GenCon Decipher-Trek Review

[USS Intrepid]

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

Six sided dice are used. In truth, and completely off the record, it seems more like ICON 2nd Edition then anything else. At it's core, it is an improved if slightly simplified version of the ICON system with many of the bumps smoothed out.

</font>

I must admit, I'm quite pleased to hear this. YAY!

A refined version of ICON sounds like exactly what I was hoping for. Looking forward to buying the darn thing. The sooner, the better.

------------------
Captain Daniel Hunter
CO NCC-74600, U.S.S. Intrepid
Star Trek: Intrepid

[tonyg]

Andorian,

Can you tell us anything about your character? What sort of attributes/skills were there and such?

[Jabara Eris]

I buy the new rule book in November. Either:
a) I love the new rules.
b) I hate the new rules
c) I like some of the new rules, but also lament some of the things ICON used to have.

Will, from what you've seen, how hard would it REALLY be to convert all my old characters and adventures from ICON to Decipher Trek? How hard would it be to convert characters and adventures from Decipher Trek to ICON? How hard would it be to mix the two systems?

That being asked, the next question should be: Are the details of the rules really that important?

To me, gaming is about background and adventure. I didn't fall in love with Call of Cthulhu because of the rules, but because of the incredibly high quality of the supplements and adventures. That's why it's still around after more than two decades.

I personally loathe d20 rules. Nonetheless, I have bought almost every supplement that has come out for the Star Wars d20 RPG because the background is so much fun to play with.

When it comes down to it, clumsy rules can usually be reworked or ignored, but I believe Decipher Trek will live or die on whether the game's supplements and adventures are inspired or whether they're just mediocre hack.

So with that in mind I'm willing to wait and see what happens with Decipher Trek and not make any snap judgements. If they can make me practically weep with joy just from reading an adventure (which was how I felt while perusing a select few of Chaosium's more inspired publications), then I will be a very happy boy.

Almost 15 years after running it, I still think Masks of Nyarlathotep is one of the most incredible gaming experiences I've ever had. Will Decipher reach those heights with its new Trek game? We can only hope. I'll wait and see.



------------------
Voka a Bentel
(May you walk with the Prophets),

Eris

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... Let us never forget Bajor's sacrifices under the Cardassian Occupation ...
... http://remember-forever.tripod.com ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[toadkiller]

Um - folks - does it matter?

Frankly - any of it. I think we're dealing with a bit of "spoiled gamer syndrome" here. Maybe I'm just older than some of the others on the board - but does nobody here remember pre-LUG? We had (scarce) copies of FASA Trek and Prime Directive - clumsy rules and bad graphics (IMHO). That was it. If you wanted something else you made it up if you wanted to use a different game mechanic you made it up . There were no web sites like this one, no free PDF books being put out "just for the fun of it". No brand new series of Trek gaming books coming out in the next few months.

IF after you look at the DEC Trek stuff you don't like it - don't use it. Or lift the stuff from it you like and put it in a game that you make up ! Contrary to popular belief one does not need a gaming company to hold your hand through a game.

Stop whining and start playing.

------------------
TK

[Phantom]

I to spent a bit of money on what little of the LUG books I could get my hands on, about 5 or 6 IIRC.

I am, however, very open to the next game put out by Dec. I do have a few problems with what they have planned, but those problems are mainly connected with what supplements they won't be doing not about the game itself.

Of course I have had very few complaints about new systems, just about every game I have ever played I liked to some degree or other (I can only think of one game I hated, Cyborg Commandos yek, and one I could just not understand, RuneQuest.) I like all the D&D incarnations, including D20, I like LUG and FASAs Trek, the list goes on.

The only thing about the core rules themselves I don;t like is the fact that there will be two books, players guide and narrators guide. I have always looked down on games that require 2 books to run to full effect. I know most games say you only need the one book to play, but with only half of the rules it takes a dimension away from the game, so I buy the other book. Oh well, such is life. I will buy the first book, if it passes the flip test, if it hooks me from the first when I start to read it I probably will pick the GMs guide. That is as far as I can go now, until I cast my final vote that is all I can say.

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

[Lt. Dade]

In regards to conversions: I don't think there will be any trouble converting characters in either direction (from Icon or to Icon). Someone (was it you, Don?) said that there will be conversion notes posted by Decipher when the time is right. The two systems are, in many ways, that similar.

I'll be using the new system, though, if only because it addresses the problems I had with racial applications in Icon and the technology-oriented skills.

word,
will

[Phantom]

That is another question I had, what was the big deal with tech related skills? Other games have X weapon (y specialation) and no ones whines about them. What is so wrong with Personal Equip. (tricorder) to be able to use a tricorder to peak effiecncy? With the new system you are only getting rid of that particular skill and specialization. At least I hope that is all. I will have a big problem if the phasers and other weapons systems in the new game only have a modifier to hit, instead of a skill. Sorry guys, but certain pieces of equipment need specialized training. INHM sensors fall in that category.

This is a general statement, not intended to be aimed at anyone.

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

[Lt. Dade]

I actually *do* hear complaints about weapon specializations, Phantom!

Speaking (extremely) personally, I think a game should go ahead and make certain assumptions about its characters. That is, why would I play a Starfleet character who doesn't know how to use a tricorder? I don't want to keep putting points into a skill just to do things which are commonplace in the context of the source material (in this case, ST:TNG). I think skills should be used just to illustrate the strengths of a character, and should be only as narrow as is necessary to express those strengths. Specializing in every skill goes beyond this, as does the sheer volume of engineering skills, etc. in Icon Trek. I boiled them down to fewer skills in my own games, because my players would absolutely not deal with the huge skill lists in LUGTrek and, well, I want to game with my players.

The notion that specialized training is required for certain equipment is perfectly logical, especially when attempting to simulate the technological world of Star Trek. I, for one, do not think world simulation is nearly as important as simple task resolution in my tabletop RPGs, though. Many, many people don't see it my way, which is all good. I want to model Star Trek storytelling, not the Star Trek universe in detail. I would just prefer a game which, in its default mode, helps me depict the action of the story without restricting me too tightly. In my experience, it is wiser to add optional complications into a game system than it is to remove built-in elements. A simple game with intuitive modifiers (and an intuitive difficulty scale) is typically more durable.

I'm going to go into a whole essay on why I think simpler is better if I don't shut up now. So I'll shut up. My point is: *I* think it's better to start with a trim and slim game system which is easily dressed up rather than start cutting flesh off a more complicated system.

Just my feelings.

word,
will

[PS Edit] The tech skills do have specializations (specialties?) in DecTrek, as does the Energy Weapons skill (I think it's still called that). But, by not having a specialization for *every* skill, the few specializations a character does have become more noteworthy and more valuable.

I agree with this philosophy. It's enough for us to know that Dr. Bashir has some passing knowledge of Engineering ("Armageddon Game" I think). What we're really interested in are his medical skills.

"Over-specialize and you breed in weakness."
--Ghost in the Shell

[This message has been edited by Lt. Dade (edited 09-07-2001).]

[Phantom]

Well, INMHO Star Trek has to be a fairly skill heavy system. Your are dealing primarily with Engineering and Science type characters. Limiting the specializations to these branch is silly in my opinion. You can't say just because a character has the Engineering skill and a speciality he is going to know Engineering to point the character might want. That is like saying an electrical engineer is the same as an areonautical engineer. Not the same thing at all. Same goes with medicine, philosophy, archaeology, geology, Astro physics, etc, etc. People in real life have the skills they need for their job, along with the enhanced skills of the speciality plus a few peripheral specialties. Why is so bad to have that reflected in a game like Trek.

You mention that it should be assumed that Starfleet characters have certain skills. With that statement why not just say that a SF character is assumed to have all the skills he needs when he is created. The reason why, as far as I am concerned, is that it does not leave anything for the player to work for. He won't get any better.

As to the tech modifiers I like them in a limited amount. If the tricorder adds 5 to your abilty to scan things fine, if a medical kit gives adds 9 to your ability to heal someone fine, but if that carries over to the weapons...Well lets just say that I can see where that comment about the Wand of Sleep would come. A +5 phaser, shudder.

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

[The Kurgan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Don:
(Although “Bakula” is a pretty good one-word reason to not watch “Enterprise.”)
</font>

Yep, just as "level" is a good reason not to buy a game.

Seriously, though, my own reaction after reading all of this is one of having a sick feeling in the pit of my gut. Yeah, I've read all of the above, and I DO understand what is being said, but let's face facts: "advancement" IS just another term for "level" and the principle is indeed the same, no matter how you dress it up. With AD&D it wasn't the actual mechanic that bothered the serious gamer, it was the concept. Levels made no sense. One moment you're suddenly much tougher and smarter (or whatever) than you were before. I don't want to store up points so I can get a new title or somesuch package of benefits all at once. A good role-playing game has gradual increases for individual situations or talents on or near the time that the "lesson" is learned or the knowledge is actually gained, eg. real life. If I'm playing Trek and someone wants to know what my character is capable of doing, etc. then let them take a look at my rank and service record, things that are easily enough created and kept current by any competent referee. Although they weren't big sellers, take a look at such classics as Powers & Perils (or any number of similar systems) where the player is awarded exerience as it happens for the exact skill, task, spell, or situation as it occurs, with a secondary type of experience for overall physical or intellectual/magical expertise. Wonderful system (but also unfortunately the worst editing job in gaming history) that isn't at all annoying or difficult to keep track of. Keep in mind when you assume I'm complaining unfairly that I'm a hardcore Trek fan and avid roleplayer. I WANT DecTrek to be good! But, I've gotta be honest with my reservations and apprehension. We've by no means received the entire picture here, so can't make a permanent judgement, but the picture that is forming from the tidbits and repetition of descriptions is, I'm afraid to say, a bit bleak. I'll probably wait and see what general reaction is before considering a purchase, and even then will more than likely hit eBay for a cheap copy to play it safe. I'm actually starting to get a little nostalgic over my old Fasa books!

------------------
Save the whales. Collect the whole set!!!

[Lt. Dade]

I understand where you're coming from, Phantom, but I don't agree with you and I feel like you've missed my point.

[Fair notice: I'm talking about theory here, and not the actual practices of DecTrek.]

How tech skills work in "real life," as you say, has only a little to do with how they should work in a game, in my opinion. This falls into the category of "world simulation," which I mentioned in my previous message. In a Star Trek episode, a warp systems engineer and a life support engineer are not particularly distinct. Star Trek deals in "engineers" and "scientists," with most further details either omitted or offered just for color. Those are the roles they play in the story, and that's all I'm interested in for my game. I understand (and, believe me, respect) that you want something more for your game.

What I'm trying to say is that it is much easier to make a game which accomplishes my (simpler) goal and then broaden it to accomplish yours than it is to strip down a more complicated game (like Icon) and make it do what I want. Therefore, I prefer the DecTrek approach to the Icon approach.

I didn't mean to suggest that a Starfleet character should have no room for growth. At the same time, however, making *me* the player and my character do extra work just to utilize a tricorder is frustrating, over-complicated, and contrary to the storytelling style of Star Trek. The tricorder is a means for revealing information and furthering the story. This means that I am spending skill points just to ensure that I will receive the necessary exposition required to participate in the adventure. That's simply lame, in my opinion.

Now, if I want to do wild, innovative things with a tricorder, then sure I should use some sort of specialized training. Who would have that sort of training? An engineer, sure. Having a wide array of specialties available offers me all the advantages of focusing and training. Having a wide array of base skills forces me to do more work to achieve the same advantages. If I'm ever "forced" to do something, it's a pretty good bet that I'm not having fun. If I'm not having fun, I'm not going to keep playing the game.

All I need to know is that the engineer is more likely to pull it off than the security guard is, or that one engineer will be better at it than another. Simple modifiers are the most immediately recognizeable and intuitive way to do that. This comparative portrayal is the root of all character modeling in a game environment, from Chess on up. The games which endure are those with simple systems but a myriad of possible complications or permutations. (Not required complications or forced decisions.)

Imagine every magic item in D&D as a complication. Imagine every alien technology in Star Trek as a permutation. IDIC makes for good gameplay.

Lastly, on the (damn) Wand of Sleep issue, a rant:

I previously explained that phrase on this message board. I stand by it. The effects of technological items and magic items on gameplay are very similar. They allow you to do things, if you possess them, that you cannot otherwise do. I cannot abide by the notion that a resemblance, even a simile, to D20/D&D somehow indicates a flaw or weakness in the game. I won't keep discussing this. Why should I repeat myself in a written forum, of all places?

End rant.

word,
w



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

[Phantom]

Ok, this discussion is turning out like two high level fighters dukeing it out in the new D&D...A lot of noise, not much resolved. I guess the best way to settle is to say we agree, to disagree. You like the simpler forms of gaming, thats fine (I'm like that with some games), but in the case of some (LUG Trek) I do prefer a somewhat skill oriented game. Not too heavy, but leaning in that direction.

As to tech, you are right, the story is more important. I'm just voicing a thought that I have that I'm not sure a piece of equipment giving +X to a roll is the answer...If you want to simplify you could just use a personal equipment skill and forget the Spec.s, I could live with that. But I still think that a skill should come into the equation somewhere.

Note to all: Don't take these posts of mine the wrong way. I'm not trying to slag the game. As others on these boards I truely want this system to be stellar. These are not opinons against the game, they merely are questions.

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

[calguard66]

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


Yes, but a fighter can't elect to improve his ability with a bow rather than his ability with a sword. And a sorceror can't elect to take more skills and less spells.
[/IMG]

</font>

Sure the fighter can, by using feats.

The sorceror spells aren't as flexible, but D&D is based on fantasy stereotypes after all. And you can take various metamagic feats.

And if you REALLY want skills and not spells why not take a new class with those skills. After all, a sorcer looking to improve his sword swinging is really practicing for a level of fighter... one who wants to learn to move quietly and pick locks is picking up rogue... one who wants to study and learns pure skills is picking up Expert:Sage or something.

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

[Lt. Dade]

Right on, Phantom. I mean, I totally respect your reasons and, if more of my Trek experiences had come with different gaming groups, we might agree.

I, too, am just kicking ideas around. Who knows, I may change my tune after a few sessions of DecTrek. None of us will know until we've taken the new game out for a spin, right?

And that's the moral of today's story.

A brief, intelligent debate ... Well met, Phantom.

word,
will


[This message has been edited by Lt. Dade (edited 09-09-2001).]

[tonyg]

Uh folks,

If you are going to debate the pros & cons of D&D you should switch to the General Chat forum before one of the moderators steps in.

It a good topic, but in the wrong place.