Reactions

I've been giving some thought to reactions in CODA lately.

As things stand, Reactions are damn near useless in opposed tests. Unless you roll really well or put a lot of advancement into them, or both, you don't stand a chance in hell of successfully resisting another's skill.

Let's take an example. Spock (Mind meld +10, Psi Modifier +0) tries to Mind meld with an unwilling James Kirk (Willpower +4). Even if Spock rolls the minimum possible, Kirk will need to roll a 9 or higher to resist. And if Spock gets an average roll (7), Kirk needs to roll a whopping 14 (minimum!) to resist.

My suggestion would be to change how reactions are calculated. Instead of taking the better modifier of the two attributes listed for each reaction, average the two and use the score, not the modifier.

For example, Kirk by the current system has Quickness +3 (+2 Agl mod, +1 from Fit), Savvy +3 (Prs mod), Stamina +3 (+2 Vit or Str mod, +1 from Fit) and Willpower +4 (+2 Vit mod, +2 from advancement). With the suggested changes, he would have Quickness +10, Savvy +10, Stamina +11 and Willpower +11.

The new values would literally even the playing ground when trying to resist Spock's Mind Meld.

On the con side, though, This makes it really easy to resist the effects of phaser stun. When you have a +8 or 9 and the TN for Light Stun is 9, it makes it a little too easy (even with the TN modifier from a successful reaction test). However, in my (admitedly cursory) examination of tyhe rules, that's the only place I've found a set TN for a Reaction test. Maybe we could raise those numbers as well (Maybe 10/15/20 or even 15/20/25 vs. 9/12/15)?

What do you guys think?

There is a very inexpensive way to bolster one's Reactions, namely selecting Edges such as Unyielding (+2 Willpower) or Healthy (+2 Stamina), then purchasing Trait Upgrade to double the bonus. For a mere four picks, you gain twice the return on a Favored Reaction and four times on a Non-favored Reaction. The one Reaction lacking such an Edge to use is Savvy, for reasons unknown to me.

We considered implementing several alternatives to make Reactions more worthwhile in play. One idea was to award automatic increases every so many Advancements, but this became unwieldy with canonical characters. The other idea was to give characters a new secondary ability called Experience, which went up every five Advancements. Experience served as a modifier to Reactions, with the full value used for Favored Reaction and half for any Non-favored Reaction.

Kirk, with sixty Advancements, would have +12 to his Favored Reaction and +6 to all his Non-favored Reactions. That seems to work okay, and a player who prefers an additional boost to Reactions can purchase further increases with regular Advancement picks. Were I to create a Command Officer with a base Willpower of +2, Unyielding and fifteen Advancements using this system, modified Willpower would be +7. Kirk would have a respectable (3 + 12 =) +15 without Unyielding, +17 with it.

The problem with reactions is that unlike in D&D, which has automatic increase you can depend on, the CODA reactions are something you have to deliberately choose. This is, I think, something that is a. bad for game balance and confusing for players, and b. not really reflective of Trek characters.
Reactions are probably the one part they needed to rethink or readjust, in terms of figuring out what one's reactions should be.

That said, I don't think Kirk could resist Spock's mind meld...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

That said, I don't think Kirk could resist Spock's mind meld...

---

Fair enough. Switch it to Spock resisting Tuvok. Or vice verse...

I came up with another alternative. Treat reactions like defense and just add 7 to each Reaction...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Burke

I came up with another alternative. Treat reactions like defense and just add 7 to each Reaction...

---

This was going to be one of my house rules if I ever ran CODA Trek again. I think I was going to add 5, but I agree that fundamentally reactions are too low and you have to spend too many picks to get "bang for your reaction buck".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Burke

I came up with another alternative. Treat reactions like defense and just add 7 to each Reaction...

---

I was going to spend time this week working on some data for your problem, but I think this is the most reasonable solution. It's simple, and doesn't add an invented rule.

You know, on further examination last night, iIwas having my doubts. If for no other reason than Defense is not an opposed roll. In fact, it occured to me that the 7 added to Defense could be used to simulate an average roll.

However, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who saw the problem with Reactions. I'll have to playtest the idea and see how it works in play... I'll let you guys know how it goes...

Be sure to shoot me some email on this, Doug.

I should look through my old notes someday, I had an alternative wound system that I was working on that did away with the hit point-like nature of the current mechanics in favor of something more akin to the rules from James Bond 007 and Forgotten Futures. In those game systems, each weapon has a default level of damage which might be increased by a superior level of success, and the targeted character receives a saving throw to shrug off the effects (i.e., wound penalties) of the injury. It would make for a far more Trek-like feel to the system.

Maybe an automatic advancement for your favoured reaction per advancement? CODA already has level-like structures; you might as well take advantage of them.

OR: Make the reactions not an opposed roll; instead, treat the stats themselves as the target number and advancements modify that. It's like Doug's thing, only de-averaging it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PGoodman13

Be sure to shoot me some email on this, Doug.

---

Will do, Patrick. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

Maybe an automatic advancement for your favoured reaction per advancement? CODA already has level-like structures; you might as well take advantage of them.

---

I considered that, but avdnacements can be so much higher than levels in a D20 game, I decided that wouldn't work. Otherise, Kirk would have a +66 on his Willpower... ;)

Quote:

---

OR: Make the reactions not an opposed roll; instead, treat the stats themselves as the target number and advancements modify that. It's like Doug's thing, only de-averaging it...

---

The problem with that is it takes it away from the player. And what do you do with phaser stun or poison or being drugged?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Burke

I considered that, but avdnacements can be so much higher than levels in a D20 game, I decided that wouldn't work. Otherise, Kirk would have a +66 on his Willpower... ;)

---

Yeh, hm.

That's another thing that bothers me about CODA: levels-lite without addressing the question of what the scale is like. I guess 66 advancements might make sense for a heroic action-y captain... but how high are we talking stuff? Does that mean Sarek has over a hundred? Two hundred?

Quote:

---

The problem with that is it takes it away from the player. And what do you do with phaser stun or poison or being drugged?

---

Um... the same as you would otherwise? It's just a different way of getting the base roll.

Well, math wise the solution would seem to be to go back to CODA7s ICON roots.

Just resist with an attribute (I'd simply Doug's idea and let the player go with the better of the two attributes). Since an average stat modifer is +0 and an average stat is +7, just up the TNs for the set difficulties (like phaser stuns) by 7.


I agree with TK here about the lack of a some sort of gaquge for advancements that tell what is good. I also find it hard to accept that Kirk really has SOOOO many more advancements than McCoy. Sure Kirk is better, but not SIX times better. Then again I don't think Kirk could really take down Aragorn in a fight.

LOTR is a bit better than TREK in this simply because the supplements statted out everyone and gave us some sort of benchmarks. So we get an idea of what is average, what is good, what is great, and what is something beyond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

That's another thing that bothers me about CODA: levels-lite without addressing the question of what the scale is like. I guess 66 advancements might make sense for a heroic action-y captain... but how high are we talking stuff? Does that mean Sarek has over a hundred? Two hundred?

---

This was something run into while working up the stats for LOTR. How many advancements shoudl Gandalf have anyway if he's thousands of years old? Just goes to show that advancements are not linked to age, nor are they levels...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonyg

Just resist with an attribute (I'd simply Doug's idea and let the player go with the better of the two attributes). Since an average stat modifer is +0 and an average stat is +7, just up the TNs for the set difficulties (like phaser stuns) by 7.

---

I like this idea. Although I'm going to stick with averaging for now just to take into account the qualities of both attributes suggested. I'll let you guys know how it works out after my game this weekend...

Quote:

---

I agree with TK here about the lack of a some sort of gaquge for advancements that tell what is good. I also find it hard to accept that Kirk really has SOOOO many more advancements than McCoy. Sure Kirk is better, but not SIX times better.

---

Try more like three times. And I reiterate my comment about what advancements aren't from above...

Quote:

---

Then again I don't think Kirk could really take down Aragorn in a fight.

---

Personally, I believe it would depend on what sort of fight we're talking. Swords? No chance. Fists? 50/50. Phasers? You betcha... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Burke

This was something run into while working up the stats for LOTR. How many advancements shoudl Gandalf have anyway if he's thousands of years old? Just goes to show that advancements are not linked to age, nor are they levels...

---

I... never said they were linked with age. But they are level-like structures in that you get these little packages every once in a while and there's no real guidelines for what relationship between reaction points and skill points after a certain amount of experience should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

I... never said they were linked with age. But they are level-like structures in that you get these little packages every once in a while and there's no real guidelines for what relationship between reaction points and skill points after a certain amount of experience should be.

---

The only problem is that, with D20/D&D levels, everyone in a specific class gets the same thing every level. A 9th level fighter has the same number of feats, skill points, saves, attack bonuses as any other fighter of 9th level (with minor variations for attribute modifiers).

However, with advancements, it's all up in the air. Each character chooses what he advances and how much. If a child has a very interesting life, he could conceivably have three times the advancements as an older character by the time he reaches adulthood. Between surviving the massacre on Tarsus IV, the Farragut incident, the Axanar Peace Conference, visiting Neural, beating the Kobayashi Maru, and becoming one of the youngest commanding officers in Starfleet history, I'd say Kirk's life was pretty interesting.

But that could just be me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Burke

The only problem is that, with D20/D&D levels, everyone in a specific class gets the same thing every level. A 9th level fighter has the same number of feats, skill points, saves, attack bonuses as any other fighter of 9th level (with minor variations for attribute modifiers).

---

Only mostly true, Doug. ;) They have the same base attack bonus and base saves. With attribute mods, hit point totals, racial abilities and fighter bonus + normal feat selection -- those 9th level fighters may look nothing alike, even though they have the "same number" of choices. Witness the "two-weapon finesse" fighter vs the "tank" fighter vs the "machine gun arrow" fighter vs the "mobile striking" fighter ... they will all have different attack bonuses, number of attacks, AC, saves, movement, hit points, and so forth. More than what I would quantify as minor variations for attribute modifiers. :)

Quote:

---

However, with advancements, it's all up in the air. Each character chooses what he advances and how much. If a child has a very interesting life, he could conceivably have three times the advancements as an older character by the time he reaches adulthood. Between surviving the massacre on Tarsus IV, the Farragut incident, the Axanar Peace Conference, visiting Neural, beating the Kobayashi Maru, and becoming one of the youngest commanding officers in Starfleet history, I'd say Kirk's life was pretty interesting.

But that could just be me...

---

I've found the flexibility of CODA advancements to be both a curse and a blessing. A blessing in that you can really customise a character, more so than with a game like D&D that has more regimented level-progressions. Yet with CODA it's invariably a black art to measure relative character power and capability with the advancement system as it's designed. You really have to break characters down into more granular "units" of skills, attributes & reactions, combat prowess, (magical ability with LotR RPG), and such to compare them.

I'm not saying that's good or bad from a design point of view, or trying to pick apart CODA advancements. I sort of like them for what they do in the system. But, from my behind the screen perspective, I do find it more difficult to determine what is "challenging" (to steal the D&D vernacular) for a group of CODA characters because they can all be so different whether they have the same number of advancements or not.

LQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liquidator Queeg

Only mostly true, Doug. ;) They have the same base attack bonus and base saves. With attribute mods, hit point totals, racial abilities and fighter bonus + normal feat selection -- those 9th level fighters may look nothing alike, even though they have the "same number" of choices. Witness the "two-weapon finesse" fighter vs the "tank" fighter vs the "machine gun arrow" fighter vs the "mobile striking" fighter ... they will all have different attack bonuses, number of attacks, AC, saves, movement, hit points, and so forth. More than what I would quantify as minor variations for attribute modifiers. :)

---

True enough. But you can still have an adventure "for 8th-10th level characters" make sense.

Quote:

---

I've found the flexibility of CODA advancements to be both a curse and a blessing. A blessing in that you can really customise a character, more so than with a game like D&D that has more regimented level-progressions. Yet with CODA it's invariably a black art to measure relative character power and capability with the advancement system as it's designed. You really have to break characters down into more granular "units" of skills, attributes & reactions, combat prowess, (magical ability with LotR RPG), and such to compare them.

I'm not saying that's good or bad from a design point of view, or trying to pick apart CODA advancements. I sort of like them for what they do in the system. But, from my behind the screen perspective, I do find it more difficult to determine what is "challenging" (to steal the D&D vernacular) for a group of CODA characters because they can all be so different whether they have the same number of advancements or not.

---

Agreed. It's a challenge. I usually go based on indivudal skil/ability comparison for anything that would be a major plot point. otherwise, I just fudge it...

But in the case of Reactions, I felt action needed to be taken... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Burke

True enough. But you can still have an adventure "for 8th-10th level characters" make sense.

---

Certainly. I was just blabbering on about how D&D level progressions aren't as "cardboard cutout" as they used to be. :D

Quote:

---

Agreed. It's a challenge. I usually go based on indivudal skil/ability comparison for anything that would be a major plot point. otherwise, I just fudge it...

But in the case of Reactions, I felt action needed to be taken... :)

---

And I'm glad that Trek RPG mooks like us care about these things! The *&#@wad "owners of the RPG property" certainly didn't. ;)

LQ

I find that the reactions work fine. But only when you expand the edge and skill list with some of the ones from LOTR.
For instance, the skill Insight takes the place of the Savvy reaction. This means that a profession with the Insight skill allows someone to train to read people, thus allowing them to use the skill in place of the reaction. The reaction becomes a persons innate ability. A trained person is going to be better than someone going off of their gut most of the time.
The Quickness reaction is mostly used as a topper to Defense, Dodge and Initiative, and thus increasing it radically would make those too high. If someone invests the points to have catlike reflexes, well thats the way he wants to spend his points.
Willpower has an impressive number of edges to boost it if you include the LOTR edges (I know because a mage in one game built up to a Will of 17 just by buying edges).
Stamina also has a fair number of edges letting you build up to reasonable levels of ability.
Overall I don't have a problem with the low reaction numbers, because they are only the basis of your reaction so you can build on that base to improve.
Of course my friends and I have expanded the base rules out with a lot more professions and edges, so I suppose we have more to choose from.

I am under the impression that these given examples are not very good ones.

Mr Tuvok would have Mind Shield Skill (or some equivalent, to be created if needed). Or we couyld emulate that with edges (vulcan mind shield technique for example, giving bonuses to resist psy effects).

I believe phaser stun effects in ST are supposed to be resisted only once in a while, and maybe using courage points.

Maybe we should remmember to use character traits more often and not just in combat/critical situations.

* Want to jump into the antimater contaiment to make heroic emergency repairs? Shure, lets check your Will first.
* Drinking with klingons? Shure! Lets check if your systen can take it.
* Want to see if that sexy alien invitation for dinner can be a trap? Shure, thats why you have Savvy, and so on.

Just 2 cents.

Regards,

Andre

PS: Glad to be back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr_Sage

I am under the impression that these given examples are not very good ones.

---

My examples are using the characters as written in the Narrator's Guide. Quality is based off that, really... ;)

Quote:

---

Mr Tuvok would have Mind Shield Skill (or some equivalent, to be created if needed). Or we couyld emulate that with edges (vulcan mind shield technique for example, giving bonuses to resist psy effects).

---

Well, if you went based off Tuvok's Mind Shield Skill, his chances of resisting Spock go up by all of 1 point. (Mind Shield +2, Psi +0, 1/2 Willpower +1 = +3 modifier). Still not very likely to succeed, no?

Quote:

---

I believe phaser stun effects in ST are supposed to be resisted only once in a while, and maybe using courage points.

---

True enopugh. Which is why I don't want to make them too easy to beat...

Quote:

---

Andre

PS: Glad to be back.

---

Glad to have you back! :)

I really need to get off my ass and finish the bloody NG errata, don't I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PGoodman13

I really need to get off my ass and finish the bloody NG errata, don't I?

---

*shrug* Either way... ;)

BTW, I ran my first session with the changes i suggested and it went rather well. Needs a bit more testing, but I think, for now, i'm going to keep it... :)