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

[Phantom]

Originally posted by C5
One thing I still fail to understand is why CODA looking like D20 (on wich I can't have an opinion on the account of me not knowing D20) would make the game bad.

It doesn't. It is just that everytime the comparison is made everyone who had anything to do with making the game gets huffy and says "It's nothing like D&D." As far as I can see it is this group who seem to think that it is a bad thing. I have no complaints about it.

[Siroth]

Originally posted by Capt Daniel Hunter
As far as Odo is concerned, the Soldier package is suitable to him, since he certainly isn't a starship officer. He's a law enforcement officer. Big difference.

Why? Odo uses no weapons and knows no unarmed combat, but that's because he needs neither given that he's a changeling. Other than that it is merely that he works for the Bajorans instead of Starfleet that puts him apart from other security officers we've seen, primarily Worf or Tuvok. He solves his cases the same way they do, finding clues in the same manner, and performing surveillance techniques like they do. So why is Starship Officer inappropriate?

If it's because he works for the Bajorans then I'll point out that the Bajorans do have starships, we just don't see a lot of them. And we saw Odo on one with Kira early in the seventh season of DS9.

If it's because he is not assigned to a starship, then why is Sisko, O'Brien, Bashir, or Dax Starship Officers unlike Odo given that they work on a space station like Odo does?

In fact, any argument that might be made against Odo being a Starship Officer is likely to be just as appropriate against him being a Soldier, since Odo clearly has no military training or warlike background that would make him one...

Under CODA, a character can start out as a merchant, for example, and progress through any career path they want, if they have the XP for it. I don't see how that is any less flexible than ICON. Which, if you want to take the rules literally, also requires you to sit down, pick a series of packages, and write down what you get.

At the basic level, yes, but the TNG and DS9 core books both (p.77 and 58 respectively) had rules for 'advanced character creation' where you took a set number of DP and made up the character from scratch, not choosing any packages, overlays (= profession), or even templace (= species). Yes, as a Narrator I would probably make certain requirements on such characters, but the option where there, whereas it is not available in CODA - there is no alternative to taking a profession. You must choose one.

[Siroth]

Originally posted by AllenS
No, it does not. It does say that when spending your advancement picks you can only improve two at a time, no matter how many you have.

Yes, that is precisely what it says. Given how confused people seem to be by the PG, I'll just point out that the rule is on p.155 under the heading "Restrictions on Multiple Professions".

In fact, it says, "Regardless of how many professions (basic or elite) the character joins, he may make professional skill and ability picks from only two of them during an advancement".

But it does not, to my knowledge, limit you on how many you can have. I personally place limits on the characters in my Starfleet campaign to avoid straining credibility, but in a non-Starfleet game I would not.

Right, except that the errata thread Don is running seems to tell us something else. Look at the very first post in it, right at the end. It says:

Q: Can a character ever select/purchase a second base profession?
A: No. A character only has one base profession. Characters may purchase as many Elite Professions as they qualify for, as per the rules.

Now, this is really confusing insofar that the above quote from the PG suggests you may indeed take more than one base profession, you just cannot have more than one active at any time.

If we take the 'Odo is a soldier' example I've been using, this means that Odo can _never_ become a starship officer, nor can he _ever_ gain the Starship Duty edge since another part of the errata says that you cannot take that Professional Ability through the Innovative edge.

Now I could be wrong, but to me that suggests the consequence that unless a person begins the game being a Starship Officer, he can never be in command since he can never gain the Starship Duty ability... That seems 'un-Trek' somehow.

The Command/Operations/Science professions are elite professions rather than base professions, so a person might qualify for them in that manner, but obviously this does not give the character the Starship Duty ability, and the character still cannot get it for the reasons noted above. Is this a genuine hole in the rules?

On the same note, Starship Officer is a base profession while the Command/Operations/Science options are elite professions. A new Starfleet officer starts off as a Starship Officer as well as taking one of the three options, right? Well, that's two professions... Doesn't that mean this character is at the 'two-professions only' limit already?

Sure, he can take a third if he wants to, but if you look at p.155 you'll note that a character doesn't simply 'switch over' when advancing. No, he actually have to pay all five picks from his advancement, and then 'drop' one of his former professions. Doesn't this make it rather costly for a Starship Officer to 'expand' his horizon? Somehow that doesn't fit Trek either...

[AslanC]

Wow.

You'd think this was a political thread

At the end of the day play what you like and stop shouting each other down.

This is not going to end guys, you are not going to convince each other of your views.

All you are doing is digging in and gathering your support for a long and messy conflict.

Good luck. While you guys are arguing, some of us will just be playing (ICON and CODA) and having a blast

[Siroth]

Originally posted by C5
One thing I still fail to understand is why CODA looking like D20 (on wich I can't have an opinion on the account of me not knowing D20) would make the game bad.

A game looking similar to another game doesn't make it bad per se, merely unoriginal to some point, and obviously few RPGs can claim to be terribly original...

No, IMHO the 'd20 copy' thing being used as criticism of CODA comes about as I see CODA as being basically ICON except with lots of stuff removed and all that replaced by things that look a lot like d20/D&D3e. Since I do not like d20 (and certainly less than ICON), this is not a positive thing to me.

Besides, I think the complexity of a RPG system makes it hard to tell if it really looks like another or not. After all, how do you define a system ? Is the way skill tests are made ? The character generation process ? The character progression ?

I would say all of the above

The type of dices you use ?

This is not terribly important, really. Besides, ICON and CODA use the same dice (d6), they just don't use them the same way.

The setting ?

A setting is obviously of immense important to the specific game, but it does not matter such much to the system itself. CODA is used for both LOTR and Star Trek, for example, and those are two very different settings. Comparatively, d20 is used for both D&D 3e and Star Wars, albeit with modifications in the latter (which improve upon the system IMHO). That said, the basic system for those games remain the same respectively.

The layout of the corebook ?

The quality of this does not speak to the quality of the game, although bad layout can certainly make or break a game. After all, a system can be as good as it wants to be, but it will still find little success if the books are really confusing. CODA Trek is not off to a good start there, I fear, although it is actually less rules-heavy than D&D 3e since there are no levels and none of all those endless spell descriptions (which give old-timers a real headache as they can't get used to how Stoneskin works now...)

For instance, CODA has something that can be called levels (advancements), but they don't function at all like in D20 AFAIK; so is there a likeness or not ?

Advancements are not levels. The only likeness they have with levels is the way they are earned. In ICON you got a number of xp when the current episode/scenario was over. How many you got depended on the success of the mission and your role-playing and a host of other things. It had no relevance on subsequent episodes.

In CODA you accumulate xp as you do in d20/3e. If you think of your CODA character as a 'level 1 D&D' character, then it's similar in that you need to gain a total of 1000 xp to get to the next 'level'. How many episodes you play has no bearing on this - it can take as many or as few as the Narrator likes, and you get nothing until you get those 1000 xp. However, once you do, you get five picks to choose abilities, skills, etc. with. You do not, however, reach 'level 2' and automatically gain new abilities as you do in D&D.

For example, in D&D your 'saving throws' are a function of your class, level, and ability scores, and nothing else defines them. They increase automatically as you increase in class (by taking a different class), level, or ability scores. Though CODA reactions look mostly identical to D&D saves to me, you do not increase them this way. Your initial reactions are functions of your profession (= D&D class) and attributes (= D&D ability scores), but after that they increase only if you assign picks to them. Not even an increase to a relevant attribute will increase them.

For instance, the character creation process is quite simple, much simpler than ICON (choose a race, a profession, two developpements packages, an edge, some flaws/edge, your species skills, and calculate you reactions scores - none of this "what if I get the same skill twice" dilemmas), but since it's somehow scattered among the book with few sidebars summarizing it, it looks much more difficult.

Well, I disagree with that. Like D&D, CODA rules take time to create a character, since you have to choose your abilities in a lot of different areas and roll stats. In ICON you merely chose, and that was the end of it, and it gave you more options than CODA does. As the 'what if I get the same skill twice' thing can be annoying, but it's not as if there weren't ways to solve it. And I'd rather live with that than be restricted from certain abilities because it's tied to a specific profession.

And it's true that some rules can be very easily found... once you take the time to deduce them from other, instead of plainly reading them. For instance, I calculated that a new character is roughly worth 300 picks (plus the species skills), and the profession edges can be grouped in different genres, but it's not written anywhere and left to the gamer who wants to find it. That indeed can be a drawback.

My point exactly.

In a way, this may make CODA closer to Linux ("it's rough, but if you don't like that, you can recode it") than Windows ("it's easy, but you can't change it a bit"). Maybe does it aim a more experienced type of gamers.

Hehe. By that analogy, CODA is Windows while ICON is Linux

(Siroth ducking for cover...)

[Dan Stack]

I've opened another thread to discuss what characters can be made in Coda. I'd encourage all who believe the Professions are too rigid to post character concepts so we can determine if that is indeed the case.

http://forum.trek-rpg.net/showthread...&threadid=5753

[AllenS]

Originally posted by Siroth
Now, this is really confusing insofar that the above quote from the PG suggests you may indeed take more than one base profession, you just cannot have more than one active at any time.

I don't see anything in the book that says that you can't. Of course, Don may have inside information that I do not (and obviously does). I do know that in Lord of the Rings it specifically states you can have more than one Order (which is that game's version of basic profession). So, if a GM wanted to allow multiple basic professions as long as any prereq's were met (if any), they have precedent in the CODA system for doing so.

Multiple basic professions are probably prohibited for reasons of game balance and preventing munchkinism but of course what you do in your own game is your business.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Originally posted by Siroth
Why? Odo uses no weapons and knows no unarmed combat, but that's because he needs neither given that he's a changeling. Other than that it is merely that he works for the Bajorans instead of Starfleet that puts him apart from other security officers we've seen, primarily Worf or Tuvok. He solves his cases the same way they do, finding clues in the same manner, and performing surveillance techniques like they do. So why is Starship Officer inappropriate?

I disagree. He is not a starship officer. And neither is Kira for that matter. Their training and experience is totally different to that of a starship officer. Worf and your other examples trained as starship officers. Odo did not.

Originally posted by Siroth

If it's because he works for the Bajorans then I'll point out that the Bajorans do have starships, we just don't see a lot of them. And we saw Odo on one with Kira early in the seventh season of DS9.

If it's because he is not assigned to a starship, then why is Sisko, O'Brien, Bashir, or Dax Starship Officers unlike Odo given that they work on a space station like Odo does?

In fact, any argument that might be made against Odo being a Starship Officer is likely to be just as appropriate against him being a Soldier, since Odo clearly has no military training or warlike background that would make him one...

So Odo was on a starship. So what? So was Guinan. Being on a starship doesn't make you a starship officer.

Sisko et al were trained as starship officers. Odo was not. Soldier is, IMHO, probably the easiest profession to fit Odo into (though I actually think a fair argument could be made for Rogue - rogues don't need to be on the wrong side of the law after all). Still, a larger selection of professions would have been better, since none of them really seem to fit Odo exactly. I still think Soldier is the closest fit though. The description of Starship Officer doesn't even begin to describe Odod. And you're forgetting the profession is what a character starts as. It's just a base profession, and doesn't stop him from expanding into starship duties or whatever the hell he wants. I still think you're taking the professions far too literally.

Originally posted by Siroth


At the basic level, yes, but the TNG and DS9 core books both (p.77 and 58 respectively) had rules for 'advanced character creation' where you took a set number of DP and made up the character from scratch, not choosing any packages, overlays (= profession), or even templace (= species). Yes, as a Narrator I would probably make certain requirements on such characters, but the option where there, whereas it is not available in CODA - there is no alternative to taking a profession. You must choose one.

Again, you're assuming the professions lock you into developing your character a certain way. They don't. Would I like a wider selection of base professions? Probably, but then the PG tells us we can expect to see more professions in future supplements. And frankly, nothing stops you sitting down with the book and creating some of your own. Besides, the professions don't stop you picking whatever skills you want, sicne you can create both your own personal and professional development packages.

Yes, the PG is very badly laid out, and we all know the game isn't perfect, but perhaps before you start ripping the game to bits, you ought to actually read the NG so that you are a bit better versed in the system.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Originally posted by Siroth
An I'd rather live with that than be restricted from certain abilities because it's tied to a specific profession.

No abilities are truly restricted. The rules allow you to develop your character any way you want. It merely costs you a little more if it's not a profession skill or ability. But buying innovative as often as you like counters that. Which is, IMHO, and good way of controlling munchkinism, as well as a bit more representative of real life. For instance, I'd have to spend way more free time learning how to fix a car engine, (I know nothing about mechanics) than I would have to to improve my cannulation ability, since one is part of my job and core experience, and one isn't. yet given enough time, I could become as proficient at my non professional skill as ay my professional skill.

[Phantom]

If the Soldier prof. is the closest fit for Odo then I would say that other prof overlays are needed. Because the distance between Odo and a 'Soldier' is about 1 AU.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Siroth
Sure, he can take a third if he wants to, but if you look at p.155 you'll note that a character doesn't simply 'switch over' when advancing. No, he actually have to pay all five picks from his advancement, and then 'drop' one of his former professions. Doesn't this make it rather costly for a Starship Officer to 'expand' his horizon? Somehow that doesn't fit Trek either...

Read the errata; you don't have to sepnd all 5 picks if you want to 'expand your horizon' by taking another Starship Officer elite profession. All you need to do is spend 3 picks for another 'Starship Duty' ability. If you want to take up another EP, than you pay the 5 picks.
As the Starship Officer professions are Elite Professions you immediately gain a professional ability from your new EP (worth 3 picks), as per the rules on p. 155. So a Starship Officer can enter another of his EPs at effectively +/-0 pick cost.

IIRC another thing that's not in the errata - but was mentioned by Don or Doug somewhere on this board - is, that the 'two professions' limitation applies to elite professions only and doesn't include your basic profession.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Originally posted by Phantom
If the Soldier prof. is the closest fit for Odo then I would say that other prof overlays are needed. Because the distance between Odo and a 'Soldier' is about 1 AU.

Hmm, maybe you should read all my reply, since I mentioned that myself. I also pointed out that the PG also tells us that we will see more professions in future supplements. And while we're on the subject, the description of the soldier profession specifically mentions soldier encompasses police officers. The title of soldier seems to be a catch-all, and not entirely descriptive of it's intention. Solider was probably not the best choice of name, since obviously some people have a hard time seeing past the name, to the description.

[Phantom]

I guess I could've been a bit more clear. My point was that, IMHO, it was a little silly to include Odo and not have a 'Law Enforcement' package available. Make the character right the first time, or wait until you have created the right package.

And before someone once again states the "make it up yourself" arguement, that is not the reason I picked up the game. I want a system that is ready to go quickly, make the character and your gone. I don't want to waste my time coming up with an idea, writting it out, getting GM permission, revamping the idea, and going through the cycle again. I bought the game with the understanding that it was a complete system.

Note: this is a general statement on game systems. It is not entirely aimed at just Dec. but other systems that are out there.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Originally posted by Phantom
I guess I could've been a bit more clear. My point was that, IMHO, it was a little silly to include Odo and not have a 'Law Enforcement' package available. Make the character right the first time, or wait until you have created the right package.

That is a fair point. And I wonder if we'll see such a profession in later supplements. A law enforcement profession would have been a good addition.

That said, I don't have any major issues with it as it is. I just figure that soldier doesn't always mean soldier. And I suspect that if the profession had been named something more generic, this probably wouldn't be an issue.

Talking of which, given the way you can make up your own development packages, I usually let my players pick any development packages they want, from any profession, if they have a good reason for it. Or they get to make their own. Of course, I was never one for letting the rules totally rule my decisions

[aelius]

Okay, hear I go.

1. Coda does have some similarities to D&D 3E. So what? In my opinion it is far more flexable. The Innovative edge and the professional ability of Rounded mean that no skill or professional ability is out of reach so you are not restricted to abilities from your class as with D&D. And just for the record, I hate D&D 3E, but that doesn't stop me from liking Coda. The difference is flexability. There are no automatic increases with advancement, it is completely up to you what you increase when you get your points. If it bothers you that non professional skills cost more then think of it this way, the nonprofessional cost is the normal one and the professional cost is an advantage because you have trained extensively in the skills that you make use of most.

2. As to Odo being a Soldier, that makes perfect sense. In the professional development section there are packages listed for each profession. One of the packages under Soldier is Law Enforcement Officer. This package contains the base skills that a cop would need. Also, saying that cops don't need weapons skills in their profession because Odo did not use weapons doesn't make sense. Odo had an edge most cops don't, so he did not buy the weapons skills that are available to Law Enforcement Officers and instead focused on the investigative side of his profession. This is perfectly in keeping with both the rules and the setting.

3. Having said all of this, enjoy playing whatever game floats your boat, it's all for fun anyway.