Among the Clans Question.

Hey, SJohn, I know you're out there ... I can hear you typing. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif

Here's something that came to me as a direct result of reading 'Among the Clans' again this morning, over breakfast, to work up the formal character sheet for an NPC I've had make a few appearances in the background over the past several games, but I note that to the same degree (if not moreso), it also applies to the Vulcan sourcebook and I'm sure other places as well:

The Andorian template gives Primitive Weaponry (Chaka or Other) 2(3), and the Duellist package gives the same. This overlap comes head-to-head with what I feel is the only poorly written rules set in the core rules: the overlap of skills and specialties in chargen (and, to a limited extent, in ongoing character development).

See, the core rules state that if you've got two skills with the same specialization at the same level -- let us say P.W. (Chaka) 2(3) from both the Template and the Overlay -- you add 1 to either the level or the specialization. This means you're invariably losing DPs, even if you choose to add to Skill Level, because you get only 1 pt of Skill in exchange for 2. This also happens with Science skills for Vulcans in many templates, for instance, using that sourcebook.

Is it just that the development team, in writing the rules, focussed on the more common overlap of 1(X) and 1(Y) combinations (where this is more rarely an issue)? Or was it a deliberate thing?

I know the easy solution is to say "Do what you want with the extra DPs", but the easy solution should be the last resort, not the default, I feel. Further, the recent discussion with Don et al. in another topic group regarding overlapping Specializations of Shipboard Systems pointed out exactly that the development team did underestimate the player reaction to Skill vs Specialization questions, and that thought has been percolating in the back of my brain since the discussion (for which, to my chagrin, I slacked off from thanking Don for his spirited dissent that led me to these conclusions, and I do apologize for that...)

Of course, YMMV, so your input, as the developer of Among the Clans, would help me greatly in this matter. Feel free to tell me I'm being a nit-picky jerk, of course. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif

BJ

Well, your question isn’t specific to Among the Clans – these types of skill “clashes” happen all the time in Icon Trek. Your observation on “losing” points is correct.

The Template/Overlay system is meant to create characters quickly and easily, at the expense of a few DP. If you’re tracking DP religiously you can see that you do lose some when packages give you like skills. Your options are:

a) Use the chart, ignoring the discrepancy, and move on (as per the rules).
b) Spend the “wasted” points as bonuses to Specializations.
c) Don’t use the packages and instead simply spend the points at each development stage.

So, while you may not like the response of “do what you want” with the points, you’ve already iterated what the rules state, so therefore that’s all that’s left. There isn’t some hidden rule that Ross, Steve, Christian, et. al. haven’t shared with you regarding this matter. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif

In fact, as a bit of history, because of this “problem” this is where Zero-level skills were created from in the Players’ Guide.

Sorry, I'm no S. John. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
Don
trekrpg@trekrpg.net
http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/sig_don.gif

[This message has been edited by Don (edited 03-01-2001).]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don:
So, while you may not like the response of “do what you want” with the points, you’ve already iterated what the rules state, so therefore that’s all that’s left. There isn’t some hidden rule that Ross, Steve, Christian, et. al. haven’t shared with you regarding this matter. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif

---

I think that's not all that's left, though, and perhaps I wasn't clear in my posting or at least the thoughts behind it ... I'll reiterate:

1. I wasn't assuming hidden rules, or revealed knowledge. I was actually coming from the POV that perhaps this was a rule that, had LUG/WotC kept the license, might eventually have been revised in a second edition, after further thought, because these circumstances came up *after* the initial playtesting and release more than they came up during it. In short, perhaps it was a rule that was, yes, written poorly during the design phase. You will yourself, I hope, recall that you noted in another discussion that the whole popularity of Base Skill vs. Specialization issue was something 'not quite counted on'. I thought this might be another. And was curious to know for sure.

2. My secondary meaning was "Hey, I know that rule exists, but since this rule and the problem exists, why were the Overlays designed to trigger this to begin with?" Obviously certain Overlays -- the ones in the main core books, for instance, which can apply to any Template -- are generic enough that flexibility was required and so conflicts in the specific are inevitable. But certain Overlays from the Vulcan sourcebook and certain Overlays from Among the Clans will *always* cause this problem when applied to their default racial templates, which is where they will be applied more than 90%% of the time, and so I am curious as to why the Overlays were designed that way when this is the case. It's rather like deliberately failing to pack your main parachute because you know you have the emergency cord to pull -- why pull that emergency cord if you don't have to, neh?


Among the Clans, IMHO, ranks in my Top Five list of gaming books I've ever read -- it falls right behind the Delta Green sourcebooks and right before Spacedock and the Feng Shui core book, which I guess puts it at #3 on my list, when the math gets done. If I had to pick any three books to keep on a permanent exile somewhere, it would be the DS9 core book, ATC, and Spacedock, so I could run Trek games until the cows come home. I mean no disrespect when I ask these questions; rather, I am curious about the thought process behind the design, much like a scholar of, say, political science, seeks to deconstruct the thoughts of our Founding Fathers through the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif

Also, Don, one should never apologize for the genetic/social quirk of *not* being S John. I may disagree with you, but I think the thing that makes this board rare among RPG fora is the tendency we have here never to come across as showing discourtesy or disrespect simply because we disagree.



BJ

Hiya! Just got in http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif I have very little to add to Don's system response; he knows Icon better than I do, and Steve Long is the author of the chapter in question.

I would like to point out that while Don Mappin isn't S. John, Dan Moppin is.

The breakdown for Among the Clans, authorwise, is:

The Mighty Mighty Steve Long wrote The ADF chapter (natch), the Andorians in Starfleet chapter, the "Fighting Arts" chapter, and the Chargen chapter.

I wrote the other bits (History, Planet, Ecology, Sector, Life/Culture, Am Tal, Ushaan, Language). All of the chapters that open with an epigraph, plus the appendix.

Which pretty much breaks down to "Steve wrote the Steveish parts and Sjohn wrote the Sjohnish parts," which is, I daresay, one of the reasons the book works as well as it does! Thanks for your kind words about it, Commander.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Publius:
I get your point Commander Bluejeans, and I agree entirely that you should ask the questions.

---

Whoa! Hey, I never said there was anything wrong with asking questions! I hope my information has provided some insight as to the Icon System and its particularities.

I guess I really don’t know what you guys want. I’ve admitted there’s a problem. The book for God’s sake admits there’s a problem (else the chart wouldn’t exist), and the designers, on several occasions, have admitted there’s a problem.

You want the official answer? It’s right there in the Core Game Book as a sidebar. It sounds like you’re fishing for answers that’ll help justify your doing something than otherwise following the chart in the book. Hey, there’s nothing wrong with that. Have fun! http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/biggrin.gif

(In fact, when I make characters, beyond the starting Template and Overlay, I just spend DP per stage on what I want. I then create my character’s backstory as necessary. I also let my players do this if they wish. At any point they can skip the packages and just spend the DP. But, then, they’re used to the system. I wouldn’t do this with a new player.)

But, you know what? (And this really gets to the heart of the matter.) It’s a small problem. Okay, you’re understandably upset because 5-10 DP get wasted after making a character with three tours. So? Big deal. Make the character you want and move on. Spend the points versus using the packages. The packages are there so you can quickly create a character and play the game.

And that, after all, is why we’re here – to play the game.

Right?

Quote:

---

In a way, this is unlike the attempt to deconstruct the Founders because here you are dealing with a group of people that are available and very much alive.

---

And very much prone to making mistakes as people do.


------------------
Don
trekrpg@trekrpg.net
http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/sig_don.gif

And that, after all, is why we’re here – to play the game, and promote Sjohn's eBooks and fonts.

Right?

Yes, Dan, that's exactly right. Well said.
http://www.cumberlandgames.com

Double whoa! I certainly did not mean to imply anything negative by my comment, I was merely pointing out that Commander Bluejean's question was on-point both in this forum and something I think was appropriate to ask for the benefit of others. I did not mean to indicate anything at all negative about your response to his question, nor did I think that your responses were negative in any way. I am not trying to be negative now. In fact, I agree with you and said so then as well as now.

I agree with you in reference to the 'problem' angle, which is why I went out of my way to note that there was/is/will be an ongoing debate on whether this subject is "problematic" at all which I have seen both here on these boards and around my own tabletop. More to the point, I agree that this is a "small" problem for people who have played the game for a while; as you say, we generally get along with whatever method(s) we prefer. However for people just getting into the game, I think that the character generation issue can potentially be terribly frustrating. Not that it will be, but that it simply can be.

As you correctly point out, the core books themselves point out the different methods in which character generation can be undertaken. I think that this is entirely a good thing personally. Sometimes however the sidebars can be missed or disregarded by readers. Sometimes people want to know what the intent of the game designers was and will try to remain as close as possible to that intent. I place myself, btw, into the later category.

As someone who did have a "problem" with understanding what was meant in character generation when I first read the game, the original question does deserve some space here. That is all I meant to say. I hope that neither you nor anyone else got the impression I took your comments negatively (nor that I take them that way now) and if the impression was somehow made it was most likely an error on my part somehow. Heck, as I said I respect the fact that the designers see that the system could be misinterpreted, and had the foresight to place a sidebar in the rules to suggest that there were others ways it could be done.

I’d like to clarify that in my last post I was trying to make light of the seriousness of this “problem” and how it is far from a show-stopper. I didn’t mean, however, to make light of your concerns.

I think I’ve answered all your questions, but if not, let me know and I’ll try.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sjohn:
And that, after all, is why we’re here – to play the game, and promote Sjohn's eBooks and fonts.

Right?

Yes, Dan, that's exactly right. Well said.
http://www.cumberlandgames.com

---

Well then, we’ve succeeded – admirably. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/wink.gif


------------------
Don
trekrpg@trekrpg.net
http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/sig_don.gif

"And that, after all, is why we’re here – to play the game.

Right?"

Wait a minute... you mean to play that some of you actually PLAY the game!!??

Oh my GOD! I didn't know any of you geeks PLAY this crap!

http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/biggrin.gif

(With tongue planted firmly in cheek... don't kill me.)

Hugh

------------------
"Sell your soul to the Philadelphia Science Fiction Society... ASK ME HOW!"

[This message has been edited by Hugh Casey (edited 03-01-2001).]

Again, like so many things, I won’t presume to speak for Ross or Steve, the primary creators of Icon (along with Christian and everyone else) and the original development process.

I will say that Ross and I have had multitude of discussions on the Icon system and many of its “quirks.” Part of the reason many of the chapters that I wrote for LUG involved game mechanics is because I had an excellent grasp of the system. Making packages with a finite number of points and watching your points “get wasted” because of the 1 (2) + 1 (2) quirk is frustrating to say the least. When I proposed the Zero Level Skill system it was done with the idea of having a way to provide Specializations cheaply without having to drop 3 DP just because you wanted the package to have the Influence Specialization. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/wink.gif

The second edition of Icon, prior to the Wizards buyout, was going to focus on fixing many of these quirks, foremost that horrific skill chart. A proposal that I wrote up separates Skills from Specializations, so that they can increase independently. It’s a small change rules-wise but made a big difference in the distribution of DP in packages.

To your specific points:
1) Everyone knew about it, hence the rule in the book! Again, as I’ve said, it was a tradeoff between easily making characters and maximizing every DP spent. When you have a game of the worldwide appeal of Star Trek it is very important to have a system that is easy to pickup on and easy to create characters. Icon is that system. Unfortunately, you lose the occasional DP here-and-there in the process. Oh well!

2) I’m afraid I can’t speak to your points in Among the Clans and the Andorians – I didn’t write those packages. However, what you’re asking is nearly impossible to do. The problem is that every Overlay has the potential of being used with every Template created – past and present. Simply because the Vulcan Species Template has the Space Science (Any) 2 (3) doesn’t mean the Overlay can ignore a Space Science skill – what happens when a Bolian takes the same Overlay but we want them to have that skill?

Overlays give the required points for that particular Overlay/package, regardless of the skills coming into that stage. There’s no way of knowing if your character will already have that skill or not.

Now in the case of the Species books (Andorians and Vulcans) yes, you’re right, we have a little more warning as to the types of Species Templates and Overlay packages that are going to be combined. But, again, as I stated, these packages have to be created with the thought that they will be used in conjunction with different Templates current and not even printed yet.

See my earlier post on how you can handle the discrepancy.


------------------
Don
trekrpg@trekrpg.net
http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/sig_don.gif

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CmdrBluejeans:
....much like a scholar of, say, political science, seeks to deconstruct the thoughts of our Founding Fathers through the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif

---

-- ENTER HUMOR/RANT MODE --

As a scholar of political science myself (thought that my tage line as 'Mad Political Scientist' was merely humorous huh?), I have to say that it is terribly difficult to deconstruct the thoughts of the Founding Fathers. Especially using a compromise document like the US Constitution of 1789 and what are essentially pro-Constitution propaganda Op Ed pieces like the Federalist Papers. On a related note, I have often felt that those individuals who call upon the founding fathers when they make their arguments (legal, political or otherwise) have run out of logical and coherent arguments of their own making and are therefore forced to rely upon the fragmented words and perceived motivations of someone whose authority is considered unimpeachable.

Of course, in the words of the great sage (Dennis Miller), that's just my opinion; I could be wrong. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/biggrin.gif

-- EXIT HUMOR/RANT MODE --

I get your point Commander Bluejeans, and I agree entirely that you should ask the questions. In a way, this is unlike the attempt to deconstruct the Founders because here you are dealing with a group of people that are available and very much alive. It is also much more relevant because I think it is percieved as a problem spot in the system by many (some think so, others do not, the debate is ongoing with some groups I know). Unfortunately the official answer seems to be "do what works for you".

Now be sure to take note: I can accept that answer. In some ways, I respect that answer. However, the "problem" of specializations and skills and character point values all around has come up time and time again. In fact, it is one of the reasons that I have been using Spreadsheets to aid in Character design since I started playing this game. I use the core rules systems (Template, Overlay etc.) to establish the character first because it provides a solid baseline for the characters skills and other characteristics (i.e. the kinds of things that the character should have as a Starfleet Officer of the appropriate type). Then, if there are any points remaining I have the player allocate them to bring everyone up to 125 points (or 130, or 150 or however many I am allowing the characters to start with). Of course (Shameless plug alert) my character generation spreadsheet makes it a lot easier to do it this way.

John D. Lees
Mad Political Scientist

p.s. sorry about the tangent at the top there, but it is not all that often I get to rant about these kinds of subjects here where it is (nominally) relevant. Opinions of course are entirely my own and done with tongue firmly in cheek.

[This message has been edited by Publius (edited 03-01-2001).]

Perhaps a better (tho more complex) way would be to specify what skill level a character has to achieve in a given skill at that point in the character generation process, allow the player to spend his points to achieve that level, and then spend excess points as he sees fit.

If a Science officer has to have two sciences a 2/3/3 (base cost of 7dp) after the application of the Science officer overlay... then the Vulcan would only need to spend 1 point to achieve this. His Vulcan background better prepared him for the curiculum. The player can either spend the other points on other science skills, or on the extra weight training (or whatever) his character did because he didn't have to study as hard.

An Andorian would have to spend 4dp to achive the same result... which seems reasonable. The Andorian might have an advantage somewhere else.

This would also help explain why some races tend to gravitate towards certain specialties... but wouldn't limit a character to his race's "prefered" career.

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain