Printable View
I have an idea
let's go back to ICON's series corebooks
that's the reason there were no complaints about *only Starfleet*
because of the combined nature people who like:
TOS but don't like TNG, DS9 or Voyager,
TNG but don't like TOS, DS9 or Voyager,
DS9 but don't like TOS, TNG or Voyager,
Voyager but don't like TOS, TNG or DS9,
there will problems
To me Dec Trek combines the flexiblity of settings/characters from FASA with the writing of LUG and the rules of d20 with a twist of ICON
Amen to that. Are you sure you didn't attend the Sarcastic Jedi Academy? Not only am I the president...I'm a member...Quote:
Originally posted by jedimuldoon
I have an idea
let's go back to ICON's series corebooks
that's the reason there were no complaints about *only Starfleet*
because of the combined nature people who like:
TOS but don't like TNG, DS9 or Voyager,
TNG but don't like TOS, DS9 or Voyager,
DS9 but don't like TOS, TNG or Voyager,
Voyager but don't like TOS, TNG or DS9,
there will problems
To me Dec Trek combines the flexiblity of settings/characters from FASA with the writing of LUG and the rules of d20 with a twist of ICON
-Darth Sarcastic
:ROTFL:Quote:
Amen to that. Are you sure you didn't attend the Sarcastic Jedi Academy? Not only am I the president...I'm a member...
:D :D :D :D :D
Doug Pirahna turned to the Dark Side? :)Quote:
[
-Darth Sarcastic [/B]
Allen
to the author of this thread, please accept my apologies for saying anything and causing all the ... replies ... as to my view of what a Star Trek campaign is. Even after I asked folks to not do so.
re-engaging lurker mode, before I get kicked out again.
Wow....Jedi had a moment of clarity.... ;)
To be honest, my only real Bad feedback is the flow through character creation. The layout for that just seems a little back-and-forth...it seemed like I had to flip pages at every stage of creation, making it a lot more tedious than I feel it should be.
And, yes, the character sheet is hideous. I'd recommend a black on white character sheet as part of the Narrator's Screen, or something like that. Personally, I liked the way that WotC included character sheets in their screens for D&D 3e and Star Wars...I was easily able to make multiple copies of each, saving the originals for future copies! :D
Let's see, the good...well, hmmm, ahhh....
Just kidding. Aside from layout, character creation is understandable and quite straightforward. After I created a couple of characters as a warm up, I was able to make a beginning character in under a half hour.
The game mechanic is familiar and simplistic enough for even the most mathematically challenged to understand (trust me, I have one of those types in my game group ;) ). However, I will stipulate that I haven't had the chance to actually use the skill system in a game situation.
I really like the advancement system...which is also friendly to the math challenged. I was able to create an experienced character with relative ease.
I can't see the "starfleet" problem, is there anything in the book that prevents from playing a pure starfleet campaign? even the first supplement scheduled to hit the shelves will be a starfleet companion (starfleet operation manual scheduled in july).
So why complain about the book covering other aspects?
Ooops! Forgot that one :
I'm a bit disappointed by the new Renown rules. I loved the Renown aspects, since it allowed me to sanction or award the different player's behaviour in the game. I'm gonna keep them anyway when I switch.
There's nothing in the PG that prevents you from running just about anything...with maybe the exception of a Romulan campaign...although by now a few people have made up or converted Romulans...Quote:
Originally posted by Lee T
I can't see the "starfleet" problem, is there anything in the book that prevents from playing a pure starfleet campaign? even the first supplement scheduled to hit the shelves will be a starfleet companion (starfleet operation manual scheduled in july).
So why complain about the book covering other aspects?
That's one of the things I liked immeadiately about Dec-Trek. You really don't need a "Complete Guide to (Race Name Here)" to play and the professions seem somewhat universal. The Klingons have Engineers just as the Federation has command officers. I'm also sure that with the NG you should be able to make your own professions, or tweak the existing ones to make up what you want. Of course the next one of my players who asks if he can be a Tribble/Borg science officer is getting a boot to the head.
-Darth Sarcastic
Is it just me or does "tweak" sound a bit rude? ;)
From conversations with others who feel similarly I suspect that the reason is the belief that, if only the book hadn't wasted space on 'useless stuff' it would have either:Quote:
I can't see the "starfleet" problem, is there anything in the book that prevents from playing a pure starfleet campaign? even the first supplement scheduled to hit the shelves will be a starfleet companion (starfleet operation manual scheduled in july). So why complain about the book covering other aspects?
a) been able to devote more space to 'useful stuff'
or
b) been smaller and cheaper
Now, personally, I like the coverage of a wide range of campaigns, Starfleet and otherwise, but I can understand that some people don't, and it seems perfectly reasonable, when asked to provide feedback, to say which bits you didn't like and had hoped to see less of. I don't agree with SawyerII, but he has every right to state his opinion - Don did ask us to, after all :)
This isn't strictly in any of the categories above, but it might be useful to you (or your marketing guys) to know why I, as a fan of Star Trek and of RPGs in general, have decided not to buy the PG or NG. I'm only going from what I've read in these boards and (to a lesser extent) elsewhere on the Net, but this may give you an idea of what negative impressions to counter in your promotion of the game.Quote:
I'd like some help in addressing any pending questions/issues on the Coda system, problems, errata, or complaints that people may have.
At any rate, the dice mechancic and combat rules seem, from what I've been able to glean, perfectly reasonable and they haven't put me off at all. :)
I don't like the experience system as its been described on these boards. Waiting to have enough XPs to collect five picks in one go, rather than one at a time as you progress seems clunky and counter-intuitive. And counting XPs in hundreds and thousands seems too much like bean-counting - I don't know what sort of action would earn you one XP, but it sounds like the kind of thing that should be too minor to have to bother ennumerating at all. (Note that I'm not saying I couldn't easily fix either of these problems, but see below). :(
The range of character types and campaign types looks great - this is exactly the way it should be done. Similarly, no problems with your choice of races to put in the PG (even if I am keen on tellarites). :)
The rules for professions, as described on these boards, are simply not the way I like to do things - give me an open-ended character generation, where all skills cost the same, regardless of what profession I happen to nominally be. I don't mind templates listing suggested skills for a given character type, but I object to them in any way restricting my future character advancement, or imposing strict limits / providing unique abilities (actually, I'm not clear from what I've read on the boatds whether or not DecTrek does provide unique abilities to some professions, so that last one may not be fair - but its the impression I'm getting, so I guess you'll want to counter it, if it isn't). :mad:
The rules for mixed-species characters just look badly written, IMO. :(
I'm sorry, but your character sheet is badly designed. Hardly a terminal problem for the game, but it's good to get your image right. :(
Now, these are not insurmountable problems. If I didn't already have LUGTrek, I'd probably buy your version and fix the problems with extensive house rules. But I do, so what really does it provide me that I don't already have? I've got the basic background info - don't need that. So all I'd be buying is a set of rules, which, while an improvement in some respects, are, on balance, inferior to the older ones, and need a lot of conversion to work. Not worth the money, I'm afraid.
But I'll buy your supplements - they should have background info that will be useful, regardless of system. :D
I for one don't like either and will bypass the advancement system by awarding directly a number of picks at the end of each adventures.Quote:
Originally posted by Trotsky
[B]I don't like the experience system as its been described on these boards. Waiting to have enough XPs to collect five picks in one go, rather than one at a time as you progress seems clunky and counter-intuitive. And counting XPs in hundreds and thousands seems too much like bean-counting - I don't know what sort of action would earn you one XP, but it sounds like the kind of thing that should be too minor to have to bother ennumerating at all. (Note that I'm not saying I couldn't easily fix either of these problems, but see below). :(
Professions only selects:Quote:
The rules for professions, as described on these boards, are simply not the way I like to do things - give me an open-ended character generation, where all skills cost the same, regardless of what profession I happen to nominally be. I don't mind templates listing suggested skills for a given character type, but I object to them in any way restricting my future character advancement, or imposing strict limits / providing unique abilities (actually, I'm not clear from what I've read on the boatds whether or not DecTrek does provide unique abilities to some professions, so that last one may not be fair - but its the impression I'm getting, so I guess you'll want to counter it, if it isn't). :mad:
One of you attribute that will progress quicker than the others (2 attributes are this way favored, the other you choose freely).
about 10 skills that are "skill profession" and cost less to devellop
a set of profession abilities that can be bought by other professions character with a higher price (you have ot buy an edge to gain access to it).
In my opinion, if you don't like it that way, you can allways consider that these professions are more like guidelines. You can let your player devellop all their skills the same price (or select themselves wich 10 skills they can have cheaper), and let them buy any profession ability the same price restricting access to an ability only by roleplaying.
The problems you spoke about don't need "extensive" house rules imo, minor corrections are all that's needed, with maybe the exceptions of the mixed race if you want extensive rules (personnaly I only had to change it a bit to fit my idea).Quote:
I'd probably buy your version and fix the problems with extensive house rules.
So it's bad (from my POV) but not as bad as some had made it sound. Fair enough.Quote:
Professions only selects:
One of you attribute that will progress quicker than the others (2 attributes are this way favored, the other you choose freely).
about 10 skills that are "skill profession" and cost less to devellop
a set of profession abilities that can be bought by other professions character with a higher price (you have to buy an edge to gain access to it).
OK, fair point, it wouldn't be 'extensive' as in 'ten pages of A4', I admit :) Just too much work to be worth bothering with when I've already got something that works well enough. Why change to an inferior product, even if its only a little bit inferior? And many people will like this system, and I wish them all the best of luck with it.Quote:
quote:
I'd probably buy your version and fix the problems with extensive house rules.
The problems you spoke about don't need "extensive" house rules IMO, minor corrections are all that's needed, with maybe the exceptions of the mixed race if you want extensive rules (personnaly I only had to change it a bit to fit my idea).
But there's a reason it was done this way -- there's a limit on how much a PC can raise skills and attributes with every advancement. If you take away the block of 5 picks, then you "have" to introduce other niggling little rules to maintain the balance of advancement, like "you can't raise a non-professional skill two times in a row" or something like that. Now that's clunky. Of course nobody has to do that if they don't want to.Quote:
Originally posted by Trotsky
Waiting to have enough XPs to collect five picks in one go, rather than one at a time as you progress seems clunky and counter-intuitive.
-- Daniel
Of course, given that I don't like the idea of there being any difference between professional and non-professional skills, either, that's not really going to worry me ;)Quote:
But there's a reason it was done this way -- there's a limit on how much a PC can raise skills and attributes with every advancement. If you take away the block of 5 picks, then you "have" to introduce other niggling little rules to maintain the balance of advancement, like "you can't raise a non-professional skill two times in a row" or something like that.