Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. When my slicer is in the grid so to speak, I use his defensive slicer talent when I roll the bad guy slicer's attempt to retake the system. Just because the bad guy isn't present, doesn't mean he can't affect the battle. For example, have the computers control things like the turrets shooting the PCs, the atmo, the gravity, the elevator bringing the bad guy reinforcements from H3NCHM4N-R-US. Then the PC slicer can try to roll to grab control over one of the systems. I usually use opposing slicer skill as a base difficulty, x number of black dice for the firewall/security system, and an additional if the NPC slicer has defensive slicing himself. Once the PC gains control over a system, the NPC can then try to "hack" it back, in that case his defensive slicing kicks in. In all, makes for a fun encounter for a character who hacks things. He also feels like the most important person in the room, although the other PCs trying to hold off those bad guy reinforcements with guns might disagree.
  2. I got my players to buy into the system. I own one book, and two of them own one each. Of course, it was easy to convince them to buy it, when the $60 book was on sale for like $40 on barnesandnoble.com and I happened to have a 20% off coupon.....
  3. By the rules, PCs already win ties. So letting them win on a Triumph is doing what exactly? Due to the players winning "slots" and not where they actually are in the order, if 2 PCs tie each other, one winning over the other means as much as me being your fathers brothers cousins former room mate. Or in other words, absolutely nothing. Normally advantages win ties. Read that book a bit closer champ. Advantages do win ties. But if PC A rolls 2 successes and 2 advantages, and NPC C rolls 2 successes and 2 advantages, who wins? The PC by default.
  4. That was probably the most epic thing I've seen you type Happy. Hell that makes me proud of this group, and its not even my group. Although I suppose I'm more inclined as I already deeply seeped in the dark side. Sounds like you might have to put a few more rails on, or at the very least 2. I'm normally against such a tactic, but sometimes (as I've mentioned before) a PC just HAS to die for whatever reason. I think you have a couple of choices. Either A) get them to care about something or B) let them continue to wander down that dark path and let them be surprised where it leads. I've done a campaign where the heroes walked down that path for so long at some point they just became anti-heroes. They didn't even realise it until they were so far down there really was no looking back. That moment you reveal what they've become is epic. The minute they all collectively went... wait... pretty much made the campaign for me, even though I wanted to squish them beneath my black boot.
  5. When I do it, I have them roll their cool/vigilance skill (whichever is appropriate) and write it down on some scrap paper or dry erase board as follows: Number of successes//Number of advantages//T for Triumph (multiple triumphs get multiple Ts) Then I order them by successes. When there is a tie, I look to the number of advantages. When there is still a tie, Triumph wins. If they are still tied at that point, ties go to the PCs. I also note the PCs/NPCs tossing at least 1 Triumph. I then let them use one free manuever, in order if necessary. Then I start combat as normal. It is the only thing I let them use. For example I don't let them use advantages for strain recovery, those are simply there for tiebreaks for successes. Its worked so far. By the rules, PCs already win ties. So letting them win on a Triumph is doing what exactly? Due to the players winning "slots" and not where they actually are in the order, if 2 PCs tie each other, one winning over the other means as much as me being your fathers brothers cousins former room mate. Or in other words, absolutely nothing.
  6. Hmmm, guess you can't please everyone. Savage Worlds is by far my favorite rules set. I'm running the Freeport trilogy with it with my home group. It's not so much a problem with Savage Worlds. I have the books and even tried to learn it. I see the potential to the Savage Worlds ruleset. I just don't like how they are presented. Just making a character in that system has me flipping back and forth between books and I find that annoying. Additionally, when I'm trying to run it, I find myself having to flip back and forth as well... now lets see... that rule was in this book... no... maybe this other book... Not to mention that short period when they tried to shoehorn d20 onto Deadlands. Again, not that either of these systems are bad, I just prefer EoE's system over pretty much everything at this point in my gaming career. It's cleaner, faster, and frankly better for roleplaying.
  7. There really is nothing better then the lamentations of my enemy's women... On topic, I would allow a free manuever on a triumph. That seems reasonable for such a simple uncontested check at the beginning of the fight.
  8. Actually it all depends on when you're "done". Since this system is so open ended, there is unlimited growth potential. You can switch or not switch careers anytime you wish. And keep adding to your character as time goes on.
  9. I would have the biggest geek chub for this system in a Mass Effect setting. Star Wars is my first sci-fi love, but I've really gotten into the Mass Effect series and I'd like to do that as well. I would also pay cold hard cash for a fantasy setting, seeing how 90% of my gaming has be in such a setting. Finally, I would love to see this system adopted for Deadlands. LOVE that setting. Hate the RP systems attached to it.
  10. Are you sure, and can you give us the pg you read this? From my understanding a Triumph on an attack roll (or any roll for that matter) is an additional effect no a substitution. He's referring to the fact a Triumph can be used to pick any advantage effect on the chart. The 3 Advantage effect is one that does something in lieu of doing damage. IE, knockdown, no damage. I believe it is listed right on the chart under Triumph. Easy champ. While it's not an "ideal" talent, it's not entirely terrible either. Having the talent there is exactly why a GM should go, well there's a talent. It keeps the players and the GM on equal footing according to the rules.
  11. As it was pointed out... space is pretty vast. Not every fight is going to take place in an asteroid field. We know Wedge survives not just fighter combat in the first movie, but all the way past Return. Even when flying in an among the capital ships in Return it is still pretty open space. If you don't think being a good pilot has anything to do with flying a ship and avoiding hits, I have some top gun fighter pilots who would like to speak to you. Its more then just being able to fly around the tree, or asteroid, or whatever. A good pilot can tail, shake tails, brake and accelerate all while lining up a shot. Think about all that in this system. First of all, there is no reason, ever, mechanically, to ever go less then your max speed. Second, you can't use your piloting skills to get a good shot and take it in the same round (without a second person). Third, you can be the best starfighter pilot in the ENTIRE GALAXY and it doesn't mean a **** thing. You are still hamstrung by your max speed and silhouette which determines how hard it is to shoot you. In almost all starfighter combats, it is better to forget piloting entirely and focus on vigilance (for the ability to win initiative and shoot first) and gunnery to blow them up first. And that is the problem. Space combat quickly delves into a "shoot them before they shoot you" slugfest that frankly isn't fun.
  12. Being a narrative game isn't really an excuse for having bad rules. I much prefer it if one can deviate from the RAW if one wants to, instead of having to to get the game to work anything like you want it to. I guess that's just a matter of opinion then. I think they are fine as-is, as it is NOT a "table top war-game" - it's a narrative device. That's still not an excuse for bad or (imho) vague rules. If it was a true narrative device, it would need a lot less rules. But what we have is some rules that are clearly half-assed, vague to a degree, and unhelpful at best. Individual fighter combat is deadly, and piloting skill has nothing to do with it. In star wars, there is no way we can see a great pilot like Wedge ever lose to a single Tie. However, in the rules as written this is a real thing that happens, as piloting skill means nothing really. Combat with a group (ie, combat in a light freighter) isn't really any better. While the chance to survive goes up significantly, combat is boring for the pilot who really doesn't have much to do. And again, how good of a pilot you are really doesn't come into play in this system other then making your companions shots easier. It doesn't make you "harder to hit". The worse pilot in the galaxy is as hard to hit as Han Solo as they both can only take Evasive Maneuvers once.
  13. My, aren't you clever! I especially liked your "welcome"! It was so witty. This whole "this is the internet"-attitude is precisely the problem, if you ask me. These boards have been (with the exclusion of 1 or 2 people) a very welcome experience in how people can come together and discuss their hobby in a civil way. I have seen other communities fall apart quite rapidly because of disrespectful behaviour and attitudes such as the one shown by the poster I addressed (and you for some reason feel the need to help out). Heck try having an edgy discussion on rpg.net nowadays and you can pretty much count on seeing a post in red within the next 5 posts. That would not have been the case of some people didn't f$%^ up those boards to begin with. I enjoy crude humor and a sharp tongue just as much as the next guy, heck I've been on the internet since forever (welcome by the way!) However, I did find that in this case it would have been very easy to avoid being so obnoxious and not use such childish terms to critize both the system as well as the people that did enjoy the inclusion of said rule. In that way a more constructive way of discussing it would have been fun instead of an annoyance. Also, how is you telling me what not to write and to get over it any different from me telling him his language and way of discussing things are disrespectful? It isn't really, is it? Stop and think if we would have even got on this tangent if you hadn't have been overly sensitive about it in the first place. No one else had any reason to complain, we all just let it wash. Sometimes people's anger and frustration about stuff boils over into their text replies. Being emotional in their responses isn't just normal, it's human. Calling people out about their choice of words isn't the answer. As stated earlier, you could have taken this to PM. It had nothing to do with the topic, and you just slammed it out there thinking you were witty and somehow taking the high road. I'm not defending him at all. I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply pointing out had you not said anything about it, at all, this wouldn't even be being discussed in this thread.
  14. Agreed, I fail to see the issue here as well. This scenario is no different then when playing D&D and the new classes/material comes out. Donovan hit it on the head as well with the Saga example. Deal with it. If you didn't pick the explorer class, stuff will come out eventually for your class as well. If you don't like it, house rule, reroll, or start over. I also agree with the poster that said if you are the guy that spent 400 points in a career you didn't pick, he'd wonder why. I would too. So I don't see that as an issue either. Finally, on the subtopic that is floating around about using "stupid", "dumb", "horrible", etc. Those actually do belong in adult conversation, just maybe not how they are used in context. However, I find there are some people who are far to oversensitive on the internet about stuff like this. Get over it. They're words. This is the internet. Welcome.
  15. The problem is the designers at FFG didn't really think this one through very well. We already know why and how the RHB is just wrong but by not putting some sort of "this ship is x encumbrance" they've only managed to complicate the issue. I'm all for ease of bookkeeping and abstract systems... when I'm not anywhere near the edge. But when my players raid a pirate base with all sorts of loot, they are going to want to know, exactly, how much they can fit. And I'm not just going to let them take it all (keeping them hungry and all that). But I think some numbers here wouldn't have been a bad idea. Especially when you start thinking about the bigger ships and RHBs.... if they have x number of y silhouette fighters... how much room do they have left? I don't like guessing on these numbers, or making them up. I hate telling the players they can fit x number of items, then later tell them they can only fit y, and my players go... wait a minute... last time it held x.... Honestly, it would just be assigning an encumbrance value to each vehicle/ship that would go a long way in clearing this up.
  • Create New...