Academies

[FDor]

Originally posted by Lancer


Just take a look at character creation not from the perspective of the gamer, but from the character's POV:
During you childhood you learn about your species culture and languages (Species Skills). Next you get some schooling and pick up the background development. Then you choose a job (Profession) and undergo some sort of schooling in that job (Professional development). Once that is done you enter your profession, i.e. start playing your character.

That is very true for 'less' trained professions. No one can say that a starship elite officer is not a trained profession ( I don't) but then again there are levels in training.
The Starship elite professions (not Starfleet.. Starship) applies to any starship operations officer - may him be a Orion, Bajoran or Dominion.
Then we have seen how Starfleet officers act and what they know. They are valued for their skills, knowledge and resourcefullness over all Quadrants (at least Dominion ranked Starfleet officers quite high). Also Starfleet ships and equipment are excellent. They may not stand one-on-one fight with more war centered species but they still pack a nice bunch - not forgetting the other resources that are in their disposal.

Ok, now I am going off the subject a lot. I am just giving out arguments why do I feel that there is a need for extra skills for Starfleet (and others..) to stand out of normal crowd.

Advancements over time of course make several professions as good as a freshman Ensign.

Vesku

[CmdrBluejeans]

Originally posted by FDor


Ok, now I am going off the subject a lot. I am just giving out arguments why do I feel that there is a need for extra skills for Starfleet (and others..) to stand out of normal crowd.

Advancements over time of course make several professions as good as a freshman Ensign.

The only problem I have with all this is that, in the end, it penalizes players for not choosing Starfleet or some similar branch of service. One of my quibbles with ICON was that, in the end, *all* PCs are, by definition, 'elite'. *ALL* PCs should stand out from the mass of 'humanity'.

To the first person who says "Well, you know, non-Starfleet PCs have more freedom from the chain of command", I point out two things:

a) Starfleet already has better tech than most, and, yes, I agree, among its rank and file NPCs, better training. To give it the third advantage and say that *Starfleet PCs* should be better than *Non-Starfleet PCs* is, I feel, taking out a triple mortgage on the chain of command argument.

b) Non-Starfleet PCs have more freedom from the chain of command only until they do something Starfleet doesn't like.

BJ

[Ramage]

Originally posted by CmdrBluejeans


The only problem I have with all this is that, in the end, it penalizes players for not choosing Starfleet or some similar branch of service. One of my quibbles with ICON was that, in the end, *all* PCs are, by definition, 'elite'. *ALL* PCs should stand out from the mass of 'humanity'.

BJ

I think this comes back to the question of balance.

1) Should all characters start at exactly the same level of initial power? I think a lot may be said for some individuals being better trained/equipped than others. I've played Ars Magica for a long time and in that game a magus blows away the powers of other characters in most regards, but still needs others to survive. So I could see a case being made for making Starfleet Academy graduates more highly trained than others.

2) How mixed is your group? This comes back to the gm who sets the parameters of the campaign. If you are running a game on a UFP vessel, everyone is in Starfleet (at least amongst the players) anyway. If you are running more of a DS9 setting matters might become a little trickier for "balance". If you have a "create any character you want" campaign, good luck. At that point you are almost on the "so, you all meet at this tavern..." level

[CmdrBluejeans]

Originally posted by Ramage


1) Should all characters start at exactly the same level of initial power? I think a lot may be said for some individuals being better trained/equipped than others.

However, in this case, we already know that Starfleet characters *are* better equipped. My assertion is simply that on the level of player characters, to expect them to have better resources *and* superior stats is inherently unfair on a game level.

BJ

[Lancer]

Originally posted by FDor
Ok, now I am going off the subject a lot. I am just giving out arguments why do I feel that there is a need for extra skills for Starfleet (and others..) to stand out of normal crowd.

It may well be that Starfleet/Klingon/Romulan/Cardassian/... starship officers are better trained then other people. But that's already in the rules.
Just take a look at the supporting cast profiles in the NG. These beginning-level characters have (if I did the math right) 5 skill picks less than a starting player character and they get 1 edge together with 1 flaw, while a PC gains one edge for free without taking a flaw. These are the average people you should IMO be looking for when comparing starship officers to other people.

The professions in the PG are for player characters and as such try to simulate not the real life, but a TV series. A series that has shown us more than one character outside Starfleet who is skilled, capable and can hold his own compared to the starship officers.
Penalizing a player who wants to portrait just such a character by making him less skilled would IMHO not only be unfair from a rule-POV, but it would go against the intention of the game - simulating the Star Trek universe as best as possible -as well.