Official Product Wishlist Part II

My head says no, but my heart says yes.

I think I would be more likely to play in a Ferengi game than a Klingon game.

1 Like

I was thinking that to have a Ferengi based rules of Acquisition style game, with the goal of making profit, or running a business empire within the Star Trek universe, or be Ferengi pirates that be a funny game to see a group of misfit Ferengi pirates. There’s a lot of good funny Ferengi episodes to pull material from.

I’m not sure if this is covered by the command book or CRB at all, but if not I’d like to see a small pdf product dedicated to giving guidance for playing a game with hierarchies, and in particular a player character at the head of that hieracy.

It seems to be an ongoing point of contention that some people don’t believe a Captain should ever be a PC character, and while I think having an NPC in charge should be an option if that’s what a table wants (and maybe guidance on doing it successfully that way could be included too), I think it would be useful to have advice for those who don’t want to go down that route, but aren’t sure how to handle the alternative.

Potentially this could also be linked with a section about consent in gameplay, since there is some overlap, and is also a very important topic that can be difficult to approach if you don’t know how

2 Likes

Is it Star Trek Online? I bet its Star Trek Online.

It is? I can’t imagine players wanting an NPC ordering them around. We always have a PC play the captain. Just goes to show ya!

All the best command decisions, first contact situations, and so forth are wasted on an NPC captain, honestly. PC captains are great fun to play and great fun to challenge as a gamemaster.

3 Likes

Yep, the Player should be allways in Command.
Which remind me, that I have to kick some in their ■■■, not too often call the Admiral on Nerandra Station.

2 Likes

Well, 3 off-topic posts in a wishlist thread should tell us: This is a thing.

I second @mattcapiche’s observation (this is a contentious point) and their wish for guidance on playing a game with hierarchies. I think the majority of RPGs focuses on “classic” adventurers’ groups with anarchic ideas of power and informal hierarchies and/or grass-root democratic decision making.

I wanted to quote Mal from Firefly saying that his ship was no town hall but did not find a youtube snippet. Still, there is no voting on a Starfleet’s ship’s bridge.

I opened a new thread for further debate on this topic.

All I want to say here is that advice on gaming with formal hierarchies in groups is something that should be on the wish-list. :slight_smile:

I haven’t mentioned it in a while: Prometheus-class please! Just come up with a sensible and convenient way to play the MVAM. “Just” convert Conan squadrons to STA ship squadrons or something.

Uhm HUM! Not ure if anyone has mentioned this, but figures with TWOK ERA UNIFORMS!! Pretty please with sugar ontop and a cherry?

1 Like

Pretty sure that, at the time of writing, it was Picard. We do now have the rights for that, but there are still three or four versions of the future:

  • The version depicted in the novels
  • The version depicted in Star Trek Online
  • The version depicted in Picard
  • Possibly separately, the events that lead to the creation of the Kelvin-verse timeline (though both Star Trek Online and Picard also seem to link to this… but there’s another version in the prequel comics to the 2009 movie)

Also a version of the far future depicted in Disco’s season 3 (and 4, presumably).

But for this specific far future (DIS 3/4) you do have the rights, right? Or is the license limited to DIS 1/2?

But if canon is just what is seen on the tv or movie screen, then isn’t just Picard and Discovery Season 3 the only versions of the future that are canon?

Plus the alternate Futures of TNG and VOY and several alternate futures/pasts from the various series… :wink:

The Disco license covers everything Disco on screen, so 2255-2258 (plus MU shenanigans) as seen in seasons 1 and 2, and the 3100s as shown in season 3 (and presumably season 4+).

1 Like

I hope DIS and PIC are in their own books so they can be easily added or ignored depending upon preference.

It is usually easier to add material rather than remove it.

5 Likes

Likewise. It seems to me like that would be the best approach from all perspectives really.

  • If you’re a fan of everything, it shouldn’t make a difference.
  • If you’re someone who got into Trek because of DIS and/or PIC but don’t like the previous iterations so much, then it’s easier just to play DIS and/or PIC.
  • If you’re a fan of everything except DIS and/or PIC then it’s easier to keep DIS and/or PIC content out of your game (in both this case and the previous one, it could be especially hard for someone who hasn’t watched all of the shows they don’t like to separate things out if DIS and PIC aren’t in their own books).
  • Or if you’re a weird edge case like me and have confined DIS to a parallel universe in your headcanon, then a separate DIS book is still easier than having everything mixed in together.
5 Likes

I concur. Separating the eras also makes it much easier to find what I’m looking for.

Personally I have no use whatsoever for “Kelvin timeline,” Picard, or Discovery material and wouldn’t like to flip through pages and try to parse what starships or technology apply to what.

3 Likes

I expect DIS and PIC to be covered in the upcoming Gamemaster’s/Players’ Handbooks. The Announcement says: Definitions of six key Star Trek eras. I suppose that’s:TOS/TAS, ENT, DIS, Movies, TNG/DS9/VOY, PIC.

Maybe @Modiphius-Jim can confirm. :slight_smile:
Or maybe we should just save our latinum and find out. Both books sound great. :slight_smile: