System Ops: why only one skill?

[Ineti]

I may be coming late to the party here, but I have a question - Don mentioned that there may be a new skill in the Ops manual, one for Vehicle operation or piloting or somesuch.

Does that mean the new skills will be optional add-ons to the existing structure, or does it mean that the rules in the PG and NG are getting revised?

Are we headed toward another ICON Core book/Player's Guide where you need both to have all the rules?

I'm confused. Help?

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Ineti
Does that mean the new skills will be optional add-ons to the existing structure, or does it mean that the rules in the PG and NG are getting revised?

Are we headed toward another ICON Core book/Player's Guide where you need both to have all the rules?

I sure hope not. But whatever the 'official' take on the new skills may be it's our game and in the end it's entirely up to us what we view as optional and what not.

If Decipher decides to turn the new books into a revision of the PG+NG, more money to them - just don't count on it to be my money if they go that way.

[Siroth]

Originally posted by Calcoran
Trying to be a little constructive, here is what I'm planning to test for our next session:

There are 4 sub-skills for System Ops:

System Ops: Helm
System Ops: Tactical
System Ops: Sensors
System Ops: Consoles

(as you can see, the last one is a bit of a catch-all skill)

I'd tend to agree with you, except I wouldn't do a a sub-skill specifically for sensors. After all, if there is no dedicated Science officer making the check, it usually falls to either the Conn or the Tactical officer, so I'd leave it in the more general sub-skill. Instead I'd make a sub-skill for Medical.

The real problem with this is that we can make up rather sizeable lists of operating systems that should not be covered by a single 'broad' skill... For example: Conn, Command, Communications, Engineering, Medical, Ops station, Sensors, Tactical, Transporter, Warp Engines, Weapons, etc. All of these (and probably many, _many_ more) are sufficiently different that knowing about one wouldn't seem to imply skill with the others, only we don't really want specific skills for quite that many different systems, do we? So where do we draw the line?

I would at least put it when other attributes begin to seem more important to a specific test than the one being listed. I'd say that Agility rather than Intellect is important with some instances of Conn, Tactical, and Medical since precision seems more important there, which is why I argue for the three that are not in the 'broad' skill above.

[C5]

Hey, why not using the same distinction as StarFleet branches ?
Like :
Shipboard System : Command (all the command and helm systems)
Shipboard System : Ops (tactical and engineering systems)
Shipboard System : Science (sensors, medical and science systems)

A bit artificial, but at least it would be tied to the officer's branch, and more easy to adapt in the overlays.

Just my 0.02 €

[Siroth]

Originally posted by C5
Hey, why not using the same distinction as StarFleet branches ?
Like :
Shipboard System : Command (all the command and helm systems)
Shipboard System : Ops (tactical and engineering systems)
Shipboard System : Science (sensors, medical and science systems)

A bit artificial, but at least it would be tied to the officer's branch, and more easy to adapt in the overlays.

Is easier, yes, but I the problem I have with it is that connects too broadly, and perhaps more so than the general System Ops skill. I mean, would a Security officer know as much about operating the Warp Core as an engineer? They're both Operations officers, so by that analogy they should be... Similarly, I don't see a Scientist being as qualified at using the equipment in Sick-Bay as a Medical officer (though I admit I'm uncertain where Counselor would fit in there - they do have medical training, after all...)

Finally, a whole bunch of Officer switch to Command branch later in their lives. For example Janeway was a Science officer. Would becoming Captain and switching to command make her better at operating the helm? I doubt it...

[kjakan]

Just figured I'd throw in my two latinum-slips.

Versatility
It allows the characters to take actions that are limited to their professions. This is good since the player isn't constrained to do what his character is good at. This is bad, since the player (1) can do "everything" at the expense of others.

Character Diversity
It reduces the character development cost. This is good since characters can achieve a fair level of competence and still have room to improve other areas. This is bad since it is a powerful "all-purpose" skill and the players (2) can easily max out.

Theme
It fits well with the Star Trek theme. The System Ops skill simply allows you to handle the interface. Since it is all super-science, the complexities are unseen and can be ignored through simple suspension of disbelief. As to wether characters have the basic knowledge required to operate the system is debatable. After all, you have to know what it does (or at least what it can do).

The character needs to know that the Medical Systems cannot be used to navigate the vessel. That's basic knowledge. Instucting the system to run a standard genetic resequencing program merely requires user input, but the user would have to know that there is an option.

CODA introduces a solution to this with Skill Affinities. Rather than penalizing lack of character knowledge, extra knowledge is rewarded.

Conclusion
System Ops in CODA is a good way to handle the complexities of operating a starship (or what-ever). It is open to abuse, so the players and the GM needs to cooperate on this one.

Alternatively the GM can introduce certain restrctions of his own - a number of good solutions have allready been posted. Inspired by these I plan to enforce the following:

- Dilligently apply skill affinities (easy to forget).
- Increase TN for tests where the character should be considered out of his depth. GM discretion with the following rule of thumb: The action does not fall within the character's usual field of expertise (as indicated by current or previous profession), and there exists a profession whose field of expertise covers the use of that system. Such penalites should range from +1 TN to +5 TN.


(1) Yes, I have players like that. The kind who would like to control every single system because they "know" how to "beat this thing". I could tell you some stories!

(2) Oh, I have a couple of these players as well.

[Silverthorne]

I see the system operatin skill as the basic skill at operating the console. when you specialize, you learn the ins and outs of one type of console. system operation helm would have a +2 when operation the helm console. thats the rules. If the medical officer is using his system operations skill to helm the ship he does not a have the high skill rank. his points are spent in other skills. and he does not have the speciality. he will have a harder time making the roll than the other guy, but he can try it. All people go thru the basics at starfleet command.

[Dr. Jonas Bashir]

Let's correlate the subject to the modern world, shall we?

LCARS, an acronym for Library Computer Access and Retrieval System, is a software that functions both as the operative system and display software on Starfleet computers. LCARS is a standard. Any LCARS computer will display in a similar format, be it a helm console, a M/ARA control screen or a temperature regulator for a fish tank.

In the modern world, I'm afraid, we don't have such a direct 'standard', but we'll go with the dreaded MS Windows example. Any of you that know how to use MS Windows is able to figure out the basics of ANY program based in the GUI (Graphic User Interface, in a nutshell, the concept that means displaying information in a graphical format from your computer processes to your screen). If you made a computer course for using MS Windows, this example goes further. You all know the standard, the basics, and are able to use from the calculator to Adobe Photoshop.

Some know how to use Adobe Photoshop, right? Myself included.

Of course, you're all not that profficient in design. Again, me included. We'll leave that to those professional graphic designers out there, who will surely take Photoshop to its maximum.

Going back to the 24th Century. You all know LCARS, if in Starfleet. So, some of you are in Tactics. You know how to use your console and fire a torpedo without hitting that buoy (Yes, THAT buoy! Our target is that huge Warbird in front!). In fact, you can do more than that because you're a tactical officer and know how to plan a Delta-2 defense strategy. Then, you're just like the graphic designer above.

Let's take it to the system. For this example they are all equally stupid and have the same Intellect/Agility scores.
Redshirt A knows how to use LCARS, and he has System Operations 2.
Redshirt B is a little better at it, and has System Ops 5.
The CMO also has System ops 5, being in equal standing than Redshirt B for this example.
Lieutenant JG Security Officer knows System Ops (Tactical) 5, meaning he knows how to man the specific console.
Lieutenant Tactical Officer knows System Ops (Tactical) 5, and on top of that he gets a +1 affinity bonus from his Tactics skill.
Commander Chief Tactical knows System Ops (Tactical) 6, and has an affinity bonus from his Tactics skill (+1). Not to mention that he is a Tactical Genius and has a Skill Focus edge to reflect that, gaining a further +2 at System Ops (Tactical)

So, who's better? Of course, the Chief Operations Officer! He was a nerd all his life and has System Ops 12! Ahhh, but he doesn't have Tactical as a specialty. Well, there enters the Narrator. He may rule that, not being a tactical specialist, the task is somewhat mre difficult to him, giving a +2 to the TN.

I took the example to its very extreme, but ONLY in that case the system shows a quirk, and even then an ingenious Narrator may mark a difference. The system reflects, in my opinion, the skill quite well, and in a way comparable to modern computer tasks.

[Lancer]

I have to agree with the good Doctor here. System Operation is the "everyman" skill of the game, at least when it comes to starship officers - its really like using a PC or driving a car today.

And all real world examples aside, the game (-system) is for the most part about simulating the TV series at your living room table. And that's exactly what the System Operations skill as it is writen does; it simulates the various Trek series, from Hoshi reading the sensors on Enterprise to the Counselor performing an emergency landing of the Enterprise-D's saucer section (okay, don't laugh, most people on board survived the landing, so what's wrong with the "Troi Maneuver"?).

If you want to differentiate between 'average' and 'real professional' skill levels in CODA don't look at the skills themselves, look at professional abilities and edges instead. In fact I don't think an adjustment to the TN for someone lacking a certain specialty would be called for or even be fair.
After all, if you adjust the TN for someone who doesn't have a certain Specialty, wouldn't that mean you make the Specialty count for much more than the usual +2 bonus?
Granting a +2 to a check is all well and good, but granting the +2 and keeping the TN at the standard level (instead of adjusting by +2) would give someone with a specialty in System Operations an effective bonus of +4.
That's too much for a simple specialty IMHO.

[Calcoran]

Well, I still like my house rule better .
We tried it for system ops and armed combat and it worked really well. It still gave the characters the flexibility seen on screen, while at the same time enabling characters to shine where they needed to ... instead of having a science officer able to do everything better than the helm officer, the tactical officer, <I>and</I> the ops officer .
Of course, noone <I>has</I> to be like us .

Note to self: I should go easy on the smileys.