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

[black campbellq]

Yup...no discussion. Just people retrenching into their particular positions and getting increasingly abusive.

[RaconteurX]

I know why I bailed on this particular thread... it ceased to be a discussion. I say let TTK have the editor and developer job. He won't have much to edit or develop without anyone willing to write for him, which will leave CODA pretty much where it is already... dead in the water.

[RealPity]

Sad eh ? And yet some individuals and small groups keep quietly putting out new material and generously offer it to the masses...
ESO, Psionics Handbook, Voyager & Enterprise supplements, Spacedock, Cardassian Sourcebook, Maquis Sourcebook ... etc etc

[Cut]

I didn't see this coming when I opened up this thread.

I'm truly sorry I did at this point. I thought it was a cool thing to toy around with, but I stopped following this one at an early point of time, when the tone became too harsh in my taste.

Anyway, maybe we should let things cool down a bit and carry on. Maybe a new Trek Game will see the light of day in the wake of the new feature film release.

Who knows...exept the Great Bird Of The Galaxy himself

[Tomcat]

I just want to add that I do not seem to have these looming problems with CODA that others speak about - i.e. overpowered characters, limiting classes, excessively long combats, overpowered starships, etc.

As a narrator, I think you should learn how the game works and then keep the characters in line with what the player is developing/envisioning. That sounds like a simple answer, or maybe that the narrator is boxing in his players to create a character that is limited by said narrator, but that is not what I mean. A narrator can help a player develop a character that matches a vision that is rounded and not a munchkin.

I must say I have never played LUG Trek, or ICON, and cannot speak of what those games had that CODA does, or does not. But I have found Decipher's game really easy to work with and a lot of fun - for over four years now (campaign is going into its 5th).

I will say that as a fan of naval wargames, I do wish that the starships and starship combat were not as generalized (or story-driven) and that the rules got into power, firing arcs, etc. But that is just my tastes...

To get to my point though, Cut - I don't think that CODA needs to be re-created; maybe we just need to start a series of threads on this board that are children of a master topic that people can post their house rules that they use to tweak a broken CODA rule. We can have a thread for each chapter so that finding an idea is easier.

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

Example Problem: Unarmed combat lasts too long and characters have too many hit points.

Solution: Instead of a fist, or a head butt, or kick, or pommel of a weapon only doing damage, the defending character must also make a Stamina test against the successful attack dice result as the TN. Degree of success will then determine the amount of boxes that are checked off under Weariness.

It is not weariness, per se, but the penalty modifiers make for a good way to hamper the dazed character. So, a Marginal Success causes 2 boxes, Complete Success 3 boxes, Superior Success 4 boxes, and Extrordinary Success 5 boxes.

Thus with an extraordinary Unarmed Attack, a character can be collapsed and unable to do anything.

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

Some might argue that having to create a patch for a game system is not a sound game system, but there is not a game out there that I have played that I didn't create, or incorporate from another game system, a rule. We all have our individual tastes and there is no way you can create a system that will make everyone happy... thus the long argument above.

Just my two cents (that is now probably worth about 1.25 cents after inflation and devaluation).

[Mac417]

I'm inclined to agree that the wind's been sort of taken out of my sails in regards to this whole thing seeing how nine-tenths of the thread's been little more than juvenile back-and-forth sniping.

When first suggested, I figured this would be something that would spark conversation and discussion on Trek tabletop gaming. Just a harmless community project that would be some kind of collaborative effort for a bunch of guys who've done a lot towards the subject. In short, something fun for all of us to do in the wake of Decipher's ending of the print line.

I'm growing sorrier by the minute I even typed the initial post with the increasing nastiness of the discussion.

[C5]

You know Mac, I had something like that in mind too - I miss those times, a few years back, when threads about the game could reach a few dozens posts in half a day, with everyone contributing to an original idea. I thought this would be the occasion to have one of those - but the fact that it went wrong the first time does not mean the idea was bad.

[Mac417]

You know Mac, I had something like that in mind too - I miss those times, a few years back, when threads about the game could reach a few dozens posts in half a day, with everyone contributing to an original idea. I thought this would be the occasion to have one of those - but the fact that it went wrong the first time does not mean the idea was bad.

Oh, yeah, I realize that. I'm not necessarily sorry I came up with the idea per se, more about what it's led to thus far.

[Tobian]

Give it a little space, to let everyone calm down and try again, and get the moderators involved if it gets like this again!

[Mac417]

Give it a little space, to let everyone calm down and try again, and get the moderators involved if it gets like this again!

I guess I was reluctant to, probably since I was reluctant to take on any sort of de facto leadership or authority role on this thing.

[tonyg]

I guess I was reluctant to, probably since I was reluctant to take on any sort of de facto leadership or authority role on this thing.

Hey Mac417,

If it will make you and everybosy else more comfortable, I'll just drop out of this topic. I didn't want to kill off the idea or any open discussion. I was actually trying to prevent that.

[Mac417]

Hey Mac417,

If it will make you and everybosy else more comfortable, I'll just drop out of this topic. I didn't want to kill off the idea or any open discussion. I was actually trying to prevent that.

Dude, seriously, I'm not pointing fingers at any one person. All involved parties had valid points and were equally responsible for letting things get out of hand. Even if I had moderator authority here or was "in charge" of the project (neither of which are the case), all I'd ask that needs to go away is the hostility. No one should have to leave the discussion unless they can't discuss the topic in a civilized manner.

If the sniping's over, I'm happy.

EDIT: Okay, I feel I should add my two latinum slips to the discussion since we've all calmed down a bit.

I understand everyone's got their favorite rendition of the Star Trek RPG. ICON, CODA, FASA, Prime Directive, what have you. If we're doing a stand-alone game, making it 100% compatible with past systems may (emphasis on "may") not be an option. I don't know the exact legalities of taking an existing game that was published as a to-be-paid-for game system (as opposed to say, Fuzion, Tri-Stat DX, or any other open-source rules engines), but lack of knowledge of the legalities shouldn't be taken to indicate it's an acceptable practice. Granted, there are other out-of-print RPGs currently on the web for download (note to moderators: I speak only to their availability, not to suggest downloading), but just because the publishers/creators of those games don't go after those guys doesn't mean we wouldn't open the door to litigation against us. Doing a "second edition" of the CODA game was what I initially suggested, true, primarily due to Matt Kearns' CODA BSR being attack-free thus far, but taking the Trek-specific mechanics and reprinting them, even tweaked, seems something of a gray area I'm not sure I want to enter.

Also bear in mind that CODA Trek books are still being sold by Decipher. Even though they are investing no further resources in the game, they still have a financial stake in the publication of the game's books.

If we're doing supplements to CODA, there shouldn't be a problem. If we're doing a stand-alone, fan-developed and -supported game, that's another matter.

No one's being forced to accept any point-of-view, and no one has to participate that doesn't want to. All I'm saying is that this endeavor was, as I understood it, to develop a stand-alone Trek RPG that wouldn't end up fizzling out because it's not financially profitable. While I realize that everyone plays "dead" RPGs, it would be nice to know that there'd be a game that would see significant and continuous support, and since it would be non-profit, realities such as sales wouldn't be an obstacle.

If someone wants to say "I don't need to do this, I have CODA," that's their right.

It was my suggestion to make this a collaborative effort for a number of reasons:

1) A lot of us have experience in developing fan material for past Trek games
2) It's a lot of work for just one person and it often helps to have more than one pair of eyes
3) It would be something that would spark activity on the board, not to say activity's significantly waned

I hope that sufficiently states what I believe is the intent of this project. I don't want to exclude anyone from participating, and I'd like to think everyone's willing to debate conflicting viewpoints. My only hope is that it does not reach the level of ugliness that it had over the past couple days. Because at it's heart, this is a gaming forum, and gaming should be something enjoyable for everybody.

[tonyg]

Dude, seriously, I'm not pointing fingers at any one person. All involved parties had valid points and were equally responsible for letting things get out of hand. Even if I had moderator authority here or was "in charge" of the project (neither of which are the case), all I'd ask that needs to go away is the hostility. No one should have to leave the discussion unless they can't discuss the topic in a civilized manner.

If the sniping's over, I'm happy.

Again, I was just trying to keep things open for all possiblities. TK and I are two of the "Old Ones" of this forum, having both joined back when ICON was young. We usually got along fairly well, too. THings got a bit heated.

Actually there used to be a lot more heated debates in the old days, too. I remeber one of my earlies topics here was something that turned into a argument with Ross Iassacs and myself against Don Mappin. About the only topic that got really bad what the offical banned topic of marines.

If we're doing supplements to CODA, there shouldn't be a problem. If we're doing a stand-alone, fan-developed and -supported game, that's another matter.

That is what I think we need to figure out. Do we want to do supplments for CODA, or own own RPG. Both have merit. The former keeps CODA alive and helps to fill in the gaps, the latter gives us more freedom and protects us from the whims of the RPG field. Only Paramount could really take an issue (any possibly Task Force and PD, but that depends on their license). An open RPG system is another option and similar to out own game as far as our freedom and indepence goes.

No one's being forced to accept any point-of-view, and no one has to participate that doesn't want to. All I'm saying is that this endeavor was, as I understood it, to develop a stand-alone Trek RPG that wouldn't end up fizzling out because it's not financially profitable.

I'm all for that.


It was my suggestion to make this a collaborative effort for a number of reasons:

1) A lot of us have experience in developing fan material for past Trek games
2) It's a lot of work for just one person and it often helps to have more than one pair of eyes
3) It would be something that would spark activity on the board, not to say activity's significantly waned

I hope that sufficiently states what I believe is the intent of this project. I don't want to exclude anyone from participating, and I'd like to think everyone's willing to debate conflicting viewpoints. My only hope is that it does not reach the level of ugliness that it had over the past couple days. Because at it's heart, this is a gaming forum, and gaming should be something enjoyable for everybody.[/QUOTE]


I agree. That was why I wanted to get some sort of poll to get most peole's input on what direction they wanted to go in. If 80% wanted to go with X, then that would seem like the best direction.

[Renny]

I'm really glad to see reason return to this thread. Perhaps something constructive can still come out of this.

Renny

[tonyg]

I'm really glad to see reason return to this thread. Perhaps something constructive can still come out of this.

Renny

Well the next logical step would seem to be to figure out where do we go from here?

Do we use CODA, revise CODA, go with an OGL system, come up with our own homebrew, go with ranking an no system, or something completely different?