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

[Cpt. Lundgren]

During the last 2 weeks, about 100 unique members have logged in. A safe assumption is that the amount of people that are in lurking mode are at least as many, and most likely quite a bit more more. So I would say that there are at least some people still around.

And to the list of options, we should add:
Option 5, CODA 1.0 Service Pack 1. This is basically option 2, but will not be a stand alone product. So to use this one, you would need to have a copy of Deciphers material.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

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.

Benevolent dictatorship is inherent in the GM position. If you don't want a GM, don't play with one, but don't kid yourself about the nature of their decisions. If a GM really wants your character to die, or to railroad you, then they can find ways whatever the system is. There is no programming in RPGs, no rules that do not require human sanction, authorization, or enactment.

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.

...


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

So you mischaracterize and dismiss my analysis and then agree with me? Weird.

[tonyg]

Benevolent dictatorship is inherent in the GM position. If you don't want a GM, don't play with one, but don't kid yourself about the nature of their decisions. If a GM really wants your character to die, or to railroad you, then they can find ways whatever the system is. There is no programming in RPGs, no rules that do not require human sanction, authorization, or enactment.

I think yopur view of a GM is somewhat limited. There are games wherere the GM is not an absolute authority. SotC for instance. Or many of the troupe-style RPGs.

So you mischaracterize and dismiss my analysis and then agree with me? Weird.

Mischaractersize? In what way? Your post claied that all four choices are stupid. I'm not in agreement with the use of that word in that context.

What I do think is that for anything group oriented to come from this we need to have group involvement, and all have basically the same end result in mind.

If six people want to go off in six different directions then we will either get nothing or six different, incompatible results.

For instance, I believe you want to basically preserve/transfer CODA Trek over to some electronic format as it.

Some other expressed a dired to do a CODA 2.0. Either by improving CODA in some fashion or using/creating a different system.

Either is valaid. Neither is stupid. But both are different goals.

I want to make sure that we come to an agreement on the project's goals and that there are those who are interested other than the potential writers. Otherwise all the effort will be for naught.


I'd rather be a stickeler and drag things down a little now, even though it might hurt our enthusiam, then get a month or tow into the project and have things disintergrate. Or finish something and have no one want it, becuase we did A and the masses wanted B Or C.


To me. If everyone want to Preserve CODA as is, that fine. We can always post hourserules and alternative like we have in the past so everyone can be happy.

If we want to do a updated CODA with some improvments (whatever they might be, I'm okay with that too.


If we want to use another aviable RPG, or even create our own system, that's cool as well.

A generic sourcebook has some interest, but I think we'd need at least a proto-system to makeit viable, but it could still be fun. Especially the conversion sheets.


Personally, I don't have any particular attachment to CODA, I'm a Star Trek fan. CODA Is a sericable system. As far as I'm concered we can use it or discard it, depending on what everyone else wants to do.

But I think some people might be willing to do one thing, but not others.


I just want to get us all working on the same goal, and making sure we all know whatthat goal is. As long as a Star Trek RPG is the end product, I'm flexible about the rest.

[tonyg]

Hey Tatterdemallion King,

If we do go with a 1.0 preserve CODA option, whould you be okay with altering the tables in the NG to match the ones with Starships or do you thingk we should keep both?

Personally, for our purposes I think making them the same would be the way to go.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

I think yopur view of a GM is somewhat limited. There are games wherere the GM is not an absolute authority. SotC for instance. Or many of the troupe-style RPGs.

The GM isn't the absolute authority, nor are there any absolute authorities, including games where strict adherence to the rules as written by all parties are practiced.

Mischaractersize? In what way? Your post claied that all four choices are stupid. I'm not in agreement with the use of that word in that context.

That a thing is stupid is not to say that it has no merit. Whether a think a thing is a worthy endeavour or not is up to you; that the process is significantly flawed is another matter.

What I do think is that for anything group oriented to come from this we need to have group involvement, and all have basically the same end result in mind.

If six people want to go off in six different directions then we will either get nothing or six different, incompatible results.
...

I just want to get us all working on the same goal, and making sure we all know whatthat goal is. As long as a Star Trek RPG is the end product, I'm flexible about the rest.

My point is that there's no real reason to cohere to one project from the beginning, other than the fear that each different version will be in competition with each other.

Until we get over a few dozen respondants to the poll to prove otherwise, I don't think that there is anything to compete over. The DIY nature of this project means that we'll each end up preferring to DIY the way we want, and I don't think that's a bad thing. If we find people who have the same goals as you, then you can decide to work with them and divy up the work as seems natural.

Hey Tatterdemallion King,

If we do go with a 1.0 preserve CODA option, whould you be okay with altering the tables in the NG to match the ones with Starships or do you thingk we should keep both?

Personally, for our purposes I think making them the same would be the way to go.

It depends on which tables and why they changed it. If the purpose of the change was essentially errata for the NG, go with that, but if the purpose was to complexify things for more player options or whatever, then a simpler table should be produced first. However, what changes were made (aside from the inclusion of the AA, BB, etc...) escapes me at the moment.

The mention of Starships brings up another point: figuring out how much errata the SOM and Starships statblocks need. The SOM ones are seriously out of whack; some of the statblocks in Starships are a little weird, but aside from the Keldon I haven't checked to see whether they're totally off track.

Anyway: Option 3

[tonyg]

The GM isn't the absolute authority, nor are there any absolute authorities, including games where strict adherence to the rules as written by all parties are practiced.

Let's let that discussion lie so as to focus on the Trek thing.

That a thing is stupid is not to say that it has no merit. Whether a think a thing is a worthy endeavour or not is up to you; that the process is significantly flawed is another matter.

Generally the term stupid would suggest that a endeavor is not worth pursuing.

My point is that there's no real reason to cohere to one project from the beginning, other than the fear that each different version will be in competition with each other.

I think there is a few good reasons. For one thing multiple people will work faster than one. Sure we can go and do two or three different projects. I'm just making sure that we all realize that before people get started and realize they have differernt goals. I've been in a few group projects where that wasn;t made clar and it ended up badly.

Until we get over a few dozen respondants to the poll to prove otherwise, I don't think that there is anything to compete over. The DIY nature of this project means that we'll each end up preferring to DIY the way we want, and I don't think that's a bad thing. If we find people who have the same goals as you, then you can decide to work with them and divy up the work as seems natural.

No competion. Just clarification.

It depends on which tables and why they changed it. If the purpose of the change was essentially errata for the NG, go with that, but if the purpose was to complexify things for more player options or whatever, then a simpler table should be produced first. However, what changes were made (aside from the inclusion of the AA, BB, etc...) escapes me at the moment.

Okay. THe weapons tables, firepower tables, SIZ formulas and a few other tings from Starships are different than the NG. Whikle a few things in the NG are somewhat compatible (like the engines) it is basically two differernt sets of values. Starships is probably the better of the two.

The mention of Starships brings up another point: figuring out how much errata the SOM and Starships statblocks need. The SOM ones are seriously out of whack; some of the statblocks in Starships are a little weird, but aside from the Keldon I haven't checked to see whether they're totally off track.

Good point. I think someone, or several people ( each take a culture/species?) should look at each ship and see if it both fits the design rules (there are a few cases of weapon on wrong SIZE ship), and makes sense. There are a few version of ships on the board that I think are better than the offical writeups. The Pre-Starships Ranger-class is a mess. THe guy who build it used the optimum weapon design (used all excess space for Phaser IIs) and it can give a Connie a bloody nose).



Anyway: Option 3[/QUOTE]

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Generally the term stupid would suggest that a endeavor is not worth pursuing.

Well, I did say that I was more or less pursuing Option 1 and Option 4 myself two posts later.

I think there is a few good reasons. For one thing multiple people will work faster than one.

In this case, I don't really think so. Rewriting and editing to bring everyone's individual parts back into the whole will take up a chunk of time, and that's assuming that everyone involved in each book will agree to make those changes.

Sure we can go and do two or three different projects. I'm just making sure that we all realize that before people get started and realize they have differernt goals. I've been in a few group projects where that wasn;t made clar and it ended up badly.

In this case, I think it would be better if the structure of each project emerged organically rather than trying to shoehorn things in.

[tonyg]

Well, I did say that I was more or less pursuing Option 1 and Option 4 myself two posts later.

Yah, but after saying something is stupid we had doubts if you wanted to continue with it.

In this case, I don't really think so. Rewriting and editing to bring everyone's individual parts back into the whole will take up a chunk of time, and that's assuming that everyone involved in each book will agree to make those changes.

I disagree. If everyone has the same goal from the start, and we all are suing the same system,b e it CODA of whatever, then anyone can port over text. Otherwise it really isn't a game "done by us", but a game done by one person. Something that may or may not appeal to everyone.

If people want to do solo projects, then there really isn't any issues, since they can just use what they want to use.

In this case, I think it would be better if the structure of each project emerged organically rather than trying to shoehorn things in.

I don't see any shoehorning. More along the lines of seeing what direction people want to head out in.

Of we really just want to use CODA as is. Then anyone could covert a book into a pdf. There are legal issues, but no technical ones. It just takes a little hardware and some software.

Of course legal issues will plaque this project to some degree no matter what direction we go in. Probably the best from a legal standpoint would be to either create our own RPG or use an open game system, and do up the stuff needed for Star Trek. Its very unlikely that Paramount is going to go after fans for producing an RPG-especially a free one. More likely they will be grateful that we are helping to keep the cash cow/franchise alive. At least until a new official RPG appears, if it ever does.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Yah, but after saying something is stupid we had doubts if you wanted to continue with it.

And yet I said I would...

I disagree. If everyone has the same goal from the start, and we all are suing the same system,b e it CODA of whatever, then anyone can port over text. Otherwise it really isn't a game "done by us", but a game done by one person. Something that may or may not appeal to everyone.

There's no way I'm going to believe that it won't need serious editing. Let's look at this quote.

Of course legal issues will plaque this project to some degree no matter what direction we go in.

You also put a comma outside double apostrophes.

If people want to do solo projects, then there really isn't any issues, since they can just use what they want to use.

Which is exactly my point. What way, when you and Bob over here have the same basic ideas, you can work together, rather than you and me arguing about whether you know how to use the combat system.

I don't see any shoehorning. More along the lines of seeing what direction people want to head out in.

And five minutes in to the discussion, we've discovered that there's at least four different directions people want to head.

Of we really just want to use CODA as is. Then anyone could covert a book into a pdf. There are legal issues, but no technical ones. It just takes a little hardware and some software.

Dude, we already talked about this. For a page. And CL told us to stop.

[tonyg]

There's no way I'm going to believe that it won't need serious editing. Let's look at this quote.

There is a difference between writing a book and posting on a forum.

Which is exactly my point. What way, when you and Bob over here have the same basic ideas, you can work together, rather than you and me arguing about whether you know how to use the combat system.

Or you know how to discuss something with other people. No wonder you are so adamant about the GM being the final authority. You've done nothing but pontificate. You set all sort of restrictions on any idea other than the one you want. If someone wants to use something other than CODA they have to provide a description of the sytem and how. If someone brings up CODA weak points you turn it into an argument and question their ability to use the system.

Why don't you just come out and admit that you want to rewrite the CODA game system on you own and impress everybody?

And five minutes in to the discussion, we've discovered that there's at least four different directions people want to head.

Which is why you have discussions find out what the majority would like to do, if anything and then proceed. Anything else, isn't a group effort or a group game.

Dude, we already talked about this. For a page. And CL told us to stop.

[/quote]

No, we were warned about posting links or telling people to scan things. But is we retype the text and rules for CODA verbatim it's the same thing. A copy is still a copy, no matter how it is done. Any variant of Option 1 is going to suffer from that. Option 2 may or may not. Game mechanics are open territory and it is possible to make something like CODA, if desired.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

There is a difference between writing a book and posting on a forum.

At least one editing will be needed, regardless.

Or you know how to discuss something with other people. No wonder you are so adamant about the GM being the final authority.

Should I try to explain what I was actually saying? Again?

You've done nothing but pontificate. You set all sort of restrictions on any idea other than the one you want. If someone wants to use something other than CODA they have to provide a description of the sytem and how.

Asking for more information so the 'community' knows what you're talking about is a restriction?

If someone brings up CODA weak points you turn it into an argument and question their ability to use the system.

It's a debate, man. It keeps spinning new things off, but the fundamental issue is how are you using these in your game. Only by understanding that can we come to a conclusion about how it would function in relation to other's games.

Why don't you just come out and admit that you want to rewrite the CODA game system on you own and impress everybody?

I did, actually. I explicitly stated that was my plan. Not the impressing part, but whatever.

Which is why you have discussions find out what the majority would like to do, if anything and then proceed. Anything else, isn't a group effort or a group game.

But there's no reason to listen to the majority when you can just do your own thing. The fact that there's 8 votes for option one isn't stopping you from doing what you want. Why is everyone working on the same thing so important to you?

No, we were warned about posting links or telling people to scan things. But is we retype the text and rules for CODA verbatim it's the same thing. A copy is still a copy, no matter how it is done. Any variant of Option 1 is going to suffer from that. Option 2 may or may not. Game mechanics are open territory and it is possible to make something like CODA, if desired.

Okay, so you don't want to participate in a soft pirate. We got that.

[tonyg]

Asking for more information so the 'community' knows what you're talking about is a restriction?

Placing restrictions on what they can choose without meeting your arbritrary conditions is a restriction.

It's a debate, man. It keeps spinning new things off, but the fundamental issue is how are you using these in your game. Only by understanding that can we come to a conclusion about how it would function in relation to other's games.

It's a debate that your forced. The only way anyone can choose something other than 1 is to debate you. And no, you don't need to know how I use things in my game, any more that I need to know how you use things in your games to come to a conclusion about CODA.



L

I did, actually. I explicitly stated that was my plan. Not the impressing part, but whatever.

No, you actual initial statesmen along these lines was:

We should just make our own, publicly available Trek RPG.

Then you appointed yourself developer and editor and, apparently, chief authority.

But there's no reason to listen to the majority when you can just do your own thing. The fact that there's 8 votes for option one isn't stopping you from doing what you want. Why is everyone working on the same thing so important to you?

Because if people aren't working together on the game, then it isn't our game. Its just something someone makes and plays. That doesn't make it a game "we" make that is "done by us". It makes it someone's pet project.

And because the whole point of doing this is the first place was for us to have a living breathing Trek game that would have new material added to it. It is is just one guy's project, that's not going to happen. If it was something that we all supported then it might have a chance of being that game.

Otherwise, there is no point in doing it. We all have at least one Star Trek RPG already, and most of us have two or three perfectly serviceable games already, and a half dozen easily adaptable games.

The initial point was for us to have a Trek RPG. If you go off an write it on you own, it won't be that game. Considering how you've dealt with any differences of opinion, I don't think your vision of how the game should be written is going to be anything other than you telling everyone what they should do and how they should play.

Okay, so you don't want to participate in a soft pirate. We got that.

We? Why do you continually act as if you are speaking for everyone else? I have stated more than once that I am willing to help in a group project. You have repeatly attempted to take control and force this down the path of a CODA rewrite, and have done all that you could to silence any other viewpoints. People can't vote for anything other that CODA without justifying it in writing to your satisfaction.


There is nothing plural about your actions. It is not like there is a majority nodding along saying that that is what they want. You are just forcing your own choices down everybody's throat and just won't tolerate dissension in the ranks.

Every time anyone has dared to voice a different opinion you've told them that they have to explain the reasons behind their decision or they shouldn't post.


You yourself have already posted a message stating that all four options are stupid. So if you can't justify your favorite, why should anyone else have to justify theirs?

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Placing restrictions on what they can choose without meeting your arbritrary conditions is a restriction.

Every time anyone has dared to voice a different opinion you've told them that they have to explain the reasons behind their decision or they shouldn't post.

You yourself have already posted a message stating that all four options are stupid. So if you can't justify your favorite, why should anyone else have to justify theirs?

It's nice to know what you are choosing though. That's why I asked for it. No one is doing it, though, so whatever.

It's a debate that your forced. The only way anyone can choose something other than 1 is to debate you.

If you click on Option 2 through 5, I do not come into your house and start yelling at you. In fact, aside from you, I haven't really argued with anyone else.

And no, you don't need to know how I use things in my game, any more that I need to know how you use things in your games to come to a conclusion about CODA.

ô_o if you're making a meta-decision about the effectiveness of mechanics in play in a larger scale (i.e. when designing a game someone other than you will play), yes, you do. And in order for me to understand what you mean when you say "X takes a long-ass time to kill" I at least want some sort of anecdotal example of a time when that happened.

L

...ol?

No, you actual initial statesmen along these lines was:

This is what i said, bold added for emphasis:

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.

There.

Then you appointed yourself developer and editor and, apparently, chief authority.

And you found nothing humourous about the fundamental powerlessness of my appointment?

Because if people aren't working together on the game, then it isn't our game. Its just something someone makes and plays. That doesn't make it a game "we" make that is "done by us". It makes it someone's pet project.

What's the difference? No one's paying us to do this. It's the internet, dammit! Virtually everything on here is a pet project!

And because the whole point of doing this is the first place was for us to have a living breathing Trek game that would have new material added to it. It is is just one guy's project, that's not going to happen. If it was something that we all supported then it might have a chance of being that game.

And having two, or five, or a dozen different versions of Trek games doesn't prevent you from adding new material to them, or from playing them.

Otherwise, there is no point in doing it. We all have at least one Star Trek RPG already, and most of us have two or three perfectly serviceable games already, and a half dozen easily adaptable games.

Which were options 1, meta-1 and 4, I believe. And you know what? It's not too hard to convert an adventure from one system to another.

The initial point was for us to have a Trek RPG.

Who's us? Me? You? "The community?" 'Cause I already have three. I'm not sure what owning a new one will do.

If you go off an write it on you own, it won't be that game.

Unless everyone else looks at it and says "Hey, that's cool, I think I'll play that." It becomes your game, regardles of who wrote it, the moment you pick up a die.

Considering how you've dealt with any differences of opinion, I don't think your vision of how the game should be written is going to be anything other than you telling everyone what they should do and how they should play.

By... arguing? Is that offensive or something?

We? Why do you continually act as if you are speaking for everyone else?

It was the royal we. Like that "us" you mentioned. 'Cause no one else has really said anything. It's just you and me arguing, at this point.

I have stated more than once that I am willing to help in a group project. You have repeatly attempted to take control and force this down the path of a CODA rewrite,

There is no group project yet. If you want a group project, why don't you start one somewhere concrete?

There is nothing plural about your actions.

I am not a committee.

It is not like there is a majority nodding along saying that that is what they want. You are just forcing your own choices down everybody's throat and just won't tolerate dissension in the ranks.

It's the internet, dammit. How the hell am I forcing you to do anything? I am arguing with you, which is not stopping you, cannot stop you, or anyone on this board, or anyone in cooperation, from writing a whole new Trek RPG. I even started a damn thread for you to talk about it. And I've started like three spinoff threads so we could argue there instead of here, but you seem to hold on to the idea that my saying anything on these boards is preventing you from writing "Our Trek RPG." So I think it's stupid! So what? So I point out more problems! So what? Nothing I've done here prevents you from opening a text file and writing the words "Trek RPG outline."

...

So to close on this pointless squabbling, the next question is thus:

What part of the Trek RPG do you want to work on?

...

EDIT: yes, I know this is all bullshit that got out of hand. I'm not sure what tonyg didn't understand about my position, but it doesn't matter now, i'm just sorry it happened. I'm out of this thread.

[Tobian]

You two finished tearing strips off each other yet?

This is the reason I think its probably not going to happen, because... this.. is what happens

[C5]

You two finished tearing strips off each other yet?

This is the reason I think its probably not going to happen, because... this.. is what happens

This is pretty much what I was thinking reading those last pages, only Tobian worded better than I would have.