I saw this at RPG.net today, and thought I'd post a link to it.
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_7079.html
Printable View
I saw this at RPG.net today, and thought I'd post a link to it.
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_7079.html
I won't even pretend to understand where the reviewer gets his notion that starting characters can't possibly match up to the series regulars. All one would have to do is give the character a lot of advancements. I wouldn't personally want to do that, but nothing about it breaks the system.Quote:
Originally posted by Caretaker
I saw this at RPG.net today, and thought I'd post a link to it.
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_7079.html
Also, while the PG does have its editing flaws, so far I have found none that prevents me from understanding what's going on.
That one stumped me too. Is the expectation that you create a starting character that is on par with...Janeway, for example?Quote:
Originally posted by Erik Filean
I won't even pretend to understand where the reviewer gets his notion that starting characters can't possibly match up to the series regulars. All one would have to do is give the character a lot of advancements. I wouldn't personally want to do that, but nothing about it breaks the system.
As a note, the first iteration I did of Ens. Kim for the NG had him with one advancement. I was quite pleased with that. TPTB decided to put on a few more to reflect him in "mid-season."
So I'd have to say you can model the series characters if they're of an experience level (ala Kim, Bashir, or Chekov) that mimics a character coming straight out of Starfleet.
Still, an even-handed review in my opinion.
That fix is already mentioned in both the body of the review and in the forums below it. If I get a chance to run again, I'll be making sure starting PCs have between 5-10 Advancements and the "Captain" around 15-20. I haven't really decided.Quote:
Originally posted by Erik Filean
I won't even pretend to understand where the reviewer gets his notion that starting characters can't possibly match up to the series regulars. All one would have to do is give the character a lot of advancements. I wouldn't personally want to do that, but nothing about it breaks the system.
I was worried that I was judging that too harshly, myself, so I loaned the PG to a guy in my group who wasn't there for character generation night, so he could work through it on his own. He came up with the exact same problems the rest of us did, working in a vacuum, which convinced me that it was something valid to discuss in the review.Quote:
Also, while the PG does have its editing flaws, so far I have found none that prevents me from understanding what's going on.
If you haven't run into these problems, feel free to post a dissenting opinion on the RPG.net review forum (it doesn't require registration) -- I'd prefer anyone reading the review be able to hear all sides of the issues, since I'm not out to slam the game -- I did say it was the best Trek yet, and I didn't mean that to be damning it with faint praise.
--Eric
I too thought that it was a good review. Then again, I could be predjudiced because I know the guy. Eric had the misfortune of having me as a GM in LUGTrek until I moved back to DC.
He and I talk often about what games we've played and I've found his views to be unbiased and analytical. I don't always agree with his views but I always found them to be well thought out.
Thank you, Dave, that's mighty nice of you to say. I'll refrain from talking about what a great GM you are so as to avoid this turning into a love-fest.Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Biggins
I too thought that it was a good review. Then again, I could be predjudiced because I know the guy. Eric had the misfortune of having me as a GM in LUGTrek until I moved back to DC.
He and I talk often about what games we've played and I've found his views to be unbiased and analytical. I don't always agree with his views but I always found them to be well thought out.
--Eric
Eric, I don't know if this will help you, but after having a couple of headaches of my own regarding character creation, I sat down and made a clearer, more concise summary of the process that has served me and my group well. You can find it on my woefully out-of-date home page, which I really need to clean up and update one of these days.
It might just be closing the door after the horses have run off, but it can't hurt.
There was a pdf posted here a while back that helped out a ton. Anyone know where it is?
It might be on my web site, mentioned above, but I'm not sure if that's the PDF of which you speak.
Actually, I quite like that sheet, and will use it if we do character generation again. I was aware of it before we played, but I try not to bring anything "out of the book" into the review (mainly because I don't want a fan-product that's /bad/ souring the game session for a good game.)Quote:
Originally posted by PGoodman13
Eric, I don't know if this will help you, but after having a couple of headaches of my own regarding character creation, I sat down and made a clearer, more concise summary of the process that has served me and my group well. You can find it on my woefully out-of-date home page, which I really need to clean up and update one of these days.
It might just be closing the door after the horses have run off, but it can't hurt.
Still, I like it very much, thanks.
-Eric
About characters being oddly ineffective:
Funny that ... instead of converting our characters from ICON to CODA with Don's rules, I decided to build them from the start, with a few advancements to account for the fact that they've been through a few scenarii already. I can't quite remember how many they had ... less than 10 in any case.
The first thing they said when reviewing their new sheets was: "Hey, looks like we're a bit less incompetent than we used to be with ICON!". To which I replied: "Frankly, I can't say ... let's wait till we have played the game a little, shall we?".
After the scenario, the general agreement was that there had been a definite improvement, and that they were almost on par with the main characters during the first seasons of the four series. No more waiting for the providential 6 on the Dice of Doom (TM), and no more "Hey, this is what I'm supposed to be good at, why do I only have 1 chance in 6 to succeed just like everyone else?". At last the players could concentrate on the game more than on thinking of ways to avoid having to roll dices (quite unconsciously, but still) :D.
All right, maybe I'm overdoing it a little, but still, at the end of the game they were all happy to agree that their players were much more competent under CODA. And that, although they had somewhat failed their mission.
See, eveything is relative, isn't it? ;)
Quite understandable.Quote:
Originally posted by Eric.Brennan
I was aware of it before we played, but I try not to bring anything "out of the book" into the review (mainly because I don't want a fan-product that's /bad/ souring the game session for a good game.)
I'm quite glad to hear it; thank you.Quote:
Still, I like it very much, thanks.
At the risk of sounding self-promoting, I'd like to mention that I also did a review of Star Trek RPG on Pen & Paper. Actually, I did two, one for the Player's Guide and a separate one for the Narrator's Guide.
Pen & Paper is a nice site that doesn't get nearly the traffic it deserves, so if you're feeling adventurous, go ahead and stop in.