Jump to content

Cifer

Members
  • Content Count

    3,038
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cifer

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It might be quicker if they were docked to the side - you probably don't want to fire up those enormous 130m diameter engines with a friendly station right behind you. And the chance that the place you want to go to is directly away from the station is equal to the chance of it being anywhere else.
  2. And I've seen scrawny elves lift big portcullis when barbarians failed, but add a few "I ignore all the black dice in the world" talents to the handful of yellow and green and the chances get fairly one-sided even in this system. That is indeed the only argument I've seen so far that does not rely on either the new player wanting to playing something more low-powered or seeing XP as something precious that must never be given out for free. And it's a pretty good argument - I have seen a few players struggle with effectively building a high-level character. That said, I'd be inclined to implement a catch-up mechanic in that case, perhaps starting off the new player at half XP and allowing them double XP until they're on a level with the others. Call it "having great teachers around" or something.
  3. Is that so? I've recently played my somewhat kind of experienced politico in a one-shot group with a newbie scoundrel and when it came to social checks, he might as well not have been there. And for those people who'd prefer not to play Dawn or Bishop and would rather go with Shaw or Toph, I just don't see a reason why one would want to start with half the XP. I mean, what's the point? To make sure the veteran players can feel good about having gotten in on the ground floor?
  4. True, which is why it's certainly a good idea to make sure the new player has a role that will see them included in the group, not just as a fringe element. I think the social component should be regarded as similarly important as the mechanical parts when it comes to character generation. "XP as an award for playing" again sounds like playing is some kind of a chore that needs an extrinsic reward - and it's just not universally true anyway. There are RPGs that flat-out don't have character development in a mechanical sense. Some of them focus on one-shots, others just don't have the mechanism. They're still being played - the play's the thing Then there's the question of dead characters - if XP are a boon to the player, should they be transferred over from character to character or do they lose the "award" for letting a character die? What about games where I want to start not with newbie characters, but with more experienced ones - knight-level play, as Star Wars calls it. Should that be allowed when the players haven't "earned" those XP? Seeing XP simply as, as someone else put it, "progression points" just untangles a lot of assumptions. This is the kind of story I'd like to play with, this is how powerful your characters should be for it.
  5. Oh, absolutely, bottlenecks are usually bad game design. But those Lore checks can still mean the difference between "we trudge through a dungeon, killing monsters and kicking in doors" and "we trudge through the tomb of Darth Calash, killing the alchemically reanimated remains of her favorite guardians that she had poisoned to watch over her in death, and going by the personal philosophy of her apprentice who built the tomb, *this* is the door that doesn't have a lethal trap behind it because the ornaments reference the straightforward Battle of Czulkin rather than the ambushes at Larn or Wessen". No argument there. Oh, different XP levels are completely fine (even though I would probably do a mentor+student couple by having the student be a newcomer from a different specialization, say a Thief+Force-Sensitive Emergent who will later take up Pathfinder/Soresu while his teacher starts out in Peacekeeper+Soresu). But those different XP levels should come about because the players want to explore just this dynamic - not because one has a crappy RL schedule and falls behind the rest. How would you create a character of a new player entering an established group that's already at, say, 400+ XP?
  6. Because for me, the motivation to play is intrinsic. I play to have a good time with my friends, to tell a story, to overcome obstacles, to dive into another world. Playing is (hopefully) not some kind of chore that you endure to get at the XP so you can endure even more play to get more XP. So if playing is not a chore, it doesn't need XP to be given out as a reward. That frees up XP to be given to advance the player characters to where they need to be to believably tell the current story. And that in turn means that having too little XP can actually be detrimental for the story. When I want to GM a story about a daring exploration of an ancient Sith tomb full of lore, it sucks when the Sage can barely reliably make a Hard Lore check. It gets even worse when two characters have a similar focus, but different XP levels: A newbie Mercenary Soldier won't have much fun in combat when they kill two guys in the time it takes the veteran Assassin to take out five. A group that steadily rises in XP at a common pace allows for better adventures. And if I have to sacrifice an arbitrary incentive system that should ideally reward players for stuff they want to do anyway (aka "play"), that's not exactly a tough choice.
  7. While Vigilance would make sense, the rules are pretty clear Discipline covers discerning truth and lies.
  8. @BadMotivator I never said whether the GM or the player should be the one rolling.
  9. @Kaigen No, I was referring to a situation where the PCs somehow have gotten hold of an intercom and the gagged commander glares at them furiously while they impersonate him. In that case, there is very little middle ground - either the troops believe them and redeploy away from those juicy cred stacks in the vault or they recognize they are being bluffed by imposters. Believing the PCs' bluff while also disobeying orders is... unlikely at an Imperial base.
  10. So how do you handle statements, that, if true, automatically lead to the desired behaviour? "This is your commanding officer speaking. The rebels are massing at the south side of the base - all troops guarding the vault, redeploy there!"
  11. I absolutely agree, which is why I'd say that the standard result for failing to recognize a statement as true should be a "Dunno - maybe?" instead of "How dare she lie to me?", with only particularly bad failures pushing it into interpreting truths as lies. The classic problem of a limited number of skills, I guess. While I see your point, I'm not totally averse to lie detection and stubbornness in one skill, though, since splitting it up would mean many conversational attacks would have to target both when you're misrepresenting facts or their importance and try to persuade someone to do something.
  12. I think there are two difference aspects here that we should separate from one another. One is convincing a person that what you're saying is true (when it actually is true), the other is convincing another person that what you're saying means they should do something. In the first case, in my opinion your conversation partner's stats should never work against you, since you both technically have the same goal: Having your words recognized as true. Since discipline is explained as "mentally sorting truth from fiction and determining whether someone is lying", a 'disciplined' conversation partner should be easier to convince of your words being truthful, not harder. Of course, once you have convinced them that you're telling the truth, their discipline may still work against you when you try to persuade them that they should do something because of that truth. Against "This is a T-16. They're better than those old T-15 in pretty much every way and you should absolutely get one!", high Discipline would both reveal that a) the speaker is actually convinced they are better, but b) the listener should really think of her low cred funds and refrain from buying one anyway.
  13. I would stay away from the anthorpomorphization here - bothans have fur and snouts that are vaguely feline or canine (depending on the writer and artists), but they're really not anthro lions and I don't think there's anything that implies they are. The only connections to be drawn are really physical similarities: beauty and hygiene may work differently for furred species than for "naked" ones. I think the interesting thing about information as a trade good is that it is far easier duplicated than physical goods. You can easily sell the same information several times - but it loses in value each time because more people know it and thus the number of potential sellers (and the number of people who may be rivals in using it) rises. While I wouldn't necessarily use that for bothans, I think it makes for an interesting society. Perhaps the idle chit-chat is not just storytelling, but also code: You make up lies about something when you also know the truth about it - for a price. If another party is interested in trading, they might reply by connecting that first "rumor" to a second one that indicates what they're willing to give in return, whereupon the first party can either dismiss the whole thing or ask to be told more in private, setting up an exchange of actual information.
×
×
  • Create New...