Jump to content



Photo

Some general questions:


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Raice

Raice

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 04:43 AM

So, I bought the Starter Kit a few months back and played through it once with some friends.  We are all Table Top veterans.  We mostly play D&D 3.5 with a few Pathfinder supplements here and there.

 

About a year ago, I started a campaign with the Saga Edition ruleset since I really wanted to DM.  But I wasn't very interested in a D&D setting.  I love Star Wars, and just wanted something different.  We never finished the game since, essentially, as the DM I simply did not have faith in the ruleset.  There were just too many holes in it.

 

So when I heard about this game, I got super excited because it "appeared" to be amazing.  The Starter Kit was cool, but there were just too many uncertainties for me to invest fully into the system.

 

That being said, I have some general questions:

 

1.  I really have no idea what all kind of classes there are in the system.  While I'm sure whatever classes there are, they are interesting, I am more interested in knowing if there are any blatant balance issues.  A common issue with all D&D related systems is the glaring problems with class balance.  Basically, every system has a few Alpha Classes that make any other option pointless in comparison.  How good is this game about Class Balancing?

 

2.  I make my own mythos in games.  My group and I hardly ever run previously made modules and pre-built adventures.  One of the best things about being a DM is to craft your own story.  For the original campaign I created, I created my own era and history leading up to it.  How well does the EotE system scale to allow the DM to do this?

 

3.  Along that same vein, I understand that Jedi from a Clone Wars perspective do not really have system support with this rule book.  I understand that there will be more added later in 2015 that will address Force related things in more detail.  I'm okay with this.  I read somewhere, however, that the EotE system does allow a player to create a player that is more like Luke from ESB than Anakin from RotS.  That's okay to me too, as I actually like that.  I enjoy how the original trilogy painted the idea of a Jedi moreso than the prequels did.  My question is, for the inventive sort who appreciates homebrewing while still retaining system balance, is there at least enough information to create some jury-rigged house-ruling Jedi stuff that can work until the official information is available?

 

4.  I love maps.  Maps and minis are just cool.  I understand that the movement and tactical portions of the game are much more abstract, and it was even evident in the Starter Kit.  While movement is something I understand can easily be made more concrete, I am worked about the mechanics of gun-fire.  This is something the Starter Kit did not fully address.  Does the system account for things such as Cover?  Actually, the whole Defense system did not make sense to me.  It appeared that the difficulty was always 2 Purple die.  Is this matter covered in more detail?  And more importantly, is it a system that makes relative sense from a tactical perspective?

 

5.  Is there any sort of thing like Prestige Classes or Multi-Classing or are those sorts of things more or less unnecessary for this system?

 

6.  How well does the game actually balance out Class options for combat and out-of-combat dynamics?  One of my biggest pet-peaves with D&D is how half the classes are functionally useless in combat, yet overcompensate by a large margin with social skills, and visa versa.  What you're left with is you're either good in combat and nothing else, or you are good in everything but combat.  Basically, I want to make sure that no matter what class you play, you can have just as much fun in all situations as any other class.

 

7.  With my Starter Kit experience, we were learning a new system.  So... things went pretty slowly, especially in combat.  One thing I hate about D&D is how combat can seemingly take hours.  And if you are playing a class that doesn't do much in combat... this can be extremely boring.  At any rate, my question is... how well does the pace of the game keep from getting static?  Assuming my group and I learn the rules well enough - will the game move along at a good pace without being bogged down by a million rules on how to calculate a bunch of fluff stuff?

 

8.  Another issue I have had in other system is that the Leveling experience was a little bit distorted.  In D&D, you start out really, really crappy, and eventually become ridiculously powerful.  In Saga, you basically start out as a power house, and as you level up, the game sort of gives you this steady increase of diminishing returns.  So... the game actually gets harder.  Does EotE have a steady level up system?

 

9.  Most importantly, do the rules in the game make sense?  I've read through Saga Edition a million times and every time and every time I do, I can't help but perceive quite a bit of it as an immediate candidate for a retro-fit house-rule.  Basically, a lot of stuff in that system (and D&D for that matter) don't make sense for practical reasons.  I'm a reasonable guy and I expect reasonable rules.  How well does this game relate to that?

 

10.  Lastly, about how long of a life-time can I expect a character to have?  For instance, D&D has 20 levels (minus epic.)  To me and the way my group plays, those 20 levels give us quite a bit of mileage.  How does the character lifespan in EotE relate?  For instance, is Max expected level for a EotE character career equal to say 10 D&D levels, 20, 30?  I guess I'm trying to determine how long a campaign could run from a single group of characters.  I'm used to campaigns that could take up to a year from lvls 1-10 or 12, and then another year to finish out to 20.  Is this conceivable for EotE characters?

 

Sorry this is so long, but these are important to me as a player and as a DM.  Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions!


Edited by Raice, 11 July 2013 - 05:01 AM.


#2 TiLT

TiLT

    Member

  • Members
  • 175 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 06:01 AM

1.  I really have no idea what all kind of classes there are in the system.  While I'm sure whatever classes there are, they are interesting, I am more interested in knowing if there are any blatant balance issues.  A common issue with all D&D related systems is the glaring problems with class balance.  Basically, every system has a few Alpha Classes that make any other option pointless in comparison.  How good is this game about Class Balancing?

 

 

I haven't read through the entirety of the book yet, but I wanted to address this question on more general terms. 

 

Discard the idea of "class balance". There is no such thing in this game. Not only are there no true classes (it's a bit more loose with the concept than what you might be used to), but there is nothing in particular to balance against. This isn't a combat game. It's not a tactical game. It's not a game about number crunching. It's a narrative RPG. All characters can contribute equally to the narrative in different ways, but they can't compete with each other if set up against one specific standard. 

 

If you're going to be running a combat-heavy game, certain character types will dominate. In that case you should recommend that your players don't pick the weaker options. Though the game does kind of support this kind of thing (it even mentions it in the first chapter), I would argue that it's not at all what EotE is built for. As mentioned this is a narrative game where the focus is on everyone being able to do cool stuff. This doesn't mean everyone will be awesome all the time, unlike a game like D&D where everyone is roughly equal in combat. It just means that everyone has some way to be in the spotlight consistently. 

 

It's like in the Rogue Trader campaign I'm running. There's one character who is a glorified bodyguard, and he completely owns everyone else in combat. The others tend to be his support, hiding behind cover while he does his stuff. This is fine, and the players love it because that's the character's shtick, his way of being in the spotlight. Other players dominate in other arenas. The seneschal takes the spotlight during trade and negotiations, the pilot takes the spotlight when ships or vehicles are involved, and the navigator takes the spotlight when the mystical comes into play. When one of them is in focus, the others simply can't compete, and that's how it's meant to be. 

 

So no, don't expect there to be much class balance in this game. It's going to be decent enough that most groups won't notice anything, but if you've got a bunch of players that tend to min-max and who expect combat to take precedence over everything else, there's bound to be issues.


Edited by TiLT, 11 July 2013 - 06:01 AM.

  • Blind Pumpkin, EldritchFire and BillW like this

#3 Raice

Raice

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 06:58 AM

 

1.  I really have no idea what all kind of classes there are in the system.  While I'm sure whatever classes there are, they are interesting, I am more interested in knowing if there are any blatant balance issues.  A common issue with all D&D related systems is the glaring problems with class balance.  Basically, every system has a few Alpha Classes that make any other option pointless in comparison.  How good is this game about Class Balancing?

 

 

I haven't read through the entirety of the book yet, but I wanted to address this question on more general terms. 

 

Discard the idea of "class balance". There is no such thing in this game. Not only are there no true classes (it's a bit more loose with the concept than what you might be used to), but there is nothing in particular to balance against. This isn't a combat game. It's not a tactical game. It's not a game about number crunching. It's a narrative RPG. All characters can contribute equally to the narrative in different ways, but they can't compete with each other if set up against one specific standard. 

 

If you're going to be running a combat-heavy game, certain character types will dominate. In that case you should recommend that your players don't pick the weaker options. Though the game does kind of support this kind of thing (it even mentions it in the first chapter), I would argue that it's not at all what EotE is built for. As mentioned this is a narrative game where the focus is on everyone being able to do cool stuff. This doesn't mean everyone will be awesome all the time, unlike a game like D&D where everyone is roughly equal in combat. It just means that everyone has some way to be in the spotlight consistently. 

 

It's like in the Rogue Trader campaign I'm running. There's one character who is a glorified bodyguard, and he completely owns everyone else in combat. The others tend to be his support, hiding behind cover while he does his stuff. This is fine, and the players love it because that's the character's shtick, his way of being in the spotlight. Other players dominate in other arenas. The seneschal takes the spotlight during trade and negotiations, the pilot takes the spotlight when ships or vehicles are involved, and the navigator takes the spotlight when the mystical comes into play. When one of them is in focus, the others simply can't compete, and that's how it's meant to be. 

 

So no, don't expect there to be much class balance in this game. It's going to be decent enough that most groups won't notice anything, but if you've got a bunch of players that tend to min-max and who expect combat to take precedence over everything else, there's bound to be issues.

 

 

As far as EotE being a narrative RPG, I understand that.  However, the narrative only functions in two ways: in combat and out of combat.  All I am really asking is whether or not each class has mechanics built into them that allow them to participate in both in some capacity.

 

Basically, I want to avoid the situation where:

 

1.  the character playing the heavy gunman who lives to fight won't be bored because he has nothing to do during the 5 hours we spend with story/social/non-combative stuff

 

2.  the noble-type character who lives to be social and steals money everywhere he can isn't noticed when he contributes whatever it is he does in combat because what he does is as relevant as not being there at all.

 

Also, consider this in D&D:

 

1.  Fighters get a crap ton of combat options, and zero social options.

2.  A Rogue gets a crap ton of social options, and standard amount of combat options, but those combat options are pretty nice.

3.  A Druid gets a moderate amount of social options, a standard amount of combat options, and a crap ton of magic options that allows the character to eventually reshape reality as well as completely replace all of their combat and social options simultaneously if they so choose.

 

This is the sort of class balance issues I am talking about.  It's very clear here in what order these classes are useful for playing.  I'm okay with diversity - but I'm not okay with one class having the ability to completely replace another class by virtue of poor design balance.  It simply isn't necessary for this sort of oversight.



#4 Rookhelm

Rookhelm

    Member

  • Members
  • 446 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 07:09 AM

As far as leveling up is concerned, I feel like this system makes it so you can level up your players as fast or slow as you want.

 

 

There are no "levels", first of all.  The only thing that happens is that players get XP, then they spend XP on skills and talents (the price goes up the higher they go). 

 

And you don't give XP per enemy type or per encounter.  In fact, I guess you can give XP out whenever seems logical.  Not after a single fight, but maybe after a "scene", or "session", or after some major plot point.  Like, if the characters have to fight through town, hack into a computer, steal a part, then steal a ship and escape the planet...maybe you don't give XP out until they're safely off the planet and they have time to really rest.

 

The amount of XP you give can be whatever you want.  You'd probably have to take a look at the Talent trees, do some calculations, and figure out how many sessions it would take to max out a career tree, then divy up XP into discreet amounts per session or something...especially if you're creating your own campaigns.


Edited by Rookhelm, 11 July 2013 - 07:10 AM.


#5 FangGrip

FangGrip

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,028 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 07:11 AM

Every system of rules has holes and places where things may not make sense.  Every writer, GM, and player has a slightly different idea of where the slider between fun & realism should be.  This is a good cinematic system that flows well.  If you want more realism, you will need to find a more detailed system.  They are older, but they are out there.

 

Of course that seems to be at odds with your desire to streamline combat.  The more cinematic the system, the easier combat seems to be.  One of the quickest systems of combat is FATE.  One of the longest is Rolemaster.  This system seems to be in the middle.

 

If you are looking for something infinitely customizable for a game, may I suggest you take a peek at the end of this post.  I know, blatant plug, but its a great system.

 

All in all, I am not unhappy I spent $60 at a local game store (If you don't support them, they fade away and its harder to find the next crop of gamers) for my Core Rules.  It is a gorgeous book with a fine and balanced cinematic system with a few really nifty ideas.


  • BillW likes this

Check out a truly universal RPG with Free Starter Rules at www.AlphaChronicles.com!

Check out the Consummate Gamer Blog for everything that isn't Alpha Chronicles.


#6 fjw70

fjw70

    Member

  • Members
  • 575 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 07:17 AM

As far as combat and non-combat options for each career, each character has access to every option available. Some options will just be more expensive than others and every career has non-combat options in that career

#7 Raice

Raice

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 07:22 AM

As far as leveling up is concerned, I feel like this system makes it so you can level up your players as fast or slow as you want.

 

 

There are no "levels", first of all.  The only thing that happens is that players get XP, then they spend XP on skills and talents (the price goes up the higher they go). 

 

And you don't give XP per enemy type or per encounter.  In fact, I guess you can give XP out whenever seems logical.  Not after a single fight, but maybe after a "scene", or "session", or after some major plot point.  Like, if the characters have to fight through town, hack into a computer, steal a part, then steal a ship and escape the planet...maybe you don't give XP out until they're safely off the planet and they have time to really rest.

 

The amount of XP you give can be whatever you want.  You'd probably have to take a look at the Talent trees, do some calculations, and figure out how many sessions it would take to max out a career tree, then divy up XP into discreet amounts per session or something...especially if you're creating your own campaigns.

 

I think this is going to work well with how we typically play.  We usually get 1,000 XP at the end of the session, plus bonuses if we do cool or memorable stuff.  Tallying up XP per enemy or whatever just ends up being more trouble than it's worth.

 

I guess the way you put it and thinking about it, one campaign could last a while.  Thanks for the feedback.



#8 Raice

Raice

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 07:23 AM

As far as combat and non-combat options for each career, each character has access to every option available. Some options will just be more expensive than others and every career has non-combat options in that career

 

Sweet!  This is exactly what I wanted to know.  Thanks!



#9 Raice

Raice

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 07:29 AM

Every system of rules has holes and places where things may not make sense.  Every writer, GM, and player has a slightly different idea of where the slider between fun & realism should be.  This is a good cinematic system that flows well.  If you want more realism, you will need to find a more detailed system.  They are older, but they are out there.

 

Of course that seems to be at odds with your desire to streamline combat.  The more cinematic the system, the easier combat seems to be.  One of the quickest systems of combat is FATE.  One of the longest is Rolemaster.  This system seems to be in the middle.

 

If you are looking for something infinitely customizable for a game, may I suggest you take a peek at the end of this post.  I know, blatant plug, but its a great system.

 

All in all, I am not unhappy I spent $60 at a local game store (If you don't support them, they fade away and its harder to find the next crop of gamers) for my Core Rules.  It is a gorgeous book with a fine and balanced cinematic system with a few really nifty ideas.

 

I like systems that find a balance in both.  I like streamlined realism.  I don't want a simulation... just an emulation (if that makes sense.)

 

For combat, I enjoy the tactical movement parts (simply because it reminds me of chess), but I don't want to spend 20 minutes figuring out if I hit, how many times I hit, how much damage each hit does, where it was that I hit, if they're immune to fire, and if they are only resistant, by how much, and on and on.  That sort of detail isn't interesting.

 

Basically, I want some amount of realism in placement and movement... and then the rest of the stuff to go by relatively quickly.  Given how the dice work in this game, I anticipate a lot of busy work will be cut out which will provide me with what I am looking for.  I guess I just wanted to know if the game still moved along at a well pace even in the late game.



#10 Hida77

Hida77

    Member

  • Members
  • 753 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 08:03 AM

So, I bought the Starter Kit a few months back and played through it once with some friends.  We are all Table Top veterans.  We mostly play D&D 3.5 with a few Pathfinder supplements here and there.

 

About a year ago, I started a campaign with the Saga Edition ruleset since I really wanted to DM.  But I wasn't very interested in a D&D setting.  I love Star Wars, and just wanted something different.  We never finished the game since, essentially, as the DM I simply did not have faith in the ruleset.  There were just too many holes in it.

 

So when I heard about this game, I got super excited because it "appeared" to be amazing.  The Starter Kit was cool, but there were just too many uncertainties for me to invest fully into the system.

 

That being said, I have some general questions:

 

1.  I really have no idea what all kind of classes there are in the system.  While I'm sure whatever classes there are, they are interesting, I am more interested in knowing if there are any blatant balance issues.  A common issue with all D&D related systems is the glaring problems with class balance.  Basically, every system has a few Alpha Classes that make any other option pointless in comparison.  How good is this game about Class Balancing?

 

2.  I make my own mythos in games.  My group and I hardly ever run previously made modules and pre-built adventures.  One of the best things about being a DM is to craft your own story.  For the original campaign I created, I created my own era and history leading up to it.  How well does the EotE system scale to allow the DM to do this?

 

3.  Along that same vein, I understand that Jedi from a Clone Wars perspective do not really have system support with this rule book.  I understand that there will be more added later in 2015 that will address Force related things in more detail.  I'm okay with this.  I read somewhere, however, that the EotE system does allow a player to create a player that is more like Luke from ESB than Anakin from RotS.  That's okay to me too, as I actually like that.  I enjoy how the original trilogy painted the idea of a Jedi moreso than the prequels did.  My question is, for the inventive sort who appreciates homebrewing while still retaining system balance, is there at least enough information to create some jury-rigged house-ruling Jedi stuff that can work until the official information is available?

 

4.  I love maps.  Maps and minis are just cool.  I understand that the movement and tactical portions of the game are much more abstract, and it was even evident in the Starter Kit.  While movement is something I understand can easily be made more concrete, I am worked about the mechanics of gun-fire.  This is something the Starter Kit did not fully address.  Does the system account for things such as Cover?  Actually, the whole Defense system did not make sense to me.  It appeared that the difficulty was always 2 Purple die.  Is this matter covered in more detail?  And more importantly, is it a system that makes relative sense from a tactical perspective?

 

5.  Is there any sort of thing like Prestige Classes or Multi-Classing or are those sorts of things more or less unnecessary for this system?

 

6.  How well does the game actually balance out Class options for combat and out-of-combat dynamics?  One of my biggest pet-peaves with D&D is how half the classes are functionally useless in combat, yet overcompensate by a large margin with social skills, and visa versa.  What you're left with is you're either good in combat and nothing else, or you are good in everything but combat.  Basically, I want to make sure that no matter what class you play, you can have just as much fun in all situations as any other class.

 

7.  With my Starter Kit experience, we were learning a new system.  So... things went pretty slowly, especially in combat.  One thing I hate about D&D is how combat can seemingly take hours.  And if you are playing a class that doesn't do much in combat... this can be extremely boring.  At any rate, my question is... how well does the pace of the game keep from getting static?  Assuming my group and I learn the rules well enough - will the game move along at a good pace without being bogged down by a million rules on how to calculate a bunch of fluff stuff?

 

8.  Another issue I have had in other system is that the Leveling experience was a little bit distorted.  In D&D, you start out really, really crappy, and eventually become ridiculously powerful.  In Saga, you basically start out as a power house, and as you level up, the game sort of gives you this steady increase of diminishing returns.  So... the game actually gets harder.  Does EotE have a steady level up system?

 

9.  Most importantly, do the rules in the game make sense?  I've read through Saga Edition a million times and every time and every time I do, I can't help but perceive quite a bit of it as an immediate candidate for a retro-fit house-rule.  Basically, a lot of stuff in that system (and D&D for that matter) don't make sense for practical reasons.  I'm a reasonable guy and I expect reasonable rules.  How well does this game relate to that?

 

10.  Lastly, about how long of a life-time can I expect a character to have?  For instance, D&D has 20 levels (minus epic.)  To me and the way my group plays, those 20 levels give us quite a bit of mileage.  How does the character lifespan in EotE relate?  For instance, is Max expected level for a EotE character career equal to say 10 D&D levels, 20, 30?  I guess I'm trying to determine how long a campaign could run from a single group of characters.  I'm used to campaigns that could take up to a year from lvls 1-10 or 12, and then another year to finish out to 20.  Is this conceivable for EotE characters?

 

Sorry this is so long, but these are important to me as a player and as a DM.  Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions!

In response to your questions specifically:

 
1) I think others have covered this pretty well.  The balance is whatever you make it, and fortunately it is pretty easy to insert combat here or there if you need to or throw in some non-combat or whatever based on your group.  The narrative part makes it easy to adjust the campaign a bit to keep all the players doing cool stuff.  As an example, if you had Lando (smuggler), Leia (Colonist probably), Chewbacca (Hired Gun). and R2-D2 (Technician) during the chase in Bespin you could see what I mean.  Fighting Breaks out and the stronger fighter Characters (Lando, Leia, and Chewie) go to work on Stormies.  Lando stops to alert the City that theres a problem. R2 helps by dropping smoke, opening doors, and using the computer to figure out where they should try to move to next.  All the characters get to do what they do to help during the combat even if they arent overly good at killing things in general. Even though Leia isnt "the best" at combat, she is capable and able to help. She is probably the most sidelined because her strength is more diplomatic, but she still feels like shes contributing to the fight. R2, easily the worst in combat, still shines by helping out how he can, all of which are very meaningful to the scene and the group.  You get the idea.  The game supports these types of action.
 
2) You can make up whatever you want. Therese actually another thread on this forum going on about even jumping to a different time.  My group has played the beginner stuff and will likely be going off the beaten path soon.  I am coming up with my own planets etc for the campaign.  It will feel uniquely ours while still being Star Wars.
 
3) You could, the basic force rules are good enough to allow you to do more custom stuff, but I'd steer clear of it.  Really, having played a bit, I think the game is more fun having non-Jedi/weak Jedi than it would be if one of the PCs got to start using lightsabers/deflecting shots/etc.  I do think that could cause balance issues where you have "haves" and "have-nots".  Im sure FFG will do a good job balancing this in the future, so Id wait for them to do it and not have to deal with everyone in the party wanting to be Jedi.
 
4) Cover and other defenses are covered in the book.  The "two die" comes from relatively short-range weapons, which is pretty much what most classes will start with.  The Range to target dictates the difficulty so the further you are away the harder (and more dice) you add to the checks.  I think the system makes a lot of sense and rewards you for tactics like flanking etc (at least as much as the GM rewards you for it anyway).
 
5) Not really in the sense you mean.  You can take specializations from outside your career (for a cost) and use it.  So you could be an Assassin Bounty Hunter who has some medical knowledge as an example.  But it's not like in D&D Where you were a monk/priest/fighter or somesuch.  You only get one career, but can take skills/talents from other career and customize to your taste.
 
6) See Question 1 response.  The game is as balanced as you make it, it allows you to narrate situations like I outlined. I think most characters will feel like they co do something in just about every scene, unless they have built their character to be very one-dimensional.  And if they do that, they only have themselves to blame really.
 
7) Same response, its as fast as you make it.  There are rules in the book to "fast end" forgone combats where the characters have an obvious outcome.  You, as a GM, also have a good amount of tools to make the Combat easier or harder without it being an obvious "I want you guys to win".  So far, most of our combats have felt sort of like the Star Wars: Knight of the Old Republic fights, where theres some cross fire between the more fighty characters, but you can build in ways for the technician to also have a significant impact (like by locking/shorting doors or hacking the scurity to have the droids fight for you).  We havent had a combat thats lasted more than an hour or so yet, but as I mentioned, we are still relatively new.
 
8) Another as bad as you make it.  As a GM you have a lot of ways to increase/decrease the difficulty as you see fit to fit with your PCs strengths  So far, the beginner stuff has felt challenging enough that people aren't bored but "easy" enough that the PCs usually come out on top without suffering too badly.
 
9) I think the rules make a lot of sense.  I think the only thing you will notice is there is a lot of pressure on the GM to interpret the dice outcomes and how that affects the PCs, and possibly radically adjust the story on the fly.  I have actually felt like this game was as much fun to GM as it was to play since you have to think on your toes as much as the players do, which is a good thing.  Theres very few "guarantees" and even relatively mundane tasks may take unexpected turns due to Threat/Despair.  This makes it much harder to "power game" and generally more fun for everyone.
 
10) Hypothetically, it could be infinite, although just off hand, I'd say that once players start to have all their main talents and some from other specs, the game will likely get a bit more stale then when everything was still challenging unless you ramp the difficulty pretty high.  I'd say it would probably take around a year of weekly sessions for the game to get kinda boring (assuming you are giving out the recommended 10xp/session with an occaisonal bonus here or there) if you dont reset, but of course I'm just ball-parking a number.

Edited by Hida77, 11 July 2013 - 08:04 AM.

  • Banelight likes this

2014 Star Wars: The Card Game US Nationals Finalist

2013 Star Wars: The Card Game Worlds Top 16

8xX-wing, 5xB-Wing, 2xYT-1300, 4xY-Wing, 5xA-Wing, 2xHWK-290, 3xE-Wing, 7xZ-95, 1xYT-2400, 2xGR-75, 1xCR-90

8xTIE/LN, 11xTIE/IN, 2xTIE/Adv, 4xTIE/as, 3xTIE/Ph, 3xTIE/D, 3xFirespray-31, 3xLambda, 1xDecimator


#11 Raice

Raice

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 04:57 PM

 

Edited for space

 

 

Thanks so much!  I think I'm going to get this game, now!



#12 Mr. Flibble

Mr. Flibble

    Member

  • Members
  • 192 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 05:06 PM

Thanks so much!  I think I'm going to get this game, now!

 

 

Knight.jpg

 

You chose...wisely.


  • Callidon, Rikoshi and BillW like this

"Mr. Flibble is very cross."

--Arnold J. Rimmer


#13 Rikoshi

Rikoshi

    Member

  • Members
  • 401 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 05:37 PM

 

Thanks so much!  I think I'm going to get this game, now!

 

 

Knight.jpg

 

You chose...wisely.

 

 

You are my hero.



#14 kelann08

kelann08

    Member

  • Members
  • 133 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 06:02 PM


10) Hypothetically, it could be infinite, although just off hand, I'd say that once players start to have all their main talents and some from other specs, the game will likely get a bit more stale then when everything was still challenging unless you ramp the difficulty pretty high.  I'd say it would probably take around a year of weekly sessions for the game to get kinda boring (assuming you are giving out the recommended 10xp/session with an occaisonal bonus here or there) if you dont reset, but of course I'm just ball-parking a number.

 

 

 

I think someone ballparked the figure on RPGG to be like 900XP to max out your character?  I'm not sure if that assumed more than one specialization.  At 10-20XP per session, that's a damn good shelf life.  Especially with career books coming out (Explorer soonish, extending the talent trees.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks so much!  I think I'm going to get this game, now!

 

 

Knight.jpg

 

You chose...wisely.

 

I'm giggling as I type this.


Edited by kelann08, 11 July 2013 - 06:03 PM.


#15 Raice

Raice

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 06:13 PM

 

Thanks so much!  I think I'm going to get this game, now!

 

 

Knight.jpg

 

You chose...wisely.

 

 

ROFL - Thanks!






© 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