Decipher Trek: In The Beginning...

[Diamond]

While I'm thinking about it, let me make a point that is probably too obvious, but just to be safe I'll mention it.

I hope and expect Decipher's new Star Trek line will cover the aspects of Star Trek that the LUG line did not have a chance to cover FIRST. That is to say, Klingon and Cardassian sourcebooks before new Romulan and Vulcan materiel. The Exploration book before Starfleet Intelligence. The Tellarites before the Andorians, etc.

[This message has been edited by Diamond (edited 03-29-2001).]

[Gamethyme]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Diamond:
While I'm thinking about it, let me make a point that is probably too obvious, but just to be safe I'll mention it.

I hope and expect Decipher's new Star Trek line will cover the aspects of Star Trek that the LUG line did not have a chance to cover FIRST. </font>

Actually, your point was not immediately obvious to me until you made it. And now, having seen your point, I find that I completely concur.

Gamethyme

[Imagus]

On the core books subject - my vote is defininitely for splitting the rules into one core/narrator's book + era books.

However, as rulebooks go, I thought LUG's were some of the best. I can't remember whether the TOS book won any awards or not, but in my opinion it's one of the best-designed books ever. If they had rpg's in the sixties, this is what they would have looked like (right down to the garish art in the starships section!).


------------------
Slartibart-Jon

[Publius]

I balked at first at purchasing the rules over again in different core books, but ultimately, I liked the approach. Especially since the core books were so well suited for their particular eras in terms of layout, adventure seeds and even the different approaches to writing adventures, artwork, tone etc. As many others have mentioned, they gave the "feel" of the different eras and I thought that they were both well executed and ultimately worth the cash outlay.

Nevertheless, I'd have to say that one core book + era supplements is also a good way to go. I'll end up buying all of it anyway, so for me it is somewhat immaterial (a few more bucks, a few more pounds to carry around). However, lets not stop that debate, because there are actually different ways to handle the single core+ supplements idea:

Is there is enough data in the core book to get started in any of the eras and then use the era supplements to fill in the specifics? The other era supplements would then be "thinner" and less packed with "game material" while allowing for greater "story" depth and focus in on the particulars. More work for the designers I would assume.

Is the core game book specific to TNG and the Era supplements modifications/alterations of the rules set? This is slightly more cumbersome and frankly, between this and multiple core books for each era I'd go for the multiple core books because this version of the 'core+supplements' idea makes the other eras seem 'kitbashed' (to coin an existing Trek phrase in a slightly different context).

I'm sure that there are other variations, which I would leave to the fertile imagination of others to ponder, but these two seem to have precedents in gaming.

So for me,whether there is one core book + era supplements or one core book for each era depends entirely on how the core+supplements idea would be carried out.

John D. Lees
Mad Political Scientist

[Bill Harris]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dan Stack:
Out of curiosity, am I the only one who wound up liking the LUG method? I wasn't too crazy about it originally, but when I compare the TNG, TOS, and DS9 games, I've come to appreciate it.
</font>

You're not alone, Dan. I liked the LUG method as well.

[Greg Smith]

I would like to see just one core book. But I wouldn't want to see separate books covering every series.

I would like to see core rules including Starfleet character creation and ships. With sections on modern and TOS. This would cover TNG, about half of DS9, all of TOS and most of Voyager.

If there was a Cardassian book and a Bajoran book, then the rest of DS9 is covered.

A Voyager/Delta quadrant book covers the rest of the Voyager material.

I'm kind of on the fence about LUG's approach. I think the DS9 book would have been better as two books: one as a DS9/space station type of book. And the other as a non-Federation characters type book incorporating RRR and Merchants type stuff. Neither needed to have included the basic rules and both could have been a slim hard back in the style of POF.

Decipher has integrated the CCG into one whole Star Trek Universe, I'm hoping that they do the same for the RPG.

But whatever they do, I'm looking forward to it.



------------------
Greg

"Calm may work for Locutus of Borg here, but I'm freaked and intend to stay that way."
Xander, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Prophecy Girl.

[Re'k]

I prefer the LUG method.

I agree that the "feel" of each book is important, and that a generic rulebook would lack that.

--Re'k

[Damian Harn]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dan Stack:
I may be in something of a minority in liking the way LUG had three sets of Core Rules. There was something nice in showing up for a game with just one book - as wonderful as the supplmeents were, you really could play the game with just one book.
</font>

Ahhhhhh yes, a newbie friendly thinker. I like Him! He's a smart one, we need to keep him around.



------------------
Capt. D. Harn,
U. S. S. Britannia N.C.C. 31379
Excelsior Class CEX, NTU

[Cessna]

I personally like the "Book specific to Era" approach.

My campaign is set in the TOS era. I'm really not interested in TNG/DS9/VOY. (Save your flames, please. I'm hopeless.)

Chances are that I'm never going to use info from those eras. Why should I buy stats on Bajorans and Galaxy class if it is irrelevant to me...?

[USS Intrepid]

Well I prefer the core book with era sourcebooks idea, sicne I like to run games in every era. BUT, that said, I must admit that there is some use in having three sets of rules as well. I would very rarely buy a spare rulebook for any game, but the LUG setup meant I bought each of the core books, and hence spare sets of rules. Which has been useful. I did it for LUG Trek, and would probably do the same for the new game if they used the same format.


So I don't suppose it REALLY matters to me. I'll buy al lthe darn books they print anyway


------------------
Captain Daniel Hunter
CO NCC-73602, U.S.S. Intrepid
Star Trek: Intrepid

[Greg Smith]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by USS Intrepid:

So I don't suppose it REALLY matters to me. I'll buy al lthe darn books they print anyway
</font>

Amen!



------------------
Greg

"Calm may work for Locutus of Borg here, but I'm freaked and intend to stay that way."
Xander, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Prophecy Girl.

[Caretaker]

I agree. If its a quality product, I'll buy all the books anyway. Of course, it is going to have competition with the Farscape books from AEG. But I'll probably (as in "most likely") buy all the Decipher Trek RPG products.

[Aedh Rua]

Hmm.... When I first encountered the three different core books, I was frankly a bit irritated. It felt like having to buy the game three times.

On reflection, however, I have changed my mind. The different series are SO different, with aliens acting in ways that are simply not consistent from one series to the next, and with very different themes, moods, and styles that I just don't think it is possible to create a single, workable core book.

A single core book for all series would be an awful lot like basic GURPS, extremely flexible, but not really usable without a world book. And focused much more on mechanics than mood. Now, don't get me wrong, I am a fairly serious GURPS fan, but GURPS has already been done. There is no need to do it twice, and, if you want a Star Trek game to sell, mood is absolutely essential.

I agree with everyone else here in wanting good, believable race books, both for Federation races, and other major powers.

I also think it is important to avoid certain types of errors which reduce believability.

One example is in the Romulan language. Ok, you don't want mine, and the one you had wasn't too bad, but obvious Englishisms and Latinisms like "Nimaz" and "Pontix" are just hard for me, at least, to swallow.

Other examples include the arctic Andorians with those thin, freezable antennae; the fact that Bolarus IX has a dim, M-class sun, but is not colder than Pluto, and the inconsistancy between Centaurian history and geography in the "Worlds of the Federation" book, and in the Centaurian scenario in "Holodeck Adventures".

These are somewhat nitpicky, but they reduce the plausability of the scenarios, and I am big into plausability. Realism isn't everything, and sometimes it is good to just let things slide for the sake of a good story, but I start to draw the line when suspension of disbelief becomes plain impossible.

Of course some players may not have as many problems with this sort of thing as I do, and the game has to reflect its market.......

------------------
Slan agat!

[Phantom]

I thought we took care of this a while ago. Andoria is not an ARCTIC world!!!! It is suffering from a period of enforced glaciation. It is not the HOTH of the Star Trek universe.

Sorry, this is a point I find irritating. Back to the scheduled discussion.

[Aedh Rua]

Sorry, what can I say? Forgetful....

------------------
Slan agat!