The "Four Options."
If you voted for Option 2, 3 or 4 post a description of at least 50 words of how you envision the project.
Printable View
The "Four Options."
If you voted for Option 2, 3 or 4 post a description of at least 50 words of how you envision the project.
Hey thanks for doing up the poll! :D
I voted option 5...not because I think the idea sucks, but as a tip of the hat to every "you can't redo Trek" yabbo. ;)
I voted for Option 3, but only because I believe it's the most plausible option. While Paramount's position on non-profit fan-made Trek material is pretty much a matter of record, taking an existing RPG system that doesn't have any kind of OGL or something similar that declares it open-source (even if the publisher's washed their hands of it) in my mind is something else entirely.
I'd be fine with that if all we were doing was making supplements for the existing material, but the project as I understand it was to develop a full stand-alone game that wouldn't be beholden to printing costs and economics as far as keeping it "alive" and supported, since while we've been able to get hold of the books, that may not really be the case for everyone.
Guys, I feel I should say something since I kinda got the ball rolling on this discussion over on the "End Has Come" thread. The reason I posited this was to give us a fun little project to do, since discussion of the game had died down a bit, not to mention the fact that a Star Trek tabletop RPG seems to be something the print RPG market can no longer sustain due to the shrinking of said market and of the limelight shone on the franchise. I apologize profusely if this has put any noses out of joint over the approach we should take, if this is something we even want to undertake still.
Mac,
No nose out of joingt on my end. I just want to get everyone clear and in agreement on what they are doing.
I've been down this road a couple of times in the past, and I've discovered that unless it is all spelled out at the start, you end up with six different people doing six different project and then things turning nasty when they all compare notes.
I could enjoy any of the options. Or even attempting two of them, if this splits off into two different projects.
Better to iron out everything now, with no hard feelings than later, after people have started doing things.
I'm all for a new system. I liked CODA fine, but there were enough things that bothered me about it that I'd rather start again.
I'd like to point out that no-one who's voted for Option 2, 3, or 4 have actually described their ideas in post form.
I think that's mainly because, while we're voting our preferences, we haven't got any hard and fast ideas to post.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Maybe I should've been more clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac417
Your vote for 2, 3 or 4 is not the same as someone else's vote. Without explaining what you mean by 'improvements,' or what system you want for the new Trek game, you're not actually saying anything. If you don't actually know what you want, perhaps you should refrain from voting.
Maybe some of us haven't nailed that exactly down for ourselves yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
So nail it down, then vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac417
As much as I like CODA, I voted for a completely new system because my preference these days is for more story-driven mechanics. Port CODA's Professional Abilities over to Spirit of the Century as Stunts and right there you have the beginning of a terrific conversion. SOTC-style character generation gives you something approximating the tours of duty of FASA and ICON. Aspects provide color and allow players to define and play to their characters' strengths. No need for funky species templates, you just select an Aspect tied to your character's species... say Vulcan Science Officer or Kolinahr Adept. This assumes you and your players are familiar enough Star Trek (and mature enough) to hash out where a specific Species Aspect might apply. Vulcans, Klingons and Augments all can invoke theirs to perform feats of strength, Humans and Betazoids can invoke theirs to make favorable impressions, etc.
Imagine Doctor McCoy's Aspects:
- Human Medical Officer
- "He's dead, Jim."
- Old-fashioned Southern Charm
- "You green-blooded, inhuman..."
- Constant Curmudgeon
- "I'm a doctor, not a..."
- Enterprise Department Head
- "I only use for medicinal purposes."
- Transporter-Averse
- < insert tenth aspect here >
See, that's what happens when you post at work. The dang work 'distracts' you from what you'd rather be doing :)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Option 3. Okay, admittedly I'm on a Ubiquity system kick (Hollow Earth Expedition). I could see using that as the base system (I know the owner wouldn't mind that at all, since it won't be for sale), but I'm not necessarily suggesting that. Some points in no particular order:
1) Alien/creature creation system from the get go.
2) Use the 'standard' 6 attributes; no attribute modifiers, just the attribute please. Humanoids standard stats in the 1-6 range.
3) Pool system; roll attribute+skill dice to hit certain number of successes, or 2x attribute for pure attribute rolls. (NOTE: Ubiquity is the only pool system I've ever really liked, and I've read several of them, so I understand people's dislike of them.)
4) Talent trees; no levels, no classes
4a) I like the 'bundles' of XP you get with CODA, because it allows you to buy largely what you want while simultaneously 'forcing' you to spread it around.
5a) Static 'Health,' 'HP," or whatever you want it to be called based off a couple attributes (causing penalties when you go negative, to a limit of course), OR
5b) A 'Threshold' with certain damage levels (penalties)
6) Multiple 'damage' types; lethal, non-lethal, wonkiness
7) Character creation: take base species, allocate point to attributes, skills, talents, flaws
7a) Flaws should actually reward people for playing them with Style/Fate/Courage/Edge/Action/etc. points
8) SotC Aspects: As RaconteurX points out, there's a certain level of familiarity and maturity required for that on a larger scale, so I don't think it's the way to go for character/species creation as a whole, BUT it's worth thinking about on a smaller scale. After a character is statted out (and maybe we don't get totally crazy with Talents, Flaws, etc.), each character gets a couple custom Aspects like those RX mentions, which allows a player to personalize beyond just "Oh, my doctor has the Transporter Phobia Flaw" :)
9) Some kind of cultural honor system (like Renown) where heroes can gain/lose Action points for upholding aspects revered by their culture.
10) Must be fairly freewheeling in action, so Action points should freely flow to and from players, BUT
10a) Action should actually be dangerous, thuse mandating the use of those Action points.
11) I like the maneuvers aspect of CODA ship combat.
Don't have time for more right now, perhaps more after further discussion.
I voted option 1, but actually, what I have in mind is something 1.5ish like someone said on another thread.
The idea is to stick to CODA, but expanding a bit some rules to adapt them. Something like the differences between the Starship book and the Player and Narrator core books, or what Killerwhale did with the ESO.
My opinion is that there are enough game systems around there, each with their own pros and cons in regard to Star Trek, and that at least CODA was designed with Star Trek (including its latest incarnations) in mind.
I started working on a SotC version of Trek last year. Maybe I should revisit it. THere are a lot of things about SotC that I think would work well for Star Trek.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaconteurX
I love SotC's declarations, and think they would go a long way towards making science officers something more that just a sounding board for the GM.
I toyed with a FATE build of Trek for several years, never did much beyond theorizing since I didn't have an active game at the time. When SOTC came out, that got me thinking about it again. I especially love how you can create characters, starships, creatures and worlds with the same basic tools... write down some Aspects, choose some Skills, perhaps consider a few phases of background detail as necessary. Heck, you can assign Aspects to locations, scenes, adventures, even entire campaigns. Now that's versatility... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
Probably should consider moving this conversation to the other games section...Quote:
Originally Posted by RaconteurX
I did some FATE SotC work with a Trek setting. Phasers were a bit of a bother, but once past that it got easier. I was working out the details for starship combat and I think it would have been all downhill from there.
FATE/SotC is such a different approach to RPGs though that a lot of people are very hostile towards it. Basically it throws a lot of sacred cows about RPGs out the window and there are those who seem to view it as some sort of attack.
I think that is not only thw wrong approach, but biased. You are saying that peoiple need to hanve a complete concept, or even a complete RPG in mind before they can vote for anything other that 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Trying to rig the results?
I think that for the poll to be fair it should be enough that people would prefer to do something other that CODA. Everyone can work out what that is later.
If someone needs to present a complete concept it essentially becomes a one person project. Since by "nailing it down", they will probably have done it.
While there are those who love CODA and think it is the best system in existience, there are others who like some other systems better. It wouldn't make my top 10 list.
Well, the alternative would be to assemble a series of suboptions for 2 and 3 before posting the poll.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
No, the alternative would be to aloow people to decide if they want to do CODA or something else, then come to some sort of agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Should be phobit people from choosing #1 until they have decided what errors need to be corrected in the SOM and STARSHIPS?
Or...maybe there's nothing wrong with the system. Do fanbooks for setting periods, or a bit more on new aliens, or post DS9/Voy/TNG Movies settings.
About the only thing I every found wrong with the system that effected playability was the amount of damage people could take. You don't want them dropping like flies -- as with the d20 B5 system -- but they shouldn't be wading through fusilades of fire, either.
I've been simply using the system as is, but building new career packages, new aliens, and even doing new ships with more advanced technology (we're set in the mid-late 25th C.)
As the FASA fans can attest -- just because it's out of print doesn't make it worthless. Instead of wasting time rewriting stuff that is in existence...get to work on new stuff.
Remember back in the thread, when I was pointing out that Option 2 needed to decide whether it was 1 or 3? This is why.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
Seriously, though, is it that hard just to write down what you are thinking of? I find it hard to believe that people want to fix CODA but have no idea how it's actually broke, or that when you say "new RPG" you're not making some assumption about what form it will take.
Oh, I have ideas. But the point here is to get some sort of idea of what the group want. It we all go off in different directions nothing will get done, or what does get done will be solo efforts that will probably only please their creators.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
But, if you want my opinion on what is "broken" in CODA, here's a start.
1) It is too much a rewrite of D20. I think this stemmed from the sale of LUG to WotC. This is the cause on many of CODA's failings. Shoehorning Star Trek into a D&D derivative. Too often it comes off as D&D with rayguns rather than Star Trek.
2) The profession/classes don't work for Trek. In ICON we could write up characters. In CODA we need to worry about if Harry Mudd if a Rogue, a Merchant, or what. All of which affects what kind of advancements he has. It the same problem Star Wars D20 has and that ICON avoided. Is Darth Vader a Jedi, a Sith Lord, a Fighter Ace, a Fringer? Who know WotC copped out and game multiple writeups.
3) The advancement/level system sucks. The characters from the series wind up all over the place because, rather than give them the abilities and skills the demonstrate on the show, we've got to shoehorn them into CODA. Things like rules for how many active professions and such are artificial. You can't have a character who is good at a skill without giving him advancements because of the skill cap. If someone is good at multiple skills the advancements get ridiculous. Since they are the sole means of improvement, things like awards are actually penalties.
Look at Kirk, he has 66 advancements. About 4 of those are needed just to pay for all his commendations.
4) Too many hit points. CODA fight are long drawn out affairs. Sure there are phasers. But on TV we would get a lot of episodes where the characters duked it out or used less advanced weaponry. In ICON knives, gins and spears could kill. If the locals aimed submachineguns as the heroes and told them not to draw their phasers it was a serious threat. In CODA, it's a minor injury.
A fistfight takes forever. Try to subdue a guard without some special maneuver or a phaser and you are there beating down lots of hit points. Sure you can make a mook rule. But that is a backassed solution. Better to have the weapons work right in the first place.
The main character get ko'd as often, probably more often, than the NPCs. In ICON that was possible. In CODA, the GM needs to houserule it. The "GM says your knocked unconscious" thing gets old fast.
5) Starfleet characters lost their special training. In every other Star Trek RPG, Starfleet personnel were elite, highly trained professionals. In CODA it is class & Level and all the classes are balanced. A merchant with 6 advancements is the same as a Starfleet Officers with 6 advancements.
6) Professional Abilities overshadow skills and aptitude. It is now more a question what your class is than what your skill is. If you are a "fighter" you get acess to the abilities that grant extra attacks. With advancements the cross-training penalty is sufficient to make it fairly not existent.
7) To much nconsitiency between books. It looks like they went through three differerrnt starship design system before setting on the one in Spaceships. Most of the stuff in the SOM should have been in the players or narrators book.
That's a start.
You want to know why I don't agree with you? Because all the combats I've played in CODA were ridiculously short. I think you're underestimating the skill levels that characters in CODA have, partially because you're right about the professional abilities–they're generally a dozen different variations on "new, different positive modifier to professional skills." Poor implementation, really. Anyway, when your professional skills are "everything important in the game," like those of Starship Officers, it means that out of the gate a lieutenant chief security officer can take out a roomful of Romulans in one round. Which I did, dammit, and we rechecked the math when the group was all "wtf." Kirk? Doesn't need 66 advancements.
LotR had tough-ass orcs, but they also had mook rules.
Two things.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
1) What weapons were you using.
2) What do you consider "ridiculously short"? I ask this one becuase based on your response about starship combat, I think what you consider to be short might be quite awhile. With 40 hit points and 2D6 weapons, you're not going to see people dropping in a couple of rounds.
I think you had a phaser. A phaser bypasses the entire hit point/wound level mechanic. But, on TV character get into as many fights without them as with them. Give you seucrity guy a pistol andhe be hardpressed to take out ONE Romulan.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
He has them on his writeup. What Kirk needs are the skills and abilties that allow the character to function as the character does on TV. If that takes 6, 66, or 600 then that is what it takes.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Quote:
LotR had tough-ass orcs, but they also had mook rules.
No. THey retconned some mook rules. Mook rules suck. All it does is make the PCs feel invinclibe, since they are arrow proof. I played that years ago with D&D. "Oh boy another 1 hit die orc. Gee wonder if my 12th level fighter is going to get tennis elbow. Yawn."
Takes the tension right out of things.
You voted for Option 3, though, right? If you're not using CODA now, have never used it, and are planning on creating a new game anyway, why do you care?
Also, who the hell fights orcs at level 12?
Because I thought the idea was to have A Star Trek RPG for the community, as opposed to what one of us might want. As a matter of fact I haven't voted yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
But, I really think you are trying everybody's hands. You ask people to say what they have problems with in CODA, then refute those claims and tell them "Why do they care?".
You like CODA. THat's no secret. But there are several other RPGs avalaible to us, and just as good and just as popular. A lot of ICON players never swtiched over to CODA. IMO CODAs advantages over ICON are few and mostly consist of easier skill adding and the starship combat maneuvers system, which places the action more on the bridge than on the battlemap.
If this thing is going to be a community project to give us all a RPG to work with, then I think it is only fair to consider other systems. THis forum was orginally set up for ICON and later expanded to encompass all Star Trek gaming (and CODA LOTR too). If we elemiate all choices excpet for CODA, which you appear to be trying to do, then it becomes the CODA only Trek site.
But hey, if you want me out of this so you can just go ahead with coping CODA as you are intending to do anyway, just say so.
Aragorn, Gimli, Gandalf and most of the other characters from LOTR. That is the point. In the stories, such conflicts are dramatic. IF an RPG tries to recreate that experience, then the fights should also be dramatic and work the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Some other things I don't like about CODA.
Species Stat mods: What good is a 13 Stat? You get the bonus at 12, so a 13 Str for a Klingon is just a waste of points. Since bonuses come every 2 points and 4-7 is all lumped together the species mods don't mean a lot.
Klingons used to be stronger than humans. Now it probably doesn't make any difference. In CODA the average Gorn isn't any stronger than a strong human. I find it strange that the example Gorn solider just happens to have maxed out his Str with a 12.
I think CODA should take a lesson from it's parent system, D20 and double the species stat modifiers. Then the alien species would have bonuses that would consistently translate into something.
Do you mean... tying? How? What power do you think I have to stop you from writing a Star Trek RPG? : PQuote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
If by people, you mean... you. I think a large part of your problems come from play expectations that I don't really understand, myself, and I'm trying to figure out whether it really does just have to do with the system. That's why I started the combat thread, to continue the debate.Quote:
You ask people to say what they have problems with in CODA, then refute those claims and tell them "Why do they care?".
I'm okay with it. I mean, it needs less hacks than ICON.Quote:
You like CODA. THat's no secret.
Wtf? It's not on my server, man. I have no power here.Quote:
If this thing is going to be a community project to give us all a RPG to work with, then I think it is only fair to consider other systems. THis forum was orginally set up for ICON and later expanded to encompass all Star Trek gaming (and CODA LOTR too). If we elemiate all choices excpet for CODA, which you appear to be trying to do, then it becomes the CODA only Trek site.
But you're obviously not interested in just soft-pirating CODA (which seems to be the majority opinion by a resounding 3:rolleyes: haha). Since you don't want to do that, why would you?Quote:
But hey, if you want me out of this so you can just go ahead with coping CODA as you are intending to do anyway, just say so.
Should I post a second poll asking how many other people here are committed to the idea of one project that everybody participates in? Because so far, you seem to be the emotionally invested in "a community project," rather than a project, and I don't know how many people are thinking of it that way.
I think you want a democracy, when this is really an anarchy.
Okay...Quote:
Aragorn, Gimli, Gandalf and most of the other characters from LOTR. That is the point. In the stories, such conflicts are dramatic. IF an RPG tries to recreate that experience, then the fights should also be dramatic and work the same way.
By placing resrictions on any discussion or comment that goes against yourwish of preserving CODA. THe threads were supposedly about a RPG "done by us." Yet if someone has anything to say that isn't "Yeah CODA!" you don't want to hear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
No by people. I am referring to:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Quoting a single post of your own creation in another thread hardly shows that CODA needs less hacking than ICON.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
You have the power to express yourself. You also have the power to restrict people answers to questions such as:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
When people, and not just myself, have tried to express a wish for something other than CODA1, you've slammed the door on them. Anything other than Option 1 needs justification, but option1 is self evident. Why not require anyone who favors option 1 to post info on how they play to deal with the issues of all that pirated text?
It should be enough if people want to try something other than CODA. THey shouldn't have to explain exactly what system and to what detail anymore than a resuse of CODA needs to explain, at this point, just how much of the original we are going to keep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
A resounding three after you've demanded justification for picking any other option. That there have been only 22 voters so far, and that nearly 2/3rd have chosen an option besides CODA 1 is just as significant. If only two dozen people care enough to vote, it's probably not worth pursuing any of the options.
If it is just "a' project. Why is a a game "done by us". Us implies more than one person, or royalty. Now I don't think anyone was making claims of royl blood when the discussion started. It was a group project. Even wne you nominated youself developer and editior it was still a group effort:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Suddenly it is your personal project and you don't want others to have a say?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Anarchy. Not an anarchy. Who edits the editor? If it is anarchy, then you are going to shout the loudest and take over then?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Okay...[/QUOTE]
But LOTR and TREK are supposed to allow us to play in those settings, with rules that mirror those effects. That Aragon in CODA is closer to D&D than the LOTR books is not a good sign. That CODA is a retooled d20 system does help in using it for any setting.
Speaking of editing...
EDIT: ain't in this thread no more.