Okay...series is underway...

[Solstice]

Hey all. So, my series is underway and I have narrated a few times so far and so far, everyone has had a really good time. I had a couple of questions regarding advancement and skill levels to see what kind of advice you all have for me here...

First of all, I have 2 new characters on my ship, both Ensigns straight out of starfleet. One is science and the other security. Right off the bat, and with no powergaming with my guys have 7-8 in one or two skills (after adjustments) and they rarely fail in that case. My science officer can not seem to fail with a tricorder (he chose the innovative edge and is also a technophile and doubles equipment bonuses, so the tricorder bonus is +10). My security guy has a skill of 8 total with his energy weapon, so if there is something standing still and not dodging with a normal defense of 7-9, is he to hit every time?

Another thing that I noticed is that the core books do not provide a comprehensive list of actions and the skills that go with them, it took me a little while to logic out which skill would be used for which action.

Lastly, Systems Ops. If a player decides to power up his systems ops base skill level, does that allow him to do each and every one of the actions listed under Sys Ops, with a bonus to his specialty? For example, if my PC has Systems Ops 4 with a +2 to int, then decides to place 2 more points into it on his first advancement, he would have a total of 8 for systems ops. (he has a specialty of sensors). So, essentially, he can pilot a ship, fire photon torpedoes, modify a ships main deflector and know how to encrypt command codes at a skill level of 8? That seems like one hell of a security guy. So...8 plus a 2d6. In a few advancements, should my science officer decide to raise that skill more, he could essentially do anything aboard a ship, that is a routine function, right?

I love the system, but I do not want think that the players can outgrow the system too quickly through strategic advancements. My players wouldn't take advantage and I have the last word, but I was just wondering how others dealt with this.

Yes, I am a CODA Narrator Noob, and I am sure there is something I am missing here. Enlighten me?

thanks!
Solstice

[GandalfOfBorg]

On average with bonus of +7-8 they shouldn't fail TN 15 tests too often, but are you using everything else to your advantage such as environment, conditional modifiers, etc.? If not, look into doing so. Also put them in situations where what they are best at don't help, aren't of any use, or could even hinder a situation. As for tricorders, there are plenty of substances or radiations or even Narrator fiat could not allow sensors to analyze. As for attacking someone/something, when Defense is 7+mod, it will never be difficult to hit; that's the nature of the game. Have things Dodge (its done a LOT in Star Trek), give them armor, etc.

The books didn't do that on purpose because the designers didn't want to pigeon-hore the skills. In certain situations one skill could be more appropriate than another or either skill could be equally as appropriate, leaving it up to the Narrator to decide what to do.

As written, System Operations would work as you described. This is why I have house-ruled it to be a Skill Group (like Knowledge or Science) instead of a Skill.

[Tobian]

Yeah the game kind of works like that: It's surprisingly easy to make a very competent person in Coda, at character creation, which if you think about it makes a lot of sense !

There are a number of controls and factors to this: Not everything has average difficulty; Sometimes things have up to 25 TN or more in the case of some ship combat TN's which is going to be pretty hard to achieve, except on a lucky roll!

The system is set up to allow players to be VERY good but only in a couple of areas: This is a one trick pony issue, and easily broken if you make them do something they don't have a 6-8 in The flip side to this is in reality, in Trek you rarely see the main characters fail at being able to do their job: The ship might be overpowered by superior technology/greater numbers, but you don't see commander Riker lean over his seat, going "damn, how do you fire phasers again?!"

Also with system operations it is just OPERATING the ship: You can be really good at sensors, but unless you have a good science skill you might have no concept of what it is saying to you (some skill tests should be tiered like that) - sure they have super advanced computers, but they rarely volunteer information, and in the middle of the combat, do you have time to do a comparative computer database search on the subject: Startrek technology is human enabled, it doesn't tell you what to do, or do your job for you!

There are quite a few other linked skills you need for stuff like this: Tactics, bureaucracy, science (all kinds) engineering (all kinds) cultural knowledge etc. It's only through a combination of all these things can you understand what's going on/make real changes/take tactical decisions. The computer only tells you a number of pre-set options like 'evasion pattern delta 5' there isn't a 'oh damn, we're outnumbered, jump to warp' button or 'I'll use the planets magnetic pole to hide my warp signature' button These are skill and story driven things that the players need to come up with, as a response to what is going on. On Trek, if they think of their clever plan to hide in a magnetic field, they don't flub their rolls, and nosedive into the planet

The other thing I did to counter the 'easily pass every roll' was introduce the house rule of double 1's as a fumble. It's amazing how common it was at a really critically bad time for a fail!

[Solstice]

Outstanding. By the way, I was not complaining about the rules, just trying to clarify that it wasn't something I was interpreting wrong. I like the CODA system, and I was trying to not riddle the game with a bunch of 'house rules', but there are a couple I am considering.

I love the idea of treating systems ops like science or knowledge, but I will have to consider it carefully before I do that. I have great players, so they will be receptive to whatever I do.

As for the skills being vague for a reason, I do like it the more I play. And I am glad that a player gets to play a competent character right off the bat, rather than a 4 hp, 1st level adventurer like other games I played.

I am actually very pleased that I am on the right track here and that I didn't misinterpret everything. I am still geting my feet wet and will take into account mods more as well. All in all, everything is fun.

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate having you to bounce these minor insecurities off of. A sort of affirmation, if you will. =) I will let you know how the implementations go. Take care!

Solstice

[Cut]

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate having you to bounce these minor insecurities off of. A sort of affirmation, if you will. =) I will let you know how the implementations go. Take care!
Solstice

I think that you will find this board to be one of the friendliest around in the internet these days. Usualy you'll get helped when asking a question on a short notice, with a well-rounded answer.

Welcome to our little comunity on the net

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Manipulating the situational modifiers is the key to understanding the tactical decision-making in CODA. Unfortunately, the core books don't make that as explicit as they should.

[Solstice]

I think that you will find this board to be one of the friendliest around in the internet these days.

I totally agree, Cut.

So...here is what I am thinking about that Systems Ops issue that has been tugging at the back of my mind. Gandalf mentioned having a house rule to make it a skill group like science or knowledge. Here's my take on it and let me know what you all think, please:

I am thinking of making character creation stay the way it is, to include points spent into Systems Ops. This will be the base systems ops, to reflect the aptitude/concentration of study in academy. Training only goes so far, so after the character is created, advancements that occur through practical experience and picks spent to improve Sys Ops are devoted to individual systems, with the initial +2 bonus for specialization to be reflected in that specific area. For instance. Bob the security officer places 4 ranks into Sys Ops (Tactical), so with a modest +1 for Intelligence, he ends up with a modified 7 in tactical and 5 in the other systems. Once he advances, he decides that he would like to devote his picks into rounding out his character by increasing his sensors as well as his tactical to be more helpful on the bridge. He takes his 5 picks and gives one to Tactical (for a modified 8), and one to Sensors (for a modified 6). His other systems ops skills remain at the base of a modified 5. This still conforms to the limit of 2 picks per advancement and allows for a more gradual and individualized advancement scheme.

I was inspired to this conclusion after realizing that the base mods for the reaction scores are based on character creation, but they advance individually as a character grows through advancement picks (a feature of the system that I love).

Let me know your thoughts in regards to my logic. I really dig the fact that beginning characters are competent in their respective fields, but my concern was that characters can spend points in Sys Ops and become 'overqualified' in aspects of Sys Ops that are concentrated on by other professions.

I have also let my players know that I plan to be very conservative regarding my approval of new edges through advancement. I think edges can be a bit game unbalancing if allowed to be purchased through the game's advancement rules. But it does say that they are subject to the narrator's discretion (I do not remember the exact wording). Amazingly, the system doesn't give a cap to them. My players and I have a good understanding regarding story progression and how edges come into play there.

Thanks again for your time!
Solstice

[Solstice]

Manipulating the situational modifiers is the key to understanding the tactical decision-making in CODA.

I am glad you mentioned that. It was suggested earlier regarding TN modifiers and I have been playing with many different situations that occurred in the last session I had with my players to second guess my modifiers. I am getting better at identifying modifiers that I had previously overlooked.

I am definitely going to be better at this as I go along.

Thanks,
Solstice

[Solstice]

Yeah the game kind of works like that: It's surprisingly easy to make a very competent person in Coda, at character creation, which if you think about it makes a lot of sense !

The other thing I did to counter the 'easily pass every roll' was introduce the house rule of double 1's as a fumble. It's amazing how common it was at a really critically bad time for a fail!

Thanks, Tobian, I really liked your rationale for the competency issues. I totally agree with the computer being human-driven, an aspect I have pointed out to my players already. These were really great points you made.

As for the "snake-eyes botch" as I call it, the only thing that makes me hesitant to use it was that I had a player roll that 3 times, despite the probability of the roll to be 1 in 36. I am considering this, but I'll have to see regular play in action some more before I decide on this. =)

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Making some quick-reference sheets from the charts in the books would be a good idea.

[Cut]

Making some quick-reference sheets from the charts in the books would be a good idea.

Were the ones in the Narrator's Screen flawed?

Anyway, for sure a good idea, to have something like that handy.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Were the ones in the Narrator's Screen flawed?

I remember them needing extensive errata, but I could be wrong.

[PGoodman13]

There actually wasn't a lot of errata for the Narrator's Screen, but that might change if I get around to doing the errata for the Narrator's Guide. What errata I found back in the day can be found here.

[Solstice]

I have the Narrator's screen, but I heard there was considerable errata as well. I have used it during my narrating already.

So...no comments in regards to my Sys Ops house rules? Let me know what your thoughts are.

Thanks!
Solstice

[Doug Burke]

I have the Narrator's screen, but I heard there was considerable errata as well. I have used it during my narrating already.

So...no comments in regards to my Sys Ops house rules? Let me know what your thoughts are.

Thanks!
Solstice

The only real errata on the Narrator's Screen was mainly the weapon damage table...