Overlay opinion

[calguard66]

Ok, gotta get this off my chest:

I can't stand the "Operations officer" overlay and the "Command Officer" overlay... or most of the other overlays in Price of Freedom, except for skill sets for NPCs.

Operations officer: Sito Jaxa, a security officer and a male command officer were both up for the Operations position. Why weren't they looking for an "Operations" type?

Which overlay does Janeway use? Spock? Kirk was security before transfering to navigation... Chekov was navigation, then later security, then a first officer (command).

This is one of the few things ST comes close to getting right about military organizations. Officers move around a lot.

The branches for Starfleet (IMO) should be:
Sciences (medical and science) Blue
Operations ("housekeeping": security, engineering)- Yellow
Command (Command staff, pilots, special staff (JAG, etc))- Red

The main overlays should be:
Medical, Sciences, (Staff officers) Security, Engineering,(Restricted line officers), Astrogation (Line officers). Tactical should be an additional career path for select security or astrogation officers, selected as LT or LT (JG)s. Starfleet isn't going to spend money and time teaching a security ensign to fire phasers and torpedoes effectively only to have her guard a door for the first six years of her career.

Lastly, NCOs should have much more visibility. The guy piloting the ship into an astroid belt should be the CPO who's been doing it for 20 years, not an ensign 2 months out of the academy. Officers should lead, supervise, and decide. Enlisted "do".

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[Don Mappin]

Oh man, I was so on your side until you starting making "Line" and "Staff" officers. Am I the only one here that watched TNG "Disaster?" They don't exist! (Line and Staff)

As for the enlisted, it just doesn't mesh with what we've seen on screen. They are "do"-ing -- they're just "do"-ing off screen.

You may (or may not) be happy to hear that the new game has a total of three Starfleet professions at this point. I like that a lot.

I think the problem is that we tend to want to organize everything in nice little categories. If it doesn't fit in our nice category, no problem -- we'll make another! (Substitute "category" for "Overlay" to take this to the next level.)

------------------
Don
trekrpg@trekrpg.net



[This message has been edited by Don (edited 03-27-2001).]

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Don:
Oh man, I was so on your side until you starting making "Line" and "Staff" officers. Am I the only one here that watched TNG "Disaster?" They don't exist! (Line and Staff)
</font>

The "Line officer" was just for relation to our current naval system. I agree that in Trek, any officer who has the skill should command or do any other job... so have "required skill levels" instead of "templates"... and accept that in a large "paramilitary" organization there are specialized jobs that don't have a training path, rather they rely on an officer's experience... and some jobs that you won't know how to do, and you just have to learn on the fly.

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[Don Mappin]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by calguard66:
The "Line officer" was just for relation to our current naval system.</font>

Oh, in that case then, we're on the same page. Move along, nothing to see here.

I would add to your point the canon existence of schools. While talking about such things as “Strategic Operations Officer” (to which we’ve see ONE in how many years of Trek?), I think these areas are the purview of simply advanced training. Such as Ro Laren attending Advanced Tactical Training. Sure, rush off for that on-the-job training (read, Advanced Training Package) to get the necessary skills for your next spiffy posting.

At my workplace it isn’t uncommon to make up positions just to fit a person or their skill set. It happened to me, as a matter of fact. So, who's to say that “Strategic Operations Officer” is a real position and not just a neat job title? (Sisko: "Worf, we're going to call you DS9's 'Strategic Operations Officer.'" Worf: "A warrior's title!") And when they leave, so does the position. Now that Worf has left DS9 to be the Klingon Ambassador, is there still a “SOO” on DS9? Probably not. It didn’t seem that important prior to the war.

Anyhow, food for thought.

------------------
Don
trekrpg@trekrpg.net


[This message has been edited by Don (edited 03-27-2001).]

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Don:

You may (or may not) be happy to hear that the new game has a total of three Starfleet professions at this point. I like that a lot.
</font>

I missed that the first time... TELL ME MORE! TELL ME MORE! )



------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[Anarchy Bob]

3 professions? Lemmee guess..

Blue guy
Red guy
Yellow guy

While i don't like the sound of it, it does have the advantage of making sure it's entirely compatible with canon

[Phantom]

Perhaps Sector Operations Officer might fit better. I'm sure there would be an ops chief on the local Admiral's staff.

Just because we haven't seen it before doesn't mean the title doesn't exist, someone would have to be directly in charge of the Strategic assets of a sector.

[Don Mappin]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Phantom:
Just because we haven't seen it before doesn't mean the title doesn't exist, someone would have to be directly in charge of the Strategic assets of a sector.</font>

...and just because we've seen one officer hold the position doesn't mean that SFA is graduating entire classes of "Strategic Operations Officers."

It goes both ways.

This also gets back to my point in another thread on spending too much time trying to rationalize these issues.

For me, I don't particularly care if people have hoards of players with Strategic Operations Officer running about because Worf's position was cool. Just like I'm sure no one cares what things I do in my game.

Maybe I'm getting abstract in my old age (and this coming from a die-hard Rolemaster fan), but for me, playing and running Star Trek has never been about getting every Species Template "just right," or staying up late at night to build the "Strategic Operations Officer" Template because it was shockingly left out of the DS9 Core Game Book as an omission.

That's why I agree with calguard's original post, as it dovetails nicely with my own thoughts: sometimes, less is more.

Have fun and don't sweat the little stuff!

------------------
Don
trekrpg@trekrpg.net


P.S. It's all little stuff.

[This message has been edited by Don (edited 03-27-2001).]

[Talon Kane]

Honestly, I hate the overlay system. In all of my Star Trek games, I always had characters use the point system to create their characters. I always found the World Knowledge and Culture skills, both for the characters own world, not applicable in my game. Also, though I know each character would have a knowledge of Federation History from Starfleet Academy, I know none of the characters would ever put XP into it because I personally don't use it.

Some of my players have bought these skills for other planets. One character was in the Diplomacy branch and was helping with negotiating with Bajor. So, he bought Culture and World Knowledge and Language all Bajor.

I don't know. To me, the overlays force you to take those particular skills and I feel most people would never use them. With the point system, players can modify their characters to those specializations they feel they should have instead of those they were forced to take.

I'd like to hear other people's opinions on the overlay vs. point system for character creation.

[Don Mappin]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Talon Kane:
I'd like to hear other people's opinions on the overlay vs. point system for character creation. </font>

Well, heck. I could go on forever talking about the intricacies of Icon and how the Template/Overlay system works in conjunction with packages (and the shortcomings thereof) in lieu of spending Development Points.

I’m going to reference you to a thread on this very subject not that long ago:

http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/For...ML/000795.html

The Icon Template/Overlay system was always intended to allow beginning players to create a character and quickly play. It is the second (of three) character generation systems included in the Core Books. Now, imagine my surprise to see that about 80% of all the people I’ve seen play the game are still using the second method – even after playing for over a year.

I, personally, thought most people started with two (Template/Overlay) and then moved on to the third method, spending DP, so as to have more control.

The fact is, a lot of people enjoy the packages and building their characters – watching them develop. They’re not counting points, or watching 3-5 DP get wasted. They’re having fun visualizing their character “grow up” before their eyes.

So, while the Template/Overlay system isn’t perfect, it does what it was intended to do: make Star Trek, and role-playing, accessible to beginners.

(FYI, in my games I allow my players the option. My personal preference is: Template, Early Life DP, Overlay, Academy Life DP, Cadet Cruise DP, and then spend Tours.)


------------------
Don
trekrpg@trekrpg.net

[Phantom]

I have to agree with Don. The overlay system works for alot of players, myself included. It's not perfect...Show me one that is.

[Phantom]

Don,
On the subject of Strategic Ops Officers...I guess we are both right.

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Talon Kane:
I always found the World Knowledge and Culture skills, both for the characters own world, not applicable in my game. Also, though I know each character would have a knowledge of Federation History from Starfleet Academy, I know none of the characters would ever put XP into it because I personally don't use it. </font>

Respectfully, I must disagree on the idea of avoiding some skills simply because you dont use them...

I will guarantee you that your players are using those skills. The difference is that the uses are so subtle and everyday that their use is probably taken fro granted.

Everytime a character doesnt insult his Captain by saying what he really thinks. Thats the Culture skill.

Same for being on best behaviour at a diplomatic function.

For a Ferengi, the Laws of Aquisition, would fall under the culture or a Law skill. The recitation of the Laws has become so ingrained in Ferengi culture that it is assumed...

If the character visits their home town/ planet and doesnt get hopelessly lost, or eat a well known poisonous plant... Theres world knowledge.

And all those times that a character 'recalls' a famous incident from Kirks enterprise, something they read in the history books... Hes using History.

IMO In all cases the actions of the character are entirely based on the players actions, and the assumption that he knows how to behave in most levels of society. But without the skill to back it up then the character had avoided most basic learning skills and would, in effect, be unable to function in normal society having not grasped the concept of his societies rules...

Sure the player may never make a roll against these skills, they may never get raised with XP, but that doesnt mean they should be ignored. I feel that these represent an important aspect of a characters visualisation...

Your Mileage Does Seem To Vary Though...

------------------
Dan.

"A couple of thoughts from a random mind!"

[calguard66]

I have to agree with Dan G. on this one. While I adjust the native Culture skill to 1/2 (how many of us really expect have skill level 3 in every culture on _this_ planet, and level 2 in every other culture in the Federation, or the known galaxy?), having those little "hobby" skills can really flesh out a character.

I have a player of a Vulcan character with culture, world knowlege, and history skills for Andor... even Arctic Survival. The character is "fascinated" by a culture that virtually mirrored Vulcan in the distant past, but based on a single cultural "turning point", turned out almost the exact opposite of his own.

I would say this player has ay least 5 DP invested in skills that haven't come up once in the game... but the character is probably the best and most fully-realized concept in our group.

That's why I use the overlays for information on which skill and what level, but let the players spend points. You can use the extra points for stuff like this.

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[rihannsu]

Personally I like the overlays too, but have used 125 points instead...both have merits.
The templates & overlays show a good example of the core skills a species/position would have...but you CAN change things !!! Change a skill or two that you don't like/agree with for something else...it's simply customizing your game to your prefernces and if that works for you, that's great !
Each trek series introduces SO many new elements...from species to positions, settings...almost anything !
Seeing as DS9 introduced the Strategic Ops Officer (maybe only as an excuse/reason to get Worf onboard), and if it hasn't been seen any other time or with any other character (including no replacement for him)...so what ? If you like it, use it ! Use your own justification...maybe in wartime the position was thought up & it's been decided to keep it now...after a test period or whatever.
I think it opens up all kinds of new ideas or avenues...things like this keep the game fresh & new to the players.
Sounds like a good thing to me...but anyone who disagrees has that right to choose not to use what they don't want...it's all about your game & what makes it fun for you/your group !