CODA 2.0, or Whatever: The Poll

[The Tatterdemalion King]

The "Four Options."

If you voted for Option 2, 3 or 4 post a description of at least 50 words of how you envision the project.

[tonyg]

Hey thanks for doing up the poll!

[black campbellq]

I voted option 5...not because I think the idea sucks, but as a tip of the hat to every "you can't redo Trek" yabbo.

[Mac417]

I voted for Option 3, but only because I believe it's the most plausible option. While Paramount's position on non-profit fan-made Trek material is pretty much a matter of record, taking an existing RPG system that doesn't have any kind of OGL or something similar that declares it open-source (even if the publisher's washed their hands of it) in my mind is something else entirely.

I'd be fine with that if all we were doing was making supplements for the existing material, but the project as I understand it was to develop a full stand-alone game that wouldn't be beholden to printing costs and economics as far as keeping it "alive" and supported, since while we've been able to get hold of the books, that may not really be the case for everyone.

Guys, I feel I should say something since I kinda got the ball rolling on this discussion over on the "End Has Come" thread. The reason I posited this was to give us a fun little project to do, since discussion of the game had died down a bit, not to mention the fact that a Star Trek tabletop RPG seems to be something the print RPG market can no longer sustain due to the shrinking of said market and of the limelight shone on the franchise. I apologize profusely if this has put any noses out of joint over the approach we should take, if this is something we even want to undertake still.

[tonyg]

Mac,
No nose out of joingt on my end. I just want to get everyone clear and in agreement on what they are doing.

I've been down this road a couple of times in the past, and I've discovered that unless it is all spelled out at the start, you end up with six different people doing six different project and then things turning nasty when they all compare notes.

I could enjoy any of the options. Or even attempting two of them, if this splits off into two different projects.

Better to iron out everything now, with no hard feelings than later, after people have started doing things.

[Sho-sa Kurita]

I'm all for a new system. I liked CODA fine, but there were enough things that bothered me about it that I'd rather start again.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

I'd like to point out that no-one who's voted for Option 2, 3, or 4 have actually described their ideas in post form.

[Mac417]

I'd like to point out that no-one who's voted for Option 2, 3, or 4 have actually described their ideas in post form.

I think that's mainly because, while we're voting our preferences, we haven't got any hard and fast ideas to post.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

I think that's mainly because, while we're voting our preferences, we haven't got any hard and fast ideas to post.

Maybe I should've been more clear.

Your vote for 2, 3 or 4 is not the same as someone else's vote. Without explaining what you mean by 'improvements,' or what system you want for the new Trek game, you're not actually saying anything. If you don't actually know what you want, perhaps you should refrain from voting.

[Mac417]

Maybe I should've been more clear.

Your vote for 2, 3 or 4 is not the same as someone elses vote. Without explaining what you mean by 'improvements,' or what system you want for the new Trek game, you're not actually saying anything.

Maybe some of us haven't nailed that exactly down for ourselves yet?

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Maybe some of us haven't nailed that exactly down for ourselves yet?

So nail it down, then vote.

[RaconteurX]

As much as I like CODA, I voted for a completely new system because my preference these days is for more story-driven mechanics. Port CODA's Professional Abilities over to Spirit of the Century as Stunts and right there you have the beginning of a terrific conversion. SOTC-style character generation gives you something approximating the tours of duty of FASA and ICON. Aspects provide color and allow players to define and play to their characters' strengths. No need for funky species templates, you just select an Aspect tied to your character's species... say Vulcan Science Officer or Kolinahr Adept. This assumes you and your players are familiar enough Star Trek (and mature enough) to hash out where a specific Species Aspect might apply. Vulcans, Klingons and Augments all can invoke theirs to perform feats of strength, Humans and Betazoids can invoke theirs to make favorable impressions, etc.

Imagine Doctor McCoy's Aspects:

• Human Medical Officer
• "He's dead, Jim."
• Old-fashioned Southern Charm
• "You green-blooded, inhuman..."
• Constant Curmudgeon
• "I'm a doctor, not a..."
• Enterprise Department Head
• "I only use for medicinal purposes."
• Transporter-Averse
• < insert tenth aspect here >

[Sho-sa Kurita]

I'd like to point out that no-one who's voted for Option 2, 3, or 4 have actually described their ideas in post form.

See, that's what happens when you post at work. The dang work 'distracts' you from what you'd rather be doing

Option 3. Okay, admittedly I'm on a Ubiquity system kick (Hollow Earth Expedition). I could see using that as the base system (I know the owner wouldn't mind that at all, since it won't be for sale), but I'm not necessarily suggesting that. Some points in no particular order:

1) Alien/creature creation system from the get go.
2) Use the 'standard' 6 attributes; no attribute modifiers, just the attribute please. Humanoids standard stats in the 1-6 range.
3) Pool system; roll attribute+skill dice to hit certain number of successes, or 2x attribute for pure attribute rolls. (NOTE: Ubiquity is the only pool system I've ever really liked, and I've read several of them, so I understand people's dislike of them.)
4) Talent trees; no levels, no classes
4a) I like the 'bundles' of XP you get with CODA, because it allows you to buy largely what you want while simultaneously 'forcing' you to spread it around.
5a) Static 'Health,' 'HP," or whatever you want it to be called based off a couple attributes (causing penalties when you go negative, to a limit of course), OR
5b) A 'Threshold' with certain damage levels (penalties)
6) Multiple 'damage' types; lethal, non-lethal, wonkiness
7) Character creation: take base species, allocate point to attributes, skills, talents, flaws
7a) Flaws should actually reward people for playing them with Style/Fate/Courage/Edge/Action/etc. points
8) SotC Aspects: As RaconteurX points out, there's a certain level of familiarity and maturity required for that on a larger scale, so I don't think it's the way to go for character/species creation as a whole, BUT it's worth thinking about on a smaller scale. After a character is statted out (and maybe we don't get totally crazy with Talents, Flaws, etc.), each character gets a couple custom Aspects like those RX mentions, which allows a player to personalize beyond just "Oh, my doctor has the Transporter Phobia Flaw"
9) Some kind of cultural honor system (like Renown) where heroes can gain/lose Action points for upholding aspects revered by their culture.
10) Must be fairly freewheeling in action, so Action points should freely flow to and from players, BUT
10a) Action should actually be dangerous, thuse mandating the use of those Action points.
11) I like the maneuvers aspect of CODA ship combat.

Don't have time for more right now, perhaps more after further discussion.

[C5]

I voted option 1, but actually, what I have in mind is something 1.5ish like someone said on another thread.

The idea is to stick to CODA, but expanding a bit some rules to adapt them. Something like the differences between the Starship book and the Player and Narrator core books, or what Killerwhale did with the ESO.

My opinion is that there are enough game systems around there, each with their own pros and cons in regard to Star Trek, and that at least CODA was designed with Star Trek (including its latest incarnations) in mind.

[tonyg]

As much as I like CODA, I voted for a completely new system because my preference these days is for more story-driven mechanics. Port CODA's Professional Abilities over to Spirit of the Century as Stunts and right there you have the beginning of a terrific conversion. SOTC-style character generation gives you something approximating the tours of duty of FASA and ICON. Aspects provide color and allow players to define and play to their characters' strengths. No need for funky species templates, you just select an Aspect tied to your character's species... say Vulcan Science Officer or Kolinahr Adept. This assumes you and your players are familiar enough Star Trek (and mature enough) to hash out where a specific Species Aspect might apply. Vulcans, Klingons and Augments all can invoke theirs to perform feats of strength, Humans and Betazoids can invoke theirs to make favorable impressions, etc.

I started working on a SotC version of Trek last year. Maybe I should revisit it. THere are a lot of things about SotC that I think would work well for Star Trek.

I love SotC's declarations, and think they would go a long way towards making science officers something more that just a sounding board for the GM.