GenCon Decipher-Trek Review

[Phantom]

Still psyched about the new game...Oh, wait that is a knee jerk reaction...Sorry.



------------------
In the Praetors Name!

[Captain Zymmer]

Okay I will admit I too was a bit nervous whn I heard the word Levels, but now that I see the way you are doing it...I like it!

I wish D&D was using this system.

See for me when I hear levels, I also think Hit Points, Saving Throws, etc...all the stuff I absolutely hate about level systems...the more levels you have the harder you become to kill...but this just sounds like an excellent guide on how to spend XP...I think I will make my players remake their characters from the ground up in this case

So that they get the full feeling of the game

Thanks Lt. Dayde...you have been very helpful, and thanks Don for getting him over here and thanks Steve Long for giving us that little bit more...

I cannot wait for this game...I am so frelling stoaked!

------------------
Captain Zymmer
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Visit Star Trek:Lexington at;
http://www.usslexington.net
=-=-=-=-=-=

[Caretaker]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Don:
I've e-mailed him this thread and hopefully he'll drop in and say something.

I agree--I think it's important that you all hear from people who have played the system firsthand who aren't bound by NDAs (like me). Ask them tough questions, their likes and their dislikes. Ask about details.

That's the problem I have with Will's review: it tells you how much he likes the system but skirts so many important details about the actual game that it makes it difficult for someone to understand if they would like it.

Honestly, after reading through the article and all the tangets and D20 references, the offhand mentioning of levels, the lack of detail and the comparison of a phaser to a wand of sleep (!) I can't blame anyone who walks away with the wrong impression about the new RPG.


</font>

Thanks, Don!

Talk about reading between the lines in the article... but I don't have any bad impressions. I'm getting "good vibrations" from the game already.

[This message has been edited by Caretaker (edited 09-08-2001).]

[Calcoran]

First of all, don't get me wrong, I'm still really jazzed about the incoming game.

Still, I think I'll just leave the advancement mechanisms aside. Call me dumb, I just don't like the principle behind it that says that you improve in a discrete manner rather than continuously. Good point is: advancements seem rather easy to reverse engineer to use plain simple experience points .
Incidentally, SW D6 was a level-free game. However we kept track of the total amount of ... what was the name already ... skill points or experience points I believe. Worked just as well when the GM needed to ascertain the power of the characters. 50 points characters were rather unexperienced ones whereas 200 points ones were getting close to the heroes of the saga. Point is that the progression was as continuous as it could be within the game mechanic.

Granted though, advancements look like a great tool for character creation. More flexible than ICON's packages, maybe easier to handle, and still as efficient to give a unique flavour to the character. Okay, so let's just say I'll keep half of it .

------------------
Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms)

[REG]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I wish D&D was using this system.

See for me when I hear levels, I also think Hit Points, Saving Throws, etc...all the stuff I absolutely hate about level systems...the more levels you have the harder you become to kill...but this just sounds like an excellent guide on how to spend XP...</font>

What do you mean "harder to kill"? Have you tried fighting a kobold rogue/Assassin? I have, and wasted three perfectly good characters.

And please don't ask me about my encounter with a Troll ranger/rogue with a thing for elf scalps.

Kidding aside, to make Dungeons & Dragons less than a fantasy role-playing game will lose some its character known to us. That's why you have other games like Rolemaster or Fantasy HERO...

Okay, so it's no longer in print. I wonder why. (No offense intended)

You want to do a d20-based game that simulates lethal combats? Roll hit die at first level, then if you want to increase hit points, acquire Toughness feats.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[Flamestrike]

Hi! I've got a question about Advancements:

When the character gets enough experience for and advnacement, does he or she automatically advance, or can you hold that advancement and use it later?

D&D style levels don't have to be a bad thing, as long as you make the characters EARN the rank that goes along with the level.

I generally make my players roleplay out level advancement, no matter what. i.e. if a wizard, fighter, etc. gets enough experience to advance in level, they have to take a test given by their peers, whether that be the Wizards' Conclave, Theives' Guild, or whatever. The character still gains experience as normal, but if they want to have the bonuses, extra feats, and other goodies associated with that level, the character's got to take the test.

Saying that you've got a tenth level thief gives you an idea of progression, but when the character has had to steal the Diamond of Thule from a trio of beholders (without being seen) in order to achieve said rank, well, it becomes a matter of pride to both the player and character.

I can see advancements within Star Trek working along the same lines: We've seen something similar already, with Deanna Troi's Bridge Officer exam.



------------------
Even in this age of technological wonders, the human mind is still the most powerful weapon in the universe.

[tonyg]

Whoa!

Let me get this straight. The same guy who has been slamming the new Enterprise TV series in nearly every series V thread is upset for people for "knee-jerk" reactions? Seems like a double standard to me.

Maybe this would be a fairer:

Why should those of use with the ICON system switch the Decipher Trek?

[Don Mappin]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by tonyg:
Let me get this straight. The same guy who has been slamming the new Enterprise TV series in nearly every series V thread is upset for people for "knee-jerk" reactions? Seems like a double standard to me.</font>

The word you’re searching for is “hypocrite.”

Finally, you’ll notice that I’ve not participated in any “Enterprise” thread for over the past month. I’ve elected to take the position of a few of our enlightened members and approach from a “wait and see” attitude. (Although that was my original intention all along—poking fun at “Enterprise” was simply too amusing to pass up.)

So while I might be in error for having a negative opinion of “Enterprise” through all the extensive reviews/previews/and research I’ve conducted (through reputable resources) at least I didn’t boycott the show because of one word: levels.

(Although “Bakula” is a pretty good one-word reason to not watch “Enterprise.”)


------------------


[This message has been edited by Don (edited 08-30-2001).]

[Lt. Dade]

Re: Rank and Advancements

Rank must be related to competence, and one's competence in a given field is expressed by their skill ratings. In this sense, yes, Advancements and Rank are related. Is there a concrete mechanical connection between them? I saw no evidence of one in the demo session.

Re: Optional Advancement

I cannot intelligently say if a character must take their Advancement or not. However, speaking from my experience and in terms of general gameplay, I would think such decisions would be up to the individual Narrators. If you mean to say that Advancements could be postponed to correspond with the story, I might even recommend it.

As an aside: One reason I'm growing fond of level-style character progression is because it implies a dramatic threshold. I mean, fictional heroes rarely spawn new abilities in the middle of a story. Typically, these abilities are acquired just before a climactic twist or after surviving such a climax. Character levels can be used to represent the thresholds heroes pass through (in some mythic models).

More importantly, level-based progression is very much in the spirit of the episodic franchise. Consider every episode of Star Trek as an adventure wherein one or more characters learn a lesson and move forward. Now compare this notion to the level-based game model. I like the relationship there.

(Once characters have seven season's worth of Advancements, they're just not as much fun to play. )

Re: The Starship Chapter

It so happens that the full-color page mock-ups that I saw were of a Starships chapter. I think this was from the Player's Guide. These mock-ups delighted me. Their look seems to be in line with other high-gloss Star Trek presentations, such as Star Trek Magazine or the DS9 Technical Manual. It's the sort of treatment that RPGs deserve, which CCGs have been getting. That is, it's lovely.

I know this doesn't really answer the question of starship creation. All I can say is that the Enterprise and Defiant, at least, were given full-page graphics with text. This may or may not be indicative of the attention being given to starship concerns.

Remember, also, that the designers have two big hardback's worth of space to work with this time. That's encouraging for us, but a tall order for them.

word,
will


[This message has been edited by Lt. Dade (edited 08-30-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Lt. Dade (edited 08-30-2001).]

[tonyg]

Don,

I never said that I'd boycott Decipher Trek. Just that, IF, it were a "level-based" RPG, I wouldn't buy it, nor would the rest of my gaming group. That isn't a boycott. I am not telling anyone else not to buy the game. It just that if the person narrating the Star Trek campign doesn't buy it, the players have little reason to. Espically as my players perfer skill based rather than XP/Level based rpgs.

From what addtional info has popped up, including the reviwer deciding to drop the term "level-based" the conditional IF might not even arise.

[This message has been edited by tonyg (edited 08-31-2001).]

[prophetsteve]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Why should those of use with the ICON system switch the Decipher Trek?</font>

Well I cannot say why you would switch to DecTrek, I can tell you why I will... eventually.

Note: I say eventually because I wanna play at least one ICON game before switching - and since I like ICON I may use it for awhile: Yet I will support DecTrek.

1. Support: We will be getting support for this system while LUGTrek is dead as far as offical support - this is the least reason for me since I still play Star Wars D6 even though all that is supported is SWd20 (though I play that).

2. Child of Experience: LUGtrek had years under its belt and the folks at DecWest know what worked and didn't. LUGTrek, from what I heard, was flawed in someways, so I look forward to see a more mature and "tighter" system.

3. Child of Decipher: The main flaw in LUGTrek books was the artwork. I don't like handdrawn art unless its VERY good. Decipher has the reputation for awesome artwork - for instance their habit of CGI-ing ships that have no photo available really appeals to me. I expect DecTrek to be up a notch graphicly than even LUGTrek was.

4. Good Rep: I have heard at least a few tidbits about the system and like everything I heard. While I was surprised it wasn't "LUGTrek-2", I am happy about what I've heard. Especially now since stuff like Tricorders aid abilities, focusing back on the character.

5. Timing - I want more Star Trek. I want more Star Trek RPG. So what if ICON is dead as far as new offical products? DecTrek is there and is going to give me quality Trek products - 'nuff said.

I have basically decided that I will buy DecTrek. In completing my CD collection of soundtracks I noticed the reviews of "Return of the Jedi" Soundtrack - many praised the soundtrack and the movie, others bombarded it with harsh criticism that surprised me.

It taught me a lesson - no matter what you do, someones going to hate it. So I'll wait until a dozen or so first-hand reviews of the game occur before I decide whether the game is good or bad. No, better still, I will actually read it before I make that decision. Christian Moore and company deserve no less...

[Phantom]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by tonyg:
[B]Whoa!

Let me get this straight. The same guy who has been slamming the new Enterprise TV series in nearly every series V thread is upset for people for "knee-jerk" reactions? Seems like a double standard to me.
</font>

If you are referring to my post above about "knee jerk reactions" it was ment in jest. I was referring to someone who had posted previously saying that "he hated knee jerk reactions to games" or something to that effect. What I was going for was a statement that saying you excited about a game, which I am about DecTrek, is also a "knee jerk reaction"...A very postitive one. Anyway I guess it fell flat.

Hypocrite? I don't see the connection between me slamming what I view as a very possible waste of time (Enterprise) and me trying to give praise to those who will be making what could possibly be my next favourite RPG. If calling me names has some use then, please proceed.



------------------
In the Praetors Name!

[Lt. Dade]

In response to tonyg's label of "level-based" systems, let me go on the record for the moment ...

I would not call Decipher's Star Trek system "level-based," really. Character progression is marked by levels, I will grant you. I think I've even called the character progression system "level-based" myself. The central rule mechanic is not truly level-based, however. If I *have* to label it, I would say that the new system is still skill-based. I didn't spy any "level-dependant" abilities (like BAB) in the game. It's all based on the choices you, as a player, make along the way.

I think I've finally said my piece.

word,
w

[REG]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">D&D style levels don't have to be a bad thing, as long as you make the characters EARN the rank that goes along with the level.</font>

I don't think that level should equal automatic rank promotion, but rather one of the requirements you must fulfill in order to be up for a rank promotion. For example, in order to be a Captain, you must have an experience equivalent to level 6 and up. Even though have fulfilled the level requirement, there are other requirements that you must also fulfill (minimum skill levels in certain skills including leadership-type skills, etc.)

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[Paxton]

Dade?

A further question about these advancements in the new Decipher Trek. Are they tied to rank in any way? That is, when your Ensign gets x number of experience points, does the next enhancement plateau entail a rise in rank to LTJG as well?

This is not necessarily a bad idea--keeps a kind of build-in balance to the abilities of the characters at various rank levels.

Paxton