Jump to content



Photo

Ditching classes.


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#41 Kavadh

Kavadh

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 01:54 PM

 

Many tabletop gamers believe a system which gives them as many character choices as possible is a better system than one which does not. For example, many cling to the idea that a classless system is inherently better than a system with classes.

This broad stroke isn't valid.

I prefer classless systems, I however wouldn't say they are "better". There are elements in many systems I prefer, the dice in this one for instance, that have or nothing to do with class.

My favorite system, GURPS, falls down in many places for me and I wouldn't blindly suggest it to new gamers (in fact I'd suggest they go play WotC 3.5 Core D&D first*).

My first question when I face a game system is this one:
Can I make these three heroes with out "strange convolutions" withing the rules:
1 - Conan
2 - The Grey Mouser
3 - D'Artagnan

I can do that in every classless system I've run into. I can do that in this game despite the classes, which is a massive selling point! (ignoring that for a Sword and Sandal, a Mysterious Fantasy, and a Renaissance Swordsman game I'd need completely different Talents).


* It's a good mid-point between "extremely limited choice Class-based" and "free-wheeling Classless". Also it's a nice mid point between simulationist and gamist. If D&D 5e is as "good" as the designers are claiming it is, I might shift my "first recommendation" there, as it includes some narrativist elements.

 

 

I always try to make the charming rogue type. That's my standard way of testing out whether I like a new system or not - can I make a character inspired by Errol Flynn? 

 

For all that I rail about specific things (like medicine, stimpacks and surgeon - hahaha) I do love the system in general. Everyone can be Errol Flynn!!!

 

Everyone!!!

 

How freaking awesome is that?



#42 GMmL

GMmL

    Member

  • Members
  • 200 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 02:28 PM

When I run into systems that don't quite click right with me for whatever reason I fall back to either Fate Core or Savage Worlds. I don't spend one moment Hacking the Gibson and trying to come up with weird convoluted loopholes. Shadowrun is a fantastic example. My table hated this game with the fury of a thousand suns...with that said everyone LOVED the setting. So, I could have spent eons fiddling with all of the bits, bobs, and math, or take an hour, port the damn thing over to (insert system here) and call it crackers.

 

I'm not a homebrew guy. Not so much because I'm against ripping the heart out of a perfectly functional game, but because I don't have the will or desire to do it when toolkit systems are right there locked and loaded, and are designed to do it that much better.

 

In the case of Star Wars, I'd load it into Fate Core, maybe FAE if I was a lazy bastard... use the black/white additional die rules to emulate the dice pool side effects, and be rolling just like that. Done.

 

Just my 2 Republic Credits.


  • evileeyore likes this

#43 awayputurwpn

awayputurwpn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 02:45 PM

There's a Move control upgrade (only about halfway down the power tree) that allows you to pull a weapon from an opponent's grasp. Just sayin. 

 

And Force Dice are rolled along with the rest of a skill check, if there is a skill check involved. So, R2Builder, your GM was wrong on two counts; possibly 3 counts if you had that upgrade :)


  • KevynnRedfern and R2builder like this

#44 R2builder

R2builder

    Member

  • Members
  • 437 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 02:52 PM

That has nothing to do with Class ditching awayputurwpn! 

 

:P

 

But I am the GM. I have never played Edge before. I have just seen this come up a lot. I would never make a PC give me discipline check to do this on a mook. A High XP Nemesis...maybe...


  • awayputurwpn likes this

Please check out our group and leave comments at: https://edge-of-the-...dianportal.com/


#45 KJDavid

KJDavid

    Member

  • Members
  • 138 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 04:20 PM

If gamers don't prefer class-based systems, why do class-based systems vastly outstrip classless systems in terms of sales figures? Why hasn't Hero or Gurps sold a fraction of what D&D, Pathfinder, Star Wars, etc has?

 

For that matter, why hasn't a free form system ever been a dominant RPG sales system.

 

Because freeform systems do not make things more fun, just more complex. If you like them, that's 100% cool. Play what you like, but understand why things are the way they are.


  • awayputurwpn, Lorne and Roman Virtue like this

#46 awayputurwpn

awayputurwpn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 04:29 PM

That has nothing to do with Class ditching awayputurwpn! 

 

:P

 

But I am the GM. I have never played Edge before. I have just seen this come up a lot. I would never make a PC give me discipline check to do this on a mook. A High XP Nemesis...maybe...

Against a Nemesis, absolutely, especially if it has the Adversary talent. That would be appropriate.

 

And about the derailing, I got where you were coming from with that earlier comment. It was about a GM who brings rules in from other systems, to the players' detriment. I thought it was apt anecdote. What a GM does consciously or unconsciously can greatly affect the amount of fun his or her players have at the table.


  • R2builder and KJDavid like this

#47 ScooterinAB

ScooterinAB

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 04:37 PM

For the naysayers, I once tried to remove classes from D&D 3rd and turn it into a freeform advancement game.

Blink, blink. D&D is nothing like FFG SW. D&D has classes and levels as it's core character building mechanic.FFG SW does not. The core character building mechanic here is the interplay between Attributes and Skills and Talents. The Classes and Specializations are a way to "balance" characters after creation, nothing more.And trying to turn D&D into a classless system? Sounds... crazy to me. But one man's fun is another's beating his head against a wall
You missed my point entirely, yet proved it at the same time. Thanks for playing.

Next contestant?

Edited by ScooterinAB, 14 August 2014 - 04:39 PM.

  • R2builder and KJDavid like this

#48 R2builder

R2builder

    Member

  • Members
  • 437 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 05:06 PM

 

 

That has nothing to do with Class ditching awayputurwpn! 

 

:P

 

But I am the GM. I have never played Edge before. I have just seen this come up a lot. I would never make a PC give me discipline check to do this on a mook. A High XP Nemesis...maybe...

Against a Nemesis, absolutely, especially if it has the Adversary talent. That would be appropriate.

 

And about the derailing, I got where you were coming from with that earlier comment. It was about a GM who brings rules in from other systems, to the players' detriment. I thought it was apt anecdote. What a GM does consciously or unconsciously can greatly affect the amount of fun his or her players have at the table.

 

Thanks, I'm glad you were able to see that important fact. 

 

 

 

For example in Edge. I'm a force user, and I'm going to use move to pull the gun from the mooks hand. I roll up the Force Points I need. Yippie, I did it. Nope, the GM now says roll Discipline to do it.?!?!? Wha? Where did that come from. "Well, I just feel that the mook should be able to resist you, because that's how it was in WEG, CR, RCR, and Saga." Great, then go play one of this effing games! This rule book says nothing about opposed discipline checks for that.

Two things:

1 - That has nothing to do with ditching classes. That's a disagreement between your reading of the rules and your GM's intentions. That sort of stuff should be hashed out before play begins.

2 - By the reading of the Control upgrade (and the concept of Move in general) all it does is "What you could do with your hands, without needing to use your hands" (I'm not getting into tossing starships about here). The rules for Move don't say you can automagically disarm your foes, that's normally something that can only be accomplished with Triumphs (or a leinent GM allowing a Melee attack to forgo damage for a disarm). Personally I'd rule for sort of thing, yeah, it would be opposed. But then I'd also have a discussion with the Player in advance about what sort of hijinks he thinks he can get away with using the Force and we'd negotiate how the Force works in our game.

Thank you for making my point even more poignant on the importance of knowing the rules before they are arbitrarily changed "because that's how it was in my favorite system".   

Hey, evileyesore, if that's how you want to your run your game, that's great. What is even greater is that I do not have to play in it. If I had a GM do that to me, my negotiation would be: read, know and understand the rules before you make up your own. If you want to cheat to make the game harder on me, then so be it, I won't be in it.

 

As far as classes. If you don't want classes, great, because this game does not have them. Please, call them what they are. Careers. There is an inherent difference between Classes and Careers. the two terms are not interchangeable. 

But, if you do not want careers in your game. great, then don't have them. You seem pretty disgusted with this game, so why even play it? Are you just on this forum now to troll and spread your hatred for this system? Have you even played this system yet? 

 

 

My first question when I face a game system is this one:
Can I make these three heroes with out "strange convolutions" withing the rules:
1 - Conan
2 - The Grey Mouser
3 - D'Artagnan

Dude really? The first thing you do is try to make three Power/Munchkin Characters that are beyond the scope of most games? Power Game much? 

 


Indeed, I'm almost willing to call FFG Star Wars "Classless" because if the GM tells me "I have a Scoundrel Theif, a Fringer Doctor, and an Explorer Scout" I can't tell if we need someone with Piloting (Space) or not.

All three could have pretty good Piloting, all three could have skipped it.

Also the GM has to tailor his games based on his characters with far more care than in other Class-based games. Whn I run this system I know it'll take just as much work (probably more due to my non-mastery of the system) as it does for me running GURPS*.

Um, I'm calling BS here. This game takes very little to ZERO prep work. I know, I have been running this system for a bit now. I think perhaps you are confusing this game with Saga Edition. 

 

So I applaud your efforts to not support the men and women of FFG, not buy the books, and not read them, but still come on here to troll and say how much you hate the game. (I am willing to bet that you have pirated illegal PDF's of the books.) Is this game perfect? No. but is is the best Star Wars RPG made to date in my opinion and getting rid of the Careers will not make it better. Good luck convincing your GM to do it. I think all you are looking for is to build the "best fighting guy" you can the cheapest XP way. 

 

Thanks for playing.

Next contestant please. 


Edited by R2builder, 14 August 2014 - 05:11 PM.

  • whafrog and 2P51 like this

Please check out our group and leave comments at: https://edge-of-the-...dianportal.com/


#49 R2builder

R2builder

    Member

  • Members
  • 437 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 05:08 PM

 

 

For the naysayers, I once tried to remove classes from D&D 3rd and turn it into a freeform advancement game.

Blink, blink. D&D is nothing like FFG SW. D&D has classes and levels as it's core character building mechanic.FFG SW does not. The core character building mechanic here is the interplay between Attributes and Skills and Talents. The Classes and Specializations are a way to "balance" characters after creation, nothing more.And trying to turn D&D into a classless system? Sounds... crazy to me. But one man's fun is another's beating his head against a wall
You missed my point entirely, yet proved it at the same time. Thanks for playing.

Next contestant?

 

DUDE!!! I did not read your post at all!!! I was typing up mine and did not even see yours!! I swear it!! That is too funny!


Edited by R2builder, 14 August 2014 - 05:11 PM.

  • 2P51 likes this

Please check out our group and leave comments at: https://edge-of-the-...dianportal.com/


#50 evileeyore

evileeyore

    Member

  • Members
  • 893 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 11:50 PM

So, I could have spent eons fiddling with all of the bits, bobs, and math, or take an hour, port the damn thing over to (insert system here) and call it crackers.

Normally I'd agree.

But GURPS isn't going to do what the dice mechanic in this game does. And I'm not going to do all the damn work to figure it out so I can port that piece over.

I can already run GURPS Star Wars (I've done it). What I can't do is get the Narrativist mechanics to port nicely... hence poking at the rules to see if I get them to line up the way I want.
 
 

There's a Move control upgrade (only about halfway down the power tree) that allows you to pull a weapon from an opponent's grasp. Just sayin.

So there is. I bow to your knowledge of the Force rules (I've mostly not read them yet - haven't needed to).
 
 

If gamers don't prefer class-based systems, why do class-based systems vastly outstrip classless systems in terms of sales figures?

Who says they don't?

Pathfinder is the 800 pound gorrilla right now. We'll see what D&D 5e does to it's "top dog" spot after it's been out another month or so. I suspect it might break even with it.
 

For that matter, why hasn't a free form system ever been a dominant RPG sales system.

There was. Briefly in the early and mid-nineties a classless, levelless system that rose up from the shadows and dominated the markets.*

White Wolf's Storyteller System, aka Vampire: The Masquerade, Werewolf: The Apocalyspe, Mage: The Etc...

It was briefly a strong contender for unseating D&D as the "top rpg". And then 3.5 kicked sand in it's face and stole it's girlfriend.



* See what I did there? "Dominated". Eh, eh? No... yeah it was a lame inside joke.
 

Because freeform systems do not make things more fun, just more complex.

Lol. The "badwrongfun" is strong in you.

And I'd say FATE is a very fun system, it's about the most freeform system I've seen (serious system, I don't mean TWERPS). We'd be playing it if my group could take that much narrativism in their games.
 

You missed my point entirely, yet proved it at the same time. Thanks for playing.

If your point was "I had a hard time making D&D into something it can never be" and thus "No one should ever do this forever" then I did indeed get your point.  It's not a point, it's an opinion, but I still got it.

D&D is nothing like FFG SW. This game is almost classless now. It'll take but a few tweaks to see it there.

D&D would take a complete system rewrite. It would be easier to start from scratch and write a new system.

Which would be the same as trying to port the nifty dice mechanics into GURPS. I'd rather smack my head against a wall.



#51 evileeyore

evileeyore

    Member

  • Members
  • 893 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 12:01 AM

 

Thank you for making my point even more poignant on the importance of knowing the rules before they are arbitrarily changed "because that's how it was in my favorite system".
Good to see we're on the same side here.  I firmly believe in knowing the rules well before futzing with them.
 
Note above where I specifically call that out?  Probably not, you were so high on trying to score a point...
 
 
Now... Talking about futzing with them?  Go ahead, you'll often learn more about the rules in attempting to deconstruct them than you would in just playing the game,
 
 

 

Hey, evileyesore, if that's how you want to your run your game, that's great. What is even greater is that I do not have to play in it. If I had a GM do that to me, my negotiation would be: read, know and understand the rules before you make up your own. If you want to cheat to make the game harder on me, then so be it, I won't be in it.
I don't know the Force rules.  I skimmed 'em and saw nothing about auto-disarm.  You also didn't specify having that particular upgrade.  Pardon me.
 
If said character have that Talent, then yes, he roles the Force die, spends his Force point and disarms the foe.  And if he doesn't have that specific upgrade I'd be fine with him trying and making an opposed check.
 
Or are you arguing he simply gets to have the upgrades for free?
 

 

There is an inherent difference between Classes and Careers. the two terms are not interchangeable.
Blah, blah, blah.  One common parlance term is interchangeable with another.  The terms serve the same function, I'll use them interchangeably.
 
 

 

You seem pretty disgusted with this game, so why even play it? Are you just on this forum now to troll and spread your hatred for this system? Have you even played this system yet?
I do enjoy the game.  But when I come into a thread specifically about doing X, I'll talk about how to do X effectively and boo down the people mindlessly chanting "But it's not RAW!" and "You shouldn't even think about X until you know the rules as well as we do and blah, blah, blah come to love them in the original state!"
 
This thread is about "Ditching Classes" not "How I Learned to Love Classes". It's right there in the url and everything.   :)
 

 

Dude really? The first thing you do is try to make three Power/Munchkin Characters that are beyond the scope of most games? Power Game much?
Power munchkins?
 
Conan.. sure.  Maybe he is a bit Mary Sue depending on his age in the series.  Let's see starting Conan...  BRA 4, AGI 3... sure.  He's a bit rough.  But a "Conan-like" is very possible.  Conan Jr maybe.
 
D'Artagnan is a great Swordsmen and has Charm.  So like two skills at 2, AGI at 4 and PRE 3.  Man, I had to really stretch to get that cheese going, I may have pulled something...
 
Grey Mouser.  He might be a bit cheesy.  High INT, AGI, PRE, and CUN... so he's a Human with 4 3's and a pair of 2's.  Not quite where I'd picture him (he should have a couple of 4's even young Mouser is bit "super"), but starting Mouser is made.  Skills... Know: Lore, Skullduggery, Melee, Stealth, Charm, and Deception.  I think he's just doable with extra Obligation.  He's not "end of books Mouser", but he's good starting character.
 
 
I think your nerdrage missed where I said "I can make them in FFG SW at chargen by the RAW".
 

 

Um, I'm calling BS here. This game takes very little to ZERO prep work. I know, I have been running this system for a bit now.
Kudos for you.
 
Our current GM puts in a bit of prep work figuring out what Minions he's using, Rivals, Nemesis building, etc.  So he's not flipping pages during game play, he keeps his lists with the stat blocks.  I'm sure if/when I run I'll have to do the same till I have stronger feel for the Adversaries stats blocks (enough so I can just wing it).  We all (my group) still consult the rulebook quite bit for skills and the charts for spending Advantages, Triumphs, Despair, and Threat.
 
He also spends a good deal of time thinking about and writing up the plot, figuring out where the Party can go from here, how we could overcome this or that.  He's not very "by the seat of his pants".
 
On the other hand, my only weakness will be stat blocks.  I'm an old hand at winging plot.
 
 

 

So I applaud your efforts to not support the men and women of FFG, not buy the books, and not read them...
Thanks.  I don't buy products I have fundamental disagreements with (in this case business practices).  I refuse to reward FFG for this style of business, the "Stretch things out to get more products sold" style.  It's not as bad as the AAA video game producers, but it's up there.
 

 

Good luck convincing your GM to do it.
If it's done, I'll be the GM.  Have you even bothered reading my posts in this thread?
 

 

I think all you are looking for is to build the "best fighting guy" you can the cheapest XP way.
LOLERSKATES.
 
My character is as far away from "fighting guy" as you can get and still be an FFG Star Wars character.  I mean sure... I have a couple of green dice in the combat skills.  But my Jawa Outlaw Tech/Mechanic/Slicer just doesn't do combat.  He fixes things.  If it's broke, he fixes it.  If it's not broke, he can probably break it.  Need a locked door opened?  Call him.  Need a computer sliced?  Call him.  Need a 'medic'?  Call him.  Need a Face, or a Murder Hobo, or a Pilot, or anything outside his pretty damn narrow competency list?  Call someone else.
 
And yeah I made the character before I realized how important combat was going to be (it's a third of what we do) but I've stuck with the character and had fun trying to find ways to be useful in combat without actually pulling his Holdout Blaster or a Grenade (2G Light Ranged, run in terror Minions!  RUN IN TERROR!).
 

 

Thanks for playing.
Next contestant please.
I agree... Next contestant!


#52 GMmL

GMmL

    Member

  • Members
  • 200 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 06:13 AM

srs business.



#53 R2builder

R2builder

    Member

  • Members
  • 437 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 06:22 AM

 

 

For example in Edge. I'm a force user, and I'm going to use move to pull the gun from the mooks hand. I roll up the Force Points I need. Yippie, I did it. Nope, the GM now says roll Discipline to do it.?!?!? Wha? Where did that come from. "Well, I just feel that the mook should be able to resist you, because that's how it was in WEG, CR, RCR, and Saga." Great, then go play one of this effing games! This rule book says nothing about opposed discipline checks for that.

Two things:

1 - That has nothing to do with ditching classes. That's a disagreement between your reading of the rules and your GM's intentions. That sort of stuff should be hashed out before play begins.

2 - By the reading of the Control upgrade (and the concept of Move in general) all it does is "What you could do with your hands, without needing to use your hands" (I'm not getting into tossing starships about here). The rules for Move don't say you can automagically disarm your foes, that's normally something that can only be accomplished with Triumphs (or a leinent GM allowing a Melee attack to forgo damage for a disarm). Personally I'd rule for sort of thing, yeah, it would be opposed. But then I'd also have a discussion with the Player in advance about what sort of hijinks he thinks he can get away with using the Force and we'd negotiate how the Force works in our game.
 

 

 

 

There's a Move control upgrade (only about halfway down the power tree) that allows you to pull a weapon from an opponent's grasp. Just sayin.

So there is. I bow to your knowledge of the Force rules (I've mostly not read them yet - haven't needed to).
 

Thanks for taking the time out to point that i broke the rules of the Interwebz Forum by NOT strictly adhering to the "Subject Title" and using a reference that was not directly to Class Ditching but about a GM just changing the rules because he can...blink...blink.
 
Also, thank you for taking the time to point out how I was wrong, and the "GM" was right in my example. Then stating you "Didn't know the rules". 
 
Perhaps you should not tell people they are wrong until you can back yourself a bit. I understand this game is quite complicated and perhaps out a little out of your league. Have you tried Candy Land? I would recommend it for you...

 

beam_zps8d449e2a.jpg


Please check out our group and leave comments at: https://edge-of-the-...dianportal.com/


#54 Hedgehobbit

Hedgehobbit

    Member

  • Members
  • 192 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 10:06 AM

The advantage I can see from removing the Specs and allowing players to just pick whatever Talent they wish is that they won't be forced to buy a Talent they don't want just to get one they do want. So, for example, if I wanted to be a melee focused bodyguard, I wouldn't have to buy a long range Talent before getting my melee Talent. 

 

Consequently, and more importantly, this will reduce the character sheet clutter. Making it easier to keep track of the Talents you do have.

 

If you price the Talents right (and a bit higher than otherwise) you should be able to mix characters with the regular rules with those free picking. I, personally, wouldn't do it this way as I'd just make a new spec for any player that didn't find what he wanted among those that are already available. 



#55 KJDavid

KJDavid

    Member

  • Members
  • 138 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 11:18 AM

I never said a system like Gurps or Hero was BAD WRONG FUN. Not at all. I've played in both systems, and enjoyed them.

 

I would quibble and point out that at no point did Vampire ever dominate the market. Did it become big? Yes. Did it topple D&D in the 1990's? Not even close. Was it because of the class-less system? Not at all. It was because the game was named Vampire and it came out in the 1990's. Plus, I would argue Vampire was not free-form, build-your-own-PC in the same way that Hero or Gurps is. There were classes in Vampire the Masquerade, but we just called them clans.

 

My point is that there are reasons some people like classes, and there is nothing that makes a class-less system better or superior in anyway. And judging from how people have voted with their wallets over the past 40 years, that's not a claim I have to spend a lot of time defending.


  • whafrog and Roman Virtue like this

#56 evileeyore

evileeyore

    Member

  • Members
  • 893 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 12:33 PM

I would quibble and point out that at no point did Vampire ever dominate the market.

"Dominate" was a joke. I even pointed that out.

And yes White Wolf came close to unseating D&D. Though... I will admit that may have had more to do with Lorriane Williams and a massive upswelling in the "narrative" crowd.

All I know is everywhere I looked in the early and mid 1990's people were playing White Wolf. Not a D&D game to be seen.
 

There were classes in Vampire the Masquerade, but we just called them clans.

Ehhh....  except there were no restrictions on skill purchases and barely any on Powers purchases.  Even less so in the other Storyteller System games, which I was talking about as a whole.

We won't even talk about how The Cammarilla (the LARP Club) consistently has a larger membership than any of the "Living D&D" clubs, to this day.
 

My point is that there are reasons some people like classes, and there is nothing that makes a class-less system better or superior in anyway.

The "badwrongfun" comes directly from your "complexity doesn't make them better, just less fun". That's you explicitly stating that other people's love for "complexity" makes the games they run and play less fun.

A lot of this sort of of passive-aggressive nonsense has been floating around this thread (and this board), "Just learn to play correctly first" - as though dissatisfaction with classes comes from faulty play?, "You should learn the rules before trying to change things" - as though those talking about houserules haven't even played or delved into the rules (or that a discussion of what makes something work and not work isn't a learning experience), etc.

#57 KJDavid

KJDavid

    Member

  • Members
  • 138 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 01:47 PM

Yes, needless complexity rarely improves an already fun experience. Where you want to draw the line on complexity is up to the individual. FFG Star Wars is already fun, and I don't see adding needless complexity vis-a-vis removing the careers doing anything at all other than reducing fun.

 

Also, I have not been passive-aggressive. All I've tried to do is explain why some people like classes and why they're likely here to stay in lieu of very rules heavy, build-your-own-PC systems. I don't have anything against class-less systems, since I own a few iterations of Hero System and have a few hundreds hours (or more) in playing it.

 

If you'll check a few other threads I've been in, I've never condemned anyone for house rules even though I tend to dislike them. Why? Because, in my actual gaming experience at the tabletop, too many GMs knee-jerk some houserule with a new ruleset they've never played for any length of time, and the houserule usually ends up being deeply unbalancing or proven pointless in short order.

 

So, yes, I would, categorically, tell anyone that before they add a single houserule or remove a rule as written, they should have a solid understanding of the game system achieved through play. Yes, I constantly hear GMs say how "they know" how a certain ruleset is going to work, because they read the rules. I've yet to see any of them ever actually be right about such a claim.

 

I know, because I've made the mistake myself too many times to mention.

 

When have I seen good houserules? Pretty much only from D&D grognards who knew they system forward and backward or, ironically considering my position in this thread, by a DM thoroughly familiar with Hero System.


  • whafrog, R2builder and Roman Virtue like this

#58 Kavadh

Kavadh

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 03:55 PM

 

 

When have I seen good houserules? Pretty much only from D&D grognards who knew they system forward and backward or, ironically considering my position in this thread, by a DM thoroughly familiar with Hero System.

 

I would say a good houserule is one that improves the fun of everyone at the table. Balance is secondary to fun, especially since balance can greatly depend upon the style of the group. You can read the thread about healing to see a great example of how differing playstyles greatly change the balancing of the doctor tree. 


  • awayputurwpn, R2builder and bradknowles like this

#59 bradknowles

bradknowles

    Member

  • Members
  • 652 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 10:22 PM

Our current GM puts in a bit of prep work figuring out what Minions he's using, Rivals, Nemesis building, etc.  So he's not flipping pages during game play, he keeps his lists with the stat blocks.  I'm sure if/when I run I'll have to do the same till I have stronger feel for the Adversaries stats blocks (enough so I can just wing it).  We all (my group) still consult the rulebook quite bit for skills and the charts for spending Advantages, Triumphs, Despair, and Threat.


That’s what the GM shield is for. All of those tables concentrated into one place. You don’t get any of the narrative text that goes along with explaining the tables, but that’s okay — the tables are really just there for quick reference when you already know the rules in general and you just need a reminder.

Unless stated otherwise, these are just my personal opinions about how I feel things should work.  Even if I quote chapter and verse of a particular rulebook, only the part that's quoted is likely to actually be official.  Each GM will have to decide for themselves what rules they will use and which ones they won't, and how they will interpret the rules they do use.  That is their right -- and their responsibility.

"A FFG Star Wars Index" by Aahzmandius_Karrde: <http://community.fan...ar-wars-index/> | Github project at <https://github.com/k...rde/ffg_swrpg/>

"Dice Probability Generator" by Litheon: http://community.fan...lity-generator/


#60 evileeyore

evileeyore

    Member

  • Members
  • 893 posts

Posted 15 August 2014 - 10:37 PM

That’s what the GM shield is for.

His love of "everything Star Wars" doesn't really enter into the realm of peripheral "utility items", in this case GM screens, Card Packs, etc.

When I run I'll just make my own like I always do. I've yet to find a GM screen that has the exact info I want.




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS