A not entirely positive review of CODA... (very long!)

[C5]

The thing that really gets me is that everyone who is a full fledged supporter of the game is always quick to say that it is nothing like D20. Please, just admit it and alot of friction would diappear...Here I'll even help wiith the healing process say it with me "It is almost exactly like D20." Admitting it the first step.

You know what ? I just don't care. CODA could be a D20 rip-off (BTW I don't know D20 well either), as long as I find the system generally good, I really couldn't care less. And I happen to find it good (though I agree that the PG layout is horrible at some places, with a lot of typos and errata remaining).

I don't really understand why the fact that CODA looks more or less like D20 should be so important and affect CODA's quality. It would be like saying "Hey, DS9 is a B5 rip-off, admit it" "No, it isn't, because DS9 is better than B5" (or the contrary).

[Calcoran]

Funny ... my first thought when reading this review:
<I>Is this a Troll?</I>
My second thought:
<I>Why o God is there so much hate in the world?</I> ...

I mean ... you don't like CODA ... well, fine, but why share it with everyone? What's the point? I can understand when someone who likes CODA as a whole suggests improvements here and there ... but I don't see the point of going through a book in such a mindset saying: "whatever is written, it'll be bad, and even if something is good I'll find a lot of bad things about it". Of course, if you do so you won't like the book, even if it needs you to sometimes read things the wrong way just to prove you're right (pick method for attributes for instance).

That said, there are one or two things in the review that were well phrased, and that I partly agree with (the "shoehorning" part specially) ... but being constructive here wouldn't hurt either, would it? Proposing a variation of the "Mystic" profession, asking for rule clarifications or advice, or even <I>giving</I> advice to the representatives who could forward them to TPTB ... anything, really, would be more usefull than such a negative point of view. Well, all this IMbnmsHO of course .

[Dan Stack]

Hey, I get to be Moderator for the first time in ages...

[Moderator Mode = On]

Since this is thread is probably against the common opinion here, I'd like to remind everyone to keep it civil. If you disagree with the review, please explain why you do (as many have done so), as opposed to simply giving a thumbs down.

[Moderator Mode = Off]

[Lancer]

Okay I'll explain my thumbs down of this review. But before we go into any details here are my biggest three complaints:

(1) In the review there are at least 4 different statements mentioning " d20 copies/coppying" and the whole sound of the review is the same in many places, i.e. Coda is copied from d20.

This makes me just a little mad, because to me it says in no uncertain terms that the people who wrote CODA just stole most of the rules from d20! Taking similarities (or what may look similar at first glance) as a basis for an accusation of plagiarism is very unfair an IMO uncalled for.
None of us know the reasoning behind the decisions that turned CODA into the game it is now and calling similarities "copies" does nothing to endear this review to me. That some game systems solve similar situations in similar ways is no uncommon occurence and should not be taken as the basis of such an accusation.

(2) My second complaint about this review is that I find it too opinionated. Sure, every review is all about someones opinion about some book, movie or RPG, but a good review should (IMnshO) at least give it's subject a fair chance. To achieve that both good and bad aspects should be considered which I just can't see in this review.
To me it seems that Siroth wrote his review more on the grounds of his first impression and much less after carefull consideration of the whole game. Waiting with the review until after a test-run of the game couldn't have hurt either.

(3) Another thing I don't fancy much about this review is the way it always compares CODA to ICON and/or d20, instead of judging CODA on it's own merit.
Sure, drawing comparisons is certainly a valid way reviewing a product, but here it is use waaay to much.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, to comment on some specific arguments:

Originally posted by Siroth
In ICON all 'species' (Templates in ICON) had fixed attributes. You never rolled for stats, you just adopted whatever your species gave you, then proceeded on that basis to built your attributes with Development Points (DP) before you even began playing. You could raise attributes all the way to the maximum 5 (or 6 in some cases), but only by then choosing not to get some else instead. The key word here is choice, because in ICON that's what you had - you had to _choose_ your stats and live with those choices! In CODA species simply have modifiers to attributes, just as characters do in WOTC's d20 system.

Yes, the keyword is choice. But CODA no more restricts this choice by using attribute modifiers than ICON did. In ICON some species started with higher attributes or Edges than others. The same applies to CODA, with the only difference being that CODA expresses these differences between the species as modifiers to the attributes, while ICON worked them into the starting attributes as shown on the templates, but the end result is the same. In both rules some species have higher attributes than others and/or have a higher attribute maximum.
More about freedom of choice later on in the part about attributes.

I don't like that each species has a 'favored profession' because somehow it seems to 'force' certain choices on people. Sure, the rules tell us not to consider this a 'straight-jacket', but then why include a 'favored profession' entry in the first place? If there is a need to say many Vulcans are diplomats or scientists, then obviously it would have been included under the 'personality' for that species...

Why would it be obvious to place a referrence to the game mechanics in an entry that talkes about the species from a cultural POV? The separate entry for 'favored profession' makes more sense the way it is now, since it keeps background information and rules information neatly separated.

The various species descritions are pretty much what can be expected, except for some odd choices and a strange tendency to favor humans... I'm not sure, but is favoring humans over other species in an RPG a form of racism? Humans get a bonus to 'reactions' (see below), extra courage, and additional skill levels. The latter sounds very much like d20/3e where humans get extra skill points, doesn't it?

I can't see how humans are oh so favored in this game. Betazoids get access to Psi - is that worse than a human's bonus to skills? Are Klingons weaker than humans? Is the Eidetic memory edge of Cardassians not one of the most usefull (IMHO almost overpowered) edges in the game?
Sure, humans have more freedom of choice in how they apply their bonuses, but that doesn't favor them much, if any, as other species get usefull advantages too.

And talking of humans, yes they get extra courage, a reaction bonus and extra skill points, but the later is the only similarity to d20 here. 2 out of 3 which are not similar to d20 doesn't seem so bad, yet the review emphasis the one similarity and ignores the rest.

Chapter 3 is about professions. I knew I wasn't going to like this the moment I began it. Why? Because these 'professions' are Classes similar to d20/3e rather than the 'overlays' from ICON, and so it forces people into them.

ICON overlays told me which skills I had and which I didn't. CODA tells me what skills fit my profession and allows me to choose which of those skills I want to have and which I don't want. there is more freedom of choice here and not less, at least as far as the class vs. overlay argument is concerned.
I can see your point about character development and advancement later in the review, but I think too much of it has been injected into a part of the review that sets out to adress only chapter 3 of the book.

Think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at the examples of soldiers. The last one mentioned is Odo. Odo is a soldier?!?
...snip...
..., so he bloody well better fit into the soldier profession whether he likes it or not!

Oh please, just saying that Professions shoehorn a character because of one example that is hard to agree with seems a bit unfair to me.

The big difference was that they also had the 'Hides Emotions' Disadvantage which supported the ideas of how they should be role-played. There is nothing like this in CODA, however, so you'd think it is fine for Vulcans to show emotions except for a single line about it in the description of their personality. ...
... So in CODA you simply get a Vulcan who is, for some inexplicable reason, good at being a diplomat even though he is heavily penalized in its primary relevant attribute - you just have to take the book's word for it!

So you want more freedom of choice and less restrictions on how you develop your character, yet you ask for the game to tell you "better play a Vulcan without emotions or else"? This looks somewhat contradictory to me.
And while I don't have my PG with me right now I'd say that the professional abilities and professional skills do a lot more to define how good a Diplomat someone is, than the attribute bonus for Presence.

Anyway, this is where the 'ICON dropped, d20 adopted' philosophy really becomes clear. As mentioned above, ICON had fixed attributes for each species. In CODA you roll them like you do in d20/3e. No, not exactly the same way, since in CODA you roll 2d6 for each attribute, giving a range from 2 to 12, while d20 has you roll 3d6 (in various ways) for ability scores ranging from 3 to 18. But obviously the principle is exactly the same - you just roll with one less die.

And you roll your attributes randomly in a whole bunch of other RPGs; CODA and d20 BTW are certainly not the only ones that use d6 for that, yet CODA is so very much like d20.
I could just as well say that CODA and d20 are not at all alike, because one uses 2d6 for skill-checks and the other uses a d20.

Yes, you get a 'pick method', which means you can take a predetermined list of fixed scores, which you then assign to the various attributes. Some might argue this retains ICON's choice, but then you can do that in d20/3e too, except that nobody ever does... If the chance to roll better scores is there, people are going to do that rather than accept a list of fixed scores, especially when the starting maximum is 12 and the higest in the fixed list of the 'pick method' is a 10

Now either you have missed it while reading the book or you just neglect to mention it because you want to make your point here, but you get 8 points to spent on the attributes you like with the pick method. That brings the maximum up to 12 again.
Plus, the total of the attribute scores with the pick method is 50, the average of 2d6 x6 is 42. What makes you so sure nobody will pick their attributes?

CODA has changed the names a little and lists them in a different order (but then there have been several orders in D&D as well), but take my word for it - they are exactly the same,...

Not in each case; Perception (CODA) is very different from Wisdom (d20) as the later encompasses perception, but also has a lot of other aspects that aren't part of CODA's Perception Attribute. Intelligence in d20 gives a bonus to skill points at each level, in CODA the bonus (to species skills) applies only during character creation. In d20 Hit Points are only influenced by Constitution, in CODA Strength plays a role as well.
Again I have to ask myself if you just failed to see this or if you used the wording "exactly" to make your point, even if it isn't exactly correct.

(... to be continued...)

[Eric R.]

Being an old gronard myself I find this all very funny, I mean in the old days you openned a Wargame and what did you get, A hex map, Rulebook (most of the time restating the same rules over and over again), counters, and of course the Combat Results table or CRT. The innovation was in the 1. how the rules were applied to the situtaion and 2. what special rules where added to make the situation apply.

Now if you only go with that you will see how ridiculeus arguing over what rule system is being used as they are virtually all the same!

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Siroth
Personally I preferred ICON in this respect since it didn't put restrictions on you that way - you could take as many Advantages and Disadvantages as you liked as long as the DP added up, and I know I chose plenty for my characters. I chose Disadvantages to the extent I was allowed without knowing what to do with the DP it gave me simply because it gave the individual I was trying to create _character_ (besides, using up DP is never a problem...). The problem here is that having 'only' two flaws prevents players from creating complex characters.

It only prevents you from creating a complex character if you insist that every aspect of the character should be reflected on your character sheet in game terms. If you want to play an arrogant character, just do it. Want to play a shy, agressive or xenophobic character, just do it.
I fail to see a convincing argument against CODA here, especialy if you are really used to choosing disadvantages because of the personality you want to play and not because of the extra points they give you.

The one thing I don't like is that annoying use of 2d6 for skill checks. ICON had you roll a number of dice equal to the relevant attribute, whereas CODA's method is, again, copied directly from d20/3e. Argue all you want, but just look at the Character Record Sheets for both CODA and then d20/3e and note the skill lists, then try to tell me they aren't so similar it's just scary.

Copied directly? 2d6 is the same as 1d20? And the skill lists are so very similar? How many skills are there in CODA that aren't in d20 and vice versa? Riding, Concentration, Alchemy, Handle Animal, Computer Use, System Operation, System Engineering, etc. etc. etc.
Okay, there are similarities, but OTOH there are only so many different skills you can define for human beings. So of course there are parallels, but that doesn't prove that CODA is just a copy of d20. At least not more than it is a copy of ICON, Runequest, Rolemaster or Cyberpunk.

And one important difference you fail to acknowledge is that in CODA all combat results are derived from skill checks, be it in ranged, armed or unarmed combat. In this (IMO quite important aspect of skill use) the similarity ends, if not sooner.

ICON's problem here was that specializations (as they were called) worked contrary to the advancement of themselves and the dominant skill, since you could not raise a skill level above the level of any specialization under it, and you could not take a skill that had specializations under it without having at least one specialization, meaning that taking more than one was a bad idea unless you had a skill level already at the maximum (5). For example, I had a character with Starship Tactics (Cardassian) (Dominion) 1 (2) (2). This character could increase his skill level to 2, but not to 3 until both specializations had been raised to 3 first.

Now it's been some months since I last played an ICON game, but I think you got that wrong. You are in no way (in no way that I remember at least) forbidden to raise a skill above the level of the specializations.

CODA fixes this problem nicely of losses to the transition, although it destroys choice by removing both DP and XP. But unlike ICON, it is now certainly a benefit to take as many specialties as early and as often as possible, and a real choice whether you should take specialties or improve the general skill level when you can.

Specialties are only a real asset - as far as game mechanics are concerned - in non-professional skills. For professional skill the same cost as two Specialties raises the whole skill by 2 points. Certainly better to have a +2 for all uses of a skill, than just for two Specialties under this same skill, if you ask me.
For non-professional skills OTOH the same 2 picks will only raise the skill by 1, so it is more of an advantage to buy Specialties for those skills.

There are lists of Traits (Edges and Flaws) in chapter 7, but I cover that elswhere... One thing, though. Some of the Edges have names like Alert, Ambidextrous, Exceptional Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Quick Draw, Quick Shot, Skill Focus, Two-handed Fighting, and Weapon Mastery... Really, people, if CODA is going to so blantantly copy the Feats of 3e/d20, then at least change the names a little more than that. Some of them haven't even changed at all, and the others just use 'alert' instead of 'alertness' or 'exceptional fortitude' instead of 'great fortitude'. You want to do d20 then fine, but do it under the open-gaming license so that it remains obvious to people.

So some of the edges have very similar or identical names to d20 feats. Is that because the authors wanted to copy d20 or because some of those names are just the best way to sum up the use/effect of an edge, i.e. similarity = coincidence? I don't know. But the point is, neither do you, unless you were involved in writing this game, so it might have been better not to make any wild accusations of blatant copying - again.

In ICON the Narrator gave out a number of XP after each adventure which players then could use to improve their characters with. This gave a nice and consequent flow of development for a character in a balanced skill-based game, where the number of XP depended entirely on how well a character had been role-played.

One good thing about the CODA XP, compared to the ICON XP is tha higher number of XP you earn for an average CODA adventure. In ICON you earned about 2 or 3 points for an average adventure while in CODA it is something between 250 and 350 points (or that's my best guess, as I just started may CODA game). With ICON I always found it difficult to hand out a bonus for a good idea or a well played scene, as just one more XP for a single player could in effect raise his XP gain for any adventure 50% over the rest of the group. Something you could hardly call a "small bonus". In CODA a have a lot more room to make small adjustments to individual XP awards for good ideas or good/bad roleplaying.

ICON had it right in that the Narrator just had to decide on how well people role-played, whether the achieved the object of the adventure, and to how high a degree of success if so - ICON gave players nothing for killing evil Romulans and so. I haven't seen the Narrator's Guide, but there is little point in accumulating experience points if not for the purpose of giving people points for details like that.

In ICON you gained experience, but not for killing other people, i.e. no "kill points". In CODA you gain experience, yet here it must somehow be for killing 'evil Romulans'?!?!? Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see the logic in that.

...snip... in fact, since 'monster slashing' translated as 'poor role-playing' in ICON. This was clear to players and narrators alike in ICON. It is not in CODA.

Without even knowing jack about the NG a statement like "It is not in CODA" comes damn close to a lie - you don't know it, yet you state it as a fact. If that's not a lie it is at the very least a decption, maybe even an intentional one, sometimes known as wilful deceit.


Sorry if this all sounds rather harsh and in some places condescending, but there are certain things I expect from a review, none of which you delivered.
Sure, you are in no way obliged to write a review that makes me happy or that I find enjoyable to read, but if you want to rant don't call it a review.

[PGoodman13]

Originally posted by Siroth
The one thing I don't like is that annoying use of 2d6 for skill checks. ICON had you roll a number of dice equal to the relevant attribute, whereas CODA's method is, again, copied directly from d20/3e.

Whereas Icon's method can be said to have been copied just as directly from White Wolf's Storyteller system or Shadowrun, both of which also have you roll a number of dice equal to the attribute or skill in question.

Sorry, this doesn't work as an argument if you only approach it from one angle.

[pathstrider]

Guys... though I don't agree with what the thread starter said about CODA, I have been disturbed at some of the replies in this thread (Though some of them have been thoughtful, informed and useful) which have been... unhelpful to say the least.

I'll explain a little why I feel strongly about this. I also post on some of the Wizards boards, as well as RPG.net and to be frank... they're not nice places a lot of the time. People will say something, and get flamed or insulted away.

This board is usually really, really good, and I dunno if everyone realises that - particularly (Though I admit I have no idea what boards people post on) if this is the only place they post.

I don't want to harang anyone (and thus degatinging my entire point), It's just I enjoy the level of informed discussion on this boards, and it pains me to see it destroyed.

Thanks,

Mark

[Calcoran]

Errr ... on the usenet flamometer, I wouldn't say this thread broke any barrier ... I'd even say it'd rank about last on the ladder where hell'd be on top . (trying to plagiate Terry Pratchett without much success, sorry)

People do not agree with the review, and they said so, most even said why they didn't agree, which strikes me as pretty well behaved for an internet discussion . There was no namecalling, and all in all I must say I feared worse from this thread .

[pathstrider]

Errr ... on the usenet flamometer, I wouldn't say this thread broke any barrier ... I'd even say it'd rank about last on the ladder where hell'd be on top . (trying to plagiate Terry Pratchett without much success, sorry)

Granted... I guess that's why I'm concened about it I guess. It is _that_ good. I admit I've probabley slightly overreacted.


Mark.

[Calcoran]

That said, I still feel posting a CODA review that is about 95% negative on a CODA forum is a bit ... unwise?

[pathstrider]

That said, I still feel posting a CODA review that is about 95% negative on a CODA forum is a bit ... unwise?

No argmuement there. But just cause some one shouts 'Hit ME!'' doesn't mean we should...


Mark

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy
Hmmm... interesting, though too simple-minded, prejudiced and quite misinformed in cases to be of much value.

But then again why should I care?

Joe

I think I've been insulted. (shrug)

I guess the message is clear, if you don't have anything good (even minutely negative) don't say anything. At least here in Dec. country.

[qerlin]

"...if you are really used to choosing disadvantages because of the personality you want to play and not because of the extra points they give you..."

You can always do what our group does...take the disadvantges you feel are appropriate -- the hell with the official limits. Your game, after all. And I like teh extra points it gives the characters...why the heck not?

[Dan Stack]

Originally posted by Phantom
I think I've been insulted. (shrug)

[Moderator hat on]
I guess the message is clear, if you don't have anything good (even minutely negative) don't say anything. At least here in Dec. country.

I'd ask perhaps that you trust the administration and moderators to keep the forum one where debate is welcome.

If you (or anyone else) feels my initial responses were inadequate, I can be contacted via e-mail or private message. Dan Gurden and Don are also available for that purpose.