Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. We make our own tokens with a one inch puncher, plastic, paper and a printer. Print, glue the paper over the plastic then with the puncher you cut the tokens out. However I'd love more like the ones in the beginner boxes. I actually buy em just for the dice and the tokens.
  2. Here are my recommendations. Just some opinions, I've been gamemastering and playing for 15 years now and i've learned a lot I think. Most have been mentioned already in the thread of course. In general: 1) Speak with your group as awayputurwpn has said. 2) Once you've explained your players the situation, ask them if any of em would like to GM even if it's only a bit. If you have the itch for playing and never get to do it things will probably go south. You can try some other system, there are even some that are much simpler than AoR. Just breaking the flow with 1 or 2 sessions with a different GM can do wonders. Or just use AoR since your players should know it. 3) If no one wants to try to GM so you can play, and as you say you really want to be a player, don't be afraid to just take a break then. A table can become poisonous very quickly if the gm is not enjoying what he is doing. It has happened to me and to practlicaly any other long term GM I've known. Seriously. Don't just keep going without giving it some though. At some point without even realicing it it'll become a you vs them and silly arguments will arise and get worse over time. Bottom line: If you want to play badly, get a backup gm for at least a session, or rest if you need it Now, if you want to step up your game: 1) Lots of material to work from with star wars. Don't be afraid to just copy a story from somewhere. 2) Your ideas probably dont suck as much as you think . GMing a plot you've built yourself can be rewarding too, at least I have fun with it. Nowadays I rarely use premade stories except for inspiration. 3) This is tricky, but open campaigns can be fun. Basicaly instead of a plot let the players decide what they want to do and roll with it. This kind of games are fun but usually turn very weird at some point, specially when you're not used to reeling the players in a bit when necesary. On my first try, on a Marvel supervillians campaign my players ended up growing drugs in their own plantation (one of em had powers over plants...) 4) Move to another system and setting for a while. It'll do wonders. At least for me, it's impossible to stick in the same setting for very long without getting stuck, specially at the times when i'm not a player in any game. I've ran campaings of several years and they werent as good as they should've been in the end because I now realice i was simply burned out. Now I usually rotate my campaigns. For example we just finishe d a 1 year mutant and masterminds campaign and are now starting with EotE, which we will play for a bout a year or so before we keep going with the mutants one.
  3. It's a matter of flavor for me. I've played a lot of systems that doesnt require a map, but we always use at least some crude drawings to keep track of things. It also avoids a lot of discussions in certain tables.
  4. I got the ones with the introductory boxes, and also got a few tools so we can make our own pogs. I might check the old SW miniatures, but I'm hoping FFG decides to make something similar to the Pathfinder Pawns. The pathfinder NPC codex box is simply awesome, and some campaigns include their own pawns too.
  5. Speed of plot is ok of course, but if anyone is interested in consistent travel times, this is what I plan to do when I finally start the main EoeT campaign, which I want to be long running. No exact results as I havent done it yet 1) Print map 2) Measure distance with a ruler through a comercial route, and decide how long that should take. I might just use the times of Beyond the Rim as a base since I'm adapting that as a starting adventure. Then assign a time per cm at class 1. 3) When we travel, simply measure and increase difficulty accordingly if the players go out the routes for shorter paths (as they do in beyond the rim too).
  6. Let me share how i told my mechanic in our group how this works. I had this exact situation arise. IN COMBAT Ship just took a 6 points of Hull damage... Holy crap that tie just blew a hole in the left cargo hold! Mechanic Grabs the Dejaric table and uses the table top as a Patch welding it over the hole, thus repairing 2 Hull points in his case. Whew! Hull sealed Captain! AFTER COMBAT Now Mechanic Lands and assess the Damage, remaining 4 points. Total cost to fix the Hull and supporting electronics and pipes and armor, 2000 credits. You can duct-tape damage until you cant see it.. but its still damaged until FIXED. Mechanics don't miraculously fix **** in the middle of combat as a permanent repair. There are also some excelent house rules in the sticky with resources for repairing at a spaceport that would go great with that.
  7. Might be a bit too powerful without other restrictions? Or is it a high strain cost? Anyways usgrandprix, I always like your ideas, got any kind of recopilation of your houserules I could check out?
  8. Just start with personal combat then. Use if you can a map or drawings with whiteboard marker and some markers or miniatures for the characters. You'll see how it's quite easy to figure distances. There are good explanations in the book about each range band for personal combat.Two guys siting at the same table are engaged, guy a few tables away is at short range etc. Once you have that down and the time for spaceship combat comes, just do exactly the same, cept with an empty map if it's just empty space . Make the ruler I mentioned if you want some consistency in the ranges, since in space it's harder as there is no "everyday objects" to keep a sense of scale. You will have no trouble at all with ranges. Some other rules might give you a headache later on
  9. They would have their own template is how I see it in my head. Seriusly, you don't need that much hassle. Have you played any session of EotE at all?. I see from your signature that you've played d20. Just imagine that you played without a square mat and instead of counting the squares you allowed the players to eyeball distances. It's really just like that for personal combat. If you extend it to spacecraft combat it'll work like a charm with a map.
  10. I dont belive the above poster was saying you shouldn't use a map, I think you're making this a bit more complex than it needs to be. If I understood correctly, what you're trying to accomplish it's really how at least my table do it in personal combat (we have barely touched spaceship combat yet), but since we usually have a painted map it's easy to eyeball ranges. If PJ1 and PJ2 are together in a huge cantina and PJ1 charges against an ewok that dances in the stage at medium range, the PJ1 marker moves to the ewok now it's obvious that both PJs are medium range from each other (it's there in the map). If now pj2 charges against a wookie that's at medium range in oposite direction, outside the cantina by the door lets say, now you can just look at the map and see that pj1 and pj2 are further appart, maybe long range. If you dont want to eyeball so much, your table is picky about this kind of stuff or you like to keep a bit better track of things (as do I tbh, having a hard time with EotE for some stuff) you could make a ruler with the range bands painted and use it to keep track of ranges. For example, say you have a capital ship, long range of the PCs ship and a wing of TIE fighters at engaged range of the capital ship. If the PCs ship approachs to say, medium range of the ties, then you use the ruler from the TIEs, see where their medium range is, move them there, and they're considered at medium range of anything the ruler says is medium range(in this case the capital ship). If next round they tried to get away from the TIE, they could choose the direction affecting their distance with the capital ship, staying at the same distance, moving away or getting closer while putting distance with the TIE. This should work just giving a hex value for each range band too. EDIT: typos everywhere
  11. (not quoting to avoid long posts) I belive we've strayed a bit of my point and I belive usgrandprix's. I was not talking about "always on" defenses. The Dodge I'm using right now works just like the Dodge of the book, except it also adds a point of flat failure (I like the option of using it for threats usgrandrpix mentioned, might check on that) to the roll. It still costs strain, you still need to activate it etc. I'm not saying that you can translate this directly to parry and reflect, or that I'd work with the current amount of talents you see in the trees etc, but I find it to be a simple way of adding value. Maybe there'd need to be less talents for it to work that way, or at a different costs, or make it give ranks/2 failures instead of 1 x rank since it shows up much more than Dodge, etc.That said, I dont see how in the point where the pc has 4 or 5 points of Parry/reflect it would differ a lot. In both cases, both if you're using it as soak or failures, the jedi will probably fall once he has no more strain and not before. Now, my problem with the soak logic in parry and reflect is basicaly this. Say you have a somewhat newbie Jedi. As many like to remind, a turn can be several shots, however it can also be han solo shooting greedo. So you have your newbie Jedi with a rank or two in reflect and parry which gives him his extra soak. Each time he is hit and uses reflect or parry, he will get some damage. It's simply ridiculous in many situations and it forces the narration to constantly get hit with gracing shots instead of properly parrying, and the way defenses work in the game, the Jedi will get constatly get hit by attacks of dmg 6-8, and he will constantly use parry/reflect, will mitigate part of it and get hit for a few points. He can't *ever* fully deflect an attack unless it's made with the blaster version of a derringer revolver. He can narrate it like that anyways of course when the shot just fails, but if he activates deflect, he is already hit, and he will take the damage. Now adding flat failure point, he will activate his parry and reflect. Maybe he will parry it totaly, maybe he will mitigate 1 or 2 points of damage, or maybe he fails and get hit. This makes more sense in my head, and it works both in the "getting shot several times" or the "getting shot once". Edit: typos everywhere
  12. Dodge doesn't need any more dice anyway, unless all existing purples have already been upgraded for some reason. By removing the upgrade, you're robbing the Dodger of a chance to narrate a Despair on the attacker. Reliability is boring. I'm not removing the upgrade, i'm adding the flat failure to the attack on top of it. As many other players and GMs i've seen in the EotE forums, I find the defensive options the players are given lacking, other than trying to bump soak. The chances of a success that an upgrade gives are not a lot, specially when you're turning a purple into a yellow instead of adding a purple. I havent tested this particular change yet, I was just mentioning in case anyone was interested. I havent played a lot of EotE yet since we've been busy finishing our previous campaing. As for reliability being boring, I agree. I dont think the flat bonus would make it too reliable.
  13. Despite the dice growth, I feel the same way. If layered with the other abilities that increase range/melee defense, it is easier to get the movie jedi. Attacking a jedi producing a fist full of setbacks would get ugly quick for the attacker. I think it would have the added benefit of reducing the need for so many Parry/Reflect talents sprinkled through the trees. As it stands the trees have too many copies of this talent just to get the soak value to a reasonably high level which seems klunky. Ups, EDIT: One thing i'm trying to do in EotE that I might try in force and destiny is to make some defensive talents give "flat successes", making them a bit more reliable. For example, Dodge adds 1 extra failure to the attack roll. Easy to calculate, and it does not need any more dice. I got the idea from someone in the forum actually.
  14. If the defender always chooses, then he always chooses. It doesn't matter if he's being chased or tailed or flying towards a Star Destroyer, the defender can always pick the side with the highest shields. Even if the defender is sandwiched between a Star Destroyer and TIE Fighters, he can have both of them shoot at the same shield. If you are supposed to resolve the facing by how the scene is being described, then the rules would have specified that, as they do for larger ships. It's specified I even wrote the page. page 235, asembling the dice pool. silhouette 4 of lower the defender chooses. I'm not sure how big is that tbh. EDIT: Ah I think you misunderstood me. Second part of the explanation is for when the ship is larger than 4.
  15. If the ship is small (s 4 or lower), the defender always chooses unless the attacker gains the advantage. Else, the players and gm decide where the hits are. If the gm says "the tie fighter starts trailing you" hits go to the back, if the player says he is flying head on towards the star destroyer, hits will go to the front and so on. There is no rule because players and GM are supposed to agree on it while describing the scene to make it more cinematic. Same way, if you use gain the advantage and get behind a tie fighter, the tie fighter shouldnt be able to fire at you because it only has a front arc of fire. You can read it in p235, where the attack action for vehicles is explained.
  • Create New...