System Ops: why only one skill?

Doesn't it bother anyone that the skill "System Ops" covers about anything that has to be done on a starship (engineering notwithstanding)?
I don't know, I have a flight control officer, a tactical officer, and a science (sensors) officer ... and apart from the specialisation, they are basically able to do exactly the same thing. AFAIR, with ICON we had one real good pilot, and the others had rather poor piloting skills (or was that already a house rule we used ... can't recall). Now, both the Science Officer and the Tactical Officer are able to pull off maneuvers only the "pilot" could perform before.

I was wondering what could be done to remedy that ... somehow, making several completely separate skills seems a bit extreme (and I wonder what rule I should use to convert a single skill into 4 or 5 skills). It also has a few edge effects on the professions that I'd rather avoid.
Any ideas?

I agree it's a bit too bad the specializations allow only for a +2.

What we did in our games is allow the players to buy up to 3 Skill Focus Edges. That may give a +4 or +6 to a specialization, thus recreating the various profiles.

I hope this helps :)

It depends a bit on what characters you compare: Are they new unexperienced characters or characters with at least a few advancements under the belt. I guess with "newbies" the problem isn't so pronounced, as a specialty and a skill focus could almost double the skill level, giving more focus to a specialized character. After a few advancements OTOH skill levels rise and the difference between characters tends to grow smaller, at least as far as skills like SysOps or Computer Use are concerned.
The later I find not unreasonable, as I would expect at least Starship Officers to be well trained in any number of fields, including Sytem Operations, after a few years on station.

While I agree that the "System Operations" skill is indeed very broad, I feel that the professional abilities go a long way to emphasize who is a real pro at something and who isn't.
The ability to reroll certain skill checks, increased affinity boni or the Conn Officer's ability to perform an extra maneuver per round can add a lot of 'uniqueness' to each profession/position, so it's not all about skill levels anymore.

Another thing to keep in mind is the "Degree of Success" chart CODA uses. While a lot of people may be able to pull of a certain maneuver or perform a specific task (i.e. have high enough skill levels for it), a Specialty or Skill Focus could just make enough difference to do something when time is of the essence. Sometimes just doing something with a marginal success isn't enough.


As for the comparison with ICON at least in our game with enough experience most characters ended up with about the same levels in System Operations and Computer Use, skill that saw a lot of use in our campaign. Increasing the XP cost to raise the main skills mitigated this somewhat, but the tendency was there.

Look at it this way...how many times did Uhura take over navigation in an emergency? How often did Checkov run the science station (and he was also well versed on the weapons console)? How many times did Kirk or Spock run the transporter? Sulu's station had two functions (flight control and phaser control).

The point is that on screen, we clearly see that the crewmembers were proficient with more than just their one station.

System Ops represents that capability quite well, and shouldn't be changed.

I'm entitled to disagree, am I not? :)

The fact that most characters we see on screen seem to be able to do pretty much anything can also be explained with the fact that they have had an excellent training. It would be just as easy to pick other examples in the series where some character explains he hasn't been trained to do this or this and won't be much good at it. Not every character can be a Sisko, a Kira or a Kirk.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Calcoran
I'm entitled to disagree, am I not? :)

---

Yes, you're quite entitled to be wrong... :p (j/k)

Quote:

---

Not every character can be a Sisko, a Kira or a Kirk.

---

True, but since we are, in essence, creating our own Star Trek series with this game, wouldn't you agree that we would want to have similar capabilities for our characters? (And by similar, I'm not talking about the same level of skill, but, at least, a similar range of skills.)

Anyway, two different schools of thought...which is why, I suppose some people want to stick with Icon.

At any rate, the Coda skill system is designed to be broad, and represents the idea that characters would have a significant range of knowledge, rather than the pigeon-holed specialties of Icon.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
Look at it this way...how many times did Uhura take over navigation in an emergency? How often did Checkov run the science station (and he was also well versed on the weapons console)? How many times did Kirk or Spock run the transporter? Sulu's station had two functions (flight control and phaser control).

The point is that on screen, we clearly see that the crewmembers were proficient with more than just their one station.

System Ops represents that capability quite well, and shouldn't be changed.

---

Yeah, come on! Everybody down to the swabbie, third class can jump to the controls and save the day; they did it all the time in TOS.

And counselors can be balls-nasty tacticians, too!

Yes, I agree with you...

Mind you, before someone thinks this is my chance to criticize more CODA rules, let me say that this was a problem in ICON as well. Yes, in ICON you had flight control as a specialization under Shipboard Systems, so you could have a low skill level and a high specialization level (as my own character did), but it was still a problem, I think.

I mean, what if (in ICON) I increased my character's Shipboard Systems skill to 5 or so... My character is good at flying the ship so he is good at using the systems in sick-bay as well?

In CODA this becomes more obvious because the +2 specialty bonus has people upping the skill level (instead of a specialization level that no longer exists) and so we begin to realize how broad the skill is, but the problem (to the extent that it is) was no smaller in ICON, actually...

Another thing is that in CODA like in ICON before it, the skill is based on Intellect. This is fine, but wouldn't piloting a ship in a crisis depend more on a high value in Agility (Coordination in ICON) than Intellect? In Steven Long's Spacedock rules there are several references to such tests being based on Coordination (ICON), and I tend to agree with him.

In ICON there was also a Vehicle Operation skill, except nobody ever used it unless they were flying a shuttle. Since my character was a pilot (and began with a 5 in his Flight Control specialization), my Narrator ruled he would use that even if flying a shuttle, so I never rolled a skill check for Vehicle Operation. Maybe that is why the skill is removed from CODA.

I'm not arguing against a general System Operation skill, I just think it should have been a broader group with at least three separate skills under it - one for flying ships or driving vehicles (based on Agility), one for firing large ship-mounted weapons or the like (also based on Agility), and one that catches everything else. Maybe a fourth should cover more unusual things like using the systems in sick-bay and so. Yes, I want a few broad skills, but I don't think they should cover everything.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Siroth
Another thing is that in CODA like in ICON before it, the skill is based on Intellect. This is fine, but wouldn't piloting a ship in a crisis depend more on a high value in Agility (Coordination in ICON) than Intellect? In Steven Long's Spacedock rules there are several references to such tests being based on Coordination (ICON), and I tend to agree with him.

---

You can do this in Coda too. It's in the rules.

Quote:

---

In ICON there was also a Vehicle Operation skill, except nobody ever used it unless they were flying a shuttle. Since my character was a pilot (and began with a 5 in his Flight Control specialization), my Narrator ruled he would use that even if flying a shuttle, so I never rolled a skill check for Vehicle Operation. Maybe that is why the skill is removed from CODA.

---

I think it makes a return in the Ops Manual.

Sorry to interject facts. :)

"I think it makes a return in the Ops Manual."

Well, if that means there will be a different skill to pilot ships with, then that's good news, I think. If it is more like ICON in that it is one skill to pilot shuttles and another to pilot starships, then it's a little annoying.

Generally I prefer a game system to come with a set of skills from the beginning and stick to them. But granted, I have yet to see a system that actually does it...

My main point here is that there should be no difference between piloting a starship and a shuttle because they really shouldn't be that different IMHO.

Anyway, I guess that was a news-flash or what? Well, don't expect me to be too excited about it - after all, I'm a CODA skeptic ;)

Trying to be a little constructive, here is what I'm planning to test for our next session:

There are 4 sub-skills for System Ops:

System Ops: Helm
System Ops: Tactical
System Ops: Sensors
System Ops: Consoles

(as you can see, the last one is a bit of a catch-all skill)

For the conversion, I'll just count the XPs or APs spent for advancing the skill and double that amount (similarly, every template that lists System Ops brings twice more points).

The four sub-skills are linked. This means that if you don't have a sub-skill you can use half of your level in another sub-skill (rounded down). But this doesn't meant that you actually have a level in this sub-skill, if you want to improve it, you have to start from 0.
For instance if the Tactical Officer is wounded and taken to sickbay, the Science officer can jump in: he may not have the sub-skill SO:Tactical, but he's rather good at SO:Sensors(Spacial Phenomenon) 7. When he rolls, he can do as if he had SO:Tactical 3. However if at the end of the adventure he wants to improve his skill, he's still considered as SO:Tactical 0.

What do you think?

Atually, I may be using this for the armed combat skills too ... somehow I find it strange that someone very good at using simple weapons (clubs, knives, daggers, etc.) will be absolutely no good with a d'ktahg, which is, in effect, just a standard dagger with the word "Klingon" written all over it.

Er, you don't like my Skill Focus idea? ;)

I believe the "Consoles" part is exactly what you are trying to avoid... If a player makes a check to bypass a system, or to balance the warp field, or to do a viral DNA scan... then they all use this skill.

I believe there is as much links between these tasks than between piloting the ship or firing phasers... Back at the beginning IMO...

:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KillerWhale
Er, you don't like my Skill Focus idea? ;)

I believe the "Consoles" part is exactly what you are trying to avoid... If a player makes a check to bypass a system, or to balance the warp field, or to do a viral DNA scan... then they all use this skill.

I believe there is as much links between these tasks than between piloting the ship or firing phasers... Back at the beginning IMO...
:)

---

About the skill focus idea, I thought it was a bit too much like reverting to the ICON specialities ;).
And about the catch-all consoles sub-skill ... well, first thing is, I don't want to "overspecialize" a skill. And second, in all the examples you gave, I see more than just system ops. There is the first part which accesses the controls you need through the console, and the second part which is either engineering, computer, medicine or whatever. In either case, the "accessing the controls" part seems fairly similar to me ... similar enough to be put in the same sub-skill (and different enough from helm, sensors or tactical which do not make use of another specific skill). Well, YMisentirelyentitledtoV, of course :D.

Quote:

---

Well, YMisentirelyentitledtoV, of course .

---

Yep, truly ;):D

I understand your point and your view of System Ops (after all, I believe there are many ways of playing the computer and Ops and I think lots of Narrators have personal views on this). Seems to me, your rules idea fits nicely your view of System Ops.

Have a nice game! :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KillerWhale
Seems to me, your rules idea fits nicely your view of System Ops.

---

Lol!
Well, I was kinda hoping some around here would feel like I do. Truly, everyone is unique (eunuque, as a friend used to say, who had troubles with his english accent) ... but it always does good to feel one is not alone ;).

I may be coming late to the party here, but I have a question - Don mentioned that there may be a new skill in the Ops manual, one for Vehicle operation or piloting or somesuch.

Does that mean the new skills will be optional add-ons to the existing structure, or does it mean that the rules in the PG and NG are getting revised?

Are we headed toward another ICON Core book/Player's Guide where you need both to have all the rules?

I'm confused. Help?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ineti
Does that mean the new skills will be optional add-ons to the existing structure, or does it mean that the rules in the PG and NG are getting revised?

Are we headed toward another ICON Core book/Player's Guide where you need both to have all the rules?

---

I sure hope not. But whatever the 'official' take on the new skills may be it's our game and in the end it's entirely up to us what we view as optional and what not.

If Decipher decides to turn the new books into a revision of the PG+NG, more money to them - just don't count on it to be my money if they go that way. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Calcoran
Trying to be a little constructive, here is what I'm planning to test for our next session:

There are 4 sub-skills for System Ops:

System Ops: Helm
System Ops: Tactical
System Ops: Sensors
System Ops: Consoles

(as you can see, the last one is a bit of a catch-all skill)

---

I'd tend to agree with you, except I wouldn't do a a sub-skill specifically for sensors. After all, if there is no dedicated Science officer making the check, it usually falls to either the Conn or the Tactical officer, so I'd leave it in the more general sub-skill. Instead I'd make a sub-skill for Medical.

The real problem with this is that we can make up rather sizeable lists of operating systems that should not be covered by a single 'broad' skill... For example: Conn, Command, Communications, Engineering, Medical, Ops station, Sensors, Tactical, Transporter, Warp Engines, Weapons, etc. All of these (and probably many, _many_ more) are sufficiently different that knowing about one wouldn't seem to imply skill with the others, only we don't really want specific skills for quite that many different systems, do we? So where do we draw the line?

I would at least put it when other attributes begin to seem more important to a specific test than the one being listed. I'd say that Agility rather than Intellect is important with some instances of Conn, Tactical, and Medical since precision seems more important there, which is why I argue for the three that are not in the 'broad' skill above.

Hey, why not using the same distinction as StarFleet branches ?
Like :
Shipboard System : Command (all the command and helm systems)
Shipboard System : Ops (tactical and engineering systems)
Shipboard System : Science (sensors, medical and science systems)

A bit artificial, but at least it would be tied to the officer's branch, and more easy to adapt in the overlays.

Just my 0.02 € :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by C5
Hey, why not using the same distinction as StarFleet branches ?
Like :
Shipboard System : Command (all the command and helm systems)
Shipboard System : Ops (tactical and engineering systems)
Shipboard System : Science (sensors, medical and science systems)

A bit artificial, but at least it would be tied to the officer's branch, and more easy to adapt in the overlays.

---

Is easier, yes, but I the problem I have with it is that connects too broadly, and perhaps more so than the general System Ops skill. I mean, would a Security officer know as much about operating the Warp Core as an engineer? They're both Operations officers, so by that analogy they should be... Similarly, I don't see a Scientist being as qualified at using the equipment in Sick-Bay as a Medical officer (though I admit I'm uncertain where Counselor would fit in there - they do have medical training, after all...)

Finally, a whole bunch of Officer switch to Command branch later in their lives. For example Janeway was a Science officer. Would becoming Captain and switching to command make her better at operating the helm? I doubt it...

Just figured I'd throw in my two latinum-slips.

Versatility
It allows the characters to take actions that are limited to their professions. This is good since the player isn't constrained to do what his character is good at. This is bad, since the player (1) can do "everything" at the expense of others.

Character Diversity
It reduces the character development cost. This is good since characters can achieve a fair level of competence and still have room to improve other areas. This is bad since it is a powerful "all-purpose" skill and the players (2) can easily max out.

Theme
It fits well with the Star Trek theme. The System Ops skill simply allows you to handle the interface. Since it is all super-science, the complexities are unseen and can be ignored through simple suspension of disbelief. As to wether characters have the basic knowledge required to operate the system is debatable. After all, you have to know what it does (or at least what it can do).

The character needs to know that the Medical Systems cannot be used to navigate the vessel. That's basic knowledge. Instucting the system to run a standard genetic resequencing program merely requires user input, but the user would have to know that there is an option.

CODA introduces a solution to this with Skill Affinities. Rather than penalizing lack of character knowledge, extra knowledge is rewarded.

Conclusion
System Ops in CODA is a good way to handle the complexities of operating a starship (or what-ever). It is open to abuse, so the players and the GM needs to cooperate on this one.

Alternatively the GM can introduce certain restrctions of his own - a number of good solutions have allready been posted. Inspired by these I plan to enforce the following:

- Dilligently apply skill affinities (easy to forget).
- Increase TN for tests where the character should be considered out of his depth. GM discretion with the following rule of thumb: The action does not fall within the character's usual field of expertise (as indicated by current or previous profession), and there exists a profession whose field of expertise covers the use of that system. Such penalites should range from +1 TN to +5 TN.


(1) Yes, I have players like that. The kind who would like to control every single system because they "know" how to "beat this thing". I could tell you some stories!

(2) Oh, I have a couple of these players as well.

I see the system operatin skill as the basic skill at operating the console. when you specialize, you learn the ins and outs of one type of console. system operation helm would have a +2 when operation the helm console. thats the rules. If the medical officer is using his system operations skill to helm the ship he does not a have the high skill rank. his points are spent in other skills. and he does not have the speciality. he will have a harder time making the roll than the other guy, but he can try it. All people go thru the basics at starfleet command.

Let's correlate the subject to the modern world, shall we?

LCARS, an acronym for Library Computer Access and Retrieval System, is a software that functions both as the operative system and display software on Starfleet computers. LCARS is a standard. Any LCARS computer will display in a similar format, be it a helm console, a M/ARA control screen or a temperature regulator for a fish tank.

In the modern world, I'm afraid, we don't have such a direct 'standard', but we'll go with the dreaded MS Windows example. Any of you that know how to use MS Windows is able to figure out the basics of ANY program based in the GUI (Graphic User Interface, in a nutshell, the concept that means displaying information in a graphical format from your computer processes to your screen). If you made a computer course for using MS Windows, this example goes further. You all know the standard, the basics, and are able to use from the calculator to Adobe Photoshop.

Some know how to use Adobe Photoshop, right? Myself included.

Of course, you're all not that profficient in design. Again, me included. ;) We'll leave that to those professional graphic designers out there, who will surely take Photoshop to its maximum.

Going back to the 24th Century. You all know LCARS, if in Starfleet. So, some of you are in Tactics. You know how to use your console and fire a torpedo without hitting that buoy (Yes, THAT buoy! Our target is that huge Warbird in front!). In fact, you can do more than that because you're a tactical officer and know how to plan a Delta-2 defense strategy. Then, you're just like the graphic designer above.

Let's take it to the system. For this example they are all equally stupid and have the same Intellect/Agility scores.
Redshirt A knows how to use LCARS, and he has System Operations 2.
Redshirt B is a little better at it, and has System Ops 5.
The CMO also has System ops 5, being in equal standing than Redshirt B for this example.
Lieutenant JG Security Officer knows System Ops (Tactical) 5, meaning he knows how to man the specific console.
Lieutenant Tactical Officer knows System Ops (Tactical) 5, and on top of that he gets a +1 affinity bonus from his Tactics skill.
Commander Chief Tactical knows System Ops (Tactical) 6, and has an affinity bonus from his Tactics skill (+1). Not to mention that he is a Tactical Genius and has a Skill Focus edge to reflect that, gaining a further +2 at System Ops (Tactical)

So, who's better? Of course, the Chief Operations Officer! He was a nerd all his life and has System Ops 12! Ahhh, but he doesn't have Tactical as a specialty. Well, there enters the Narrator. He may rule that, not being a tactical specialist, the task is somewhat mre difficult to him, giving a +2 to the TN.

I took the example to its very extreme, but ONLY in that case the system shows a quirk, and even then an ingenious Narrator may mark a difference. The system reflects, in my opinion, the skill quite well, and in a way comparable to modern computer tasks.

I have to agree with the good Doctor here. System Operation is the "everyman" skill of the game, at least when it comes to starship officers - its really like using a PC or driving a car today.

And all real world examples aside, the game (-system) is for the most part about simulating the TV series at your living room table. And that's exactly what the System Operations skill as it is writen does; it simulates the various Trek series, from Hoshi reading the sensors on Enterprise to the Counselor performing an emergency landing of the Enterprise-D's saucer section (okay, don't laugh, most people on board survived the landing, so what's wrong with the "Troi Maneuver"?).

If you want to differentiate between 'average' and 'real professional' skill levels in CODA don't look at the skills themselves, look at professional abilities and edges instead. In fact I don't think an adjustment to the TN for someone lacking a certain specialty would be called for or even be fair.
After all, if you adjust the TN for someone who doesn't have a certain Specialty, wouldn't that mean you make the Specialty count for much more than the usual +2 bonus?
Granting a +2 to a check is all well and good, but granting the +2 and keeping the TN at the standard level (instead of adjusting by +2) would give someone with a specialty in System Operations an effective bonus of +4.
That's too much for a simple specialty IMHO.

Well, I still like my house rule better :D .
We tried it for system ops and armed combat and it worked really well. It still gave the characters the flexibility seen on screen, while at the same time enabling characters to shine where they needed to :) ... instead of having a science officer able to do everything better than the helm officer, the tactical officer, and the ops officer ;) .
Of course, noone has to be like us ;) .

Note to self: I should go easy on the smileys.