Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Carriers feel wrong for trek. When I think of a small craft for trek, I think of voyager's delta flyer, which is a multi-person vessel that appears to be mostly warp-capable-- though it can be contained in voyager, and often is.


If we say small boats are more effective taking positions, scouting, and performing over non-mainline duties my objections go away. As do the effectiveness of dedicated carriers as capital ships.



Aerospace fighters acting like normal fighters is fine for me, and its really a nice touch.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Shuttlecraft are generally depicted as having fairly short ranges due to limited fuel & other supplies (which makes sense to me). This is why I keep saying 'carriers and tenders,' rather than just 'carriers.' The shuttle carriers in my mind (at least the dedicated carrier/tenders, as opposed to the ones that are primarily some other category, but happen to have a big shuttle bay, like the Galaxy-class from ST TNG) aren't capital spacecraft, any more than a destroyer tender is a capital ship. They're maintenance and supply vehicles, and sometimes delivery systems (especially for the really short-ranged craft like the aerospace fighters and ground assault shuttles), but they aren't capital vessels on their own.

Thank you.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Yeah, I was going by Spaceships rules. There Upper Stages do take up the entire front of a spacecraft. But that isn't necessarily the case IRL.

The ejectable control room option is located on Spaceships p. 29, under the Design Features section.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Ah, OK, thanks.

I've modified the paragraph it was in, hopefully this fixes the issue:

"Most aerospace fighters are around the size that someone from late twentieth or early twenty-first century Earth might expect, while most starfighters are larger than that, and mostly have more crewmembers. Smaller fighters often have the control room and most or all of the other habitable sections (if any) in an ejectable cockpit-style escape pod (potentially an Upper Stage, if it has significant manoeuvering capability), with the the vehicle saving space by having little or no room for people in the other sections, just big reactors, big engines, weapons, et cetra. In particular, the fighter would need to have storage room and launch systems for missiles, because most space fighters in this setting are basically manned, reusable missile buses."

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Have my clarifications and changes helped at all?

I think I'll have a new worldbuilding/question post ready by Tuesday or Wednesday, so I'm hoping that this issue can be settled by then.

EDIT: Would it help if I include a line in the post that exactly how common and important fighters are, and how exactly carrier/tenders are used, is a setting switch that GMs can adjust as necessary for their specific campaigns? It would actually be consistent, because DS9 used smallcraft a lot more frequently, with often greater plot importance, than the other series tended to.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

United Space Authority: Commands of the Space Forces

'Commands,' in this context, are the major administrative subdivisions of the United Space Authority's Space Forces, answering to the Chairman of the Space Forces Staff Committee (aka 'Space Forces Chief of Staff' or 'Chairman of the Space Staff'). Vessels, task forces, and other units of the USASF may have assets from multiple Space Forces Commands in the same chain of command. Depending on both the era and the specific setting switches of your game, some of the Commands below may need to be adjusted, being more important, less important, non-existent, or having somewhat different assets & other details. This is why, for example, carriers and tenders are listed in more commands than I think would make sense - IMHO, they should only be under one or two, if you use dedicated carrier/tenders at all, rather than a lot of the bigger designs having significant shuttle capacity.

* Star Fleet Command (SFC)
The 'General Service' fleet. While founded to be something like a combination of the Solar Cooperative's Survey Service, Space Patrol Research and Exploration Bureau, and to a degree the SP Emergency Services Directorate (and taking a lot of vessels, equipment, stations, and personnel from those bodies following the Romulan War), the Star Fleet Command was expanded rapidly early on, due to political expedience: It is, for example, much easier in peacetime to get the budget committee to agree to add a new planetary survey vessel or medical/disaster relief vessel with significant shuttle capacity to SFC than it is to add a planetary assault tender/carrier intended for aerospace fighters and ground assault shuttles to Defence Command or Military Assault Command (even if they're all built on the same hull, easily converted, and none of them really belongs anywhere near a space battle); likewise, sending SFC vessels to 'show the flag' is in many cases more diplomatic than sending vessels that are more clearly military. A result of this is that when vehicles and personnel from the other commands need to get somewhere, they often depend on the Star Fleet. The Space Forces Office of Research and Development is a semi-independent unit of the SFC.

* Star Base Command (SBC)
In charge of all USASF Star Bases, Deep Space Stations run by the Space Forces, some planetary defence stations, and other relatively fixed Space Forces installations. At some points in the history of the Authority, warp-capable smallcraft carriers and tenders, and repair/replenishment vessels for larger spacecraft, were treated as 'mobile space stations,' and thus were under the SBC.

* Law Enforcement Command (LEC)
Also known as the Space Patrol, this branch performs many of the same duties as the old SCSP Interstellar Patrol Directorate, over a much wider area. Indeed, when it was formed, a slight majority of the SCSPIPD's vesels, equipment, and personnel were transferred over. LEC personnel also include the Space Forces Office of Criminal Investigations, but not the Judge Advocate General's Corps, which is not part of any Command, as the Judge Advocate General of the Space Forces (usually a Deputy Commissioner or Lieutenant Commissioner) instead reports directly to the Chief of Staff. LEC personnel tend to have Legal Enforcement powers equivalent to the SCSPIPD or SCSPCIB.

* Support Command (SC)
Also known as Logistics Command, the SC is in charge of making sure food, ammunition, equipment, vehicles, new uniforms, and so on get to where they need to go, as well as being the command that the Space Forces Corps of Engineers is part of, along with related groups. The SFSC has a number of warp-capable armed cargo and personnel-transport vehicles, some with quite long operation ranges, as well as repair stations, mobile repair & replenishment vessels, smallcraft tender/carriers (lots of these), and so forth. Not to be confused with the Support branch of the Military Assault Command, below.

* Defence Command (DC)
This Command primarily operates the border patrols and defence-in-depth stations, as well as coordinating the defensive operations of the member states where needed (especially in the event of a war). Defence Command has a few smallcraft tender spacecraft, mostly in the reserve yards, and a somewhat larger number of heavy-combat spacecraft. In some eras, the DC is split into several sector Commands or regional Commands, often but not always coincident with the borders of the member states.

* Military Assault Command (MAC)
Espatiers. This command has two main branches: Operations personnel, commonly called MACOs, are semi-elite shock troops, as well as being trained to perform boarding actions, repel boarders, sometimes serve as general security personnel on vessels from other commands, et cetra. Support, who serve as both a dedicated version of the Support Command, above, and also perform all the other non-combat roles that need to be done in the field (such as field medical personnel, traditionally called 'corpsmen,' or the various bureaucratic workers that would be called 'paperpushers' in earlier eras), or that otherwise need to be part of the same command, but generally don't involve direct combat as part of their primary mission. The crews of the few smallcraft carrier/tenders that are assigned to MAC, rather than simply carrying MACOs while being part of another command, tend to be MACSs.

* Special Operations Command (SOC)
In charge of the Special Forces personnel and equipment of the Authority Space Forces. Though SOC does have a few shuttles designed specifically for their use (with highly expensive and advanced SCM/SCCM systems), more often they are delivered to and extracted from the target area by vessels belonging to other commands. SOC troopers are of course the most likely USASF personnel to be equipped with personal cloaking devices, once they have been developed to the point of being both reasonably safe and tactically useful.

* Ground Command (GC)
The United Space Authority's 'Army,' in effect, though in the event of a war, most ground forces by far will be on loan from the member nations, with Ground Command serving as the core of the Armies of United Space. A large part of the distinction between Ground Command troops and MACOs who specialize in ground combat is that the MACOs may take (or take back) ground, but the GC is trained to hold it. Transportation of GC units to the theatre of operations is the responsibility of other commands (mostly SFC, SC, and DC), and in wartime is mostly accomplished by transport vessels belonging to the member states.

* Naval Command (NC)
Ships that travel on or under water, and possibly other liquids. In most cases, these are smaller vessels that need to be transported by spacecraft, though there are a few that are space-capable, or in rare cases, even warp-capable on their own (though they are not very good at space combat, not being designed for it). Naval Command also includes a number of large and unwieldy Watercraft Carriers to transport them to the theatre of operations, though these vessels never operate independently of more manoeuverable escorts from other commands, and are not intended to orbit a planet where the Space Forces have not already established full space supremacy. As with Ground Command, in the event of a war, most personnel, vehicles, and equipment will be on loan from the member states.

* Fighter Command (FC)
Covers all shuttlecraft and long-range spacecraft that are dedicated 'fighter' platforms, and the personnel assigned to them. One of the smaller commands, especially in peacetime, when most of their vehicles are in storage. Many of the personnel who would be part of Fighter Command in wartime spend peacetime as shuttle and other small-craft pilots and crewers, are part of a member state's military, or are in the Space Force Reserves. Most fighter tenders are part of the SC or SFC, though more such vehicles can be brought into service in wartime, both from the reserve yards, and the member states.

* Cyberwarfare Command (CC)
In charge of computer security for the Space Forces, both defending against enemy hackers, and performing hacking tasks themselves. Some Cyberwarfare personnel are attached to the Special Operations Command, in several cases as fully trained field troops.

* Military Intelligence Command (MIC)
Sometimes inaccurately called the Military Intelligence Bureau (and like the SCSPIB, nicknamed the Space Security Service), this is the espionage and counter-espionage branch of the Space Forces. MIC cooperates closely with the Cyberwarfare Command.

* Education and Training Command (ETC)
Runs the various academies, boot camps, and other educational facilities of the Space Forces. Also in charge of recruitment, and the Reserve Officer Training Corps, which overlaps somewhat with the Reserve Command.

* Space Forces Reserve Command (RC)
Coordinates the Space Forces Reserves, civilians who train regularly and can be called up with short notice to expand the size of the Authority Space Forces in an emergency.


So, can you think of any additional Commands that should be added, or details that belong above?

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Your clarifications and changes were good.

Overall, this looks good. A minor stylistic nitpick is that you keep using acronyms before using them in your post. I'd prefer it if you defined the acronym for each branch as part of its header. For example, "*Star Base Command (SBC)".

Is there a specific Command responsible for public relations? Or is that handled by the Space Forces Chief of Staff?

You were pretty thorough in creating the commands. I can't think of anything specific to add.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Good point, thank you. Went back and edited them in.

I think the PR office would be under the Staff Committee.



Thinking of having a question later about Landing Party/Away Team loadouts. Not sure currently how detailed to make the question. Might or might not have a question about tricorders, first.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

IMO, tricorders are portable Ultrascanners from UT given a reskinning. What breaks this is what folks such as Scotty and Spock are able to do with it every other week. My own take is that Scotty, Spock, La Forge, the younger Crusher, Dax, O'Brien, et. al. have Gadgeteer (likely Quick Gadgeteer, and modified with Limited in many cases) to modify their tricorders according to the needs of the Plot. YMMV, though.

This being Psi-Trek, tricorders are likely psychotronic devices.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

This is pretty consistent with my conclusions (though I do assume that the tricorders have built in tranceivers, just having computers, sensors, and tranceivers doesn't account for everything they do with them, IIRC).

EDIT: Various forms of Gadgeteer are probably common in Star Fleet's Engineering Department in canon, though whether they're also common in the Space Forces probably depends on the GM.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Landing Party/Away Team Loadouts question

The standard loadout for landing parties in TOS was a communicator and a phaser (type one or type two), plus one or two members of the group being equipped with a tricorder, and usually only one of them with a small medical kit, as well as a belt to stick them on in some episodes. The movies added excursion jackets, which were also seen (along with an equipment harness) in the original pilot. Phaser 'rifles' (technically, 'longarms' would be more accurate, as the barrels are probably not rifled) were only seen in TOS in the second pilot, though the first pilot had a sort of field artillery beam weapon, that may or may not have been a laser or other non-phaser raygun. The first pilot did not have a recognizable tricorder, but there was one guy with a large backpack connected to a handheld scanner of some sort, which may have been the equivalent in that era. There was also the rather insane 'photon grenade' launcher from Arena, which we discussed previously, and the occasional other gadget, but these weren't standard.

In TNG, 'landing party' was renamed 'away team,' the communicators became part of the uniform, and tricorders were smaller and I think more common, but the loadout remained mostly the same as in TOS, save that in later seasons, and in DS9 and VOY, phaser rifles were seen more frequently, and the type one holdout phaser mostly disappeared (the prop designers had made it so small that it was hard to see on screen, though this also made it a better holdout weapon than the type one from TOS).

ENT brought back the excursion jackets (as well as a sort of desert uniform) and handheld communicators, had no equivalent of the little type one phaser, but had a few different types of pistol and rifle, and were otherwise equipped pretty much as standard for the other series, although someone did have a survival knife in at least one episode, so they may have been present in other episodes, but unused. They also had a scanner that served the same narrative purpose as a tricorder, and was smaller than even most 24th century models.

So, the standard loadout for most of the TV series and movies is:

* Communicator (one per person)
* Phaser (one per person, variable type)
* Utility belt or harness (one per person, not always used)
* Jacket (one per person, not always used)

* Tricorder (one or more per party)
* Medkit (one or more per party)

Do we want this to be the standard loadout for landing parties/away teams in the Psi Trek setting, or should it be modified, and if modified, what should be added?

Personally, I'd add survival knives as a common option, at least for landing parties going into the wilderness, rather than into a city or doing anything particularly diplomatic, and multitools as an 'everybody has one' item.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

I think that whatever equipment they have should vary by task. What kinds of tasks are the away teams usually going on? Going to a city for supplies or information should have different needs than going down to a wilderness or a crash site.


I'd look through the various tech books and come up with some basic kits depending on what is available n setting. I think that the standard uniforms should have some protective value and not just be regular clothing.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

All that said, Communicators, Tricorders, and Med-Kits as well as basic defensive weapons and some sort of armor (in DS9, the uniforms were built from a kind of phaser-resistent fiber, IIRC) or environmental gear should be standard for any party operating away from the ship. Whether more than one person carries an item besides the standard sidearm should vary by the needs of the mission. In a first-contact mission, you won't really want everyone showing up in battle armor, while on a scientific survey mission you'll want multiple people with tricorders.

IMO, the "standard" away team should be:
- the expedition leader
- at least one security officer (true to the TOS feel, the redshirt will be the first to die)
- a medical specialist (injuries will happen)
- a technician (the other redshirt)

On survey missions, you'll want someone from the sciences division.

Normally, unlike Star Trek, you won't send your command officers down on away teams. (Unless your PCs are playing the command crew, in which case they'll do it so they have something to do, plotwise.)

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

That's a very good point about them not needing to be the command crew. In your own RPG, you can remove the running unlikeliness of the captain and half the senior officers being on all the away missions by just playing as somebody who isn't them.
Or players could have more than one character, playing as the command crew when on board and switching to your lower-ranked characters when an away team is sent down - making it a particularly co-operative style of game, I'd imagine, since the focus could only be on advancing the whole ship/team rather than your own character as you wouldn't always be the same character.
But really, you could equally well play as lower ranks all the time and have the captain and bridge officers be NPCs - they'd be almost like quest givers in a computer game. And it removes the awkwardness of the captain ought to be giving the others orders but it seems awkward to have one player giving the others orders.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

As for what they'd bring, a few extra things for whatever job they're supposed to be doing, as Isf wrote. Sample bottles and extra tricorders if they're exploring. Ropes and other climbing gear if the location calls for it. Presents for the dignitaries if it's a diplomatic visit. Emergency rations. Etc.

I may be unusual in this, or maybe I'm not, you don't know until you ask, but I really like thinking about the practicalities and tangible things in an adventure - once I start thinking about things like that it gives me ideas. And it seems silly - always did to me with Star Trek - to set your scene among something as interesting as astronauts exploring planets and then say almost nothing about what that's like. You can't expect minute detail, especially not from a scriptwriter who themselves doesn't know that much about space expeditions or a GM ditto, but it's nice if they throw you something for your mind to get its teeth into! Especially since this is an RPG, where the players will constantly want to improvise something that wasn't part of your nice tidy plot!

People often say things like that that don't do much in game-mechanical terms can be skated over, but, for instance, if you're meant to be collecting samples, then actually adding one sample after another to your actual inventory gives a potentially dull non-combat task a sense of progress and actually doing something. (Even if the sample-collecting is in fact just the GM's way of decoying them down there so she can set a monster on them.) And it provides inspiration - once the draft of the treaty is actually a visible item in somebody's inventory, that suggests possibilities like sending a Romulan to steal it. :-)
Of course whether this applies depends whether your players have the same taste for how-is-that-done or not, but they might.


Communicators, phasers, jackets, utility belts or harnesses, a tricorder and a medkit seem like a solid starting point, though. They'll get you a long way in practical terms, and having a standard basic set of gear does take a lot of the strain out of picking gear for an away mission. And they're enough to immediately conjure up the atmosphere of Star Trek and all its atomic ancestors! The multi-tools are a sensible addition - maybe they didn't appear in (the very props-budget-limtited) Star Trek, but they're certainly something you can believe an astronaut would carry, and they allow you to at least try to do something in a hundred and one possible contingencies that you hadn't thought of.

I approve of you including the belts and jackets - practicalities again, besides providing the Enterprise/The Cage-era detail that it looks like you're after. It always strained suspension of disbelief to breaking point in TOS when a landing party beamed down to an icy planet in the same sweaters they wore on the bridge, and the ladies in their short skirts and tights. And in an RPG, where you often don't even have pictures, making the players put their characters in suitable clothing before they beam down is one way to make them notice how fierce this planet is.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

OK, so I'm on the right track, at least. I do like the idea of each player having two characters (one on the command staff, one on the Prime Team/default landing party or equivalent) - or maybe more than two, as not every away mission makes sense for every character - though if the PCs' vessel is pretty small, like the Prime Trader from GURPS Prime Directive (p141 in the 2002 version, though based on the Free Trader, pp137-141 and p162), it would make at least some sense that the top officers were going, as there often wouldn't be anyone else who could do it. At some point I might try to adapt the Free Trader/Prime Trader for this setting, but that's for later.

In general, this question is about the standard loadouts, rather than special circumstances, though some things will be very common (e.g. if you have a lot of survey or other scientific missions, which is in keeping with Trek, having at least one science officer and having more people with tricorders will be the standard for your game).

Since maybe it needs to be said, I suspect that the PC-to-NPC ratio on away missions will probably vary a fair bit from campaign to campaign. Phantasm's poor security officer is one traditional example (though to be fair, the 'redshirts die the most' meme is not as bad as usually depicted - but may be consistent with the sort of game you want to run/play), but it does depend on both how many players you have, and how big your typical landing party is. If you have three players and they're dead-set on playing the TOS tropes straight, adding three NPC security guards to the landing party is completely appropriate.




Unrelated, and posting now mainly because I'm worried that I might forget later, 1shotadventures.com has a rather interesting Star Trek adventure called Who Tracks the Steps of Glory?, which I think could be adapted to this setting. It may require replacing the Romulans with a different foe (most likely the thlIngans, if they exist and are an enemy with a neutral zone in your game), but on the other hand, some GMs might prefer the normal TOS Romulans to the more mysterious ones that have been voted in. Either way, it's worth a readthrough, unless you think someone might run that game for you.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

We did this in a non-Star Trek space navy game a few years ago. In the main phase of the campaign, each player had a mid-ranked officer as their main PC and a couple of lower-ranked supporting PCs, usually one of them a marine and the other a specialist of some kind.

This made it fairly easy to have ground parties of one or two officer PCs and several supporting PCs, and for these parties to be plausible selections for the NPC captain to have made.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

This may be the official answer, unless there's something that the group thinks I need to add or change:

Landing Party/Away Team Loadouts answer

This appears to be the consensus:

Per person:
* Environmentally appropriate uniform
* Communicator
* Multitool
* Sidearm (usually a type one or two phaser once those become common)
* Survival/utility knife (optional)
* Utility belt or harness (optional)
* Jacket (optional)

Per party:
* Tricorder or other portable scanner (one or more, often one general science and one medical)
* Medkit (one or more, usually accompanied by a medical tricorder)
* Longarm (optional, usually a type three phaser once those become common; MACOs nearly always have them on away missions)

Landing parties expected to be away from both the vessel and civilization for more than a few hours should also carry personal camping kits and supplies of food and drinking water, or at least good water filters. If taking a shuttlecraft, of course, this may not be required.


Landing parties/away teams typically consist of the following:

* One leader, usually an officer
* One or more mission specialists
* One or more medical specialists
* One or more security personnel or MACOs

(It is recommended that unless your group wishes to play the shows' tropes very straight, or you have a vessel without a lot of crewmembers, that the players each have two or more characters: one on the command crew, and the other or others on the usual landing party. Depending on the number of players you have, you may need to round out the party with a few NPCs appropriate to the mission, typically security guards or MACOs.)

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

I have a vote-question on Klingons that I was going to post on Monday (partly because I couldn't work out what needed to go in a question on tricorders), but I can declare the above to be final and post the Klingons question tonight or tomorrow if people want me to.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

First Klingons/thlIngans question

Do Klingons exist in this setting, and if so, around when are they encountered by the Solars or USA? If they do exist, what they're like and what the first contact was like will be voted on in a later question.

1. They don't exist, as their narrative role is filled by other races, like the Kaa, or possibly the Kronin if they exist (we can have a vote on the Kronin later).

2. They exist, and are encountered by the Solars during or not long before the Romulan War.

3. The USA Space Forces encountered the Klingons some time in the 2160s or '70s, before the Unification Wars.

4. The Authority met the Klingons during the Unification Wars of (mostly) the 2180s.

5. The USA met the Klingons after the Unification Wars, in the late 22nd or early 23rd century. (My preferred option.)

6. The USA first contacted the Klingons closer to the middle of the 23rd century.

7. They exist but have not yet been encountered by the United Space Authority.


Please include the number of your preferred option when you vote.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

These are my two votes, in roughly that order.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Think it would be kind of interesting if the Klingons and the USA are briefly co-belligerent against someone, and this would work very well here. Perhaps the way the Unification Wars resolved basically created a large area of tension between the Klingon Empire and the Authority.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

That would be a good reason to establish the Neutral Zone.

I'd think that entering the Neutral Zone shouldn't really be a declaration of war, but a zone where both sides can do posturing and saber-rattling without fear of a larger reprisal. Of course the Authority would be more wary of the Klinks than the Klinks would be of the Authority, but the ships and crews should be fairly evenly matched.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

That's an interesting idea. A sort of buffer zone between the two powers, though the treaty that establishes the Authority-Klingon Neutral Zone would probably be phrased rather differently.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

So far we have one vote for 5 (mine), one for '4 or 5, leaning towards 4,' and one for 4, as I read them. The vote is still open, but I'll probably close it in the next day or two, if we don't get more votes. The next question will probably be on how exactly that First Contact went.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Second Klingons/thlIngans question

Now that we know that the Klingons met the United Space Authority during the Unification Wars, how did that first contact happen?

1. Something like ENT Broken Bow (not directly connected to the war).

2. A fairly peaceful encounter that had little to do with the war, but wasn't like in ENT Broken Bow (please specify).

3. A fairly hostile encounter that had little to do with the war (please specify).

4. Some Klingons were brought in as mercenaries by the Orions or Kaa, which lead to contact between the Authority and Imperial governments.

5. The Klingons were co-belligerents against the Kaa.

6. The Klingons were co-belligerents against the Orions.

7. The Klingons were co-belligerents against the Kzin

8. Something else relating to the Unification Wars (please specify).


Please include the number of your preferred option when you vote.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

4 is my preferred answer.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

I prefer a mix of 6 & 7. 7 if there can only be one. Ideally, the Klingons would execute a most honorable surprise attack upon them, as in they declare war 10 minutes before our first wave arrives.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Well, that's better than declaring war ten minutes after the attack arrives.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Um, two votes that don't agree are not a lot. Anyone else want to weigh in? If not, I guess I could add my vote to '6 & 7.'

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

I like the mercenary angle, for #4.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

OK, it looks like #4 won, so Klingon mercenaries in the Unification Wars lead to communication between the USA and the Klingon Empire. Next question:

Third Klingons/thlIngans question

What sort of Klingons/thlIngans are Psi Trek Klingons generally more like?

1. Like TOS Klingons (basically humans with a variant culture, no more interested in melee combat than humans generally are).

2. Like Prime Directive Klingons (a multiracial empire that may include some of the other options as member or subject races).

3. Like TMP Klingons (big teeth and pronounced, rounded forehead ridges, culturally probably like TOS or MOV Klingons).

4. Like MOV Klingons (Star Trek III, V, and VI; physically and culturally between TOS and TNG+ Klingons).

5. Like TNG+ Klingons (Space Vikings, generally honourable, very fond of melee combat, wide range of forehead ridge types which probably run in families).

6. Like something else (please specify).


Please include the number of your preferred option when you vote.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Leaving aside how they look, I'd go with Space Samurai, blending the whole honor thing and imperialism, possibly even the melee weapons thing too, and pulling it back from a questionably functional society. Call it 6 (or maybe 4, depending on how you dice it).

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

6 with the physical appearance from 4, maybe?

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Physically, I'd go with 5 (but please do not go with Discovery's Klingons!), but culturally I'd look into a blend of 2, 5, and something else (6). I like the idea of Gorn, Orions, Naussicans, and even some Human colonies willingly joining the Klingon Empire. I also like the idea of "we don't have farmers who fight; we have soldiers who farm", where dying in combat is honorable, but having led a long and productive life without committing dishonorable acts is also held in high esteem. Some of the other races in the Empire may or may not hold the same ideals, but that's okay; they need someone to manage the economy and working the fields and factories while the warriors in the Imperial Defense Force protect and expand the empire. Just don't use money to bring down a Great House. ("House of Quark" is still my favorite DS9 episode... hells, my favorite TNG-DS9-Voyager era episode period!)

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

5. Like TNG+ Klingons (Space Vikings, generally honourable, very fond of melee combat, wide range of forehead ridge types which probably run in families).

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

I vote for option 5: Like TNG+ Klingons (Space Vikings, generally honourable, very fond of melee combat, wide range of forehead ridge types which probably run in families).

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Not to worry, I left Abramsdrek and STD (and STP, for that matter) off the list for a reason, since they're not so much Star Trek, as some other thing with a Star Trek skin.

That's a pretty interesting idea. I may have to have a separate cultural vote, since I phrased this question in a way that combines the physical and cultural aspects.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Tossing in my two bits. (Sorry, haven't been following the thread well.)

I don't know much about the British empire, outside of what I've read in fiction books.

But one thing that was in The Peshawar Lancers was the concept of martial races. Some cultures were judged to be innately militant, and were given preferred status (though still subordinate to the Brits).

So I can see that, over time, as the Klingons become an empire, they place themselves in the role of warrior/administrators, and push more of the mundane tasks to the bulk of their subjects. With some species being given preferential treatment and the honor of joining native-species military units. (And the vast majority of subjects being farmers, bureaucrats, etc.)

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Probably, yeah. The implied difference with Option #2 is that the other races in the Empire appear to be relatively closer to equal in PD than they seem to be in the audiovisual media, where the client/subject races are rarely seen.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

OK, the original third Klingon question doesn't work all that well due to combining appearance and culture. So, I'm splitting it in two:

Third Klingons/thlIngans question, revised; Part 1: Appearance

What sort of Klingons/thlIngans do Psi Trek Klingons (the ones the PCs are likely to encounter, anyway) most look like?

1. Like TOS Klingons (basically humans).

2. Like Prime Directive Klingons (a multiracial empire that may include some of the other options as member or subject races).

3. Like TMP Klingons (big teeth and pronounced, rounded forehead ridges).

4. Like MOV Klingons (Star Trek III, V, and VI, often shallower forehead ridges than TMP and TNG+ Klingons).

5. Like TNG+ Klingons (wide range of forehead ridge types which probably run in families).

6. Like something else (please specify).


Please include the number of your preferred option when you vote.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

6) DISCO Klingons.

Just kidding, that roughly works out to bald TNG Klingons anyway.

5) TNG Klingons

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

I'm partial to 2 (multispecies) for the Empire, 5 (TNG/DS9) for the Klingons themselves.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

A mix of 5 and 2. But senior officers are Klingon, in the USSR all Colonels and above were Russian or Ukrainian, not a written policy but that was what existed.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

5. Like TNG+ Klingons (wide range of forehead ridge types which probably run in families).

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

This is my answer as well.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Now I'm picturing Klingons with bell-bottom leisure suits, afros, and a lot of gold chains.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

That's hilarious!

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

OK, unless I've screwed up the count, the consensus is closest to '2 in general, but the Ruling or First Among Equals Klingon race (what Prime Directive calls 'Ethnic Klingons') look like 5.'

If that's acceptable, I'll call the vote and post part 2 this weekend, which is the question on culture.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Can there be Klingon hipsters who are like this?

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

The gold chains make me think of Klingons in gold-covered chainmail, which sounds awesome.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

I'll allow it, depending on the game. If the other Klingons think the ones doing it are eccentric (or nuts), it's even believable in a non-silly game. It's not difficult to believe that there could be a gold-coloured alloy that would work well as maille.

Most likely posting the next question today or tomorrow, but thought I should give people at least a few more hours to object if they're going to.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

OK, it seems that the consensus is closest to '2 in general, but the Ruling or First Among Equals Klingon race (what Prime Directive calls 'Ethnic Klingons') look like 5.' Now for part 2:

Third Klingons/thlIngans question, revised; Part 2: Culture

What culture are Psi Trek Klingons (the 'Ethnic Klingons'/'Imperial Race,' at least) most similar to?

1. Like TOS Klingons (basically a variant of 1960s Earth's Western culture, no more interested in melee combat than humans generally are).

2. Like Phantasm's idea in post #355 and Pragmatic's idea in post #359.

3. Like MOV Klingons (culturally between TOS and TNG+ Klingons).

4. Like TNG+ Klingons (Space Vikings, generally honourable, very fond of melee combat).

5. Like Space Samurai (different sort of honour than Space Vikings, still fond of melee; see GURPS Japan & related sources for ideas)

6. Like something else (please specify).


Please include the number of your preferred option when you vote.


EDIT: #2 wins.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

I pick number five

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

2. I'd like a Klingon Empire that is a worthy opponent that has some admirable qualities.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Option #2 sounds the most interesting.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

#2 just works best if we're trying to nail things down and make them consistent.

Failing that, I'm partial to #4.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

5. Like Space Samurai (different sort of honour than Space Vikings, still fond of melee; see GURPS Japan & related sources for ideas)

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

1. Like TOS Klingons. I like that "in a completely different society, they could be us" note.

(Thinking about it, it's an odd thing that in the later series the Klingons' and Romulans' positions are reversed compared to what they were in TOS - all the TOS appearances of Klingons happen to be about sneaky spying, whereas the Romulans are always seen fighting for death or glory in the name of the Empire.)

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Vote remains open until the 13th, I guess. The current result stands at three votes for 2, two votes for 5, and one vote for 1, so if you haven't voted yet and want something other than 2 to win, you probably should.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

I've avoided voting because clearly my vote will be for 2...

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

OK, the vote is closed and #2 has won. I'm blanking on what the next worldbuilding question should be, and am open to suggestions. Any ideas?

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Vote to determine a new worldbuilding question, I

What race should the next worldbuilding question or set of questions be about, and what should the first question be?

Note that some of the races listed below might not exist. If they haven't been part of an official answer yet, one of the voting options if that race wins this question should probably be 'they don't exist,' unless the option wins overwhelmingly (like, if there are five votes for the Kronin and four for other races, that's not overwhelming, so 'they don't exist in this setting' should be an option, but if there are five votes for the Kronin and only one or two for anyone else, that is overwhelming).

1. Caitian races other than the Kzin

2. Tholians

3. Kronin

4. Kaa

5. Orions

6. Betazoids

7. Cidi

8. Deltans

9. Gormelites

10. Another race or set of related/connected races, or some other worldbuilding question (please specify).


Please include the number of your preferred option when you vote, as well as a suggestion for the first question about that race or races.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

7. Cidi

What was the first encounter with this race (in terms of peaceful, how long ago, etc.)

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

OK, the previous mentions
1. Caitian races other than the Kzin
"Their ancestors were one of several groups taken from the planet Cait by the Preservers (who had settled the Caitians' ancestors on Cait millennia earlier), during the Caitians only full nuclear conflict."

4. Kaa
Scuffles in the 22nd century (too short for the search tool)

5. Orions
Scuffles in the 22nd centuty

6. Betazoids
Apparently exist, part of USA

7. Cidi
Kaa Mercenaries

9. Gormelites
Used as soldier-slaves at some point.

2. Tholians
Nada

3. Kronin
Nada

8. Deltans
Nada

---

I'll vote for 10: Do extremely similar looking species to Humans exist (i.e. Deltans, Betazoids), and if so, are there meaningful physiological differences, or are they just Humans who call themselves something else?

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

2. Tholians


How varied are they physically and mentally from one another?

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

First vote is for 7) The Cidi. They're a fun little race. Exploring their political sphere would be interesting

As a backup, 1) The Caitian races

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

My favorite Star Trek race is the Trill. I just like the concept of a symbiont that provides continuity of experience.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Well, if I run out of ideas again, I can probably come back to this question a few times. Poll remains open for another day or two, I think. So far it looks like the Cidi are winning, though with two different questions (I can just use one and then the other), but that could change if more people want to speak up.

EDIT: OK, looking at Vikingv's post again, I'd say that I've got three questions on the Cidi, two from Vikingv and one from ericthered. Apparently the Norsemen (well, those named for them) are curious about the little folk that you shouldn't call cute.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Cidi first contact, question 1

When did the Solar Cooperative or United Space Authority first encounter the Cidi?

1. Quite early on, around the 2120s to 2140s.

2. Circa the 2150s, possibly during the Romulan War.

3. In the 2160s.

4. In the 2170s, before the Unification Wars.

5. Not until the Unification Wars began (which narrows the question of how that contact went).


Please include the number of your preferred option when you vote, and the date if there's an exact year you find appropriate.


I'm currently thinking that they first met Cidi in roughly human-scale (SM+0, or at least, somewhere between SM-1 and SM+1) encounter-mechs, and thought that they were either an AI race or a vaguely normal sized organic race that breathed a different atmosphere, only discovering what the Cidi really looked like later on. Does this look like a good idea? Please answer either YES in all-caps or NO in all-caps.

Answer: The Cidi were first encountered by the Solar Cooperative in the 2150s, specifically *rolls 2d-2* 2158, so part-way through the Romulan War. Since YES clearly won, they were met while they were using their encounter mechs, and their true form was only discovered later.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

3. Lets make them early, but not so early that they become too important


YES. Bonus points for SM+1 mechs, for full irony

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

3/4 and YES, but with the rider that small items are stolen and nobody figures out how.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

2. Circa the 2150s, possibly during the Romulan War

NO, let the Cidi encounter be without mechs

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

2. Circa the 2150s, possibly during the Romulan War.

YES

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

OK, so far we have two votes for 2 and two votes from three (one of which is also for 4). If there are no new votes in the next day or two I'll use my tie-breaker.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

OK, I'm breaking the tie: The Cidi were first encountered by the Solar Cooperative in the 2150s, specifically *rolls 2d-2* 2158, so part-way through the Romulan War. Since YES clearly won, they were met while they were using their encounter mechs, and their true form was only discovered later.



Cidi first contact, question 2

How did first contact with the Cidi go?

1. Fairly violently.

2. Tense, but peacefully.

3. Calm and friendly.

4. It was rather businesslike.

5. Something I haven't considered.


Please include the number of your preferred option when you vote, as well as a more detailed suggestion of how you think it went.


The consensus appears to be 2, tense, but peacefully, with a suggestion that the Cidi's true form was not known until after the war, and that the Cidi seemed paranoid about it to telepths.

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

2. Tense, but peacefully

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

Either one or two. Lets get some adventure and misunderstanding in the past!

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

I was hoping for than two votes, and was also hoping for more detailed ideas on how it went (sure, I can come up with my own, and may have to, but if you have a suggestion, please share it).

Re: [Psionics] [Space] Psi Trek - Worldbuilding
 

We had the forum go down and eat sone posts. Some one (I dont remember who sorry) Voted 2 and suggested that the suits weren't opened until after the war, with telepaths picking up unexplained paranoia about it.