|
|
Post by finarvyn on Feb 4, 2010 15:47:13 GMT -5
We had this neat thread going about using OD&D with Star Trek and then the notion of "spells" came up. Falconer was so kind as to start some threads on this and then ... nothing.
I know that I've played my Trek games without "spells" (or skill listls or whatever they are called) with a lot of success, so I haven't been as inspired to work on this project as I might otherwise, but I'm curious as to what others think about this.
Is there any interest in generating a list of skills for OD&D? Is this a dead project?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ronin84 on Feb 4, 2010 15:54:27 GMT -5
I wanted to vote other, but I don't think it is working real well.
I would be happy to work on skills BUT not spells...that just does not ring true for me.
The skills could be something similar to what the Thieves had but I could also see using a d20 system as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Feb 4, 2010 16:25:41 GMT -5
Hmm, yeah, it won’t let me submit a vote, either.
Yeah, looks like the idea has not taken off, as of yet. It’s okay, not everyone needs to buy into it, it was just one idea! But personally, I still plan on making up spells... when I can get around to it!
|
|
|
|
Post by aramis on Feb 4, 2010 17:39:20 GMT -5
Won't take my vote.
I understand and appreciate the spell idea (and it really would seem to work for explaining the quirky use of tech in the shows), but I'm not certain it really works.
|
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Feb 4, 2010 18:27:00 GMT -5
I think the use of the term "spell" is what is putting people off.
What I think we're talking about is special actions that a character can only do a certain number of times per session or adventure. This is a lot like the AD&D 2E Diablo minigame where each class had a couple of points to spend on fancy combat maneuvers or whatever.
It's a neat idea, but calling it "spells" was probably a mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by aramis on Feb 4, 2010 20:55:00 GMT -5
"Feats" would be a much better term.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ronin84 on Feb 4, 2010 21:21:37 GMT -5
"Feats" would be a much better term. Yep we had that debate earlier about naming... |
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Feb 5, 2010 17:16:33 GMT -5
I am in favor of this approach. It is very old school where each class has a set of powers it can use a limited number of times per adventure/day. I have a list I was working on that has some stuff for medical, science, and vulcan (I use later BD&D where race=class). It's not great, but the idea was that medical, science, and engineering carry around tricorders and tools. The skills are the special things they can do with those tools (and some of the explanation of why they can't do it at will is arbitrary and some is because of limited supplies as in the case of the doctor's kit).
|
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Feb 6, 2010 9:19:24 GMT -5
Hey! I see that at least one other person can vote in the poll now! Falconer must have fixed some setting! (So happy!)  |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Feb 6, 2010 14:40:33 GMT -5
Not really.. I'll work on it when I get a chance. Basically, if you disable javascript it will let you vote. Which means some javascript that I have put on the boards is breaking the poll.
|
|
coffee
Lieutenant
"My chicken sandwich...and coffee." - James T. Kirk
Posts: 84
|
Post by coffee on Feb 8, 2010 15:18:15 GMT -5
I couldn't vote either.
I gotta say, I like the openness of OD&D and don't want to see it bogged down with skills and such.
Seems to me the referee could just figure things out without a specific system.
Engineer: "I replace the damaged circuits."
Referee: "Okay, you can do that from spares in about two hours. But the dilithium crystal is cracked, and you don't have any more in stores."
Engineer: "Why oh why do we never have any dillithium crystals on board?"
and so on.
In short: A good ref doesn't need a list of skills, and a list of skills won't help a bad ref sufficiently to reward their inclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Feb 9, 2010 12:12:51 GMT -5
Seems to me the referee could just figure things out without a specific system. In short: A good ref doesn't need a list of skills, and a list of skills won't help a bad ref sufficiently to reward their inclusion. Well, that's the way I always played it "back in the day". I wish I had the SIEGE mechanic from C&C back then, because it seems like a 12/18 type roll would work well for this kind of thing. |
|
coffee
Lieutenant
"My chicken sandwich...and coffee." - James T. Kirk
Posts: 84
|
Post by coffee on Feb 9, 2010 14:56:19 GMT -5
(There actually is a Science Fiction implementation of the Siege engine. It's called StarSiege: Event Horizon. It's not OD&D, so I won't discuss it here, but it could totally do Star Trek.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Feb 9, 2010 18:21:32 GMT -5
See, this is why I wanted to think of it as “spells” not “skills”. A lot of you are talking about “mechanics” to “resolve” actions. That’s not what OD&D spells are all about. They give you neat, special things you can do, above and beyond the normal actions a character can try. I guess I would have to actually come up with some of these “spells” in order to illustrate what I mean in this context. But that would be, like, work or something, and I thought that’s what I have all you guys around for! (But if you’re not buying into my idea, that’s not your fault.)
|
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Feb 9, 2010 23:14:28 GMT -5
(There actually is a Science Fiction implementation of the Siege engine. It's called StarSiege: Event Horizon. It's not OD&D, so I won't discuss it here, but it could totally do Star Trek.) I'm familiar with it, but somehow StarSiege doesn't seem to have the same feel to me as C&C. I'd be more interested in C&C Trek or OD&D Trek than using StarSiege, but maybe I need to look at those rules again. It could be that I'm missing something. |
|
