I ran into similar issues answering questions as Net Rep.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
"What is 'savvy'? Is that a skill?"
*sigh, now with more eye roll!*
Printable View
I ran into similar issues answering questions as Net Rep.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
"What is 'savvy'? Is that a skill?"
*sigh, now with more eye roll!*
I did that! :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Doug Burke
THaen had to go, opps, sorry, I was thinking in Trek.
That is the sort of stuff that isn't a problem, just momentary miscommunication. It probably would have been better if the stats were the same, but it isn't a biggie.
Hello?
Anyone still interested in RPG 2nd edition.
I am but a combo of freelance work and a bad back have kept me away from the forums recently! :)
Sorry.
Still interested, at least in participating in discussions (not quite sure I'd have enough time - and english skill- to write something).
But I'm a bit lost actually as to what we have decided to do, eventually.
As far as I can tell we haven't decided to do anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by C5
This strikes me as one of those projects that somebody should just jump in and get something down on paper.
Designing stuff by committee is pretty much a doomed effort, at least initially. Committees are great for polish, not so much initial creativity or at least that's my experience from work. :)
Well TK has started on CODS 2 and some homebrew game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slortar
I was hoping we would get some sort of "mandate from the masses" or at least a post card saying "wish you were headed here". Otherwise what they get might not be what they want.
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
"What? If you guys didn't want to have a Trek game based on the Cyborg Commando rule set, you should have said something to begin with."
I will post my thoughts once more regarding this...
I don't necessarily want or need a new or revised system - I'd just love us to start a series of threads with optional house rules that GM's have come up with for their own game. We can organize them by game system, book and chapter.
I have never played any game system where I didn't bring in a rule from another system I liked, or create my own. So my thoughts are that a person is only going to be able to create a game to their own tastes - to committee it would kill it.
Tomcat
Tomcat raises some good points.
Just adding to what already exists would be easier. Would could make things for CODA, ICON or even do stats for both. We could even pull in FASA or some vairaition of Prime Directive. Or even go in new directions like the SotC idea or such.
I've got an optional table for starship offense for CODA that get's all the weapons on one chart and uses the Mark IX emitter and RIM-12C values for TOS and TMP. I can problalby put it up as a option one of these days.
And I have a dozen or so shutlecraft written up for CODA, too.
THere are a lot of ways to go with this, what way will please the most.
And Slotar's statement is right on track with what I'm thinking about. Personally there are several RPG systems that I like better than CODA, but I don't want to shove a game down people's throats that they don't want.
Maybe the ever-doomed Klingon book !!!
Other than that, as CODA covers all eras, maybe some specific sourcebooks. ENT, TOS, Movie era, TNG, DS9, VOY specific things ...
DS9 could cover stations/starbases as ICON did, although KillerWhale's ESO handled those quite nicely for CODA, and Gamma Quadrant, specifics on the Dominion and all. VOY could cover the Delta Quadrant, maybe some specifics on the Borg. etc etc
It amazes me that FASA managed to get one out. It is almost as if the Klingon book is the Ted McGinley of Star Trek RPGs. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by RealPity
I know, and their supplement was good based on the Ford "Final Reflection" version. Their Romulan and Orion stuff was well done too. It's too bad I didn't like the game mechanics so much. Love the character creation, but not a fan of the AP and skills system. Also not big on power allocation in starship combat, kind of bogs things down a lot unless you're really just into that & not the roleplaying. I did like how CODA did their starships I must say.
Interestingly enough (at least to me) about the Fasa Klingons: the IKS Gorkon novels have a few references to Ford's book. Kinshaya and the game Klin Zhi ...
Considering what Ford had to go on, he did a remarkable job with Final Reflection. All in all I'd say his Klingon culture was more interesting that the final "Viking Samurai" one. I wish a bit more of Ford work would be referenced.Quote:
Originally Posted by RealPity
But that how it always works with the novels. The good ones you wish were canon, the bad ones you wish were cannon fodder.
APs were a mixed blessing. I didn't mind the skill system that much, as I like % games.
All Trek games were stuck with power allocation for years. CODA was the first professional game that got rid of the allocation (barring some fleet action types of games).
Yep, some of those older takes on things were good. Personally I liked Diane Duane's Rihannsu stuff too. A more interesting take on Romulans than the way the shows seem to treat them ... nice rich history and language, and not all black haired with the same severe haircuts and sudden development of brow-ridge things that Vulcans lack.
Every now and then I feel ambitious and think I'll revamp ICON with what I like from CODA & FASA ... then I realize how daunting a task that is !!!
I'd like to to redo character generation, as I mentioned somewhere before, doing away with command branch and redoing some other stuff (security & tactical having different skills and being seperate), some skills not being subject to specializations and done more like the language skill ... history, culture and world knowledge come immediately to mind ... and a starship system more like CODA's ...
Maybe one of these days ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealPity
Yeah, I liked most of her stories too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealPity
I've been tempted to do something similar with CODA starships. MAybe even revernge engineer some of it for ICON. I awalys wasnted to redo the tables with things like the PB-31, LN-60s, and RIM-12C stuff. I'd also wanted to go with indiviudal weapons rather than halving the weapons.
It's been awhile for me on the Trek boards so I'll throw my credits in. If a group you decide on expanding or improving on CODA, I would suggest starting with my BSR. IMO I broke the system down into manageable chapters dealing with different aspects of the system (char development, stats, core mechanic, etc.). I know I probably got out of hand in some places making the system more universal (able to handle medeival, modern, and futuristic settings, fantasy to supers to starships), but I did annotate where I changed things from what is established in both games, made sure as much of the system en toto was represented, and expanded on ideas that I had and those that floated around here and the DEC boards. There are a few places that need updating such as the mass combat system incorporated and make it cohesive between units of men to units of tanks or jets to wings of starships, anything new out of Paths of the Wise, Mirror, Mirror, Isengard, and Worlds. There may even be some aspects from my Harry Potter game that could be of help.
If you want to design your own game or base it off what's in the BSR, a wiki would be a good place to start as it could manage more of the collaborative work.
GoB,
THe BSR is an excellent starting point if people decide to do a CODA 2.0.
But there hasn't been much activity in this thread. A few people have started doing some solo projects but otherwise it looks pretty dead in the water, err-vacuum.
For me, honestly, it'd be for ICON anyways, borrowing the good from CODA
I know the feelig. Part of the discusiion was to decide if we wanted to do CODA, an revised version, or something else. Maybe even an ICON/CODA hybrid. Overall I prefer ICON to CODA but CODA does address some of ICON's problems. It alos have problems of it's own.
The reason why I anted to get some sort of consensus was to see what most people here wanted to see. If 90% of the people wanted ICON, CODA, FASA, PD, or GURPS, that would have been the direction to go in. Even writing up Trek for an open RPG had some merit, since it would mean the system would be independant and not as liable to go up into vapor.
FATE/ SotC has some nice stuff, like Declarations, and EABA has a game system that has some stuff in common with both CODA and ICON.
Well I'm in the CODA camp if you couldn't already tell ;)
Wow! Warn me when you are going to throw a curve ball. :p;):DQuote:
Originally Posted by GandalfOfBorg
I'm sticking with CODA as well. One of the things that always bothered me about ICON was the cap of 6. CODA's cap is 12 (for skills at least) and so you have twice the differentiation between scores and thus characters. I like the "damage" this system to buck up that system of CODA's starship combat/operations, but I'm trying to convert everything to FASA's Starship Tactical Combat Simulator (which is a chore because I am redesigning all of the vessels from scratch so I don't have Next Gen ships running around with triple digits for Total Power. I like using the Command and Control panels and without downscaling everything, the most advanced vessel the panels can handle is an Enterprise class ship. Ah, the wonders of having too much to do and not the time to do it...)
Ah. A couple of possiblities for the tactical simular conversion:Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Macek
1) You could reduce the stats to half or 1/3rd the normal vaule when TNG era ships are around. There was the simple introductory system where all stats were one third the "advanced" value.
2) You could just dump power allocation and go with systemr atings like in CODA. Just do a conversion like "X" POWER = A code, "Y" Power = B code and so forth.