Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Xyx

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Right, Netherlands
  1. I did mention a possible EotE 2.0 somewhere in my post, but you can keep knocking down strawmen if it makes you feel better. I haven't seen a whole lot of feedback from the developers either way, though, so if their silence "speaks volumes", then they sure speak volumes on a lot of subjects. The quality of a game is inversely proportional to the amount of house rules. I don't buy books to rewrite them. I don't buy them to speculate on the designers' intent either.
  2. I would like to discuss our house rules. The first and foremost rule we agreed upon was that there should be no difference between character generation and "leveling up". That means we are allowed to improve our characteristics with XP later on. These are the reasons why: It skewed character generation. There should be no difference between XP spent either during or after character generation. Most of us would have built our characters very differently otherwise. We'd have invested 100+ XP into characteristics, leaving almost nothing for skills, talents and additional specializations. This would have resulted in characters that felt bland and unfinished, but not doing so would have resulted in severely underpowered characters 100 XP down the road. This is a choice between two evils. One of the tenets of game design is that players should not be stimulated to do things they don't like. It simply did not feel right. People can train and work out to improve themselves. Improving your character is an important part of roleplaying games. Everybody likes to "level up". This is the only way to gradually turn the starting character, which is a bit of a loser in terms of characteristics, into something even remotely resembling <insert favorite canon character> over the course of the game. This is especially true now that you can't un-learn specializations any more, which makes climbing up several talent trees to collect the Dedication talents much more difficult because additional specializations costs roughly a million XP now. (I'm still glad that the silly un-learning rule is gone, though.) There are some side-effects to this rule: Increasing skills has become less important. It is more efficient to increase the underlying characteristic. The Dedication Talent is no longer the all-important carrot-on-a-stick at the end of a talent tree. It is now simply a good deal, and no longer the primary motivation for climbing up the tree. I personally think this is a good thing, since I feel that talents should be selected on their own merits and not just as a stepping stone towards Dedication. The inevitable question was raised whether the XP cost for improving characteristics should be increased. We decided to wait and see. I personally think skills are too expensive compared to characteristics, but that remains the case regardless of this house rule. Thoughts?
  3. aramis, did you count the Triumphs there? The yellow die should have 20/24 S (and 24/24 A if you count Triumph as equivalent to 4 A.) That puts the expected average of 2 yellow and 1 green to… 2.292 S and 2.265 A. Heh, I guess I'd still rather have 4 green dice. The 4th point of Cunning costs 40 XP, though, which is quite a bit. So if it's just about Skullduggery, then you'd be better off paying 30 XP for 3 ranks of Skullduggery, giving you 3 yellow dice for an average of 2.5 S and 3 A. Of course it's not just about Skullduggery, so I'd still rather have 4 green dice. Does this mean yellow dice should be better? Or that skills should cost less? Or that characteristics should cost more? I think one of the problems is that many skills are narrow and/or overlap with other skills. I believe Surveillance got scrapped for that reason. Some skills I'd like to see merged: Athletics and Coordination. The fact that several paragraphs were copy/pasted almost verbatim should have set off some warning bells. Ranged [Heavy] and Ranged [Light]. A pistol and a rifle are fairly similar in operation; point and click. It's the grenades that stand out here; maybe there should be a Ranged [Thrown] skill. Brawl and Melee. There is little incentive to invest ranks in both sides of these pairs, so merging them wouldn't really give people "free" access to all that much that they'd be interested in anyway.
  4. aramis said: The beta input period closed over a month ago. It's a done deal now. It's not a done deal until the final product is in the stores. Nothing is set in stone, and even if the beta is officially closed, the forum is still open. And while I never expected something as fundamental as the dice to get changed on such short notice anyway, there might be an EotE 2.0 some day. This error does not have to be repeated. Donovan Morningfire said: That presumes there even is a problem. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Several playgroups have reported a negative experience with this aspect of the dice in their very first playsession. A game only gets one chance at a first impression. I were developing this game, I would be concerned about this. You could argue that it is not a pervasive problem and/or that it is a necessary evil because it cannot be solved gracefully or in time, if you like. I'd be interested in your arguments, provided they're more concrete than "paradigm shift". Donovan Morningfire said: It's only been a rather small yet overly vocal minority that's been saying the dice math is all wrong. Only a subset of people will even stop to think about it, and of those only a small subset will sign up here to vocalize their thoughts. It's not unusual for there to be a silent majority behind a vocal minority. We'll never know for sure, but that's no reason to dismiss a problem.
  5. Xyx

    disguise question

    It depends. Was the guy trying to impersonate someone specific, or did he just not want to be recognized? Was it an easy disguise where some makeup and a change of clothes could do the trick, or was it more difficult, like a jawa trying to impersonate a wookiee? Did he have to act in a different way? Speak another language?
  6. Such platitudes only ignore the problem. This a beta product. Now is the time to be critical and constructive. That the game can still be made to work does not absolve the designers of any responsibility to improve upon their design. A good playgroup can work with even the worst games. I've had fun with some pretty attrocious systems, but that still doesn't mean they shouldn't have been improved. I find it preposterous that players cannot even explain their own characters' intentions until after the fact. Retconning is an admission of failure on the part of the storytellers, and forcing players or GMs into such a position is undesirable. It's a problem, it can still be fixed, so it should be fixed. If this "paradigm shift" is indeed the intention of the designers, then it has been poorly implemented. The book should offer some support for bringing that shift about. How else are people new to the game going to understand this? If the game should work as you claim, then the product stands at risk of being misinterpreted right out of the box by a rather significant part of its target audience. That is a Very Bad Thing™ that should be addressed before release.
  7. Even if you discuss who goes next, then that only partially solves the uncertainty inherent in "Boost die for the next guy". There is still the possibility that NPCs take action in between and the party is forced to abandon the plan. Do you take away the Boost die in that case? Example: Player 1: Ooh, an Advantage! Who's next? Player 2: I'd like to try and hack the door controls. Player 1: Then I'll help you at the console. +1 Boost die! GM: A stormtrooper shoots the console. *rolls dice* Yep, blown to smithereens. Player 2: Erm… guess I'll draw my blaster and shoot. Does he get the Boost die? Perhaps we can make a sample list of narratives for those completely generic "+1 Boost die to I dunno who doing I dunno what next" situations. "I speak encouraging words to the party to raise morale. Onwards, brave companions! To victory!" "I focus my inner calm and beseech the Force to aid us in this hour of need." Uhm… anyone?
  8. Flipping Destiny Points would provide a nice additional outlet for surplus Advantage/Threat. Save your karma, as it were. I would definitely streamline it, as well. Donovan Morningfire said: Admittedly, I've not run into this problem too often, as the play groups I ran EotE for, particularly the most recent outing, seemed almost eager to spend those Advantages to provie boost dice, often including a narrative reason why the boost die was being granted without much in the way of prodding. My experiences have been the same as far as non-combat situations are concerned, because those situations are usually fairly focused and linear, and everyone is either working towards the same goal or aware of what the others are trying to accomplish. However, in combat the system breaks down. The order in which we take our turns partly depends on the actions of NPCs, so plans often change mid-round. Even if we start the round with a pretty clear idea of what everybody intends to do, passing a Boost die to the next guy could still really mean anybody doing anything. You can't come up with a narrative for something so generic. Does that mean we're not actually supposed to pass the Boost die in such a situation? Perhaps we've been playing it wrong, and we're only supposed to pass Boost dice if we can provide a proper narrative. The book isn't very clear about this. I guess a more "narrative up front" approach would solve this side of the problem, though at the expense of slowing down the action while everybody tries to figure out what to do with all that Advantage/Threat.
  9. Xyx


    Kallabecca said: A) Autofire is a "ranked" quality. It takes Advantage to activate each extra hit. Hmm… good point, but according to page 105 of the book, all active qualities require exactly 2 Advantage to activate unless stated otherwise in their description. I may have overlooked something, but I can't find an example of a quality that requires an amount of Advantage that depends on the quality's rating. I quess "rated" is the word I was looking for. Kallabecca said: A less experienced person is probably going to either not anticipate the kick, or over anticipate. So, from that perspective the +1 Difficulty, again, makes sense. Increased difficulty for the second shot would certainly make sense. I'm not arguing agains that! However, since we're rolling for all the shots at once, the overall chance to score even a single hit goes down with that added Difficulty die. This makes us less likely to hit someone with a spray of bullets than with a single bullet. Does that make sense? Imagine this… if I hand someone a gun and I forget to mention that I set it to auto-fire, and he accidentally rattles off three shots instead of one… does that make his first bullet less likely to hit? Kallabecca said: There's no SMGs in the books… just as there are no SMGs shown in the Canon. Of course. It was merely an example. There are, however, weapons with different fire rates, and it would be nice if we could differentiate between them with slightly more precision than just Auto-fire/regular/Slow-firing. This would be a very simple change to the rules that wouldn't complicate anything and would "fix" Auto-fire in a more logical way than "+1 Difficulty". Sturn said: When you fire a burst of fire at an enemy, this rarely involves a slow aiming process, it's a quick burst. Whether an attack is quick and dirty or slow and deliberate is a deliberate choice that is already covered by the Aim maneuver, regardless of the number of shots fired in the attack. Sturn said: Ask any soldier if (in general) burst fire is considered as accurate as single shot fire and they will say no. So, +1 Difficulty. If burst fire lessened their chances to land even a single hit, then why would soldiers use it at all? I think what everbody is forgetting is that it is already pretty hard to land multiple shots even without that +1 Difficulty. Not only do you have to roll a Success for the first hit, you also have to roll a bunch of Advantage for the second hit. It's also unlikely that you'll score any Critical Hits when auto-firing, since you're presumably using up all your Advantage on extra hits. Not that I wouldn't be happy to trade a crit for an extra hit, but it goes to show that those extra hits still wouldn't be free even without that +1 Difficulty.
  10. Xyx


    I did not come here to gather the support of random people on the internet to convince my playgroup. I did not come here for your somewhat patronizing advice either, however well-intentioned it might have been. I came here to provide feedback on a beta product. I don't have a problem with my playgroup and I'm perfectly aware of how to have fun. I just think the rules are wrong. Every time you make a house rule, you're basically stating that there is a problem with the RAW. The perfect game needs no house rules. Since this is a beta product, I'd assume that the makers would be interested in hearing about your problems.
  11. Xyx


    Tassedar said: The added difficulty is not the act of the first shot but the fact that it needs to keep the player from being over powered with a deadly weapon. I addressed this issue in my first post. It is an obvious nerf for the sake of nerfing. There are logical and realistic ways to nerf Auto-fire, so this illogical and unrealistic way is a bad choice. Tassedar said: there are ways to reduce difficulty on weapons with attachments however this is why the rule was placed in to begin with. I read that it was once kind of uber, but other than that I am not familiar with the history of Auto-fire nerfing. What is the connection between attachments and Auto-fire? The only attachments that reduce difficulty that I know of are the foregrip (which only undoes the penalty that Ranged [Heavy] weapons get at Engaged range) and the telescopic sight (which only undoes the added difficulty of Long range.) I know of no attachment that reduces difficulty flat out or that reduces difficulty for Auto-fire specifically. Tassedar said: Perhaps the reason for the added difficulty is the nature of how the gun is made that makes it harder to hit with. like less than accurate sights, bulk making it unwieldy or just a spool up time a split second slower than what a normal blaster would be near instant with a shot. That could make sense if the weapon were only capable of auto-fire, or if those same penalties applied to single-shot fire as well. However, it makes no sense if penalties based on a weapon's design apply to Auto-fire but not single shots. A minigun-style rotary blaster still has to spool up even if you take your finger off the trigger in between shots.
  12. Xyx


    I would like to see Auto-fire become a "ranked" quality, requiring a specific amount of Advantage to activate, similar to the way different weapons have different Critical Ratings. Different weapons have different fire rates, after all. I think this would kill several birds with one stone. First and foremost, I thoroughly disagree with the +1 Difficulty die for attempting auto-fire. I agree that it shouldn't be easy to score multiple hits, but this is not the way. It makes no sense that I am less likely to hit even once if I fire multiple shots. The first bullet out of a gun is never affected by the fire mode selection. Only subsequent bullets can be affected by recoil at all. If the target is in my sights, pulling the trigger will result in at least one hit regardless of how many additional shots the gun fires. This is even ignoring the fact that the average real-world gun capable of auto-fire doesn't begin to experience any significant recoil until after several bullets have already exited the barrel. Increasing the amount of Advantage required to score an extra hit would go a long way in controlling the uberness of Auto-fire, so the +1 Difficulty nerf would no longer be required for balance purposes. The binary nature of fire rates has also put a damper on the variety of weapons the book offers. The way the weapons table currently works is that only the Big Guns™ have Auto-fire at all. There is no equivalent of a SMG in the book. There is no equivalent of a bolt-action sniper rifle either, since the closest thing (Heavy Blaster Rifle) has Auto-fire and is vastly more effective when auto-firing than when trying to score a single good hit. It plays more like an assault rifle in this regard. I initially planned to play an Assassin, but when I saw the weapons I said "screw this" and went with Gadgeteer instead. Varying the Auto-fire thresholds would allow for a lot more variety in the weapons.
  13. I have mixed feelings about the whole Obligation mechanic. I support the attempt at driving the story, but I doubt it has to be quantified so explicitly. The "jilted lover" example by Rikoshi is nice, but it's not something I want written on my character sheet. Stuff like that belongs in the GM's notes instead. Many other RPGs have "disadvantages" that you can take on in return for "moar XPs". However, those are usually clearly defined with actual consequences. All the EotE book offers is a tiny table listing vaguaries such as "Betrayal" (who betrayed who here?), "Blackmail" (what happens if I don't pay?) or "Dutybound" (what happens if I say "screw it"?) without so much as a sentence of clarification. As both a player and a character, I really don't want to deal with anything so intangible as Obligation Magnitude during the course of roleplaying either. If I owe someone money, I just want to know how much I owe them. I understand that owing a favor is not as quantifiable, but isn't that the whole point? How do you roleplay a negotiation involving Obligation points anyway? I imagine the following nightmare scenario: NPC: "Just so you understand, if I do this for you, you'll owe me a big favor." Players: "How much Obligation is that?" GM: "10 points." PCs: "No way, a big favor is too much. We'll do it for a medium-sized favor instead." Players: "(5 points.)" NPC: "Well, how about a medium-sized favor plus a relatively small favor?" GM: "(8 points.)" PCs: "Deal!" Moreover, one of our players took offense at the idea that his character had to have an obligation at all. He used himself as the example of someone without obligation; no family depending on him, no outstanding debts, nothing. If a spaceship were to pick him up tomorrow, there would be nothing he would have to come back for. I myself didn't really get the problem with taking on max Obligation. Sure, my character will get harassed twice as often as other party members, but that's still only one in 5 sessions on average, and on the flipside I get "teh XPs" and I'll be less likely to sit on the sidelines while some other player gets to engage in his character's story. I'm here to roleplay and my own character's backstory is more interesting to me than that of the others. I don't think the system should encourage such egocentric behavior, though. Our group was also not impressed with the "your Strain Threshold is reduced by 1 for this session" mechanic. Strain is so easy to recover that they just don't care about that at all. The final, and perhaps biggest problem is with Motivation. About half the instances of Obligation listed both in the book and in this thread could be argued to be Motivations instead. Some examples: The book, page 31 sidebar said: Pash owes his old mentor for setting him up as a smuggler Mentor is a Motivation [Relationship]. Moreover, in many RPGs, having a mentor is considered an advantage that you actually have to pay points for. Which is better? Obligation: Redneck Aunt and Uncle making you do all kinds of chores, or Obligation: Jedi Master mentoring you in the secrets of the Force? Well played, Luke Skywalker! starkanine said: For example, Luke's starting obligation in Ep. IV could have started as relationship (Aunt and Uncle). (Foster) parents are a Motivation [Relationship]. starkanine said: As time went on, his obligations changed (they die, he wants revenge, wants to be Jedi, etc). Revenge sounds like a Motivation to me ("driven by a specific goal".) Wanting to be a Jedi is definitely a Motivation [Ambition]. TheFlatline said: We need to jury-rig this poor ship RIGHT NOW so we can GTFO. I don't have time (or money) to sink into her, so let's just hope that primary buffer panel doesn't fall off the gorramn ship. I'll take a 5 point obligation to the ship to keep her in the air. How do you even take an obligation to a ship? "Please-oh-please, ship, if you miraculously repair your hyperdrive and get us out of here, we promise to wax and polish you twice a week!"?
  14. That is precisely what I had in mind, though I doubt I could convince our group to try out anything so… unofficial (though it wouldn't be our first house rule) right after they finished sticking those little stickers to their dice. I would modify the dice like this (as per the table on page 12): Table 1-1: Using Standard Dice in Edge of the Empire Die Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Boost Die (d6) Blank Blank AA A A Blank SA S Setback Die (d6) Blank Blank F F T Blank T Ability Die (d8) Blank S S SS A Blank A SA A Difficulty Die (d8) Blank F FF T Blank T Blank T T FT Proficiency Die (d12) Blank S S SS SS A Blank SA S SA SA AA A AA A Triumph AA Challenge Die (d12) Blank F F FF FF T Blank T FT F FT TT T TT T Despair TT Changes are marked with strikethrough. The Boost dice are probably the worst offenders, as they grant a whopping 4/6 Advantage on average and they're self-propagating because of the "bonus Boost die for the next guy" mechanic. This is strange in and of itself, since helping others mostly just makes it more likely that they'll be helping the next guy than actually achieving success. This makes for a nice group hug mechanic, but it's quite the strain on the narrative.
  15. I played my first game last week (after some thorough reading and statistical analysis), and pretty much everything mentioned in this thread came up. Observations and thoughts: One hour into the game we got a "Fail with 6 Advantage" roll that nobody had a clue what to do with. The player immediately asked "Can I trade this in for a Success?" We explained that this was not an option since the dice clearly stated that he did not succeed. So far, so good. The next question was "Can I pass on 6 Boost dice?", to which I replied that I vaguely remembered reading something on this very forum about not being able to pick options in the "Table 6-2: Spending Advantage and Triumphs in Combat" more than once except where this was specifically indicated (such as recovering strain.) Would be nice if the book were more explicit about this. The most common results seem to be "Succeed but …" and "Fail but …". I love the idea of the dice providing narrative opportunity. That was, in fact, the #1 reason I voted for EotE when our group decided to start a new campaign. However, the current statistical distribution has turned this opportunity into a burden. The average GM can only come up with a good narrative so many times before falling back on "uhm, strain" and the rest of the group grudgingly accepting the lack of narrative in order to get on with the game. It took our GM only a few rolls to reduce the level of his narration to "Uhm… you suffer 1 strain." Not very cinematic. The players had equal trouble with the Advantages. Especially giving the next guy a Boost die. That quickly became "Next guy gets a Boost die." We could have tried to get all narrative about it, but when you think about that: "I'm helping out, uhm… whoever acts next (which could be anyone because we have no fixed initiative order, ha ha) with… whatever it is he's going to do (which I guess could also be anything.) Yay, go me, doing… something for… someone!" This system is quite cinematic and narrative in theory, but incredibly abstract in practice. Our group probably has a century of roleplaying experience combined, so it's not like we're clueless, but it would help if the system backed us up a little. There is way too much Advantage/Threat on the dice, and as a result the "Advantage/Threat economy" has become inflated. You have to roll 2+ Advantage to do anything worth mentioning with it. A single Advantage or Threat does not feel advantageous or threatening at all, which undermines the system. Giving the next guy a Boost die is cute but way too abstract for me to be proud of, and nobody felt in the least way threatened by suffering a single point of strain. Because of the way the dice work, any die that does not land on a Success is almost guaranteed to land on an Advantage. So if you roll no Successes, then you're probably rolling a ton of Advantages. Hence the likelihood of "Fail but massive Advantage" results reported in this thread. Advantage/Threat overlaps with Triumph/Despair. The differences between a Triumph/Despair and, say, 4 Advantage/Threat currently seem minimal in both spirit and practice. I don't see the point of having these two different systems. It doesn't even make sense: I could mow down waves of minions and my gun will not run out of ammo, but if I instead decide to take a few pot shots at some dude with the Adversary talent… *click* *click*! Suggestions for the next version of EotE: Both the Advantage/Threat on the dice and the costs to spend them could be halved. That way clean Success and Failure would become the norm and Advantage/Threat would become somewhat special as they should be. This would also make rolling a single Advantage/Threat significant, which it currently emphatically is not. Triumph/Despair could be replaced with double Advantage/Threat. This is much cleaner and would accomplish everything the current system does. The book should explicitly state that each option for spending Advantage/Threat can only be purchased once.
  • Create New...