Jump to content

DylanRPG

Members
  • Content Count

    285
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DylanRPG

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Another idea ocurred to me, about Ranked Talents. Currently my solution to Ranked Talents has been to alter them so that they are Unranked and also buffed up, to a degree depending on where I put them in the Talent Tree. But here's an alternative idea. 1. There are still Ranked Talents and they start out the same as they currently do in the RAW 2. Ranked Talents do not appear more than once in a single Tree. 3. If you have acquired a Ranked Talent, instead of choosing a new Talent, you always have the option of "Leveling Up" the Ranked Talent you have. 4. In order to Level Up a Talent, spend a number of XP = XP cost of the rank preceding it multipled by 2. So a Talent you purchased for 5 XP will cost 10 XP to rank up, and then 20. For example, you've acquired Grit for 5 XP. You can go ahead and choose Black Market Contacts for 5 XP if you want. Or you can Level Up Grit to Rank 2 for 10 XP. You don't move along the Tree to get the next Rank. Instead you spend more XP in the same spot. This system keeps the Talent Tree at the same size (visually) to the trees in the RAW, but retains Ranked Talents and takes longer to get through than a single Talent Tree does in the RAW. With a system like this, Dedication can be Ranked. It costs 25 XP to take Dedication Rank 1, which improves a single Characteristics by 1. It will cost 50 XP to take Dedication Rank 2, improving a second Characteristic by 1.
  2. I haven't thought about this yet. Thanks for bringing it up. One thing I may look at doing is making every Career Tree unique in it's selection of Talents, and then creating a universal spec tree with the common talents ... Although that would require much more work on my part in various ways. Another idea floating around in my head (which I'm leaning more towards) is to have specific cross-Career Talents that can be "dragged and dropped" into a Tree specifically when a Talent you already have is encountered. That is to say, a Smuggler who becomes an Ace Pilot and comes across the Tenacity Talent (which is my version of Grit + Toughened), can instead choose to take a stand-by Talent from a list which can only be acquired in this type of situation. I'll think about it Edited: Option C 1. Every Career Tree consists of unique Talents. May require designing new ones. 2. Universal Talents exist. They're not a part of any Tree but they do have XP costs (5, 10, 15, 20, 25). 3. Instead of picking a Talent from your tree, you can choose to take a Universal Talent so long as you have the XP.
  3. With respect I feel like some of these outright declarations of impossibility lack imagination. Though it is helpful to hear. Broadly speaking any kind of approach can work and nothing is off the table. What you describe as problems are challenges. They can be overcome through design, or a shift in philosophy. It's important to note what I'm proposing in essence becomes a "what-if?" Star Wars RPG. It would be essentially a different game (more so than Force and Destiny or Age of Rebellion and Edge of the Empire are different from each other). This would not be compatible with the rules as is. If finished it would be a PDF that people could download and choose to try out and play. So you'd have this group of friends sitting around the table (physical or virtual) and they're playing this different version of the game that a fan made. It's not meant to be played at your local game shop as part of an organized thing. You're not going to show up to play with strangers with your 1 career talent tree character. So let's talk about characters that end up not being unique when they pick the same career. There's design ways to fix this which would further alter the game, playing around with how a character gains XP or "levels up". And this is not just about capping XP or slowing it's aquisition, but also about fundamentally changing the XP system or replacing it. Adding in Talents vertically into a single tree (like in an expansion), and also considering Signature Abilities are other less drastic ways to overcome that challenge. But let's look at philosophy, because that's much simpler. Here's the simple solution: don't do that. Don't pick the same Career. You've decided to play a game of Star Wars RPG with your friends and you're using my rules, and you let your players know "there's 18 different careers, and in this version there's no specialization trees, so it's important everybody chooses a different Career to start with." There are successful RPGs out there with less variety and less Classes which recommend this method ("every player chooses a different class "). I think World of Dungeons is one? I can't remember the name of the game that is springing to mind. There are also successful RPGs out there with less variety and less Classes which recommend retiring your character after a certain point when they have gained enough power - turning them into a mentor or passing down some of what they've gained to a new character. The One Ring does this, for example. And those options are on the table. With a whopping 18 choices, and however many Species to boot, I think the idea that everyone playing the game together should choose a different Career is entirely reasonable. I think you're so used to however-many-Talent-trees are in this game (90?) that taking so many away only feels like a big downgrade. And again, if it feels that way, don't download my version when/if I offer it up. That's really fine. If how the game is currently seems like something you don't want to change, then my version won't be for you. But I don't think you're considering the many possibilities out there for altering the rules and the way the game is played to accommodate the change. It is certainly helpful though to learn and have it affirmed that this is a challenge that arises, and that it needs to be addressed, and I appreciate that. Also "out of career" specializations are still possible and it's not assumed that the player will stick with just one Tree. They can take another Career under this idea. There's no specializations anymore so the terminology is different. But a Colonist can become a Guardian, etc. I would not recommend that characters start out with 500 XP when using these rules. That's interesting to consider other applications of this that people would find useful. Thanks! I try to approach my projects for their own sake (and with what I would have fun with) in mind.
  4. Thanks damnkid3, that's really encouraging to hear! After all I think I'm open to expanding the size of each Talent Tree a bit. Maybe that's a better solution after all than slowing XP progression. Talents which were formally Ranked are being beefed up in power, and you will end up with the same amount of Career Skills as before. (You'll have Career Skills = to the # you would normally be granted by Career + Spec).
  5. Is Reflect considered more powerful / useful than Parry because ranged attacks are more often encountered?
  6. This is all extremely helpful, thank you! Yes and agreed about different perspectives.
  7. To me it's not a weakness though I like it a lot better this way. I feel like this kind of tree feels more exciting to me which each Talent acquisition feeling more significant. Some aspects of the standard trees feel underwhelming to me.
  8. I've uploaded a new version of the tree. Things have been moved around, more negotiation themed talents were added, a couple combat focused ones were moved, and Grit and Toughened were combined into one Talent ("Tenacity"). It now increases Strain Threshold by 2 and Wound Threshold by 4.
  9. Thank you, that's very helpful! Some of the wording may be off because my limited skills made me limited for space, but some of the changes may be more intentional than you suspect, I'm not sure. I'll take a look at Parry. It's good feedback about Active vs Passive. There was an emphasis on Force Talents for sure. I think part of it is I have the Consular idea from Knights of the Old Republic in my head, which thematically was about being a negotiator, but in practice was about force powers (because video games). You're 100 percent right though, I need to make sure some Negotiation Talents make the cut. I think what happened is when you break down the Specializations thematically, none of them focus on negotiation primarily - but rather all of them feature it in a supplemental way. So I was looking at making sure that the Consular was a healer, a sage and a Niman disciple, but I left out the essence (ironically) of being a Consular. So it's about editing which ones are in there. Great suggestion, I'll take out some Active talents (probably some of the lightsaber ones) and put in some passive ones which focus on this. Draw Closer was made more limited because it was moved up the tree, but since the talents on the bottom have been increased in power, that may not have been necessary. It's a juggling act for sure. What do you think about Grit and Toughened being where they are? Wherever I put them they kind of have to be in that row for every Career. I could see them being moved lower down, but I also thought it would be nice to get them earlier.
  10. I appreciate you trying to help, in that case. That caveat is definitely very good to keep in mind! I think adding in Signature Abilities would help a bit. I appreciate your feedback.
  11. I've edited my original post to include a draft of a Consular Career Tree I came up with to illustrate what I'm going for.
  12. It's no problem! It sounds more like a solution, really. You don't have to like my idea.
  13. This would be the same thing. It would be your choice. You chose a Smuggler instead of a Soldier or a Colonist or a Commander or a Mystic. If it feels restrictive to you because I'm taking away your choices, then ... don't play in my game if I do this? It's an idea I would use. It doesn't have to be something you would use. I honestly don't feel like I'm digging my heels in or anything about this. This would be a homebrew system that people can simply ignore if they don't like it. It wouldn't change what you're doing or encroach on your game. I have never run or been part of a campaign that went beyond 12 or 14 sessions, I would say. I have played and especially enjoy games which have significantly less options than this one. Your example about what the Pilot would become does indeed kind of presuppose or imagine something that doesn't work well. I'm not going to simply mash it al together and slice things out. There will be some real game design going on here. I'm not asking the community to tell me whether they think it would work. As you say I don't have an example to show. I'm asking whether it would be of interest, and any ideas you may have. This would be a project where I would present what I have and ask for input, of course. I think that's why we're not connecting here and I why I don't really fully understand where you're coming from. What I'm hearing is that this would not interest you, which is useful to know. It doesn't have to. It doesn't sound like you would enjoy it, which is okay.
  14. I should also say that under this design, it's probably going to simply be less often the case that players would choose the same Career. Anyone using this design or having fun with the idea probably go into it with the idea that everyone is going to be something different. The game as is encourages two players to be Bounty Hunters and they can be very different kinds of Bounty Hunters that don't overlap by choosing an Assassin and a Gadgeteer. And that's one of the great strengths of the system. You sacrifice that level of variety under my system. If what you gain doesn't seem like a gain to you, you probably won't enjoy it.
×
×
  • Create New...