Give me your Coda Q's and Feedback (Good and Bad)

I'd like some help in addressing any pending questions/issues on the Coda system, problems, errata, or complaints that people may have. My schedule is so incredibly busy that the volume of traffic on this board is starting to even bury me and I'm missing threads.:eek:

With that said, I don't want to miss any important questions/comments or be reprimanded for ignoring people. Please post your questions, good or bad, here and I'll try to address them. If I can't get you an answer I'll write them down and cover them with Ross during my almost daily phone conversations with him. If needs be we'll escalate them further up the food chain.

My only request is please, please, please be civil and some semblance of courtesy. Not necessarily to me, but at least to the other members. I do care and I do want to help, regardless of whether you like Coda or not.

Thanks and fire away!

Feedback:

The system: It's solid and seems to work really well. Of the 5 players, 3 prefer it to ICON -- they find the 2d6 easier than the multiple number of dice, especially -- only one prefers ICON, and the other doesn't much care as long as we play SOMETHING.

Combat runs fine. The fatigue rules are much more streamlined than most I've seen. The skills are better broken down IMO than ICON. Not as specialization specific.

The traits could be standardized a bit better on what bonuses they give you -- right now they run the gambit from +1 to +4. I would suggest higher benefits come at a higher cost.

I think the limits on flaws is too strict. We ignore this. Also, there are certain flaws that should have been present -- phobias and such.

The species/profession-based abilities seem a bit redundant with the traits, but I do like the idea of a 'schtick' for a profession...just think they could have just been given as traits. Personal opinion & nitpicking, really.

Overall: very positive on the system with a few minor nitpicks.

For the guys at Deciper -- The book: layout is smart and works well, save for putting the reactions section waaaay in the back. In future editions I would suggest moving it up after the attributes section. Otherwise, building a character just works through the book pretty well.

I think the addition of the Delta Quadrant races was pretty unnecessary (person gripe) and would have included more TOS aliens. But I understand the desire to use those DQ races to pull in Voyager fans.

The writing is solid, with just a few typos here and there -- which is almost impossible to catch, even with modern speelcheckrs. The instant you .pdf of change format for printing, little bugs creep in. (My novels both have little ones from the adobe translation.)

The production values are top-notch. Better than almost anything else out there (save ICON, which had the high-grade paper). The use of screencap instead of bad fan-art is a major plus in my book. Binding's very good, too. (Good choice in printers.)

Character sheet...what were you guys thinking?

Overall: the books the prettiest on the market and in general is one of the better game core books I've seen in a while. Keep the production values high and I'm liable to buy the whole game line.

Well, I don't really have any questions, but I do have some feedback.

Don, I know you're not responsible for it, but if you can forward on layout suggestions, please ask Decipher do either include an index just for tables in addition to the regular index, or to include all the tables in it's own chapter. It would make finding them much easier.

And if you could get that character generation summary done that I saw you mention, that would be a big help too.

Otherwise, I like the CODA system in general. Now if I could just make a Narators Guide magically appear in my hands... :)

More Feedback:

I am doing layout work myself, so I have to agree that this is one of the prettiest books around.

I haven't actually played a game yet (we are waiting for the Narrator's Guide), but I liked what I saw.

As qerlin said, the limit of 2 flaws is a little harsh. I understand the desire to keep min-maxer's from getting too many minor flaws and lots of powerful edges, but a point-buy system would have been a little nicer.

The selection of Edges is great, although the promotion edge is still somewhat baffling to me, I'll have to reread that one a few more times. Since we are planning on starting from scratch it shouldn't be a problem for a while. There don't seem to be too many flaws, I would have liked to see some more things in that section.

Skills seem to be well thought out. That's a vast improvement over ICON (IMO). I like having a broader skill range. At the end of our ICON game, most characters had nowhere to go with their skills, as most of them were at the maximum level.

I appreciate the inclusion of the Delta Quadrant races, however, I would have liked to have seen something other than Okampa and Talaxians, since both species are somewhat rare, even in the DQ. Okampa only run around in 2 spots (and there aren't too many of them), and the Talaxians made a showing only a handful of times (aside from Neelix). Then again, we'll probably see most of the other DQ species in the upcoming Aliens book. However, the ommision of the Andorians is somewhat of a blunder in my eyes. Andorians could be used in any era (even in an Enterprise game), so they are missed (but are supposedly in the NG, so it's not too bad).

All in all, great job on the system. And as many have said before me... what's up with that character sheet. Most people only have access to a B&W copier, which leads to a very mediocre result.

Aside from alot of page flipping during character creation...I only have one other problem and that's the index in the back. The font size is blindingly small. The layout is good, very nice pictures...none of Lt. Uhura I noticed...

All the things that I'd like to see (Starship stuff, more alien races, etc.) are all going to be in the NG...and if they're not...well then I'm sure there'll be another thread like this for the NG.

-Darth Sarcastic

Rather than take up a lot of space saying the same thing again, I'll simply refer you to the thread I started outlining my feelings about the Player's Guide.

I did ask this a while ago, and I dont think it has been answered:
On page 80 under the description of the Perception attribute, it says "it can affect your initial Psi score...see P136". There is no mention of this on P136.

Overall I'm very happy with the book, it looks good and reads well. I love the use of professoinal ablities - I can see it will make players look farward to gaining points and spending them on cool things- a feel you get when playing a magic user in fantasy games.

A few small criticisms - while the rules appear to be in the appendix, a big chunk of them is actually contained in the skill chapter. IMHO these would have been better together either as consecutive chapters or both in the appendix. Secondly the seperation of professions and development confused me initially - I read back through the Professions chapter looking to see how many points I got spend on professional skills.

Here's hoping the Narrator's Guide will be a least as good.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by qerlin
The traits could be standardized a bit better on what bonuses they give you -- right now they run the gambit from +1 to +4. I would suggest higher benefits come at a higher cost.

---

There's actually a formula going on behind the scenes that you might not see depending on their usefullness. The broader the application of the bonus, the lower it is. The more specific the bonus is, say to a skill or specialization, the higher it becomes. They're all weighed and balanced against each other. (Ross really championed this and stayed on top of it.)

Quote:

---

Also, there are certain flaws that should have been present -- phobias and such.

---

Funny you should mention that, I just did a phobia writeup for a sourcebook. Remember, limited page count, limited word count--not everything could be put in there.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CorpBoy
Don, I know you're not responsible for it, but if you can forward on layout suggestions, please ask Decipher do either include an index just for tables in addition to the regular index, or to include all the tables in it's own chapter. It would make finding them much easier.

---

The NG has this. (I realize that doesn't help with the PG, however.)

I pushed for a collection of all the important tables in the rear of both books. TPTB decided otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg Smith
I did ask this a while ago, and I dont think it has been answered:
On page 80 under the description of the Perception attribute, it says "it can affect your initial Psi score...see P136". There is no mention of this on P136.

---

Perception does not modify your Psi score. I'll double-check with Ross to make sure.

The best compliment I can give this system is to drive it. I ran maybe six Icon games (outside of GenCon). Ever. I've run Coda Trek, I think, every week since it came out (and started an Icon game in preparation for the new game)!

The approach to everything, I agree with. In layout, I think Reactions are in sort of an awkward spot. Likewise, there are a handful of rules which I think would be better-off bold-faced or placed right at the beginning of their respective sections. I'm still finding out things (like the two-Flaw rule) that I didn't know two weeks ago. I think the rules for Blocking and Parrying in the book are repeated two paragraphs in a row, am I correct? The quality of photos in the book is a big improvement over Icon.

The new skills are vastly superior to the old ones. Equipment and everything is nice. (Healing is astonishingly easy, I think, but we actually haven't tried much of it.) I am extremely anxious for starship information now.

I appreciate the appearance of the VOYAGER races. There are some valuable things to be gleaned from their interpretation in the mechanics until the Narrator's Guide comes out to explain everything. (I just discovered last week, though, that I'm sorry the Jem'Hadar and the Vorta won't be in the NG.) I do really like that the NG covers the creation of races, rather than only selecting a finite number to present. This counters the small selection of races between the two books.

Overall, once I started to get the new system under control, I don't think I have any complaints with the Player's Guide that won't be solved by giving me more books on a consistent basis, of a quality similar to the PG. I love the focus on characters and setting over the focus on meta-game narratives. I adore the meta-game narrative capabilities of STAR TREK, though, and look forward to their treatment in the NG, but the game must be able to succeed as a simulator in order for players to be able to communicate smoothly and fairly and confidently. This game does that.

I'm simply psyched.

word,
will

STAR TREK: BORDERLINES at http://www.acousticboy.com/trek

What should we do with the Notoriety and Inventor trait in the assassin and inventor elite professions prerequisites?

Okay, some feedback...

Design : The book in itself is nice, the paper is cool, and the photographs really rock. I'm just still wondering why Janeway is the only Captain smiling on the cover :p (was she that happy to be back from the DQ, or that she was allowed to appear in a RPG ?)

Internal layout : Cool, although some chapters are not always where I'd have expected them. Also, some informations relative to character creation appear only in the text, not in the bricks, wich sometime make it difficult to follow the whole process easily (I'm thinking for instance to the edge granted to every character). Apart from that, not much complaints - I like.

The system : I really love it, except for its few similarities with D20. Namely, the Advancements, and the fact that the primary favoured attribute is linked with the profession. Apart from these two nitpicks and a couple of minor others wich can be easily altered, I love it. The 1-12 scale allows for a much more variety in skills mastery - as one of my players once noticed, in ICON, the difference between an expert (5) and a beginner (2) was one difficulty level; here, an expert with 10 in a skill is really better than the rookie with a 2.
Also, I'm glad to be rid of the infamous "Expect to roll a 6 on the drama die or you won't do more than 6, no matter how high your attribute is", and I love the enhanced courage points.
Finally, I just love the Professional Abilities. Mmm... perks (I'm a long-time Fallout addicted, for those who know what I'm talking about :D)

Combat : I've not run any combat yet, but I'm a bit concerned by the new damage scale. It's waaaay better than ICON, where a fight was simply not possible for a standard human who could be knocked out cold with a single punch, but somehow I'm a bit bugged by having a bat'leth that doesn't inflict more than a wound to a standard human, or the fact that it's almost impossible to kill someone with one shot of a projectile weapon (even a shotgun at point blank range will leave a human Incapacited at best :rolleyes: ). Maybe some optional rules in the NG will help balance that (like a localisation chart as in ICON).
I too miss the sample combat we had in ICON, but maybe is it in the NG.

Races : I'm okay with the races in the book; having Ocampas and Talaxians is a bit strange indeed (although I appreciate having a nice photo of Kes :D), but I'm glad they stuck with the races we saw as regular cast on TV (or similar for Cardassians). You may not realise it, but a recent ST fan (like I was when I bought the ICON books) who has not seen much more than TNG and DS9 could wonder who the hell these Andorians and Tellarites would be ;). Having the Romulans as well would have been more logical though.
Plus, I really love the typical names for each race. It's one of these nice pluses wich make me really like that book.

Character creation : A lot has been said on these boards... I do agree that the chart page 22 is not detailed enough. A page summing up every step required would have been nice (like, for instance, instead of "Pick skills" something like "Pick 2*INT species skill, pick background package, pick professional package"). OTOH, I agree it's rather easy once you get to know it.
A minor biff I have is the randomness included in many steps of character creation (like the Trill transporter phobia), but that's just a personnal disliking (okay... my friends somehow nicknamed me "double one". Now you know why I hate randomness ;)).
I also don't like the 2 flaws limitations, but that's something that can be easily lifted. Also, I'm unconfortable with the fact that a flaw can only be used to buy an edge - but that also can be altered (1 flaw = 2 picks).
And I like the fact that the picks in creation are used also in advancement - no more distinction between "Development points" and "Character points" or whatever. Neat.

No comment on the character sheet - enough was said already. May it rest in peace :D

Apart from that... well, I like everything I didn't mentioned here. The specialisations now settled once and for all the "What if I get the same skill twice" question (and its sequel "If I upgrade a skill, what happens to the specialisations") in ICON. The skills are now more logically grouped (plus, I just like the fact that we only have a single alphabetical list of skills, not these bizarre groupings like in ICON). Some edges seem a bit unbalanced to me, but that could be discussed with my players.

All in all, my only real concern now is whether I ask my players to convert their characters or allow them to re-create them to CODA - 'cause they will need a really damn good reason for not wanting to switch to CODA :D (like, for instance, being able to survive the 10 Borg Cubes awaiting them at their next ICON mission if they refused to switch :p)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by C5
I'm just still wondering why Janeway is the only Captain smiling on the cover :p (was she that happy to be back from the DQ, or that she was allowed to appear in a RPG ?)

---

Because they just told her that she was more liked than Captain Archer and his dog put together...either that or its gas.

My apologies to Kate Mulgrew (for the gas bit), but none to Captain Archer and his dog.

-Darth Sarcastic

I have a mix of positive and negative opinions on CODA.

I've been following the parambulation of Star Trek role playing over the past few years, and I have the greatest respect for the people involved. I've never seen any sign that any of those connected with ICON or CODA are anything less than a total class act. None of my criticisms are personal in nature.

First, the positive things. All over the PG, I frequently saw well thought out fixes to problems that existed in ICON. The skill list was cleaned up. Telepathy is no longer a hamstrung skill. The GM-annoying attribute edges were dumped. There are other examples too numerous to enumerate. Don't let the brevity of this paragraph fool you. A lot of good changes were made.

The basic die mechanic is a good one. The potential skill bonus outweights the potential attribute bonus which is as it should be.

The courage point mechanic is better too. I am a big fan of "luck point" mechanics in general.

I am neutral on the combat system. I think I'm going to need to see the NG before I make a judgement.

Now, on to the negatives. There is really no way to sugar-coat the fact that I do not like the Profession/Elite Profession system. I find it cumbersome and restrictive. I am obviously in the minority since I have seen many people say that they think it is versasile and accomodating. In my opinion, the versatility is superficial. Deep down it is the same old class system which punishes characters by making those who break the mold spend more points than those who create less imaginative characters.

To the system's credit, there is nothing totally off limits to any character type, and that was a nice touch, but look at all the threads that start "How do I create this kind of character?" In a skill-based system, nobody has to ask this question; you just choose the appropriate skills and you are done. In this system, the answer is generally much more convoluted. This is typified in the discussion a while back over how to create a non-starship doctor. The consensus was to use the Scientist profession...totally ignoring the fact that the Scientist profession doesn't have access to the diagnosis type professional abilities of the doctor. Sure he can spend on edges to get these abilities, but why should he have to?

Of course, the GM can always design new professions, but this is a pain too since you then have to come up with not only a list of professional skills...which isn't too bad, but a list of professional abilities as well...which doesn't seem too easy.

The system also seems to be designed for people to keep the same base profession for their entire lives...which is just plain silly. And to me, the elite professions just make the whole system more complicated without adding anything useful to the mix. A simple non-punishing system for changing professions would have been far cleaner.

I have some reservation about the advancement (level) system as well. Yes, they are more versatile, which I like. However, I'm having a really hard time figuring out appropriate power levels for the PCs in my game.

Alright, I've gone on long enough. I fully admit that my opinions on some things may change a bit once I've seen the NG. Some things may be prove easier to handle than I expected. I also admit my bias against class-based systems and my preference for skill-based systems. Still, I am not a complete basher of d20 or other class-based systems. In a lot of ways, I find d20 easier to grok than this system (though I have some problems with d20, don't get me wrong).

I'm really not sure if I am going to use CODA for my game. I definitely need to find something other than the ICON/House Rules system I am using now, but the reservations I have about CODA leave me wondering if I should use it or go elsewhere.

Thanks for listening, Don.

Ah! At last someone who also has problems with the Elite Professions / No-Changing-Base-Profession!
I'm still thinking about ways I could adapt the WFRP career management, but I'd have been really pleased if CODA had done it for me in the first place ;).

All right, let's try to be as structured as others have been.
What I like:

• Pretty much everything (including character creation), except ...

What I don't like that much:

• A few minor things that can be easily fixed with small house rules (multiple-actions penalties for instance).
• As I said above, these BP / EP restrictions.
• A few things I'm not sure about ... I'd really like to know what the thinking process for putting them there has been, maybe it'd help me understand what they are for:
  - Professional abilities and traits. For one thing, they seem to overlap quite a bit. And then ... I don't know, the game looks good even without them: being, say, a rogue means you can hone rogue skills faster than, say, a medic ... this is quite realistic. Wasn't it enough? What do professional abilities bring to the game?
  - Only one skill for all starship operations? /me cocks eyebrow à la Spock. Is this wise?

P.S.: What happens when 2 professional abilities cover the same kind of test? Are the effects combined? I've got to find this back, but I seem to recall seing something very similar between Soldier and Weapon Master ...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CorpBoy
Don, I know you're not responsible for it, but if you can forward on layout suggestions, please ask Decipher do either include an index just for tables in addition to the regular index, or to include all the tables in it's own chapter. It would make finding them much easier.

---

Actually, the Player's Guide does have a list of tables. It's at the end of the index on page 254. Everything from Table 2.1: Species Attrbute Adjustments to table A.16: Natural Healing is included with page numbers. It doesn't really leap out at you, but I'm still surprised you missed it...

OK, my feedback:

I've flipped through the book pretty extensively and am currently in the process of going through it cover to cover, so I guess I may not be the most qualified person to critique it. Still, I'm spending my free time working on an ICON>Coda conversion of the Dune RPG so I have gotten under the hood a little bit, pushing the envelope and considering how the mechanics apply beyond the Star Trek setting. Overall, I'm impressed with Coda and Coda's portability to other settings (my workup of Dune Professions recently went smoother than I had anticipated). I have high hopes for the Lord of the Rings RPG when it comes out.

The Good:
The difficulty scale to skill range ratio is pretty good; you aren't forced to roll lucky to make a Difficult test, you can actually roll average if you're skilled enough, and the wider range of skill levels makes for a marked difference between the amateur and the expert. The system is very simple and consistent. I like the selection of Professions and Elite Professions we've been given. The Professional Abilities are neat and the system for ranking them is relatively transparent if you sit down and examine it, though I've noticed that they parallel Edges pretty closely while costing 1 point more.

Then there's the wonderful support available on this board. :D Thanks to Don and Ross, et al. It's the best way to address what comes next...

The Bad:
I have one gripe with layout, and it's mostly aesthetic. The arrangement of chapters and order of presentation for the game mechanics and character creation didn't quite flow smoothly and intuitively for me. Personally, I see three blocks of information which go together logically. Species, Professions, Attributes, Characteristics, Skills, and Traits all explain in detail the rules for the various components that make up the characters. Development and Advancement contain the rules for growing the characters, and this is where I would have put all the information on generating Attributes, assigning reactions and development packages, and spending your picks after advancement. Finally, I would have taken all the info on using skills between pages 100 and 108 and grouped it with the other mechanics information from the Appendix. You then take those three blocks and figure out how to place them in relation to eachother. My gut reaction would be to present them in the order I just listed, or possibly swapping the first two blocks around (o aside from separating out the Using Skills info, you at least got the placement of the game mechanics right;)).

Then there's the character sheet. Yes, it's a propper Okudagram, and the layout and design is fine, but no document intended for reproduction should ever be white text on a black background. A case of style winning out over practicality, forcing Don to spend his limited free time making a new sheet. I guess if anyone should gripe about it, it should be him...:D

Finally, there are still some errata points that haven't been answered yet.

The Errata:
The "Fast on your Feet" edge needs to be removed from the Athletic Aptitude (p.87) personal development package and the Mystic: Aescetic (p.91), Soldier: Guerilla (p.92), Flight Control Officer: Helmsman/Navagator (p.93) and Medical Officer: Emergency Medic (p.98) professional development packages in addition to the Rogue: Scoundrel package listed in the Official Errata thread.

The Armed Combat skill group description states that "more exotic weapons, such as the bat'leth and lirpa, are treated as individual skills; these require a high degree of training to employ." Then right below this, in the list of various Armed Combat skills, bat'leth and lirpa are listed as specialties (of Traditional Klingon and Vulcan Weapons, respectively) instead of separate skills. A notation of which is correct should be made.

An official note should be made that changing professions does not change favored attributes and reactions, even though this only comes up when switching to a Starship Officer elite profession (as none of the other elite professions have preffered attributes and reactions).

The Soldier professional ability Survival Training (p.64) refers to characters receiving "double the normal bonus" from a Specialty, and continues saying "gaining +2 for having the appropriate specialization". Should this not read "gaining an additional +2" or possibly "gaining a total of +4" instead, since the standard specialization bonus is +2?

How do the Starship Officer Basic Profession and Starship Officer Elite Professions work when dealing with multiple professions? Under "Restrictions on Multiple Professions" on p.155 it states that you can only make picks from two professions, no matter how many you have. The example then goes on to describe a character (Sechok) with Envoy, Explorer, and Science Officer professions being able to pick from Envoy and either Explorer or Science Officer. The question is, doesn't this character actually have four professions to pick from: Envoy(elite), Explorer(elite), Starship Officer(basic), and Starship Science Officer(elite)? Or do the Starship Officer Elite Professions combine with the Starship Officer Basic Profession to count as only one profession for this purpose? If they do, this would imply that if a Starship Officer switches from one Starship Officer elite profession to another they would have access to professional skill and ability advancements from both, and wouldn't have to start chosing between professions until they transfered to a third department. A clarification from the Powers that Be, please?

If I come across any others in my reading, I'll be sure to point them out in this thread.:)

So far, I like Coda Trek, and Coda in general. Most of my gripes are minor, and we seem to have some good people working on answering and compiling the errata, so that gripe should get fixed in time. I'm looking forward to the Narrator's Guide, future suplements, and Lord of the Rings line.

-Chris Landmark

On the "Restrictions on Multiple Professions" theme, I think the question (or something very similar) already went up to the PTB (see here ) ... awaiting clarification ;).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Calcoran
On the "Restrictions on Multiple Professions" theme, I think the question (or something very similar) already went up to the PTB (see here ) ... awaiting clarification ;).

---

It's already been answered in the Errata Thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PGoodman13

It's already been answered in the Errata Thread.

---

I do not see it there???

Disregard that. :D

Brain is offline.

After reading through the errata again, I'm pretty sure it hasn't been answered yet. Changing base professions has been addressed, but not "How many professions are SOEP?", nor "How do you get your BP back?". Or is my brain offline too?

Just a few things to add.

Good- The way that most redundant disadvantages and advantages from ICON have been streamlined and clarified in CODA. Though some are not there, such as phobias, the one's provided that weren't in ICON make up for it. The character creation part is more complicated, but much more precise in nature.

Bad- That damn character sheet. With all the graphics and nice look it makes it impossible to copy/print effectively. The stat change to a more D&D look wasn't necessary in my opinion. It worked just fine with the 5 base stats which everyone had at a generic level during creation.

I'll add more when I think of more feedback.

Under the heading of Feedback...

(Disclaimer: These are my opinions and not likely to be changed in spite of all efforts to do so by myself. Please respect my right to them. I mean no insult by them to any or all on this board.)

Q: When is d20 not d20? A: When it's Coda!
There is just so much this game system has in common with D&D3E and the whole d20 game system. Just change the names from Feats to Abilities, Classes to Professions and a few other comparisons and voila! Why not just buck up for the use of the d20 license and draw in the 3E players? (I know if it used the d20 system I'd be playing Decipher's LotR setting instead of WotC's Greyhawk setting.)

Second Complaint, which I have already voiced in a forum herein: IMO, Star Trek is "Starfleet". Everyone not an officer (or enlisted) is NPC.

Sawyer II:
You said your opinions were rather unlikely to change ... as a matter of fact, they seem to be quite opposed to the average opinions on the boards here, and more specifically to those of the guys at Decipher.
It's a matter of perception I guess, but it seems natural Decipher should provide us all with something we can enjoy, doesn't it? You don't want your players to play something else than Starfleet, well, fine, just forbid the use of any other profession. But don't ask Decipher to forbid us to play Ferengi bartenders! ;)
About the d20 similarities, I remember detractors of ICON who kept saying "this ICON system is just a rip off of WEG D6, just change the names yadda yadda ..." ... well, the fact is: I'm not sure WEG D6 would have played that well for Trek, but ICON did its job rather fine. There were lots of small (or not so small) differences, which in the end made the system worthwhile. We'll just see how CODA handles, won't we?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Calcoran
Sawyer II:
You said your opinions were rather unlikely to change ... as a matter of fact, they seem to be quite opposed to the average opinions on the boards here, and more specifically to those of the guys at Decipher.

---

Oh I understand and accept that fact. It is not unusual for me to have an opinion opposed by all around me. Just as long as I'm not ran out of town for doing so.

I realize there were lots of character templates generated for ICON and posted on TrekRPG's web site. These were helpful for me to create the non-Starfleet NPC's. It's just that in my games, no one ever mentioned wanting to be that Ferengi bartender. For that matter, I can't remember anyone sitting down at a D&D game asking to play a dwarf bartender either. It's just an idea foreign to me. To me, Star Trek is synonymous with Starfleet. To other's, it isn't. I understand and gladly allow GM's the chance to play as their players wish.

I hope Decipher does great in their attempt to reach the greater market with their decision. I just don't remember reading a lot of complaints about LUG Trek being constrictive and not allowing for creating all those character archetypes that DecTrek now provides for.

Nuff said on this. All are welcome to contact me via email regarding this thread. (Taking it off list before the moderators do.)

It seems funny to me that there are some people who think a game system or game background should be limited by what they want their game to be like.

Icon did allow non-Starfleet characters-it was called the Deep Space Nine core rulebook.

I have very few problems with Coda. I have run the system twice and greatly enjoyed it both times; just waiting on the Narrator's Guide now to begin running it even more.

I have no problem with characters only getting one basic profession. Back in the day, the designers revealed to use the mathematical underpinnings of the Icon template system, which allowed for creation of more balanced templates by the fans. Perhaps someone can ferret out such a system for professions, so people can design their own. The combination of Basic Profession + any number of Elite Professions can be used to model a wide number of character types.

The errata states very clearly that you can only have one basic profession.

Allen

Besides nothing says that you can't change the things you don't like for your own game. If you want to allow more then one basic profession, I say go ahead. It's your universe afterall. You only want Starfleeters, so be it, your the boss. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom
Besides nothing says that you can't change the things you don't like for your own game. If you want to allow more then one basic profession, I say go ahead. It's your universe afterall. You only want Starfleeters, so be it, your the boss. ;)

---

Very true. My campaign will be Starfleet only, because I do prefer that, but the game allowing for other styles is a good thing. And we have discussed playing a civilian merchants game set in the TOS timeframe...and I know one guy here in town who is thinking about a Boomer campaign in the Enterprise time period.

This is seriously off-topic, however. sorry :)

Allen

Please no more debates about what the company should put in the books based on what one single person wants or not. I read all the crud WotC took from guys who thought the PG shouldn't have elves (or dwarves) because they never used them or liked them...and WotC took the same guff (probably from the same lame-o) about Star Wars. Its an old argument, and I applaud those who said things like "...its your world (universe, pocket dimension, etc...) do what you like..."

That's the way to GM. I myself am putting together a Klingon campaign, not that StarFleet isn't fun or interesting...its just the way I wanted it. In fact, if things go in a certain way its quite possible that the Khitomer accords will be chucked out the window. I personally don't care if anyone out there doesn't like that...too bad...run your own campaign.

My appologies for blasting away at anyone (I'll put the pulse cannons away now), its just that I've heard this argument before and it annoys me to no end. I meant no personal offense or insult.

-Darth Sarcastic

I have an idea

let's go back to ICON's series corebooks

that's the reason there were no complaints about *only Starfleet*

because of the combined nature people who like:

TOS but don't like TNG, DS9 or Voyager,

TNG but don't like TOS, DS9 or Voyager,

DS9 but don't like TOS, TNG or Voyager,

Voyager but don't like TOS, TNG or DS9,

there will problems

To me Dec Trek combines the flexiblity of settings/characters from FASA with the writing of LUG and the rules of d20 with a twist of ICON

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jedimuldoon
I have an idea

let's go back to ICON's series corebooks

that's the reason there were no complaints about *only Starfleet*

because of the combined nature people who like:

TOS but don't like TNG, DS9 or Voyager,

TNG but don't like TOS, DS9 or Voyager,

DS9 but don't like TOS, TNG or Voyager,

Voyager but don't like TOS, TNG or DS9,

there will problems

To me Dec Trek combines the flexiblity of settings/characters from FASA with the writing of LUG and the rules of d20 with a twist of ICON

---

Amen to that. Are you sure you didn't attend the Sarcastic Jedi Academy? Not only am I the president...I'm a member...

-Darth Sarcastic

Quote:

---

Amen to that. Are you sure you didn't attend the Sarcastic Jedi Academy? Not only am I the president...I'm a member...

---

:ROTFL:
:D :D :D :D :D

Quote:

---

[
-Darth Sarcastic [/B]

---

Doug Pirahna turned to the Dark Side? :)

Allen

to the author of this thread, please accept my apologies for saying anything and causing all the ... replies ... as to my view of what a Star Trek campaign is. Even after I asked folks to not do so.

re-engaging lurker mode, before I get kicked out again.

Wow....Jedi had a moment of clarity.... ;)

To be honest, my only real Bad feedback is the flow through character creation. The layout for that just seems a little back-and-forth...it seemed like I had to flip pages at every stage of creation, making it a lot more tedious than I feel it should be.

And, yes, the character sheet is hideous. I'd recommend a black on white character sheet as part of the Narrator's Screen, or something like that. Personally, I liked the way that WotC included character sheets in their screens for D&D 3e and Star Wars...I was easily able to make multiple copies of each, saving the originals for future copies! :D

Let's see, the good...well, hmmm, ahhh....

Just kidding. Aside from layout, character creation is understandable and quite straightforward. After I created a couple of characters as a warm up, I was able to make a beginning character in under a half hour.

The game mechanic is familiar and simplistic enough for even the most mathematically challenged to understand (trust me, I have one of those types in my game group ;) ). However, I will stipulate that I haven't had the chance to actually use the skill system in a game situation.

I really like the advancement system...which is also friendly to the math challenged. I was able to create an experienced character with relative ease.

I can't see the "starfleet" problem, is there anything in the book that prevents from playing a pure starfleet campaign? even the first supplement scheduled to hit the shelves will be a starfleet companion (starfleet operation manual scheduled in july).
So why complain about the book covering other aspects?

Ooops! Forgot that one :
I'm a bit disappointed by the new Renown rules. I loved the Renown aspects, since it allowed me to sanction or award the different player's behaviour in the game. I'm gonna keep them anyway when I switch.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee T
I can't see the "starfleet" problem, is there anything in the book that prevents from playing a pure starfleet campaign? even the first supplement scheduled to hit the shelves will be a starfleet companion (starfleet operation manual scheduled in july).
So why complain about the book covering other aspects?

---

There's nothing in the PG that prevents you from running just about anything...with maybe the exception of a Romulan campaign...although by now a few people have made up or converted Romulans...

That's one of the things I liked immeadiately about Dec-Trek. You really don't need a "Complete Guide to (Race Name Here)" to play and the professions seem somewhat universal. The Klingons have Engineers just as the Federation has command officers. I'm also sure that with the NG you should be able to make your own professions, or tweak the existing ones to make up what you want. Of course the next one of my players who asks if he can be a Tribble/Borg science officer is getting a boot to the head.

-Darth Sarcastic

Is it just me or does "tweak" sound a bit rude? ;)

Quote:

---

I can't see the "starfleet" problem, is there anything in the book that prevents from playing a pure starfleet campaign? even the first supplement scheduled to hit the shelves will be a starfleet companion (starfleet operation manual scheduled in july). So why complain about the book covering other aspects?

---

From conversations with others who feel similarly I suspect that the reason is the belief that, if only the book hadn't wasted space on 'useless stuff' it would have either:
a) been able to devote more space to 'useful stuff'
or
b) been smaller and cheaper
Now, personally, I like the coverage of a wide range of campaigns, Starfleet and otherwise, but I can understand that some people don't, and it seems perfectly reasonable, when asked to provide feedback, to say which bits you didn't like and had hoped to see less of. I don't agree with SawyerII, but he has every right to state his opinion - Don did ask us to, after all :)