System Ops: why only one skill?

Doesn't it bother anyone that the skill "System Ops" covers about anything that has to be done on a starship (engineering notwithstanding)?
I don't know, I have a flight control officer, a tactical officer, and a science (sensors) officer ... and apart from the specialisation, they are basically able to do exactly the same thing. AFAIR, with ICON we had one real good pilot, and the others had rather poor piloting skills (or was that already a house rule we used ... can't recall). Now, both the Science Officer and the Tactical Officer are able to pull off maneuvers only the "pilot" could perform before.

I was wondering what could be done to remedy that ... somehow, making several completely separate skills seems a bit extreme (and I wonder what rule I should use to convert a single skill into 4 or 5 skills). It also has a few edge effects on the professions that I'd rather avoid.
Any ideas?

I agree it's a bit too bad the specializations allow only for a +2.

What we did in our games is allow the players to buy up to 3 Skill Focus Edges. That may give a +4 or +6 to a specialization, thus recreating the various profiles.

I hope this helps :)

It depends a bit on what characters you compare: Are they new unexperienced characters or characters with at least a few advancements under the belt. I guess with "newbies" the problem isn't so pronounced, as a specialty and a skill focus could almost double the skill level, giving more focus to a specialized character. After a few advancements OTOH skill levels rise and the difference between characters tends to grow smaller, at least as far as skills like SysOps or Computer Use are concerned.
The later I find not unreasonable, as I would expect at least Starship Officers to be well trained in any number of fields, including Sytem Operations, after a few years on station.

While I agree that the "System Operations" skill is indeed very broad, I feel that the professional abilities go a long way to emphasize who is a real pro at something and who isn't.
The ability to reroll certain skill checks, increased affinity boni or the Conn Officer's ability to perform an extra maneuver per round can add a lot of 'uniqueness' to each profession/position, so it's not all about skill levels anymore.

Another thing to keep in mind is the "Degree of Success" chart CODA uses. While a lot of people may be able to pull of a certain maneuver or perform a specific task (i.e. have high enough skill levels for it), a Specialty or Skill Focus could just make enough difference to do something when time is of the essence. Sometimes just doing something with a marginal success isn't enough.


As for the comparison with ICON at least in our game with enough experience most characters ended up with about the same levels in System Operations and Computer Use, skill that saw a lot of use in our campaign. Increasing the XP cost to raise the main skills mitigated this somewhat, but the tendency was there.

Look at it this way...how many times did Uhura take over navigation in an emergency? How often did Checkov run the science station (and he was also well versed on the weapons console)? How many times did Kirk or Spock run the transporter? Sulu's station had two functions (flight control and phaser control).

The point is that on screen, we clearly see that the crewmembers were proficient with more than just their one station.

System Ops represents that capability quite well, and shouldn't be changed.

I'm entitled to disagree, am I not? :)

The fact that most characters we see on screen seem to be able to do pretty much anything can also be explained with the fact that they have had an excellent training. It would be just as easy to pick other examples in the series where some character explains he hasn't been trained to do this or this and won't be much good at it. Not every character can be a Sisko, a Kira or a Kirk.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Calcoran
I'm entitled to disagree, am I not? :)

---

Yes, you're quite entitled to be wrong... :p (j/k)

Quote:

---

Not every character can be a Sisko, a Kira or a Kirk.

---

True, but since we are, in essence, creating our own Star Trek series with this game, wouldn't you agree that we would want to have similar capabilities for our characters? (And by similar, I'm not talking about the same level of skill, but, at least, a similar range of skills.)

Anyway, two different schools of thought...which is why, I suppose some people want to stick with Icon.

At any rate, the Coda skill system is designed to be broad, and represents the idea that characters would have a significant range of knowledge, rather than the pigeon-holed specialties of Icon.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
Look at it this way...how many times did Uhura take over navigation in an emergency? How often did Checkov run the science station (and he was also well versed on the weapons console)? How many times did Kirk or Spock run the transporter? Sulu's station had two functions (flight control and phaser control).

The point is that on screen, we clearly see that the crewmembers were proficient with more than just their one station.

System Ops represents that capability quite well, and shouldn't be changed.

---

Yeah, come on! Everybody down to the swabbie, third class can jump to the controls and save the day; they did it all the time in TOS.

And counselors can be balls-nasty tacticians, too!

Yes, I agree with you...

Mind you, before someone thinks this is my chance to criticize more CODA rules, let me say that this was a problem in ICON as well. Yes, in ICON you had flight control as a specialization under Shipboard Systems, so you could have a low skill level and a high specialization level (as my own character did), but it was still a problem, I think.

I mean, what if (in ICON) I increased my character's Shipboard Systems skill to 5 or so... My character is good at flying the ship so he is good at using the systems in sick-bay as well?

In CODA this becomes more obvious because the +2 specialty bonus has people upping the skill level (instead of a specialization level that no longer exists) and so we begin to realize how broad the skill is, but the problem (to the extent that it is) was no smaller in ICON, actually...

Another thing is that in CODA like in ICON before it, the skill is based on Intellect. This is fine, but wouldn't piloting a ship in a crisis depend more on a high value in Agility (Coordination in ICON) than Intellect? In Steven Long's Spacedock rules there are several references to such tests being based on Coordination (ICON), and I tend to agree with him.

In ICON there was also a Vehicle Operation skill, except nobody ever used it unless they were flying a shuttle. Since my character was a pilot (and began with a 5 in his Flight Control specialization), my Narrator ruled he would use that even if flying a shuttle, so I never rolled a skill check for Vehicle Operation. Maybe that is why the skill is removed from CODA.

I'm not arguing against a general System Operation skill, I just think it should have been a broader group with at least three separate skills under it - one for flying ships or driving vehicles (based on Agility), one for firing large ship-mounted weapons or the like (also based on Agility), and one that catches everything else. Maybe a fourth should cover more unusual things like using the systems in sick-bay and so. Yes, I want a few broad skills, but I don't think they should cover everything.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Siroth
Another thing is that in CODA like in ICON before it, the skill is based on Intellect. This is fine, but wouldn't piloting a ship in a crisis depend more on a high value in Agility (Coordination in ICON) than Intellect? In Steven Long's Spacedock rules there are several references to such tests being based on Coordination (ICON), and I tend to agree with him.

---

You can do this in Coda too. It's in the rules.

Quote:

---

In ICON there was also a Vehicle Operation skill, except nobody ever used it unless they were flying a shuttle. Since my character was a pilot (and began with a 5 in his Flight Control specialization), my Narrator ruled he would use that even if flying a shuttle, so I never rolled a skill check for Vehicle Operation. Maybe that is why the skill is removed from CODA.

---

I think it makes a return in the Ops Manual.

Sorry to interject facts. :)

"I think it makes a return in the Ops Manual."

Well, if that means there will be a different skill to pilot ships with, then that's good news, I think. If it is more like ICON in that it is one skill to pilot shuttles and another to pilot starships, then it's a little annoying.

Generally I prefer a game system to come with a set of skills from the beginning and stick to them. But granted, I have yet to see a system that actually does it...

My main point here is that there should be no difference between piloting a starship and a shuttle because they really shouldn't be that different IMHO.

Anyway, I guess that was a news-flash or what? Well, don't expect me to be too excited about it - after all, I'm a CODA skeptic ;)

Trying to be a little constructive, here is what I'm planning to test for our next session:

There are 4 sub-skills for System Ops:

System Ops: Helm
System Ops: Tactical
System Ops: Sensors
System Ops: Consoles

(as you can see, the last one is a bit of a catch-all skill)

For the conversion, I'll just count the XPs or APs spent for advancing the skill and double that amount (similarly, every template that lists System Ops brings twice more points).

The four sub-skills are linked. This means that if you don't have a sub-skill you can use half of your level in another sub-skill (rounded down). But this doesn't meant that you actually have a level in this sub-skill, if you want to improve it, you have to start from 0.
For instance if the Tactical Officer is wounded and taken to sickbay, the Science officer can jump in: he may not have the sub-skill SO:Tactical, but he's rather good at SO:Sensors(Spacial Phenomenon) 7. When he rolls, he can do as if he had SO:Tactical 3. However if at the end of the adventure he wants to improve his skill, he's still considered as SO:Tactical 0.

What do you think?

Atually, I may be using this for the armed combat skills too ... somehow I find it strange that someone very good at using simple weapons (clubs, knives, daggers, etc.) will be absolutely no good with a d'ktahg, which is, in effect, just a standard dagger with the word "Klingon" written all over it.

Er, you don't like my Skill Focus idea? ;)

I believe the "Consoles" part is exactly what you are trying to avoid... If a player makes a check to bypass a system, or to balance the warp field, or to do a viral DNA scan... then they all use this skill.

I believe there is as much links between these tasks than between piloting the ship or firing phasers... Back at the beginning IMO...

:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KillerWhale
Er, you don't like my Skill Focus idea? ;)

I believe the "Consoles" part is exactly what you are trying to avoid... If a player makes a check to bypass a system, or to balance the warp field, or to do a viral DNA scan... then they all use this skill.

I believe there is as much links between these tasks than between piloting the ship or firing phasers... Back at the beginning IMO...
:)

---

About the skill focus idea, I thought it was a bit too much like reverting to the ICON specialities ;).
And about the catch-all consoles sub-skill ... well, first thing is, I don't want to "overspecialize" a skill. And second, in all the examples you gave, I see more than just system ops. There is the first part which accesses the controls you need through the console, and the second part which is either engineering, computer, medicine or whatever. In either case, the "accessing the controls" part seems fairly similar to me ... similar enough to be put in the same sub-skill (and different enough from helm, sensors or tactical which do not make use of another specific skill). Well, YMisentirelyentitledtoV, of course :D.

Quote:

---

Well, YMisentirelyentitledtoV, of course .

---

Yep, truly ;):D

I understand your point and your view of System Ops (after all, I believe there are many ways of playing the computer and Ops and I think lots of Narrators have personal views on this). Seems to me, your rules idea fits nicely your view of System Ops.

Have a nice game! :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KillerWhale
Seems to me, your rules idea fits nicely your view of System Ops.

---

Lol!
Well, I was kinda hoping some around here would feel like I do. Truly, everyone is unique (eunuque, as a friend used to say, who had troubles with his english accent) ... but it always does good to feel one is not alone ;).