Preview!

[Phantom]

This is a little off the topic of "preview", but not with the main complaints that have been expressed here.

My question is what is so wrong with the way ICON ran Specializations? Seems a "realistic" (as close as a game can get) system.

Ex. A psychologist can have skills in Jungian Psychology and Forensic Psychology.

A chemist, in organic chemistry and molecular chemistry

A doctor/nurse, general medicine, trauma, surgery.

An archaeologist, Classical, Eygptology, Nautical, linguistics.

A military officer, small unit tactics, defensive, hit and run.

To be quite truthful I find the one specialization per skill and the general lack of skills a character gets, at least at first, very limiting.

[Eric.Brennan]

Originally posted by Phantom
This is a little off the topic of "preview", but not with the main complaints that have been expressed here.

My question is what is so wrong with the way ICON ran Specializations? Seems a "realistic" (as close as a game can get) system.

As one of the people who stated the opinion that they're glad to see Specializations less prevalent, I should respond.

I found the large number of specializations in ICON to be both a book-keeping headache during character generation and during maintenance. I also found it to work against the "Star Trek" feel. I always viewed Star Trek characters as broadly skilled--while many of them claimed to have specialties, for the most part those were just color. In actual practice, characters' mastery of their fields were very deep and broad.

To delve a little deeper--I've found Star Trek to be a very "pulp" show as far as skills go. The main characters are intelligent experts on a wide variety of subjects, and the supporting ones are incredibly skilled in one or two areas. (You'll actually probably see this in many television shows, as the requirements of plot dictate character knowledge.) To reflect this in a game, I'd rather see broad skills with fewer specialties, and when specialties are used, I'd like to see them indicate someone with a level of very in-depth knowledge in a specific area.

This is, of course, all my opinion, and I may have the feel of the CODA Star Trek all wrong. I'm hoping I don't.

--Eric

[Sea Tyger]

To delve a little deeper--I've found Star Trek to be a very "pulp" show as far as skills go. The main characters are intelligent experts on a wide variety of subjects, and the supporting ones are incredibly skilled in one or two areas....

I concur completely. While I wasn't completely confounded by the Icon way of doing things, I do believe that the broader skill setup flows better with the cinematic style of play.

How many times did Spock have information on a planet, a species or a person? Now, he's the top end example, but I think the principle is the same.

[Phantom]

Eric

Not sure I see the (bookeeping) difference between "alot" of specizations and more broader skills...Sounds like 6 of one, and a half dozen of the other.

I also felt a bit of a connection to other posts in your response, that of the ICON system being a pain with NPCs. I have to say I don't see that either...When I run my games the main villians and NPCs are fully developed characters, ie generated using the same method of the PCs, it is the only way to get the feel for a good villian and make him/her a real threat. However, the background NPCs only need the necessary skills for the job they do. MO anyway.

Sea Tyger:

How does getting rid of the specializations and adding more skills add to the cinematic feel of a game? To get the same coverage you would have to have a skill for everything. AEGs Seventh Sea is set up like that, and it really ruined the game.

I guess I just don't like too much generalizations in Trek, as you say the characters are very specialized I think the characters should show it. Look at Picard, two of his side interests are Archaeology and playing that flute instrument, I think diluting them down to Social Science and Music takes alot from the character.

Oh well, I guess it is just me.

[Sea Tyger]

The point is that if you want your character to have specialization, you can. They haven't gone away, they just aren't forced upon your character.

[Eric.Brennan]

Originally posted by Phantom
Eric

Not sure I see the (bookeeping) difference between "alot" of specizations and more broader skills...Sounds like 6 of one, and a half dozen of the other.

Not really. 8 Broad skills, as opposed to 10 skills plus 8 specialties, is clearly far less work to maintain, create, etc.

How does getting rid of the specializations and adding more skills add to the cinematic feel of a game? To get the same coverage you would have to have a skill for everything. AEGs Seventh Sea is set up like that, and it really ruined the game.

No one's said anything about adding more skills. If CODA has taken the step D&D has (I've no idea if they have, I'm just glancing at the example archetypes...) I would bet that a small or medium sized core of broad skills can be supplemented by "wildcard" catch-all skills like Knowledge or Craft.

Such catchalls would handle your example of what amount to hobby skills like "Archaeology" or "Alien Flutes" which exist in a game to be kickers for the plot.
--Eric

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Phantom
I guess I just don't like too much generalizations in Trek, as you say the characters are very specialized I think the characters should show it. Look at Picard, two of his side interests are Archaeology and playing that flute instrument, I think diluting them down to Social Science and Music takes alot from the character.

I think you're worrying about nothing (well, at least until you've seen the system, that is).

Checking Picard's write-up I see the following:

Entertain: Play Instrument (Ressikan Flute) +4
Science: Social Science (Archaeology) +10

That means when using either of these two skills, Picard gets a bonus of +6 and +12, respectively.

Don't mistake the difference between choosing to purchase a speciality and not doing so, unlike Icon.

To be quite truthful I find the one specialization per skill and the general lack of skills a character gets, at least at first, very limiting.

Are you referring to Coda? If so, I'm sorry to say you're wrong: characters can have more than one specilization if they elect to.

[erhershman]

The ICON specialization system wasn't bad for people who had the initiative to learn the character creation rules for themselves by reading that chapter, but for the average school buddy I tried to get into roleplaying games, teaching them how to turn to the Traits chapter, find the chart, choose a specializaton etc. was a horrifying nightmare. It discouraged me from allowing new players into our group. I'm glad that specializations are now mostly optional under the CODA rules.

[Phantom]

Don:

I thought I read in an early report of the system that each skill could only have one specialization. If I misunderstood, apologies.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Phantom
I thought I read in an early report of the system that each skill could only have one specialization. If I misunderstood, apologies.

The confusion might come from one of Doug's earlier statements: "First off, let me say that Specialties are quite a bit less prevalent in CODA as Specializations were in ICON. It would be rare to see any one with mor that a couple of specialties in a skill."

They are less prevalent in that they are not free: you can spend a pick to raise a professional skill or gain a new specialty (or spend two picks and do both). If you want to make characters with lots of specialties you can--you'll just have to spend picks that could be otherwise used in raising skills, attributes, reactions, etc.

It's not a big deal but that's why I recommend people give the product a chance, or wait for a comprehensive playtest review, rather than panning it outright.

[tonyg]

THe prievie does look pretty, though.

[REG]

Kudos to Don on his upgrade to the forum. Now I can get rid of the interim link to the new one: http://forum.trek-rpg.net

Also kudos to the TrekRPGNetwork's new domain name: Trek-RPG.Net.

And last but not least, kudos to Don (again) and Decipher RPG Studio for providing a couple of previews to the new RPG: the human and klingon archetypes.

In case I miss the answer, what are the retail prices of both the Player's Guide and the Narrator's Guide?

[Doktor Evil]

I think that the preview indicates that things look extremely promising. The art is awesome, the presentation is neat, and the system looks efficient, fast and most importantly, fun! It looks like the ex-LUg team was able to catch lightning in a bottle for a second time (even if the game has certain ship with an odd stat )

[Imagus]

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Checking Picard's write-up I see the following:

Entertain: Play Instrument (Ressikan Flute) +4
Science: Social Science (Archaeology) +10

And I bet he's still never heard of the T'kon

I'm afraid my first impression is that the layout looks a little busy. I'm hoping that this sort of layout is reserved for special pages (races, archetypes, special tables, chapter front pages) and not every page. The white/blue on black is a little awkward to read in my experience. Then again, I guess the layout folks know what they are doing so I shouldn't worry too much

On the other hand - the game elements look good.

I'm most impressed that the damage levels seem to have been revised - one of my complaints with the LUG system was that Worf (for example) was four times as tough as a normal human (yeah, he's tough, but not that much!).

No problem with specialisations from my pov - although which are the specialisations? The bracketed titles or the white lines? What are the others?

Edges are what used to be advantages - are we foreseeing any confusion for experienced Icon players (where edges were attribute specialisations)? I should point out, I've got no problem with the terminology (I like the idea that promotion gives you an 'edge').

[Lt. Dade]

<I>Don said:</I>

Checking Picard's write-up I see the following:

Entertain: Play Instrument (Ressikan Flute) +4
Science: Social Science (Archaeology) +10

Thanks, Don. The above example gels (in my head) my point about detail in Trek series vs. detail in a Trek game.

The television show has the <I>appearance</I> of being very detailed, but in practice all we as an audience need to know is that Geordi is "an exceptional Engineer." In Coda, if you've got a good score in Archaeology you can assume that you are well-versed. That gives a player more freedom and flexibility to improvise dialogue and solve problems during play. You can make up details as you play, which is, as they become relevant. This is how such things work on the show. That's a Good Thing, I feel.

Picard's stats certainly didn't look like they do above when he started. That Entertain skill he didn't even have for the first three years of the show, right?

It looks like Coda has a great capacity for detail (which is terrific), but I thought that the Icon method of specializations for everything pitted the gameplay against the Trek-feel of the show. If I wanted a character who was really good at a variety of Engineering fields (and I really, really did), I had to manage a whole lot of numbers for quite a span of time and at great expense in other, routinely valuable skills.

By getting a few points (ranks, levels, whatever) in a broader Coda skill, It's just much simpler for me to say: "See, he's a great Engineer, he's got as high a score as he could have for his number of Advancements." That's simple and fun.

If I really want to work to get him an edge (or an Edge, maybe) over the Engineers in the galaxy, I can specialize. It's a simpler expression.

I like things easier, and it gets more people around the table. You can always add complexity to a game more easily than you can simplify a complicated game.