of wondering ... um, what about the characters? Did it matter at all, in your estimation, who they were or what skills they had, or anything else that constituted a choice during character creation?

Or was it more of a "make up whoever you want, I've got the scenario all ready" situation?

Best,
Ron

Ron said:

One of the topics I'm forever maundering about concerns the plain-old-people dialogue that surrounds or grounds a role-playing session, during play.

In answer to the other question, it was, as it turned out, "it doesn't matter what PC you make."

I even joked to the GM about allowing me to create the "ex-assasin Klingon StarFleet captain" power-PC. The group ousted another player who insisted on such a creation for another game a long time ago. This other person made them so uncomfortable they booted him. Even though I was only half-kidding, and repeatedly assured the GM I wasn't going to "ruin his game" I was denied. The GM looked at times concerned, amused, and nervous. Oh well! I try to have fun with whatever we go with.

It's interesting - if it didn't matter what sort of PC we brought to the game(although, given the above paragraph, I guess it DID in one way), what did matter?

Without any other knowledge of the game, I expect to have a lot of input into what's going on. If I do know, then I can adjust and still have a good time.

Is it possible that your GM, in fact, didn't have a railroad plot in mind? He would still be guilty of having failed to provide a framework in which lack of player restrictions would translate into player empowerment. But that's something you could help him with.

You've said (roughly) "I wish he'd just told us where the railroad tracks were, rather than hiding them", but I have yet to see the evidence that there were any hidden tracks. I'm not saying there weren't, just that you haven't yet made it clear how you were so sure.

Also, I wonder whether you put your GM on the defensive by repeatedly assuring him that you weren't going to ruin his game. People sometimes say this as a way of establishing that they are the Alpha Gamer. The unspoken subtext running: "Sure, you're GMing tonight, but I'm so much better a gamer than you are that I could turn your game into swiss cheese with one dice-bag tied behind my back... don't worry though, little buddy, I'm feeling generous... I'll probably let you live."

I'm not saying that's what you meant. But it's worth noting that the GM may have misinterpreted your intent. Communication's funny that way.

Tony,

Good point. No, we all have a very good relationship outside of the game. We have made it clear that the point of the game is to have fun, and not to posture for "who is better." I don't think that was the case. This guy is very mature. We were all in on it. No sweat.

I mention the rails because it's happened before. The difference being that this time, I knew what was happening and decided to approach it with a different mental outlook.

Hi James,

Did the GM seem to be showing any signs of what I can only call Stage Fright? It seems like the nerviousness issue might link into a "performance" mentality and self-esteem sort of thing?

Chris

Nervous as in "gee I hope I do a good job" or nervous as in "gee I hope James doesn't flip the BozoBit tonight?"

In the first case, no. He's generally very comfortable in his railroading. He was distressed that things didn't go as he imagined them. (What would that have been, I wonder? Probably lots of Gee-Whiz moments at the cleverness of the story, the sheer joy of being next to the NPCs and watching them talk to other NPCs, and so on.)

It's the second one that I think was causing worry.

You're going to have to clarify... well, everything, before I (at least) will feel comfortable commenting.

So far all I know is "There was a big battle which we got aggressively framed into. And then time stopped. And the players didn't have any ideas about neat things to do."

It's just not enough to know what you're talking about. I think I get what you feel emotionally, but it's completely devoid of context.

Just, out of curiosity, how did the game go? I'm assuming that this had something to do with First Contact, right? My friends and I have always been VERY skeptical on the topic of a Star Trek RPG. We actually tried Dune (Worst roleplaying experience of my entire life). I'm not even sure how Star Trek is SUPPOSED to work. Can you explain to me how it did work?

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

Eric,

I don't think I have enough experience with the system to tell you one way or the other. As an idea, we were all at least into trying it. Any dysfunction I've described appeared to be more related to the boxes surrounding the game than the dice rollin' and real readin' itself.

Does that help?

James,

Thanks. I'm just not sure what the premise of a Star Trek RPG would even BE.

"You are a STARFLEET OFFICER. You will be called on in times of need by your captain. Be prepared."

Or maybe:

"Help your GM create Star Trekesque plots. Hell you guys all know Star Trek better than the writers themselves anyway. This is a way of giving you a limited shot at what you've always wanted."

Or even more bizzare:

"You're going to act out a Star Trek scenerio but you get to make different choices."

Basically my problem is that I'm not sure what characters really get to do while the captains making all the decisions. I don't see how you could NOT railroad in a Star Trek RPG. The people get their orders from Starfleet Command. Oftentimes (well most of the time) problems are solved with pseudo-science and its about how the characters learn from the experience rather than how they deal with it. There are exceptions, where they ask the characters to make a choice and deal with the implications (the better episodes IMHO) but they, sometimes, seem few and far between.

I'm sorry for using capitol letters so often in these posts. It's a difficult thing speculating on the nature of a game like this.

I think it helped.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

JamesDJIII wrote: It's interesting - if it didn't matter what sort of PC we brought to the game(although, given the above paragraph, I guess it DID in one way), what did matter?

Eric J. wrote: James,

Thanks. I'm just not sure what the premise of a Star Trek RPG would even BE.

Or you can have an entirely different premise if you go with Deep Space 9: You're not the best Starfleet has to offer, but you're good enough, and more to the point you're committed to ideals and connections that nobody else can imitate. Go change the world.

I gotta admit that I'm stumped what the empowering player goals for TNG or Voyager would be though. Thoughts?

TonyLB wrote: Or you can have an entirely different premise if you go with Deep Space 9: You're not the best Starfleet has to offer, but you're good enough, and more to the point you're committed to ideals and connections that nobody else can imitate. Go change the world.

I gotta admit that I'm stumped what the empowering player goals for TNG or Voyager would be though. Thoughts?

Once upon a time, I heard "Cheers" described as "time porn." If pornography is a depiction of what you want but cannot have, then Cheers was "time porn"; it gave people a brief, voyeuristic look at what they want but usually do not have: enough time to sit around in a well-lit "third space" away from the children yakking with their friends.

It was then that I realized that ST:TNG is "office porn." The Enterprise is upholstered much like modern, traditional office buildings; the crew uniforms are semi-casual and make exception for the ethnic members of the team; the organization of the ship is much less militaristic or civilian naval and much more like a small but mature company. But it's mostly "office porn" in that the staff meetings, which do happen regularly, are short, to the point, and effective.

Heh... I was going to say something pithy about pornography and roleplaying games, but when it comes right down to it the question of living in a world that has elements whose absence we feel keenly in our own lives is a pretty big part of a lot of Simulationist play.

Maybe the Star Trek rules system (which from my fragmentary memory seems massively Sim) is more well suited to the genre than I had originally thought.

So to return (momentarily) to the original post: When time stopped and the players didn't have any sense of what to do, they should all have immediately retired to the ready room. Then everyone could make one helpful statement, and ask one insightful question, at the end of which a clear consensual plan would have naturally emerged to be helpfully rubberstamped by the captain. Yes?

Tony,

That plan, the one where we all meet up and discuss a plan, might have worked. Er, well, given we (and our ship) were about to be sliced by an alien beam of death, that meeting would have been in the debris of the bridge...

But I think the pattern that emerged in our game was that no matter what we were going to do, the consequences were already established. In other words, we could turn the wheel as hard as liked to the left, but the center rail would keep us moving in a predetermined direction.

Which is why the JellyBelly sorting and consumption began to become more interesting that the game. (At least to myself and the person playing our Captain!)

I'm not a big Star Trek fan. I'll admit it. But I was looking forward to playing in this game. I just think, and this is my point, that things would have gone smoother had the GM simply stated his means ahead of time. Would have saved a lot of confusion and head scratching. The expectation was: here's a problem, come up with a solution, the fun is in the outcome we all generate. The reality was: here's a problem, read these lines, the fun is in the charactertization you provide.

Ah. Gotcha. So there were actual instances where you tried something, and the GM fought you back to his plot.

I'm still confused about why you didn't know what to do when time stopped... or, rather, why it mattered that you didn't know what to do (if what you did didn't make any difference).

Is that a separate issue, or part of the whole railroading issue?

Tony,

Let me put it this way: if every indication is that whatever you put forward is going to be ignored, what would YOU do?

In sitting-at-the-edge-of-the-game mode, I turn to the GM and throw up my hands, a pleading look, and say "Well, you've guided us here, now what?"

If we had an agenda that we the players created, then we wouldn't need to ask. The situation would be a continutation of the give-and-take between us and Mr. GM, and our drive towards The Things We Want.

Hope that helps.

Oh, wait a second... I get it.

You're not asking for suggestions. You just want to vent. I was assuming that you actually wanted to talk about the session itself. My bad.

In that vein... That sounds like a terrible, horrible, scarring experience. What an awful GM. He shouldn't be allowed to GM any more, he'll only end up hurting other brave, helpful players like yourself.

Hmmmm ... I'm not really liking some of the dialogue here. Tony, you and James need to take it to private message if you both want to continue.

So, James, is there any other aspect of the session follow-up you'd like to chew over?

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I think this thread, AFAIC, was all done about 7 posts ago.

Tony,

Heck yeah, I'm venting! The big difference (for me) was that now I am venting about how we failed to talk about the game's parameters before hand as much as how the game "failed."

But you know what, I still had fun with my amigos. I felt that the GM was having a bad time - as if he was not running a good game. Had we talked about what was going to happen, I think we ALL would have had a good time.

Ciao!

All done then, folks. Be happy.

Best,
Ron