Old Decipher Lord of the ring RPG

[Violetsaber]

Have I played the CODA system?

I ran a Star Trek RPG using the Decipher CODA system for somewhere around five years - it was the first serious RPG system I ever used. Afterward we decided to switch to the Lord of the Rings RPG for a chance of pace, but that kinda puttered out. I would say the problem had nothing to do with LotR per se, but the fact that a bunch of married guys decided to bring thier wives in on the game, and in this particular instance it just didn't gell. Thus, we now play our very tesosterone-centric Conan adventures with just us guys, and everything is going swimmingly.

In my experience, the CODA system focuses less on the combat rules (which are far simpler than DnD d20), and more on the storyline aspects. Oddly enough, there were still some hilarious discrepincies in skills compared to reactions.

For example, because our Star Trek storyline was so character/story oriented, players figured out pretty quick that they needed to pump up thier social skills. Therefore, we soon had a menagerie of characters walking around with 20+ ranks in Influence (Seduce), who could literally sweep any woman they wanted clean off her feet. Why? Because the opposing roll for a Influence (Seduce) was a characters Savvy or Willpower rolls - which were "high" at 5 or 6. Players literally had to roll the worst game of thier lives NOT to critically succeed.

It was like hosing down the decks of DS9 with a charisma firehose. Eventually it became a battle to see who could inflict thier will on the other fastest by getting in the first Influence (Intimidate) on fellow characters. Benjamin Sisko had to arbitrarily be given +30 Willpower or he would have become the puppet of the redshirts on the station.

All in all, it was hilarious and alot of fun. I have so many stories to tell I couldn't even start here. As a general review, though, I would say it works well for people who want "rules-light" combat and don't mind using thier GM'ing Hand of God to balance here and there.

Any specific questions?

 

[treeplanter]

Hey thanks for the input Violet

The insane skill boosting you're talking would be exactly what I would avoid. That why I would change the 5 free advancement pick to something like this:

1st advancement: +1 to two skills and +1 to reaction (+1 to a third skill if favoured reaction)
2nd: 1 Edge, +1 Courage
3rd: Renown + order ability, OR new order
4th: Attribute (+1 skills if favoured, skill different from 1st advancement)
5: +1 Health
6th: 2 skills and +1 to reaction (+1 skill if favoured reaction)
7th: ect....

That way I would be assured that player distribute pick uniformly. What you think?

For multiple opponents, I think the best way is to put high nimbleness to have the highest possible base defense. Orc have +4 in armed combat in the book, so a character with 14 or 15 base defence can easily dispatch a bunch of them. So in my opinion if you keep thug skill and stat low, you can have a good balance.

anwyay I'll work on adaptation for Conan, could be fun

 

[Clovenhoof]

The insane skill boosting is pretty much the reason why skill ranks are capped by level+3 in D20 games. (and even there it's quite easy to get ridiculous skill checks)

Anyway, I dug out my LotR core book last night and refreshed my memory a bit. Turns out there are a few implications. I'll try to quickly sum up the key rules and their game effect:

* everything in combat is handled by Actions. A character generally has 2 Actions per round. Moving up to your speed is an action (you can move twice for 2 Actions). Most attacks are 1 Action but there are some (like Power Attack) that cost 2 Actions. Dodging or Parrying also costs 1 Action each.
* however, these rules are misleading. Those 2 Actions are just the _unpenalized_ actions. Once those are used up, you can technically continue to make as many actions as you want at a cumulative -5 penalty. (-5 for the first, -10 for the second etc.) The Narrator is advised to limit those extra actions (I'm calling these "Overstretch actions") to two per character per round.
Note that even Moving in combat requires a roll of the dice in Coda.

* Dodging: the good news is that if you announce a Dodge once per round, the result counts as your new Defense for all incoming attacks for the rest of that round, if your Dodge roll exceeds your base Defense.
The bad news is that Dodging is highly ineffective. You only have a rough 8% chance to actually improve your normal Defense by Dodging (you have to roll 11 or higher on 2d6). Warriors with the Evasion ability get maybe 16-20% (you roll an extra die and discard the lowest).

* Parry/Block: this is much more worthwhile, because you get to roll on your Melee Skill to parry, which gets a lot higher. However, each Parry attempt is only good for 1 attack, and you have to announce the attempt before the attacker rolls to hit. So if the attacker misses your base Defense, your action is wasted.

* Getting more Actions: Warriors can buy an ability granting them up to two additional combat actions per round at no penalty [only for melee or defense].
Buying a combination of 3 Edges gives you an unpenalized Off-hand Attack for free. Alternatively, a highly advanced Archer can get an extra Ranged Attack action.
All in all, the maximum seems to be _five_ Actions per round, plus overstretch actions.

* Most Special Attacks cost 2 Actions and trade Defense for Damage (sort of like Reckless Attack). Using those Mook Rules makes those special attacks rather useless, because you don't roll damage against mooks and it's much more important to get as many attacks/parries as possible.

* What's also important is to pump your Melee skill as high as possible. A beginning character is limited to 6 ranks in a skill. But you can get +2 for specializing in a weapon, and more pluses by buying certain Edges. Together with the Attribute mod (Nimbleness), a beginning character can plausibly get a Melee bonus around +10 to +12. That gives you a decent chance to Parry even at the -5 for an overstretch action.

* I did not find any rules for anything like Attacks of Opportunity. So you can pretty much walk past any number of enemies, as long as you make your Movement check.

For a Conan adaptation, I'd consider at least the following system changes:
- make Dodging a Free Action once per round
- allow to announce a Parry attempt _after_ the enemy attack roll so you don't waste actions.
- cap the skill ranks to something like Advancements+6 (however there are certain Edges that allow you to get 2 ranks for 1 point in chosen skills).
I don't think it's either necessary or useful to further coerce the players into fixed Advancements. If one player wants to buy more Edges and the other player banks on Courage and the third pumps his Reactions, that's fine and makes for a nice and diverse party.

 

[The King]

I can't see how one can compare Coda rules and D20's. The first don't use levels and feats. Progression (experience) provides points which alllows to advance in the skills you have or to take new order-related skills.

 

[Clovenhoof]

I can't see how one can compare Coda rules and D20's.

I can.

The first don't use levels and feats.

Um, yes they do? They call levels "Advancements" and the feats are "Edges" (and you can buy lots more of them), but a rose by any other name is still a rose.

The system is a bit more flexible in that way because you can decide whether to increase skills or buy edges or buy a class ability. But the basic idea is very similar: Attributes provide modifiers, skills are tied to attributes, and you add your attribute modifier plus skill ranks to a die roll to determine success.

BTW one big problem with the whole system is that it is no longer supported. BTW I checked, the initial release was 2002, so it's 7 years old. The only award it won in Germany was the "Most Unpopular RPG" in 2003.
The core book is extremely buggy, with contradicting rules sometimes printed within mere lines of each other! There used to be downloadable errata on the net, but since both decipher and Pegasus have abandoned the license, there are no errata downloads, no forum and no customer support anymore.
There were errata in one of the supplements, but I can't quite remember if it was the GM Screen or any other... I vaguely remember a separate sheet but there is none such in my Screen package.

Still, I think I'm going to suggest to my D&D group to try out LotR for a change of pace. D&D is getting on our nerves - you know how it is, gets increasingly unplayable at higher levels - and at least two of those fellows are huge Tolkien fans, not counting myself.

 

[treeplanter]

I aggree, the corebook is quite unclear, took me a long time to figure out many things, and some thing you even need to deduce.

Good catch on the dodge thing and extra action, didn't saw that!

Hopefully my adaptation will be lot more clear

about the fixed advancement, the thing is I don't think it is balanced the way it is. Some edges are just strictly better than 2 skills points. Skill cap is clearly a must. Flexibility is cool, but on the other hand it is not cool to end up with a super-strong character after 5 sessions becauses et made "good choice" with his advancement pick, dunno.

Maybe for Conan a good idea would just give one free renown every 1-5 advancement (when you feel it is appropriate) and maybe courage too, and fix a skills cap but also a reaction, stat, health and edges cap. So you let players chooses what they want but you fix the limit. You could also play with the cap depending on the campain.

 

[treeplanter]

Cloven question for you, it's not very clear in the book about specialities.

I guessed one specialities cost 1 skills pick is that correct?

 

[The King]

I can't see how one can compare Coda rules and D20's.

I can.

The first don't use levels and feats.

Um, yes they do? They call levels "Advancements" and the feats are "Edges" (and you can buy lots more of them), but a rose by any other name is still a rose.

The system is a bit more flexible in that way because you can decide whether to increase skills or buy edges or buy a class ability. But the basic idea is very similar: Attributes provide modifiers, skills are tied to attributes, and you add your attribute modifier plus skill ranks to a die roll to determine success.

I'd rather say it's not because it has the smell of a flower that it is a rose.
Earthdawn use a similar system, i.e. for the last part of the quote ("Attributes provide modifiers, skills are tied to attributes, and you add your attribute modifier plus skill ranks to a die roll to determine success").
Or else one could say Rolemaster and Basic RPG (Runequest, Cthulhu) use the same system because they both use percentiles.

Moreover the order-related package system is quite similar to Earthdawn's. And GURPS also has a system where XPs allow to buy new skills or skill advancements (the same is also true with D6 - Star Wars).

But I don't wont to initiate that kind of debate. Let's us say Coda is a good system for beginners (IMO) and will probably make it easier to understand the D20 rules.

On the other side, I'm sure Coda is easily suitable for Conan game. Most magic stems from the elves but it shouldn't be difficult to substitute "Conan magic" (which basically is as low fantasy as in Tolkien's). And after all Elves are as powerful with bows as Shemite or Turanians and Rohan horsemen are as born on the saddle as the Hykanians.

The way corruption is treated is also better. A failure perhaps is that barbarians in LotR can't go berserk burt instead can brew some medicine or herbal mixture.

 

[Clovenhoof]

@treeplanter:
I suppose you mean skill specializations. As I understand it, you can choose one specialization per skill for free whenever you first learn a skill. Actually, the way I read it, you _have_ to pick a specialization (except for skills that don't have specializations, like Climb). Of course that doesn't hurt as it doesn't have any drawbacks to have a specialization.

Every _additional_ specialization costs 1 advancement point.

Edges: yes, some edges seem to be better than 2 points. But I don't see a problem with that -- it's just a good deal that enables the heroes to be better than the average jack.

Renown: the Narrator is supposed to give out Renown points according to the PCs actions. There is no real limit there, the Renown awarded just needs to be proportional to the deeds accomplished. Like, if the heroes killed some Orc chief threatening a village that may be 1-2 Renown, but if they somehow play a major part in saving a kingdom that could be worth 10 Renown or more.
The Renown you can purchase with Advancements is handled separately; personally I find it rather weird that you can even buy Renown that way, and it doesn't seem to be so important in game that it would be worthwhile.

@King:
I think you overinterpret a little. Nobody here claims that Coda and D20 are the same system. They just share some basic similarities - indeed in a way that also RuleMonster and BRP share similarities (in that these are % systems etc). Someone who has played Coda will quickly get the hang of D20 and vice versa, but won't have any head start when looking at BRP or RM. (As for Earthdawn... that was just... different.)

Concerning Barbarians: there is a Drawback that seems appropriate, called Rage or something like that, but it doesn't grant any bonuses in combat, just that you have to keep fighting until all foes are slain (or you spend 1 Courage).
I suppose Barbarians in Middle Earth aren't supposed to be so fearsome.

For a Conan adaptations, I'd in fact take the Warrior Order as template for Barbarians (like Cimmerian etc) and reserve the Coda Barbarian as template for "unwashed savages" like Picts.

 

[treeplanter]

@the King: If you want my opinion, every system are all the same crap: You roll a dice against a difficulties

 

[Violetsaber]

The insane skill boosting you're talking would be exactly what I would avoid. That why I would change the 5 free advancement pick to something like this:

1st advancement: +1 to two skills and +1 to reaction (+1 to a third skill if favoured reaction)
2nd: 1 Edge, +1 Courage
3rd: Renown + order ability, OR new order
4th: Attribute (+1 skills if favoured, skill different from 1st advancement)
5: +1 Health
6th: 2 skills and +1 to reaction (+1 skill if favoured reaction)
7th: ect....

That certainly one way to do it, but what I really liked about the CODA system was how flexible it was in allowing characters to level as they desired. Clovenhoof had an excellant idea in capping skill levels at 3+level, I would recommend that.

Another possiblity that can add some humor to the situation is Ludicrus Success. This concept is taken from a game a friend of mine and I dabbled with called "Teenagers from Outer Space". If a character rolls against something or someone that is a worthy opponent, there's nothing really to worry about. However, if they make a roll and succeed by a number that is well beyond extraordinary (which isn't hard with a truly twinked character)... it completely backfires. For example:

A) "Sorry, you just climbed that rock face so fast that everyone behind you was spattered with flying rocks, and now must make saving rolls not to fall."

B) "You have succeeded in charming the Elven maid, and she has promised to follow you around for the rest of your stay in Rivindell."

C) "Your mighty sword slice cuts clean through the Orc and continues on in an arc, smacking right into (insert highly irritable player character here). That's 2d6 damage."

I'm not sure if this is something you'd like to incorperate, but I know it definately added to the fun of my sessions.

Lastly, even capping skills isn't completely going to solve the issues. Between trails, specialties, and skills, reaction rolls just don't have a chance in many cases. For example, the rules for Captain James T. Kirk give him +11 Influence (Seduce), a feat which provides another +2, his Charisma provides a +3, and the Seduce specialty provides another +2. This means that Kirk starts at an 18 BEFORE HE EVEN ROLLS.

Now, suppose he was rolling against trying to woo, say, Saavik. Now, Saavik respects and looks up to Kirk, even if she doesn't completely understand his actions - so there's no social penalty. If she had the MASSIVE Willpower save of 6... she would still need to roll a critical success (double sixes) to even match Kirk's roll BEFORE he rolled!

Of course you could provide a large bonus to her willpower for being a Vulcan asked to do something quite un-Vulcan, but even at a (very large) +10 bonus, Kirk would still have a 2 point advantage over Saavik.

In other words, I feel the balance between skills and reactions is inherantly a little wonky. It wasn't a huge deal for me at the time - I just made sure to use the heavy hand of the Narrorator if I felt things were getting out of hand. Make sure to invest in a GM screen!

I hope this helps, or at least makes sense.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Some good points there Violetsaber, indeed it's important in all systems to pay attention which character traits are pitted against each other.
(In Conan, there are very similar cases, where for instance a class ability calls for an opposed skill check in a skill that 9 out of 10 characters won't have a single rank in, so that problem is not exclusive to Coda.)

As for the Ludicrous Success, well that's... ludicrous. I wouldn't want it in most games - not in Conan for instance - but it might be appropriate for a genre that is more tongue-in-cheek to begin with. Something like Cartoon Action Hour maybe.

Anyway, back to hugely imbalanced opposed checks, a good mechanic that D20 offers is the Modified Level Check, as seen for instance in Feinting in combat. The opposed check is Bluff vs. Sense Motive but the defender gets his character level as a bonus, but the attacker does not. That way things are pretty much balanced in most cases.

That works because skill ranks and level are by definition on similar levels, and normally the maximum Level is 20. Now for Coda, it may not be the best fit, at least when I look at some NPC stats which are listed with 40-80 Advancements, that doesn't work.

You might try to change those skill-vs-reaction rolls to skill-vs-ability. I.e. the defender/victim doesn't use the modifier but the raw score. If the Elven maid has a Bearing of 10, the party skeeve's Seduce check doesn't go against 2d6+2 but 2d6+10, plus possible modifiers.
Or you simply stick to GM fiat and assign a -10 penalty for some reason or other. I'm generally against arbitrary GM calls, but a broken system is worse.

 

[treeplanter]

are reaction often used opposed to skill? well in that case you should threat a reaction almost like a skill (give some pick in it at start, cost only 1 advancment pick to improve), and give a skill cap a bit lower than skill.

 

[The King]

Concerning Barbarians: there is a Drawback that seems appropriate, called Rage or something like that, but it doesn't grant any bonuses in combat, just that you have to keep fighting until all foes are slain (or you spend 1 Courage).
I suppose Barbarians in Middle Earth aren't supposed to be so fearsome.

For a Conan adaptations, I'd in fact take the Warrior Order as template for Barbarians (like Cimmerian etc) and reserve the Coda Barbarian as template for "unwashed savages" like Picts.

Good idea!

 

[Clovenhoof]

are reaction often used opposed to skill?

I took the time to count them:
* resist Inquiries or Initimidation (Intimidate vs. Willpower)
* resist fast-talking, haggling or barter (Debate vs. Wisdom)
* resist Charm/Flattery/Seduction (Debate vs. Wisdom)
* resist rhetoric / propaganda (Debate vs. Wisdom)
and finally
* Ranged Combat (attacks can only be dodged, not parried)

Note that the social skills are easily overriden by morale or conviction. Specifically the rules say (paraphrased),
"Persuade" and "Debate" are not mental domination. The speaker can never force a target to do their bidding, and the target can always refuse absurd suggestions, regardless of the check result.
--
I'd suggest to also permit opposed Debate checks when trying to influence each other (and not just for two competing advisors trying to influence a third party).

(You might also rule that low Wisdom makes a target immune to valid arguments *eg*)

 

[treeplanter]

So why not just change:

Intimidate vs Will power + Insight or advancemnt
Debate is just opposed either to Debate or insight

For Dodge, I guess if you allow reaction to progress at the same rate skills progress it is fine. You could also give Order a base reaction (like in d20), so barb could get +2 swiftness and stamina and that would count as his favoured reaction.

I would just drop the wisdom reaction.

also for the skills I would merge Debate and Persuade (is persuade like bluff?) and Weather sense with survival

 

[Clovenhoof]

Btw, while I can't be sure about that because I haven't played the system, I have the strong suspicion that the recommended Favoured Reactions by Order are misleading.
For instance, they say Warriors favour Stamina and Magicians favour Willpower (or Wisdom?). Looking at the rules I cannot see why. Most mundanes hardly ever need to roll on Stamina, for instance you can fight 50 rounds before you have to make the first check against exhaustion. Opposed to that, Magicians have to roll every time they cast a spell, to resist Drain sort of as in Shadowrun.

So if you're smart, you'll choose Swiftness as Favoured Reaction for a Warrior (to improve Dodge) and Stamina for a Magician, as you'll need these Reactions much more often.

I hate it when systems give such misleading and counterproductive advice. >:
[Caveat: it might also be that I just overlooked all the cases when Warriors have to roll on Stamina, but I searched the book, twice, and didn't come up with anything beyond what I stated above.]