Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 44

Thread: Couple of Questions

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820
    Hmm,

    A similar (but slightly different) question to AndorMan's.

    Are there any "example" NPCs in the NArrator's Guide?

    While the "each GM sets his own typical characters" idea has some merit, sp dpes the ability to pull out "standard/typical" NPC crewmen for a variety of purposes.

    When running a fast paced adventure it's nice to be able to use someting like stats for "Generic Klingon Warrior ".

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Rennes (Brittany), France, Earth
    Posts
    1,032
    I must say, tonyg has a point there.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UT, USA
    Posts
    2,090
    Originally posted by tonyg
    Are there any "example" NPCs in the NArrator's Guide?

    While the "each GM sets his own typical characters" idea has some merit, sp dpes the ability to pull out "standard/typical" NPC crewmen for a variety of purposes.

    When running a fast paced adventure it's nice to be able to use someting like stats for "Generic Klingon Warrior ".
    There are some pre-made NPCs in the Narrator's Guide. I don't have the book with me right now, so I can't give you any specific examples, but I do know they have some "standard" NPCs as well as stats for some of the characters from each series.
    Former Decipher RPG Net Rep

    "Doug, at the keyboard, his fingers bleeding" (with thanks to Moriarti)

    In D&D3E, Abyssal is not the language of evil vacuum cleaners.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN USA
    Posts
    156

    Re: Advancements and Narrator Fiat

    <I>(I'm not going to quote Don's Advancement examples, since you've probably already read them anyway.)</I>

    The combination of flexibility and game-mechanical security it looks like we'll get from Advancements are what make them seem great for Star Trek, in my opinion. <B>Yes,</b> your Narrator has an arbitrary say regarding the starting Advancements of the PCs, but s/he also has the benefit of those Advancements being stastically balanced right "out of the box." Just giving out points in Icon didn't do that (and was tougher to calculate for english majors like me).

    In a strict, gameplay sense I like the fact that there are not set rules for Advancements relative to rank. Janeway, Picard, Sisko, Harriman and Riker (who's been offered how many commands?) do not all have the same number of Advancements, I'd bet. Promotion should be a largely campaign-specific event. In my current game, for example, the NPC captain is not a young man, but he won't have a lot of Advancements behind him.

    In a Roddenberry-Trekky sense, the flexibility of Advancements fits the Federation ideaology. Once a Starfleet officer has completed a certain number of tours or passed a specific exam, is he or she ready for the Big Chair? (Riker, I'm looking in your direction.) Nah. The Kobayashi Maru and Troi's command exam are examples of this. What you do as a character (not as statistics) determines your future.

    I think Don's examples highlight the strengths of Advancements and shows how different they are from levels. The Coda <I>mechanic</I> may be similar to d20, but <b>Starship Captain</b> is no prestige class.

    (I was never this verbose about Icon, by the way. I am just really behind the philosophy Coda seems to have been built with.)

    word,
    will

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820
    Just having a few NPC write-ups seems like enough to me. Basically something like what FASA did (a "typical/generic" write-up for the common redshirt or Klingon) would be fine.

    As for advancements. Since they are used to award picks, and don't have any meaning of themselves, they seem very easy to ignore or eliminate (i.e. treat each pick as 200 xp cost and go from there. Seems pretty easy to fit this in with LUG's old 1-5 xp per mission).

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN USA
    Posts
    156
    <b>tonyg said:</b>
    As for advancements. Since they are used to award picks, and don't have any meaning of themselves, they seem very easy to ignore or eliminate (i.e. treat each pick as 200 xp cost and go from there. Seems pretty easy to fit this in with LUG's old 1-5 xp per mission).
    Ooo, that <I>is</I> nice. That kind of thinking will jive with the XP nominations and roleplaying bonuses my group uses. Flexibility, flexibility everywhere.

    word,
    will

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820
    That's just an idea-it's not official.

    But it does seem than the linear advancement system and skill picks makes the game easier to adjust than a "level-based" RPG.


    (*SIGH* Now I'm hacking the games before I get them.)

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Bonner Springs,Ks,U.S.A.
    Posts
    11

    Re: Re: Couple of Questions

    Originally posted by Don Mappin

    Mixed species no longer exists but there are rules for creating characters with a mixed heritage. Alien Upbringing is reflected in spending your free ‘rounding out’ picks during character generation on your species-specific skills. Any character, without penalty, can now have a background like, being raised on a Klingon outpost, without having to pick up a special package/advantage.
    Question: If the mixed species advantage has been done away with, then how will this be handled in the new CODA system? I ask becasue my favourite character that I run, is of mixed species, and I planned on re-making him in DecTrek. Thanks in advance!

    Safe journeys,
    Lt. Cmdr. Phade
    =/\=
    Bus Driver: "..watch out for those wierdos."
    Nancy: "We ARE the wierdos mister."
    -- the Craft

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    2,923

    Re: Re: Re: Couple of Questions

    Originally posted by Phade
    Question: If the mixed species advantage has been done away with, then how will this be handled in the new CODA system?
    I can't answer this without typing up way more stuff than I'd like in order for it to make sense. Suffice it to say it can be done and the process is outlined on a sidebar on page 29.
    Mass Effect Fate RPG | "Mass Effect meets Fate meets awesome = FREE"
    Contributor, Gnome Stew
    "In every revolution, there's one man with a pizza."
    Star Trek (TOS) "Pizza, Pizza" (Second season), story by D.S.McBride

  10. #25
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles CA
    Posts
    249
    Finally weighing in on this topic...

    >>How do you tell special or better than average captains?<<

    I'm not trying to sound snotty, but "how do YOU determine a better than average captain?" What does this mean to you? The writers wanted to make Captain Kirk impressive, and so threw in a story consideration that he was the youngest captain in Starfleet. A few years later, TNG introduced another captain that has the designation of "youngest captain." Let's face it, there is no way this one-episode captain could hold a candle to Captain Kirk. It was a story consideration. It's impossible to translate that into a rules consideration.

    Put another way, if I told you that you had to have 20 advancements to be a captain, someone would scream that that wasn't enough, and someone would scream that that's too many. And when we don't ascribe any time to advancements or define what you must have to be a captain, people are confused. =)

    In your game, if you can create a captain with two advancements, then that's good. You are a newly minted captain with a lot to learn. Or you're focused on one area particularly well. The point is, you can play the captain without artificial rules preventing you from doing so.

    And if you run up against an NPC captian who is better, then you do. There are good captains out there, and not-so-good captains. There are young captains and old captains. There are the Gene Hackmans of Crimson Tide and there are the Denzel Washingtons.

  11. #26
    Originally posted by RIsaacs
    Put another way, if I told you that you had to have 20 advancements to be a captain, someone would scream that that wasn't enough, and someone would scream that that's too many. And when we don't ascribe any time to advancements or define what you must have to be a captain, people are confused. =)

    In your game, if you can create a captain with two advancements, then that's good. You are a newly minted captain with a lot to learn. Or you're focused on one area particularly well. The point is, you can play the captain without artificial rules preventing you from doing so.
    Hi, Ross. I have to say, from a RPG standpoint, this whole idea is a breath of fresh air. I like this type of flexibility. It certainly makes character creation for that famous twenty sided die, class/level game less attractive in comparison.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles CA
    Posts
    249
    That's why I don't think the comparison with D20 on RPG.net is fair. It's an "at a glance" reaction, IMHO.

    If you look at the species, it's the Template from Icon expressed differently. Same with the Professions. We tried to give you maximum flexibility, which that other game doesn't. You don't have to wait for 10th level to get that really cool ability. You don't have to wait until 8th level to improve your quickness reaction (which we had wanted to put into Icon 2nd edition).

    Indeed, much of this game was designed by looking at what worked in Icon and what didn't. Specialization didn't work well, so we changed it to provide a bonus rather than a penalty. The dodge skill and personal equipment skills were dumb, so we changed it. More tools. More flexibility. Similar game system.

    You can do what you want with this game. So go do! =)

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN USA
    Posts
    156
    As the author of "the comparison with D20 on RPG.net," let me clarify for the audience.

    What I saw of the CODA Trek RPG at GenCon was simple gameplay and character sheets. From that glance, the similarities to d20 (compared to Icon's similarity to d20) are noteworthy. Yeah, it was a glancing look at the game. I only got to flip through that mock up for two minutes!

    My intention on RPGnet was to generate discussion. I wanted to know more about the game, and I wanted other people to talk with about the game. I think I did that. I probably didn't do anything else constructive with that comparison, but the book's out now and nothing I said will impact sales, I suspect.

    I still maintain that, during gameplay, the game is remarkably similar to D20 (and a host of other ancestral games). What makes the CODA system distinctive, attractive and especially sharp are the game-elements players interact with <b>between</b> the game sessions.

    Character creation and Advancement are a joy. (Within 4 hours my friends and I purchased two <I>Player's Guides</I>, converted our existing crew, and started a new episode. The PG I pre-ordered isn't here yet.) The game isn't more complicated than D20. It's more precise. I really adore the way Advancements work. I'll keep playing D&D, mind you, but game designers tinkering with a classless D20 system should either take a close look at CODA, or just play CODA games.

    (I am genuinely looking forward to seeing new professional abilities and edges (read: toys) published in future books. I like crunchy bits.)

    I am happy to say that D20 and CODA will peacefully coexist with my gaming groups. The games are similar enough (where it counts) that my gaming group kept using wrong terms (e.g. skill ranks, class skills) but <I>didn't</I> get confused when doing so. (Consider that.) The games are different enough (where it counts) that I didn't find anything in the rules which seemed to be a vestigial organ from another game.

    Summary: The similarities are there. So what? This game <I>plays</I> right.

    Maybe I should write a follow-up review at RPGnet?

    word,
    will

    [Edit: some typos and grammar]

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    2,923
    I think Ross was referring to a thread on RPG.net in the past week which said (sic) “Coda is nothing more than D20 with the serial numbers filed off.” (Far be it from me to stick words in Ross’ mouth, however.)

    I didn’t care for that “review/preview” article much either, now that you mention it.

    I won’t go into specifics (NDAs prevent me), but I can confidently say that at no point during the design process was a conversation held that I was privy to where someone said/suggested/implied that we should pull out the PHB and make a better D20. It never happened.

    Ross summed it up best: “much of this game was designed by looking at what worked in Icon and what didn't.” That’s the path we took.

    [edit] This might be the thread in question (it gets ugly quick):
    http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?...highlight=coda

    [edit2]...or it could be this thread...
    http://www.enworld.org/messageboards...threadid=10291
    Mass Effect Fate RPG | "Mass Effect meets Fate meets awesome = FREE"
    Contributor, Gnome Stew
    "In every revolution, there's one man with a pizza."
    Star Trek (TOS) "Pizza, Pizza" (Second season), story by D.S.McBride

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN USA
    Posts
    156
    <B>Re: reference to message forums instead of my RPGnet "review"</B>

    Whew. That's a relief. The general level of assumption on those threads is startling and indicative of why I tend to stay away from lunatic internet forums. That's my backward compliment of this forum, y'all.

    <b>Re: Don's feelings about the above RPGnet article</b>

    I got that feeling back then. I meant well.

    <b>Re: the origin of similarities to D20 and CODA</b>

    While I have an academic interest in the geneaology of the CODA system in a post-D20 theatre, I don't harbor any of the suspicions exhibited at the D20reviews site boards. More than anything, I'm afraid that the sort of assumptions we're seeing on those boards might scare off less-informed readers.

    I know I'm guilty of constantly holding D20 and CODA next to each other, but that's just the environment right now. It's inevitable, I think. To be fair, CODA and D20 also have remarkable similarities to the Interlock system from <b>Cyberpunk 2020</b>.

    My primary praise of D20 is its stability, which is stronger than most other games I had been playing just before D&D3E came out. That stability is the result of constant, rigorous playtesting.

    CODA strikes me as being likewise stable. It's stability is built out of modularity and simplicity as much as D20's is. It also underwent a kind of rigorous, widespread playtest called <b>Icon</b>.

    Yes, I think I've been saying the same thing in every thread and boring the hell out of everybody.

    word,
    will

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •