Give me your Coda Q's and Feedback (Good and Bad)

[Don Mappin]

I'd like some help in addressing any pending questions/issues on the Coda system, problems, errata, or complaints that people may have. My schedule is so incredibly busy that the volume of traffic on this board is starting to even bury me and I'm missing threads.

With that said, I don't want to miss any important questions/comments or be reprimanded for ignoring people. Please post your questions, good or bad, here and I'll try to address them. If I can't get you an answer I'll write them down and cover them with Ross during my almost daily phone conversations with him. If needs be we'll escalate them further up the food chain.

My only request is please, please, please be civil and some semblance of courtesy. Not necessarily to me, but at least to the other members. I do care and I do want to help, regardless of whether you like Coda or not.

Thanks and fire away!

[qerlin]

Feedback:

The system: It's solid and seems to work really well. Of the 5 players, 3 prefer it to ICON -- they find the 2d6 easier than the multiple number of dice, especially -- only one prefers ICON, and the other doesn't much care as long as we play SOMETHING.

Combat runs fine. The fatigue rules are much more streamlined than most I've seen. The skills are better broken down IMO than ICON. Not as specialization specific.

The traits could be standardized a bit better on what bonuses they give you -- right now they run the gambit from +1 to +4. I would suggest higher benefits come at a higher cost.

I think the limits on flaws is too strict. We ignore this. Also, there are certain flaws that should have been present -- phobias and such.

The species/profession-based abilities seem a bit redundant with the traits, but I do like the idea of a 'schtick' for a profession...just think they could have just been given as traits. Personal opinion & nitpicking, really.

Overall: very positive on the system with a few minor nitpicks.

For the guys at Deciper -- The book: layout is smart and works well, save for putting the reactions section waaaay in the back. In future editions I would suggest moving it up after the attributes section. Otherwise, building a character just works through the book pretty well.

I think the addition of the Delta Quadrant races was pretty unnecessary (person gripe) and would have included more TOS aliens. But I understand the desire to use those DQ races to pull in Voyager fans.

The writing is solid, with just a few typos here and there -- which is almost impossible to catch, even with modern speelcheckrs. The instant you .pdf of change format for printing, little bugs creep in. (My novels both have little ones from the adobe translation.)

The production values are top-notch. Better than almost anything else out there (save ICON, which had the high-grade paper). The use of screencap instead of bad fan-art is a major plus in my book. Binding's very good, too. (Good choice in printers.)

Character sheet...what were you guys thinking?

Overall: the books the prettiest on the market and in general is one of the better game core books I've seen in a while. Keep the production values high and I'm liable to buy the whole game line.

[CorpBoy]

Well, I don't really have any questions, but I do have some feedback.

Don, I know you're not responsible for it, but if you can forward on layout suggestions, please ask Decipher do either include an index just for tables in addition to the regular index, or to include all the tables in it's own chapter. It would make finding them much easier.

And if you could get that character generation summary done that I saw you mention, that would be a big help too.

Otherwise, I like the CODA system in general. Now if I could just make a Narators Guide magically appear in my hands...

[Durog]

More Feedback:

I am doing layout work myself, so I have to agree that this is one of the prettiest books around.

I haven't actually played a game yet (we are waiting for the Narrator's Guide), but I liked what I saw.

As qerlin said, the limit of 2 flaws is a little harsh. I understand the desire to keep min-maxer's from getting too many minor flaws and lots of powerful edges, but a point-buy system would have been a little nicer.

The selection of Edges is great, although the promotion edge is still somewhat baffling to me, I'll have to reread that one a few more times. Since we are planning on starting from scratch it shouldn't be a problem for a while. There don't seem to be too many flaws, I would have liked to see some more things in that section.

Skills seem to be well thought out. That's a vast improvement over ICON (IMO). I like having a broader skill range. At the end of our ICON game, most characters had nowhere to go with their skills, as most of them were at the maximum level.

I appreciate the inclusion of the Delta Quadrant races, however, I would have liked to have seen something other than Okampa and Talaxians, since both species are somewhat rare, even in the DQ. Okampa only run around in 2 spots (and there aren't too many of them), and the Talaxians made a showing only a handful of times (aside from Neelix). Then again, we'll probably see most of the other DQ species in the upcoming Aliens book. However, the ommision of the Andorians is somewhat of a blunder in my eyes. Andorians could be used in any era (even in an Enterprise game), so they are missed (but are supposedly in the NG, so it's not too bad).

All in all, great job on the system. And as many have said before me... what's up with that character sheet. Most people only have access to a B&W copier, which leads to a very mediocre result.

[Darth Sarcastic]

Aside from alot of page flipping during character creation...I only have one other problem and that's the index in the back. The font size is blindingly small. The layout is good, very nice pictures...none of Lt. Uhura I noticed...

All the things that I'd like to see (Starship stuff, more alien races, etc.) are all going to be in the NG...and if they're not...well then I'm sure there'll be another thread like this for the NG.

-Darth Sarcastic

[PGoodman13]

Rather than take up a lot of space saying the same thing again, I'll simply refer you to the thread I started outlining my feelings about the Player's Guide.

[Greg Smith]

I did ask this a while ago, and I dont think it has been answered:
On page 80 under the description of the Perception attribute, it says "it can affect your initial Psi score...see P136". There is no mention of this on P136.

Overall I'm very happy with the book, it looks good and reads well. I love the use of professoinal ablities - I can see it will make players look farward to gaining points and spending them on cool things- a feel you get when playing a magic user in fantasy games.

A few small criticisms - while the rules appear to be in the appendix, a big chunk of them is actually contained in the skill chapter. IMHO these would have been better together either as consecutive chapters or both in the appendix. Secondly the seperation of professions and development confused me initially - I read back through the Professions chapter looking to see how many points I got spend on professional skills.

Here's hoping the Narrator's Guide will be a least as good.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by qerlin
The traits could be standardized a bit better on what bonuses they give you -- right now they run the gambit from +1 to +4. I would suggest higher benefits come at a higher cost.

There's actually a formula going on behind the scenes that you might not see depending on their usefullness. The broader the application of the bonus, the lower it is. The more specific the bonus is, say to a skill or specialization, the higher it becomes. They're all weighed and balanced against each other. (Ross really championed this and stayed on top of it.)

Also, there are certain flaws that should have been present -- phobias and such.

Funny you should mention that, I just did a phobia writeup for a sourcebook. Remember, limited page count, limited word count--not everything could be put in there.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by CorpBoy
Don, I know you're not responsible for it, but if you can forward on layout suggestions, please ask Decipher do either include an index just for tables in addition to the regular index, or to include all the tables in it's own chapter. It would make finding them much easier.

The NG has this. (I realize that doesn't help with the PG, however.)

I pushed for a collection of all the important tables in the rear of both books. TPTB decided otherwise.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Greg Smith
I did ask this a while ago, and I dont think it has been answered:
On page 80 under the description of the Perception attribute, it says "it can affect your initial Psi score...see P136". There is no mention of this on P136.

Perception does not modify your Psi score. I'll double-check with Ross to make sure.

[Lt. Dade]

The best compliment I can give this system is to drive it. I ran maybe six Icon games (outside of GenCon). Ever. I've run Coda Trek, I think, every week since it came out (and started an Icon game in preparation for the new game)!

The approach to everything, I agree with. In layout, I think Reactions are in sort of an awkward spot. Likewise, there are a handful of rules which I think would be better-off bold-faced or placed right at the beginning of their respective sections. I'm still finding out things (like the two-Flaw rule) that I didn't know two weeks ago. I think the rules for Blocking and Parrying in the book are repeated two paragraphs in a row, am I correct? The quality of photos in the book is a big improvement over Icon.

The new skills are vastly superior to the old ones. Equipment and everything is nice. (Healing is astonishingly easy, I think, but we actually haven't tried much of it.) I am extremely anxious for starship information now.

I appreciate the appearance of the VOYAGER races. There are some valuable things to be gleaned from their interpretation in the mechanics until the Narrator's Guide comes out to explain everything. (I just discovered last week, though, that I'm sorry the Jem'Hadar and the Vorta won't be in the NG.) I do <b>really</b> like that the NG covers the creation of races, rather than only selecting a finite number to present. This counters the small selection of races between the two books.

Overall, once I started to get the new system under control, I don't think I have any complaints with the Player's Guide that won't be solved by giving me more books on a consistent basis, of a quality similar to the PG. I love the focus on characters and setting over the focus on meta-game narratives. I adore the meta-game narrative capabilities of STAR TREK, though, and look forward to their treatment in the NG, but the game must be able to succeed as a simulator in order for players to be able to communicate smoothly and fairly and confidently. This game does that.

I'm simply psyched.

word,
will

STAR TREK: BORDERLINES at http://www.acousticboy.com/trek

[Lee T]

What should we do with the Notoriety and Inventor trait in the assassin and inventor elite professions prerequisites?

[C5]

Okay, some feedback...

Design : The book in itself is nice, the paper is cool, and the photographs really rock. I'm just still wondering why Janeway is the only Captain smiling on the cover (was she that happy to be back from the DQ, or that she was allowed to appear in a RPG ?)

Internal layout : Cool, although some chapters are not always where I'd have expected them. Also, some informations relative to character creation appear only in the text, not in the bricks, wich sometime make it difficult to follow the whole process easily (I'm thinking for instance to the edge granted to every character). Apart from that, not much complaints - I like.

The system : I really love it, except for its few similarities with D20. Namely, the Advancements, and the fact that the primary favoured attribute is linked with the profession. Apart from these two nitpicks and a couple of minor others wich can be easily altered, I love it. The 1-12 scale allows for a much more variety in skills mastery - as one of my players once noticed, in ICON, the difference between an expert (5) and a beginner (2) was one difficulty level; here, an expert with 10 in a skill is really better than the rookie with a 2.
Also, I'm glad to be rid of the infamous "Expect to roll a 6 on the drama die or you won't do more than 6, no matter how high your attribute is", and I love the enhanced courage points.
Finally, I just love the Professional Abilities. Mmm... perks (I'm a long-time Fallout addicted, for those who know what I'm talking about )

Combat : I've not run any combat yet, but I'm a bit concerned by the new damage scale. It's waaaay better than ICON, where a fight was simply not possible for a standard human who could be knocked out cold with a single punch, but somehow I'm a bit bugged by having a bat'leth that doesn't inflict more than a wound to a standard human, or the fact that it's almost impossible to kill someone with one shot of a projectile weapon (even a shotgun at point blank range will leave a human Incapacited at best ). Maybe some optional rules in the NG will help balance that (like a localisation chart as in ICON).
I too miss the sample combat we had in ICON, but maybe is it in the NG.

Races : I'm okay with the races in the book; having Ocampas and Talaxians is a bit strange indeed (although I appreciate having a nice photo of Kes ), but I'm glad they stuck with the races we saw as regular cast on TV (or similar for Cardassians). You may not realise it, but a recent ST fan (like I was when I bought the ICON books) who has not seen much more than TNG and DS9 could wonder who the hell these Andorians and Tellarites would be . Having the Romulans as well would have been more logical though.
Plus, I really love the typical names for each race. It's one of these nice pluses wich make me really like that book.

Character creation : A lot has been said on these boards... I do agree that the chart page 22 is not detailed enough. A page summing up every step required would have been nice (like, for instance, instead of "Pick skills" something like "Pick 2*INT species skill, pick background package, pick professional package"). OTOH, I agree it's rather easy once you get to know it.
A minor biff I have is the randomness included in many steps of character creation (like the Trill transporter phobia), but that's just a personnal disliking (okay... my friends somehow nicknamed me "double one". Now you know why I hate randomness ).
I also don't like the 2 flaws limitations, but that's something that can be easily lifted. Also, I'm unconfortable with the fact that a flaw can only be used to buy an edge - but that also can be altered (1 flaw = 2 picks).
And I like the fact that the picks in creation are used also in advancement - no more distinction between "Development points" and "Character points" or whatever. Neat.

No comment on the character sheet - enough was said already. May it rest in peace

Apart from that... well, I like everything I didn't mentioned here. The specialisations now settled once and for all the "What if I get the same skill twice" question (and its sequel "If I upgrade a skill, what happens to the specialisations") in ICON. The skills are now more logically grouped (plus, I just like the fact that we only have a single alphabetical list of skills, not these bizarre groupings like in ICON). Some edges seem a bit unbalanced to me, but that could be discussed with my players.

All in all, my only real concern now is whether I ask my players to convert their characters or allow them to re-create them to CODA - 'cause they will need a really damn good reason for not wanting to switch to CODA (like, for instance, being able to survive the 10 Borg Cubes awaiting them at their next ICON mission if they refused to switch )

[Darth Sarcastic]

Originally posted by C5
I'm just still wondering why Janeway is the only Captain smiling on the cover (was she that happy to be back from the DQ, or that she was allowed to appear in a RPG ?)

Because they just told her that she was more liked than Captain Archer and his dog put together...either that or its gas.

My apologies to Kate Mulgrew (for the gas bit), but none to Captain Archer and his dog.

-Darth Sarcastic

[els1216]

I have a mix of positive and negative opinions on CODA.

I've been following the parambulation of Star Trek role playing over the past few years, and I have the greatest respect for the people involved. I've never seen any sign that any of those connected with ICON or CODA are anything less than a total class act. None of my criticisms are personal in nature.

First, the positive things. All over the PG, I frequently saw well thought out fixes to problems that existed in ICON. The skill list was cleaned up. Telepathy is no longer a hamstrung skill. The GM-annoying attribute edges were dumped. There are other examples too numerous to enumerate. Don't let the brevity of this paragraph fool you. A lot of good changes were made.

The basic die mechanic is a good one. The potential skill bonus outweights the potential attribute bonus which is as it should be.

The courage point mechanic is better too. I am a big fan of "luck point" mechanics in general.

I am neutral on the combat system. I think I'm going to need to see the NG before I make a judgement.

Now, on to the negatives. There is really no way to sugar-coat the fact that I do not like the Profession/Elite Profession system. I find it cumbersome and restrictive. I am obviously in the minority since I have seen many people say that they think it is versasile and accomodating. In my opinion, the versatility is superficial. Deep down it is the same old class system which punishes characters by making those who break the mold spend more points than those who create less imaginative characters.

To the system's credit, there is nothing totally off limits to any character type, and that was a nice touch, but look at all the threads that start "How do I create this kind of character?" In a skill-based system, nobody has to ask this question; you just choose the appropriate skills and you are done. In this system, the answer is generally much more convoluted. This is typified in the discussion a while back over how to create a non-starship doctor. The consensus was to use the Scientist profession...totally ignoring the fact that the Scientist profession doesn't have access to the diagnosis type professional abilities of the doctor. Sure he can spend on edges to get these abilities, but why should he have to?

Of course, the GM can always design new professions, but this is a pain too since you then have to come up with not only a list of professional skills...which isn't too bad, but a list of professional abilities as well...which doesn't seem too easy.

The system also seems to be designed for people to keep the same base profession for their entire lives...which is just plain silly. And to me, the elite professions just make the whole system more complicated without adding anything useful to the mix. A simple non-punishing system for changing professions would have been far cleaner.

I have some reservation about the advancement (level) system as well. Yes, they are more versatile, which I like. However, I'm having a really hard time figuring out appropriate power levels for the PCs in my game.

Alright, I've gone on long enough. I fully admit that my opinions on some things may change a bit once I've seen the NG. Some things may be prove easier to handle than I expected. I also admit my bias against class-based systems and my preference for skill-based systems. Still, I am not a complete basher of d20 or other class-based systems. In a lot of ways, I find d20 easier to grok than this system (though I have some problems with d20, don't get me wrong).

I'm really not sure if I am going to use CODA for my game. I definitely need to find something other than the ICON/House Rules system I am using now, but the reservations I have about CODA leave me wondering if I should use it or go elsewhere.

Thanks for listening, Don.