Paramount hypocrisy in yanking FASA's license

[byteknight]

I've been seeing a lot of computer games over the years with Star Trek themes that seem to thrive on militarism (games like Star Trek: Armada, Star Trek: Elite Force, Star Trek: Bridge Commander).

With all these Star Trek wargames out on the market, Paramounts decision to remove the Star Trek rpg license from FASA in 1988/89 seems hypocritical.

If you recall, the reason they did it was because they found FASA's rpg too "militaristic."

I remember being stunned when I heard the news. At the time, I was running a 5 year old FASA campaign. Without the flow of new supplements after that, I converted our characters to GURPS and tried to scavenge ideas from other systems.

Still, looking back, it seems like it was so unnecessary. Surely today's computer trek games are much more militaristic than FASA ever was.

FASA was on the verge of releasing some interesting supplements at the time too. They wanted to do a civilian supplement, a ground forces supplement, etc.

What a waste.

--------
Byteknight
Toronto, Ontario

[Dan Stack]

I tend to doubt that that was the sole reason. My own speculation...

First off, it is my impression that the TNG Officer's Manual was actually released without Paramount approval. If that were indeed the case, I imagine it would cause a reconsideration of the relationship.

Secondly, it is possible the price of the license increased beyond that which FASA might have been willing to pay. When the first acquired the license there was a three-season TV show and a pair of movies. However, at the end of the license there were 4-5 movies and an ongoing TV series. I would imagine that would be sufficient cause for Paramount to crank up the licensing costs.

In any case, I would imagine there are few involved at Paramount licensing today who were there back when FASA had the license, so the thought-process in licensing is quite likely rather different.

[byteknight]

>>First off, it is my impression that the TNG Officer's Manual was >>actually released without Paramount approval. If that were >>indeed the case, I imagine it would cause a reconsideration of >>the relationship.

I think Gene himself took objection to the Officer's Manual and -given that TNG was a new show- applied pressure on Paramount on what was canon or not.

>>Secondly, it is possible the price of the license increased beyond that which FASA might have been willing to pay.

True, but I read somewhere (was it the Orphan Games Gazette perhaps), that after AD&D, Star Trek RPG had the most sales in the 1980s. If the licensing costs were increasing, their margins were getting smaller, but I'm sure they were still making money.


Of course, FASA had the Battletech craze to rely on when Paramount pulled the plug on them.


>>In any case, I would imagine there are few involved at >>Paramount licensing today who were there back when FASA >>had the license, so the thought-process in licensing is quite >>likely rather different.

Yes, the thought did occur to me. It seems that now that Gene is no longer nagging them, Paramount is licensing any kind of game, militarism or not.

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by byteknight
I've been seeing a lot of computer games over the years with Star Trek themes that seem to thrive on militarism (games like Star Trek: Armada, Star Trek: Elite Force, Star Trek: Bridge Commander).

With all these Star Trek wargames out on the market, Paramounts decision to remove the Star Trek rpg license from FASA in 1988/89 seems hypocritical.

If you recall, the reason they did it was because they found FASA's rpg too "militaristic."

[snip]

What a waste.

You're forgetting one thing. At the time FASA had the license, Gene Roddenberry was still alive and he was still part of a full-time Star Trek office on the Paramount lot (which included Trek historian Richard Arnold). Thus, at that time, there was a staff of people to ensure that Star Trek stayed true to its creator's original vision.

Today, much to Star Trek's detriment, there's no Gene Roddenberry and no full-time Star Trek office. So, the kind of overseeing Trek once had is gone.

[Cmmdr JT Wayland]

I remember talking to Russ Babcock and Sam Lewis from FASA at the Euro-Gencon at the time, I seem to recall that they had a whole lot of trouble with the marketing executives who not only kept on changing all the time but also kept on changing policy all the time, sometimes on insisting on some stupid additions in the modules in order to tie in with the movies.

But I think the clincher was that FASA tried to issue a Space Marine supplement, but was denied permission, so they decided to call it a day and they gave up the license in disgust. Anyway, I may be wrong, it was such a long time ago.

[REG]

Originally posted by Cmmdr JT Wayland

But I think the clincher was that FASA tried to issue a Space Marine supplement, but was denied permission, so they decided to call it a day and they gave up the license in disgust. Anyway, I may be wrong, it was such a long time ago.

Was that before or after they released the TNG Officer's Manual and TNG First Season Sourcebook?

[byteknight]

>>But I think the clincher was that FASA tried to issue a Space >>Marine supplement, but was denied permission, so they >>decided to call it a day and they gave up the license in disgust. >>Anyway, I may be wrong, it was such a long time ago.


Exactly my point. No doubt Paramount felt it was too militaristic or un-Star Trek like.

Now the same organization is giving carte blanche to any computer game designer to make their games as military as possible.

What the hell was wrong with the "Space marine supplement" (I think you're referring to the Ground Forces manual) that they denied it, but they give permission for PC games like Star Trek:Elite Force, where you do nothing but disintegrate others.

If only the current laissez-faire Paramount execs were around in the 80s! They would have shrugged at the Ground Forces Manual. (Anybody know where we can get it by the way, in draft form? )

At least FASA tried to incorporate galaxy exploration into many of their supplements. You don't see that in most if any of the computer games.

The end result was killing off one of the most popular rpgs of the eighties, when the game was in its prime, leaving 10s of thousands of GMs in the lurch.

Of course, I think FASA would have eventually lost or abandoned the license anyways, as all the other game companies lost theirs (Mayfair & DC comics, TSR & Marvel Comics license, ICE & Middle Earth etc)

I think partnerships with non-rpg companies have a finite length of time and are unstable at the best of times.

----------
Byteknight
Toronto, Ontario

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by byteknight
I think partnerships with non-rpg companies have a finite length of time and are unstable at the best of times.

All licensing of intellectual property is of finite length and they are as only as stable as the contract that obligates the two parties involved.

What the hell was wrong with the "Space marine supplement" (I think you're referring to the Ground Forces manual) that they denied it, but they give permission for PC games like Star Trek:Elite Force, where you do nothing but disintegrate others.

I think we're back to the Roddenberry equation here; Roddenberry felt that some of the elements in "STII: TWOK" were too militaristic. A supplement for gung-ho marines would have definitely been right out.

[Owen E Oulton]

" What the hell was wrong with the "Space marine supplement" (I think you're referring to the Ground Forces manual) that they denied it, but they give permission for PC games like Star Trek:Elite Force, where you do nothing but disintegrate others."

Well, for one thing, you're talking about two different regimes at Paramount. Remember, Paramount Pictures Incorporated was bought out by Viacom. All the "kill 'em all and let the Fek'lehr sort 'em out" games have come out under Viacom's auspices.

The old pre-Viacom Paramount marketing team apparently objected to a Starfleet Marines book on the basis of Gene Roddenberry's dictum that there weren't any Starfleet Marines, but there was also resistance to the proposed Civilians supplement.

There's also the murky situation which saw FASA release a Star Trek, the Next Generation Supplement with virtually no usful gaming information in it, withdraw it from print and issue the Star Trek, the Next Generation First Season Sourcebook...

There's been a lot of fruitless speculation as to the actual mechanics of the breakdown, but frankly, the only people who really know are the former FASA people and the old Paramount license department, and I'll guarantee you thet their recollections are probably somewhat divergent.

[REG]

Originally posted by Ezri's Toy

All licensing of intellectual property is of finite length and they are as only as stable as the contract that obligates the two parties involved.

That statement could not be more true for companies like Decipher, whose wares are based on licensing. Hopefully soon, they will take the risky path and create their own IP.

Back then in the late 80's/early 90's, they are adamant about projecting the image of Star Trek. These days, what with the new guards replacing the olds, they are more open to it, but so far, they have not had any marines mentioned in the contemporary Trek series, and the closest we come to such a thing is the pre-Fed Starfleet MACO.

[Karg]

There was also a supplement planned for the Starship game called "Operation: Armageddon". All out war between the Federation, Klingons, and the Romulans.


This probably did not help the Licence situation either

[byteknight]

>>Back then in the late 80's/early 90's, they are adamant about >>projecting the image of Star Trek. These days, what with the >>new guards replacing the olds, they are more open to it, but >> so far, they have not had any marines mentioned in the >>contemporary Trek series, and the closest we come to such a >>thing is the pre-Fed Starfleet MACO.


I think there was a marine character in Star Trek VI, a "Colonel West" (or something like that) played by the same actor who played Odo on DS9.


So, there as a precedent, even "back then." (seems like yesterday).


-----
Byteknight,
Toronto, Ontario

[byteknight]

>>There's also the murky situation which saw FASA release a >>Star Trek, the Next Generation Supplement with virtually no >>usful gaming information in it, withdraw it from print and issue >>the Star Trek, the Next Generation First Season Sourcebook...


Yes, I remember that. I bought both and remember how disappointed I was at the 1st Season Sourcebook. I hated TNG at the time, but nevertheless I found the supplement really really thin and vague.

FASA's last trek publication was a dud. You could tell that either their hearts just weren't into it or Paramount was breathing down their necks.


Years later, an article was printed in GDW's Challenge on how to roll-up a FASA TNG character that was much much better than the entire 1st Season Sourcebook.


---------
Byteknight
Toronto, Ontario

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by byteknight
I think there was a marine character in Star Trek VI, a "Colonel West" (or something like that) played by the same actor who played Odo on DS9.

Although they called him "Colonel," they never said he was a Marine nor did they say he was part of a separate service.

In fact, the visual evidence on screen suggests the opposite - West's uniform is identical to other Starfleet personnel right down to the rank insignia showing us that he's part of the same Starfleet as all the other characters. (I'd posit that some kind of elite unit within Starfleet -- Special Ops, perhaps -- uses a different rank structure to distinguish themselves from "regular" Starfleet.)

So, while fans have taken that throw-away line from Trek VI and extrapolated Starfleet Marines for their own enjoyment, they still aren't canon.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

And let's not forget he was wearing an Admiral's insignia. In which case he should have been General West.