CODA vs ICON, which is better?

[Treefrog]

I've played the previous incarnations of Star Trek rpg, starting first with FASA and then LUGTREK. Since Decipher now has the rights to the Star Trek rpg, I was wondering what the differences between CODA & ICON were.

[Phantom]

Yet another poll that I can't actually vote on. There are too many aspects of each for me to make a choice, I like the detailed backgrouond that is generated during chargen, but I like the skill resolution and combat systems of CODA.

So, to answer your question I like them equally.

OT: BTW, something occured to me awhile ago. I was under the impression that one of the things that was going to change in the new CODA system was the reliance that the ICON system put on INT for skill use. I must've heard incorrectly as the skill system for CODA still is top heavy in INT skills. Not that this is a problem, I don't see how you can have this type of advanced tech game and not have most skills connected to INT.

[REG]

Can't really make a comparison since I've yet to play CODA-Trek. I'm sure those folks at Decipher RPG Studio -- who formerly worked at LUG making LUGTrek products -- are making quality RPG products based on CODA.

[Evan van Eyk]

Regarding content I do not believe there is a difference between CODA and ICON. Both games have excellent sourcebooks, with a nice layout and much useful information within. However I definitely prefer ICON. It allows a more free character creation and development, that kind of level-system used in CODA is not what I wish to see for a SCI-FI RPG. I think the Development/ Experience Points Systems is a good way to develop characters and the different available packages simulate excelletnly e.g. military training, etc. On the other hand the Starship System of ICON has some faults, e.g. the size factor which are more or less unrealistic. There comes CODA. Its starship system is simply brilliant - the exact mixture between realism and pragmatism. So IMHO the eprfect system would be ICON characters and CODA ships.

However as I concentrate on drama in my RPGs, which depends heavily on characters, I prefer ICON.

[D.S.McBride]

Voted Icon; if I could I'd have put in four more ballots in the name of our Crew members. Is it a perfect system - ? No, but its flexibility, speed and capacity for adapting aspects of other game systems that we see fit to graft on - e.g., the Coda Professional abilities turned into high skill level perks - makes it ideal for our purposes. Also, no - in our opinions - artificially defined Professions, no Professional/Nonprofessional Skills, and no advancements. Works for us and we plan to continue with it as long as possible.

[Diamond]

I've voted ICON, love ICON so much I use it not only for Star Trek but also Doctor Who and 1930's Pulp adventure games I run - BUT I found I like CODA better for Lord Of The Rings (as a player). I'm thinking ICON for science fiction and CODA for fantasy. I've been slightly tempted to write up characters from J.R.R. Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" for LOTR-CODA. One of they players in my Star Trek game has run many Star Wars campaigns, and he's thinking of running his next Star Wars campaign in ICON.

[Phantom]

Uhm, whoops. Was that "Both are similar" choice always there? Anyway that was my vote, they both have an equal number of pros and cons.

[The Midnighter]

Without a doubt, it has to be ICON...

When you have a system that allows you to create a character in roughly five minutes or so, it's a thing of beauty.

For my group, it is the ideal system, as it doesn't heavily depend on charts or formulas.

Before anyone says "Try CODA; you'll like it better", I did try it -- and I didn't like it.

Now, I will purchase any sourcebooks that come out which may have things useful for my game....but you can bet that I'll reverse-engineer it into ICON terms.

Decipher needs their collective heads examined for not continuing to use the ICON system.

[REG]

Because...

* Sighs *

I'll let Don Mappin explain it to you regarding the ICON System.

[Owen E Oulton]

"Decipher needs their collective heads examined for not continuing to use the ICON system."

I really, really, doubt that WOTC would have sold the rights to the game system to Decipher.

You have to remember that there is a difference between holding the license to produce a new Star Trek licensed RPG and holding the copyrights on the previous game system.

[D.S.McBride]

I recall Don mentioning - before decisions were made regarding whether there would be seperate core books, etc. - that Wizards had no real inclination to sell the system to Decipher, nor that Decipher had any particular interest in buying it. I don't know, and we may possibly never know, exactly what the inspiration or line of logic was for the Decipher team in creating the Coda system as it is; we can engage in some degree of moot speculation, but until Ross Isaacs, Don, et al decide to give us a detailed history on the creation process, that's about it.