Printable View
Considering I have no contract for those, technically, they’re still my property. :DQuote:
Originally posted by Dan Stack
So you've been reminded of NDAs twice... And posted two ships... Hmm...
Prior, too. See how far I'm willing to go for you guys? ;)
Y'know as a nurse I ssometimes see some pretty horrific things, but really, these are not images I needed :DQuote:
Originally posted by Don Mappin
Latex panties. They don't bind as much.
Speaking of panties, when are you auctioning off your authentic "Ross Isaacs" autographed pair that you normally wear on your bald head? :D
Question #1: Will you continue peppering those 'adventure seeds' thorughout books? I really like/need those.
Question #2: I know that most people would complain if CODA were too close to d20, but I sorta have the other problem: the group I play with really likes d20. Is it close enough that there wouldn't be much confusion over skill tests, etc. and are there any places where d20 based assumptions could cause a few problems?
Question #3: How many 'advancements' would be the recommended amount for characters doing (converted) LUGtrek adventures? Would it even matter very much?
Question #4: Will there be some sort of 'DM survival guide' in the PG or on the site (Decipher or TrekRPG.net) for until the NG comes out?
Question #5: Will ships be presented exclusively in the Ship Recognition Manuals, or will they be sprinkled throughout the other books too?
Question #6: Will ships from the online Spacedock books be used in the Decipher books (eg are the Spacedock books 'dectrek canon')?
Question #7: Is most of the stuff about 'the future of the Star Trek RPG' article Don wrote still accurate (eg is the presumed page count for the BBoA still roughly the same, does it still have the same number of species in it)?
Question #8: Can you mention the details of what you can't talk about?
EDIT: by this, I mean can you talk about the contract, not about the things that you can't talk about. Just so there's no confusion. :)
That's it, for now.
Here are the ones I feel comfortable taking a stab at. Any of Ross’ answers have priority as he is in the office and has more current information.
#2: I think it’s close enough. I was a large proponent of trying to do away with d20 similarities and there are still too many for my taste (and my playtesters). Just ask Ross—we fought on this one a lot. :)
#3: Shouldn’t matter. As the current conversion rules stand, Icon characters are much more powerful than their Coda counterparts. I’m tweaking the conversion rules.
#4: Nope. There’s only a 30 day separation planned, Owen’s screaming not withstanding (“utterly inexcusable!”). :D Look at 7th Sea, D&D, and other systems with a two book format at release. No reason to treat Star Trek any differently.
#6: No. Spacedock is a creation of Steve Long and stands quite well on its own but has no affiliation with Decipher products. They use a totally different system.
#7: Good grief that was a long time ago! If you’re talking about the early Decipher “sneak peek,” then most of that has remained the same. The product schedule has been redone at least once since that was written, however. (That I am not privy to.)
#8: I’d have to pull the contract, but pretty much can’t talk about anything. Technically, I’ve probably violated it five times in this message alone. :D
I’m going to hell, aren’t I? :D
Exactly. :) Besides, it gives everyone a chance to get characters converted, tweaked to the Narrator's approval and everyone familiar with the basic rules before the NG comes out and all Hades breaks out.Quote:
Originally posted by Don Mappin
#4: Nope. There?s only a 30 day separation planned, Owen?s screaming not withstanding (?utterly inexcusable!?). :D Look at 7th Sea, D&D, and other systems with a two book format at release. No reason to treat Star Trek any differently.
Now, I just have to convince my gaming group that they *want* to play Star Trek.
Yes, Don, you are, but I'm sure they'll offer you an executive position and a lovely corner office with a succubus as your admin assistant.Quote:
I?m going to hell, aren?t I? :D
*insert lawyer jokes here*Quote:
Originally posted by Don Mappin
I’m going to hell, aren’t I? :D
Just kidding... I've worked for lawyers and my uncle is one. I mean no offense to those in the legal field.
Speaking as somone who's paid a tenner a year to Steve Jackson Games to maintain my subscription, I feel I ought to point out that Pyramid is still going strong as a webzine and now has a wider circulation than it ever did as as paper mag.Quote:
Originally posted by RIsaacs
House organ magazines always have poor circulation. Shadis, Pyramid, White Wolf Magazine... All reside in the dustbin of gamer history....
I'm sure I speak for a lot of the people here when I say that something on similar web-based lines would go down quite well :)
>>Question #1: Will you continue peppering those 'adventure seeds' thorughout books? I really like/need those. <<
I think they're in there. I think the ST: NG is perhaps the best resource we've ever produced, with tons of practical advice on designing and running games.
>> Question #2: I know that most people would complain if CODA were too close to d20, but I sorta have the other problem: the group I play with really likes d20. Is it close enough that there wouldn't be much confusion over skill tests, etc. and are there any places where d20 based assumptions could cause a few problems? <<
You are intent on picking a fight between Don and I, aren't you? Gamers like to play games. That is the sole lesson to be learned from D20. That means the game must be tools oriented. Everything in Coda has a specific game effect. No more "the Narrator can choose between three options" or "the Narrator can figure out what this rule means."
If you play D20, you will see a lot of similarities. If you play RuneQuest, you'll see a lot of similarities. The point I'm trying to make is that as we made design decisions, we ended up with the rules working a particular way. That way may remind you of D20.
For example, no one liked the dodge rules in Icon. You mean if I want to dodge, I have to put skill points into it, and if I don't then I can't dodge. What do I do, practice ducking out of the way on the holodeck? Dodge is no longer a skill. It's an innate reaction based off of your attributes. Sounds like a "saving throw" but its actually based on one of your attributes (unlike saves)—which you actually get to define. Once you do that for dodge, what other "reactions" does a person innately have? A way to resist Fast Talk? That would certainly clean up the ugliness in the Icon rules where a PC resists with his own skill, unless he doesn't have it in which case he resists with an attribute.
Finally, if you look at the Coda system you'll notice a lot of stuff from Icon expressed different. You don't choose a Template. You pick a character species. They automatically get abilities. Ah, and once you get the NG, you'll see that these have been roughly point balanced, just like in Icon. The Template has been expressed differently.
>>Question #3: How many 'advancements' would be the recommended amount for characters doing (converted) LUGtrek adventures? Would it even matter very much?<<
I agree with Don's answer.
>>Question #4: Will there be some sort of 'DM survival guide' in the PG or on the site (Decipher or TrekRPG.net) for until the NG comes out? <<
No. You can play the game without the NG until the NG comes out. You won't be able to conduct starship battles, but you should be able to create PCs and NPCs and have adventures. Otherwise, the playtesters would still be twiddling their thumbs. =)
>>Question #5: Will ships be presented exclusively in the Ship Recognition Manuals, or will they be sprinkled throughout the other books too? <<
I'd prefer to lump them all into recognition manuals, but I'm not the final arbiter of this.
>>Question #6: Will ships from the online Spacedock books be used in the Decipher books (eg are the Spacedock books 'dectrek canon')? <<
No. Spacedock was a creation for the Icon System written by Steve Long.
>>Question #7: Is most of the stuff about 'the future of the Star Trek RPG' article Don wrote still accurate (eg is the presumed page count for the BBoA still roughly the same, does it still have the same number of species in it)? <<
Since I've not read Don's article, I couldn't tell you.
>>Question #8: Can you mention the details of what you can't talk about? EDIT: by this, I mean can you talk about the contract, not about the things that you can't talk about. Just so there's no confusion.<<
Anything considered proprietary information. Decipher is very serious about information release. Whenever anyone comes into a Decipher office, desks are cleared and certain areas made off limits. Almost anything I do is considered proprietary. I will try to talk around certain issues, like dodging (above) because I'm not telling you the actual rules. I'm not talking specifically about any given future product. How many aliens will be in the aliens book? I know, but I'm not going to say.
Like it or not, I am working for a corporation. That corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, and likes to protect it's valuable trade secrets. Decipher's marketing department will make information available as they see fit. Until such time, I'm here to answer questions and goob over Star Trek with you.
I hope I don't tick anybody off by asking this, but...
I may be a complete numbskull for even asking this (and if I am, that's okay, you can tell me, please tell me) but what about a Star Trek RPG could be considered a "Trade Secret" besides the actual game mechanics?
Decipher has the Trek licence. As I understand it, that means nobody else can legally make a Trek RPG. Star Trek itself is a well-known property, and there are people who know more about it than even the show's writers, and some of them play this game, so there's no technical Trek secrets to give away, besides how the mechanics of the game deal with those technical things.
Release dates and schedules I suppose could be considered trade secrets... but how? We know about movie release schedules months or years in advance, and it doesn't seem to hurt movie performance. If Dec says "We're planning on releasing a Klingon book in Sept. 2002," (which would likely mean March 2003, :D ), who's going to rush out with their own Klingon book to beat them to the punch? If you say "64 canon and 37 non-canon starships in the next SRM" what possible difference could that make? Do they really expect someone to flood the net with bootleg Mirandas? (Even if someone DID do something like this, well... I HOPE the players here are ethical enough that they'd boycott that and respond with anger just like they would to someone who was copying other people's work and presenting it as their own.)
Is this really protecting vital information? because it sounds to me like paranoia. "Cover your desks! Someone might see the schematics for the Pamela Anderson-Class Cruiser!" :rolleyes:
I guess I'm just totally ignorant about the world of business. No, I don't guess, I KNOW I'm totally ignorant. Oh, well.
First "When I cover something up on my desk, it means I've been reading comic books instead of working" of Two
I'm just being theoretical (and I'm not Ross), but I suppose it could influence the decisions of other gaming companies. For example, suppose Wizards of the Coast has a huge Star Wars product, retailing for $40.00, initially scheduled for a July '04 release. Then they hear that Decipher has a big Trek release coming out in June '04, one that'll retail for $45.00.
Now they are different products, but realistically, they are competing for the same audience - and dollars. So WotC might decide to push their schedule a bit to get their product done two months early to beat Decipher to market and claim those gaming dollars first.
I hadn't though of that... probably because I have no interest in a Star Wars RPG. I'm a 'depth' gamer rather than a 'breadth' gamer, so I never play more than three kinds of games.
On the other hand, if I played SW and Trek I'd buy all the books regardless, but that's maybe just because I have obsessive tendencies.
and knowing a little bit about that "fiduciary responsibility" that Ross spoke of, let me clarify a TEENY bit.
What Dan said above is correct... They do have to worry about the competition. But there is also the added fear that the proprietary information (rules, stats, etc.) can be obtained and disemminated BY ANOTHER AGENCY (like some guy with his own website... right, Don?:D ) If they charge for that information or not doesn't matter... DECIPHER loses out because some people will get the info (illeagally) without having to pay DEC thier rightful due. :eek:
And, of course, it's just fun to keep a secret sometimes!:D
Hugh
I just want to suggest one thing - let's not accidentally blame Ross, Don etc. for Decipher's silence.
These sort of discussions have started before and always seem to end the same way - Ross, Don, Steve etc. all seem to get bashed by some party at the end of the day for someone else's fault. Fortunately that has not happened yet this time.
Ross etc. cannot tell us many things about the game simply because of NDAs which they have signed. It is most certainly not their fault that Decipher wants to market things in this way.
The part that ought to get bashed over this is Decipher's marketing department.
Could I suggest that if anyone gets upset over the fact that Ross etc. cannot tell us too much, let's make very clear who we are angry with and not accidentally send all the flak in the wrong direction.
Ross and Don have been kind enough to share with us what they feel that they can in good conscience tell us. It is limited but it's not their fault.
As for Decipher's fear about releasing proprietary information, in my personal opinion they have carried it far beyond what could be considered reasonable.
Most companies do announce that they plan to release certain books. If they are worried about schedules, they can always make it more open. If they are worried about pricing, they can always not reveal the price. If they are worried that someone will steal the info and sell it, they can simply sue the parties involved for the damages and losses.
But most certainly, there can be no good reason, marketing or otherwise, to treat the new Decipher Star Trek RPG like some confidential national security document, which, unfortunately, Decipher gives the impression of doing.
Just my personal opinion.
Colin
Disclaimer - this is total speculation on my part.
One possibility occurs to me that might explain the silence.
They might not want people on the internet complaining about the game, sight unseen.
For example, it has been revealed that the game makes use of "advancements". In response to which, tons of people started buzzing about how it's going to be just like D&D, it's the same as levels, etc. This concern happened here and in other forums. As a result, folks like Don Mappin, Steve Long, and Ross Isaacs have had to do some "damage control" explaining how advancements are not the same as levels.
Now there may be tons of other things within the game which taken alone may "rouse the ire of the gaming community". This would causes folks like Ross, Steve, and Don to spend more time doing damage control correcting assumptions. Time Decipher would probably have them spend elsewhere.
What if the "advancements = D&D levels" assumption couldn't be dispelled? There might be people who refused to buy the game or even check it out because "it is D&D in space". They might come around later, but it seems to me the first few months are the most important time for a new RPG - rare is the game that sits on the shelf unbought for six months and then turns into a success.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this view, but it would seem to be a reasonable explanation - an attempt to prevent the game from being bashed into oblivion before it is even released.
(Note that I too wish Decipher would offer more peeks and I really hope they give some previews of upcoming products after the release of the game)
Thank you, Colin. Very nicely put.
Here's the thing about NDAs—they don't specify what can and can't be talked about in specific terms. Every one I've ever signed is designed to protect the company. So while they usually cover "processes" I have no idea what that means. Moreover, I have no idea how some attorney five years from now will interpret it.
Overall, Decipher is a great, employee friendly company. They're not coming down on me for possible violations of my NDA.
I shouldn't talk about upcoming products because that's the marketing department's job. It's not my job to promote upcoming products. I'm supposed to be *creating* the upcoming products. There's a guy sitting somewhere at Decipher who's job it is to come up with a marketing campaign. He doesn't come down here to design stuff, so I shouldn't shoot my mouth off about product lines.
I know what's upcoming in the year 2002; but what if I shoot my mouth off here, and the VP decides not to release it in six months in favor of something else? (Good example, maybe we plan to put out Big Book of Tech and we get the go-ahead from Paramount to release a Star Trek: Nemesis book.)
What happens? A segment of fans rail on the net that they want the Big Book of Tech and we're selling out and how dare we not support the fans and why can't you put out both books at the same time and maybe Paramount killed the Big Book of Tech, and on and on and on....
I'm being prudent, while at the same time trying to be available to you to answer your questions and shoot the breeze about Star Trek.
Finally, others have discussed the corporate mentality about protecting design and processes. They're all right on.