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

[Siroth]

A not entirely positive review of CODA, or "d20 travelling incognito..."

Before I begin I'd first like to apoligize to people for this long, long review. I got the Player's Guide the other day, and this is my reaction, but I guess I got a little carried away. This will be long, so I'll continue my review in several posts after each other, but all in this threat.

Secondly, I'll warn people that I'll make references to the d20 system by Wizards of the Coast (WOTC), particularly the new (!) D&D 3rd Edition (3e) game that launched it. I've been a D&D game master for more than a decade, so the new edition was a big thing for me...

I should also begin by admitting that I've played LUG Trek RPG for years and think ICON is one of the best systems I've ever encountered, and I've played games like Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars RPG, Vampire the Masquerade, and a host of others over the years. And ICON is about the best mix comprises a game has yet offered between not-overly-complicated rules and credibility that doesn't suspend your disbelief every two seconds with rules that are either stupidly unrealistic (like D&D's 'hit points') or joy-killing details (like ICE's endless tables in Role Master...).

That I like ICON so much and know that CODA is conceived and developed by mostly the same people makes this even harder to bear, because CODA is just a huge leap backwards from ICON in my opinion... I've looked only at the Player's Guide so far, but it's obvious which way the game is going. Let me just describe my thoughts according to the chapters of that book.

Chapter 1 is a pretty straight-forward description of Trek, so nothing much there, except for the glossary that had comments in it that didn't exactly fill me with confidence... This became even more clear by the time I reached the 'character sheets' of Archetypes, but I digress.

Chapter 2 was the first disappointment. 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. This is the main problem with CODA because all the things that have been removed from the ICON system have now been replaced by annoying d20 copies. I'll demonstrate how this happens over and over below... If you love d20 that is probably a good thing, but as you can probably tell, I'm a determined skeptic of it myself...

Anyway, there are then descriptions of each species. CODA scores a few points here because it actually includes examples of names that individuals of the various species have, something that was sorely lacking in ICON. These are described as "possible character names" which is a problem because it's misleading in that all the names listed are names of characters from the various shows. Choosing them for a character quickly becomes woefully unoriginal, which should have been mentioned. Not so cool, but the lists are nice as examples of the nomenclature within each species, and I definitely think CODA scores points for having them.

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... I kept waiting to find a rule that somehow penalized characters who chose professions outside the favored ones, since I had the ominous feeling this was the CODA version of d20/3e's 'Favored Class' (it certainly sounded like it), but I couldn't find it so maybe it's just me... If there is such a rule in the Narrator's Guide I'll know my concerns were well justified, however.

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?

For example, in ICON humans and Bajorans were practically identical. The only real difference (except that species specific skills that obviously focused on each culture) was that Bajorans had the 'Species Enemy: Cardassians' Disadvantage, which really is part of the Bajoran heritage and so made a lot of sense... It is gone now, though, and Bajoran 'species abilities' are a whole lot less useful than those of humans. For example, they get a forced 'artistic' ability for some reason, even though Bajorans are supposed to be just as diverse as humans... Kira is best known Bajoran, yet people who have seen DS9's "Accession" know that although her family is supposed to have a tradtion for it, Kira has absolutely no artistic skills. That makes this seem rather strange...

The human bonus to any skill is replaced by a similar bonus to Bajoran religion, which you obviously won't use very often. Bajorans also get extra courage, but only if the player sucks up to the Prophets repeatedly. Not exactly the most playable skill, I think...

Yes, I did play a Bajoran myself in ICON, so you might argue I'm just angry because I think 'my' race got a raw deal, but then I could argue I just focus on it because I know that stuff... Yes, every child may learn about the Prophets on Bajor, but that doesn't mean it will embrace them. Ro Laren certainly didn't - she may have worn the Bajoran earring, but she consistently wore it on the wrong ear, which is rather spiteful and defiant.

These rules don't allow for that, which makes them restrictive and less playable than they should have been... The Narrator can overrule it or the player can do it in spite of the consequences, but then the rules are supposed to encourage and support the role-playing experience, not work against it...

Another odd thing about the species are the actual species that have been included. I was more than a little surprised, for example, to see both Ocampa and Talaxians. We've only ever seen one regular character of each of these races, and one of them was there for less than half the show... They are also both restricted to the Delta Quadrant, thus making them unlikely in any Trek campaign but one taking place on Voyager, a problem that the book even points out itself.

That being the case, why waste time putting them in there? Even on Voyager there was only one of each of them. On the other hand, three of the founding races of the Federation are curiously missing. I flipped back and forth, but nope - there are no Andorians, no Centaurans, and no Tellarites anywhere... It was more important to include Ocampa and Talaxians than these?!?

How about the Bolians who are also missing? We may not have seen many Andorians, Centaurans, or Tellarites in the show, but we've seen lots of Bolians as recurring characters, not to mention Benzites, yet they are all AWOL for some reason, whereas even Klingons, Trills, and Ferengi are in there. You could argue that Klingons are important in Trek by now, but there are also Cardassians in the book, but no Romulans... Very strange.

(continued)

[Siroth]

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.

Think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at the examples of soldiers. The last one mentioned is Odo. Odo is a soldier?!? Odo never used weapons even once, and I doubt he was any good at unarmed combat... They certainly didn't think so in ICON where his stats contained no combat skills. Odo was a good constable because he could change form, which allowed him both to spy on people and overpower them easily when needed.

So why is he mentioned as a soldier? Because he doesn't fit anywhere else, and so gets 'shoehorned' into the category that is the least offensive to him. After all, he is scarcely a diplomat, merchant, mystic, scientist, or starship officer, and that leaves only soldier or rogue, and rogues are obviously the people he is supposed to catch. Starship officer might be appropriate, but Odo is not in Starfleet or another space-going organization, so he bloody well better fit into the soldier profession whether he likes it or not!

Personally I think this is a mistake because Odo should have been a starship officer in operations (security). After all, the Bajorans do have starships. We've even seen Kira command some of them, so she should probably be a starship officer in command branch, but then she can fit into the soldier profession just as well, so that's where she goes...

Hopefully this goes some way to demonstrate my point, which is that classes, whether you call them 'professions' or not, are restrictive and obsolete in RPGs. ICON understood this and kept it to a minimum with its 'overlays' whereas CODA has repeated d20/3e's mistake and gone back in time to a restrictive and inflexible class-based system...

It's a crying shame too because it was one of ICON's greatest strengths that the system knew the truth of this. For example, CODA has a bunch of professions and everybody just have to fit into it, even to the point where it is redundant. There is no class for Odo, but there is both a Scientist profession and a Starship Officer: Science profession. Why?

It is also odd that Vulcans, who are described as having a fixed penalty of -3 to Presence are still listed as the best species for being diplomats. The diplomat's favored attribute (i.e., most important) is Presence, so you'd think a -3 penalty to it would a problem, but CODA just ingores this and moves on, which makes the whole thing seem incomplete somehow. In ICON Vulcans simply had a -1 Empathy edge under Presence, but had the same initial Presence (2) as everybody else. 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. Even their 'special abilities' fail to address this in any way. 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!

Disappointing? I think so myself, but it scarcely matters in this case because nobody is likely to play a diplomat. Why kid ourselves - the vast majority of characters are going to be Starship Officers, and obviously what is why that profession has 'elite professions', which are just a 'sub-class' to supplement the main 'class'. These are Command, Operations, and Science. Sound familiar? They should since they are the three branches in Starfleet (conn and command officers in Command (red uniforms in TNG/DS9/VOY era), ops, engineering, and security officers in Operations (gold uniforms), and counselors, doctors, and scientists in Science (blue)).

Very few player characters will fall outside the starship officer class. In ICON this was clear, which is precisely why the TNG core book had rules just for Starfleet officers so they didn't have to worry about all the rest, and all other 'overlays' came later in subsequent books...

One class I particularly dislike is the mystic, at least in the CODA incarnation. There were mystics in ICON's DS9 book, but ICON overlays weren't very important to the game and could easily be done away with since they were just a list of starting skills and nothing more, and in ICON they all made sense.

In CODA the mystic quickly begins to put focus on physical sides of the character for some reason. Huh? Aren't these supposed to be the Bajoran Vedeks and Vulcan followers of Surak? If we'd seen human mystics they would be priests and ministers, so why all this physical stuff? Obviously those embracing spirituality and higher beings are more focused on the more scholarly, thoughtful, and contemplative aspects of life, aren't they? So why do the mystic's skills include skills like 'Armed Combat' and 'Unarmed Combat'?

The reason is that this is sort of a 'catch-all' for religious types... Klingon and Andorian 'priests' are a lot more aggressive, so instead of the contemplative overlay we saw for the mystic in ICON's DS9 book, we now get CODA's version of d20/3e's monk class, complete with superior resistance to physical hardships like diseases and so, and with combat abilities... Combat abilities are okay for Klingons and Andorians here, but they should be somewhat banned for species like Bajorans. Yet if your Bajoran mystic wants to be a good warrior, that is perfectly okay in spite of anything ever established about Bajorans.

Again, this makes CODA look unfinished. Either the class should have had 'elite professions' like the Starship Officer, or else the whole matter should have been left well enough alone. The latter had been acceptable insofar that most players are unlikely to play these characters, and so space might have been used for something else (like species descriptions of the missing Federation members...). Instead we just get some half-copied version of the D&D monk intermixed with the overlay from ICON, and the result isn't exactly impressive...


We finally get around to the actual attributes in Chapter 4. It's surprising these waited so long, since generating stats would seem to be the natural beginning of the character creation process, at least it is in most RPGs.

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.

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...

This doesn't end the d20/3e copying, however, as CODA has more attributes than ICON, and Psi is gone now. Instead you have Strength, Intellect, Agility, Vitality, Presence, and Perception. Sound familiar? Well, if I mention that there are _exactly_ six of them and then say "Strength, Intelligence, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma, and Wisdom" then you'll know what I'm talking about if you know d20 or any version of D&D. 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, which makes me wonder why they bothered to change the names and call them 'attributes' instead of just given the 'right' names and call them Ability Scores...

After that we are treated to certain ways these attributes can be affected negatively by diseases, hostile attacks and so. Some of those descriptions are very close to the effects of d20 on Ability Scores as well.



(continued)

[Siroth]

Chapter 5 is Development where you create the character's background. This is similar to the 'background history' categories in ICON. The 'early life' is called 'Personal Development' and is basically about the character's upbringing, but there is no 'advanced training' equivalent, and so everything after 'early life' falls into the new 'Professional Development' stage. It comes with more choices than the 'advanced training' or 'tour of duty' stages in ICON, but then it should since it covers all of it and you only get to choose once.

If the Narrator feels like allowing more advanced characters, I guess he can allow players two or more 'picks' here just as he could let characters have several tours of duty in ICON, but the choices are more restrictive here.

This is another area where there is less 'freedom' than in ICON. In ICON there were tours of duty that you could compare to these 'Professional Developments', but in ICON those were just examples - if you preferred something else it was obvious how many Development Points (DP) each of them was worth, and you were completely free to choose something else if you didn't like the packages listed.

Not so in CODA. It's not all doom and gloom, though, since both stages include a 'Make Your Own' option that lets you choose something else if you don't like the options, but you're limited in other ways. By this I'm talking about the replacements for ICON's Advantages and Disadvantages which are, respectively, called 'edges' and 'flaws'. Why they chose the word 'edge' is beyond me, since it's bound to cause confusing with the edges of ICON which were 'sub-modifiers' to attributes - words like 'virtue' or 'benefit' are equally valid and less confusing, so confusion could have been avoided here. Anyway, the thing is that you get to choose only one 'edge' for your character.

Some 'developments' come with edges, but you'll then have to choose those. You can get further edges by taking flaws, but you may only have two flaws, even if one or both of these came from a Development! 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. Bashir has a dark secret (he is genetically engineered) and is a little arrogant early on, so those would be his flaws... How would a character like Garak even be possible under such rules? I haven't a clue, and playing Garak-like characters is fun (I've tried it), so why should the game take away from this? My character in Trek, for example, was a Bajoran who did a lot of grim things in the resistance and made some enemies. He would not have been possible in CODA. Since he was in some ways based on Kira, I wonder if she is really possible in CODA...


(continued)

[Siroth]

Chapter 6 on Skills is obviously an essential chapter in the book. So far I've been pretty hard on CODA, so I'd like to say that the skills are at least done nicely. Yes, I criticize CODA on the way it allows or restricts people from access to skills because I preferred ICON where everybody had access to any and all skills, but the skills themselves are actually better in CODA than in ICON. Clearly a lot has been learned from some of the problems ICON had, because the skills have improved.

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. You'll have a hard time indeed convincing me of that. This annoys me no end because d20/3e did someting 'wrong' that ICON actually had right, but now CODA does what d20 did...

Let me mention a D&D/3e example of what I mean (just to show I do know what I'm talking about). Imagine a human cleric in 3e D&D who lived by the sea and whose father was a sailor. He learned to swim as he grew up since his father taught him, and he swam every day. Yet he eventually decided to be a cleric.
Now, as a cleric he will put more importance on Wisdom rather than Strength, and he's unlikely to even have a strength bonus, but let's say he has a +1 bonus (Strength 12-13). Now, since he swam so much, he puts lots of skill points in the Swim skill, only Swim isn't a class skill for clerics, so he may only have 2 ranks in it at the double of cost of 4 skill points. Ugh - expensive!
Anyway, he begins adventuring and meets a powerful half-orc barbarians from the mountains. Half-orcs have bonuses to Strength and can have up to 20 in it, but lets assume he has 'only' 18 or 19 in it, which gives a +4 bonus for Strength.
During their adventure the two fall into the water and need to swim. The cleric has spend four skill points on it, but has only a +1 bonus for Strength and 2 ranks, so he only has a +3 modifier to the check. The half-orc lived in the mountains and has never swum before, but he is strong and gets a whopping +4 bonus from Strength, so he is actually better at it than the cleric who swam every day of his life. And, of course, the half-orc _never_ spent any skill points on learning how to swim.
Think this is a problem? Let's say they both advance at the end of the adventure. They both learned the value of being good at it, but the cleric can spend only one more skill point, which doesn't even change his modifier, while the half-orc can spend all points he gets at it and quickly outdo the cleric even more with ease... Of course, you could argue that Swim should be a class skill for everybody in D&D 3e, but it still doesn't solve the entire problem due to the modifiers.

It is these modifiers I dislike because they apply to broadly in d20/3e, particularly at lower class levels. You could say this is not relevant in CODA since they are no levels, but then that just means that everybody essentially 'remains' at 'level 1' all the time, thereby making it even more relevant... In ICON, on the other hand, high relevant attributes just gave you more dice instead of more bonuses - in short, your maximum result was fixed based on your skill level, but the chance you would roll the highest possible result on the dice increased. I think it's better allowing modifiers due to examples like the one I gave above. ICON had it right over d20/3e here, and now CODA has gone and ruined it...

Bloody annoying because as I said, the skills themselves actually work better than in ICON. The reason for this lies in the way Specialties work. In ICON these had a fixed level just like skills, whereas they simply add a bonus when relevant in CODA. 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. That made specializations a problem in ICON since they slowed down the increase of skill advancement, and having more than one was technically unwise in terms of the rules of the game.

It was also a problem the way some skills and specializations added in ICON, since DP frequently appeared to be lost in the transition. For example, if you a skill and specialization 1 (2) from one part of development and then get the same at 2 (3) from another, you simply raised it to 2 (4) and so just increased the specialization level by one, something that normally cost 1 DP. However, buying a new skill cost 3 DP, so if there was a choice it was better to choose the 1 (2) in something else, or you would lose points in the process somehow.

The same was true in how DP and XP (experience points) interacted. The way it worked it was definitely more worthwhile taking as many Edges (sub-modifiers to attributes) and Advantages in the ICON creation process, since skills, specializations, and even attributes cost less to buy or raise (comparatively) with XP than with DP. 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.

ICON also had a problem in that the vast majority of skills had Intellect as the relevant attribute. Obviously this is stil the case (and should be), but it is not so extensive that it became problem as it could be in ICON - if you were going increase one attribute to the maximum in ICON, there was no doubt what that attribute would be, and we had a lot of highly intelligent character running around! After all, the rules certainly allowed it, so why not?

And at the same time CODA has avoided putting attributes as relevant to skills that they certainly shouldn't be relevant for (like when D&D 3e puts Constitution as the relevant Ability for Concentration rather than Wisdom which is, among other things, a measure of a character's willpower according to its description...). So I give CODA credit in how the skills are organized. I just don't like the way skill tests are made because it is a d20/3e copy and so repeats its innate flaws.

(Continued)

[Siroth]

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.


Chapter 8 is about 'characteristics' such as aging and so. Funny how humans and Bajorans are said to be very similar, yet Bajorans seem to a bit faster... More pro-human lobbying going on here?

Then comes 'Reactions', which are basically how a character automatically responds in certain situations. There are four, namely Quickness (reaction time and reflexes), Savvy (common sense and ability to detect deception), Stamina (toughness and ability to ignore physical punishment), and Willpower (strength of will).

Sound familiar? Yes, you guessed it. These are indeed the saving throws of d20/3e, though they've been renamed a little - Stamina instead of "Fortitude save", Quickness instead of "Reflex save", and Willpower instead "Will save". Savvy is new, however, and actually makes sense, so at least we should give a little credit for that. It's not all very original, though...

Defense also looks a lot like d20/3e's Armor Class. You just add your Agility modifier to 7 (instead of to 10 in D&D) and that's it, but it makes sense since Trek has no magic (and so no modifiers for that) and no armor (since it would be useless against beam weapons anyway).

Fortunately CODA does indeed avoid the dreaded D&D hit points. There are wound points, but they function very similarly to the way they did in ICON, and you can actually improve them, though only slowly unlike the ridiculous increases of D&D (and particularly in 3e where it's gotten worse than ever before!)


We see Advancement in Chapter 9, and it was probably the part I dreaded the most for the simple reason that I expected to find experience levels like in d20/3e there. So is this yet more d20-copying? Well, it is and it isn't...

There are indeed no experience levels, but that being said, it certainly looks a lot like 3e. 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.

In CODA XP (experience points) are just as they are in d20/3e. There are no levels, of course, so basically the character just reaches 'level 2' every time. I half expect the Narrator's Guide to have 'Challenge Ratings' like 3e to work out how many xp winning a phaser battle against three Romulans is worth... I might accuse the TN (Target Number) for skills of the same, except we already had that in ICON as Difficulty Numbers.

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. I liked that ICON ignored this so people didn't resort to D&D's infrequent 'monster slashing' (where players hunt down every lowly, pathetic goblin just for a few more measly xp - yes, that _does_ happen!). The fact that ICON avoided this was one of its features.

Sure, it could be true in CODA, but players aren't likely to think so if they've played D&D before (and we all did at some point...), whereas ICON made it obvious that they'd get no bonus for this, quite the opposite, 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.

Instead of ICON's consitent progress, CODA just awards five 'picks' every time a character gets 1000 xp. Recreating the ICON xp is easy, though, since you can just call each of these 'picks' XP or DP or whatever. What I really don't understand is this '1000 xp' business... Why not let players get one 'pick' every 200 xp and then hoard them until they whatever they want to do with them? I don't get the philosophy behind that at all.

The chapter then proceeds to list a bunch of 'Elite Professions' that come with prerequisites so that only characters who meet those can take them. Is it just me or does this bear a striking resemblance to the 'Prestige Classes' of d20/3e?

In themselves these are not a problem. The problem is that these, as well as the other 'Professions' changes Star Trek RPG from ICON's skill-based game into a class-based game like d20/3e in that a lot of abilities are now restricted to a select few people. I don't like that sort of thing in an RPG. I don't mind that certain skills or abilities come with prerequisites. That's fine. I just don't like the idea that not everybody may have access to these.

ICON had 'Behavior Modification' as a skill, but noted that it would be inappropriate for Starfleet Officers since they don't practice torture of their prisoners. I have no problem with a skill or ability coming with that sort of restriction or requirement. I do, however, have a problem with a specific class being restricted to specific other classes/species and away from others...

This is precisely where d20/3e failed hugely by forcing an inflexible and restrictive class-based system that is hopelessly outdated on people. CODA is not quite as bad as it avoids the level distinctions, but it comes close by limiting people in their choices this way.

This disappoints me both as a player and a game master - as a player because it limits my options for character creation, and as a game master because it tries to make game rules a priority instead of supporting whatever I want to do. As a game master I want, _demand_, that the game rules support my campaign, not the other way around. ICON did that. Like d20/3e before it, CODA doesn't.

I can use CODA and d20/3e, but I'll have to write extensive 'house rules' (like I did for AD&D 2e) before they can fit my playing style... Getting rid of such 'home-made rules' was precisely why I needed a new RPG system, but like d20/3e, CODA fails miserably to deliver... I guess I'll just have to stick with ICON and modify those rules a little.


Footnote: The rest of the chapters just include your basic lists of equipment and history of Star Trek's universe and such, so there is little point in commenting. One thing annoys me, however, which is the way Worf is repeatly referred to as the Conn (flight control officer or Helm) of the Enterprise during TNG's first season. I thought it was just a typo until I saw it again...

People who bothered to watch TNG's season one (and I can't blame them for not wanting to, because it's rarely good Trek) will know that Geordi was actually the Conn back then, not Worf. The only argument I think of to support that he was is that he is wearing a red uniform and obviously is neither Captain nor First Officer, and CODA seems to suggest that all other command branch officers must be Conn officers.

Well, it is not impossible in that there are doubtlessly several Conn officers on the Enterprise (at least one for each of the three duty shifts), but we never see Worf at the Conn (in fact, O'Brien was in the pilot when Geordi was not on board) and he always seems to be on duty the same time as Geordi... One might ask what he is then, but we just don't know (he seems to just stand behind Tasha reading a console). He might have been Strategic Operations officer (as he was on DS9), but it is doubtful. More likely he was a lower-ranking administrator or some such... Somebody please correct this typo in subsequent material.


PS: Sorry for the length.

[Liquidator Queeg]

Whoah, dude! Please break up your review into smaller paragraphs so it's easier to read online. I lost it after the first five paragraphs!

Steve

[Ineti]

I second Steve's request. I found it virtually impossible to read all that text.

[Siroth]

Sorry people... I did put a few more paragraphs in there originally, but somehow it didn't make it onto the board... (which is my own fault - I'm not complaining).

But it probably doesn't matter that much. I write long and verbose texts, and I always did. It's an unfortunate disability I was born with

It's gotten better over the years, though. Trust me! You should have seen some of the texts I used to write, if you don't believe me!

All that being said, you're probably better off not going through the review. If you like CODA there is no reason for you to have it ruined in case you become infected by my bad mood

[Dan Stack]

Siroth -

You can edit your own posts if you want to make them easier to read - just click on the edit button.

-Dan, Co-Moderator

[Silverthorne]

I will state for the record that I have never played ICON. I looked at the rules and flat turned them down.

I play Gurps, which would be a better anology for CODA than wizards d20. In gurps you take 3d6 and roll under your skill. does that sound familiar. Say that it is a copy of d20 and you will get laughed at, Gurps has been around longer that d20. Reaction test, what stat would you roll against to avoid a fall or IRL would you try to use to avoid falling off a cliff. you would be making a dex check of some kind, or trying to agil enough to grab something to avoid the fall. Skills are not new either.

The next time you game D&D ask the gm if he will allow your cleric that grew up by the see to have swim as a class skill since you have been growing up around the water all your life. if he says no ask why. The rules state flat out that the GM has full dicression in skills. The GM I ran with a while back decided that if we spent a few weeks of game time living off the land he would give us a few ranks in wilderness lore. even when some of us like my cleric were not supposed to get wilderness lore as a skill. In your anology you said both went into the water, but not what weapons they lost or armor they had to get out of to beable to make unmodified checks. knowing barbarians the barbarian would have drowned for all the armor and heavy weapons that are usual for the big brutes to carry, the cleric would have probably dumped off the restricting armor and weapons to get his check much quicker. If your gm does not beleive in common sense rules ask him why.

How long did it take you to figure our the ICON rules. With the attention span of the next generation of gamers dropping as it does with everything. How much time do you think a new gamer would spend trying to figure out a rules system.

You have said that you played d&d for years. I see would be agrivated by the change to the d20 system. The games are being refined so that the next generation of players can be brought in to gaming. I could try to eplain the THACO system to anyone who would listen but would not get anyone interested in gaming. I want people to understand that the games are no longer being made so that they can only be understood by one or two people in a group. If there are similarities, then think that someone has decided that the system works, why mess with it.

In CODA, they flat out state that if you do not see an order that you like ask your gm if you can make one. People this is not brain surgery, it is a game. I am tired of listening to every one bad mouth games since it might bear a resemblance to d20. CODA is designed to be played easily, without having to hope for a wild die success. I read the ICON rules and there are tests that you will only be able to make if you succeed at rolling a 6 on your wild die and only then. The engineer has to make a 15 on his roll to get the engines restarted quickly. his skill is a total of 6, and the best he can roll is a 6. hence 12, the engines would never get started. luck playes a hand and he rolls a 6 on the wild die, he then has a chance. if he did not roll that then the ship is dead and everyone aboard. that is not my idea of a good game.

d20 you roll a d20 add your stat and your skill, and see if you get over the TN.

Gurps you roll 3d6 and try to get under your skill with modifiers set by the gm.

CODA you roll 2d6 add your stat and skill, to see if you get over your TN. if you roll 2 sixes you can ooll another d6 and add it on, rerolling it if you roll another 6.

Yes there are similarities, But in d20 your class is all powerful determining how well you can hit, with a weapon(base attack) how good your saves are(save bonus per level).

In Gurps your skills are all powerful, determining if you hit or miss whether you suceed at a task or not..

In CODA your skill are all powerful, not your level. your skills determine whether or not your hit, not your level. your attributes or avantages help your reactions onle, no level bonues. your order has advantages that other orders cannot get. Races are listed with Favored Classes so that you as a gm or player knows about the race. Think of this, if they had not said that the favored class for the klingon was Warrior, would you auto matically known that the races has a strong military, yes, because they are protrayed as being a strong militaristic society, what of the races that are not shown that way. Betazoids, what would you state that they head towards. diplomat, not really, rogue, probably not, how could you steal in a world of telepaths, Warrior, no, they decided to show you how the race is set mentally, to deal with the world, giving you a idea of how to run the world. just as d20 did for the elves and the half-orcs, they allow you to see what the race as a whole usually does.

The race in the books represent the active story lines of the shows. name one Andorian that was on every episode of one of the shows. There are ocampas in pretty much all of the Voyager episodes. There are Telaxians, also in Voyager. There are Klingons, Cardassians, Ferengi, Trill, and Bajorans in DP9. There are Klingons and Betazoids, in NG. There are vulcans in the original series. Humans appeared in ever episode in every series. Get off the Coda system. they took what they could from the series and made the Game that every one can play in any age of Star Trek. Think about the the different books for classic ST, NG, DS9, and Then if Icon had made it a Voyager book, each of them were the same world, yet they were seperate books with seperate info. Explain that to me.

I will now apologize, for loosing my temper.

[Liquidator Queeg]

Originally posted by Siroth
All that being said, you're probably better off not going through the review. If you like CODA there is no reason for you to have it ruined in case you become infected by my bad mood

Don't get me wrong, I want to read the review -- I don't own the CODA Trek books, just the Lord of the Rings RPG. However, to be blunt, if I have a hard time reading a review because of the formatting (Yes this does matter, especially online!), I'm not likely to wade through it. I don't mind long-winded -- I love Tolkien after all -- I just simply can't read immense blocks of text on a computer screen without straining my eyes.

Anyway, I'm just offering some advice in case you post other reviews.

Cheers,

Steve

[Phantom]

Have to say_yes it is too long.

But, I didn't have too much trouble reading it because I could stop after the 5th paragraph as I agree totally with what you are saying.

I don't know if you mentioned it, but there is also the issue of bad layout in the Players Guide. I was almost totally lost trying to roll up a character as you had flip back and forth. A problem thankfully fixed in LotR.

I would also like to address the idea of "if nothing fits your idea of a character make it up." I want to get to gaming, not a bunch of extra paper work. The reason I bought the game is because the generation process should cover as many possiblities as is possible, and feel like I'm shoe horning myself into something. Thankfully I only play SF characters.

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. Everyone says how each character in a D&D class is like every other class. Well, looking at the new system this is also true of the CODA system...Every Ops character will have similar abilities augmented by different Edges. Guess what people this is exactly how 3rd ed works as well, I can make two different rangers and they will have similar abilities, but will be different because of the skills and advantages and disadvantages I take.

I will now say that I think the new system is a good game. I like how the races are protrayed (thought I do also think the inclusion of Delta Quad races was a waste of space.) But with my current game I will be sticking to ICON as the base...I will be using the excellent ship combat system, however. I really have to applaude this aspect it is an immmeasurable improvement over the ridiculously simple ICON and the un- comprehensible SD. Sorry, but three pages of ship info to play a game!?!? Way too much info. As a whole a very playable system. But it really shines in LotR, but that is for another place.

[Champions Guru]

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.

Yes Phantom, it's so much like D20 that I call it D20 Lite. Still a good game system, even though I still don't like some facets of the starship combat rules.

Da Guru

[qerlin]

To each his own..

[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