Death in Trek

[Alex]

I've read all the Narrators forum posts (gads that was a lot of reading) and I've noticed that most of you espouse the theme that PCs should not be killed except in cases of "extreme heroism" or "extreme stupidity". This is very different from the common views of "let the dice decide it" in other RPGs, notably D&D. So what is the point of having a section dedicated to combat, if combat won't be randomly lethal? Why is there all that rolling of dice to determine the outcome of events if, in the end, the GM is supposed to ignore results that are unfortunate for the players or the story? All the Star Trek RPG incarnations are long, involved game systems AFAIK. Maybe if chance and death aren't so important, a more simplistic, rules-light framework should have been used.

Not that I disagree about Star Trek main characters should not die often or for petty reasons. Just throwing this out for discussion.

[Ineti]

I've always held that the PCs in a Trek show are like the main actors in the television shows, and as such, effectively have script immunity from permanent death except in certain cases.

I plan my episodes accordingly. Combat has the chance of near-death or mortal wounds, but a medical officer or Sickbay is always available just in time, just like the shows.

I'd say the players and I accept this as a facet of the setting, and work it in accordingly.

[Pantoufle]

always bring a red shirt with you when you fear there might be some firefight

[T'lara]

I've read all the Narrators forum posts (gads that was a lot of reading) and I've noticed that most of you espouse the theme that PCs should not be killed except in cases of "extreme heroism" or "extreme stupidity". This is very different from the common views of "let the dice decide it" in other RPGs, notably D&D. So what is the point of having a section dedicated to combat, if combat won't be randomly lethal? Why is there all that rolling of dice to determine the outcome of events if, in the end, the GM is supposed to ignore results that are unfortunate for the players or the story? All the Star Trek RPG incarnations are long, involved game systems AFAIK. Maybe if chance and death aren't so important, a more simplistic, rules-light framework should have been used.

Not that I disagree about Star Trek main characters should not die often or for petty reasons. Just throwing this out for discussion.

I know D&D DMs that follow the PCs should not be killed except in cases of "extreme heroism" or "extreme stupidity". It is not the system but who runs the game. I know a Star Trek Narrator that did die rolls for everything including death like a D&D game. Everyone who runs a game has their own style, do your own not someone elses. Kill off of rolls or not. It is up to the person running the game.

[Sea Tyger]

This is very different from the common views of "let the dice decide it" in other RPGs, notably D&D.

While this may have been true 20 years ago, as the industry was still in its relative industry, it's certainly not the case anymore. And, as T'Lara stated, the bloodiness of a campaign depends mostly on the GM.

I would be very disappointed if a Trek RPG publisher "softened" the rules to eliminate threats. The main characters in the shows are often put in great peril, and they escape only by their wits and skill. Those with less skill and resolve (i.e., redshirts) don't make it. While the PCs may not face death all the time, they should have that potential...for one, it allows for greater character building in those intense situations...excellent chances for role playing. And isn't that what we're here for?

[Evan van Eyk]

I see combat as a mere way to create tension and action sequences than a way to kill PCs. My adventures tend to be quite challenging and my players know that they won't get killed unless the act stupidly, like attacking a Warbird with a Runaboat. One major part of my campaigns usually is character drama and development - therefore simply killing players whenever they have bad luck in their dice rolls.

[Tobian]

The reason I think is simply to do with the fact that Startrek is not meant to be a slugfest. The threat of violence is the motivator for the story rather than a bunch of 'evil' bad guys show up and start hitting you for no reason (other than they are Evil (TM) ).

Most rules systems stress that the use of those rules can be as lightly delt or as heavy handed as a GM likes. You could use Third edition D&D as a mystery adventure , or a seafaring trade adventure (Ok those ideas suck), basically the point is it is just a mechanic, and your 'expeience' does NOT have to be based on how many monsters you kill - It states so in the DMG! 'Encounters' can be anything from killing a dragon, to securing a trade agreement.

In Startrek the threat of death is FAR more present (points for point in any system!) than in any other game.. One hit by the lowest level numpty with a phaser set to 8+ and bye bye PC! AS a GM I find that a tad harsh, so the point of the adventure is not simply to buy a better suit of armour or increase your dodge bonus, to avoid taking the damage, but to negotiate your way round it. The general rule of thumb in my games is one of escalating warfare.. you use stun, I use stun, you use kill, I use kill - therefore the characters are the authors of their own fate.. if you raise the odds then prepare for the consiquences.

Also in Startrek it's all well and good determining that an enemy ship is 'evil' and begin attacking it.. however nothing in Startrek is so absolute.. Do you REALLY want to start a war? What about civilians? What happens when that mistake comes back to bite you on the behind!

If your PC's want more combat... Well give them the Borg, they might not be so eager when it carves up their ship

[Sundowner]

Some good points here!

Personally, roleplaying is more about the story for me, and i try and run a game as such, combat plays a part, but when it does, i pull no punches. If the team heads down to a planet knowing full well the transporters don't work, and they get into a fight, expect casualties, and not just red shirts.

When i GM, combat is potentially lethal, as it should be, a fight is not something to be entered into lightly, nor treated lightly. PC death in a game is something the players should always be considering, because if they want their favourite PC's to survive, then they should be thinking of other ways than combat to resolve a situation. If they get into a fight though, usually it's been built up to, or with someone they already know to be hostile.

Though to be fair. In one campaign i ran, (Which lasted 4 years real time) i only managed to kill 'ONE' PC. The many other PC deaths were attributed to the other players.

Sometimes you can just sit back and let them get on with it.

Sundowner