"Star Wars vs. Star Trek: which is 'better' for gaming?" Topic

[not trying to start an agitated flame war, so take a deep breath and relax if you're deeply emotionally invested in either story…]

Pretend you've some friends who've never really gotten into sci-fi gaming, but now say they're interested in trying one OR the other (limited time, energy, etc). Which way would you take them first, and why?

Note, the question's really about gaming, not the disctinctives of the two stories themselves. I'm wondering what we think of the quality and interest of the IP to provide inspirational and interesting war stories, the quality of the battle sequences in the movies / TV series, how much fun they might be / are to play on the table, the variety and quality of the rule sets out there, ditto the miniatures, the price tag overall, how complicated it'd be to introduce people to it, the amount of TV series, books, etc that are avialable to 'inspire' the players to stay focused, etc etc etc.

I don't have an answer myself, but I'm thinking about it. Overall, I've always been more a Star Wars fan, altho I saw both the original TV series and Star Wars on release date. I think the fabulous special effects, mythical storyline and charm of Star Wars has edged out the more 'realistic' setting of the United federation of Planets in the future of Earth. Also, the TV series while it had lots of great stories had (let's face it) pretty lame special effects.

Note that anything we might like personally could be a dislike to others, so there's no clear cut answer.

I would go with Trek for gaming – at least for wargaming. You have a lot more possible opponents: Federation, Klingons, Romulans, Gorn, etc…

I'd go for Star Wars – you have space and ground based battles, not just little skirmishes or 'away day' parties. Both have lots of scope for factions and races. Ship battles are better in Star Wars with more scope – fighters, planet sized battlestations etc. Also, on a personal note, I found Star Trek to be very boring and the whole Federation thing to be pretty lame.

Spaceship combat Star Trek

Sci-Fi Skirmish Star Wars.

Starship combat goes to Star Trek by a long shot- more evenly matched factions, more differences between the factions, more interesting space combat paradigm.

For ground combat Star Wars obviously has a major edge though.

-Will

In terms of ships:
Star Trek would give better ship-to-ship duels (thinking SFB).
Star Wars would give better fleet actions.

Ground combat:
Both would be great for skirmish scenarios.
Star Wars would be better for larger scaled conflict.

Ship Combat:

Star Trek for sure. Tremendous variety of ships, races, eras, technologies (Phasers, Disruptors, Polaron Beams, Photon Torpedoes, Plasma Torpedoes, Cloaks, Tractors, Shields, etc.

Where Star Trek sort of falls apart is ground combat.

Ground Combat Star Wars FTW easily.

It depends on what you want to game. If you are doing big fleet battles then Trek all the way. If you want fighter combat than Wars wins out.

If you want big battles of troops than Wars wins but if you want small skirmish action I would go with Trek. I would use Hoth as a basis for big battles. The "away team" idea is perfect to limit the numbers in a skirmish game a little too perfectly. I would look for a shuttle and a handful of troops.

If your group is more into the role play part of it I would lean towards Wars for that – I just think the space romance is richer.

If you go by the tv/movies alone…
Star Wars hands down.
I always thought ST was kinda dull, in the ACTION department. Neat show, and I still watch them, but… They are dramas, not action movies/tv.

Now if you include the added stuff from already published games, then ST holds up better than SW in the space combat arena.

As for ground wars, SW is still more fun. ST just kinda stinks if you wear a red shirt…

Depends on the audience, one of the few wargames I've ever got my wife to play was ST role playing, but she is a big fan of ST classic.

The only sci-fi games I've played with my regular gaming group (minor diversions into Command Horizon aside) though are SW – planet side stuff.

Everyone, of a certain age, likes SW.

richard, Watch Deep Space 9/Dominion War episodes.

Particularly "Sacrifice of Angels" Episode. Massive Fleet Battles With Federation/Klingon/Cardassian/Jem'Hedar/Breen/Romulan factions.

I always thought that Star Trek would be interesting for ground combat…. the ability to generally bombard any troop concentrations from orbit makes massed combat and a lot of AFVs impractical in the grand scheme I think, but sticking things like replicators on the equivalent of a field a kitchen and you'd have a pretty self-sufficient means of keeping a platoon to company level force in the field. Plus, being able to bring reinforcements, beam them down quickly and then run off for more, or provide them orbital artillery support makes the overall tactical situation full of interesting possibilities…

"Also, on a personal note, I found Star Trek to be very boring and the whole Federation thing to be pretty lame."

I hate to say it, but I agree with this statement… the Federation is WAY too idealistic, but it's a nice stray away from "In the dark future…." or the whole Utopian society-thats-really-a-police-state bit.

Do have a strong preference on Star Wars though due to the love of ground combat and with Star Wars providing perfect RPG and Wargaming material, though a severe lack of good figures…. Wish someone would get the rights and start pumping out multi-part plastic kits. Who doesn't want say….20 Battledroids at around $25 – $30 with options for snipers, jet packs, missile launchers and more at 28mm scale? Plus….oh god, the conversion possibilities! :)

Well, I always think of Star Wars as WWII aircraft carriers with fighters and also big guns..

Star Trek is more like WWI Battleship duels.

So in my opinion both can be fun, but they are different games.

Star Trek has more "sides" to choose from.

There are a lot of different rules out there that can be used for either genre..

Tie fighters vs X wings any day. Ground combat Hoth baby rules! Star Trek, William Shatner is so over rated he invented the cell phone but nothing else of value from the entire series.

VR
James Mattes

Chuck 'em both and go with Babylon 5.

:^D

I couldn't even get through Bab5. I was ambivilent about it but watching, and then I hit this one episode where Fiddler on the Roof met Rocky, and the mindless stereotypes just broke my will. I thought some of the acting was quite good, and the ship combat lots of fun, but even I have annoyance limits with sci-fi.

I've never watched any of the 'new' Star Trek TV series (as in everything after the original). Obviously, I'm missing out on something as Picard has been reported as a fabulous captain (forgot the actor's name). But there's New Generation, Deep Space 9…more? I've been told many times I should watch the movie with the Borgs for fleet battles.

Star Wars has a lot of killer movies with fleet battles. Their tech is a bit over the top, but they are in a galaxy far, far away, and it's quite possible that they will experience braoder limits in their physics than we, altho the Force is a bit of a monkey wrench for both gaming and skirmishes. SW also has loads of dirt cheap figures from Wizards of the Coast, and quite frankly I think the WoC mini game is barrels of fun as it is. However, one can always use the figs for any set of rules.

Interestingly, there's posts where a fleet battle is best for Trek or best for Wars. Does that have to do with rules/models or something?

Neither.

Use the Mirror Universe Trek With the Star Wars figures/skirmish rules and you've got a interesting campaign with the Klingons and the Orions as the good guys.
Throw in a Ringworld for all the races to fight over. Replace the Force with a better Psionic system, have LightSabers as precursor race artifacts only, improve Imperial Stormtrooper training and equipment. Use vehicles and infantry from Renegade Legion and have at it.

I agree with the (mostly) general idea that Star Trek is better for spaceship battles

On the ground, I always thought Star Trek was a bit lame, even when I was a kid – Star Wars seems much more robust for ground battles

Star Wars. The transporter allows too easy an out for a losing side. Also, why Trek captains transport some transuranic element into an enemy ships bulkhead?

Star Wars for fighter level space combat.

Star Wars for actions involving task forces with smaller numbers of capital ships and emphasis on fighters.

Star Trek for larger fleet actions, and individual ship duels.

Star Wars on the ground.

"Star Wars for fighter level space combat.

Star Wars for actions involving task forces with smaller numbers of capital ships and emphasis on fighters.

Star Trek for larger fleet actions, and individual ship duels.

Star Wars on the ground"

This.

:)

I'll agree with TheDreadnought and 28mmMan that Star Wars is superior for most gaming, however I'll contend that Star Wars is the equal to Star Trek for both "larger fleet actions" and "individual ship duels." Rules supporting Star Trek have emphasized these types of battles, but I see no reason Star Wars is inferior. Throw a quality set of rules at Star Wars capital ships, and it plays like the generally better Star Trek capital ship rule sets.

It is more of a challenge to model the vastly different sizes of ships for Star Wars when compared to the more manageable scaling issues presented by Star Trek. Players have expectations of a Star Wars game that Star Trek GM's don't have to contend with. However, if you can meet the modeling challenge, you can achieve a visual with Star Wars fleet battles that is hard to match.

My gut instinct was to say Star Wars for everything but I grew up with Star Trek and I do appreciate the ships.

That is why I conceded the capital ships for Trek.

I could go either way on the fleet games but Trek does deserve a nod.

I would go Star Wars all the way any day of the week. The aesthetics of the Star Trek leave me cold, and I find most of the factions quite uninspired. Star Wars, on the other hand, has a more rough-edged feel to me, and the overarching conflicts are much more iconic to me than the paltry border wars that seem to dominate the ST universe.

I do love watching TNG now and again, but that is for the characters and story, not for gaming potential.

What about the book series? I've read 4 or so of the X-wing books, and they were OK. Not great literature but gripping enough, and they fleshed out a bit of the universe.

The Star Trek books I just know are out there, but something in my mind makes me think that they are probably better as books than Star Wars. Or maybe it's just that some of the things George Lucas has written make me laugh.

There's still a movie Theater in Arlington VA that won't want me to return – I got teh uncontrollable guffaws during the love scenes of episode II (using the force to peel a peach?? Gamboling around the hills like the Soundo of Music?? C'mon George!!!). You know how it is, the harder you try to suppress them the worse they get. I was crying and had stomach cramps from trying to stop. Episode III made up for it a bit, howecver.

Star Wars since it has more miniatures.

Star Trek, because Star Wars has yet to have a decent ship-to-ship game. Trek is just better served there, with THREE rulesets currently in-print, another on the way, and FASA's old game (that's FIVE). How many has Star Wars had? 1 really, really bad one (the WotC collectible game). That's not to say another ruleset can be adapted, but the same can be said about Trek…

That being said, as a fan of BOTH series, they offer a different "feel." A ship-to-ship SW game will feel completely different than a Trek one, and should.

Damon.

The way it is for me for Ground combat it has to be Star Wars,and I should know with playing some BIG Star Wars land games.

But for Space Combat it has to be Star Trek all the way I also like the wide selection of ships in Star Trek as to Star Wars.

In addition you have a decent number of Star Trek rules out there.

Captain Gideon

For starship combat, I think that it comes down to the difference in flavors. In my mind, Star Wars has always been akin to the battles of Leyte Gulf or Guadalcanal, with frantic fighter-oriented combat, ships in action at fairly close range, and chaos everywhere.

On th other hand, Star Trek (other than the Dominion War episodes of DS9 that treated all starships like giant fighters) strikes me as being more like Jutland or Hunt for Red October, with more stately, long-range ship-to-ship combat.

Those are just my opinions, of course, but I think comparing, say, Return of the Jedi to Wrath of Khan, you can see what I'm getting at.

If I had a choice it would be Babylon Five hands down. The Clone Wars offer a decent variety of actions compared to the Rebellion. I simply don't see much scope for fleet combat in that era. The Empire could wipe them up at almost any point if they wanted.

Trek has limitations. however, the Dominion War presents a very large variety of combatants and ships for battle.

Personally, I do Bab5, Battlestar Galactica, Trek TOS and the Dominion War.

Thanks,

John

I must be one of the only Sci fi fans who can't stand either of them ^^

Babylon 5 beats both because it's got both the strategic/political dimension and the military dimension down pat. But since you're comparing ST to SW…

I'd take Star Wars on the combat. Star Trek's idea of combat has usually been guys in red pajamas hitting each other with ray guns. Very little in the way of interesting weaponry, equipment or tactics. Space combat consists of big cruiser-sized ships slugging it out-- and despite all the maneuvering and drama, the shields/phasers seem to at least VISUALLY employ few tactics other than ablatively wearing each other down. Transporters are great as a plot device, but make combat much less interesting IMO (as used in the source material).

Meanwhile, star wars space combat is complicated and at times far-fetched, but still far more rich tactically. Fighters, capital ships, with differing roles for each. On the ground, jedi aside, you have vast armies with diverse equipment doing interesting things that LOOK like combat.

On the other hand, the plots and politics that frame a campaign are very different. Without the expanded universe, there's really only one war to be fought per era, though a rich series of potential settings and contexts for those fights. With the expanded universe, the setting is childish and simplistic.

Star Trek, meanwhile, delivers on "geo"political complexity, differing factions with different goals and well-fleshed out political constraints. Wonderful setting for framing your campaign. (Though replicators and time travel kind of ruin the verisimilitude of the setting because the economics are dull and stupid.)

Like I said, I like B5 the best. It seems to have Trek's cultural/political sophistication, and then some, plus Star Wars's military sophistication. And minus replicators, transporters and (mostly) time travel.

One thing we're forgetting is the music for Star Wars. Even my wife immediately recognizes George William's amazing work. While I have fond memories of some of the Trek music, it's nothing as forceful and recognizable.

I was actually mainly interested in the ship combat, but the interesting comments about land war have been enjoyable. I agree that in terms of the shows I know, Star Wars has a lot more to offer.

I'm uncertain what tactics there are in deep space, Wellspring. Like the open ocean, there's not alot around.

However, my thought is that most battles would be fought at least somewhat near something that might qualify as "terrain", since they would usually provide the reason to be fighting in a particular place at a particular time. Deos that mean one can use this terrain in the actual game? I guess that's up to the game to decide.

Battlefleet Gothic did, and it certainly added an interesting dimension, as could playing even just 2-3 ships on a side. I would guess that most of the tactical art is very similar to wet navy – the approach and initial formation will probably determine a lot of what is giong to happen.

Star Wars everytime for ground battles, I've had loads of skirmish games with assorted rebels (aliens and humans) vs stromtroopers and battle droids.

Pretend you've some friends who've never really gotten into sci-fi gaming, but now say they're interested in trying one OR the other (limited time, energy, etc). Which way would you take them first, and why?

Let's for the moment assume we're only talking about the well-known stuff – all six Star Wars films (and let's be generous and include the Clone Wars CGI series), and the Star Trek television series and movies.

Given that, I'd go with Star Wars for everything except possibly an SF RPG game. Unless someone wants to specifically play "Kirk blowing up Klingons", Star Trek simply doesn't have the visual spectacle in its combat scenes that make me think "I want to do that in a game". You get a wall of ships flying at another wall, and some of them randomly blow up, or two ships sitting nearly motionless plinking at one another.

Wellspring, transporters might actually make Star Trek combat more interesting, if they were ever used as anything except technobabbly boarding planks. Most of the interesting aspects of Star Trek technology affecting combat have been from fans saying "well, in this situation, the Federation/Klingons/Borg/whatever could do this", when it's clear that no-one in canon ever has.

Both are silly, but I think Star Trek is the sillier for trying to techno-babble its way through explanations that make no sense.

None of the weapons in Star Trek make much sense.

At least Star Wars has the balls to just say "This is how it is."

And the ships in Star Wars are more plausible in their design (Star Trek ships are too fragile in their design).

It always bothered me that Star Trek put so little thought into their Ground Combat considering their claims to technology.

They should have been able to design real Super-Soldiers even more dangerous than the SW Stormtroopers (which were also disappointing, considering).

None of the weapons in Star Trek make much sense.

(cough) Light sabres (cough)…

It always bothered me that Star Trek put so little thought into their Ground Combat considering their claims to technology.

As was said elswhere, when you can bombard people as effectively as they can in Trek from orbit, mass battles on planets are pointless. Low Intensity conflicts were always the way these things were presented throughout Trek in its various incarnations, (as I recall – haven't watched every one of every episode of the likes of Voyager, mind you…).

For fleet ship stuff, I agree with a number of posters: Trek (or B5 !).

For ground wars in jungles with teddy bears or on ice planets with big mechanoid camels… well it has to be Star Wars every time

John T

well, both stories have their implausibilities, and Lucas asks us to believe some pretty unbeleivable stuff (ewoks beating trained, armored troops with firepower). Visually, the SW space battles are a feast for the eye. I have never seen any of the new Trek TV series. However, I did see the new Trek movie, and it certainly rivalled Star Wars for its personal and ship effects.

Given the Trek claims RE: the power and accuracy of their ships, there doesn't seem like a huge need for ground fighting. However, I also find it unlikely that they wouldn't have highly trained teams of marines. If you can be beamed around easily, it seems like that's a big shot in the arm for the precision strike.

Star Wars all the way, I like my ships bristling with guns, the empire kicks the federations ass, and the back story is better.

In reading a Trek book, one thing that I noted and remember from most of the TV shows and series, is that generally speaking, the ship fights are between just a few vessels. In Star WArs, there are not only plenty of squadron / fleet actions, but they seem to be pretty commonplace in the fluff, books, background, as well as some whopping good scenes in the second trilogy, and a few OK ones in Episode VI.

While I don't know the Starfleet Battles system, I will accept that there's 5 sets of Trek ship rules and no doubt a few are good as witnessed by their popularity and longevity.

Star Wars has a fast-play set from WoTC that isn't great, altho the models and cards are nice. HOwever, it should be noted that the RPG has extensive, detailed rules for ship actions. I'm unfamiliar with them, but I have their RPGd20 ship book which I was planning to flesh out into a game.

I agree that Star Wars wins hands down with land combat, as demonstrated often in the films and books.

Thanks to all for their thoughts, has been very instructive.

These discussions always make me think of this site : link

That said I'm a big SW fan and much prefer that universe for all the above situations. You do have to use alternative rules for SW. Maybe the old Star Warriors for fighter combat. I have played a fleet actions with a varient of the Babylon 5: A Call to Arms rules that worked quite well.

Jason
Stafford, VA

Both!

You know you want to……

A buddy of mine is running two space combat games, one SW and one ST, with the same rules…Full Thrust…next month at a small convention. I will ask him which works better and report here.

X wings verses Shuttlecraft, really which is more interesting? I will give you Star Trek invented the cell phone. Kirk outlived his usefulness in the movies. Star Wars is timeless, it did happen a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. Star Wars is about combat, Star Trek is about social issues. Which do you care more about in seeing a movie?

VR
James Mattes

And opening scenes Star Trek has a space ship flying over a beach ball. Star Wars a ship flying into space and then a huge ship flies in over the entire screen.

VR
James Mattes