Player's and Narrator's Guides Core Rules: What's broken?

Cross-posted to both trek-rpg.net and Decipher's forums.

Hey, this sort of thing worked for Ineti over on the Decipher LOTR forum, I figured maybe I'd try it, too.

In your opinion, what's broken in the ST:RPG Player's Guide and Narrator's Guide in terms of the core rules. I'm looking specifically for mechanical problems; as some of you can see from the PG Errata thread I've got going, I'm tyring to catch a lot of the typos and spelling errors, things like that. I've also got a lot of the nitnoy errata (Traits that don't actually exist appearing in development packages, that sort of thing) submitted to Decipher for approval before I post it.

So most of that stuff I think I'm getting covered. I'm specifically looking for broken rules. Is there a problem in combat of any sort? Do the skill rules not quite work the way they should? That sort of thing. (Specific book and page references would be exceptionally helpful in this.)

This is an open dialog, so feel free to pipe in. I only ask that you keep it civil.

The only thing (right now anyway :D) I'd like to see changed are the "guidelines" for Starfleet enlisted personnel. IIRC, the text box on page 65 of the PG basically states "Take 15 skill picks and assign 5 more among Science, Engineering and System Ops", which roughly equates to selecting a professional development package, but with 5 less skill picks and no edge. Huh? Are they less "skilled" than a beginning soldier or rogue?

I gather that they are supposed to have the Starship Officer profession only (without being able to take "Starship Duty"?), then make their picks described above (prof dev). If they improve over their careers I suppose they'll eventually meet the prerequisites for the elite professions. Maybe not.

I'm not really sure. Which I suppose is why I don't like the way it's described in the PG. Maybe I'm just clueless (wouldn't be the first or last time :D), but I somehow think that enlisted personnel are getting short-shrift.

LQ

P.S. Accepting any issues with the Starfleet Operations Manual game mechanic stuff at this time? Like professional abilities that simulate edges costing 3 picks? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liquidator Queeg

P.S. Accepting any issues with the Starfleet Operations Manual game mechanic stuff at this time? Like professional abilities that simulate edges costing 3 picks? :)

---

Absolutely; send them to the address in my sig. It'll be a little while before I can get around to dealing with them, but it'll be good to have that sort of thing on file.

I'd definitely recommend looking at the following post from Rannd regarding the movement rules.

http://forum.trek-rpg.net/showthread.php?t=11884

Excellent stuff; will definitely have to look that one over when the time comes. Thanks for the pointer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liquidator Queeg

The only thing (right now anyway :D) I'd like to see changed are the "guidelines" for Starfleet enlisted personnel. IIRC, the text box on page 65 of the PG basically states "Take 15 skill picks and assign 5 more among Science, Engineering and System Ops", which roughly equates to selecting a professional development package, but with 5 less skill picks and no edge. Huh? Are they less "skilled" than a beginning soldier or rogue?

---

Not to hijack the thread, but I did an article on this sort of thing for BTFF. Can't rmember the issue right off the top of my head, though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Burke

Not to hijack the thread, but I did an article on this sort of thing for BTFF. Can't rmember the issue right off the top of my head, though...

---

I think that's in issue 2, Doug. And since I don't know that there's much to be done about it in the core rules without a new edition of the game, that might be the best way to go about it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PGoodman13

I think that's in issue 2, Doug. And since I don't know that there's much to be done about it in the core rules without a new edition of the game, that might be the best way to go about it anyway.

---

It is in #2. I checked... ;)

System Operations should be a Skill Group, not a skill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GandalfOfBorg

System Operations should be a Skill Group, not a skill.

---

I disagree, GoB. In TOS, we had Uhura take the Helm occasionally, and we saw Troi and others take the Conn or man sensors as needed. Yes, there are some that don't seem to fit this model (Medical, anyone?), but in general, it better models what was seen on screen, IMO.

Not to mention the difference in skill picks it when converting someone with System Operations (Flight Control, Sensors, Tactical) +3 to Three individual skills at that level (for the record, if a professional skill, it would be 4 additional picks, almost a full advancement, if a nonprofessional skill, you'r looking at double that).

But then you come to the fact that the System Operations is probably one of the most oft used skills, there are a ton of traits and abilities that give gobs of bonuses to their tests that are a more efficient use of Advancement Picks than buying ranks in the skill, etc.

Maybe a larger divisions are needed for it similar to Engineering then so that someone in Ops isn't as proficient with the Tactical systems as a Security/Tactical officer or at piloting a starship as a Helmsman beyond missing a mere specialty providing only a +2 bonus.

EDIT: ---------------------------------------------
Something like this:

Sys Op: Command (Command, Helm)
Sys Op: Tactical (Tactical/Security, Beam Weapons, Missile Weapons, Shields, Cloaking Device, Tractor Beam, any other weapon or defensive measure)
Sys Op: Operations (Environmental, Transporters, Sensors, Deflector, everything else)

I'm not pleased, how martial arts and specific combat actions (like cover fire, ...) are handeled in the CODA system. I know it is in not in the PG or NG, but it must be mentioned.

Martial arts are represented as edges that can be taken during advancement (see starfleet operation manual). It's a nice system but it has its problems, certainly in a great universe like star trek. What I mean is, that there are a million possible martial arts out there. And each of these martial arts are based on the use of the following basic combat maneuvers: Attack, Block, Trip, Grab, Feint, and disarm. So instead of constructing millions of edges covering all martial arts of every possible species, they should expand the combat rules (see combat manuevers above) and create a universal Martial Arts system based on the skill, and that has only 2 possible edges: Martial Arts (expanded to work with weapons also), and Black belt. The Black belt edge (prerequisites: Martial artist, Martial Arts skill rank of 6) offers a number advantages (increase damage, better block ,better grab,...) from who you can choose every time you take it, and you must take it every times you want to raise your MA skill by 3 ranks (past 6: see prerequisites) (so when you reach 12th level you must have taken it at least 3 times). I'm working on this sort of system for my gaming group. I will post it on the boards soon (i've got not much time: my first child just got born), but for now every comment is welcome.

Ranged combat is flawed also: no burst-, auto-fire, cover fire (unless you take the edge)

Starship combat is fine, but if I remember correctly one of you guys said (a long time ago) he created a star ship combat system based on the rules of silent dead. It would be nice to see it posted here, because I think a lot of people wil like this sort of star ship combat a lot (I'ts more visual).

That's a little beyond the scope of what I'm trying to accomplish right now. I'm not 100% behind how unarmed combat is handled in the SOM, either, but I'm not out to completely rewrite the combat system for the game. I think you've got some dandy house rules, but I don't think they fit in well with the feel of the universe or of the game.

Thanks for taking the time to post.

I'm not talking of rewriting the combat system, but to add some new combat maneuvers and expand some other combat maneuvers, so that you can create an
an intresting combination. Much of what I say can be acheived by indroducing benefits for every combat move when you acheive an extra-ordinary suucess .

Example:
Block:
Success = you blocked the weapon.
Extra-ordinary succes = You get an extra free action directly after the block. This action can be used for the following maneuvers: attack, Trip, disarm, grab, and nerve pinch (-5 mod).

Unarmed vs Armed:
Success = You have blocked the weapon but you suffer the weapons minimum damage (1 on all D6 + Str mod).
Extra-ordinary succes = Extra free action (see above) + you suffer no weapon damage.

Armed vs Unarmed:
Success = You have blocked the unarmed attack + the attacker suffer your weapons minimum damage (1 on all D6 + Str mod).
Extra-ordinary succes = Extra free action (see above) + the attacker suffer your weapon damage.

Black Belt Edge (not completely finished):
You are a tru master in your MA.
Prerequisites: Martial artist, MA skill 6 ranks
Benefit: When you gain this edge choose one of the following benefits.
Attack = +2 damage on your attacks
Block = choose one combat maneuver. You can perform that maneuver as a free action after a succesfull block (normal : You need to achieve an extra-ordinary succes to achieve this)
Trip = When you successfolly trip your opponent, he also suffers your unarmed damage (normal : You need to achieve an extra-ordinary succes to achieve this) .
Weapon = You have integrated a weapon in your unarmed martial arts. When choosing this benefit select one weapon, you can use your MA skill when using that weapon.
Grab = ?? (not finised yet)

It is not much but more is comming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IKI

I'm not talking of rewriting the combat system. ...

---

Whether you realize it or not, you really are. What you're proposing is significantly beyond the purview of what I'll probably be able to do with the reissue of the PG and the NG. Besides, by your own admission, this doesn't have anything to do with the PG or the NG.

This thread was set up specifically to try and fix those two books. Later on, I'll be asking questions about the other books as well, but for right now, I'm trying to stay focused on those two particular books.

Quote:

---

It is not much but more is comming.

---

That's cool, but I would ask you to start your own thread on this topic, please.