What do you think of DecTrek?

[erhershman]

First off, I haven't actually bought it myself yet, but I'm curious to see what other people think.

[Don Mappin]

So the options essentially range from "It sucks," to "The greatest thing since sliced bread" with the two middle results being a neutral "so so" and, my personal favorite, "better than I expected"?

Even the praise (a 4) is damning! LOL!

[erhershman]

Originally posted by Don Mappin
So the options essentially range from "It sucks," to "The greatest thing since sliced bread" with the two middle results being a neutral "so so" and, my personal favorite, "better than I expected"?

Even the praise (a 4) is damning! LOL!

Well, sorrrrrryyyyy.... just ignore the words if you like and rate it from 1 to 5.

[Erik Filean]

Originally posted by Don Mappin
So the options essentially range from "It sucks," to "The greatest thing since sliced bread" with the two middle results being a neutral "so so" and, my personal favorite, "better than I expected"?

Even the praise (a 4) is damning! LOL!

Well, Don, I put my vote in for "better than I expected," but I think I'd better issue the disclaimer that what I "expected" was something on a par with the LUGTrek handling of the property. Since I really, really liked how LUG handled the property, that wasn't meant as damning with faint praise--I just wanted to reserve the game some room to prove itself in future supplements.

So far, I've only created a basic, no-advancements Vulcan science officer to see how the character generation rules went. I'm happy with them. The broad competence of "real" Trek characters is well-simulated by the skill system and the affinity bonuses, and the pick system for attribute generation is amply generous. At the same time, the mechanics look like they can support mega-advanced characters without making every situation into a cakewalk--which should work well for gamers who want their series to be on par with TV Trek rather than the knockoff voyages of the starship Wannabe.

So, in two words: nice work.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Well so far all I've done is begin reading through the rules, and trying to create a few sample characters. So far I am impressed. I'm not sure I'd say it's the absolute best game ever, but it's pretty damn close.

BTW, I notice people over at the Starfleet Universe discussion board are still making anti-CODA comments (ICON never sold well, DECTrek won't have the license long enough to sell well, blah, blah, blah). Well I may buy some of the PD supplements out of curiosity, but IMHO they'll have to go a long way to beat CODA's coolness. And on the basis of the PG, I intend to buy every single CODA book (so far anyway). Of course, maybe GURPS PD will be the 'best game ever'. You never can tell.

[Perrryyy]

I haven't picked it up yet. Maybe on my way to, from, or after I get back from vacation.

[qerlin]

I'd love to tell you what I think, but my lazy a** game store didn't bother to place the order. "We didn't know it was out!" they say. I've heard this over and ove since they opened in November.

Screw it -- I'm ordering online from now on.

[Commander Ramey]

My game shop actually found the game and ordered it for me! WOW! Ok, now about the game! I have put our campeighn on hold and we are playing a star wars campeighn at the moment (is that blashphemy here? ) to see what the new rules would give us. I love the layout, look and feel of the book. Nicely done. So far I like character creation (although I must admit that I looked at it for a bit before PLAYING last night.... Almost Forgot what it was like to play rather than GM hehe and am writing this without sleep ) so far. It is pretty interesting. Looks pretty close to the icon setup in theory, and seems to work smoothly. Cudos guys!

I must admit though that I must have been away from the threads too long though. I was completly tken aback then I found out that there were no star ship rules or anything. Kept flipping back and forth to find them lol. That and the character sheet are the only things I am not pretty enthusiastic about (I saw the other thread so I won't say anything more here guys).

All in all, I am very pleased so far... Of course I am in the blissful post game sleep deprived state of mind all gamers everywhere like

[Sawyer II]

Mystics?
Rogues?
I thought this was Star Trek, not D&D in space.

Ok, Trek had all of these characters in their episodes. But I always imagined the main characters being Starfleet, and everyone 'Not Starfleet' were NPCs. It's nice to have this info so the GM can create these NPC's, but it is presented like a Player would want to be a Rogue. Rogues aren't Starfleet. And if the main characters aren't Starfleet, it's just another science-fiction game. And I've seen much better sci-fi games.

[Game Show Man]

if the main characters aren't Starfleet, it's just another science-fiction game. And I've seen much better sci-fi games.

Be careful, my man. Your Trek is likely different from everyone else's Trek. The one thing that I think everyone agrees with is the fact that no one will runs the same game as someone else. I personally would rather run Starfleet only games, but what if someone wants to run a game on a Kilngon ship, hmm?

I'm not trying to knock your point of view, sir, but that's the whole idea. There is no one way true way to play this game...and that's the way it ought to be.

[Sawyer II]

Originally posted by Game Show Man
There is no one way true way to play this game...and that's the way it ought to be.

Oh, I fully understand. IDIC and all that. But LUGTrek - ICON - was set up for players playing Starfleet characters. It expected players to want to be Starfleet.

And that's what we see on the small/big screen. All main characters were Starfleet. Only the supporting characters (such as Quark, Garak, or those related to a Starfleet officer) aren't Starfleet. (Okay, Kira, but she was close enough.)

To those who designed the new system, please, I mean no offense by my opinions. I wish you success in your efforts. But I just can't give it the praises others will.

[Dan Stack]

I see your point, but let me offer a counter-argument.

My game has a player who is a Star Trek fan and an excellent roleplayer. But doesn't enjoy roleplaying a character in Starfleet - too restrictive in this player's eyes. Does a fantastic job playing non-Starfleet characters though.

The game you propose wouldn't be enjoyable for everyone in my group.

I find that common among gamers - they spend their days at jobs or school where everything is structured. When gaming, they want to kick back, be a little silly, a little adventurous. Some might argue they shouldn't play Star Trek, but Star Trek has given us Harry Mudd, Quark, and Neelix as well.

Of course, my favorite of the LUG-Trek incarnations was the DS9 game, so my bias is clear as well.

[tonyg]

Overall I like the game better than I expected to (4).

There are enough "loopholes" to avoid the pitfalls that normally exist with Profession/classes. There is actually about 3-4 different ways to handle characters with the abilties of mutiple professions.

I really don't like the combat damage. Characters can take a lot more punishment than thier ICON counterparts. There is no chance of killing someone with a single hit from a melee weapon or firearms. No hit locations either. Unlike ICON character don't seem to get knocked down when they get wounded anymore. (Unless I missed it).

Fistfights are going to be very long and boring (take up most of the game session).

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Originally posted by Sawyer II


All main characters were Starfleet. Only the supporting characters (such as Quark, Garak, or those related to a Starfleet officer) aren't Starfleet. (Okay, Kira, but she was close enough.)

Actually that's not quite true. Quark was not a supporting character, he was main cast. As were Neelix, Kes, Seven of Nine, and Kira (who was a soldier, not a Starfleet Officer). None of them were Starfleet.

Don't get me wrong, my personal preference is for Starfleet campaigns as well, but the Trekiverse is certainly not limited to those types of characters. And whether you're playing a Starfleet Captain, or a Ferengi privateer, the tone of the game should still have that Star Trek feel to it, if you play your cards right. Besides, as Dan already pointed out, not everyone wants to play (or is suited to playing) Starfleet characters. And I prefer to have a little more freedom of choice for my players.

Having a wider range of characters available permits a lot more flexibility in our campaigns. Not everyone wants to play Starfleet, and CODA will let me run that new freetrader campaign I want to run, and that colony campaign, and be able to tie them into the same continuity as my TOS and TNG games.

So I'm ecstatically happy with the new system.

[Trotsky]

But I always imagined the main characters being Starfleet, and everyone 'Not Starfleet' were NPCs.

I'm sure many people have envisaged characters like Quark and Neelix as main character/NPCs, though, and the game inevitably has to cater to this wider range of opinions so that groups have the choice.

It's nice to have this info so the GM can create these NPC's, but it is presented like a Player would want to be a Rogue. Rogues aren't Starfleet. And if the main characters aren't Starfleet, it's just another science-fiction game.

I disagree - a campaign with rogue PCs won't be a TOS or TNG game, to be sure, but it could well be a DS9 game. To do a DS9 style game properly you need the possibility for merchants, rogues and other non-Starfleet types as PCs. And since Coda, unlike Icon, intends to cover all the series together, it has to have the DS9 style material alongside the TNG and TOS stuff. Just leave out the material you don't want or need...

But LUGTrek - ICON - was set up for players playing Starfleet characters. It expected players to want to be Starfleet.

Not in the DS9 version of the game, it didn't