CODA combat system

[Profit]

I just finished reading the CODA combat rules and I must say I think these are the worst combat rules i have ever seen and I have seen many.

They are not thematic nor realistic, they are just plain silly. It stands to reason that we fans will have to make alternative combat rules for ourselves.

I'll have a go from the beginning up:

Initiative/actions
There must only be one roll for initiative, never two. Tiebreak with a stat, not another test. Some kind of bunus for "combat experience"
Delayed actions are bad. Better to do it the WW way- have people declare in reverse initiative order but execute in initiative order. Anyone may elect to dodge instead when fired upon.
Actions need to be executed one at a time, not all at the same time. If someone has twice the actions of another, he can take two per action of the other fellow. Sounds complicated, but I'll make an example:

A (2 actions) fights B (3 actions)
, B has initiative. They'll go BABAB.
A (2 actions) fights B (4 actions), B has initiative. They'll go BBABBA

Additional actions must impact upon the TN of all actions in a turn, otherwise it makes no sense not to try for additional actions.

The attack tests I'll leave alone for now.
Stun, Kill, Disintegrate
Have we ever seen any normal being in ST take one of these and not go down? No save, however, make vitality impact how long you're out after a stun. either by tests to recover or "X minus vitality minutes."

Damage
Perhaps the most silly part of all. It takes five to six hacks with a sword to down someone. No chance to know people out without killing.
There needs to be both stun and kill damage, and tests to stay on your feet.
Wound points feels too AD&D for my taste. Perhaps only wound levels, a la Paranoia/WW.

This is far from exhaustive, but it's a start. It's messy but necessary work. I could do with a little help...

//KJB

[Ronin84]

Profit,

On your own, my group and I are happy...but good luck.

Ronin84
Greg

[Joe Dizzy]

On your own, indeed.
I like the combat rules.

Piece of advice: you should never do anything the WW way. That p.o.s. system is just baaaaaaaad.

[C5]

On the whole, I'm rather happy with the CODA system (I haven't tested it, mind), but one thing I fully agree with you on is the damage point. While a standard human in ICON could be decked flat after a punch, with CODA rules, you need at least three slashes of bat'leth to kill someone.

Worse, there are no rules about location of wounds, and, above all, almost nothing on unarmed combat. No manoeuvers, no rules on how to knock someone out (if you follow the rules to the letter, the only way to end an unarmed combat is either a nerve pinch or pummel the opponent to death), and no description on what a wound level takes effect (apart from the dice penalty).

These unarmed combat rules are so vague that I'm wondering whether it was intended by the game designers (to make combats faster or to emphasize the fact that ST is not about combat, or something else that escapes me), or due to be expanded in an upcoming supplement, or even cut off in the editing. I'd really like to have some input on that (Don, Doug ?), just out of pure curiosity.

Otherwise, I have no trouble with creating house rules - there are some very good ones suggested by Lancer about Unarmed Combat on this thread, and some rules about damage in unarmed combat are suggested here.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Profit
This is far from exhaustive, but it's a start. It's messy but necessary work. I could do with a little help...

I can only speak for myself, but if you really want other people's help a good way to get it might be to voice your opinions as just that - a personal opinion. You make it sound as if what you think is the gospel truth and that your opinion is the only way things could be done.
A little less "must" or just calling the rules silly simply because they don't suit you might have been a good idea.

As your posts stands now I for one won't offer you my opinion on the rules, as the only answer I would expect from you was "No no no! You are wrong and I am right."


Sorry dude if this sounds rather harsh, but IMHO you really called for it.

[Profit]

My my, aren't we the touchy one.

Of course these are only suggestions, but that goes without saying, doesn't it?

And the CODA rules are not only silly, they are very silly.

Either you make a realistic combat system, in which case a shotgun blast or Bath'leth slash will kill you, or

you make a thematic (in this case cinematic) combat system, which would let you knock people out, wouldn't keep track of wound points in this manner, etc.

This system is more thematic with regards to AD&D and early fantasy, where you are supposed to be able to take a couple of blows to make combat more interesting. (Which it doesn't, of course, but that's another story.)

//KJB

[PGoodman13]

Originally posted by Profit
My my, aren't we the touchy one.

My, my, aren't we the troll and the lout.

Now, I speak for no one here but myself, and have no connection or affiliation with anyone on these forums outside of normal conversational boundaries, so what I say now in no way reflects the official policies of the webmaster: You might consider taking your stick and stirring up the shitstorms you seem to enjoy so much somewhere else. You're making these forums quite unpleasant for some of the rest of us (in this case, me).

If you want to talk about Star Trek and the gaming system in a calm and rational fashion, without coming in roaring insults about the game and/or the people that produce it, I'll be more than willing to talk to you like a rational adult. On the other hand, if you keep coming and acting like a spoiled child with no sense of proportion or dignity, then I'll just ignore your threads on prinicple, and so will many others, I imagine.

Your call, of course.

[C5]

Originally posted by Profit
And the CODA rules are not only silly, they are very silly.

Though I agree with the fact that a shotgun at point blank range not only kills a guy but also spread him on a large area instead of merely wounding him, I'd suggest to avoid such statements... it never hurts to add a "I think that..." or "I find that...".

Just a piece of advice to keep everyone around here happy and the discussion flowing

[Doug Burke]

::takes off Net Rep Hat::

You know, Profit, I have been running a Coda game for my gaming group since the Player's Guide came out. We've had combats both personal and starship. And both systems have worked just fine.

Nor is it the only combat system I have played with that doesn't follow your model of what "must" happen. So, as someone else said, you might consider adding several references to your stetments being your opinion, because in my experience, the system works just fine the way it's set up.

:: puts Net Rep Hat back on::

Feel free to let me know if you have any actual questions about the system, Profit. If so, I'll be more than happy to answer them.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Profit
My my, aren't we the touchy one.

Of course these are only suggestions, but that goes without saying, doesn't it?

No it doesn't. I read your original post 3 or 4 times and came to the same conclusion each and every time, namely that you weren't making suggestions.
And yes, you are right, sometimes I am a little touchy, but in your case that wasn't the reason for my reaction. As I said IMO you just brought it on yourself.

Either you make a realistic combat system, in which case a shotgun blast or Bath'leth slash will kill you, or you make a thematic (in this case cinematic) combat system, which would let you knock people out, wouldn't keep track of wound points in this manner, etc.

Next time I see shades of grey somewhere just remind me to clean my glasses. Seems I totaly forgot that the world is only black and white.

This system is more thematic with regards to AD&D and early fantasy, where you are supposed to be able to take a couple of blows to make combat more interesting. (Which it doesn't, of course, but that's another story.)

I think it does, but that's besides the point. Something that isn't is the fact that with more blows required you can expect the combat to be less influenced by extreme rolls of the dice, as the results should average out over time.
If it only takes one or two hits to knock someone down (or kill them) you could wipe out a complete group of PCs in the first turn of combat with just a few lucky rolls. I wouldn't consider this desirable for most games - unless you are playing Paranoia and have some more clones on standby.

[Profit]

What is this, choir practise? If this is the reaction when I say something's silly, I can only wonder what you'd say if I told you it "sucked ass"...!

Just out of curiosity, when someone says "That movie sucks" instead of "I think that movie sucks", do you complain?

Doesn't it go without saying that if someone uses a subjective term (e.g. "it sucks" when talking about a movie), as opposed to objective (e.g. "it sucks" when talking about a vacuum cleaner) then it his/her opinion and not an attempt to present it as objective reality?

Or is it just that this is how we talk in Sweden?

//KJB

[Profit]

Doug, when you tested the rules, did anyone get shot with a shotgun?

The rules probably work just fine as long as it just has phasers on stun and kill and people fail the test, for who has ever seen anyone "normal" getting up after a phaser blast?

How am I going to look my players in the eye when they assault someone with a Bath'leth, dak'tagh or whatever, score a solid hit and their opponent doesn't go down? If I tell them that they'll need five or six extra solid blows, they are going to think I'm nuts!

//KJB

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Profit
Doesn't it go without saying that if someone uses a subjective term (e.g. "it sucks" when talking about a movie), as opposed to objective (e.g. "it sucks" when talking about a vacuum cleaner) then it his/her opinion and not an attempt to present it as objective reality?

The thing is that some expression can be used both ways: To voice an opinion and to present something as the one and only objective reality.
Personaly I have known more people than I care to remember who thought they had the answers to everything, while in reality they were just dumb smart alecks. These guys would have sounded the same way you did, while meaning something entirely different.

What I usually use to judge the intention behind a statement are facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, etc. But as all these elements are lacking in a written conversation...

[RIsaacs]

Profit,

I don't think the combat system is "silly," or "very silly."

I think it conforms with the mass of RPGs out there. In D&D, you can take several hits from a sword. In Call of Cthulhu you can suvive a shotgun blast. In Star Wars, you can withstand a whack by a lightsaber.

And yet in the Star Trek RPG, you can set your phaser at it's highest level and vaporize someone instantly.

Which was why we went with a less-lethal system. We figured that if you can be killed instantly from a phaser, we'd better include alternate means of combat and dial back the lethality a bit.

The only real criticism I agree with is the lack of hand to hand combat system.

If you want a realistic combat system, then graft on your favorite ultra-realistic combat system.

I believe everyone is upset with the tone of your postings because you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In every RPG I've ever seen, the designers say "if you don't like something, change it to suit your tastes." This isn't a cop-out; this is an acknowledgement that some people have very strong feelings about something, as you do, and will want to change things.

So change the combat system to your liking. But that doesn't mean the entire game is "silly."

Ross A. Isaacs

[C5]

Just one thing, Profit : I think there is no test to resist a Kill setting (the asterisk in the PG is an error). A phaser set on Kill just kills.
As for staying alive after a phaser blast, we have seen that many times on screen, so I'd say the phaser may be the only weapon whose damages fit with what happens in the series.