How do you convince D & D players to try Star Trek?
Printable View
How do you convince D & D players to try Star Trek?
I know I'll get lynched for saying it, but...Tell them the CODA system is very similar to 3rd Ed D&D.
But less rules heavy
http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smiley-026.gif
Well, it is, in many ways. Except it uses a 2d6, which gives a bell curve (something I prefer over that nasty d20), it has gotten (mostly) rid of those silly, unrealistic level based mechanics (yes, there are advances, but it's not nearly as clear cut with those), and on top of all that, it has courage points - a way for the player to influence the story by making succes more likely at critical rolls, something which all systems shoyld have, i think.Quote:
Originally posted by Phantom
I know I'll get lynched for saying it, but...Tell them the CODA system is very similar to 3rd Ed D&D.
Why Star Trek is better than D&D?
Because every player will get the ultimate one hit one kill weapon. Sword of Death? No, phasers. :)
I've been thinking about the advantages and drawbacks of several different dice and their combinations for some time now. xdy (x and y are numbers) gives you a bell curve, but why do you need one? The problem with using several dice is that increasing the TN by a constant value doesn't reduce the chances of success by a constant ratio. For example with 2d6 and level 0 increasing the TN from 7 to 9 reduces the chance of success from 58.3% to 27.8%. That's a reduction by 52.3%. Now, our goal should be to keep this factor constant, so that the same modifier, no matter under what conditions it is applied, affects the probability of success in the same way. However, increasing the TN from 10 to 12 reduces the chance of success by 83.3%.Quote:
Originally posted by P'l
Well, it is, in many ways. Except it uses a 2d6, which gives a bell curve (something I prefer over that nasty d20), it has gotten (mostly) rid of those silly, unrealistic level based mechanics (yes, there are advances, but it's not nearly as clear cut with those), and on top of all that, it has courage points - a way for the player to influence the story by making succes more likely at critical rolls, something which all systems shoyld have, i think.
You have this problem with all sorts of dice, even when rolling them alone. The higher the TN, the bigger is the reduction of the probability of success when increasing the TN by a constant value. When using only one die this reduction doesn't vary as widely as when using two or more dice.
The only die mechanic that can give you both, a (half) bell curve and, more important IMHO, a constant reduction of the chance of success when adding TN modifiers, is a modified Shadowrun model with d2.
Roll xd2. Those dice showing a 2 may be rolled again. The number of times a die is rolled is the result achieved with it.
The problem associated with this mechanic is that you will need an awful lot of dice to have a satisfying chance of reaching high target numbers.
So 2d6 give you a bell curve approximation, but 1d20 gives you a better TN scale.
Perhaps, but I don't necessarily want a constant modifier to be equally bad for people with different skill levels (which is more or less what you seem to want.), infact, I rather want the opposite. An amateur can often do a routine job as well as an expert, it's when there's some sort of extra problem (causing the modifier) that the expert really shines.
In many cases anyway.
Besides, this may sound arrogant, but: I'm easily good enough with math to figure out whatever change in probability a constant added to a diff against 2d6 does, and so're everyone I expect to ever play with, with a single possible exception. So figuring out what sort of modifier is needed to make any given necessary probability adjustment is barely a thought. And I'm the one that sucked at probability theory.
Not that I want to get in to the old boring arguments, but I tend to find that I am becoming increasingly disenfranchised with the whole D20 ruleset. I just don't find it a ballanced system any more. Every now and again we start a new campaign and I am reminded how hideously crippled you are when you start and how overpowered you can be later on.
IMHO the Spycraft system goes a way to help beat that with it's concept of drama dice.. which I do like about the Decipher system, with it's version of them.
I much prefer the way that in the 2D6 system a lucky amateur can have just as much chance as an expert.. it's just the expert will more likelly succeed (with a smaller margin for failure) - and if you do really much up your roll you get thrown a lifeline in the form of drama dice.. which help you tip the ballance IF you want too.
While for realisms sake there should be some things an untrained person should never be able to do, i just find it better for there to be a chance, because at the end of the day this is meant to be fun, and I would rather the obstacles that players met had to be thought about rather than just be an excercise in frustration of that TN you can't meet!
I never cared which rules system is better. A rules system isn't going get me to try a new RPG. For me, its all about the setting. Give me a setting that has richly detailed locations and characters; Give me a setting with a history and background in which I can place my character.Quote:
Originally posted by Space_Cadet
How do you convince D & D players to try Star Trek?
If your group hasn't watched the show (And, I mean, really watched it -- no channel-flipping or reading comic books during the show), invite your group over early and show them the episode(s) that best represent the game you want to run.
With 37 years of episodes, movies, novels, comics, tech manuals, star charts, chronologies, and encylopedias, there's no universe more detailed than Star Trek. (Sorry, Star Wars.)
See if that piques their interest.
And, finally, you can ask your group, as your friends, to try the game once. . . just to humor you and make you happy. ("C'mon, guys! Puh-lease!, can we play this just once. I promise I'll make it fun. :) ") If they like it, you can bet they'll ask to play it again.
it seems most of the replies are system-oriented. What i initially meant was how do i get folks who have a less than favorable view of Trek to play Trek?
Play DS9 or Enterprise. Play Klingons. Play rogues.
Well it depends. How are your players exactly ?
Are they the stereotypical hack'n'slash kill-monster-get-XP-get-gold-and-repeat D&D players, or average RPG players who happen to think that Star Trek is that silly series with pointy eared guys running around in their pajamas on stupidly white starship ?
Do they enjoy carefully crafted stories with a detailed universe behind or do they define roleplay as insulting the ennemy before engaging a battle ?
Are they not favourable to ST because they don't like the universe, don't know it, think it's too soft, etc ?
I know exactly what you mean there, with regards to people not wanting to play it. My group watch alot of Scifi, but regard Startrek as a little too prissy for them. The largest hurdle to overcome is getting past the whole problem of having to conform to the rules of Startrek.
Now, my solution was to set the campaign on an outpost, similar to DS9, at the end of the Dominion war. The Outpost is quite remote and while fairly decent, is short on crew. So basically I said they could play anything with one exception - they couldn't create a character which was diametrically oposed to the Federation, since they would be working with them). That way it gives players the opportunity of being something other than the Standard 'harry Kim' out of the box, they can play a Klingon Rogue or a Ferengi merchant or a Bajoran Mystic BUT they will be working for the Federation as the core concept. Basically, depending on where their skills lay, I just gave them jobs on the Starbase accordingly, such as Security guards and Operations staff.
This works well, as on the one hand they are not so tightly bound by the rules of the Federation, but on the other hand they are controlled by their purse strings. the Federation is Rich, and this place is hard, and their job on the Starbase is easier than working in the asteroid mines :D
Then, you can send them out on missions, allong with a few Starfleet officers to keep an eye on them, and use their real world skills to their best advantage.. Have them go on espionage missions, do some underworld, streetwise, fast talking - these things couldn't normally be achieved by Starfleet officers. You can tailor the adventures around your mix of characters and find something for each of them to do.
My experience with turning D&D purist gamers interested in something like Star Trek is it does not work if the group are Hack & Slashers. Unfortunitely the majority of D&D purists are Hack & Slashers. Note I am saying D&D purists and not D&D players in general. Everyone has at one point or another atleast played D&D at some point. Some people may currently be involved in D&D games. Star Trek is about Morals and a Reflection on our society as well as action adventure. Only players willing to not just blast a phaser at everything but think it through are the players you want. Hack & Slashers will be bored because they are not killing all the time and may do something like blow away the Romulan Spy rather than capture him as an example. Some suggested Klingons, yes Klingons may work depending on the Era, but to me that can become a tedious game to run as you have to find something new for them to kill each game.
Most players I have dealt with are always looking for a game regardless of system as long as it interests them. That is something the Narrator has create. An interesting and compelling series that will intrigue anyone. I am running a Post DS9 Era game, where I know my players like action/adventure but occacionally want the Intellectaul Rote. I chose the game based on my players' tastes. Luckily I have played with my group for a few years and we know what works for us.
Bringing in new players that play just D&D may be difficult as they have to adjust to a different style of role-playing and not roll-playing. Regardless of what some may think, I still see D&D just Roll-Playing as the traditional way it is run. You may find the players that are looking for more that want character over rolling all the time and that is the challenge. Then again I think that is a challenge in any game you run or try. I was in a Vampire game where the Storyteller turned the game Hack & Slash and I have been in a D&D that the DM made was character driven. Both rare but do happen.
I try to engage in any new players in conversation ahead of time. I interview them. First time I meet any new players, we meet here at the gaming location, resturuant, etc. We sit back and talk war stories and exchange ideas to see if we are compatable. How I run a game is how they want to be involved. I also use this technique when dealing with a new game with established players. I like to get their input what they want and are looking for and pass off some of my ideas (obviously not the GM secrets but the set up to the game). Talking and knowing your players' interests may help you use it to make them interested in your game or know that your game may or may not work.
Unfortunately as much as I love Vampire: The Masquarade and Demon: The Fallen none of my current players can play this game, however more action orientated games with more intellect used once in awhile Werewolf: The Apacylpse, Mage: The Ascencion, Star Wars and a few others are very popular among us. I chose my Era based on what the players like as well. They are into the Matrix, LotR, Star Wars, Good Horror, Anime and of course Star Trek so I know we are in a good place running this game and knowing a Post DS9 is up their ally and not something like Next Generation for instance.
Just my thoughts and rant
It's simple. It's their choice. However, my relationship with my potential gamers is always sour. They treat me like I'm beneath them.
So, I'm looking for new gamers that I can easily meet with considering my current transportation situation (I don't have a car, so I ride UTA).
If I ever get these potential gamers into a CODA game with me, it would be LotR. I'll have to conjole them to try LUG or CODA trek. And it would be either NTG (LUG) or Enterprise (CODA).
ST: Enterprise is my favorite ST show, surpassing that of NTG.
Generally I find it is the setting, not the system, that gets between players and a game (with a few notable exceptions).
I myself do not like the GURPS system, but I had an enjoyable game of it that lasted many months when a friend set Tekumel/Empire of the Petal Throne to those rules.
OTOH, I do not play Post-Apocalyptic games under any circumstances, nor do I play game where EVIL has utterly taken over the world and there is no chance to do a single thing about it.
Equally, I am now gaming with 6 people -- 3 of them are opposed to Trek in any format, 2 are so-so on it, and 1 will game whatever I set up for them ;)
This explains why I am currently doing a standard fantasy game...