Doctor Who Observations Part 1

[This article is in support of my project to design an unofficial (and free) Fudge role-playing game adaptation of Doctor Who (the original show).]

In general, I think the role of Time Lord ought to be assumed by a player, as it is in FASA’s Doctor Who, rather than the GM, as it is in Time Lord (which is an ironic title for a game where the players only get to be Companions). What fan of the show hasn’t yearned to have power over time and space and an extended lifespan in which to enjoy that power? It’s rather like creating a superhero game in which the players are only allowed to play characters like Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane, or Alfred the butler. I can see a mixed party having potential for open-minded role-players, but I am doubtful of the attraction of a game where all the players are mundane supporting characters of the non-player character “star” who has all the exotic skills, gadgets, and powers. The player characters, in effect, are the non-player character’s fault or disadvantage: Dependents (Player Character Companions).

The inevitable problem is that one’s gaming group will consist of more than one player who wishes to play a Time Lord. There are several possible solutions, and I am hoping I will be able to think of more. First, one can have a rotating Time Lord. For the first scenario, Player A will play the Time Lord and everyone else will play Companions. For the second scenario, Player B will get the honor, and so on until everyone has had a chance to play the Time Lord of the group, after which the privilege passes again to Player A, etc. The advantage is that the integrity of the show’s social dynamics are preserved. The disadvantage is that it may be a long time before some players ever get to be the star.

The second solution is to allow everyone to play whatever role they desire, which would probably lead to multiple Time Lords or even groups of nothing but Time Lords. This precedent can be found in the fourth Doctor’s Companion, Romana, who was herself a Time Lord (or Time Lady, depending on your term of preference). It can also be found in various Doctor Who specials that temporarily united multiple incarnations of the Doctor in a single story under highly unusual and rare circumstances. The advantage, of course, is that everyone gets to play a Time Lord without waiting for their turn. The disadvantage is that there may be multiple Time Lords, but there is usually only one TARDIS. Whose TARDIS is it? Whoever has the TARDIS has ultimate authority regardless of how many Time Lords are travelling in it. If everyone has their own TARDIS, how is group cohesion achieved?

The third solution is to use the same cast of characters, but switch roles at certain intervals, once per session, or once per scene, or once per dramatic conflict. Or it could be timed: once per hour, or once per 5 minutes. Depending on the frequency, it could make the session seem more or less like a party game, which might make for a welcome change of pace, or possibly a suitable prelude to an informal Doctor Who-viewing festival.

I think this is something I ought to address in the rules, at least in terms of suggesting options, if not recommendations.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 6 November 2007.]

The Very Idea 2: More Variations of the Trait Ladder

[This article from 2011, which is the sequel of this article from 2006, addresses a perennial topic in Fudge that I discuss more seriously in One Step Beyond.]

What started as a joke continues as a joke, and I make no recommendations whatsoever to use any of these unconventional trait ladders in Fudge (except the first). In fact, I think it is counterproductive to introduce a multitude of different trait ladders as it does nothing but create confusion. Nonetheless, here are four more for your amusement.

The first is a slight modification of the Not-So-Very-Varied Trait Ladder. Some players don't feel quite right about not having a Legendary trait level, so instead of adding Very to each additional level above Superb, Legendary is situated above Superb and each level above that adds another Very. The same is done with sub-Terrible trait levels and the substitution of Abysmal.

Fudge Traits	#	Epic Not-So-Very-Varied Traits
Superb +4	+7	Very Very Very Legendary
Superb +3	+6	Very Very Legendary
Superb +2	+5	Very Legendary
Superb +1	+4	Legendary
Superb	+3	Superb
Great	+2	Great
Good	+1	Good
Fair	0	Fair
Mediocre	-1	Mediocre
Poor	-2	Poor
Terrible	-3	Terrible
Terrible -1	-4	Abysmal
Terrible -2	-5	Very Abysmal
Terrible -3	-6	Very Very Abysmal
Terrible -4	-7	Very Very Very Abysmal

The All American Trait Ladder

Here is the trait ladder for Americans of the Great Depression and Second World War. This is the language of gangsters and coppers, flappers and mols, GIs and MPs, the Three Stooges and Our Gang. It's the Common Man's trait ladder, and it's Swell, see? And don't let any Lousy bum tell you differently. Besides, that palooka is only a So-So boxer and you're, well, you're O.K. with your mitts. Sure, you can take him. Oh, you mean the bruiser over there? He's Pretty Good in a fight. Nice knowing ya, pal. Good luck. Gotta go. So long!

Fudge Traits	#	All American Traits
Superb	+3	Terrific
Great	+2	Swell
Good	+1	Pretty Good
Fair	0	O.K.
Mediocre	-1	So-So
Poor	-2	Lousy
Terrible	-3	Rotten

The Proper Lady's Trait Ladder

To suggest that a proper lady is only able to distinguish between what is proper and improper would be far from correct. A proper lady has an extensive vocabulary with which to describe her trials and tribulations as well as her triumphs. It would be most vexing indeed if one were limited to a mere two words; two words would be less than advantageous if they were one's sole means of supporting oneself in a cruel world. Turbulent is the life of a proper lady who is forced to contend with the daily indignities of dealing with Dreary household servants, common labourers with Ghastly manners, and nieces who are Atrociously difficult to match with gentleman callers. O, to be extricated from that undeserving fate and elevated to her proper place! -- such is the conundrum uppermost in her thoughts. A proper lady, a lady of society, ought to be able to expect, quite reasonably, to concern herself exclusively with attending Lovely parties in the company of other personages of importance like herself.

Fudge Traits	#	Traits for Proper Ladies
Superb	+3	Divine
Great	+2	Lovely
Good	+1	Acceptable
Fair	0	Tolerable
Mediocre	-1	Dreary
Poor	-2	Ghastly
Terrible	-3	Atrocious

The Cold and Analytical Trait Ladder

[To be recited in a monotone.]

This trait ladder is stripped of unnecessary sentimentality. Do not expect this trait ladder to generate an emotional response or any other human weakness. The function of this trait ladder is to achieve Maximum efficiency. Inefficiency must be eliminated. To operate at less than Standard Capacity is to be inefficient. Most human capabilities are Below Standard; many are Well Below Standard. Therefore, humans are inefficient. Inefficiency must be eliminated. Now processing data...

Fudge Traits	#	Cold & Analytical Traits
Superb	+3	Maximum [Capacity]
Great	+2	Well Above Standard [Capacity]
Good	+1	Above Standard [Capacity]
Fair	0	Standard [Capacity]
Mediocre	-1	Below Standard [Capacity]
Poor	-2	Well Below Standard [Capacity]
Terrible	-3	Minimum [Capacity]

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net in 2006.]

The Very Idea: Variations of the Trait Ladder

[This article from 2006 addresses a perennial topic in Fudge that I discuss more seriously in One Step Beyond.]

From time to time one hears complaints about the trait ladder of Fudge being "broken" because the adjectives do not extend above Superb or below Terrible, whereas results may occur beyond these ranges, especially when characters possess Great or Superb traits. I consider any result above Superb to be an extension of Superb, and it only matters how Superb if one is involved in an opposed action in which more than one character gets a Superb or higher result. If it is a matter of combat, then I generally just deal with the numbers in order to arrive at a relative degree. If the conflict is not combat-related, then I merely state results in terms of one being "more Superb" than the other. Some may balk at such vague descriptions, so for those who desire "hard and fast rules" preserving the adjectival integrity of the trait ladder, I offer the following simple remedy that will extend the ladder without relying on numerical modifiers or adding more words to memorize. All one has to do is add "Very" for each level above Superb or below Terrible. That's all there is to it. If your Superb Swordsman rolls +3 in a fight against a Superb Axe-wielder who rolls +2, then you now know that your Very Very Very Superb result defeats his merely Very Very Superb result. And whatever you may say about a Terrible combatant who rolls -4, it's a Very Very Very Very Terrible result.

Fudge Traits	#	Not-So-Very-Varied Traits
Superb +4	+7	Very Very Very Very Superb
Superb +3	+6	Very Very Very Superb
Superb +2	+5	Very Very Superb
Superb +1	+4	Very Superb
Superb	+3	Superb
Great	+2	Great
Good	+1	Good
Fair	0	Fair
Mediocre	-1	Mediocre
Poor	-2	Poor
Terrible	-3	Terrible
Terrible -1	-4	Very Terrible
Terrible -2	-5	Very Very Terrible
Terrible -3	-6	Very Very Very Terrible
Terrible -4	-7	Very Very Very Very Terrible

The Good, the Bad, and the Adequate

To be honest, all results really boil down to being either good, bad, or adequate, or degrees of the first two. To extend the idea presented above, one could center the trait ladder at Adequate, with Good at +1 and Bad at -1. For each level above Good or below Bad, one adds "Very." A Great result is now Very Good, a Superb result is Very Very Good, and a Terrible -1 result is Very Very Very Bad.

Fudge Traits	#	Good to Bad Traits
Superb +4	+7	Very Very Very Very Very Very Good
Superb +3	+6	Very Very Very Very Very Good
Superb +2	+5	Very Very Very Very Good
Superb +1	+4	Very Very Very Good
Superb	+3	Very Very Good
Great	+2	Very Good
Good	+1	Good
Fair	0	Adequate
Mediocre	-1	Bad
Poor	-2	Very Bad
Terrible	-3	Very Very Bad
Terrible -1	-4	Very Very Very Bad
Terrible -2	-5	Very Very Very Very Bad
Terrible -3	-6	Very Very Very Very Very Bad
Terrible -4	-7	Very Very Very Very Very Very Bad

The English Gentleman's Trait Ladder

To reflect a more civilized point of view, one may opt for the famous capacity for both understatement and overstatement that is characteristic of the archetypical English gentleman. Whilst one may admit that French cuisine is Quite Sufficient, one can state with satisfaction that English cooking is simply Smashing. Similarly, whereas the Bataan Death March was a Rather Bad situation, the service in this restaurant is Appalling!

Fudge Traits	#	Traits for Gentlemen
Superb	+3	Quite Sufficient
Great	+2	Jolly Good
Good	+1	Splendid
Fair	0	Smashing
Mediocre	-1	Appalling
Poor	-2	Dreadful
Terrible	-3	Rather Bad

Big Brother's Newspeak Trait Ladder

George Orwell's 1984, written as a warning of the dangers of totalitarianism, has a built-in trait ladder for those who wish (for whatever incomprehensible reason) to adventure in his nightmarish dystopia. Note that there is no equivalent trait for Fair in this trait ladder. The concept of "Fair" is a thoughtcrime. Report at once to the Ministry of Love.

Fudge Traits	#	Newspeak Traits
Superb	+3	doubleplusgood
Great	+2	plusgood
Good	+1	good
Fair	0	[not applicable]
Mediocre	-1	ungood
Poor	-2	plusungood
Terrible	-3	doubleplusungood

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net in 2006.]

One Step Beyond

One of the things Fudge does very well is minimize jargon so players can concentrate on role-playing and creative problem-solving. Replacing numbers with adjectives is one of the ways this is achieved. This enables players and GMs alike to describe characters, actions, and situations in terms that are equally meaningful to both the player perspective and the character perspective. This breaks down, however, when a roll generates a result that is above or below the standard trait ladder. It defeats the purpose of the adjectival trait ladder if one must resort to jargon to describe likely results, such as "Terrible −1" or "Superb +2." Surely there is an alternative. This is the windmill at which many Fudge gamers have tilted, and now it is my turn. Again.

A common response to the problem is to extend the trait ladder with additional adjectives. Alas, this complicates matters, and makes it more difficult to memorize and internalize the trait ladder. One of my solutions was to arrange the extended traits in alphabetical order. Even with this fix the extended trait ladder is cumbersome and one is forced to resort to adjectives that are really only synonyms for Superb and Terrible. One of my other solutions was to add one "Very" for each level above Superb or below Terrible, e.g., "Very Terrible" or "Very Very Superb." This, of course, can quickly become ridiculous and distracting in itself.

Then it struck me like a song by Madness. What if we merely translated each extended level as "a step beyond"? Instead of Terrible −1, the character performed One Step Beyond Terrible. Instead of Superb +2, the character's achievement was Two Steps Beyond Superb. This is something characters themselves could pass off as a figure of speech, but which is directly meaningful in game terms and very easy to remember. Technically, the math is still there, but it sounds like something a person could say outside of a role-playing game. "That stunt wasn't just superb. It was three steps beyond superb!"

Four Steps Beyond Superb
Three Steps Beyond Superb
Two Steps Beyond Superb
One Step Beyond Superb
Superb
Great
Good
Fair
Mediocre
Poor
Terrible
One Step Beyond Terrible
Two Steps Beyond Terrible
Three Steps Beyond Terrible
Four Steps Beyond Terrible

Maybe it's a stretch, but I think it's crazy enough that it just might work.

The Future of Fudge Is Simplicity

Fudge fulfills its purpose best when it is expressed as simply as possible. I am sure it can be played satisfactorily as a substitute for GURPS, and it serves that function admirably well for those who are not averse to massive blocks of statistics, but is that degree of detail really what Fudge does best? In my experience, greater detail almost always equals slower play, and slower play equals decreased immersion in the role and the setting, because one becomes more distracted by the rules themselves. In other words, heavy rules systems impede actual role-playing. I'm not criticizing those who prefer a more detached style of play, but it would be disingenuous to ignore the fact that Fudge was specifically intended to be a game that emphasized the role-playing aspect and sought to eliminate or minimize any game element that might intrude on the act of role-playing. The default style of play in Fudge is subjective character creation, subjective character development, and combat resolved through "story elements." In its rawest form, Fudge is the essence of simplicity and the perfect game with which to introduce new players to role-playing.

Sometimes a little structure is helpful, too, which is why certain objective game elements can be used to reinforce the game's mission of facilitating good role-playing as long as those rules are minimal. They should serve as seeds of inspiration, not as straitjackets. Broader character traits lead to more creative implementation. Generalized combat rules lead to more imaginative tactics and stunts. Minimized rules lead to maximum ingenuity.

This is why I have been increasingly striving to simplify Fudge for my own design and gaming purposes. Anything that doesn't make intuitive sense or slows down the game I minimize or discard. Anything that contributes to decision paralysis I minimize or discard. Anything that causes my vision to blur I minimize or discard. Games such as Sherpa and Ghostbusters have been very instructive in my pruning of the game. Very soon, I'll have an all-purpose "minimalist" version of Fudge that I can adapt to any genre. Then all I will need is a good title.

Quasi-Standard Descriptive Traits for Sherpa

This article is intended for use with Sherpa, a role-playing game by Steffan O'Sullivan published by Two Tigers Games. Access to Sherpa is necessary to utilize these rules.

Quasi-Standard Descriptive Traits is a supplement to Descriptive Traits (q.v.), which replaces Attributes, p. 3 in the Sherpa rules.

Descriptive traits provide an organic way of creating characters in Sherpa that can be liberating to one's creativity, but there are several shortcomings, most of which are rooted in the fact that there is no prescribed structure in the character creation process. For some this absence of structure is a benefit, but to others it presents a difficulty in conceptualizing their characters and/or balancing their full range of capabilities or lack thereof. To this end, quasi-standard descriptive traits may be used as an intermediate step in character creation, or they may even be used as attributes for those players more comfortable with traditional rules or for GMs who need to create non-player characters rapidly.

Quasi-standard descriptive traits use generic terms (or quasi-attributes) as a framework on which to build a character's descriptive traits. There are six:

Vocation
Avocation
Mind
Body
Spirit
Reflexes

Vocation represents a character's professional occupation, or, at any rate, the occupation by which he is primarily identified. It is the same as the Profession attribute in Sherpa, and like that attribute, it is specified.

Avocation represents a character's nonprofessional occupation or interests. It is the same as the Experience attribute in Sherpa, but unlike that attribute, it is specified.

Mind represents a character's mental capacity or intellect. It is the same as the Reasoning attribute in Sherpa.

Body represents a character's physical capacity or physique. It corresponds to the Strength and Health attributes in Sherpa.

Spirit represents a character's spiritual capacity or willpower. It has no corresponding attribute in Sherpa.

Reflexes represent a character's motor capacity or coordination. It is the same as the Agility attribute in Sherpa.

If it fits the character concept, the character may be assigned more than one Vocation or Avocation in the same manner as Dual Professions, p. 8, or they may be raised independently (see p. 24).

Once a character's Vocation and Avocation have been specified, the player allocates points in the manner described in Character Creation, p. 5. Once this is done, he then interprets the quasi-attributes in his own words, thus rendering them into descriptive traits.

The advantage is that the integrity of the character description is preserved, yet the traits, regardless of how specific they may be, can all be reduced to the quasi-attributes on which they were built, leaving no area ignored. (This avoids the potential problem of default level proliferation caused by players overlooking certain aspects of a character.)

Note: It is useful to list these traits in the same order, unless one wishes to add the quasi-attributes parenthetically.

Example: The GM is running a hard-boiled crime scenario, so she allots 10 points to each player. Player B prefers a more structured approach and opts to use quasi-standard descriptive traits. The character Player B has in mind is a crusading reporter by profession and an amateur aviatrix, which immediately translates into Vocation (Reporter) and Avocation (Aviatrix). The character is defined almost more by her extracurricular activities than her career (being an irrepressible adventuress), so 2 points are allocated to Vocation (Reporter), raising it to 6, and 3 points are allocated to Avocation (Aviatrix), raising it to 7. In keeping with her concept as an adventuress, Player B decides she is also a Crack Shot, having participated in marksmanship competitions all her life, and allocates 2 points to a second Avocation (Crack Shot), which makes it 6. The next thing to consider is the character's Mind. Player B decides she is Sharp as a Tack and allocates 1 point to Mind, raising it to 5. The character is a Tough Cookie, so 1 point is allocated to Body, raising it to 5. As far as her Spirit is concerned, she has plenty of Sass (and as mentioned earlier, she's Irrepressible), so 1 point is allocated to Spirit, raising it to 5. Player B has now allocated all 10 points before reaching the final quasi-attribute, Reflexes. As a pilot, her flying reflexes would be reflected by her Avocation (Aviatrix): 7, and as a markswoman, her hand-eye coordination as it pertains to firearms would be reflected by her Avocation (Crack Shot): 6, but in terms of all other activities involving Reflexes, her ability would be the default level of 4. Player B could reason that this is not acceptable for the character concept of an able adventuress and reduce another quasi-attribute in order to raise it, or it could be seen as an interesting handicap for the character to overcome. She may be Sassy, Sharp as a Tack, and one Tough Cookie who has an exciting career and a daredevil hobby, but in spite of all that, she just might be a bit of a Klutz. In fact, it might be more entertaining to make her a little Sassier and raise her Spirit to 6 by making her a little Klutzier and reducing her Reflexes to 3. For her Gift, Player B chooses Patron: Editor of a Big Metropolitan Newspaper (who, despite his gruffness, often bails her out of trouble and allows her keep her job when she disobeys him). For her Faults, Player B chooses Obsessed with Dance (which can be quite an embarrassment for someone who has two left feet, but is unaware of it whenever the music plays) and Recklessly Brave (which protects her from intimidation, but does nothing to protect her from her own foolhardy stunts).

Her intermediate stage of character creation, then, looks like this:

Charlotte Chevalier

Vocation (Reporter): 6

Avocation (Aviatrix): 7

Avocation (Crack Shot): 6

Mind: 5

Body: 5

Spirit: 6

Reflexes: 3

 

Gifts: Patron: Editor of a Big Metropolitan Newspaper

Faults: Obsessed with Dance (and Has Two Left Feet), Recklessly Brave

The character could be be played like this, for these are the underlying quasi-attributes, or the descriptive traits that are at the core of her concept could be substituted like this:

Charlotte Chevalier

Ambitious Reporter: 6

Daredevil Aviatrix: 7

Crack Shot: 6

Sharp as a Tack: 5

Tough Cookie: 5

Sassy and Irrepressible: 6

Klutzy: 3

 

Gifts: Patron: Editor of a Big Metropolitan Newspaper

Faults: Obsessed with Dance (and Has Two Left Feet), Recklessly Brave

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net.]

Descriptive Traits for Sherpa

This article is intended for use with Sherpa, a role-playing game by Steffan O'Sullivan published by Two Tigers Games. Access to Sherpa is necessary to utilize these rules.

Descriptive Traits, in this variant, replaces Attributes, p. 3 in the Sherpa rules. Instead of using six standard attributes to describe the capabilities of characters, descriptive traits are used.

All characters possess descriptive traits. A descriptive trait is simply anything that differentiates a character from others in a meaningful way. If a trait does not differentiate a character or is not meaningful in terms of the game, then it is not described as a trait at all. A descriptive trait may be considered anything that would be known in other games as attributes, skills, occupations, professions, vocations, avocations, areas of knowledge, areas of expertise, characteristics, statistics, classes, aspects, aptitudes, qualities, clichés, etc.

There are no predefined lists of descriptive traits. The player, upon being allotted a certain number of points by the GM, simply allocates those points to any traits he chooses to describe. Any trait he does not describe has a default level of 4 and is not listed on the character sheet. The maximum number of traits a player may describe is equal to the number of GM-allotted points. Fewer traits may be described, of course, and some traits may be lowered to raise others in accordance with Character Creation, p. 5. GM-approved Gifts and Faults (otherwise known as advantages and disadvantages) are specified as per the standard rules.

All other rules in Sherpa remain unchanged.

Example: The GM is running a hard-boiled crime scenario, so she allots 10 points to each character. Player A decides to create a police detective with the following descriptive traits: Damned Good Police Detective, Impressive Middleweight Boxer, Excellent Poker Player (and Therefore Bluffer), and Skilled and Fearless Driver. He allocates 4 points to Damned Good Police Detective, raising it to 8, and 3 points each to Impressive Middleweight Boxer and Excellent Poker Player, raising them to 7. He wishes to allocate 2 points to Skilled and Fearless Driver, raising it to 6, but he has already allocated his 10 points, so he must describe a new trait at 2 or two new traits at 3 each in order to afford it. He chooses to describe two new traits at 3 each: Sucker for Dames in Distress, which constitutes his chance to resist their hard luck stories and/or schemes, and Coffee Addiction, which means he must have sufficient quantities at regular intervals or he will be irritable, reckless, and just not as effective at his job. For his Gift he has a Photographic Memory, and for his Faults he Lives in a Bad Neighborhood (which presents all sorts of possibilities for the GM) and Suffers from Migraines (which afflict him in a debilitating manner, perhaps under circumstances negotiated between the player and the GM). Any traits that he has not described exist at a default level of 4, although some traits may be inferred from those he has described. For instance, he did not specify that his character is Strong or Physically Fit, but it may be assumed that an Impressive Middleweight Boxer: 7 has the strength, stamina, and coordination appropriate to someone of that description. Similarly, he did not describe his character as Keenly Observant or as a Shrewd Interrogator, but it may be assumed that any Damned Good Police Detective: 8 would possess those qualifications. On the other hand, if he were ever in a situation where he would need to land a plane, walk a tightrope, or operate an unfamiliar machine, he would have the same chance as anyone else: a default level of 4.

Oliver Rath

Damned Good Police Detective: 8

Impressive Middleweight Boxer: 7

Excellent Poker Player (and Therefore Bluffer): 7

Skilled and Fearless Driver: 6

Sucker for Dames in Distress: 3

Coffee Addiction: 3

 

Gifts: Photographic Memory

Faults: Lives in a Bad Neighborhood, Suffers from Migraines

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net.]

Star Trek Observations Part 7

[This article is in support of my project to design an unofficial (and free) Fudge role-playing game adaptation of the original Star Trek.]

The ship prefix most commonly heard in Star Trek is "USS" as in "USS Enterprise." We know from the original series that USS stands for "United Spaceship," which is conveniently close to its historical inspiration, "United States Ship." The only other ship prefix heard is "SS" as in "SS Beagle" or "SS Columbia." We can assume in this case that SS stands for "Spaceship," pertaining to Federation ships in general, whereas USS denotes Star Fleet ships. (The historical meaning of SS, incidentally, is "Steamship.")

The question is: Do other major spacefaring civilizations also use ship prefixes? I see no reason why they should. If the Germans and the Japanese during World War II perceived no purpose for ship prefixes, why should the Klingons and Romulans? Perhaps that is an unfair comparison, perhaps not, but it possesses an appealing symmetry. Besides, the logical choices are decidedly unappealing. For instance:

• "Imperial Romulan Ship": IRS
  
• "Romulan Imperial Naval Ship": RINS
  
• "Imperial Klingon Ship": IKS
  
• "Klingon Imperial Naval Ship": KINS
  
• "Klingon Imperial Spaceship": KISS
  

I suppose one could simply resort to RSS for "Romulan Spaceship" and KSS for "Klingon Spaceship," but both sound too Federation-like, too neighborly, too friendly. The Tholian Assembly is far too alien to have any use for something as quaint as ship prefixes, and I think the Gorn are likely to lack the sentimentality to give their ships names at all. Therefore, in the Expanded Classic Star Trek Universe, USS and SS will be retained for Federation starships, Klingon and Romulan ships will have names sans ship prefixes, Gorn ships will use hull classification symbols combined with hull numbers exclusively for identification, and Tholian ships will use only hull numbers (a.k.a. registry). Furthermore, Star Fleet vessel identification will consist of the following:

• ship prefix (e.g. USS)
  
• name (e.g. ENTERPRISE)
  
• registry (e.g. NCC-1701)
  
• hull classification symbol/hull number combinations (e.g. CA-2)
  

Hull classification symbol/hull number combinations are used to identify individual ships by their type (e.g. CA for Heavy Cruisers) and their production number (e.g. 2 for the second ship of that type to be commissioned). Ships of different classes within a type are numbered consecutively for their production within the type, not the class, i.e. Constitution class Heavy Cruisers CA-1 through CA-19 might be followed by the hypothetical Magna Carta class Heavy Cruisers CA-20 through CA-22, which might be followed in turn by the Fuji class Heavy Cruisers CA-23 through CA-25. A class that is too radically different from its predecessors might warrant reclassification as a separate type altogether, along with a new series of hull numbers, e.g. USS Dreadnought (NCC-whatever) (BB-1). Here BB stands for Battleship and 1 stands for the first ship of that class.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 12 July 2007.]

Star Trek Observations Part 6a

[This article is in support of my project to design an unofficial (and free) Fudge role-playing game adaptation of the original Star Trek.]

Here is a proposed list of Star Fleet hull classification symbols for use in the Expanded Classic Star Trek Universe. [See also Part 6.]

Interstellar Combatant Types

• BB: Battleship (planned)
  
• C: Cruiser (retired; formerly assigned to Light Cruisers)
  
• CA: Heavy Cruiser
  
• CC: Battlecruiser (retired; never used operationally)
  
• CL: Light Cruiser
  
• DD: Destroyer
  
• FF: Frigate (retired)
  
• K: Corvette
  

Interplanetary Combatant Types

• M: Monitor
  
• PB: Patrol Boat
  
• PF: Patrol Frigate
  

Support Types

• AGR: Research Ship (also known as Science Ship)
  
• AGS: Surveying Ship (also known as Survey Ship or Scout)
  
• AT: Tug
  

Module Types (for use with Tugs)

• AM: Auxiliary Module (also known as Module)
  
• AMA: Agricultural Module
  
• AMB: Barracks Module
  
• AMF: Factory Module (also known as Manufacturing Module)
  
• AMG: Miscellaneous Auxiliary Module (also known as General Module)
  
• AMGO: Orbital Station Module
  
• AMGR: Research Module
  
• AMH: Hospital Module
  
• AMK: Cargo Module
  
  • AMKD: Dry Bulk Cargo Module
    
  • AMKL: Liquid Cargo Module
    
  • AMKP: Products Cargo Module
    
  • AMKR: Refrigerated Cargo Module
    
• AMM: Mining Module
  
• AMP: Transport Module
  
• AMR: Refinery Module
  
• AMRD: Repair Dry Dock Module
  

Combatant Module Types (for use with Tugs)

• AMKA: Assault Cargo Module
  
• AMPA: Assault Transport Module
  
• AMPB: Patrol Boat Module
  
• AMVA: Assault Vehicle Module
  

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 1 July 2007.]

Star Trek Observations Part 6

[This article is in support of my project to design an unofficial (and free) Fudge role-playing game adaptation of the original Star Trek.]

The following are thoughts about Federation ships in the Expanded Classic Star Trek Universe.

I am inspired to retain the designs pioneered by Franz Joseph in his Star Fleet Technical Manual, but I shall not be using all of his suggested names for vessels. In fact, I shall be using very few of them. Unlike the extreme diversification of ship types found in both Star Fleet Battles and the Alternate Star Trek Universe, I would like to simplify Star Fleet and limit most of the variety to different classes within each type rather than representing every possible type. Star Fleet, after all, is a "combined service," as Captain Kirk once said, and would expect most ships to be capable of carrying out a variety of missions, rather than succumbing to the overspecialization (and overspending) of historical military services. The main ship types (and their hull classification symbols), then, are Heavy Cruisers (CA), Light Cruisers (CL), Destroyers (DD), Scientific Research Ships (AGR), Scout/Surveying Ships (AGS), Transport/Tugs (AT), and Corvettes (K). Battleships (BB) of various classes, including a Dreadnought class, are in the planning stage. Frigates (FF) have been retired from combat duty as they are obsolete, having only navigational deflector shields and some hull armor, rather than the powerful deflector shields required by modern warships.

CA: Heavy Cruisers, as mentioned repeatedly in the original series, are the most powerful ships in Star Fleet, and are the envy of rivals such as the Romulans. They have the most powerful armaments and deflector shields of any Federation ship, they are the largest of the armed Federation ships, and they have extensive research facilities to allow for very long deep space missions in potentially hostile parts of uncharted space. Despite their status as ships-of-the-line, they are far more versatile than the capital ships of most other spacefaring species, and their activities can involve exploration, surveying, scientific research, emergency aid, rescue operations, transportation, diplomatic missions, escort duty, or patrol, in addition to combat missions.

CL: Light Cruisers serve much the same function as Heavy Cruisers, but most classes are older. At one time they were the only Cruisers in Star Fleet (previously bearing the hull code C), and were the cause of the retirement of the Frigates. Light Cruisers are well-armed, possess reasonably effective deflector shields, and have moderate research facilities. They are used for much the same variety of roles as Heavy Cruisers. Light Cruisers are somewhat smaller, considerably less expensive (and quicker) to manufacture, and consequently more numerous.

DD: Destroyers are dedicated warships — heavily armed, possessing powerful deflector shields, very maneuverable, and having no peaceful function except to restore peace through battle or the threat of it. Destroyers are typically deployed to protect shipping, defend populated areas, repel invasions, or otherwise engage hostile vessels close to home or deep in enemy space. The limited research facilities of a Destroyer are solely devoted to analyzing unfamiliar enemy weaponry and developing countermeasures in the field. Additional barracks are available for large armed landing parties or boarding parties.

AGR: Scientific Research Ships are unarmed, possess moderate deflector shields, and are used for — as the name suggests — conducting scientific research alone in safe areas of Federation space or with the protection of a Destroyer, Light Cruiser, or Heavy Cruiser in more dangerous areas. They have the most extensive research facilities of any ship in Star Fleet and are capable of very long missions in deep space. They are slow, however, and not very maneuverable.

AGS: Scout/Surveying Ships are very lightly armed, usually possessing no more than a single bank of phasers, with moderate deflector shields, but they are very fast and highly maneuverable. They have moderate research facilities, but their primary mission is either reconnaissance, exploration, surveying planets, charting space, or a combination. They are also used to convey messages beyond the reach of Star Fleet signals.

AT: Transport/Tugs are truly the workhorse of Star Fleet and are the most numerous of the larger ships. Transport/Tugs can be reasonably maneuverable or reasonably fast, but never at the same time. They are moderately armed for defensive purposes, possess powerful deflector shields, and are equipped with the strongest tractor beams. The three main purposes of the Transport/Tug are to convey large, modular transport containers designed for liquids, dry bulk, refrigerated goods, products, or passengers; to tow ships that are disabled or are entering or leaving drydock; and to participate in salvage operations.

K: Corvettes are small ships with small crews, moderate armament, and light to moderate deflector shields. Like Destroyers, Corvettes are dedicated warships with no available space to waste on research facilities. Their purpose is to patrol the space around Federation planets, prevent piracy, and harass larger enemy vessels. Despite their size, they can be very effective when they use their speed, maneuverability, and superior numbers to their advantage. Corvettes are the most numerous of the armed ships in Star Fleet.

BB: Battleships are still in the planning stage as of the fifth year of the Enterprise's current five year mission. If and when they are ever launched, they will supplant the Heavy Cruiser as the most powerful armed ship in Star Fleet, but they will not enjoy the diversity of mission assignments, for their sole purpose is to destroy the enemy. A Battleship will possess the greatest firepower and the most powerful deflector shields; if she has research facilities, they will be strictly dedicated to research of a military nature; she will have enough quarters to accommodate the largest armed boarding parties; and she will be equally capable of providing planetary defense or spearheading assaults on enemy fleets or bases. The drawback is that she will be astronomically expensive both to build and maintain, especially for the limited scope of her missions. Another disadvantage is her poor maneuverability, the lowest of any armed ship in Star Fleet. She will probably need to be towed into place every time she docks. Nonetheless, when she needs to reach warp speeds, she will make the jump extremely quickly (as long as she's already pointed in the right direction).

More details on the ship types, including all the classes and the names of individual vessels, will follow. Eventually.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 30 June 2007.]