Star Trek 11

I was wondering how many people are going to use information from the newest Star Trek movie in their campaigns. Personally, I see it as a good excuse to re-create Star Trek in my own image though I intend to change one aspect of the movie. Instead of having Vulcan completely destroyed, I intend to have it almost destroyed. The result being an emotional zeitgeist in Vulcan culture that is causing many Vulcans to reconsider their dedication to emotionlessness. The in game consideration is that I would be more willing to allow Vulcan characters to buy off their empathy penalties and code of honor.

In addition, there are problems I have always had with the Prime Directive, and I intend to nerf if some. I have a problem with the conclusion that a primitive cultures capacity to withstand extra-terrestrial contact is purely based upon their technological advances. I instead I feel that is should be based more on the sociological advancement of the culture. Mainly, I intend to presuppose that the soft sciences have advanced enough that they can better determine when a society is socially able to handle first contact. The mechanical considerations for this idea is that the Code of Honor: Prime Directive will be reduced in power and an as yet unnamed bureaucracy will be created that will be in charge of first contact mission decisions and several new specialty skills will be created. So far I have, Law (Prime Directive) and Administration (prime directive bureau). This will also allow background considerations that are not currently available like races from more primitive homeworlds and characters with primitive contact training and tour backgrounds.

I am also planning to use the older Spock's knowledge of the future to allow Starfleet to be ready for the Borg incursion. The result is that the Federation is doing a lot research for advanced warships and weaponry with no real enemy in sight, and since all of this preparation is being done in secret, there is much speculation by both enemy governments and Federation citizens about the purpose of the military readiness. Only players who make characters with high security clearances and appropriate backgrounds would be allowed to have knowledge and skills related to the Borg. The Federation will also have advanced awareness of the Dominion War, but I have not decided if the Dominion War is certain. The Dominion might not be so brave if the Federation is a war ready entity.

One other major change I intend to make to the Star Trek universe is that I am intending to truncate Star Trek history to allow myself the best of all the series and movies. I like the costumes and feel of the TOS series and movies, but I like the ship selection and some of the advances the TNG family of series and movies. I would like to see Constellation and Miranda class ships serving alongside Galaxy and Akira class ships. I like the uniforms and personal equipment of TOS and the replicators of TNG, but I am planning on replacing the holodecks with VR chairs to save space and maintain accessibility. I think holodecks take up too much real estate, but I like holodeck story concepts.

One final thought before I finish this post is that I am trying to come up with a means of economic transaction, and I am thinking of developing a Wealth trait. The reasoning is that in Star Trek II Bones obtained illegal Romulan ale, and in Star VI, the retiring Captain Scott had just bought a boat. What did Bones and Scotty use to buy their respective treasures? I am still uncertain of the full mechanics, but I have determined that for characters that have regular employment like Starfleet captains and dabo girls have a base pay modified by Intellect, Logic, and appropriate traits and skills. Characters with imprecise income flows like thieves, honest businessmen, and dishonest business man needs some sort of floating Wealth trait to reflect the ins and outs of the business world, but the mechanics would require more work to be useful and may have to be decided on a case by case basis.

I am curious of what other changes GM's and players have used or would like to use regarding the Star Trek universe for their games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rotwang

One final thought before I finish this post is that I am trying to come up with a means of economic transaction, and I am thinking of developing a Wealth trait. The reasoning is that in Star Trek II Bones obtained illegal Romulan ale, and in Star VI, the retiring Captain Scott had just bought a boat. What did Bones and Scotty use to buy their respective treasures?

---

Well, McCoy said he had a freighter captain that brought some in for him every once in a while. It's possible McCoy has access to a non-Earth/Federation currency (possibly gained while he was away from Starfleet before TMP), or that the freighter captain is simply an old friend. Scott's boat might also be some sort of exchange of equivalent credit-value (a boat on Norpin V for an apartment in Aberdeen?).

So would this trait replace the Wealth advantage from the DS9 core?

My impression of the economics of the future based on TOS and TOS:movies is that there are no physical monies in the Federation, but there is electronic wealth accrual (pizza scene in ST:IV, an ep of TOS where Kirk is yelling at ?Scotty? to earn his pay).

I am not that familiar with wealth from the DS9 book. I have a pdf I had downloaded of it, but I haven't really had the time to read it. I might be able to use it as a starting base.

I always considered money to be still in existence in the Federation, but mainly in a virtual form.
That is, every Federation citizen is alloted a base allocation, which is kept mainly as numbers in computers, which is then used to "purchase" transporter credits, replicator rations, and so on (the allocation being of course calculated so that everyone can live a comfortable life with it).
This allocation is then increased if the citizen engages in an activity useful to others, like being a farmer, chef, scientist, Starfleet officer, etc.
And finally, some or all of this allocation can be converted to a foreign currency (like latinium for instance), for trade with other powers.

That's how I considered wealth to be handled in my version of the Federation. Of course, there are examples in the show that contradict it ;) (including McCoy's comment in STXI about his divorce costing him a lot, but I don't consider this movie to be canon in my universe).

Here is how I am thinking about handling that. Federation citizens have specially slotted credit cards that can plug into most Federation shopping consoles and when citizens need actual currency the plug them into specially designed replicators that give plastic chips in appropriate denominations and to reduce counterfeiting, this replicator inserts special identification dyes.

Here's how I see the "money" situation in ST. Rather than being paid cash, people recieve a "compensation package" for their activities. If their work is socially beneficial, their compensation is higher than other peoples, but generation of personal wealth isn't a motivating factor in people's lives so no one really worries about it much.

Every person on most Federation worlds has enough food & other resources to live comfortably, what compensation they get above that is probably not worth thinking about on a day to day basis.

I just think someone should point out... most of these answers rely on some constructed standard of the relative value of a person's contribution to society. While not necessarily something UE or the Federation wouldn't do, it could be looked at by outsiders as a palaeosocial human need to create a hierarchical framework for individuals to judge each other by, and thus, perhaps, constitute a form of arbitrary discrimination. Humans would probably counter that, hey, nobody's starving or killing each other en masse, so it can't be that bad, but I could see certain other species in the Federation looking askance at it.

How is that worse than the system that we use today in Western countries? At least by compensating people for giving back to society (rather than allowing those that can to take all they want) you create a system that encourages people to look out for each other.

Total Capitalism is as bad as total Communism, both create systems where wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few elites, while the masses are left to foot the bill.

In the Federation, I don't think anyone will be getting a fat payout for firing hundreds of people to turn a profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeroArmour

In the Federation, I don't think anyone will be getting a fat payout for firing hundreds of people to turn a profit.

---

Well, no, there won't be. To a human*, the future of humanity in Star Trek seems pretty decent (except for getting erased due to time travel every week). I'm all for the abolition of capitalism–it's just that the Federation has cultures with different historical contexts and biological imperatives behind their social structures. To, say, an Argelian or Chrysalian or whatever, giving Gideon Seyetik access to more resources due to his popularity or esteeming terraforming over haberdashery might seem as unfair or arbitrary as a caste system. I imagine much of inter-Federation diplomacy and admission procedures is making sure everybody groks were everyone else is coming from in, and why what they want is what they want.

*Except that stardestroyer.net guy.

First, a communistic ideal might work for the main planets of the Federation like Earth or Vulcan, but it wouldn't work with planets on the hinterland who might have to trade with other cultures for survival or that might need to offer special incentives to obtain the goods and services they need.

As for whether capitalism is bad or good, it is necessary to define which style of capitalism you are trying to describe. There are two. The bad capitalism, which is based upon greed and selfishness, is detrimental to any society that practices it. The good capitalism is sometimes called the free market system and maintains a degree of fairness in transactions. The problem is when corporations obtain an unfair legal advantage over smaller enterprises the free market system is overthrown; so, the problem is not capitalism. It is greed.

I won't go into my opinion about communism, but the main thing I like about role-playing games is the story writing aspect, and I have eclectic story writing interests, and I would like a system and background that gives me the most story opportunities possible without changing systems. I would like to create a new universe from scratch, but I don't have energy or the artistic skills to come up with a complete universe. I have looked at both Star Wars and Star Trek and both universes allow for a wide range of story ideas, but I would like wider still, and I have come to the conclusion that Star Trek is easier to modify to my needs. So, when I say Star Trek, I actually should say Star Trek-like.

The biggest problem with Star Trek is the universe is based upon philosophical concepts that I have trouble getting my mind around. It is based on the enlightenment's belief in the basic goodness and perfectibility of man. I have difficulty believing this to be true, and true or not, it eliminates a lot of the Man vs Himself conflicts that are common in classic literature, and the communistic society eliminates evil corporations as villains and honest traders as heroes and the story potentials both provide.

"- Of course we run. But for recreation. For fun
- Run for fun ? What the hell kind of fun is that ?"
(Back to the future 3).

Someone once made on this board a very valid argument on how we judge people in Trek as we would from our century - that is, roughly, how we think of them as people of the 21st century having access to Trek's 24th century technology, instead of people being born there.
What we now see as work may have become an entertaining hobby in the 24th century - but even for a hobby can people be competitive.

I think greed and selfishness still can exist in Trek, no matter what Picard says in First Contact (he's an idealist, after all - Quark's speech in The siege of AR-558 and Sisko's comment on how "it's easy to be a saint in paradise" may be closer to the truth), but not in the form we see today.
These people do live in a world where manufacturing goods costs almost nothing, but not everything else. People can compete for artistic, scientific or athletic achievements. Maybe people like Sisko's father are actually engaged in harsh competition with others to be the best restaurant in the city (or the planet). Scientists can be ready to betray friends to have their names attached to an important discovery. Holonovelists could regroup in some guilds to write the best possible stories and best their fellow guilds. And some people may decide to take trade as a hobby, trying to make more profit than others not for profit itself, but just to best their peers (ends justifying the means - it's not because it's a hobby that you have to be honourable about it).

And of course, all of this is for Federation core worlds or old colonies. I expect a newly formed colony, or one close to non-Federation worlds, would have to rely on old-fashioned labour and trade to get what they need.

So there may well be place for an equivalent of wealth in Trek, only it would not be about money, but for instance fame or craftsmanship. Think for instance of how land used to be a measure of wealth in Medieval Europe (and I heard cattle is still used today for Masaï tribes in Africa), while now we are thinking more in terms of shares. Federation citizens may find the idea of judging wealth based on material possessions stupid, but may be closer to understanding for instance our current fondness for sport competitions.

For instance... I once invented on the fly a Trill NPC who was a dealer in exotic perfumes, traveling across worlds to sell his creations. I did not develop the character further as the time, but he could be engaged in a race with other people like him to create the best perfumes, using the money (be it virtual Federation credits or other goods or currency) they earn as a way to compare their success.

I admit. I do believe that people can get to where they are not necessarily as money-centric as we are now, but that does not eliminate the need for money or something like it. Trading objects and services would be great for a small village, but society would need something more portable and more consistent in value as it grows larger in population and territory.

Besides, even within reasonable ranges of wealth desire, some people will want or need more material wealth to obtain their personal goals than others. If your hobby is origami, you would not have the same material need as someone who collects rare art.

I often say that we don't get the workings of the UFP the same way a 15th Century nobleman wouldn't get our society. ("You let all your citizens vote? Even the laborers? Surely you don't let serfs vote?")

There are always references to money, jobs and business in the various Trek programs that point to some kind of money/compensation system. One that stands out is all those miners you see (from the guys in 'Devil in the Dark' to Ezri Dax's family) throughout the franchise. They seem to be earning, since they seem to have disposable income (for wives and nice houses), and they don't like getting behind on production. There has to be some kind incentive there. Kirk said money didn't exist in the 23rd century, Picard said people no longer strive for personal gain (or something like that).
But in the end, it's your universe. I can't remember who, but someone on this board made the typical FED citizen basicly a fat, lazy couch potato who didn't work and waited for new treasures to be brought to him by SF!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rotwang

First, a communistic ideal might work for the main planets of the Federation like Earth or Vulcan, but it wouldn't work with planets on the hinterland who might have to trade with other cultures for survival or that might need to offer special incentives to obtain the goods and services they need.

---

Trade's existed for a lot longer than investment capitalism; the kinds of systemized or informal economic relationships that could exist on the innumerable frontier worlds of the Federation probably number with the stars themselves.

Quote:

---

As for whether capitalism is bad or good, it is necessary to define which style of capitalism you are trying to describe...

---

Let's just say I have a dim view of human nature : P

Quote:

---

The biggest problem with Star Trek is the universe is based upon philosophical concepts that I have trouble getting my mind around. It is based on the enlightenment's belief in the basic goodness and perfectibility of man.

---

I think that concept varies with the individual writer. TOS did not display a perfected humanity; instead there were examples of enlightened humans. Kirk, Spock and McCoy's sense of ethics weren't a universal. Roddenberry himself became more crazytown utopian as he aged, and it showed in the blandness of early TNG. Given the language they use ("We've evolved since blah blah blah"), you could be forgiven for thinking the humans of TNG were genetically engineered into a new, more placid species. Combined with the replicators, it created an impression of an end-of-history magical utopia, and glossed over the questions which dominate, say, an RPG session ("How many cinder blocks per hour can we make? How long would it take to build a city? Why am I risking my life in space instead of living in a holodeck 24/7?").

After the end of TNG, there was a bit of a watershed. The writers who came to DS9 posited that there was no essential change to human nature, and that the Federation is built on wise moral choices, learned the hard way ("Past Tense"), and that these choices are constantly before us ("In The Pale Moonlight," "The Seige of AR-558"). The Federation has a history of integrity, but it's not perfect, and DS9 even used groups like the Maquis and the Ferengi–set up in TNG as adversaries–to comment on elements of hypocrisy or darker corners of the Federation presented in the series. VOY, perhaps due to network pressure, perhaps due to lack of cajones, or both, seemed to shrink back from actually confronting the moral difficulties faced by the crew (not to mention the technical ones), thus semi-reinforcing the bland, thoughtless 'better-ness' that TNG seemed to imply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tricky

But in the end, it's your universe. I can't remember who, but someone on this board made the typical FED citizen basicly a fat, lazy couch potato who didn't work and waited for new treasures to be brought to him by SF!

---

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-joFqIPMxK.../walle+fat.jpg http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/c...acy_costco.jpg

People run the gambit, from the best in human nature, to the worse. Mankind, in Star Trek, didn't follow the sloth that is part of human nature (and probably still persist in some form) ... however that doesn't mean that in one of those alternative realities in Parallels that there wasn't a ship that represents the universe where mankind did.

Capitalism is not the root of all evil, and neither is socialism (both being economic systems). If man were angels socialism may work, that's always been my opinion. But is mankind made of angels?

One of my favorite Next Gen movie moments is when Lily rains on Picard's "evolved sensibilities" parade but good. Take that you stuffy aristocrat! :D

One thing I think most people don't get is that you can have an economic system without it being driven by the desire for profit (that is to say the desire for profit above all else, such as the common good). The great failing of the current "Free Market" system is that is doesn't work. We are told that we will get better stuff because we will be willing to pay more for it, so they will make it for us. Does anyone know of that ever happening?

We (as a species) have made it clear that we will take what we can get, with little complaint. As Ford said "You can have it in any colour, as long as it's black", and that is still how the system works today. Our cars are getting the same fuel consumption today that they got half a century ago, why? Because we would rather whine about the price of gas than demand cars with better consumption.

What we need is someone to step in every once & a while to say "No, the customer would like something else." Make it law that the next generation of cars must be "better", not just have more stuff. But I don't think that weill ever happen, everyone keeps telling me that sounds like communism!

Yes, but who decides who that person is, and market forces should be able to dictate as to whether a product with be successful. Granted people will take what they can get, but when offered an multiple types of products, depending on their preferences/wants. needs, and means, they will purchase the product which falls within those aforementioned criteria. Furthermore, besides governmental regulation, there is no limit as to what someone willing to take a risk, and having the means to provide for the , of capital, time, and effort, can offer as a product to compete in any market. Therefore, if someone wanted to offer a more fuel efficient vehicle to compete with one that is less fuel efficient, no one is stopping them. If there is sufficient consumers interested in purchasing said product, then the producer will be able to support themselves, and produce more.

All this being said, this is getting dangerously into the political realm, therefore, we probably should stop here, if we shall continue about individuals preferences in economic and political systems, unless we keep it in context of discussing Star Trek.

Even though I originated the post, I have to agree with Jalu. The original intent of the post was to ask what differences from canonical trek do different GM's employ or different players would like to see. I do love a good debate regarding world view issues, and I appreciate the intelligent and respectful manner that participants have either agreed or disagreed. I get the feeling that being part of this group will be fun and fulfilling even if sometimes contentious.

To get back to the original point, one issue I have not decided how to resolve is the issue of Colonel West in Star Trek VI. What is he a colonel of? Colonel is an army class of rank, and Starfleet seems to use naval ranks exclusively. If there is a canonical answer to this, I do not know of it, but I have considered three possible responses. First is it didn't actually happen. West was never called a colonel, his first name was Colonel, it was only a nickname, or he never existed. The second option is there is an organization within Federation that does have a purely militaristic role that use army designations. The third option is that Starfleet personnel that are assigned to planetary bases and planetary defense roles are given army designations.

The first option requires no extrapolation, and I can extrapolate on the other two views, but I would like to give other participants and opportunity to give their opinions before I continue.

Or, if you would like to discuss other issues related to how you use your own perceptions to run your games, that would also be on topic.

It is possible that he was part of a member planet defense force, and was doing his "two weeks" and was "federalized". It had to have happened, because it was on screen, now unless the writers placed in notes explaining why the title Colonel was used, it can be expanded on in fandom. That being said, Colonel need not be "purely military", see Kentucky Colonel, and Nebraska Admiral for example.

Weren't there Star Fleet Ground Forces on DS9 during the Dominion War? And there are the 22nd century MACOs...

I'd always thought that "Colonel" West was a nod to FASA's Starfleet Marines. Come to think of it, I thought I remember reading that the ground assault "khaki shirts" in STV for the Nimbus III rescue mission were referred to as marines in the production notes or some such.

Wow, this thread is a lightning rod for Trek controversy!
First, Trek-onomics, now the question of the FED Marines!

IMSHO, Colonel West was a marine, as was the guy at Cestus III. He was merely disguised as a Starfleet captain in the scene at the President's office. However, since West was the actual assassin, the Marine were folded into Starfleet after the Khitomer conference, perhaps as part of the Khitomer Treaty.

If you don't believe a branch of the service could be disbanded for one incident, consider that in Somalia, two NCO's beat a prisoner to death, a mere petty thief, and as a result, the Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded. It was finally replaced 10 years later by the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, which wears a tan beret in place of the old Airborne maroon one... True story.

Tricky, I don't mean to be so controversial. It must be my natural charm, but personally, I like having my mind stretched. It really spurs my creative juices. Besides, I don't know a lot of the canonical information which is why I would prefer to go off on my own tangent in my campaign. I don't want that guy that happens to know Kirk's safe combination constantly vetoing me every time I step out of line.

Truthfully in my FASA Trek games I never used Star Fleet Marines.I had a branch of Star Fleet Security that used "Army/Marine" ranks.Later when Star Trek:Enterprise added MACOS I ruled in my games that that section of Star Fleet Security was called MACOS. Never saw the need for "Marines" in Star Trek,always just seemed like security forces to me.
FASA had a chart in Merchant Princes for Star Fleet pay scales.Besides Kirk never said that they didn't get paid or had a use for money,just that gold/diamonds & jewels were worth much to them since they could replicate them with their equipment.Maybe latinum can't be replicated & it makes it worth something of value now.The only refrence I can remember of anyone using the word Credits in Star Trek was in the Trouble With Tribbles when the Bartender & Cyrano Jones were coming up with a price for the Tribbles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarriorKnight

Maybe latinum can't be replicated & it makes it worth something of value now.

---

That, specifically, is stated–at least once in 'Who Mourns For Morn?'–as the reason the Ferengi use it.

Quote:

---

The only refrence I can remember of anyone using the word Credits in Star Trek was in the Trouble With Tribbles when the Bartender & Cyrano Jones were coming up with a price for the Tribbles.

---

There's a list of mentions here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen E Oulton

IMSHO, Colonel West was a marine... He was merely disguised as a Starfleet captain in the scene at the President's office.

---

Just a correction, he was wearing an Admirals rank insignia, though that could be just because they were cheaping out on the uniforms in STVI. It's been suggested that "Colonel" was just a title, not his actual rank.

Actually, on both of these issues, I can put off my decision. I intend most of my adventures around typical Star Trek ship-based missions where neither colonels and credits aren't needed, but I hope to expand my game to the point that these questions will need answers.

For the colonel issue, I am leaning to the idea that the title of colonel is given to whatever officer is in charge of Federation strategic operations as a traditional honorific like the commanding officer is called a captain regardless of actual rank. I am willing to accede to player demand on the issue, and I have a back up plan and a system of rank that is supposed to correspond to the ranks used in the TOS era.

For the credit issue, I don't want shopping and bookkeeping as a central theme in my Starfleet campaigns. I would rather most spending to be a roleplaying issue. I don't want characters wondering if they have enough for drink at the bar or the dancing Orion girl lamp at the souvenir shop. Sooner or later, a player will want something that isn't Starfleet issue that would not be described as easy to obtain. Perhaps, one of the security officers goes into a Starfleet surplus store looking for a Klingon bat'leth or a medical officer might have penchant for Romulan ale. In some cases a trade or a service might fit the bill. I can imagine a Romulan centurion with a taste for Kentucky bourbon, but sometimes, people want an exchange that is more portable, and I want something in play before that comes up. I would prefer to stay away from saying a Starfleet captain makes X credits/month rather I would prefer a system that says he has X purchasing power to obtain anything beyond basic needs and wants. I would also like to include DS9 and Babylon 5 style settings where players might be engaged in commerce, whether legal or illegal, and I will need some system of exchange without keeping track of every credit or commodity that could possibly exist.

Now, to get away from contreversial subjects (I hope), I've been wondering what to do with the Klingons. I like the Mongolian looking guys from TOS, but I know the newer ones are potentially more popular with any of my players; so, I decided that both are sub-species of the same race, and both co-exist in the same empire, but they don't like each other much. How does other GM's deal with this issue?

Did you watch Enterprise? They tried to do a work around on this issue of the changes in the Klingon features from TOS to TMP and beyond - something to do with genetics.

Not 100% on the how or why, but it might be on Ex Astris.

According to The Making of Star Trek, the Klingons’ defining phrase was originally “Honor is a despicable trait”! I love how in TOS they always feared the Romulans, but they just hated those Klingons!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomcat

Did you watched Enterprise? They tried to do a work around on this issue of the changes in the Klingon features from TOS to TMP and beyond - something to do with genetics.

Not 100% on the how or why, but it might be on Ex Astris.

---

I think it was a retro-virus dumped on the Klingons by those rampaging Khan brats, the Augments. I thought I'd read that this also explains the pre-Federation deep-seated loathing of humans by Klingons.

To be honest, I don't watch television very often, and I have not seen hardly any of the Enterprise episodes and only a few of the later episodes of TNG, DS9, and VOY. The mass majority of my information is from TOS and the first 6 movies and, now, the most recent movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rotwang

I would also like to include DS9 and Babylon 5 style settings where players might be engaged in commerce, whether legal or illegal, and I will need some system of exchange without keeping track of every credit or commodity that could possibly exist.

---

I'll bite. Lets look at what, then Cadet, Nog did in DS9. It need not be currency to trade, barter is a completely acceptable form of trade, all be it one that has less rules, subject to value judgments, and non standardized as such. A resourceful Starfleeter should be able to easily wrap their mind around the concept. The only thing that I saw was that there appeared to be a train of thought amongst Starfleeters that engaging in commerce, for the sake of profit or personal gain, was something below them.

In the deleted scenes for the new Trek, you never see the Klingon faces; they are wearing helmets that have the ridges on them. While this was probably done by the creators as a way "keeping the peace" with fans.

I always thought that after the ENT episode that showed the changes in the Klingons, they should have said the neo-klingons had seized control of the empire, and that they were creating their own new empire, free of all the foolish trappings of the old one. That way, you explain why the TOS Klingons were nothing like the later ones.

I think a distinction between a particular goal of, say, acquiring a bottle of Chateau Picard '27 or whatever and the nonspecific, continuous accumulation of monetary assets beyond the capacity for personal use is probably made in UE culture. Scotty didn't buy a boat because he was rich; he bought a boat because he wanted to sail. Likewise, people who really love manageering or entrepreneurship probably join administraive organizations or start social collectives, or even act as administrative consultants on a freelance basis.

Upon further reflection, UE might also see the undemocratic methodology behind valuing currencies as oppressive, as well.

In any created work, the writer determines physical and metaphysical truths of his universe by fiat. These truths do not have to comport to what is known or believed to be true in real universe, but better universes are at least internally consistent with itself, and by fiat as an observer, I maintain that a universe cannot be inconsistent but people can be.

To muddy the water even further, real humans are by nature inconsistent and their metaphysical creations will bear those inconsistencies. In story writing, these inconsistencies are commonly referred to as continuity errors, and the inclusion of other co-creators can reduce some of the inconsistencies but will create more inconsistencies in the process. In observed media like movies, television shows, and novels, these inconsistencies can be easily glossed over by not highlighting them; however, in participatory media like roleplaying games and video games, these inconsistencies can become glaring quickly.

Follow my logic. Star Trek was initiated by Gene Roddenbery, but for purposes of this argument he is treated as only a co-creator since he had allowed other writers to write in his universe. If modern humans are inconsistent and Roddenberry and company are modern human, then they are inconsistent. If inconsistent humans create inconsistent metaphysical creations and the Star Trek universe is a metaphysical creation, then the Star Trek universe is inconsistent. If roleplaying games require more internal consistency than do observed media, then roleplaying game writers for Star Trek will need to determine the most consistent truth of the Star Trek universe. If you want this converted to symbolic logic, do it yourself, but I believe that you will find it to be sound.

To determine the truths of the Star Trek universe, we must first determine which evidences bear the the most weight. The three types of evidence are what was said by the writers, actors, and characters, what is actually observed within the Star Trek universe, and what can be observed in the real universe. We must also determine which sources are going to be classified as germane, and for the purposes of canonical Star Trek it would be best to limit sources to the live action TV series and the first ten movies, though my personal knowledge is limited to the first series, the first six movies, and the first few seasons of The Next Generation and Deep Space 9.

Regarding the weighing of evidences, our observations of the real universe is only valuable as much as we want to employ them in our own games and will not be employed here which leaves us with what was said, who said it, and what we observe. The statements of the writers need to be given reduced value because they are inconsistent and they don't live in the Star Trek universe. The statements of characters must be also be reduced in value because in many ways characters merely repeat the statements of their writers and will reflect their inconsistencies and, if written as well-rounded and interesting, will have internal inconsistencies. This leaves us with observation as having the greatest weight.

What can be observed? It can be observed is that Federation citizens have certain views of what is true of their civilization, but do other observations support their beliefs? The most contreversial issues are the existence of military organizations and commercial economics in the Federation. As much as I would like to avoid controversy, the discussion of anything else would be nonsensical.

I will deal with the military issue first. It has been implied, but I don't recall it being stated, that the Federation does not have a military organization and Starfleet is not a military organization. Starfleet is the only organization that can be truly observed, and I believe the nature of an organization is additive as represented by the sum total of its usage. The primary usages are exploration, scientific discovery, and diplomacy, but its usages do include military readiness and police enforcement. In addition, Starfleet regularly go around armed and Starfleet ships sport powerfully offensive weaponry. Non-military and non-police organizations do not regularly carry weapons. Based upon the above statements, Starfleet is a military and police force and in open space may be the only organization with that authority; therefore, the statement that Starfleet is not a military organization is purely semantic, and Federation citizens are self-deluded.

The commerce issue is stickier and any conclusions would be less conclusive due to limited evidence, but I will tackle the issue none-the-less. We have Admiral Kirk stating and implying that money is not used in his natural time period, and we have never actually seen a credit that I am aware of, but we have statements that credits exist and we have observations that some sort of trade takes place, but we do not see Starfleet personnel walking around with duffel bags full of trade goods. Though good arguments can be made for both the existence of something that works like money or a system that depends entirely upon the exchange of goods and services, I feel that the existence the money is stronger, and Federation citizens delude themselves by stating they don't use money.

I have stated two main problems that plague us as roleplaying game writers in trying write an internally consistent game using the Star Trek universe as our canvas. How do we use canonical information to write our stories consistently and write the stories we want to write? Part of the solution is that we have to selectively choose to ignore some parts of the canonical source. To make the issue more difficult (And, more fun in my opinion), we have to fill in the gaps that has not been filled by the writers. The combination of glossing over inconsistencies and filling in gaps are the opportunities that allow us to write the Star Trek universe in a way that reflect our combination of what we believe to be true and what we want to be true, and as long as you enjoy your own creations in spite of our own inconsistencies, there is no wrong solution to this problem, and my campaign, I am writing things in accordance to what I believe and want to be true for my own purposes. This is not intended as an attack against those who make different choices with different wants, beliefs, and purposes in mind.

I swear I did not start off with the intention of writing an essay.

So what you are saying is...

it is your game, so you can do what you want in said game with a group of players, as long as you stay consistant with the things you apply in said world with said players. :D

That is a good summation. I recently returned to college recently, and after getting my hand slapped for not elucidating my point many times, I guess I over-intellectualize things a bit.