Series atmosphere

[erhershman]

WARNING: Long and rather confusing topic.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

There's a whole chapter in each of the LUG core books devoted to this: Making your series "feel like Star Trek"- the axioms of Trek, the themes, etc. They always maintain that the theme in Star Trek is the good, virtuous light of Federation principles of freedom, liberty, peace, etc.

The really weird thing is that most GMs I know don't really adhere to these themes.

From series I see described by their GMs on these boards, the general atmosphere of most Narrator's trek series is like this:

1. They have a "grittier" feel than any of the shows, even DS9. They tend to dwell more on war, sabotage, espionage, political machinations, you name it.

2. The characters often come from definitely questionable backgrounds, whether it's a criminal past or having major psychological problems.

I've been thinking about what the general atmosphere of my series should be now that it's been going for awhile. Should I stick to the bright, virtuous "themes" of the core book or stray into the gray areas so many Narrators seem to set their series in? And if so, how do I run things like moral dilemmas without making my series seem like a soap opera?

[LizardQueen]

If you have been playing for a while using the "bright virtuous themes" and they have been working for your group, then by all means keep using that theme. Trouble is, that doesn't always work for every group. In my group, I'm a player, not a narrator; but I tend to have a lot of difficulty playing a Starfleet type. Another player does very well as a Starfleet type. So we often play a less traditional type of game that blends Starfleet with something else. Current game is a small Starfleet presence on a station full of smugglers and pirates; previous game had some transplanted Starfleet officers on a Klingon bird-of-prey. But if your group does a good "exploration for the sake of knowledge" theme, then keep with it, dude!

[Admiral Wolf]

Originally posted by erhershman

1. They have a "grittier" feel than any of the shows, even DS9. They tend to dwell more on war, sabotage, espionage, political machinations, you name it.

well, I'll be the first to admit I tend to run far more "Hard Core/Dark/Military" type of Star Trek game. I (myself) can only do so many..."Let's map another unexplored world" type of game (this is not to say exploration games can not be fun and exciting) but I have always sort of been into the "epic conflict-light vs. darkness" al'la Babylon-5 Shadow War type of set up...at least in the over all story arc of a series of games.

However, it is well established in my sometimes grim & gritty games that, the shining-above-the-board-were-better--then-the-evil-doers Federation and Star Fleet is still out there doing it's "thing"....my guys are just thoes poor dedicated-to-the-"dream" bastards who get the call from SFC...to do the hard job's...the missions the Federation Council would rather never be seen on the nightly Federation news cast.

And if so, how do I run things like moral dilemmas without making my series seem like a soap opera?

"Moral Dilemmas" are one of the things I really like to do to the poor PC's who venture into my twisted game world....a good well run & played gut wrenching moral dilemma type of game can stand out for a long long time after the game is complete.

Avoid having them seem like "soap opers" in a few ways, make the "dilemma" in question really "mean" somthing in the game sence...have it have some lasting type of effect on those who must "make the hard call" (if that's the type your doing)...also don't throw a moral dilemma at the PC's every week ....I tend to have the thing build up during a particular story arc...and lower the "boom" near the end of the series.

Case in point:

Im my current STAR TREK: FRONTIER seires, the brave crew of the Frontier has encountered a race that is kicking the snot out of the Romulans....and is going to most likely one day pose a threat to the Federation....the current "dilemma" is weather the PC's should tell the Federation they (UFP) should help their enemies the Romulans.

But the big one will come later on, when the bad guys (The Arachnids) are proven to be a truly fiendish race...and the only way to truly stop them...may be to destroy there homeworld....and them once and for all....I plan on it being a very big deal....

Can/will the Federation...even to preserve it self...commit genocide...what if there is no other options....what of the lofty principles of the UFP...could the Federation endure after such an action was (as a last resort) taken ?........it will of course be up to the PC's to "find-that-other-option".....but none the less, they will face that dilemma before it's all said and done.

I'm wandering sorry.

In any event....I run those type of game because I find them much more gratifying when against all odd's the PC's pull off the "win" in the end.....and they seem to enjoy it to.

[qerlin]

Our campaign is generally darker in tone -- there's a lot of espionage, politicking, and dirty tricks...why? 'cause I don't buy into the Roddenberry 'rose-colored-glasses' future.

In general, the UFP does some crappy things but most people don't know it. The characters in the series are usually very model Starfleet officers: hopeful, idealistic, and copletely naiive. They inevitably have to adapt to the realities of the universe around them, or become very entrenched in the dogma of the UFP.

There's still the clean, brightly-lit corridors, the replicators, etc... but I just don't see Man losing his baser natures.

[Timothy]

The campaign I am currently slowley running focuses on a scientific/exploration genre. I think that the "moral dilema" issue can be easily dealt with in character backgrounds.....the more willing your PC is to allow you to "play" with his/her history the more they are likley to play into the "long lost love" or thefact that they had been genetically engineered, etc, etc.

IMHO the atmosphere is created by the players more then the GM, the more willing they are to take on the character and have fun with it the easier iot is for you to build on.

[Joe Dizzy]

My last campaign had a very odd atmosphere to it. From my pov it was unpredictable and like "ST on 'shrooms". Each episode would feature some weird sci-fi-cliche thrown at the players and turned vividly on its ear. Amidst all this chaos and strange happenings the characters would have to uphold UFP ideals.
Basically, I trust the players to make their game feel like ST. I simply provide the universe they play in; which is the one where Q - any of them - loves to annoy the daylights out of unsuspecting crewmembers, where timetravel is always available.. etc etc...

As far as Roddenberry's view on Trek goes.. I played a Trek game during a convention last year, which really pissed me off. It was basically a mix between Starship Troopers and Trek. And the end of the game the GM started his obviously prepared speech about how he always thought the high morals and ideals were all utter crap and just a smoke screen for the manipulative and amoral government the UFP really was. I basically left after that, annoyed and bemused by a GM
who would play Trek for 4 hrs, despite him not liking anything about it.
There are some very silly people out there.. I'm telling you.

[Dan Stack]

As LizardQueen indicated (can I call you that during games?), our group is mixed Starfleet/smugglers/Romulans.

I don't know if I'd strive for moral dilemas so to speak - it's hard to know what will click with various players. Rather, I'd make adventures in shades of grey. Look at how DS9 did it - adventures where either solution to a problem seems realistic and it's difficult to choose which. Examples...

• Help cure the Jem'Hadar of addiction to the white? (Hippocratic Oath)
• Kill and deceive to bring the Romulans into the war
• Work with the enemy for a short-term goal (i.e. to destroy an Iconian portal)

These are episodes which could have gone the other way and been just as interesting. I think that is the key - don't make an adventure with a "right" solution.

[NobAkimoto]

I'd think it would really depend on where in the Federation you are.

The lack of materialism within the core worlds is almost a given, considering the invention of the replicator(which would make material property almost worthless), so you'd imagine people more from the inner sphere of the Federation being more optimistic than the outer rim where they have to eek out livings and potentially have their homes cede'd away.

[Diamond]

My series deals with darker or more difficult issues, but scrupulously holding to Federation ideals is a valid way of dealing with those situations. Granted it's a HARDER path, but in the long run it works better.

My campaigns are long enough running and interwoven enough that the long-term effects of trying to do the "expedient" (ie, unethical) path has consequences that haunt them. My players have discovered that they like the acclaim and solid rewards of being heroes, and the long term problems of being dodgy.

We dealt with complex, difficult moral dillemnas with the possibility of TNG-type ethics triumphant. Section 31's plans might make Starfleet twice as strong... but they would cause Federation to break into tiny pieces, so must be stopped. For the expense of concuring 10 planets, you can make the Federation idyllic enough that 100 planets want to join willingly.

My players have struggled against Section 31, been tempted by insidious offers from the Founders, had moral dillemnas with the good of the many versus the rights of the one, been tempted to break the prime directive, you name it. In my game, choosing TNG style ethics is not *always* the "right" answer... but it *usually* is, and with some thinking outside the box and innovation, can be *made* to be the right answer.

My game universe is messy and complex, but Starfleet ideals are in the long run a very good idea.

Bashir trying to cure the Jem Hadar was in the perfect TNG ethical situation. While apparently helping the enemy, in the long term this would be tremendously helpful to the Federation. The Jem Hadar would no longer have no choice but to be utter slaves to the Dominion! That deprive the Founders their best soldiers! Just like Picard granting Hugh individuality instead of a virus, helping the enemy was in the long term more damaging to the evil plans.

Those who reflexively assume that the Federation MUST be corrupt to accomplish anything are rejecting tremendous evidence on screen. Always potrayed as never perfect, but inherently trying their level best to be. Scepecism, abhorrence of secrecy, and the democratic process keep corruption from going far. But with billions of sentiens, corruption exists. And the best remedy is shown to be personal freedom and a society which allows for self-examination of governing processes.

And there will be Picards, Bashir's, and the characters in my games to keep striving, asking questions, and standing for Starfleet ideals.

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

A while back I ran a series set in the DMZ. A very dark and brooding setting with all kinds of moral conundrums. The players were Starfleet officers aboard a patrol ship and had to assist all kinds of people-from backstabbing Maquis operatives to innocent civilians who were trapped in the region. It became difficult for them to differentiate between the good and the bad. Climaxed with two of the PC's joining the Maquis for a few episodes (later one of them turned out to be a FIS operative much to the rage of the other PC.)

This was the only really dark and pessimistic campaign I ran. They are mostly based around a TNG type Federation with imperfections built into it. If it didn't have these things their wouldn't be much to do.

Overall though GM's stray from the sparkling image of the LUGbooks because they paint a very utopian picture. The players would have nothing else to do but explore new sectors and have technobabble oriented missions. By adding corruption and imperfections we are able to paint a Federation which "needs" the PC's to make right.