Okay...series is underway...

Hey all. So, my series is underway and I have narrated a few times so far and so far, everyone has had a really good time. I had a couple of questions regarding advancement and skill levels to see what kind of advice you all have for me here...

First of all, I have 2 new characters on my ship, both Ensigns straight out of starfleet. One is science and the other security. Right off the bat, and with no powergaming with my guys have 7-8 in one or two skills (after adjustments) and they rarely fail in that case. My science officer can not seem to fail with a tricorder (he chose the innovative edge and is also a technophile and doubles equipment bonuses, so the tricorder bonus is +10). My security guy has a skill of 8 total with his energy weapon, so if there is something standing still and not dodging with a normal defense of 7-9, is he to hit every time?

Another thing that I noticed is that the core books do not provide a comprehensive list of actions and the skills that go with them, it took me a little while to logic out which skill would be used for which action.

Lastly, Systems Ops. If a player decides to power up his systems ops base skill level, does that allow him to do each and every one of the actions listed under Sys Ops, with a bonus to his specialty? For example, if my PC has Systems Ops 4 with a +2 to int, then decides to place 2 more points into it on his first advancement, he would have a total of 8 for systems ops. (he has a specialty of sensors). So, essentially, he can pilot a ship, fire photon torpedoes, modify a ships main deflector and know how to encrypt command codes at a skill level of 8? That seems like one hell of a security guy. So...8 plus a 2d6. In a few advancements, should my science officer decide to raise that skill more, he could essentially do anything aboard a ship, that is a routine function, right?

I love the system, but I do not want think that the players can outgrow the system too quickly through strategic advancements. My players wouldn't take advantage and I have the last word, but I was just wondering how others dealt with this.

Yes, I am a CODA Narrator Noob, and I am sure there is something I am missing here. Enlighten me?

thanks!
Solstice

On average with bonus of +7-8 they shouldn't fail TN 15 tests too often, but are you using everything else to your advantage such as environment, conditional modifiers, etc.? If not, look into doing so. Also put them in situations where what they are best at don't help, aren't of any use, or could even hinder a situation. As for tricorders, there are plenty of substances or radiations or even Narrator fiat could not allow sensors to analyze. As for attacking someone/something, when Defense is 7+mod, it will never be difficult to hit; that's the nature of the game. Have things Dodge (its done a LOT in Star Trek), give them armor, etc.

The books didn't do that on purpose because the designers didn't want to pigeon-hore the skills. In certain situations one skill could be more appropriate than another or either skill could be equally as appropriate, leaving it up to the Narrator to decide what to do.

As written, System Operations would work as you described. This is why I have house-ruled it to be a Skill Group (like Knowledge or Science) instead of a Skill.

Yeah the game kind of works like that: It's surprisingly easy to make a very competent person in Coda, at character creation, which if you think about it makes a lot of sense ! :)

There are a number of controls and factors to this: Not everything has average difficulty; Sometimes things have up to 25 TN or more in the case of some ship combat TN's which is going to be pretty hard to achieve, except on a lucky roll!

The system is set up to allow players to be VERY good but only in a couple of areas: This is a one trick pony issue, and easily broken if you make them do something they don't have a 6-8 in :) The flip side to this is in reality, in Trek you rarely see the main characters fail at being able to do their job: The ship might be overpowered by superior technology/greater numbers, but you don't see commander Riker lean over his seat, going "damn, how do you fire phasers again?!"

Also with system operations it is just OPERATING the ship: You can be really good at sensors, but unless you have a good science skill you might have no concept of what it is saying to you (some skill tests should be tiered like that) - sure they have super advanced computers, but they rarely volunteer information, and in the middle of the combat, do you have time to do a comparative computer database search on the subject: Startrek technology is human enabled, it doesn't tell you what to do, or do your job for you!

There are quite a few other linked skills you need for stuff like this: Tactics, bureaucracy, science (all kinds) engineering (all kinds) cultural knowledge etc. It's only through a combination of all these things can you understand what's going on/make real changes/take tactical decisions. The computer only tells you a number of pre-set options like 'evasion pattern delta 5' there isn't a 'oh damn, we're outnumbered, jump to warp' button or 'I'll use the planets magnetic pole to hide my warp signature' button :) These are skill and story driven things that the players need to come up with, as a response to what is going on. On Trek, if they think of their clever plan to hide in a magnetic field, they don't flub their rolls, and nosedive into the planet :)

The other thing I did to counter the 'easily pass every roll' was introduce the house rule of double 1's as a fumble. It's amazing how common it was at a really critically bad time for a fail! :D

Outstanding. By the way, I was not complaining about the rules, just trying to clarify that it wasn't something I was interpreting wrong. I like the CODA system, and I was trying to not riddle the game with a bunch of 'house rules', but there are a couple I am considering.

I love the idea of treating systems ops like science or knowledge, but I will have to consider it carefully before I do that. I have great players, so they will be receptive to whatever I do.

As for the skills being vague for a reason, I do like it the more I play. And I am glad that a player gets to play a competent character right off the bat, rather than a 4 hp, 1st level adventurer like other games I played.

I am actually very pleased that I am on the right track here and that I didn't misinterpret everything. I am still geting my feet wet and will take into account mods more as well. All in all, everything is fun.

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate having you to bounce these minor insecurities off of. A sort of affirmation, if you will. =) I will let you know how the implementations go. Take care!

Solstice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solstice

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate having you to bounce these minor insecurities off of. A sort of affirmation, if you will. =) I will let you know how the implementations go. Take care!
Solstice

---

I think that you will find this board to be one of the friendliest around in the internet these days. Usualy you'll get helped when asking a question on a short notice, with a well-rounded answer.

Welcome to our little comunity on the net :)

Manipulating the situational modifiers is the key to understanding the tactical decision-making in CODA. Unfortunately, the core books don't make that as explicit as they should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cut

I think that you will find this board to be one of the friendliest around in the internet these days. :)

---

I totally agree, Cut.

So...here is what I am thinking about that Systems Ops issue that has been tugging at the back of my mind. Gandalf mentioned having a house rule to make it a skill group like science or knowledge. Here's my take on it and let me know what you all think, please:

I am thinking of making character creation stay the way it is, to include points spent into Systems Ops. This will be the base systems ops, to reflect the aptitude/concentration of study in academy. Training only goes so far, so after the character is created, advancements that occur through practical experience and picks spent to improve Sys Ops are devoted to individual systems, with the initial +2 bonus for specialization to be reflected in that specific area. For instance. Bob the security officer places 4 ranks into Sys Ops (Tactical), so with a modest +1 for Intelligence, he ends up with a modified 7 in tactical and 5 in the other systems. Once he advances, he decides that he would like to devote his picks into rounding out his character by increasing his sensors as well as his tactical to be more helpful on the bridge. He takes his 5 picks and gives one to Tactical (for a modified 8), and one to Sensors (for a modified 6). His other systems ops skills remain at the base of a modified 5. This still conforms to the limit of 2 picks per advancement and allows for a more gradual and individualized advancement scheme.

I was inspired to this conclusion after realizing that the base mods for the reaction scores are based on character creation, but they advance individually as a character grows through advancement picks (a feature of the system that I love).

Let me know your thoughts in regards to my logic. I really dig the fact that beginning characters are competent in their respective fields, but my concern was that characters can spend points in Sys Ops and become 'overqualified' in aspects of Sys Ops that are concentrated on by other professions.

I have also let my players know that I plan to be very conservative regarding my approval of new edges through advancement. I think edges can be a bit game unbalancing if allowed to be purchased through the game's advancement rules. But it does say that they are subject to the narrator's discretion (I do not remember the exact wording). Amazingly, the system doesn't give a cap to them. My players and I have a good understanding regarding story progression and how edges come into play there.

Thanks again for your time!
Solstice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

Manipulating the situational modifiers is the key to understanding the tactical decision-making in CODA.

---

I am glad you mentioned that. It was suggested earlier regarding TN modifiers and I have been playing with many different situations that occurred in the last session I had with my players to second guess my modifiers. I am getting better at identifying modifiers that I had previously overlooked.

I am definitely going to be better at this as I go along.

Thanks,
Solstice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tobian

Yeah the game kind of works like that: It's surprisingly easy to make a very competent person in Coda, at character creation, which if you think about it makes a lot of sense ! :)

The other thing I did to counter the 'easily pass every roll' was introduce the house rule of double 1's as a fumble. It's amazing how common it was at a really critically bad time for a fail! :D

---

Thanks, Tobian, I really liked your rationale for the competency issues. I totally agree with the computer being human-driven, an aspect I have pointed out to my players already. These were really great points you made.

As for the "snake-eyes botch" as I call it, the only thing that makes me hesitant to use it was that I had a player roll that 3 times, despite the probability of the roll to be 1 in 36. I am considering this, but I'll have to see regular play in action some more before I decide on this. =)

Making some quick-reference sheets from the charts in the books would be a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

Making some quick-reference sheets from the charts in the books would be a good idea.

---

Were the ones in the Narrator's Screen flawed?

Anyway, for sure a good idea, to have something like that handy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cut

Were the ones in the Narrator's Screen flawed?

---

I remember them needing extensive errata, but I could be wrong.

There actually wasn't a lot of errata for the Narrator's Screen, but that might change if I get around to doing the errata for the Narrator's Guide. What errata I found back in the day can be found here.

I have the Narrator's screen, but I heard there was considerable errata as well. I have used it during my narrating already.

So...no comments in regards to my Sys Ops house rules? Let me know what your thoughts are.

Thanks!
Solstice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solstice

I have the Narrator's screen, but I heard there was considerable errata as well. I have used it during my narrating already.

So...no comments in regards to my Sys Ops house rules? Let me know what your thoughts are.

Thanks!
Solstice

---

The only real errata on the Narrator's Screen was mainly the weapon damage table...

What if you limited the System Operations skill to a maximum of +5 and ruled that further advancement had to be done through Specialization, but you could pick the same specialization multiple times ?

For example your Security officer could have System Operations at +5 and then assuming he picked System Operations (Tactical) twice would have a total of:

System Operations +5
(Tactical) +9

You know, I think System Ops should be a skill group, and Starship Officers should start with professional abilities that allow then to use all skills in the group untrained (or technically, be trained in them without possessing ranks in the skill) and maybe granting affinity bonuses bonuses based on, say, their promotion feat (so an Ensign has a +0 affinity bonus, a Lt. j.g. has +1, etc...). This, combined with the usual attribute or edge bonuses and things that most CODA characters have, should make them more competent than other professions.

You might need to rejigger some of the background packages, though. So, Sys Ops +2 and Other Sys Ops +1 instead of Sys Ops +3, etc.

I'd be a bit leary of making Systems Ops a skill group, since characters will suddenly need a lot of picks just to be able to do the basic stuff that every one does on TV. Some options:

OPTION 1

One idea for starship ops, and other skills is to alter the specialty rules a little.

Instead of a flat +2 bonus, a specialty could work like a skill, that is it could have a variable value. Say each "pick" is worth +2 to a specialty, but the specialty is capped at half the main skill.

With that idea, skills could be capped at 9 (so the total skill modifier would skill cap off at +14). This would still let character do all the basic stuff easy enough, but would make the characters position and specialty training more significant.


This could even be expanded to allow sub-specilatiess (capped at half the specialty), adding more idiviulatity and specialrization to the charactters. Sub specialities might be by class of ship, so a character might be more familiary with the systems aboard a certain class of ship.

For example a character could have Systems Ops +4 (Flight Control +2/Constituion-class +1) . The character could stil work the sensors and communications systems at a decent value, but would be much more effective at the helm.




OPTION 2
For skill groups, a character only gets his full ranks with a sspecialty, and is limited to half skill ranks when using "realted skills" in that skill group.

So a character with System Ops (Flight Control) +6 would get his full ranks (and specialty bonus) when piloting a ship ith FLight control, and only be +3 for other uses of System Ops.

Thanks for the input. Just when I thought that the post was dead, new life sprung up. Seriously though, I appreciate the discussion.

tonyg, you mentioned being leary of making sys ops a skill group due to the amount of skill picks needed. I was concerned as well.

I did end up making a decision on how to do this. The way I did it is definitely not perfect and is not the most efficient in game mechanics, but it definitely suited my purposes.

My main thing is that I did not want all system ops abilities to advance with just making picks into one skill with each advancement. But I did not want to mess with character creation and the picks that go into that, or adjust the creation process at all.

So I did what I mentioned earlier.

For Sys Ops during character creation, the player can allocate points and choose specialty as normal with the current maximums (during starfleet academy all cadets get the same exposure to training, ranks depict aptitude).

During the advancement process, which I feel is generous as it is, picks are spent into the skill set and raise individual systems ops ranks separately. Yes, it cuts down on the points that can be spent elsewhere during advancement, but I think that helps the characters find their priorities for character development and it is better than the enormous amount of unjustified aptitude that the current sys ops system has in it.

I am considering advancement in specialty at reduced cost to offset, but my players are happy as it is. I feel the fewer 'house rules' I implement, the better.

Again, is it perfect? Far from it. But it is simple and effective. I have 2 permanent players and a couple occasional players, and they are happy getting an advancement every 2-3 sessions.

I really do like the suggestions you guys had, and I considered changing how I do things. However, I have already implemented my house rule and we do not make and play different characters. They have their characters and are working them up. Play is consistent and consistently fun. Can't ask for more than that, can I?

Anyway, feel free to voice your thoughts and let me know what you think. I am totally open to the critique.

Take care and chat atcha soon!
Solstice