Coda system

[Silverstreak]

Hi,

I have yet to play this system.

Is it better than the ICON system?

I find the ICON system, while ok, makes doing anything really hard or realy easy due to the Drama die. What is the CODA system like?

[Doug Burke]

Moved to Coda System & Mechanics for fairly obvious reasons...

[GandalfOfBorg]

Take a look at one of my sites, reference CODA BSR (see the links in my signature below).

GOB

[Cochrane]

I Still Haven't Actually Played the Game (any system of Star Trek) although I am an old timer around here, but I do have almost two cents worth of knowledge on the subject (I have every book for both IconTrek and CodaTrek). One thing I don't like about Coda is the complexity of the character writeups. A big part of that (probably trivial to most people) is that the character sheets don't fit on one side of one sheet of paper. I don't like having so many columns of information for skills.

What I do with the books, not haning Actually Played the Game, is use the systems for creating my own material. I do think Coda is superior for creating alien species (sentient and otherwise), star systems, and starships.

I'm not completely sure which system I personally like better, but tentatively I would think other people would like Coda better. Each has its strong points, but Coda definitely shows the fact that more experience went into designing it. But I definitely don't think Icon is a bad system.

[Capt. K. Vaughn]

Hi,

I have yet to play this system.

Is it better than the ICON system?

I find the ICON system, while ok, makes doing anything really hard or realy easy due to the Drama die. What is the CODA system like?

That will come down to personal preference as the debates in other threads have shown. I've not played the CODA system and probably never will as I do not care for the character creation method and neither do any of my players. Granted, the two PBEMs I did join to at least give the system a shot went belly-up before the intro was even sent out so that probably did not help my opinion of the system after spending hours creating those characters.

But you may find after playing around with the system that you prefer it.

Regards,
CKV.

[Cochrane]

I suppose whichever system you prefer it would make sense to add elements of the other, or at least for example if you use Icon, things like Gamemastering Advice from Coda would be useful.

[redwood973]

There has been extensive debate on the subject by those who frequent these boards. A search of the old posts should find several such topics.

[Space_Cadet]

Silverstreak, if you're familiar with D20, Coda Trek is basically D20-lite with tinge of ICON.

[Silverstreak]

do you use a D20 when you are rolling for skill checks and such? Is that what you mean?

[KillerWhale]

No, please. CODA is not D20 lite. Let's not get into this again. CODA uses mechanics seen in D20 but these mechanics had been seen before elsewhere.

Silverstreak, I'm a firm adept of the CODA system which patches many shortcomings of ICON IMO (especially its "roughness" and its inability to interestingly play high powered characters).

Have you seen the CODA BSR by GandalfOfBorg?

[Sho-sa Kurita]

First, I'd recommend checking out the CODA Basic System Reference previously mentioned.

Second, I'd say CODA addresses the issue you bring up (easy/hard) simply. Like many other games, you set a Target Number (TN) and make a dice roll to equal or top it. It also utilizes degrees of success and failure, so for every +/- 5 you hit or miss your TN it can affect the outcome. For instance, you might increase your damage, reduce the time it takes to complete a task, or maybe drop your weapon (rather than just miss your attack).

Third, I also like the character advancement method (though that's one of the major points of contention with the system). It's sort of a mix between levels and pure point-based advancement. You gain experience points, and for every thousand you get 5 'picks' which are used to increase skills, buy edges, buy off flaws, increase attributes and reactions, etc. I think it's a good mix because you specifically get to choose what you want to change for your character, but you can only change so much at any give time, thus forcing characters to broaden their abilities.

[Capt. K. Vaughn]

No, please. CODA is not D20 lite. Let's not get into this again. CODA uses mechanics seen in D20 but these mechanics had been seen before elsewhere.

Silverstreak, I'm a firm adept of the CODA system which patches many shortcomings of ICON IMO (especially its "roughness" and its inability to interestingly play high powered characters).

Inability to interestingly play high-powered characters????

Considering the number of high-powered characters I have GM'd using ICON, I would strongly disagree with that statement. Not only the inability but the interestingly as well.

I also never found these problems that so many people claim CODA fixed. In fact, just the opposite they created a ton of problems just in character creation alone. I think many people see it as d20-lite because of the fact that WotC owned it just prior and Dancey quite clearly stated his intent to convert all to the d20 mechanic. It is also the quickest way to explain most of the mechanics of the system.

The nice thing about ICON is you can take a fan of the shows who has never gamed before and have him or her playing in a short order of time with their own character developed. CODA, IMO cannot do this nearly as effectively as ICON or FASA.

CODA may give more of a range for those that are into gaming and playing the numbers but what it comes down to is really what you want for and from your game. For me and everyone I game with regularly online, ICON is the choice of preference. Many others here would shout out CODA and lay out their reasons usually some deficiency that they perceive within the ICON system and then the ICON supporters would refute those claims. We can all sit here and say this system is better or that system is better but we do so based on our bias and expectations within the games we play.

In the end, only experience with each system and your own personal desires will determine which system is for you. We each have had different experiences and support those systems based upon what we have found.

Though given the unknown status of where Decipher is going with the Star Trek line, regardless of whether you prefer Decipher, LUG, or FASA we may all be in the same boat soon having to create our own material to continue our adventures in ST.

Regards,
CKV.

[Sho-sa Kurita]

Couple more thoughts. While CODA has professions/orders (i.e. classes), it's easy to drop them and play "classless" characters. Indeed, the BSR discusses this topic. Also, there are some decent rules for creating races/species and creatures, based on 'picks' like advancement. And has been said by many (frequently), there is a fine starship combat system, also adapted by GoB for ancient seafaring vessels as well.

[KillerWhale]

CKV, I agree CODA character creation is a tad muddy.... it's good to have all those cheat sheets designed by the fans.

About ICON and high powered characters: I had posted a statistical analysis a long time ago demonstrating that 4 dice in a roll were more enough to score 5 or 6's fairly often; when your character is high powered, and has 5 or 6's in his usual specialties, the only thing that can influence the roll is the drama die. Meaning you roll 5 or 6 dice just to view the result of one. That's unsatisfying IMO.

Additionnally, I never liked the roughness of ICON: only 6 skill levels, that's too few for my taste.

Of course, if your gaming pleasure resides in RP first and foremost, then ICON is just as fine as D20 - but since we're talking about rules...

[Capt. K. Vaughn]

CKV, I agree CODA character creation is a tad muddy.... it's good to have all those cheat sheets designed by the fans.

About ICON and high powered characters: I had posted a statistical analysis a long time ago demonstrating that 4 dice in a roll were more enough to score 5 or 6's fairly often; when your character is high powered, and has 5 or 6's in his usual specialties, the only thing that can influence the roll is the drama die. Meaning you roll 5 or 6 dice just to view the result of one. That's unsatisfying IMO.

Additionnally, I never liked the roughness of ICON: only 6 skill levels, that's too few for my taste.

Of course, if your gaming pleasure resides in RP first and foremost, then ICON is just as fine as D20 - but since we're talking about rules...

That would depend on how high you are setting your target numbers in ICON and how often you are setting them high. In the higher-powered games that I have run, the characters still get a good run for their money but are not sitting on the seat of their pants waiting on the results of the drama die unless it is near the climax of the adventure.

Not to mention, at that point it is usually a common enough practice to throw down a courage point or two if that is the case.

*grin* Rules are rules, it's what the person is looking to get from them that determines the perception of whether one system is better then the other. For those that like to power-game or do comparitive roll-playing or spend hours building a character then CODA is probably the way to go if you can swim through its muddiness.

Do they both have flaws? Certainly.

As for ICON if you have an issue with making the set DC, then instead of having the advantages or edges give an extra die, turn it into a straight bonus to the test.

Regards,
CKV.