Jump to content

NeilNjae

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Thanks for the comments. Yes, you're completely right. But... I'm not that keen on the idea of objective "good vs evil" in the universe. I think my approach makes it easier to play out a story of the road to **** being paved with good intentions. And the struggle of power vs discipline is something that is interesting for both our group. Yes, the setup is entirely abusable if that's what you want to do. All I can say that that, for our table, exploring these issues of how far you'll go for power and what it will cost you, is something we're getting our teeth into. If these ideas aren't suitable for your table, please don't use them! Do what's best for your game.
  2. I replaced the Morality system with something akin to Pendragon's Passions system. The basic idea is that using your emotions allows closer contact with the force. ("Use your feelings, Luke." "Give in to your anger, strike him down!") Mechanically, you have to bring in your emotions to use the dark force points rolled; if you control your emotions, you can't use those points. The downside is that if you do that a lot, you'll end up not being able to resist your emotional drives. You'll have a tendency to lash out, and that makes you unpleasant and dangerous to be around. You can read the full mechanical writeup. I created this for my current EotE game, with one Force user.
  3. It was quite amusing how she walked out of prison, though. (I wonder who her mother was. Her father was probably Luke, but who was her mother?) I thought Finn was the most interesting character. He's definitely not anyone special, but he's there, compelled to step up and do the right thing. When he picked up that lightsabre against Ren at the end, he knew it was going to end very badly for him. But he did it anyway.
  4. eclecticgamer, I'm pretty much with you. I'm very, very sick of the "zero to hero" arc that's assumed in most RPGs, with the implicit idea that the players have to "earn their fun" by putting in a good few sessions with rubbish characters before they can get to the interesting stuff. Now, EotE isn't as bad as some games in this regard, but it's still there. There's also the fact that a lot of the fun rules for the characters lie in the Talents, so you want PCs to get a lot of talents (and some extra skill points) as fast as possible. I just went with what seemed to be the most obvious route to me. We gave the players an extra 150-200XP to spend on each character after initial generation but before first play, then don't give out quite so much as play progresses. The amounts depend on your taste. The extra XP can only be spent as per the rules, so characters are initially generated with precious few skills or Talents, but pick up a load with the bonus XPs. It's what I did, and it worked for us. YSWMV, just my opinion, feel free to do what you want at your table, and all that. Whatever you end up doing, have fun, and don't be afraid to change your mind if you get a better idea later. Neil.
  5. I agree with HappyDaze. It's an adventure of several disjoint parts that don't really fit together. It doesn't help that what for me is the most interesting part of the scenario, the soap opera surrounding the bidders in the auction, is only a small part of the scenario. I remember tinkering with the adventure a lot to make it fit my players.
  6. Games like Ryuutama and The One Ring make wilderness travel a big thing in their game experience. You might want to look to them for inspiration for this kind of activity. I like the OP's idea of having a couple of skill rolls to track the general wear-and-tear of exploring the wilderness. A Pilot (or even Astrogation) roll to find your way, and a Survival roll to say how much it takes out of you. Most of the time, not much interesting will happen, so you can get through it quickly. If some rolls have very positive or negative results, you can throw in some unusual events or discoveries (as per danikstanik's table).
  7. Don't forget the power of flashbacks during some of the more caper-like heist scenes. Let the players dive in to the scene without a plan, then let them do flashback scenes during the caper. Each flashback allows them to set up some piece of kit, or situation, that allows them to proceed. Yes, the PC has the code for this alarm. Yes, that other PC has the documents for blackmailing the bigwig. For each flashback, do a skill check to see if that piece of setup succeeded or failed. It's an approach that should keep the action going without a long and boring planning phase.
  8. I'm happy with Protect taking an action to put up a shield: it fits the source fiction. I'm less happy with Protect taking an action to renew every turn, as it means the Protecting character can't do anything else if they want to maintain a shield. That's just really dull for that player. Instead, how about someone using Protect must take an action to put up a shield, and can then commit the same number of Force dice to maintain it, allowing them to perform other actions. Depending on how you feel, there may also be another Control talent on the Protect tree to allow the user to move the shield once its created.
  9. "Fail forward" is a good phrase to use here: even if an action fails, it moves the situation forward. For instance, in a recent game session, one of the PCs was roundly defeated and captured by the baddies. While he regained consciousness, the baddies were monologuing the secrets of the nefarious plans near him, and he woke up in the middle of the villain's (rather fragile, as it turned out) lair. There's an element of trust needed between the GM and players that the GM isn't just out to hose the PCs. The Apocalypse World Principle of "Be a fan of the PCs" is apposite here: the GM should put the PCs in awkward situations to give them a chance to show how awesome they really are!
  10. As mentioned elsewhere, how is this different from a PC with a heavy sniper rifle doing functionally the same thing? Try setting up situations where just killing one or two people doesn't solve the problem. The evil imperial governor is extorting the helpless townsfolk? If she's murdered, the empire will just send someone worse who'll have a mandate to crack down on the terrorists and reactionaries. The PCs are trying to steal the valuable jewel: killing the seller will just bring more police attention. The big bad isn't the problem: the problem is stopping the stolen Alliance plans getting to the Empire
  11. You may want to remind the players that the players have fun when their characters get into trouble. Sometimes, they'll have to cope without all their toys, and that will be fun. At other times, you'll provide opportunities to them to show how awesome they are with their heavy weapons, and that will also be fun. Fundamentally, it's about trust. All of you are working together to create cool stories. It's not about GM and players competing with each other.
  12. So don't. Assume the characters can defeat any opponent they come across. But all their actions have consequences. Which consequences do they want, and which do they want to avoid? If they can solve every problem, people will come to them with problems to solve. (Games like Nobilis and Amber deal with god-like PCs. Mine them for ideas on how to challenge powerful PCs.)
  13. You've got a bunch of PCs that will handily win any fight they get into. Great. Don't make fights the source of tension going forward. One approach is to make the fights about something other than killing the enemy. Chris Chinn has a great list of combat stakes and you could use that. Play up the consequences of fights. In the small scale, get the PCs worrying about collateral damage. For instance, in the Long Arm of the Hutt, my PCs were stymied when they discovered the attack on New Meen was led by the headman's son. Suddenly, lethal force was much less appealing. In the large scale, concentrate on what they do after they've won the fight. They've defeated the pirate captain. Now what? What do they do with the pirates? If the PCs just walk away, another pirate will step up to lead. What about the now-destitute civilians who were relying on the spoils of piracy to make ends meet?
  14. There's a well-established GM style that works well this this kind of thing, called either "protagonist play" or "bang-oriented play". Basically, the GM has a bunch of NPCs with strong agendas, often in conflict with each other, and with needs that only the PCs can fulfil. The GM then just plays the NPCs hard, following their own agenda. The GM can also prepare a set of "bangs", events that will require one or more PCs to make decisions right now. The trick lies in coming up with the NPCs and aiming them at the PCs. For the party, I'd have: Teemo's representative, trying to smooth things over with the Duke about the lost payment for the last shipment of droids (who'll denounce the PCs just as soon as he realises who they are; of course, at least one of the PCs recognises him immediately) An undercover Imperial goon, both assisting Teemo's rep and hunting Rebel scum arms procurers (who'll demand the PCs reveal all they know about the rebels else he'll make their lives unpleasant) The smugglers who'll see the PCs as rivals to their cushy smuggling trade (who'll sound out the PCs to either eliminate them or enter a partnership) The Duke's head of security, who's after any leverage over the PCs, just because. He'll also want the PC's to be bait for drawing out that Kubaz spy that he's noticed hanging around Someone from the Duke's rival, who'll enlist the PC's help uncovering what went wrong with the Duke's arms trade, to embarrass the Duke A Rebel arms procurer, who's after both contacts with the Rodian militants and a cheaper rate on running guns to the Alliance. The Duke's eccentric and drunk relative, who's got all sorts of secrets to spill if the Duke's head of security can't discreetly shut him up. Someone, I'm not sure who, will have the snuff tape of the Duke's envoy being killed in Teemo's arena. I'm not sure how to bring that in.
  15. I disagree. That kind of background is something the players should be doing. Just tell them that the characters they generate must be all know each other, all be working for Teemo, and collectively have done something to offend him. You get to veto anything that's unreasonable. As for munchkin PCs, just use the standard chargen rules and they won't have enough XP around to have overpowered characters. In a more general point, tell people that you'll be running a game with a particular vision of how the galaxy works. You'll appreciate their input, but if it clashes with your vision, you'll veto it. If that causes friction, you'll just stop running the game and do something else. After all, no gaming is better than bad gaming.
×
×
  • Create New...