Jump to content



Photo

Edge of the Empire Beta Update: Final Week


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#21 Donovan Morningfire

Donovan Morningfire

    Looking for a saint? Look elsewhere.

  • Members
  • 4,237 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:46 AM

Jegergryte said:

Furthermore I would only like to "second" Doc, The Weasel and Kallabeccas sentiments on house-rules and actually testing the game. My own experience has shown me that even the worst looking games can work perfectly if actually tested.

Heck, people have been doing that to Palladium's in-house system for years, just to get something remotely playable

I've said this a thousand times before, but there's no such thing as a "universally perfect" RPG.  Every GM that runs a game is going to make various tweaks to better suit their style of GM'ing.

DoctorBadWolf,
If you don't like how FFG has chosen to handle specializations and non-career skills (even after checking out the rest of the updates), then simply house-rule them to a format that works for you.  You've got the original Beta book, and thanks to the way FFG did the updates, it's quite simple to go back to an earlier point and change as you feel is necessary.  If the costs of new specializations really bugs you, then simply change them back to their earlier values.

Quite honestly, there are some aspects of the updates that I'm not thrilled with, but that's not stopping me from playing the game or adapting a (rather small) set of house rules to "patch" what I feel are the problem areas.

BTW, if you'd just prefer a quick overview of what's in the Updates past 5 and 6, check out the GSA article about them here:

gsa.thegamernation.org/2012/11/15/star-wars-edge-of-the-empire-is-the-game-still-the-same/


Dono's Gaming & Etc Blog - http://jedimorningfire.blogspot.com/

"You worry about those drink vouchers, I'll worry about that bar tab!"


#22 GM Chris

GM Chris

    Member

  • Members
  • 397 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:04 AM

Doc, the Weasel said:

Man, I remember when it was pretty much understood that every RPG needed some houseruling to fit a group's tastes.

Now I guess having to make a simple change in XP cost disqualifies an entire line from even reaching the table. Rough times here.

 


Host of The Order 66 Podcast:  http://www.d20radio.com

 

Find all the EotE Order 66 Episodes right here:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/Order66


#23 aramis

aramis

    Member

  • Members
  • 996 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:21 PM

 House rules should not be essential to play the game.

The only rule lacking for playability in Palladium is the rule describing how to read dice. It may not be fun, but it's definitely playable as written if one knows how to read the dice and use polyhedral dice. I've in fact run whole campaigns using Palladium Games' Fantasy and Robotech systems… which are in fact the same mechanics as rifts. Lots of stuff in the system I don't like, but it's playable as written.

Likewise, EOTE as written in the Beta book is quite playable. It has some suboptimal decisions.

First, the decision to use a class based system.

I can understand why they went with the class-based skill/trait acquisition, but in-play skill driven play. Houseruling around that is trivially simple… pick  one of the following:
A) 12 career skills, 6 of them receiving 1 rank each
B) 11 career skills, 4 of them at one rank each, 1 at 2 ranks
C) 10 career skills, 2 at 2 ranks, 2 at 1 rank each.
1st 4 trait ranks cost 5 points each, and have to appear on any extant tree's 5 line.
2nd 4 trait ranks cost 10 points each, and have to appear on any extant tree's 5 or 10 line
3rd 4 trait ranks cost 15 points each, and have to appear on any extant tree's 5, 10 or 15 line.
etc.

In fact, that might make an excellent "optional rule" in the back of the book (And I'd be thrilled if it made it in.) The extant system creates archetypes that resonate with the setting and give an instant "in" to the intended styles of play. Fortunately, the system only makes class strongly valuable for trait acquisition; skill gains are only mildly impacted by not being in-class.

The second suboptimal decision in the beta is scaling. Not that it uses scales, but that it has too few. The setting includes vehicles from 1.5m to 15km long… and the simplicity of the scaling mechanic is nice, but doesn't match all the canon sources all that well. (Tho' Clone Wars may not be one that they really considered. In at least two episodes, I've seen clonetrooper carbines do damage to starfighter sized tanks… and tanks should be less fragile than starfighters of the same size.)

The third suboptimal decision is to not have operational costs and expected "normal" income for ships.

The fourth was to not have a good ratio of what a ships' cargo enc is, and relating it to the Extended Universe data already out there.

None of these are fatal flaws.

Seriously, all the decisions I've isolated as suboptimal are issues, but not ones that break the underlying system. The only truly major flaw isn't one for me - the custom dice. It's a high barrier for some people, including my wife, but in play, I have been convinced of the value in play. 

And, once the big book is out, I'll be happy to houserule myself as needed… but the more houserules I need, the less likely I am to advocate for and/or use the system. (My general limit is 1 page of house rules. Possibly plus a 1/2 page list of canonical optional rules in force.) And my players tend to acquire rulebooks for systems they like when I run them.
 



#24 JoeLastowski

JoeLastowski

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 06:07 PM

 Still wishing there was a bit more love for droids (as well as a better-explained mechanic for ionization weapons), but overall the rest of these changes seem like they make sense.  Our group will try them out this weekend to see how they play.

Oh, and to the person who wanted a black-text version of the final changes, can't you just print it in grayscale?  That's what I'm doing with my cut-and-pasting of the changes.



#25 aramis

aramis

    Member

  • Members
  • 996 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:58 PM

JoeLastowski said:

 Still wishing there was a bit more love for droids (as well as a better-explained mechanic for ionization weapons), but overall the rest of these changes seem like they make sense.  Our group will try them out this weekend to see how they play.

Oh, and to the person who wanted a black-text version of the final changes, can't you just print it in grayscale?  That's what I'm doing with my cut-and-pasting of the changes.

It's pretty hard to read the red text coming off my laser printer - the gray isn't sufficiently dark against the background for easy reading.



#26 Venthrac

Venthrac

    Member

  • Members
  • 902 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 03:22 AM

aramis said:

JoeLastowski said:

 

 Still wishing there was a bit more love for droids (as well as a better-explained mechanic for ionization weapons), but overall the rest of these changes seem like they make sense.  Our group will try them out this weekend to see how they play.

Oh, and to the person who wanted a black-text version of the final changes, can't you just print it in grayscale?  That's what I'm doing with my cut-and-pasting of the changes.

 

It's pretty hard to read the red text coming off my laser printer - the gray isn't sufficiently dark against the background for easy reading.

 

Seconded. An all-black version of this would be great.



#27 doctorbadwolf

doctorbadwolf

    Member

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 06:54 PM

doctorbadwolf said:

 

A lot of things about this game seem/are fun*, but my fears have been realized, and there just isn't any point in my group buying this game.

 


 

 

 

Man, I remember when it was pretty much understood that every RPG needed some houseruling to fit a group's tastes.

Now I guess having to make a simple change in XP cost disqualifies an entire line from even reaching the table. Rough times here.

 

It's a pretty important part of the system. I'm not going to rework the basic character advancement math just to make the game playable. the rest of the system is fairly cool, but not cool enough for that.



#28 doctorbadwolf

doctorbadwolf

    Member

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 07:13 PM

Kallabecca said:

doctorbadwolf said:

Specializations cost far too much. It's not about power gaming. It's about the set up of specializations not working for the types of characters we play. It's also about playing characters of various types that can actually fight, but that's a skill set up issue. Blaster pistols should be a skill for every single career.

 

 

 

Since you admit that you haven't played with the later updates, then you're missing the fact that costs of Specializations and skills were reduced. In the case of skills, they were returned to the original cost (5*new rank for career, 5*new rank + 5 for non-career). So, the cost of getting blasters to rank 5 from nothing is about 25xp different for the careers that have it versus the careers that don't. A whopping 2 game sessions difference at most.

Cost of the specs were introduced because the number of specs being limited was removed (originally limited to 3, now unlimited). The costs for new specs were also reduced in a later update.

Since I'm capable of reading, I'm quite aware of the reasoning for the idiotic progressive cost for new specs. I'm also quite aware of the lame excuses for keeping the entirely absurd higher cost for non career skills.

See, you don't have to play the updates in order to read them.

Jegergryte said:

Odd sentiments from mister doctor bad canine there I feel.

 

A new specialty should always have the same cost. Progressive cost is a complication with no benefit. This game just isn't well made. There's certainly nothing intuitive about it costing more to go from gadgeteer to outlaw tech than it does to go from gadgeteer to assassin.

 

Donovan Morningfire said:

Jegergryte said:

Furthermore I would only like to "second" Doc, The Weasel and Kallabeccas sentiments on house-rules and actually testing the game. My own experience has shown me that even the worst looking games can work perfectly if actually tested.

 

Heck, people have been doing that to Palladium's in-house system for years, just to get something remotely playable

I've said this a thousand times before, but there's no such thing as a "universally perfect" RPG.  Every GM that runs a game is going to make various tweaks to better suit their style of GM'ing.

DoctorBadWolf,
If you don't like how FFG has chosen to handle specializations and non-career skills (even after checking out the rest of the updates), then simply house-rule them to a format that works for you.  You've got the original Beta book, and thanks to the way FFG did the updates, it's quite simple to go back to an earlier point and change as you feel is necessary.  If the costs of new specializations really bugs you, then simply change them back to their earlier values.

Quite honestly, there are some aspects of the updates that I'm not thrilled with, but that's not stopping me from playing the game or adapting a (rather small) set of house rules to "patch" what I feel are the problem areas.

BTW, if you'd just prefer a quick overview of what's in the Updates past 5 and 6, check out the GSA article about them here:

gsa.thegamernation.org/2012/11/15/star-wars-edge-of-the-empire-is-the-game-still-the-same/

 

OK, I'm really not sure why people seem to think I haven't read the updates. I very, very clearly have.

 

Anyway, why would I play a game that I have to signifigently houserule just for it to be playable? That would be a waste of time.

 

For the record, I wasn't thrilled with the original cost setup, either. As I've said before, it's always seemed like a system that would most efficiently accomplish it's own goals by not having the carreers, career skills, or different costs for different specs/skills in any way.

 

The only way this system makes sense is if you gut out careers, make all skills available at the same price, keep the free trainings from specs, and make the other free trainings available from the entire list of skills. Otherwise, it's just…poorly thought out. Or, make career mean something other than a limiting factor, like having career talents that work outside specs, or something.

 

 



#29 Jegergryte

Jegergryte

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:30 AM

I don't see a progressive cost as a "complication" - you might, but I find that position to be odd and one that complicates simple things. The benefits are obvious: access to new talents and new careers skills. If that isn't a benefit I don't know what in your mind would count as a "benefit". When it comes to the price difference and progression between specialisations one can argue pretty well for both positions. I guess it comes down to how big a role and how important it is for all the players to get access to whatever they want with (close to) no cost and investment at all. For me it is intuitive that learning more and new things becomes more difficulty and requires more investment over time. If specialisations cost the same across the board, the prices should at least be increased a lot - and the benefits of which you speak should also be improved upon. Within its current version it works well, even if its got some sub-optimal solutions.

When it comes to skills and careers generally I do somewhat agree, but I've noticed through game play that it works well, it balances out and the players enjoy it. A career-less version would be nice sure, but surely having careers doesn't ruin the game. Having career skills and non-career skills makes sense to me, even in a career-less system I would have preferred to have that present - favoured and non-favoured skills if you will. It shows the focus of the character, what the character has been spent its time doing, learning and focusing on. Everyone can do everything sure (more or less), but some people require a lot more training, time and investment in learning certain skills than others. Having this tied to careers makes sense, when having a career-system, in a career-less system this should be picked in a different way. But such a limitation makes sense, is intuitive and creates a good frame and balancing point for the game and system.

As for house-ruling a game, I guess its down to each his own about that. I've never encountered a game that didn't need house ruling, perhaps 7th Sea didn't so much … but this game is very playable in its current form, I've only made one adjustment - the number of successes a triumph comes with. Which is the dice mechanic, not what you seem to be all flustered about.


Make sure your brain is engaged, before putting your mouth into gear.

"What about the future...? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable."

GMLovlie's/Jegergryte's Cubicle direct link to supplements here.


#30 doctorbadwolf

doctorbadwolf

    Member

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:18 AM

Jegergryte said:

I don't see a progressive cost as a "complication" - you might, but I find that position to be odd and one that complicates simple things. The benefits are obvious: access to new talents and new careers skills. If that isn't a benefit I don't know what in your mind would count as a "benefit". When it comes to the price difference and progression between specialisations one can argue pretty well for both positions. I guess it comes down to how big a role and how important it is for all the players to get access to whatever they want with (close to) no cost and investment at all. For me it is intuitive that learning more and new things becomes more difficulty and requires more investment over time. If specialisations cost the same across the board, the prices should at least be increased a lot - and the benefits of which you speak should also be improved upon. Within its current version it works well, even if its got some sub-optimal solutions.

When it comes to skills and careers generally I do somewhat agree, but I've noticed through game play that it works well, it balances out and the players enjoy it. A career-less version would be nice sure, but surely having careers doesn't ruin the game. Having career skills and non-career skills makes sense to me, even in a career-less system I would have preferred to have that present - favoured and non-favoured skills if you will. It shows the focus of the character, what the character has been spent its time doing, learning and focusing on. Everyone can do everything sure (more or less), but some people require a lot more training, time and investment in learning certain skills than others. Having this tied to careers makes sense, when having a career-system, in a career-less system this should be picked in a different way. But such a limitation makes sense, is intuitive and creates a good frame and balancing point for the game and system.

As for house-ruling a game, I guess its down to each his own about that. I've never encountered a game that didn't need house ruling, perhaps 7th Sea didn't so much … but this game is very playable in its current form, I've only made one adjustment - the number of successes a triumph comes with. Which is the dice mechanic, not what you seem to be all flustered about.

 

First, skills: Favoured skills are fine. We have that with the list of skills in which you get an automatic rank from your spec. I'd even be fine if career existed, but only as a way to determine your other auto ranked skills at chargen, and non-mechanically organize talents. Skill list restrictions are, however, not something I'm cool with.

 

The progressive cost is a complication. That is fact. You may consider it a minor one, and mathematically you'd be right, but it makes the system less simple, compared to each spec costing the same amount. I could possibly accept the progressive cost if the system had no concept of career vs non career for specs, and thus any spec cost the same, depending on how many specs you had. I still wouldn't be thrilled about it, nor would anyone else in my gaming group, but if skills also lost the career restrictions and thus extra cost, we might actually be willing to play this game.

 

Tthe "multiclassing tax" only makes sense if diversity unbalances the game. In this system, it does not. Therefor, there is no benefit. When I say benefit, here and in the text you quoted, I refer to the system, not a given character. Building the system in this way does not benefit the game.

 

 



#31 djext1

djext1

    Member

  • Members
  • 78 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:35 AM

doctorbadwolf said:

 

 

 

First, skills: Favoured skills are fine. We have that with the list of skills in which you get an automatic rank from your spec. I'd even be fine if career existed, but only as a way to determine your other auto ranked skills at chargen, and non-mechanically organize talents. Skill list restrictions are, however, not something I'm cool with.

 

The progressive cost is a complication. That is fact. You may consider it a minor one, and mathematically you'd be right, but it makes the system less simple, compared to each spec costing the same amount. I could possibly accept the progressive cost if the system had no concept of career vs non career for specs, and thus any spec cost the same, depending on how many specs you had. I still wouldn't be thrilled about it, nor would anyone else in my gaming group, but if skills also lost the career restrictions and thus extra cost, we might actually be willing to play this game.

 

Tthe "multiclassing tax" only makes sense if diversity unbalances the game. In this system, it does not. Therefor, there is no benefit. When I say benefit, here and in the text you quoted, I refer to the system, not a given character. Building the system in this way does not benefit the game.

 

 

 

I don't understand this ridiculously overdramatic complaining about all this.  If this is so gamebreaking for you, then get rid of it and play the game.  Won't tolerate these "restrictions" you can't stop going on about?  Then don't have them!  It's not like you have to rewrite the rules and change a bunch of things…just don't have them.  Allow anyone to get whatever skills they want at the normal cost.  Problem solved.  I don't understand why this is made out to be so complicated and appalling.   You don't like careers?  Throw em out and let people pick things buffet style if you choose.  It's not that difficult.

Just seems to me you don't want to like or play this game no matter what since it doesn't do what you think it should do or be.  That's cool, not everything is for everyone.  It's a new system and I'm sure everyone will pick some things out or change some things up when they run it.  That's what RPGs have always been about. 


The EotE Dork Night Online Gaming Group!

Broadcasting our live Google Hangout Games every couple of weeks. 

Visit our website for information about our group and our games.


#32 Jegergryte

Jegergryte

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:53 AM

doctorbadwolf said:

First, skills: Favoured skills are fine. We have that with the list of skills in which you get an automatic rank from your spec. I'd even be fine if career existed, but only as a way to determine your other auto ranked skills at chargen, and non-mechanically organize talents. Skill list restrictions are, however, not something I'm cool with.

 

The progressive cost is a complication. That is fact. You may consider it a minor one, and mathematically you'd be right, but it makes the system less simple, compared to each spec costing the same amount. I could possibly accept the progressive cost if the system had no concept of career vs non career for specs, and thus any spec cost the same, depending on how many specs you had. I still wouldn't be thrilled about it, nor would anyone else in my gaming group, but if skills also lost the career restrictions and thus extra cost, we might actually be willing to play this game.

 

Tthe "multiclassing tax" only makes sense if diversity unbalances the game. In this system, it does not. Therefor, there is no benefit. When I say benefit, here and in the text you quoted, I refer to the system, not a given character. Building the system in this way does not benefit the game.

About skills: I wonder what you mean if favoured skills are ok - would this only dictate the freebies? or differing skill prices? For me it entails varying cost. This is the only skill "restriction" - and its not really a restriction as such, you can always use a skill, there is no "trained" requirement. In the big scheme of things, varying skill costs are certainly not really needed, unless gaining a rank had some mechanical benefit beyond rolling proficiency dice. I've been toying with the idea for certain knowledge skills - and new skills I've been thinking about adding. Hand-waiving the varying skill cost isn't big systems surgery though.

I don't see progressive cost as a complication, nor that this is a "fact". It's an opinion, and its fine. Hand-waiving this away isn't a big problem though is it? Does it ruin the game that it contains rules that you don't need? Changing this for your group doesn't cost you anything but a thought. I think the limitation is a good thing, it can be seen as shoehorning - some players need that, but if you don't like it remove it. Requires little thought and work.

About the benefit thing. It seems unclear still, because the benefit you speak of apparently needs to unbalance the game - which would be a character trait and power increase, of any given character. So if progressive cost for "multiclassing" requires a system which will become unbalanced by such a move, then I think in this system its a benefit that it doesn't, even if its not unbalanced. It seems that you dislike it because they have managed to create a more balanced system, which still allows multi-classing, but doing so does not unbalance it - which is a bad thing? In some ways it does benefit, the character receives other abilities it should not have normally access to. Mechanically speaking this means that for instance a Bounty Hunter gains access to talents and abilities outside the archetype, which means that the BH will be superior in some ways to other BHs - this is a benefit, systemically and for the character. These two things - in my opinion - does not really exist isolated from each other, they are in fact tied together very closely.


Make sure your brain is engaged, before putting your mouth into gear.

"What about the future...? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable."

GMLovlie's/Jegergryte's Cubicle direct link to supplements here.


#33 Thebearisdriving

Thebearisdriving

    Member

  • Members
  • 483 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:33 PM

Regarding Progressive spec costs:  I feel like there should be a cap, say for instance that specs past your third, career, non-career, or universal, cost 50 xp.  That's just a number, but I feel like using a static number is more…predictable interms of character development and cost, both froma designer standpoint and a player stand point.  It feels less like a ceiling and more like a cost, and is a high cost without being so high as to cripple truly powerful characters.

However, seeing as a full tree is worth 300xp, and fully developing even 3 specializations would be approx 1000xp (not counting skill increases) I don't think it's soemthing that needs to be addressed.  If any characters in the course of normal play reach 1000 xp before the next book (and next opportunity to address the mechanic in print) it's only 40-50 xp to get that 4th spec, and another 300 xp to fully develop that tree.

Long story short, While I think there should be a cap of a fixed cost, in the end the practical effect is minimal, since it's unlikely players would even hit my suggested cap over the course of play.  YMMV of course.



#34 doctorbadwolf

doctorbadwolf

    Member

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 07:05 AM

djext1 said:

doctorbadwolf said:

First, skills:

 

I don't understand this ridiculously overdramatic complaining about all this.  If this is so gamebreaking for you, then get rid of it and play the game.  Won't tolerate these "restrictions" you can't stop going on about?  Then don't have them!  It's not like you have to rewrite the rules and change a bunch of things…just don't have them.  Allow anyone to get whatever skills they want at the normal cost.  Problem solved.  I don't understand why this is made out to be so complicated and appalling.   You don't like careers?  Throw em out and let people pick things buffet style if you choose.  It's not that difficult.

Just seems to me you don't want to like or play this game no matter what since it doesn't do what you think it should do or be.  That's cool, not everything is for everyone.  It's a new system and I'm sure everyone will pick some things out or change some things up when they run it.  That's what RPGs have always been about. 

 

Oh please. This isn't about what I can allow or disallow. This is about the game being well made enough that I don't have to houserule fundemental aspects of the game in order to play it.

 

It's about the set up right now being crappy for no reason.

And there's nothing dramatic about my dissatisfaction with these features, nor with voicing that dissatisfaction.

Jegergryte said:

doctorbadwolf said:

 

First, skills: Favoured skills are fine. We have that with the list of skills in which you get an automatic rank from your spec. I'd even be fine if career existed, but only as a way to determine your other auto ranked skills at chargen, and non-mechanically organize talents. Skill list restrictions are, however, not something I'm cool with.

Favoured skills should only be those skills in which you gain free training. Skills should be otherwise decoupled from careers.

 

And progressive cost factually complicates the game. The only thing that can be in question is to what degree, and whether or not that's ok.

And getting rid of progressive cost and different cost for different skills does not unbalance the game. At all. The game, right now, rewards specialization above generalization, and it doesn't need to. The game is balanced without those features.

 

The prog. cost is bad for the same reason that the 3e DnD skill system  was bad for MC characters. The math isn't hard,  but that's irrelevant. It's annoying because it doesn't need to be as complicated as it is.



#35 Jegergryte

Jegergryte

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:06 AM

doctorbadwolf said:


1) And progressive cost factually complicates the game. The only thing that can be in question is to what degree, and whether or not that's ok.

2) And getting rid of progressive cost and different cost for different skills does not unbalance the game. At all. The game, right now, rewards specialization above generalization, and it doesn't need to. The game is balanced without those features.

3) The prog. cost is bad for the same reason that the 3e DnD skill system  was bad for MC characters. The math isn't hard,  but that's irrelevant. It's annoying because it doesn't need to be as complicated as it is.

1) I guess you understand the term "complicate" slightly differently and a lot more widely than me. I'll just have to disagree on that notion of yours.

2) This statement means you have already tested the game, more or less extensively, removing varied and progressive cost. This means that you have already performed the work you're saying is too much to play the game and the point is moot. Or its a speculative gesture on how you think it won't unbalance the game from a theoretical level, which is fine too - but it remains specualtion if this is the case. If you've tested it I don't understand what you're moaning about. It doesn't ruin the game, that much is obvious from actually play-testing it and most feedback on these boards.

3) Well, it being "annoying" is also irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things. Annoying doesn't mean "bad", it means that you don't like it - which is a fair and valid position, but that is something else than "ruining the game" - although "ruining the game for ME (i.e. you)" is completely valid, but something else than arguing that the game is void of worth due to some minor details that takes but a wave of the hand to remove - it requires no work at all. It's not even changing the "core mechanic" as you claim. Basically, this is a pile of naysaying and pointless arguments with little or no substance.

Sure, I'm a fan of the system, and therefore biased, you can take that to mean what you will, but … I find your lack of faith disturbing.


Make sure your brain is engaged, before putting your mouth into gear.

"What about the future...? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable."

GMLovlie's/Jegergryte's Cubicle direct link to supplements here.


#36 doctorbadwolf

doctorbadwolf

    Member

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 06:17 AM

While I appreciate the Vader quote, you seem to be missing the point.

 

I'm willing to do work in the course of testing a beta version of a game that I'm not willing to do in order to play a published game. I shouldn't have to play game designer in order to play a published game.

 

The progressive cost is counter intuitive and entirely unneccesary. The combination of it and the different costs for non career specs doesn't bring anything to the system other than increased complexity and potential confusion for casual players, along with needless limiting of chargen character concepts.

 

There's nothing good about any of that.



#37 Kallabecca

Kallabecca

    Member

  • Members
  • 834 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 11:53 AM

doctorbadwolf said:

While I appreciate the Vader quote, you seem to be missing the point.

 

I'm willing to do work in the course of testing a beta version of a game that I'm not willing to do in order to play a published game. I shouldn't have to play game designer in order to play a published game.

 

The progressive cost is counter intuitive and entirely unneccesary. The combination of it and the different costs for non career specs doesn't bring anything to the system other than increased complexity and potential confusion for casual players, along with needless limiting of chargen character concepts.

 

There's nothing good about any of that.

To you it might seem counterintuitive. But not to everyone. To me it makes sense as you are splitting more and more of your focus and limited time to learn more things. Knowledge is a use it or lose it thing, so any skill that you have, any Talent that you obtain, takes "time" to keep fresh. Same thing with trying to learn skills outside your primary area of focus… There are very few people that could even come close to be a jack-of-all-trades in our society.

So, as a game mechanic, having skills cost different (and the cost is minimal… about 25 XP difference to get the skill from nothing to rank 5 for career vs non-career). Really what you are actually buying by adding Careers/Specializations is access to the Talent trees… which are huge expenditures of XP (about 300 for the whole tree) and are what really represent the training of the character (far more than the skills and characteristics do). So, having a progressive cost to get access to more of them… Just Makes Sense… :)



#38 Jegergryte

Jegergryte

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 25 December 2012 - 11:50 AM

doctorbadwolf said:

While I appreciate the Vader quote, you seem to be missing the point.

 

I'm willing to do work in the course of testing a beta version of a game that I'm not willing to do in order to play a published game. I shouldn't have to play game designer in order to play a published game.

 

The progressive cost is counter intuitive and entirely unneccesary. The combination of it and the different costs for non career specs doesn't bring anything to the system other than increased complexity and potential confusion for casual players, along with needless limiting of chargen character concepts.

 

There's nothing good about any of that.

There's no need to "play game designer" to tweak a game for your own gaming needs - this used to be a standard phrase in RPG books' introductions, something along the lines of "these are but guidelines, use what you find herein that makes for a fun and entertaining game, throw away the rest".

I have one question, really. What roleplaying game(s), if any, do you play unaltered, with no house-rules or tweaks? In what games do you produce nothing of your own material, by which I mean new stats, new gear, new equipment, new classes/careers/archetypes, new skills, new spells/powers, new talents/feats/the like?

The last summary of yours is a purely subjective statement about taste and preferences in games. I respect that, but I do not agree with it. To me there is good stuff in that, there is no blueprint or definitive answer to this question. I can appreciate the "confusion for casual players", but again to me this is a negligible issue. If players are interested, they need only invest a modicum of effort to learn and understand, if not why are they playing? And if this is still a too big obstacle, hand-wave it away.


Make sure your brain is engaged, before putting your mouth into gear.

"What about the future...? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable."

GMLovlie's/Jegergryte's Cubicle direct link to supplements here.


#39 mjprogue1

mjprogue1

    Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:28 PM

doctorbadwolf said:

A lot of things about this game seem/are fun*, but my fears have been realized, and there just isn't any point in my group buying this game.

 

Specializations cost far too much. It's not about power gaming. It's about the set up of specializations not working for the types of characters we play. It's also about playing characters of various types that can actually fight, but that's a skill set up issue. Blaster pistols should be a skill for every single career.

The problem with the careers and specs in this game is that they are restricted in weird, counter intuitive, unexpected ways, and then have prohibitive costs associated with going around those restrictions.

Multi-specing in this game does not screw up the balance of the game. Mixing specs does not lead to characters that are more powerful than non mixed characters. There is literally no reason to hike up the cost. Further, having a fluctuating cost scale creates the same problem that multiclassed characters had in 3.5 DnD and it's derivitives when calculating skills. The math is complicated in ways that serve no good purpose. One has to take note of when one purchased each spec in order to simply double check their build math.

 

Basically, it's a system that feels in almost every way like it should have been truly "classless", but someone stubbornly refused to allow it.

 

No thank you.

This isn't a matter of not liking the style of game they're making, or it not being my sort of thing, etc. It's a matter of them screwing up their game. And now, for at least 5 years (if I remember the length of the license correctly) there won't be any new Star Wars RPG products worth purchasing for my group.

 

That's quite a bummer.

 

 

*Haven't played since around update 5 or 6, so there's some stuff I've not checked out first hand.

Wow talk about whining for the sake of whining…

So basically your only problem is with the increased costs for Specs…ok then…use a cheaper cost for specs.  If that is literally the only thing keeping your group from buying into this game then I pity you and your group for such a poor decision making process.

As for everyone getting Blaster pistol..thats just a stupid observation.  Nothing is stopping every class from buying the skill (as with any other) but certain classes are going to be better at it than others…this is just common sense…oh and Pistols are not the only "fighting" skill so that argument is pointless too.

As for the "classless" system…works for many genres…but not for Star Wars…Heroic Archetypes are a fundamental part of the IP…without some kind of structure to lead players down an Archetypal path, you end up with min-maxed, generic supermen who are basically all the same.  Thats just a fact of the classless game…



#40 mjprogue1

mjprogue1

    Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:32 PM

doctorbadwolf said:

While I appreciate the Vader quote, you seem to be missing the point.

 

I'm willing to do work in the course of testing a beta version of a game that I'm not willing to do in order to play a published game. I shouldn't have to play game designer in order to play a published game.

 

The progressive cost is counter intuitive and entirely unneccesary. The combination of it and the different costs for non career specs doesn't bring anything to the system other than increased complexity and potential confusion for casual players, along with needless limiting of chargen character concepts.

 

There's nothing good about any of that.

 

Oh and progressive costs limit the number of specs that are practical…forcing someone who insists on having access to every talent in the game to pay out the butt for it.  The devs aren't saying you CAN'T make a character who is a combination of every "perfect" talent and skill in the game (min-max) they're just saying you have to pay for the privelage.  Call it a way to balance the rules lawyers who want 6 specs to get just the right power combo…when any Roleplayer knows that no character realistically would have anywhere near that many specs…nor would they need them.






© 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