Star Trek RPG 004-A

Fasa was 001-A, TNG was 002-A, TOS was 002-B, DS9 was 002-C, Coda was 003-A. Anything before Fasa was NX-somethingorother. Or something like that, you get the idea.

Anyway, this thread is for speculation on the next TrekRPG, whenever that may be. When will it be? Four years from now (shortly after the next series begins)? 10 years from now (when the next series ends)? Shortly before the next series begins (as a forerunner that the whole world will surely know about :rolleyes: )? 2063?

I'd suggest we forget about the system/ mechanics for the purpose of this thread. What products (seriously, not my Nickelodeon jokes) should we expect? A TCW Sourcebook? A Xindi Expanse Sourcebook? A 22nd Century Sourcebook? A 30th Century Sourcebook? A Birth of the Federation Sourcebook? A Federation Core Region Sourcebook? A Kazon/ Ocampa/ Talax/ Trabe/ Vidiia/ Haakonia Region Sourcebook? A Romulan War Sourcebook? A Eugenics Sourcebook?

007

Bond, James Bond...

Couldn't help my self. My game is, after all, on the U.S.S. (Ian Lancaster) Fleming. Where the PC's have dubed the 3 shuttle craft M, Q, & R; the Captain's Yatch is officially named "Money Penney"; and the computer is known as "Tracy" (Bond's only true love, and for a very short time: wife).

Well, now that Decipher does not have the Star Trek license anymore, it seems like this discussion is more relevant.

For profitability, the next RPG company that gets the license will have to use some sort of pre-existing system so as to cut out the playtesting costs and time. An existing in house system, an open license system (d20 http://www.bakabanashi.com/icons/yuck.gif, Action System, True20, Open Core, etc.) an easily license system (d6, Fuzion) would be their choices. If the new company could purchase or license a previous Star Trek system: FASA, Icon or Coda that would be great as it would make it easier to find existing players. That happening with Icon or Coda would be slim to none. The new company could just create Coda & Icon compatible products to begin with.

Creating CODA and Icon compatible products sounds like a legal landmine waiting to be stumbled into.

I disagree that the next RPG company who gets the license will need to use a pre-existing system for profitability. I think that using a pre-existing system is more of a risk, from a business perspective, than anything else. The Star Trek name is what will sell the RPG - using a known system can only cost you customers (e.g. your yuck at d20). I think that whatever system they went with there would still be a lot of playtesting involved, and I don't think that the need for it is necessarily significantly reduced by using an existing system. Existing systems are not, for instance, going to include rules for starships. Even existing systems which do have such rules (e.g. GURPS) would require significant tweaking to make the systems Trek-specific.

The biggest thing which will determine the profitability of the next Star Trek RPG will be the cost of the Trek license in the first place, and how many players of older Star Trek RPGs can be lured to switch to the new system.

I, for one, enjoyed the idea behind Decipher's sourcebook schedule. What they lacked in specific innovative detail* they made up for in applicability; LUG sourcebooks often had problems when offering advice on integrating material into ongoing campaigns, especially The First Line, which was all about an espionage series.

That said, some of LUG's material was genius, especially the show-specific material in the DS9 and TOS core books; the rest of the TOS line was also awesome, but I'm sure I mentioned that before.

We could probably look forward to a release schedule like SAGA SW. Core book, occasional wide-ranging toolkit books (Ships, Aliens) and most of the company's effort put into a collectible spaceship combat game : P

What I would especially like is a regular schedule of free released adventures, like WotC's Dungeon material. Adventures are problematic to publish because market for them is immediately cut to a quarter or one fifth of any other book. They're just as important, though, in getting people into the game and helping the average gamemaster running a campaign. Most of the people here probably don't need them, but that's because we're dedicated, creative folks who're willing to put energy into a gameline that's died, like, three times : P

*because, for the most part, it was covering material seen onscreen, rather than filling in gaps. You could probably see the first four sourcebooks as an extended core rulebook.

Wizards' Star Wars RPG line has not, historically, been much better supported than CODA Trek was. Let's hope for the sake of SAGA players that things are different this time around.

Personally, when I want a game about starship combat, I'll use Federation Commander. I don't want the next Trek RPG to be no better supported in terms of new RPG material than Star Wars, but with a half-arsed collectible starship game tacked on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazza

Wizards' Star Wars RPG line has not, historically, been much better supported than CODA Trek was. Let's hope for the sake of SAGA players that things are different this time around.

---

Well, historically, that's because the license was restricted by a limited release schedule. If they weren't juggling book earnings versus minis earnings, there'd probably be more supplements coming out of the tube.

However, I think forcing the company to think of books that are essential, continuous sellers instead of disposable monthly supplements will be better in the long run for the game. Assuming they don't pull a Starships.

Quote:

---

Personally, when I want a game about starship combat, I'll use Federation Commander. I don't want the next Trek RPG to be no better supported in terms of new RPG material than Star Wars, but with a half-arsed collectible starship game tacked on.

---

Sure, but is it financially successful? Do you think a 'traditional' painting-and-huge-rules minis game will be seen as a profitable venture these days, no matter how many asses go into producing it?

I think the reasons for the ppor support and to some extent the failure of the TREK rpg lines actually hard back to the WotC buyout of LUG.

If you look at all the things people were worried about, they eventually happened.

The state of Star Trek RPGs has been suck city since then. ICON got killed off for CODA, which in turn got tossed into limbo, with virtually everyone associated with it's creation getting disgusted and calling it quits.

I think the major problem with Trek as an RPG is that it doesn't appeal to most gamers, pure and simple.

A new system, or using an pre-exsisting one doesn't matter. Unless you want to see Star Trek: THe Dungeoncrawlers, a Sci-Fi game of personal combat having little to do with Star Trek as we know it.


I'm sure we could see lots of supplments if the game sold. Grreed is a great motivator. If Decipher has theen the D&D challenging sales fogure they had expected, I'm sure we'd be hip deep in supplments by now.

Or you can hope Mongoose gets it. THe rules would probably suck, the game would need to be corrected with a new edtion, but I'm sure they would support it.

No matter who gets the license, they'd better be smart enough to use the D20 system Open Gaming Licence.

ICON, CODA, and FASA Trek's had horrible dice systems.

Oh yeah, and their character creation systems were terrible too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverstreak

No matter who gets the license, they'd better be smart enough to use the D20 system Open Gaming Licence.

ICON, CODA, and FASA Trek's had horrible dice systems.

Oh yeah, and their character creation systems were terrible too.

---

2d6, xd6 pools and percentile dice are horrible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverstreak

No matter who gets the license, they'd better be smart enough to use the D20 system Open Gaming Licence.

ICON, CODA, and FASA Trek's had horrible dice systems.

Oh yeah, and their character creation systems were terrible too.

---

Some used to say that CODA dice system was "D20 with 2D6". I tend to agree that CODA dice system is similar to D20, but the probability curve is different.

As for the character creation system, I have to admit from personal experience that ICON and CODA (don't know about FASA) creation systems are not the easiest to grasp... Took my players a few hours at the time, though I guess it can be easier with use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

2d6, xd6 pools and percentile dice are horrible?

---

Yes, the D20 system allows for a greater range of probabilities. The problem with ICON (for example) was you either did things extremely well or you failed horribly due to the drama die. It's character creation system, while not difficult took hours to make characters who were senior staff.

CODA, talk about confusing, it's character creation system didn't allow command level officers to be skilled enough. Never mind it was another D6 system.

Hell, even White Wolf's World of Darkness D10 system would have been better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverstreak

Yes, the D20 system allows for a greater range of probabilities.

---

If by "possibilities" you mean "numerical results."

Quote:

---

CODA, talk about confusing, it's character creation system didn't allow command level officers to be skilled enough. Never mind it was another D6 system.

---

How do you mean? How many advancements are we talking about here?

Quote:

---

Hell, even White Wolf's World of Darkness D10 system would have been better.

---

technically, it's a Xd10 system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

If by "possibilities" you mean "numerical results."

---

Both character wise and dice wise. With D20 you could have a multitude of Prestige Classes and a very wide range of numerical probabilities. To me, that makes for a better game. The more options I have the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

How do you mean? How many advancements are we talking about here?

---

I don't know, a lot. It takes a lot of advancements to reach a character with the same level of command training from the ICON system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

technically, it's a Xd10 system.

---

Yes, but the basic premise is there. The game isn't perfect I'll admit, but it's still a better dice system than ICON was and at least as good as CODA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverstreak

Both character wise and dice wise. With D20 you could have a multitude of Prestige Classes and a very wide range of numerical probabilities. To me, that makes for a better game. The more options I have the better.

---

CODA has prestige classes.

Quote:

---

I don't know, a lot. It takes a lot of advancements to reach a character with the same level of command training from the ICON system.

---

"Command training"?

MODERATOR NOTICE: Let's keep the trolling to a minimum, you two, or I'll politely ask you both to go sit in opposite corners from one another. Silverstreak, you are obviously a rabid d20 fan; TDK, you are obviously a slavish CODA maven. Nary the twain shall meet, so give it a rest before we moderators are forced to take action. You have been warned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

CODA has prestige classes.

---

Nowhere near the amount D20 has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

"Command training"?

---

Again, I've made characters up, they don't come out anywhere near as skilled as they did in ICON in the CODA system. D20 offers more flexibility I think, especially if one was to use the D20 Modern book and the D20 Future book.

MODERATOR NOTICE: Silverstreak, you will not be warned again. Cease your trolling, thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaconteurX

MODERATOR NOTICE: Silverstreak, you will not be warned again. Cease your trolling, thank you.

---

I'm not trolling, I am discussing the topic thank you very much. Considering I only post here once in a blue moon, I'd hardly call what I do trolling. Sorry you don't agree with me that D20 is a superior game system, but that is my opinion and I am certainly entitled to discuss it in this thread.

What part of Silverstreak's behaviour could be considered trolling?

Just so you know that I am not moderating here...

While I agree with you that this does not appear to be trolling, it is getting rather forceful, and considering that argueing on the internet is a waste of time as nobody ever seems to change their mind, and that the LAST time TDK argued forcefully he annoyed a longtime member/fan based material contributer who went on to leave the boards and delete their account, may I suggest that when you know neither one of you is not going to change your mind and have said your piece its best to disagree and move on...

I can see where this is headed if you dont, and the recent events from the Coda V2 thread stated above has us mods on tenderhooks as this place is quiet enough without people leaving due to a small time arguement.

Show a modicum of restraint and keep this place the mature level-headed environment that drew so many of us here in the first place, leave the petty arguements to myspace and facebook.

That's all fine and dandy, I was surprised to see someone think we were arguing. I thought we were discussing the points each game brought to the table.

In all fairness i went and made up a CODA Starfleet Character today. Still don't like it, but at least I went away from the debate willing to give his suggestions a try. I had no idea someone would consider what I was doing trolling. That's almost insulting.

Maybe that was why the guy left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Gurden

[B]While I agree with you that this does not appear to be trolling, it is getting rather forceful,

---

Howso?

Quote:

---

may I suggest that when you know neither one of you is not going to change your mind and have said your piece its best to disagree and move on...

---

That's strongly implying that even discussing the disagreement is frowned upon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverstreak

Nowhere near the amount D20 has.

---

Well, d20 wasn't left in a ditch like an adorable Disney animal protagonist at the end of by it's producer. The whole professional ability thing wasn't implemented as smoothly as I'd like, though, and there's not much similar to the exception-based or iconic abilities d20 classes are based around in CODA professions.

Quote:

---

Again, I've made characters up, they don't come out anywhere near as skilled as they did in ICON in the CODA system.

---

How many Add'l Tours and advancements are we talking about?

Quote:

---

D20 offers more flexibility I think, especially if one was to use the D20 Modern book and the D20 Future book.

---

There's a True20 conversion on their boards, IIRC...

How would you treat phasers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverstreak

I'm not trolling, I am discussing the topic thank you very much. Considering I only post here once in a blue moon, I'd hardly call what I do trolling. Sorry you don't agree with me that D20 is a superior game system, but that is my opinion and I am certainly entitled to discuss it in this thread.

---

The tone I inferred was adversarial and smacked of the "One Game To Rule Them All" kinds of arguments that characterize much of what passes for so-called discussion of games and gaming on the internet. Just because you prefer the d20 rules does not in fact make them superior, nor does TDK's preference for CODA make them inferior. You aren't going to change your mind, nor is he. Add the fact that you both appear too stubborn to just walk away without someone separating you, and therein you see the heart of the problem. This will go on endlessly until everyone else leaves. Maybe you're glad to see all those who disagree with you depart for elsewhere, but most of us like the camaraderie we have here and prefer to see thoughtful, constructive posts rather than pointless bickering. Hopefully that clarifies the issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaconteurX

nor does TDK's preference for CODA make them inferior.

---

Where did I say I preferred CODA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

Where did I say I preferred CODA?

---

What your actual preference may be is immaterial. You were the one defending CODA in recent posts, were you not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

How many Add'l Tours and advancements are we talking about?

---

I only made a base character yesterday, exactly as I would have made a level 1 character in D20. I did make some higher ranking characters last year or so in CODA and I had to take something like 12 or 13 advancements to make a Bridge Officer. It just seemed a bit much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

There's a True20 conversion on their boards, IIRC...

---

Where would I find this D20 version? Could you point it out to me, I'm trying to convert the game to D20 and it is taking a long time. LOL, I could use a bit of help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

How would you treat phasers?

---

Just give the weapon damage based on what setting it is on, just like they did in ICON.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaconteurX

The tone I inferred was adversarial and smacked of the "One Game To Rule Them All" kinds of arguments that characterize much of what passes for so-called discussion of games and gaming on the internet. Just because you prefer the d20 rules does not in fact make them superior, nor does TDK's preference for CODA make them inferior. You aren't going to change your mind, nor is he. Add the fact that you both appear too stubborn to just walk away without someone separating you, and therein you see the heart of the problem. This will go on endlessly until everyone else leaves. Maybe you're glad to see all those who disagree with you depart for elsewhere, but most of us like the camaraderie we have here and prefer to see thoughtful, constructive posts rather than pointless bickering. Hopefully that clarifies the issue?

---

It explains how you saw it yes, thank you for that. That wasn't how I was seeing it though. I was simply trying to say that a D20 version of the game would be a lot better than most of the ways the franchise has been handled so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverstreak

I only made a base character yesterday, exactly as I would have made a level 1 character in D20. I did make some higher ranking characters last year or so in CODA and I had to take something like 12 or 13 advancements to make a Bridge Officer. It just seemed a bit much.

---

Sorry to barge in... but on that matter I'd like to point out that 1 advancement in CODA doesn't equal a level in D20. If I remember correctly (don't have my books at hand), it is possible to earn something like 1 advancement per adventure in CODA, so something like 12 or 13 advancements is not that high after all, and certainly not like a level 12 in D20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C5

Sorry to barge in... but on that matter I'd like to point out that 1 advancement in CODA doesn't equal a level in D20. If I remember correctly (don't have my books at hand), it is possible to earn something like 1 advancement per adventure in CODA, so something like 12 or 13 advancements is not that high after all, and certainly not like a level 12 in D20.

---

What I meant was, you make a level 1 D20 character, then make a beginning level CODA character, then make a beginning level ICON character. CODA characters seem to come out on the shortest end of the stick, while ICON generally are the most skilled.

I think that D20 however, could offer a more balanced progression if it was done say, similar to D20 Future or Star Wars D20 Saga.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverstreak

I only made a base character yesterday, exactly as I would have made a level 1 character in D20. I did make some higher ranking characters last year or so in CODA and I had to take something like 12 or 13 advancements to make a Bridge Officer. It just seemed a bit much.

---

Like C5 mentioned, a dozen advancements is equivalent to the time it takes to gain one level (at least at the rate the groups I've been in have gotten through encounters). CODA's packages end at Academy Graduation, more or less, while ICON character generation was designed with the assumption that most players will be creating mid-career officers. CODA has post-grad advancement packages in the SOM (not very many though).

Quote:

---

Where would I find this D20 version? Could you point it out to me, I'm trying to convert the game to D20 and it is taking a long time. LOL, I could use a bit of help.

---

Here's one from ENworld. I can't seem to find the post on the true20 forums, even though i totally remember it.

Quote:

---

Just give the weapon damage based on what setting it is on, just like they did in ICON.

---

So as a regular weapon, not like a wand of finger of death? 'Cause a gazillion d12s of damage vs. normal AC is pretty lethal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

Like C5 mentioned, a dozen advancements is equivalent to the time it takes to gain one level (at least at the rate the groups I've been in have gotten through encounters). CODA's packages end at Academy Graduation, more or less, while ICON character generation was designed with the assumption that most players will be creating mid-career officers. CODA has post-grad advancement packages in the SOM (not very many though).

---

I'll see what I can come up with with my books, I have all the CODA books except the PDF only released Worlds and whatever the other was...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

Here's one from ENworld. I can't seem to find the post on the true20 forums, even though i totally remember it.

---

Thanks, I'll look it over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

So as a regular weapon, not like a wand of finger of death? 'Cause a gazillion d12s of damage vs. normal AC is pretty lethal.

---

More like, I roll to hit their AC and the weapon does like a D6 or D4 damage for each setting level with some settings being non-lethal damage.

If you quantified damage (i.e. for a phaser) by setting, wouldn't you have to make it so that setting 8 can reliably disintegrate most all man-sized targets? That is a lot of damage and depending on the d20 system used that HP range can be quite variable (i.e. AD&D has quite a wide range; d20Modern and B5 notably less).

Perhaps a reason I don't find d20 as a good system for Star Trek. Just look at Prime Directive d20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverstreak

I'll see what I can come up with with my books, I have all the CODA books except the PDF only released Worlds and whatever the other was...

---

Yeah, CODA fails at making stuff like this explicit.

Quote:

---

More like, I roll to hit their AC and the weapon does like a D6 or D4 damage for each setting level with some settings being non-lethal damage.

---

Interesting. So would a Vulcan Nerve Pinch be unarmed grapple attack, and not an Sleep-style extraordinary ability?

This totally isn't the approach I'd be taking...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImperialOne

If you quantified damage (i.e. for a phaser) by setting, wouldn't you have to make it so that setting 8 can reliably disintegrate most all man-sized targets? That is a lot of damage and depending on the d20 system used that HP range can be quite variable (i.e. AD&D has quite a wide range; d20Modern and B5 notably less).

Perhaps a reason I don't find d20 as a good system for Star Trek. Just look at Prime Directive d20.

---

D&D has a massive damage rule. But keep in mind I said D20, not D&D. In Star Wars Saga edition (the latest D20 version) a single hit can kill you, regardless of how many Hit Points you have.

That said, even in D&D, most people, even PC's would rarely have more than 200 HP, even at level 20. A phaser set to level 8 could easily do a lot of damage, killing most people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

Interesting. So would a Vulcan Nerve Pinch be unarmed grapple attack, and not an Sleep-style extraordinary ability?

---

You would need the feat Unarmed attack to use the ability but it would deal non-lethal nerve damage that incapacitates the opponent. As I said before, it would require some work, it could even operate the way the Star Wars Force Power "Force Stun" works.

One thing I think you guys are thinking about too much is D20 is D&D, there are plenty of Sci-Fi D20 games out there. D20 has rules that differ slightly depending on the game you're playing. Star Wars D20, is not D&D, Babylon 5 D20 is not D&D or Star Wars D20. D20 Modern is none of those again.... You guys, it seems to me, are thinking D20 is just D&D, and that simply isn't the case.

If I where to start a compagnie that would bring out the Star Trek game, I would pick out a game system that has already some good base rules: like D20 or GURPS. This eliminates the need to correct the problems that the ICON and CODA system had. I've been tampering with the CODA mechanics since I first got my hand on the CODA Star Trek rpg. And most of the time I used D20 games like D20 modern, Star Wars D20, or Spycraft to try and correct these problems. I is a long and dificult process. There was a time, where I abondoned it completely, and started thinking about changing the entire system. So I purchased the GURPS base, and the Prime directive Grups based game, and a new world opened for me. I then started to convert the entire game, but I soon realised that where also some other problems: The system doesn't use a metric system, Starship construction dind't excist, and there was no interest in this conversion (see: http://forum.trek-rpg.net/showthread.php?t=13622). So I abandoned it completely and continued with my work on CODA (http://users.telenet.be/startrekphoenix/index.html).

I still think (my opinion of course) that the GURPS system (or a similar system) is the best way to go for the following reasons:
-You can create anything (races, powers,...) with GURPS system.
-It doesn't use levels.
-Has a good Skill based system
-Martial Arts is skill based, so you can create whatever style you want.
-You have already some great books that where created, and they are compatible (and more books to come out).
-You can convert the ICON Spacedock file, and convert it to GURPS.

If there is any interest in working as a team an try to create or own version of the Star Trek GURPS just let me know. I will be very interested in participating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverstreak

One thing I think you guys are thinking about too much is D20 is D&D, there are plenty of Sci-Fi D20 games out there. D20 has rules that differ slightly depending on the game you're playing. Star Wars D20, is not D&D, Babylon 5 D20 is not D&D or Star Wars D20. D20 Modern is none of those again.... You guys, it seems to me, are thinking D20 is just D&D, and that simply isn't the case.

---

Everyone (almost everyone) has a PHB, and given the quasi-magical nature of Trek technology makes appropriating spell mechanics a simple deal (as opposed to the WWII-esque Star Wars blastes/fighters/etc stuff). Many of the special abilities Trek races have are more-or-less spell-like abilities as well.

The next edition of the Star Wars RPG should be Risus.

Seriously! I mean what are the various characters on the shows but generic Starfleet officers with a schtick or two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liquidator Queeg

The next edition of the Star Wars RPG should be Risus.

Seriously! I mean what are the various characters on the shows but generic Starfleet officers with a schtick or two?

---

Æternal Legends' chargen is very RISUS-like, and I know a group using it to run Trek.