[CODA] Star Trek RPG 2nd Edition (done by us :))

[tonyg]

Also, my vote is for Option 1

Okat that's one for 1. I still think a Pool thing would work best for this.

Any discussion of the details of Option 3 should take place in General RP, not here.

Certainly. But I think the discussion as to what direction to ptusue is something that has some merit at least starting here.

I've seen posts that make me thing all 4 paths have followers. I fact I think Option 2 probably has more supporters than Option 1.

So we need to get some sort of consensus and then go from there.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Even something as simple as each point that gets past shields does 1D6 damage instead of 1 point would work.

So why not simply decrease each ship's structure points?

I disagree. THe rules also place limits on the GM. If I ran the way you descibed, I wound't want CODA. THe framework would just get in the way. Quite a few RPGs and gamers reject the GM fiat idea, and I'm one of them.

The worse Star Trek RPG experience I even had was becuase we had a GM who was going to tell his story, and he wasn't going to let anything like the players get in the way.

That's not the fault of the rules, it's the fault of the GM's perception of the player-GM relationship. The group deciding things, even those decisions handed to the GM, outside of the rules structures happens all the time; you're just used to the GM not forcing you to roll to get out of bed.

Didn't get the chance. I did run an ICON campaign for 3 years, and overall think ICON is a better system. I also think most of the accusations of CODA being a modfied D20 game hold water. It is just that the modfications are significant-no incrasing HP, skill based combat, and the freedome to decide what gets improved instead of getting level bonuses.

So you're critiquing a system you've never actually played?

This is the very reason I think Option 3 won't even get off the ground. Without some sort of immediate unifying gaming experience, everyone's expectations will tear it a dozen different directions.

Rules can't save you from bad GMing, though.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

I've seen posts that make me thing all 4 paths have followers. I fact I think Option 2 probably has more supporters than Option 1.

What's the line between Option 2 and Option 3?

[Tobian]

Ok I vote for 1.5 hehe - I think it should be Coda, but with tweaks. I don't think we need to completely break existing material, to revise how some of the rules work. Create a core reference document for GM's and players.

It also occurs to me we could have, included, a 'fast' and a 'heavy' rules set. I.e. Spacedock is a heavy spaceship construction set for Icon, maybe (if not so expansively) have a gritty realistic option, and rules light version. Then Gm's / Players can choose which rules they prefer for their group?

Whatever it is, I do think it should be something like Coda, or I think a lot of people will loose interest. Oh and TTK - err you can't call what isn't resolved. Or rather if you want to do X but no one else does, you are not in charge of anything except yourself

[Mac417]

I'll address each option separately.

1. 100% compatibility with CODA.
I'm not entirely against CODA, don't misunderstand me. At the same time, my thoughts when discussion began of this project was that we were going to make a fan-made Star Trek tabletop game, not necessarily a fan-made CODA Star Trek tabletop game (although I personally began the discussion on the side of going with CODA, hence why discussion started on this forum). Furthermore, I have to admit I'm a bit trepidatious about just taking CODATrek into our own hands and just rewriting the existing material and shotgunning it out over the web, since many of us are completely unsure as to the legalities of doing so. There's precedent for CBS/Paramount's stance on fan-made Trek material, but RPG systems are something else, hence the reasons why WotC's SRD doesn't contain the entire rules-set and that the OGL prohibits the publication of certain rules mechanics by 3rd-party developers. Whether Decipher has a legal leg to stand on or not in terms of ownership of the CODA rules, and no matter the seemingly low likelihood, Decipher could possibly nip this thing in the bud, and I'd prefer to do this without bridge-burning and/or putting any corporate noses out of joint, despite the fact that Decipher mishandled the license nearly from Day 1.

2. Base it on CODA, but improve it.
I have concerns about taking this approach as well, for many of the reasons listed above. It would largely depend on the level to which we were to modify the rules (the more the better).

3. Make or find a system suitable for roleplaying Trek. Any resemblance to CODA or ICON are optional.
Of the four options, this is the one I'm more comfortable with. Partially for the creative challenge of crafting a new game (if not a new game system), but mainly because the chances for legal reprisals are a lot less. So if I had to vote for one, this would be it.

4. Doing a system-free Trek RPG sourcebook.
If we absolutely had to go this route, I think I wouldn't mind. Still, I was of the mind we were discussing doing a full game, and that's the project that's captured my attention.

I'm not throwing out any option though, but my order of preference is #3, #2, #4, and #1.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Whatever it is, I do think it should be something like Coda, or I think a lot of people will loose interest. Oh and TTK - err you can't call what isn't resolved. Or rather if you want to do X but no one else does, you are not in charge of anything except yourself

I don't think that Option 2 and 3 are really that different, unless a guideline for how much 'improvements' can be made is established. The truth is that those who are adamant about creating this will probably end up pursuing their own avenues that they feel need to be changed.

I think that everyone should seriously ask themselves what their final vision of the project is, and what, of that, are you willing to compromise. Then ask yourself how many thousands of words you're willing to write, edit, have to defend, scrap, and then rewrite from scratch for what, essentially, amounts to a private project.

[tonyg]

What's the line between Option 2 and Option 3?

A blurry one. From my point of view COption 2 would be CODA with a few tweaks a mods but still CODA. Option 3 could be another RPG all together. But, we could, for exampel have something very much CODA and charge a chart or a skill and still have it be CODA.

[Mac417]

A blurry one. From my point of view COption 2 would be CODA with a few tweaks a mods but still CODA. Option 3 could be another RPG all together. But, we could, for exampel have something very much CODA and charge a chart or a skill and still have it be CODA.

I think what we should all do is take each of the core mechanics of the game one by one, discuss what we like and what we feel should be thrown out or changed. (Note this is if we go for the CODA-mod option.)

Here's each aspect of the game as I see them:

Character generation
Species templates
Mixed species rules
Professions and professional abilities
Attributes and attribute modifiers
Development packages
Creating advanced characters
Skills and skill groups
Edges and flaws
Aging effects
Reactions
Defense
Health
Courage
Renown
XP and advancement
Elite professions
Weapons and equipment
Starship design and combat
Taking actions
Movement
Fatigue, environmental effects, hazards
Personal combat
Injury and healing
World creation
Species creation
Creature creation

Also, how much info do we want to pack in here in terms of species profiles, starships, gear, major-character writeups, campaign flavor text, etc.?

[tonyg]

So why not simply decrease each ship's structure points?

Well, becuase it would require rewordking the ship design rules and trade offs. I though the D6 per doiie that got through was easier and could be subject to courage points. But if SPs were changes from increments of 5 to say, increments of 2 or 3 we could get the same effect.

That's not the fault of the rules, it's the fault of the GM's perception of the player-GM relationship. The group deciding things, even those decisions handed to the GM, outside of the rules structures happens all the time; you're just used to the GM not forcing you to roll to get out of bed.

True. But is is the fault of the rules to expect a GM to tweak things, instead of trying to cover them. For instance there is the classic bit in Data's stats in ICON. He really needed a +5 or +6 Strength, but the authors went with a "just left him win" approach. If the Str stat doesn't matter, don't list it.

O don't expect to have to fufge it to have a ship take out another ship with a hit or two. I expect that to be fairly common with the rules, as it was fairly comon on TV. Part of this also stems from the fact that CODA, like ICON doesn't handle TOS as well as it handles TNG.

So you're critiquing a system you've never actually played?

Sure. Actual play experience is not required to figure some things out. You don't have to play the game to do math, calculate the odds, or work out the minimum number of hits it takes to destroy a ship with X structure with an attacking with Y Penetration.

This is the very reason I think Option 3 won't even get off the ground. Without some sort of immediate unifying gaming experience, everyone's expectations will tear it a dozen different directions.

IMO I think that is probably the fate of any of the options. It takes time and commitment. Option 1 is probably the most likely to succeed from a group writing standpoint, but I think it is the worst solution from the legal and expasion standpoints.

Option 2 has just as many legal wrangles, and requires more work, but could potentially yield a better game. I think CODA does have room for improvement.


Option 3 is probably the best overall option from legal standpoints and for keeping the game "in print" but requires the most work, and would be the most difficult. Still, I can think of a half dozen sytems off the tiopof my head that would suit Trek well. Some would have advantages over CODA in some areas. A few of those systems are available for our use. Nor would I mind writing up a new system. I've done some work along those lines before and it could be fun.

Option 4 is the easiest from a legal standpoint, and would probably be the easiest to sustain. Once it is running conversion sheets would be easy. Still it would be the hardest on GMs to run, as they would need the conversion sheets to turn X in to the number that they need for their game.


I'm game for any of the options, and even for something different, but I think we all need to decide what path we want to follow. Our strongest supports seem to be pushing in different directions and we need to see which path to take, and who is willing to walk that path.

THat why why I was hoping someone would set up a pool (I don't want to have to look up the instructions on how) and we can see not only what direction to go in, but also get an indication of just how many people here are interested in the project. If we only have 4 or 5 people into this we can save ourselves the effort. Likewise if there is a "save CODA" mandate from the masses we'll know what the right direction is.

Rules can't save you from bad GMing, though.

No. Nor from bad playing. Some games have rules that limit the GM's powers though. And that can help.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Fucking computer ate my reply.

Short answer:

GM fiat is in the nature of the position. Rules are enacted, they do not limit. Group disagreement and consensus-building is the true source of limits, and you can't make rules to create those things, it's meta-rules. A bad GM is a bad GM, whether he's playing Synnabar or UA.

Option 1 is stupid for obvious reasons.

Option 2 is stupid because it needs to decide whether it's Option 1 or Option 3. If you're playing CODA and something broken comes up and you need to errata it, it's Option 1. If you just don't like it conceptually and want to change it, it's Option 3. Besides that, all the 3E-->3.5 problems apply. Tiny incompatibilities are more annoying than total incompatibility.

Option 3 is stupid because I'd want to write UA and you'd want to write GURPS, and Bob over here would want to write Spaceman: the Trekkening, and there's no real reason for us to come to consensus, because come on, how many adventures did we all end up posting on the site anyway? A vote for Option 3 is really a vote for Option 4.

Option 4 is stupid because of redundancy.

[Mac417]

Fucking computer ate my reply.

Short answer:

GM fiat is in the nature of the position. Rules are enacted, they do not limit. Group disagreement and consensus-building is the true source of limits, and you can't make rules to create those things, it's meta-rules. A bad GM is a bad GM, whether he's playing Synnabar or UA.

Option 1 is stupid for obvious reasons.

Option 2 is stupid because it needs to decide whether it's Option 1 or Option 3. If you're playing CODA and something broken comes up and you need to errata it, it's Option 1. If you just don't like it conceptually and want to change it, it's Option 3. Besides that, all the 3E-->3.5 problems apply. Tiny incompatibilities are more annoying than total incompatibility.

Option 3 is stupid because I'd want to write UA and you'd want to write GURPS, and Bob over here would want to write Spaceman: the Trekkening, and there's no real reason for us to come to consensus, because come on, how many adventures did we all end up posting on the site anyway? A vote for Option 3 is really a vote for Option 4.

Option 4 is stupid because of redundancy.

So. Bad idea all around, then?

[The Tatterdemalion King]

THat why why I was hoping someone would set up a pool (I don't want to have to look up the instructions on how) and we can see not only what direction to go in, but also get an indication of just how many people here are interested in the project.

Uh... do you mean a poll?

So. Bad idea all around, then?

There are significant problems all around. I'm not saying everyone should abandon their efforts; I just think that it's inevitable that our consensus will be one or two people each working on their own Option 3 or 4. The truth is, we're not coming from the same places, and we're not currently on the road to the same places, and unless we are willing to draft someone as Autocratic Project Head (or magically develop some Groupthink), I don't think we'll have a cohesive product from everyone's efforts.

That might be bad to some people. I, for one, will probably soldier on with CODA-based notes and continuing to write for BTFF. Maybe I'll put together a 64-page Option 4 book.

[Mac417]

There are significant problems all around. I'm not saying everyone should abandon their efforts; I just think that it's inevitable that our consensus will be one or two people each working on their own Option 3 or 4. The truth is, we're not coming from the same places, and we're not currently on the road to the same places, and unless we are willing to draft someone as Autocratic Project Head (or magically develop some Groupthink), I don't think we'll have a cohesive product from everyone's efforts.

That might be bad to some people. I, for one, will probably soldier on with CODA-based notes and continuing to write for BTFF. Maybe I'll put together a 64-page Option 4 book.

Check. Ah well. Time to haul that Tri-Stat DX Trek mod outta mothballs then.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Check. Ah well. Time to haul that Tri-Stat DX Trek mod outta mothballs then.

Why don't we just get a roll-call of previously existing conversions?

[tonyg]

Fucking computer ate my reply.

Short answer:

GM fiat is in the nature of the position. Rules are enacted, they do not limit. Group disagreement and consensus-building is the true source of limits, and you can't make rules to create those things, it's meta-rules. A bad GM is a bad GM, whether he's playing Synnabar or UA.

No it isn't. THere are many style of play anfd GM fiat is not a requirement. If consuses building si a source of limits then I hate to think of what you call a good campaign.

Yes a bad GM is a bad GM, but not all GMs need to be dictators.



As far as a new Trek RPG goes. Since you eliminated all 4 options as stupid (which, by the way I think is not only incorrect, but a bit heavy handed) you seem to think the entire idea has no merit.


Frankly I think one thing that needs to be worked on it the motivation for doing a new game. Either orginal, coversion o r CODA reprint. I don't think "to show new players" is a good option, either. Right now there are plenty of copies available. So anyone who wants the rule books can order them from somebody.

If it is to entince and interest new players then CODA is pretty much a no go. It is a lot harder to get new players into dead and non suppoered RPGs.

Wanting to keep CODA alive, or update it or just have a living Star Trek RPG are all good reasons.

But, I wonder just how many people really want this. It's no secret that this board isn't what it once was. We used to have more posts in an hour that we have now in a week. Lots of ship write-ups new species the works. Now, this thread hear has been the most active thing I've seen in months. And it's what three people makiking two or three posts?

So

1) Is there an interest to keep something going?

2) Just what do people want?

3) Who wants to do it?


And that requires comments from the peanut gallery, assuming people are still around.