LUGTrek Gets Bitch-Slapped: Film at 11

[Don Mappin]

If anyone cares...

http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=5&i=68422&t=68422


------------------
Don
trekrpg@trekrpg.net

[Rottwang]

Although I have not yet to buy any of the books, most of the arguments seem to be about the same kind I have had with just about just about all of the rpg's I have really looked into, and those are the ones I really liked. In general, I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect game. The problem is that real life and the most interesting books, movies, and tv shows are dynamic in nature while the attempt to interpret those things within the mechanics of an rpg is static.
By dynamic, I mean the tendency that capabilies of real people change in practically daily basis and there are a lot more factors that effect your abilities to perform on a daily basis. Your mood, your current health, your comfort, your diet, the weather and just about everyone you meet on any particular day has an effect good or bad on ability to perform that day.
However, rpg try to interpret skills, attributes, and other abilities into set statistics and is unable to take into all the real things that affect people which leads to an unrealistically static interpretion. In general, no rpg is perfect, and all rpg's leave reasons for complaint.
The only solutions to the arguments are to either give up on rpg's or come to realize that all rpg's by their own nature imperfect, including your favorite system. Further, one's favorite system is more a matter of taste, and you should pretty much choose your system based on how much you have fun with it.
In a way, playing a roleplaying game is like listening to music. Your favorite style could be rock, rap, blues, jazz, country, big band or whatever, but just because someone likes a different kind of music doesn't mean you have the right to think less of someone else for their musical tastes.
I'm not saying that you don't have the right to express your honest opinion about a roleplaying system, musical style, or whatever, you just don't have the right to ridicule those who do not share your views.
If this is off subject or seems to ramble a bit, I apologize. It's 2:30, and I really should be in bed. Well, 3:30 if you consider Daylight Savings Time, otherwise known as the Curse from Hell.

------------------
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of
their dreams."
--Eleanor Roosevelt

[StyroFoam Man]

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

[Yojimbo]

Personally, I agree with most of the comments in the RPGNet forum. I didn't feel that Icon particularly modelled the show that well.

I think the worst aspect of the system was the confusing system of adding skills using the template/overlay method of character creation.

Here's hoping Icon doesn't resurface in the new Trek game or, if it does, it does so in a heavily modified form.

Jim.

[Yojimbo]

To follow up my previous post, there were a lot of things that LUG got right as well.

The writing and GM advice in the books was top notch and in the Trek spirit.

And I thought Fragile Peace and Planetary Adventures did an admirable job of providing a story arc and one-off episodes for a game.

So, all in all, IMO LUGTrek was a partial success.

Jim

[SIR SIG]

Of course we care Don!

That was a wee bit harsh, the odd point was valid but down right saying its crap is outrageous. Having not been handy to get the FASA game I jumped when I heard LUG was printing it, and it was well worth the $100's I spent for the set!

Oh I noticed Sjohn had a few words too :P

------------------
'...The Borg have stopped at deck 10...'
'...Deflector Control, no vital systems...'

Not a vital system! What the heck do you think stops the ship going 'poof' every time it goes to warp?

- ST:First Contact; Lt Hawk

[REG]

I try not to let it get to me. Everyone have their own opinion about certain games. Only a few would state reasons for disliking certain games.

But I usually get turned off by amateur critics that uses "kindergarten"-level vocabulary like "This game sucks!" or "That game is crap!" They're not worth my attention.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[Cmd.Hentar]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Personally, I agree with most of the comments in the RPGNet forum. I didn't feel that Icon particularly modelled the show that well.
I think the worst aspect of the system was the confusing system of adding skills using the template/overlay method of character creation.</font>

You agree on what ? I didt see a lot of intelligible text down there

And, personnaly, i find the ICON system to be a good one. A least its not level-based ! Its quite logic, use a lot of skill so you can really feel your character... yessss, thats a great system (But the ferengi dont deserve the Logic +1 !)

The books line are really GREAT ! I mean... you want to know about Romulans, you take the romulans box and wow ! Useful ! Well-done ! Good style ! (Not as beautiful as the other book but anyway)...

While in other game line, like AD&D (Rhaaaaa, level-based system), White-wolf, Gurps, Shadowrun, you take a book about something, and theres 50% of chance you'll got what you want, and 50% of change you'll not.

Startrek RPG by LUG is a really good game with a solid, logic and well done system... Thx to all the team behind the book !

------------------
Im french so i can pronoune Jean-luc Picard, not ya !!!!

[qerlin]

Ah, let 'em have their opinion. I'm used to the systems I like getting bashed. 'til I run a game for 'em in the system. Most of these people blast the system without playing it; just giving it a once over.

ICON worked just fine. I thought character creation a little quirky, but they kept the fun 'tour of duty' feel of the old FASA trek. Though I'll admit the WEG Star Wars system worked pretty good for trek, too, with a little adaptation.

[Gabriel]

As you might imagine from my previous post on the General Board, I had noticed this follow up thread continuing the general RPGnet trend of bashing on one of my favorite games. I've stayed out of the discussion, because I don't see any real need to jump in.

However, I will preach to the choir about the key things in the thread that I had thought to address, since Don was apparrently interested enough to bring the topic up here.


:::Attributes are more important than skills. :::

Oddly, this appears to be so but isn't. In play it quickly became apparrent that the skills were much more important. My players had no desire to raise their attributes after they realized this.

Nikolaj Lemche was the one of the few persons in that thread to make a truly interesting point, and the post was almost entirely ignored.

Just like the statistical evaluation proves, my players didn't want a 2 in an attribute. However, after they got up to a 3 or 4, they simply didn't care to raise it anymore, because there was not much of a reason to.

And, as you can see from the chart, when facing difficulty numbers of 9s or 10s, your raw attributes aren't going to help you much at all.


:::A lot of emphasis is placed on some bizarre reputation mechanic. Since when has reputation ever been part of Star Trek? :::

"But they'll think twice about attacking the Enterprise under your command." comment to Kirk in ST6:TUC

Not to mention that Chang mentions that he had always wanted to meet Kirk in the same movie. Those are just a couple of examples that I can think of off the top of my head. If I actually wanted to sit down and watch some episodes I could probably find many more examples.

Reputation is a part of Trek, and is a part of just about any world. It isn't that the reputation system is out of place or overstressed. It's more related to the fact that it is the clunkiest element of the ICON system.


:: ramatic success rolls happen 16% of the time, because of the bizarre dice roll mechanic. :::

This is screwy to me too, but my players kind of liked it. But the key point is that the 6 on the drama die does not truly indicate dramatic success. You still need to get 6 higher than the target number to do that.


:::Ads and Disads are far too generic. :::

I saw no particular difference between the way Ads and Disads were presented in ICON from any other game that uses them (which is precisely the point of the statement). Perhaps that means that those other systems are far too generic as well.

However, the advantage system is a wee bit broken. The extra die that you get in an advantaged situation doesn't really make much of a difference. The suggestion of using a modifier to the roll instead is probably the best solution as it stands.


:::Combat is far too messy and complex for a setting where it almost always comes down to zap, zap, zap, it's over. :::

I honestly don't see where this thought comes from. In the games that I've run, ICON combat runs very quickly and easilly.


:::the game is still far too generic for Trek. The mechanics do not leap on your face and scream "THIS IS STAR TREK! ARRRRGH!" They don't even come close. And this is frankly, what I demand in an RPG. :::

This was the complete opposite of my experience. For a very long time, I let the ST:TNG rulebook sit on the shelf of the local game shop. Quite simply, $35 was a bit much. Finally, one day I broke down and opened it.

As I skimmed over it, I realized that Star Trek had finally come back to the RPG world, and had done so in a much better style than FASA Trek. In short, I loved it, bought it, and snapped up the other two corebooks the moment they were released.

The nitpick that I have is that Vulcans are not the "6 times" human strength as mentioned in TOS. However, this facet of Vulcans has been pretty much entirely glossed over and ignored in the later series.


:::My other major complaint is that starship combat was horrible. It lacked both ease of play and flavor, the two things any Trek starship combat system should possess. :::

Once again, the complete opposite of my experience. My players loved ICON's starship combat resolution system. They caught on to it quickly, and we got done with most fights in short order.

My only complaint was that the hulls of the ships seemed overrated and the shields of the ships were vastly underrated. That and LUG Trek has the same flaw as FASA Trek of making photorps the only weapon sensible to arm.

At least in LUG Trek, players will power up full shields and move. In FASA Trek, I very seldom had anyone power up more than 3 shields, and, after being in weapons range of a target, there was never any movement at all.


:::Keep in mind that ICON was, unfortunately, designed very quickly and never given a proper series of blindtest rounds prior to publication. :::

Here I have been griping about lack of playtesting in modern games, and my second favorite one of all time lacked the proper degree of playtest. Heck, if that's the case, maybe Decipher Trek should be published with no one ever even trying it out.


:::I think that what Nikolaj missed in his analysis is that by increasing your attribute you receive a bonus in all skills related to that attribute. :::

And that is different from the majority of other systems in what way?


:::Another weakness in the LUG Trek was the mechanic for career advancement prior to play. :::

I agree that this is a pain in ICON Trek. Personally, I prefer to use the full point method and ignore the template, overlay, background, tour of duty method except as guidelines on how to spend my points.


:::What LUG did very well was capture the spirit of the game. :::

This I highly agree with and can be summarized very neatly.

I hate the TV show DS9. To me, it isn't Trek. It is a betrayal of everything that Trek has ever stood for. The stories are boring, and everthing that can be contradicted about Trek is contradicted as often as possible.

However, the DS9 corebook is my favorite Trek RPG book. There was something about it that made the steaming pile which is DS9 seem palatable. Most of all, the DS9 corebook actually made that particular chapter seem like Trek, something that the DS9 TV series had NEVER done in my eyes.


:::The most obvious to me is the Original Series - it LOOKS like it was put together in the late 60's. :::

Personally, I think that this is the poorest of the corebooks, and I LOVE TOS. Still, I wouldn't trade my copy of it for the world.

BTW, all my Trek books sit right next to my Mekton Z books (my favorite RPG), so they are in good company.


:::I thought the system worked well enough to simulate the idea that everybody in Starfleet seems to know at least a little about everything, and ran smoothly enough that I wasn't constantly referencing the book. :::

I like this too. This was a problem that I had with FASA Trek. There just seemed to be no way to give a character in that previous game system all the skills that he or she needed at any kind of decent level.

I like broad skill categories. I hate nitpicky skills and nonsensical skill distinctions.


------------------
Gabriel Alexander Vampyre

[This message has been edited by Gabriel (edited 04-01-2001).]

[Julius]

Personaly I've had few complaints about ICON, it's always been good enough for my games and those things I disagree with were easily fixed with a couple of house rules, but ultimately my game is very story based, and we have gone two or three sessions in a row without even rolling a die. Which to me makes it a good system, if it can be used behind the scenes and guides the players in role playing their characters well.

[StyroFoam Man]

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

[Damian Harn]

I feel that ICON is the best Trek RPG so far. Yes the ICON system has some flaws. For the most part it is a good, usable, Trek-like system. There are a lot of modifires for starship combat but look at games like Rolemaster. The hand-to-hand system is off a bit, but with 1/2 an imagination that can be taken care of.

I must agree that the system dose not fit tightly into the material setting, but what dose? I play both 7th sea and L5R, both of witch are superbly done, but other than them I know of no other systems to do.

One point that nust be made, the ICON that everyone is nit-picking over(yes even I) is a first edition. Look at how long it took WEG to do Star Wars, and it still isn't perfect. D&D did becometh AD&D witch in turn fathered AD&D 2nd edition and that did become AD&D 2nd Edition R&E, so you see with time things get fixed. If you just scrap ICON you end up with a hole new set of problems. Example: D&D 3rd edition's d20 system, good but a whole-nother monkey.

So ICON can get better, time dosen't heal all wounds but it has lots of band-ads.

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

[This message has been edited by Damian Harn (edited 04-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Damian Harn (edited 04-02-2001).]

[Aedh Rua]

The guys who wrote those negative reviews have clearly not played some of the truly appalling systems that I have. Icon is bad compared to what? At least if you put an old fashioned revolver against your temple and squeeze the trigger you die, no matter what level you are.

This beats a number of TSR products I know...

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

[Rixx Telar]

Those that have bagged the ICON system probably haven't played it, and probably won't play it. Personally I don't care if they do or not, I like it and I play it. People have different opinions, just take Gabriel, who does not like DS9, I personally disagree and I like DS9 the best, but I'm not going to get worked up by his opinion, I respect that everyone has different tastes.

If you truely believe that everyone is going to like the ICON system then you are deluded. I know a few roleplayers and each likes different systems, from GURPS,D&D 3rd Edition all the way to Shadowrun. Bitching about a group of people you have never met whose views differ from yours is a watse of time. I realize that the people who wrote the ICON system will feel the most annoyed by these people but there are so many people who like LUGTrek that the minority should not matter.