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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ergi

So you are saying that somebody with the highest possible scores in Psi and mind control shouldn't be able to control other peoples' minds in an extraordinary fashion? :confused: :) That's what mind control is for!

The problem is not with the game, it's with people (apart from the things we want to fix here ;)). If your players want to buy and use NoNo skills, you might want to talk about them what kind of game they want to play, bcause it is certainly not Starfleet Trek.

---

Yes, but we have the safety net of 'The rules' to prevent this from happening. I have every confidence that in the present rules such characters couldn't be made without many many sessions of dedicated minmaxing :D Why tinker with the rules, to allow such monstrosities, since as you say they have no place in a Starfleet Startrek game? :D Why argue that you wish to allow it but then not allow it? :D

"Ok guys, I'm creating my own houserules which allows you to become really overly minmaxed psychic freaks, who can bend people's fragile minds like they are matchsticks.. but I trust you to never use them, because you are the good guys"

My arse would I allow that, my players are NOT some kind of roleplaying saints, they are regular people! :D They are not from the 24th century and they will do anything and everything to win :D Players are not their characters! :D

+3, dammit! That's all I want. :D

Okay, let's turn this around. One of my players has Strength 12 and the strength-based "vaporize enemy with touch" skill. Now what's the problem, the bonus he gets from his Strength, or the skill, which I therefore wouldn't allow in the first place.

Telepaths are a problem in general, (now I sound like I'm switching sides) but I really don't believe that this change will make such a big difference. If you don't like telepathy you will probably prohibit players from playing Betazoids, anyway.

I really think we should stop boring everybody else here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ergi

I think the system works, on the low to medium level. Unfortunately, it is relatively easy to become too good.

---

I think you summed this up rather nicely. low to mid level the mechanics of Coda really are quite balanced (Psionics included). However, sometime shortly after the 15th advancement or so truly specialized skills result in having extraordinary successes nearly every roll. To limit these situations the GM gets tools (situational modifers from environment/destraction/etc..) to bring the numbers back down.

Also, you should never assume that every game is starfleet based, as not everyone likes being confined in their roles. My current campaign started with the crew as bridge offers on the perimeter defense flagship (an akira class vessel) but constant interference by the Romulans has led them into a mercenary life on the run from Starfleet and the Romulan Empire at the same time. Such dubious acts as unsolicited mind control are important tools in this situation when the players have less than their standard equipment and resources available to them before they escaped their imprisonment during courtmarshal.

I'm not having a hard time dealing with the situational misuses of certain skills as much as dealing with inflated modifers from characters that have been played for 3 years. Our house rule of double-ones being an automatic failure this year has made some interesting circumstances, but the system doesn't seem particularly well suited for highly specialized characters above 15 advancements.

If Kieran, Jim and Patrick are working to keep this game alive and (hopefully) update it with completely new material in the future, they could use the experience that comes from a 3-year campaign.

Geez! You go back to work after lunch and you come back and find this long, drawn out debate!!

Ray, no game system survives long-term, highly-specialized characters like your psion in question, at least not in the last 25 years of experience I've had watching a lot of long-term campaigns outgrow their rules. This isn't said to belittle your problems, since I can understand some of them, but not all of the problems are the game's fault, from what I can see.

That said, yes, I welcome your extensive experience with the game and the system, and I thank you from the stony, craggy bottom of that icy thing I call my heart. :)

Bottom line: I don't think we're going to completely rewrite the psionics rules, but I think I'm going to try to make the Psi attribute a little more like any of the other attributes, which I think can be done pretty simply without breaking what's there any further.

I was rereading through the character creation rules and found some things that might also need some addressing.

The first of these is mixed species. Decipher's team did an excellent job of fitting a lot of information into such a small space, but maybe a full-page explanation could help to broaden the topic. The only problem with these rules is the fact that the player gets to roll two sets of attributes and apply the highest rolls to the attributes he will choose from that race, resulting in higher overall attributes for a mixed-species character. Under these rules, it is almost best to have every character be mixed species of some sort.

To correct this, have the palyer roll a single set of stats and choose the 6 he would like to use. Apply the numbers identically to both species and then take the picks from each. This will create a more balanced hybrid of the two species.

The second thing of note is the favored profession given for each species. As it currently stands, this is just flavor text and doesn't contribute anything rules-wise unless I havecompletely missed something in my many readings of the PLayer's Guide (not impossible). I would like to see some sort of bonus for a species entering its favored profession rules-wise so that it is more than just a guideline.

I'll keep you updated on other things that I find. I understand a lot of these issues will be very hard to get changes on, but it's always better to have more information than less in these situations.

Something I would like to see is a one-page (or less) summary of the character creation process. I'm not 100 per cent sure, but I think there is no such thing in the PG. This list should include all steps necessary, as well as the page numbers of the required chapters.

Another thing I'd like to have are rules for creating unjoined Trills. Most Trill aren't joined, and Ezri is living proof, that even in Starfleet there are unjoined Trill.
A IMHO great flaw that could go with that would be Jealous: the player has to make a ??? test, every time she could make life harder for a joined member of her species.

I could live without the flaw, though. Somebody pointed out to me once, that due to the reverred status of the symbionts in Trill society, such behavior would be very unlikely. This argument hasn't really convinced me, but maybe that's just because I'm human and not a Trill. :)

Mirror Universe gives rules for unjoined trill for the mirror universe. I'm not sure the benefits are as good as being joined, but porting that over would make a good start.

I agree, however that a more in-depth explanation of character creation could be useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RayJ

I agree, however that a more in-depth explanation of character creation could be useful.

---

Something like this, perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PGoodman13

Something like this, perhaps?

---

I knew somebody had done such a document, however I didn't remember, that it was you. :)

Having this somewhere in the book, maybe as an appendix, would be highly useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RayJ

Mirror Universe gives rules for unjoined trill for the mirror universe. I'm not sure the benefits are as good as being joined, but porting that over would make a good start.

---

It seems I will have to buy Mirror Universe after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ergi

I knew somebody had done such a document, however I didn't remember, that it was you. :)

Having this somewhere in the book, maybe as an appendix, would be highly useful.

---

I don't know about in the book, but Kieran has been provided the raw text of the document so that he can make it all nice and pretty for the website when it goes live, as well as a reasonably detailed example of character generation (which needs some polishing still). Will that do?

One of the latest issues of Beyond the Final Frontier includes a very detailed character creation guide along with an example iir.

I hope this is the place for me to bring this up.

The RPG group I GM are mostly Star Trek fans (part of a local club). A few of them are experienced RPGers, but the majority are first time gamers. Thus when they are reacting to my sessions, they usually try to justify it off of what they have seen ont he show. Which brings me to my question:

Narrator's Guide, Page 119: Ramming Speed Maneuver. Prerequisite: Cannot be used at a Full Stop.

As a GM, I've altered this prerequisite because the Enterprise-E was able to perform this manuver in Star Trek: Nemesis. If both vessels are at a Full Stop, then the ship that has initiative may perform this Maneuver.

I believe that the Narator's Guide was released before Star Trek: Nemesis so I see the logic behind it. I just thought that the rule needed adjusting.

Thanks for the opportunity to bring this up.

Depends on how you want to look at it. You could argue that mechanically the ship just built up speed with a manouevre first. Having speed behind you would be essential to do something other than bounce off the shields or scratch the paint :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tobian

Ballance in Trek is essential to make it work. The existience of the Federation makes PC's bellong to rational right thinking pacifists.. however in reality players do not come from a utopianist society, and are used to playing things like D&D, so they can become statto's and minmaxers.. This is not the place to discuss those issues, but what I am trying to say is basically it is exactly the way in which it is designed which makes me like the system.. it seems ballanced, and that's a complement to the designers! :)

---

It was a kludge; it went through several iterations, some of which have relics left in the existing text.

I tend to agree with Ergi that Psi needs to be treated like a normal attribute.

Quote:

---

If I understandy your house rules on telepathy, what you are saying is essentially everyone rolls on a 7th statistic, and if you don't chose to be a telepath, then you distribute those points to your other stats?! This would mean a higher base character stats than the present spread. Or am I misunderstanding you? If you're suggesting only telepaths get this seventh roll, then I find that unfair and I would have 'fixed' it had it been part of the official rules. it is one of the bad parts about ICON which I feel Coda fixed.

---

Here's how I understood it, and what I'm proposing:

If a player chooses a psionic race (a Vulcan or a Betazoid, for instance), instead of having just a flat 4 in the Attribute, it would be treated as just another Attribute. If the player is using the roll method of character generation, they get to roll 2D6 10 times (instead of the standard 9) and discard the lowest 3. If they're using the pick method, they get an additional 4 to put somewhere, but they get no extra bonus points to spread around; like everyone else, they'd still just get 8 bonus points.

Alternately, they could just take the best 7 scores of the 9 already rolled if using the roll method for generating attributes.

I don't see how this treats psions unfairly, and neither do I see how it treats non-psions unfairly.

Quote:

---

I also happen to like the wide zero base spread of the stat modifier as well, as I find it incredibly disapointing and annoying to get a negative stat, and given the actual Startrek setting, innapropriate; given that most Starfleet officers are in their worlds 98th percentile, and ergo their counterparts are equally as good (non Starfleet characters etc) because they register as more than blips on the radar of teeming billions!

---

I can take or leave the changes to the attribute modifier table, but I can certainly understand where Ergi's coming from with that. I can also understand where you're coming from with your stance. This is why I'm leaving it up to someone else, since it's not a big issue to me from a development standpoint.

Quote:

---

I am not sure if I am missing the point of the question here but surelly the character creation process creates characters at the beginning of their career....

---

Yep; says so right on page 97 of the PG.

Ergi's not asking for initial chargen to create Kirks and Picards. He was asking for an oddball attribute to be treated just like any of the other attributes, and I don't see a problem with trying to make that happen.

Okay, in regards to this and my last announcement: This is your last call to get in suggestions as to what's broken in the Star Trek RPG Player's Guide, since I'm working on getting the errata document together for Decipher for layout and such. I need any further input on this by, say, Friday 5 May 2006. That'll give me time to run it past our volunteer development group and get it compiled to turn in by the beginning of the following week.

Thanks for your help and your input so far.

Managed to miss this all those moons ago...guess it's good I'm reviewing this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RayJ

The first of these is mixed species. Decipher's team did an excellent job of fitting a lot of information into such a small space, but maybe a full-page explanation could help to broaden the topic. The only problem with these rules is the fact that the player gets to roll two sets of attributes and apply the highest rolls to the attributes he will choose from that race, resulting in higher overall attributes for a mixed-species character. Under these rules, it is almost best to have every character be mixed species of some sort.

To correct this, have the palyer roll a single set of stats and choose the 6 he would like to use. Apply the numbers identically to both species and then take the picks from each. This will create a more balanced hybrid of the two species.

---

I think I like this idea. I'll run it up the flagpole and see who salutes.

Quote:

---

The second thing of note is the favored profession given for each species. As it currently stands, this is just flavor text and doesn't contribute anything rules-wise unless I havecompletely missed something in my many readings of the PLayer's Guide (not impossible). I would like to see some sort of bonus for a species entering its favored profession rules-wise so that it is more than just a guideline.

---

This one I'm not so wild about. I like it as flavor text, because I don't see a particular need to reward someone for creating a stereotype. I honestly don't think it's a problem as it stands.

Perhaps thwese have been suggested before:

Less busy character sheets.


And if it was possible to go year by year or at stages through character generation, a LA FASA, and LUG, that'd be a greeeeeat help for clarity, for writing bios, for figuring out what is what.

The way it is now, it's way too confusing for me, and my small group. We are staying very firmly attached to ICON as a result, because it doesn't feel tep by step, it fells like some kind of holisitc overview, that you have to force numbers to match, not In the first year of the academy, I studied X, then 2, 3rd, 4th, then cadet cruise, then a rom border frontier mission, a medical rescue mission, etc.

Or some guidelines as to how to accomplish that within the rules.

Finally character conversions from FASA and LUG would be really helpful. I know there are fan sites (and this one, right?) with it, but maybe something official?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LUGTrekGM

And if it was possible to go year by year or at stages through character generation, a LA FASA, and LUG, that'd be a greeeeeat help for clarity, for writing bios, for figuring out what is what.

Or some guidelines as to how to accomplish that within the rules.

---

Try going here and download issue 7 of the Beyond the Final Frontier webzine. There's an article in there by Trek-RPG.net's very own Doug Burke on using tours of duty in the Coda system.

I agree that the mixed species rules should be changed. Right now, they are loophole for powergamers. RayJ's suggestion would be an improvement, but it would still allow a player to select all the positive attribute modifiers from the two parent species and ignore the negative modifiers. Okay, this isn't possible for all combinations, sometimes you would have to pick one or two small negative modifiers, but the Vulcan-Betazoid would be such a negative example (INT +1, STR +2, PRS +1). This would be unfair to non-mixed characters, since for the other species, the positive and negative attribute modifiers add up to zero, or a positive balance is paid for elsewhere (less species abilities or courage points). And since the mixed species background can be selected for free, the other characters would be at the disadvantage.
Therefore I suggest that step 2 and 3 of the mixed species generation rules are changed.
Roll or pick your unmodified attributes as normal, i.e. you create only one set.
Then you add up all the positive and negative attribute modifiers of the two parent species and divide the result by two (rounding up). The result is X.

Example
Klingon [STR +1, VIT +1, INT -1, PER -1] & Betazoid [PRE +1]
Total = +1
1 : 2 = 0.5
X = +1

Now you create your individual set of attribute modifiers, using the parent species' modifiers as upper and lower limits, respectively (no modifier for one of the species means that the limit is 0). For this you have X points to spend. You can get additional points by lowering applicable attribute modifiers by the same amount.

The player would like to have high modifiers for Strength and Presence. However, he has only one point to spend (X = 1) unless, he also selects a negative modifier. Only the Klingons have negative modifiers, so he can select either Intellect -1 or Perception -1. If he also wanted the typical Klingon Vitality modifier of +1, he would also have to reduce the other attribute by 1, too. Selecting an Intellect modifier of -2 wouldn't be possible, since this would be outside the allowed limits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ergi

I agree that the mixed species rules should be changed. Right now, they are loophole for powergamers.

---

Trek, more than most other games, needs a big genre-hammer to swat powergamers with.

I don't think powergaming in Trek happens more than other games, it's just rampant with gamers in general who want to be larger than life, or more powerful in respect to the average.

How about upping the weapon damages for the lower-tech weapons?. As currently written, it takes around 5 hits with a sword to incapacite an average NPC. Four shots with a pistol.

On the show people swho get shot/stabbed, etc either get a minor injury, incapacitating wound, or are killed outright.

Maybe revise the critical rules. Max damage isn't that much compare to the amount of damage that characters can soak up. Sometime like double damage sor a complete success and triple for an extraordinary sucess (or maybe +2d6/+4d6) would

Put back the stunning rules to character who rop a wound level (from ICON). This way a character can be knocked out (and taken out of a fight) without winding up in intensive care.


All this makes a big difference when a narrator is trying to run one of those "Kirk brawling with the guard" type of fights that occur.

The problem there would be more accurately addressed by a "mook rule" similar to what LOTR has as an option. In short, heroes never fall down after one hit (unless it's dramatically appropriate), but the bad guys do (cinematically speaking, of course)...

With that said, I worked with Jesse Heinig and Jeff Tidball back in the day to make sure the melee and archaic ranged weapon damages were consistent btween the two games. Those values are listed in the current errata for both games as well (if you didn't know that already)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Burke

The problem there would be more accurately addressed by a "mook rule" similar to what LOTR has as an option. In short, heroes never fall down after one hit (unless it's dramatically appropriate), but the bad guys do (cinematically speaking, of course)...

---

Probably more of a Narrator's Guide thing, I think...though that's coming soon enough, I suppose.

True enough. Although the title of the thread is for both... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Burke

True enough. Although the title of the thread is for both... ;)

---

Very true, and I intend to follow up on this when I get to the Narrator's Guide errata...but that's not due this weekend. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PGoodman13

Very true, and I intend to follow up on this when I get to the Narrator's Guide errata...but that's not due this weekend. :)

---

Sorry, man. Just living up to my tattoo... :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Burke

The problem there would be more accurately addressed by a "mook rule" similar to what LOTR has as an option. In short, heroes never fall down after one hit (unless it's dramatically appropriate), but the bad guys do (cinematically speaking, of course)...

With that said, I worked with Jesse Heinig and Jeff Tidball back in the day to make sure the melee and archaic ranged weapon damages were consistent btween the two games. Those values are listed in the current errata for both games as well (if you didn't know that already)...

---

Well Doug,
Since the topic of this threat is for us to point out what we think is broken in the CODA rules. In my option the weapon damages and wound level relationships in CODA are broken. I guess you don't agree with me. That's cool. Still, if given the opportunity to point out something that I think needs improment, I'd be at fault if I didn't speak up.


I am also familar with the "mook rule" that you speak of in LOTR. Don't care for it, and I don't think it works well for Trek. Weapons in Trek are deadly-even to the main characters and imporant guest stars. The CODA rules really don't reflect this.

In CODA, shooting a healthy Spock with a rifle (or musket) isn't capable of incapacitating him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonyg

Well Doug,
Since the topic of this threat is for us to point out what we think is broken in the CODA rules. In my option the weapon damages and wound level relationships in CODA are broken. I guess you don't agree with me. That's cool. Still, if given the opportunity to point out something that I think needs improment, I'd be at fault if I didn't speak up.

---

I'm not saying you shouldn't have spoken up, man. I'm just explaining the reasoning behind it.

Quote:

---

In CODA, shooting a healthy Spock with a rifle (or musket) isn't capable of incapacitating him.

---

True enough. But then, that scene in "A Private Little War" was definitely a "dramatrically appropriate" moment...

Sorry Doug,

I didn't mean to imply that I felt muzzled. I just wanted to show that I think the injury rules could be improved. One thing about CODA compared to ICON, is that wound levels have increased although weapon damage ratings are about the same.

As for Spock shooting being "dramatically appropriate" well, from a story perspective definately. From a gaming perspective, perhaps, but only for an NPC. As a narrator, I'd consider it too arbitray to pull on a player. As a player, I certainly wouldn't be pleased if the narrator invokes "dramtically approrate" on me and turned a flesh wound into a life threatening one. To me it is more alone the lines of what to do when a player gets called away at the beginning of an advenuture, and can't play the session.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonyg

I didn't mean to imply that I felt muzzled. I just wanted to show that I think the injury rules could be improved.

---

I really hope we can get Decipher to release the Fields of Battle book for the LOTR game. It contains a bunch of optional rules that enhance combat and injuries--I think the rules would port over to Trek quite easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonyg

To me it is more alone the lines of what to do when a player gets called away at the beginning of an advenuture, and can't play the session.

---

Same here. But still an example of when it would be used... :);)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ineti

I really hope we can get Decipher to release the Fields of Battle book for the LOTR game. It contains a bunch of optional rules that enhance combat and injuries--I think the rules would port over to Trek quite easily.

---

Amen to that, Jim. I'd love to see that one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ineti

I really hope we can get Decipher to release the Fields of Battle book for the LOTR game. It contains a bunch of optional rules that enhance combat and injuries--I think the rules would port over to Trek quite easily.

---

I'm not aware of that book. Any info on it somewhere. I hate being the last one to drool. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonyg

I'm not aware of that book. Any info on it somewhere. I hate being the last one to drool. :eek:

---

There's probably bits and pieces about it on these forums and the Decipher forums. Try a search for "Fields of Battle."

Basically, it's the guidebook for warriors and barbarians (LOTR specifically). It includes a bunch of new elite orders, combat rules and other fun stuff designed to enhance combat, injuries, and the like. I don't know if there was a Trek book similar in scope, but I would imagine there would have been if there wasn't already.

Since the two settings use the same basic Coda rules, I don't see why most of the rules in FOB couldn't be ported over to Trek.

Thanks, I'' do some searching. With both TREK and LOTR using the CODA system, I suspect that you are corrct about being able to port stuff over. Most things in one game can work in the other. The exceptions being high technolgy and magic.

I already ported over LOTR armor, weapons and shield stats to TREK. I needed something for when the aliens throw the PCs into the arena! :D

For errata-
The Sherpa edge is messed up. A normal character has a carrying capacity of STRx5kg, heavy load is STRx10kg, and very heavy load is STRx15kg. Someone with Sherpa has a carry capacity of STRx8kg, a heavy load of STRx(8-13)kg, and a very heavy load of STRx13kg.

This is less than someone without the edge!

BTW, What should it be? I can think of at least 2 different variations-

1) +3kg to all bands for 8/13/18kg

2) +3kg to the base (5kg),that is dobuled and tripled for 8/16/24kg


PS. What are the effects of upgrading?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonyg

For errata-
The Sherpa edge is messed up. A normal character has a carrying capacity of STRx5kg, heavy load is STRx10kg, and very heavy load is STRx15kg. Someone with Sherpa has a carry capacity of STRx8kg, a heavy load of STRx(8-13)kg, and a very heavy load of STRx13kg.

This is less than someone without the edge!

BTW, What should it be? I can think of at least 2 different variations-

1) +3kg to all bands for 8/13/18kg

2) +3kg to the base (5kg),that is dobuled and tripled for 8/16/24kg


PS. What are the effects of upgrading?

---

Carrying capacity has ranges, or weight grades, if that helps it make more sense.

Normally you can carry up to x5 STR before you are burdened.
You can carry from x6 up to x10 STR as a heavy load.
You can carry from x11 up to x15 STR as a very heavy load.

Sherpa allows you to carry:
Up to x8 STR normally.
From x8 up to x13 STR as a heavy load.
x13 and heavier STR as a very heavy load.

So, Sherpa very much improves carrying capacity. Note that I would actually make the heavy and very heavy load x9 to x13 and x14 to x18 respectively, to keep it the same scale as carrying capacity on page 247 of the PG. That or change the numbers on page 247 to reflect the Sherpa edge. ;)

LQ

So shrpa has no upper weight limit? If they can lift it they can carry it. Okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liquidator Queeg

So, Sherpa very much improves carrying capacity. Note that I would actually make the heavy and very heavy load x9 to x13 and x14 to x18 respectively, to keep it the same scale as carrying capacity on page 247 of the PG. That or change the numbers on page 247 to reflect the Sherpa edge. ;)

---

Will actually be doing the former in the errata, though I haven't gotten that far in my edits on the PG files. Life got in the way.