As C5 said in the 'The End Is Here' Thread let's go for it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mac417
Printable View
As C5 said in the 'The End Is Here' Thread let's go for it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mac417
I nominate myself developer and editor. We should figure out in what venue the secondary discussions will take place–this board is too slow and too permanent. I'm a student and freelancer, so I have free time in moderate chunks and then hard blocks of no-time, but I'm capable of investing a significant amount of effort into this to get it right. I assume most other members of this board have jobs and lives and things, too, and that scheduling this like a paying job would be impossible.
Before we discuss the outline, let's get a roll-call and any RPG writing experience...
Playtested on Spacedock, wrote various bits of a TNG netbook for CODATrek (mostly character, tech, and starship writeups.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
I did up a bunch of the movie aliens and a CODA sourcebook on artificial lifeforms that was online here for a while; feel free to use the material, but give me credit in the new work if you do. My RPG experience includes writing on all of the books for Cubicle 7's Victoriana line, writing the London sourcebook for Adamant's Imperial Age line.
I'm not available to work on anything fulltime. I've got my comps coming up and don't know that I really want to slice off time from paying writing for a fan book.
Good luck.
Maybe we should ask Magnus to make this into a secluded subforum, just to discuss things, and to be safe from copyright issues.
I would like to help too
Copyright law doesn't protect the system itself, but the prose, visuals, and layouts. I'll dig up the law itself when I have time, but I researched it when I considred bringing the old Victory Games' James Bond system back. The mechanics aren't subject to protection, as the text is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cut
So if you do a complete rewrite of the system itself, you're safe; the use of the Paramount property is where you're likely to run into trouble. Make sure you highlight this is a fan-effort and not for sale and you should be okay.
Slow? I might have agreed with that a week ago, when it still was on its temporary home. But it has responded quite crisp since the move. If it still appears slow to you, drop me a pm, and we can look into if it is anything server side or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
It is not that much problem to set up a hidden subforum. There are already a few. The political forum for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cut
The two main headaches are copyrights and trademarks. All fan made material are in a legally gray area. So I would recommend keeping a healthy distance. This would be my main considerations when deciding if i would offer space and bandwidth for the final product.
Breaking things down into several modules can keep the core rules safe in case there is a policy change at the legal department. Besides, keeping Trek specific information in one book, and the specific rules in another, would make it more simple to use the system for more settings as well. ;)
More the medium, not the specific site. The non-immediate nature and the permanency (heh) of the forums makes discussions on them more like statements rather than just chatting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt. Lundgren
Historically, what has been Paramount's attitude toward things like this? What actions have they taken?Quote:
The two main headaches are copyrights and trademarks. All fan made material are in a legally gray area. So I would recommend keeping a healthy distance. This would be my main considerations when deciding if i would offer space and bandwidth for the final product.
Breaking things down into several modules can keep the core rules safe in case there is a policy change at the legal department. Besides, keeping Trek specific information in one book, and the specific rules in another, would make it more simple to use the system for more settings as well. ;)
AFAIK, I think CBS/Paramount has relaxed their stance on fan-based material a great deal from the days when they would shut down fansites and such left and right. The fact that we have sites like Memory Alpha, DITL, and TrekCore.com, as well as fan-produced films like New Voyages and Of Gods and Men, seems testament.
The way it looks these days, as long as we aren't making money off this venture we should be okay. If doing a fan-made tabletop RPG would get us strung up the flagpole, I doubt any of the aforementioned would even exist.
I totally understand where Magnus is coming from if he's trepidatious, though.
Personally, I'm more concerned about the legalities of using the Coda System than those regarding Trek.
First question: after re-writing, re-naming, and probably changing some parts, what more needs to be done?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac417
Second: Is Decipher even in the RPG business any more? Do they care what happens to CODA?
While the mechanics do not fall under copyright, they can be considered trademarked... and trademark law is much clearer. It also favors the trademark holder, although they must defend the trademark to prevent it from lapsing. In other words, if they send an order to cease and desist which is subsequently ignored, the law backs them 100% should they file suit in response.Quote:
Originally Posted by black campbellq
I would take any such development project to its own site, lest they attempt to shut this one down in response. I'm not just talking about Paramount, Decipher could very well do the same. The CODA rules remain theirs, unless that ownership reverts to its authors at some point in the future. This is rarely the case for entire rules systems, however. Better safe than sorry, regardless.
Well, I just checked the indicia in the books themselves and there's no language laying claim to the Coda System trademark.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaconteurX
Still, it's something to think about...
Such language is not required, and trademarks don't necessarily have to be registered for a company to litigate. I suggest everyone read up on intellectual property, trademark and brand identity before making any grandiose plans that will get someone sued.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac417
Hence that part of my previous post about us thinking more about this. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RaconteurX
I know if we're wanting to undertake this, we're more keen on just using Coda than developing a new game system out of whole cloth, but in order for this to get done without opening us and TrekRPG.net to reprisals, it's probably something worth considering.
I'm thinking if Warren Holland wants to claim that the Coda System's in its entirety owned by Decipher even if no further publications of the rules are produced and all he ever wants to do with the system is keep it in a jar on his desk till warp drive gets invented, he can do that and can sic the lawyers upon the dissenters with extreme prejudice.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Not trying to urinate on everyone's Frosted Flakes and saying we *shouldn't* do a new edition of the game, I'm just thinking using a proprietary system without the publisher's permission may be an idea worth some thought. There's other open-source RPG systems (Tri-Stat, FUDGE, Fuzion) if we don't want to create a new system from scratch.
Like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac417
There's not much, if anything, mechanically original in CODA* compared dozens of other game systems. We could, theoretically, take the d20 OGL SRD and mutate it until it's virtually CODA (no levels, 2d6 instead of 1d20, four saves, etc...).
*The starship combat rules are a possible exception. Who wants to weigh in on this?
Also a good point. I remember when we were jumping all over CodaTrek due to its glaring similarities to d20.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
I would like to offer my help as well.
I made some home made stuff over the years, and I'm starting again as a Narrator for a new sesean of our group. This is what I have made so far (its not completely finished).
Combat Skill: I've made a different approuch of the Combat skills.
Expanded Combat System: I've made several new combat moves, and made new combat related edges. Martial arts can now be represented by taking several edges (and not a seperate skill and edges, see Combat skill).
Libra Medica: We have a doctor in our group, so I've made some extras for the Medic.
Probes: I made also a small file about the use of probes.
Tranfering Power: I made my own version of the rule.
Tell me what you think of the Files.
One of the things that need to change is the construction system for the Starships. The system as it appeared in the NG was great.
It offered one system table for each different systems (not by race as in the Starship guide).
You could make a table (like the availibilty table in the Starship guide) that changes the space cost of different systems (should aslo take in acount the access to special tech like the cloak, transwap) by individual race and rules to do so with other races. Examples: Federation = lower cost for sensors and shields. Klingons = lower cost for weapons.
You could make a special table for unique systems (like the MAM, Cloak, regenerative shields, transwarp drive...).
The Beam weapon table should inculde a sort of system where you add a special feature to it, so that you can create different beam weapon . For example: Phasers = Stun and remodulation. Disruptors = More damage.
Also we should include a rule for tech level and advances of technology in the future, so that you can bring new and exiting tech in your game (think about the Voyagers special shield system).
Things like cheaper sensors for the Federation for all ships seems kind of miniatures-gamey, and begs some meta-mechanical questions. For instance, is that because they simply have a certain technological advantages? Would it differ by era? At what point do the Romulans steal the technology and close the gap? Who would get better weapons, Klingons or Andorian Imperial Guard? What counts as a "Federation ship," anyway?
Not saying it's a bad idea, but it would fit in a faction-oriented space combat game where balance matters more than an RPG.
The Tatterdemalion King Wrote:
I understand what you are saying, the availibily table arlready offers advantages into that area. But I still like the Construction system in the NG a lot more than that of the Starship guide. It is a lot more streamlined, and creation of starships was alot easier (not so much tables for all those different racial systems). There has got to be a sort of system or a lot more components for future systems to allow palying in a new era (lets say 10 or 20 years past Insurection). My group is currently playing in 2382 and I find it difficult in using the Starship book for creating new systems. The only thing I use is the Prototype edge, which I think is the best next thing to the rule I'm suggesting.Quote:
Things like cheaper sensors for the Federation for all ships seems kind of miniatures-gamey, and begs some meta-mechanical questions. For instance, is that because they simply have a certain technological advantages? Would it differ by era? At what point do the Romulans steal the technology and close the gap? Who would get better weapons, Klingons or Andorian Imperial Guard? What counts as a "Federation ship," anyway?
By the way, I love the idea of constructing a 2nd edition. And I hope that by combining all of our efforts together, we can accomplish some great things.
THe legal problem I see aren't from the game system. As has been pointed out elsewhere, you can't copywrite a set of rules. Just terminology.
The big problem is that Star Trek is a an own property. So any legal hassels sucha s they might be, would coe from that quarter.
THere are some good open game systems. FATE springs to mind, and EABA has it's mertis too, but assuming we get a system, the big issue will be Paramount.
Given, also as said elsewhere, that fans have been producing online informational archives, screencap galleries, and entire Star Trek episodes (all not for profit) on their own without Paramount going after them, I don't think they'll come after anyone for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
Also notable is the fact that there is already a complete Trek supplement for Hero Games' Hero System online.
Hmm, this is a tall order, because in a way you have opened a can of worms.. what do people actually... want :D
Personally, I think we should look at the strengths and weaknesses of all the present systems, and come up with the best compromise between complexity and simplicity. Coda is an excellent place to start, but it has issues, such as the reactions, which are mentioned in other threads, etc. Of course getting everyone to agree on what all that is is the hardest part!
Coda is meant to be an ICON 2, yet some things got dropped which people liked. But that said they are both largely compatible with each other, so I think it's something we should aim to do, so that people can have added value from the existing books.
Create a core rules set and mechanics
create a simple character creation process/tree
redesign all the alien templates for the new rules
That way we retain maximum compatibility, but don't create issues down the line with Decipher.
With regard to Paramount, well that's going to be an issue no matter what. But personally I can't see it being any different than these Forums existing. So long as we are not making money from it, Paramount is unlikely to bother us! But it's down to Magnus as site owner to do what he feels is best, as it's his site!
I'll help out if you need me too, I'm fairly good at DTP, Photoshop, and I dabble in 3D too. I play and write a lot of my own games, and i can probably organise a play test group with my players too :D
Very true. I doubt Paramount would come after people unless money started to change hands OR it started to get a lot of attention, and even then we'd probably get a warner or even an offer to do something official rather than a lawsuit. Paramount seems to have figured out a few years back that going after your own fanbase hurts you far worse than a few sceencaps will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac417
Just wanted to pint out that we are more likey to get problems there as from anywhere else. Even passing around copies of the PDFs, while a no-no is probably going to get by unnoticed, or with little response. After all, if the game isn't profitable, then they can't be loosing profits.
And that is for stars. I've seen Trek stuff for a least a half dozen games. Hero, GURPS, Timelords, Traveller....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac417
I think you are spot on for what we should do. I suspect that if we change systems there will be a long debate on which system to use. And I also think that there are things in CODA that could be improved. Overall I prefer ICON to CODA, but believe that CODA did fixz most of ICON's flaws. Just that CODA had it's own flaws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobian
Probably someone should take notes/compile a list of options and we can vote/argue them out.
I for one don't like the "doubled wound points" thing. In ICON fights were fast a vicious. In CODA it was more like chipping away at hit points. Phasers excepted.
One idea that I'd like to see is the elimination of wound points for a wounding system. For instance maybe give each character a wound threshold rating, and maybe the character looses an additional wound level per 3 points the damage exceeds the threshold.
Sounds like a plan.. let the wailing and gnashing of teeth commence :D
Tooth-gnashing is okay, but "wailing' is no longer permitted. We might kill the last two humpbacks. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Tobian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobian
One thing I'd like to see change, and this is purely on a personal level, is having to have two numbers to denote attributes. Having both ability scores AND modifiers just seems a bit redundant to me.
Yep a bit like True 20 does it - you just have the modifier as a stat. Plus in Coda the way it was done was a bit.. odd, every other number was +1, except the middle 3, for 0 :D
Yeah, I don't really understand why CODA (or 3E, really) has the two sets of numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobian
Trademarks, you have to defend them or you will loose them. So I would strongly recommend to not have "Star Trek" or "Coda" in the name. If you look at all the examples mentioned above, how many of those have used a trademarked name?
Copyrights, you don't have to defend them to keep them. If you have a change of hearth a few years down the road, the only thing you would have lost when sending in the lawyers are how much damages you can claim.
Of everything mentioned above, I would say that nothing of it is in direct competition of "the real product." A few fan made episodes will not compete with a full series. Most of the other stuff plays a supportive role. But considering how small the RPG market is, having a complete fan made Star trek RPG on the market could easily be considered to hamper the possibility to get a new company to pick up the license.
Thats why I recommend dividing it up to at least 2 different books. one rulebook containing no specific Trek information (this could be an existing system, or a custom made one) and a Trek supplement to the first one.
On the other hand, it is always possible to have "be unsuccessful" as a design constraint. ;)
Then I have my own opinions when it comes to trying to reach a consensus. But who knows, as this is currently discussed on the Coda part of the forums, there might be a slight chance. Then there are also the option of involving the people who don't care about Coda. It would increase the amount of conflicting opinions and harder to reach a consensus. But might also result in two separate projects that can share ideas and resources.
And of course, I am not a lawyer, nor have ever studied to become one ;)
I'm intrigued by the idea of doing a wound state based system, kinda like how Mutants & Masterminds does it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
Basically with M&M, an attack has a damage rating and you have to make a Toughness saving throw. You make the save, you don't take any damage at all. You make the save by only a little or fail it by a little, you get a Bruise (which gives you a -1 to further saves until you have a chance to rest up a bit). You fail the save by a lot, you get further wound states, like "incapacitated" or "crippled" (memory's a bit fuzzy on specifics here because I don't have the book in front of me).
Each state has specific effects, like -1 to further damage saves or "slowly passing out due to extreme pain", or stuns you for the next round. They also stack, so if you get hammered on a lot, you'll develop an array of bruises and be much more likely to be seriously injured. It's pretty neat and plays very fast, with lilttle book keeping.
When you think about it, it seems to model damage in Trek a lot better (and a lot of other visually-based mediums). You don't really just hammer away at each other--you accumulate bruises and injuries until you either pass out or die...but it's not at any single arbitrary threshold, like it is in an HP-based system. It still leaves things open for phaser-like instakills if you need them, but does a good job of handling brawling-type damage. And face it, there's a TON of brawling in Trek...
Also, I think it allows for better story-telling possibilities because you can just glance at your sheet and instantly see that you have 4 bruises, a crippling blow (to your leg, maybe) and you're stunned. You can then have the medic treat your leg, give you the Trek-equivalent of smelling salts and you're good to go.
At this point, however, you're not really doing CODA any more, so it might be outside the bounds of this thread. :)
The wound system I was working on, back when I was actively playing CODA Trek, kept the existing wound levels but eliminated the Health-based hit points. Health became the point at which accumulated wound penalties would decisively overwhelm a character and render him or her unconscious. So with a Health of 10, any combination of wounds with penalties totaling -10 or higher would incapacitate. I also used individual checks to determine if a particular wound overwhelmed the character temporarily. Heavily inspired by James Bond 007, Forgotten Futures and HarnMaster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac417
Yeah, me too. There is really only a couple of places where the game uses the stat and that could be replaced. For example wound levels could be 7 plus twice VIT plus STR.
SO do we want to keep the 2d6 roll and take the modfier, or do something like 1D6-1D6?
One thing that could be neat would be setting att the attributes to 0/Species Base, and then give the players some extra picks, maybe an advacement or two for buting up stats.
A baseline zero apporach also simpl;ified NPC stats. We only need to track what is differernt.
-I'd also suggest getting rid of reactions and just using the stats. We could even keep the choice of Stat thing. So someone who is poisoned could roll VIT or STR as desired.
Sounds similar to what is used in EABA. In EABA a character can take damage equal to HLH+STR. If we are going to go with base 0 stats we'd probably need to use soemthing like 7+2xVIT+STR to get the same kind of result.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaconteurX
Another neat rule EABA had was that wound penalties also acted as armor against attacks. THe idea, and quite sound, was that if you are badbly banged up, a minor nick isn't going to faze you. It made it a bit tougher to kill someone with a knife, although easy to mess them up to the point of being helpless. Things like aimed shots could get around this too.
Heh, the thread speaks of "Okay, let's use CODA, but let's rewrite absolutely everything about the system!" ... kind of funny considering we don't even have a base line to look at, much less figure out what modifications would be both sensible and not destructive to the rest of the system.
On that note, I've started a CODA SRD compilation on my own. I know there's one out there, but I had a lot of trouble with it. (Badly edited, a lot of thrown in data while skipping some very basics, etc). It's not presentable YET, but as it starts moving forward I'll house it at www.pixelsagas.com/coda
Well, if we want to use everything in CODA, we'd be better off just passing around the PDF. Legally its the same boat, and the work is already been done.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFVanguard
You know, I'm not sure if I've actually seen any pirated copies of CODAtrek...Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
Well, I've seen them for LUGTrek. So I suspect CODA trek ones are out there. It only takes a llittle time and effort to scan a book and turn it into a pdf. Or, with progams like CDisplay, just using a zip file.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
I'll do a little surfing. If people want to go that route, and since that is really what people are doing anyway, I syuspect I can find something.
After all, we have the books already so what is the reason for redoing the system?
As for fixes, alternations, we've done those before too.