Board Division

[RMercer]

The view that we get of the UFP and Starfleet is very limited.. and the portrayal of both has changed over the years, depending upon the creative team involved and the time period in which the show is being made.

I have always felt that SF was both a defensive and scientific organization. The emphasis on which aspect was most important seems to have varied over the history of the UFP (and before, if we look at Enterprise).

Enterprise seems to have a SF that is almost solely intended to be a scientific/exploratory organization, based upon what we see and what we hear from the characters.

TOS is still "biased" towards exploration, but this seems to shift more towards defense (especially judging from what we see in the later Klingon-oriented TOS movies).

TNG has shifted back the other way and SF has become a largely diplomatic and exploratory service (it seems to me that it is similar in many respects to the US Coast Guard rather than the USN).

DS9 slowly shifts back towards defense... Voyager doesn't tell us much about the UFP or SF becuase of Voyager's separation.

Like most organizations, SF fills the roles it is needed to fill at the particular place and time. It undoubtably possesses a significant military capability (enough so that it could dictate to the Romulans and Klingons at the end of the Dominion War, despite losses). SF doesn't go looking for a fight, and it will often back down from a fight that it doesn't classify as being important enough to fight over (because SF and the UFP have confidence (whether it is misplaced or not) that they will "win" in the end, ultimately by absorbing their "enemies." In many respects, the UFP is more insidious than the Borg

[Ramage]

I draw my vision of Star Trek from the time when it first came out, from the time I first watched it -- attempting to get to the moon.

Star Trek seemed so hopeful; it still is in my heart. Yes there were battles with the Klingons and the Romulans, but not all the time and that was because they were warlike cultures, as opposed to the UFP which was based on cooperation and hope. Yes the vessels were armed, but the Science Officer was more important than the guys who ran the weapons.

So, as an American, as a dyed-in-the-wool Kennedy Space Kid, and all the rest, and after reading essays and interviews with the very-much liberal Gene Roddenberry, I saw and still see Starfleet as scientific first, militaristic a very far second.

Dum spiro, spero.

[REG]

Originally posted by Ramage

Star Trek seemed so hopeful; it still is in my heart. Yes there were battles with the Klingons and the Romulans, but not all the time and that was because they were warlike cultures, as opposed to the UFP which was based on cooperation and hope. Yes the vessels were armed, but the Science Officer was more important than the guys who ran the weapons.

Ouch. I pity all the weapon officers in your games.

The Federation are not bullies. They don't wage war. Unfortunately, the universe do not share Federation's beliefs and values of co-existence and tolerance (unlike the radical muslim extremists, as well as other extremists). So it is best that they prepare to defend against those who threaten their society. IMHO, the weapon officers is just as important the science officer, because if you cannot resolve a conflict peacefully, your fate then lies in the skill and experience of the person manning the weapons.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Originally posted by qerlin


Actually, the argument itself works very well for Star Trek campaigns: some characters are hawks, who came in during the DW & feel that Starfleet needs to be strong and assertive; others older Picard-types -- Starfleet are explorers who fight only if necessary; and a newer breed from the academy, post-DW who are happy as hell they weren't in the fight and are some of them hawks, some of them doves.

Issues of 'who's right', or conflict between the viewpoints makes for very interesting roleplaying.

That's not really what I was talking about. My comment was directed at those people who persistently complain that Trek isn't militant enough, or realistic enough, or that it's too idealistic. I wasn't saying those are issues that shouldn't tested in game.

I just don't understand those people who complain so much about the setting, yet go out of their way to play the game.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Originally posted by REG

Forgive me for asking but what other options does the Federation have before they resort to calling Starfleet for help?

P.S. If you ask me, the role of Starfleet is Exploration first, Defense second. Not the last resort but right behind the first role. If the secondary role can be resolved without any armed conflict, then that's great.

Exploration
Diplomacy
Armed defense is necessary

Which is essentially what I said, and also what you said. Where is the confusion here?

My point is, Starfleet's raison d'etre (regardless of what some people think or want it to be) is exploration and diplomacy. Armed conflict is a necessary evil of their role, but it isn't their primary reason for being. Common sense just dictates that they be ready for and good at it, but only prepared to use it if they can't find a peaceful method of resolution (presumably diplomatic).

[AslanC]

Something hit me the other day.

I have seen endless amounts of fleet lists for Star Trek and ideas put forward about how Starfleet would be modeled after the modern US Navy.

But I think it is more along the liens of the British navy in the days of the Spanish Main. A number of ships, acting almost independantly from each other and grouping as fleets in times of trouble or for major fleet moves.

I could be wrong but I think that is how it works.

That said I think there is a nice mix of the two and I think Dan has some point here abouts when he refers to the board being split by Hawks and Doves.

Very Star Trek in the end I supose.

[Dan Stack]

I've always viewed it as Napoleonic modelled myself. The lone ships which occasionally gather into fleets; commanding officers with the power to negotiate on behalf of their governments, etc. Plus the fact that ships of the line are always commanded by captains (and it would seem we only see ships of the line on Trek).

[qerlin]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
I've always viewed it as Napoleonic modelled myself. The lone ships which occasionally gather into fleets; commanding officers with the power to negotiate on behalf of their governments, etc. Plus the fact that ships of the line are always commanded by captains (and it would seem we only see ships of the line on Trek).

Yup...Horatio Hronblower in space. Especially after Nick Meyer got his turn at the helm in STII.

[dimeboy99]

Originally posted by Capt Daniel Hunter
I just don't understand those people who complain so much about the setting, yet go out of their way to play the game.

I see where you're coming from. I think there is a breed of gamer out there that is of the opinion that if it has guns on it, it's a warship. The games I play in, both online and tabletop, are set during the Dominion war. But I would not consider either game a military-first setting. In both, I think diplomacy and exploration are at the forefront.

I see Starfleet as an exploration and science organization first and foremost. I think if you look at the general ship designs pre-borg that is definately the case. Heck, look at the general orders, prime directive, etc. and I find the majority of the standing guidelines for Starfleet ships and crew deal with exploration, alien species contact and safety.

I would say that the political differences between the posters on this thread would not deal with how we view Starfleet in our game, but rather if Starfleet has more of a "Next Gen" feel to it or a "DS9" feel to it. (I refuse to base and hypothetical political tie-in upon Voyager)

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

I've always viewed Starfleet as an exploration thing and then a defensive organisation. I've never used marines, I doubt I ever will. I've DM'd a whole lot of Trek and I've always portrayed ST as an unwilling participant in war like situations.

Hell I even play a character who prefers to wait until he's shot on and then react, preferably with non-lethal means.

Though I'm in the group of hawks on this board I still portray Trek as a utopian setting.

[qerlin]

Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
Though I'm in the group of hawks on this board I still portray Trek as a utopian setting.

Same here...

[Sea Tyger]

While I'm sure many on these boards would say that I'm a hawk, I actually agree that Starfleet is exploration first, defense second. To me, the defense is a closer second that many believe -- Starfleet is a military organization, after all, and you don't put that much power into the hands of "mere" scientists -- but in an "enlightened" utopia that the Federation represents, Starfleet would seek diplomatic solutions before they resort to combat. And I think that is evident in TOS, and even moreso in TNG.

[C5]

I too love the UFP utopia - where violence is always the last option, where StarFleet is only slightly militaristic, and where it's okay for people having children in their ship.
I go even further than that : for me, the UFP government and StarFleet command are much comprehensive of their citizens and subordinates than it's shown in the various series - after all, where's the point of having an utopia if it's not to have perfect people in it ?
For these reasons, and while DS9 is my favourite series, I don't always agree with their rather grim portrayal of the UFP - though I like the S31 idea (for me, S31 is needed because you can't afford being that nice when everybody around is not).
Another thing I avoid is having StarFleet being modeled after any Human navy organisation, since after all it's a fusion between a lot of alien's worlds' navies.

[Ineti]

With many others here, I feel that exploration comes first, followed by diplomacy and defense hand in hand. If you're striking off into the Great Unknown, you need to be able to defend yourself against the unpleasant species out there. Not every alien you encounter is going to be a Risan or a Pakled. Some species will downright hurt you if you're not careful, and you need the comabt training and weaponry to defend yourself.

And I love the idea of Trek modeled on the Napoleonic era RN. Makes sense.

[Kaiddin]

Originally posted by AslanC
But I think it is more along the liens of the British navy in the days of the Spanish Main. A number of ships, acting almost independantly from each other and grouping as fleets in times of trouble or for major fleet moves.

That is why I prefer TOS. As I said before, it is the Captain Cook exploration idea that I like. I'll probably get blasted by certain people for saying this but I don't mind the occasional space battle as I'm also a fan of Captain Blood and Horatio Hornblower. It is necessary. How can you show the real value of something without showing the opposite idea?