Mark: hi from me, too -- it HAS been a while!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Mark: Assuming you don't envision doing a new edition of PD1 (and I wouldn't think it would be good to do that), what I would suggest you do is do the PD1 conversion for GURPS KLINGONS. Drop me a line if you don't have a copy and I'll see if I can find one fo the GK3e ones we didn't toss and send it to you for reference.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:18 am: Edit

with all the new versions coming out D20, D6, any chance you can talk R.Talsorian into a game system conversion for Fuzion? or is there going to be an Action! conversion of Prime Directive?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 01:18 am: Edit

I wouldn't mind seeing Interlock conversion rules.

By Kerry Drake (Kedrake) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 08:14 am: Edit

Iron Crown's Sci-Fi H.A.R.P. (High Adventure Role Playing) would be a good, simple system to do.

By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 08:51 am: Edit

Since when is simple good? Let's use Iron Crown's Rolemaster! (tongue firmly in cheek)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 02:15 pm: Edit

I expect to have a full plate with D20 and D6 for a few months but if there is an RPG with a significant market out there that has a reasonable licensing structure, we'd consider doing it.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 04:08 pm: Edit

I wish FASA was still around; using their Legionnaire system for the SFU would be AWESOME!

(ok - it wouldn't sell like D20, but *I* would love it)

By Phil Shanton (Mxslade) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 09:41 pm: Edit

If FASA was around you could convert to their old ST:RPG.

To bad SPI is gone they could have had PD for their Universe RPG.

Chaosium is still is here "Prime Cthulhu" anyone?

Whatever system you convert PD to will sell because Trek still has a following and enough people are trying homebrewed rules to play it in their favorite system

By William F. Hostman (Aramis) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 10:47 pm: Edit

Some current multigenre rules with good (third tier) followings, albeit not for store-sales:

BTRC - EABA and CORPS. EABA is Open Supplement Licensed. (You can't include the core rules, but can include whatever specific stuff is needed). Greg would be more than willing to license a Star-Trek derivative for either system; it could only help him. Both systems have growing fan bases mostly driven by ebooks.

RPGRealms T20 is a good baseline SciFi d20; they are willing to license, and the terms are probably reasonable (as they are also a multiple licensee of M. Miller, by OGL to WOTC, of David Weber (they got the Honorverse), and some other property. As with GURPS, the traveller crossover would be a useful side benefit.

RTG's Interlock and Fusion systems have a strong second tier fanbase (Lets facce it, D20, WWG's WOD, and GURPS are the three 1st tier systems)

Decipher *might* be willing; they have a real slow release plan for D-Trek; but the D-trek system is playable, uses the same engine as the LOTR-RPG, and is on the shelves, and getting them on the same team, as it were, wouldn't hurt THEM...

Chaosium is basically semi-defunct; Greg Stafford just got hired
by WWG to continue Pendragon; and Issaries is still going for Hero Wars/Hero Quest.

I really hope a PD1 mechanics version gets updated.... but going with known engines is a good thing.

Wow... what a difference a week makes.

By Ronald Young (Ryoung) on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:13 am: Edit

On the page at http://www.starfleetgames.com/prime/pd-1.htm, there is a sentence that reads "We later published data on how to use the PD1 system for any characters (military, non-military, elite, or just plain old people). A PDF file of this additional information is located here."

The trouble is, there is no actual link to the PDF. Is it available somewhere on the site?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:30 am: Edit

Hmm.... Let me figure out where that is.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:33 am: Edit

I know we did the bridge crew in a captain's log and I asked Petrick to find this issue and pdf the page. I am really not sure where the "non military plain old people" data was published (if it was). If it was, anybody know where? If it wasn't, maybe Gary Plana or somebody else can whip up a page or two of such information and send it to me.

By Greg Maynard (Gregarious) on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 07:03 pm: Edit

In the archive for this thread dated march 17 there is the info for the bridge crew (not pdf just text). It says that it was from cl21.
An earlier post says page 39.

By Jack Fletcher (Greatbear) on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Chaosium is still publishing albeit slowly. My choice for PD roleplaying would be be Chaosium's BRP - Basic RolePlaying System - a.k.a the Chaosium House % rules system. It worked great for RingWorld and Lost Suns. I think skill based systems are much better for SF rpging than class/level systems like d20.

By William F. Hostman (Aramis) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 09:26 am: Edit

The various racial stuff from earlier (CL#<21) issues probably could use an e-book or low-volume-mail-order treatment.

as of today, there is STILL no link on the PD1 info page. If nothing else, at least link to the post....

By Jamie L Herbert (Londo_X) on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 01:19 am: Edit

How about a Savage worlds version.. that could be cool

By Jeremy Scott (Jscott991) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 05:07 pm: Edit

This may seem a very stupid question, but how similar in terms of game mechanics is GURPS to the Icon system of Last Unicorn Games.

I bought the Last Unicorn TOS Roleplaying book, which is excellent as a background material (mostly just for Starfleet operations and the Federation, you have to sub in the SFU for the Gorn, Tholians, Romulans, and Klingons), but the game mechanics seem a bit goofy, almost like they aren't meant to be used that much, which some reviewers saw as an advantage.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 08:26 pm: Edit

LUG's rules are geared for different styles of play from PD/GURPS.

It's much more true to the feel of Classic Trek.

By Jeremy Scott (Jscott991) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 09:48 pm: Edit

It seems very true to the feel of Classic Trek, though character creation is a bit bare-bones. Roleplaying should always be the way you flesh characters out, but the stats are usually useful in filling out NPC personalities.

By Jeremy Scott (Jscott991) on Monday, November 27, 2006 - 10:16 am: Edit

I'm going to ask a question about the Icon system of LUG in their Star Trek TOS book. If that isn't appropriate on these boards, I understand, but I can't find anywhere else to ask (Memory Icon seems to be 2 years out of date).

In the section on skills, it points out that it costs 3 points to buy a skill or buy a new level in a skill and 1 point to buy a specialization, which starts at one level higher than your general skill. There is then a very complicated explanation of what to do if your package grants you duplicate skills. These rules imply that it costs 3 points to increase the specialization level after initially purchasing the specialization.

The sample character creation paragraph features a character that opts to increase his general level of a skill to match his specialization level. The skill in question goes from 2 (3) to 3 (3). What is the point of the specialization? If you have the same general skill level as the specialization, then the specialization "bonus" never comes into play. What if you decided to add a second specialization to this skill? Would it start at 2 or 4 (one higher than the general level)?

This section of the rules is very badly written. If it costs three points to increase a specialization, then why wouldn't you just always increase the general skill? If it doesn't cost three points, then the rules on duplicate skills don't make any sense.

Somewhere the rules should make clear the cost of increasing a specialization level.

By Jeremy Scott (Jscott991) on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 11:16 am: Edit

Found out the answer. LUG simply had a bug in their design rules.

Specializations cost 1 point to buy and increase the level and you should ignore the rules on duplicate skills from the packages and simply go strictly based on development point costs.

By F. Douglas Wall (Knarf) on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Also, the Icon system is very coarse. Human average for attributes is only 2, as opposed to GURPS 10. They're both point based, but Icon makes you buy up from 0, whereas GURPS give you average stats for free.

The main issue I had with it was with how stun damage worked. Phasers did stun damage, punches did stun damage and nerve pinches did stun damage, but at least one of those sources had to meet a different threshold from the others in order to knock someone out.

I loved the Renown system and how it encouraged different play decisions and rewarded you for them in a specific way (as opposed to a general way, like XPs).

I could go on if anyone's interested.

By Jeremy Scott (Jscott991) on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 05:12 pm: Edit

People who play the Icon system swear its better than GURP's. But GURP's has a very wide following.

I can see the holes in the Icon rules, but I've got the LUG book, so if I roleplay Star Trek that's what I'm going to use I guess.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 07:13 pm: Edit

I am willing to do a book for any system with a reasonable license and a respectable sales potential, given a competent writer.