Preview!

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Originally posted by Doug Burke


Actually, those characters are pretty much spot on for a starting character (i.e. no Advancements) with two exceptions.

Thanks Doug. Though it does sound like characters start a little skill-lite to begin with. Having said that, since there are (I'm guessing ( lots of specialisations, does that mean that each skill we see on those archetypes, actually covers quite a number of abilities?

Cheers

[BonzaiGopher]

Hiya,

Have to admit, I'm most curious about the starship combat rules. From what I've read in other threads - streamlined and focused on the dramatic - sounds really interesting.

Is it true that those rules are only in the Narrator's Guide?

Cheers,

Bonzai Gopher

p.s. I like the art - very clean, natural looking - not a big fan of the SF dress uniform though..

[Doug Burke]

Originally posted by Capt Daniel Hunter
Having said that, since there are (I'm guessing ( lots of specialisations, does that mean that each skill we see on those archetypes, actually covers quite a number of abilities?

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.

But, in response to that, the skills themselves are just as broad you would expect. Knowledge: Culture gives a general overview of any known cultures (as well as the tools to begin understanding new ones), while Armed Combat: Klingon Weapons allows you to use any of the nice bladed toys Klingons seem so fond of. Specialites are not required, they're icing on the cake. That's why you get a +2 bonus to any test within your specialty.

Finally, as Ross has mentioned elsewhere, some of the redundant and useless skills have been removed or made into Traits. Like Personal Equipment, for example.

So I guess you could say the characters are a little "skill-lite", but you could also say it's a more streamlined process that doesn't require as many skills and/or Specialties.



Comments contained within are subject to change without notice and while they may rely on material provided by Decipher, Inc., are provided for strictly informational purposes and should not be construed as official policy.

[Doug Burke]

Originally posted by BonzaiGopher
From what I've read in other threads - streamlined and focused on the dramatic - sounds really interesting.

They do sound like fun, don't they?

Is it true that those rules are only in the Narrator's Guide?

Yep. It's true.

Comments contained within are subject to change without notice and while they may rely on material provided by Decipher, Inc., are provided for strictly informational purposes and should not be construed as official policy.

[Troy_Of_Borg]

Great preview Don, Thanks.

How a preview of the character sheet.

And wait to get the new Star Trek RPG books.

[AslanC]

To quote John Worfin. "Home is where you wear your hat...I feel so broke up I wanna go home."

And this is where I will talk Trek RPG.

And yeah I have already pre-ordered my books from my buddy

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Originally posted by Doug Burke


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.

But, in response to that, the skills themselves are just as broad you would expect.

So I guess you could say the characters are a little "skill-lite", but you could also say it's a more streamlined process that doesn't require as many skills and/or Specialties.

Well it sounds positive. I like the idea of making specialisations 'special', though I guess I must be one of the few people who actually LIKED the personal equipment skill (I still think tricorder should be a separate skill, and I'll probably try and work it in as a house rule for my group)

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product and trying it out. Be nice to have an officially supported game again.

[AndorMan]

Personally, I think the visuals are nice. The art has indeed improved.

I agree with the skill-lite appearence of the characters and the somewhat D&D/D20 style abilities.

While I do like the idea of a streamlined system, character creation seems a bit too simple if the character archtype shown are identical to beginning PCs.

I really liked the way you built up a PC in ICON and these seem a little lite in the background detail department. Of course, that's what supplements are for...especially the Starfleet Ops. Manual - Yum!

AndorMan
Cry Havoc! Let Slip the Andorian of War!

[Lt. Dade]

This stupidly long email has <B>bold-faced</B> leads for you, dear reader.

First off, I really like <B>Keiran Yanner's art</B> on the archetypes. He does great portraits, has a great capacity to reflect a genre's image and his images have a real sense of weight.

I think the Icon system's <B>character creation process</b> was a marvelous way to make PCs ... and a horrible burden for NPC creation. Looks like Coda might be a nice compromise.

The many steps behind the Icon character creation process were nice, but I don't see any reason why you can't recreate the same background-building process in Coda. A lot of the work Icon seemed to be doing was actually done by the player's imagination (which should still be supported by Coda, nyuk nyuk).

The Starfleet "Brat" package in Icon was just a list of skills and stuff. What, exactly, those meant was up to the player. Where did his folks serve, etc? All those questions can still be answered, and the Starfleet "Brat" package still begs those questions. I trust the book to have great guidelines for character creation outside of the tools-based statistics.

Background is history, after all, and it shouldn't be required of all players if that's not the kind of game they want to play. A tools-intensive game with a solid, independent mechanical foundation and suggestions for more sophisticated storytelling is valuable to a larger audience than Icon was, I imagine. I'd like this game to make enough money to be supported for several years.

<B>How many series will begin with starting characters?</B> Starting Trek characters (Harry Kim, I'm looking at you) have a lot to learn. If you start your characters off with a few Advancements (how many I can't say without the book), and require a background story for each Advancement, you basically have the Tours of Duty from Icon. Not really ... but the effect is similar.

I also prefer fewer, <B>more robust skills</B>. Icon's skill (and specialty!) lists were a headache for me. Seriously. I think a game which functions with fewer skills is generally stronger. The basic mechanic should be boiled down, simplicity itself, with genre conventions attached thereto. Coda, d20, Storyteller and GURPS use this philosophy and I think it's best.

Something I used to do with my college (futuristic soldier) campaign that I was reminded of by Ken Hite and Ross Isaacs at GenCon: ask players what skill <I>they</I> think should be used to try out their plan. That's far more interactive, and it's a lot easier when you don't have 20+ skills for each character.

[NOTE: Those of you wondering how to get me to stop my lengthy essay-posts ... when I get the book I'll have something else to do with all this energy. ]

word,
will

[Lockhart]

Aside from getting to look at this spread, I'm happy to see the domain name is back in place.

Lockhart

[Erik Filean]

Originally posted by Capt Daniel Hunter


Well it sounds positive. I like the idea of making specialisations 'special', though I guess I must be one of the few people who actually LIKED the personal equipment skill (I still think tricorder should be a separate skill, and I'll probably try and work it in as a house rule for my group)

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product and trying it out. Be nice to have an officially supported game again.

I also like the implication that specializations are for characters whose knowledge is...well, specialized, rather than being an obligatory skill focus. It implies a broader base of application for the main skill at less overall cost, which sounds like a good way to simulate the broadly competent, occupationally versatile characters of the Trek series.

[Doug Burke]

Will: I couldn't have sadi ti better myself. I mentioned in another thread that it wouldn't surprise if the first thing people will do is plan "Advancement Packages" that can be bought in increments of five picks. In fact, I may throw some together myself to see how they would look...

Erik & Daniel: As I understand it, that was the basic idea. There wasn't anything "special" about Specializations in Icon. They were a dime a dozen.

[Kronok]

Don- Thanks for the sniglet (Little teaser).

Originally posted by Doug Burke
There wasn't anything "special" about Specializations in Icon. They were a dime a dozen.

Thank you!!! I am glad that was changed.

[Troy_Of_Borg]

The more I look at the preview of the new Star Trek RPG.

The more I think the new game will be a hit.

I can't wait to see some of the other books that are planned for the new game.

[Eric.Brennan]

Originally posted by Doug Burke


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.

But, in response to that, the skills themselves are just as broad you would expect.

Thank god. The more I see about this game the more excited I am. The fix you mention above fixes my /biggest/ complaint about ICON.

Will Decipher be selling the book through their online store--and any word when we can place an order?
--Eric