• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About emsquared

  • Rank
  • Birthday October 31

Recent Profile Visitors

655 profile views
  1. Morality, this time with feeling.

    People are getting a little crazy over Influence here I feel like... This opposed check Difficulty should be modified by narrative conditions like any other. "You want him to believe he is suicidal? Well, considering the fundamental philosophical disparity and tremendous weakness that would represent to a Sith, that's 3 Setbacks. AND I like this guy, I'm flipping a Destiny." Not to mention that's easily "Emotional Abuse" (2 Conflict), causing someone to believe their life is not worth living, if not Torture (10 Conflict). I get more heartburn over the "Inflict 2 Strain per pip." Upgrade and that un-resisted damage.
  2. Ah, I was missing that part of the suggestion. To me, the whole point of converting it to a Skill-based system would be to unify it with all other mechanics, like Genesys does. So to me there is no point or value in holding onto the "Power Trees" but getting rid of the Force die. Given the fundamental disparity in visions, I will bow out of this conversation.
  3. It's 75xp to take a Career Skill from 0 to 5 ranks, 100 for out. Under your system, that's 225 - 300 xp to be one of the greatest Force Users of all time (depending on underlying Characteristics), isn't that a little, no a crap ton, xp-lite?? In "vanilla" Force Power structure, maxing out the cheapest Power is maybe 105 xp in Farsight. One of the most useless Powers is 105 xp. Youre proposing to be able to max out ALL Power Skills in 225 xp. You think my suggestion was xp-intensive? The "vanilla" Force Power structure is what's xp-intensive. And it should be. The Force Powers - as structured in "vanilla" - are very Powerful. So to do what you want: cut everything down to 3 Skills, you're either going to have to nerf every single Power, or have massively disbalanced characters. Seems to me having every Power as a Skill is actually a nice compromise between the vanilla super-xp intensive set up (Bind is 170 alone to max out), and your super-xp lite set up.
  4. Assuming that all "Force Skills" would be "in-Career" for all Force Users, and proceeding from there that each Power as-is currently has well more than a "Skill-tracks worth" of xp to be invested in it, wouldn't the most parsimonious solution/simplest mechanical translation be to just have each Power be a new Skill? I mean it'd be massive Skill bloat, but isn't that really what is is already? Just a bit different skin. Whittling all Powers down to 3 Skills would 1.) make Force Users more able to accumulate more power more easily, and/or 2.) necessitate a massive rebalancing of the Power, and/or likely nerfing (where the Powers already have troubles living up to people's vision of canon Force use)? SWRPGs individual Force Powers are WAY more powerful than Gensys' various Magics. So breaking SWRPGs Force down to 3 Skills like Gensys' Magic is gonna result in MAJOR balance issues.
  5. My Homebrewed Crunch

    Hey everyone (not that there's anyone here ever anymore, but who knows maybe some of you are still around and will get this)! So, after getting fed up with and moving on from this system, and playing the FFG Star Wars system and loving it for years now, I found myself kind of inexplicably coming back to EotW. And I brought a lot of principles from FFG Star Wars with me. And I houseruled them into EotW... And I put it all in a document. And here it is. Only a couple years after people were interested in it... heh... sorry. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CnQjX0QV4ztmze0yqTmqBJvSpdbYi8-M Anyway, if anyone does find this thread, and this link, and downloads the document, and uses it, please come back here and let me know how any of it works for you. I'm actually really kind of excited about this system again, now that I've played FFG Star Wars and figured out that a lot of that game can be brought into this one. And this one is a bit more accessible to people new to rpgs... So yea, shout out to yous guys who asked for this... here ya go... two years late. >.< @ReallyoldGM, @Ceodryn, @deeth82 Sorry about that.
  6. Morality problem

    That's a fine opinion, but it is by no means a fact. Or even reasonable. The simplest solution is to go off of what is already known/knowable to all. Not the thing that you have to explain anew, and which likely necessitates players reconceptualizing how that might relate to their PC concept, and even how they play the game.
  7. Morality problem

    That's why you don't debate it. That's why you have the pre-campaign chat that leaves no doubt going into the thing. "I am gonna use the Conflict Table, please be mentally prepared for that." It doesn't matter what people can agree on, that's why you have the GM role at the table. To arbitrate things that are left up to interpretation.
  8. Morality problem

    The reason I will always try to get ppl to consider their implementation of "vanilla" Morality, when their instinct is to change this core mechanic (which while it may not impact the scene-to-scene mechanics much, it is tied into a HUGE narrative theme of the IP and is something any player will expect of a Force-based game), is because the Community benefits MASSIVELY from a common frame of reference, and a common understanding of the vanilla game, because that common understanding is what facilitates easy play between different tables. Its why we have rules for RPGs. A common frame of reference for all. And if you're not warning ppl about Conflict as per RAW, you are not using the Morality system "correctly" and so you can't expect it to function correctly. Your stance on metagaming doesn't matter - that's how this system works. That's how this mechanic in this game works. It works using metagaming. And it does work. It does also takes a little brain space in play, and honestly it seems like that's what is truly at the center of most people's problems when you come down to it. They don't (want to?) do the work. And that's fine, but I don't see the point in replacing one kind of work with another. If you don't want to use Morality RAW, use it 100% narratively. No new/different bookkeeping. No new/different terminology for the same thing. No necessary rebalancing of game mechanics tied to it all. Just: "Hey guys, if you do Darkside stuff, you're gonna become Darkside." That's also easy for anyone to understand going into any table anywhere. Truly that's all the RAW mechanic comes down to. They just attached a very granular bookkeeping mechanic to it. So take that bookkeeping out and just do the narrative part. But if you take metagming out of games that have metagaming intertwined with its mechanics, you break that game. And it sounds like you've broken the RAW Morality game, and now are trying to assert that it doesn't work. You broke it. Of course it doesn't work.
  9. Morality problem

    @GroggyGolem, I find it very bizarre that you talk about metagaming like it's the worst thing in the world. RPGs are a meta game. Everyone is constantly metagming at any table ever not only just by virtue of knowing about how the mechanics work (and basing incharacter choices off of that), but unless you play with a bunch of juvenile powergamers, chances are that indeed people are constantly metagming to improve the storytelling and play experience. Indeed many systems these days incorporate metagaming into their mechanics and narrative with that explicit purpose (improving the storytelling experience). Metagaming can and does when integrated properly with the mechanics improve RPGs. FFG Star Wars is exactly one of those games (along with Burning Wheel, ALL of the Powered by the Pocalypses, Blades in the Dark, Fate, Cortex, the list goes on and on). That meta-mechanic functions more or less as "the Cosmic Gorce"/Will of the Force does in the canon media.
  10. Houserule 1: You must talk to your players before the campaign begins, and tell them that you intend to use the Morality mechanics to explore the cinematic concept of Jedi/Sith, Light/Dark morality, and explain what that means. Houserule 2: You must ensure them that you will not use the Morality mechanics to push their PCs story to a place they don't want/choose for it to go. And then you must make good on that promise, by following the books rule to warn the players when they're about to earn Conflict, and allow them to retcon stated PC actions if necessary. Houserule 3: You must ask your players to engage the Morality mechanics. Letting them know that this is how they will achieve the PC they want (Light, Grey, Dark, whatever). And engaging the mechanic means helping you as GM identify Conflict-worthy actions (especially related to their Moral Strength/Weakness). Even encouraging them to go so far as asking for Conflict (or a Skill check to avoid it) when their PC is angry. Houserule 4: You must allow the Force to accomplish extraordinary results, compared to normal/similar skill-based efforts, so that it is worth it to use Dark Pips when they pop up. The Force should always be a tempting "shortcut" for ingame problem solving. Houserule 5: You must readily use the Fear mechanics - first time they get in a gun fight, or fist fight, first time they see someone die - or an ally go unconcious, first time they're in a ship when it's getting blasted, first time a Sil 3 beast comes at them, and so on. Remembering that fear is one of the paths to the dark side (use Threats to give Conflict). Houserule 6: You must take a few notes before each session, identifying likely plot points that will/should/could come up in the session that are basic "adventuring protocol" that are Conflict worthy. "Well, these guards will try to cuff them, if they physically resist it, that's starting a fight - 1 Conflcit ea.", "They have to get in this building, and stealing the Janitos key is the easiest way in. They steal that, that's stealing - 3 Conflcit ea. cuz that Janitor loses his job for losing that key and can't feed his family.", "The PCs are infiltrating this facility in the vents. They see a scene in this room where a prisoner is being summarily executed without trial (murdered). If they don't stop it - risking exposure of their infiltration, that's Knowing Inaction - 1 Conflict ea.", "This contact WILL NOT give up his source for any price. But he can't stand pain... They coerce him they get the info but that's Coercion - 2 Conflict ea.", "They just knocked these Minions out, they're gonna wake up and identify the PCs faces to the Inquisitors. Only way to prevent that is killing them... that's murder. Will they do it?", and so on... Always remembering HR2. Follow these houserules and you should have a highly functional Morality game going on in your campaign.
  11. Creating PC versions of the players real selves

    Confused as to why you believe "creating yourself" needs to have different rules than "normal" character creation when the things you're proposing still ares no more likely to yield a "real person" than the vanilla character creation. Youre still placing arbitrary restraints on the abstracting of real life concepts and abilities. If I told my professor friend that he can "create himself" but can only put 1 rank in Knowledge, he'd laugh in my face and say "well that's not me". Same with the former infantry sniper that sits at my table every week. "I know you have like 20-whatever confirmed kills, but you only get 1 rank in Ranged heavy to 'create yourself'." What? Or my table mate that's a project manager at a Tech company. "Yea, you're creation of apps for the NBA is only worth 1 rank in Computers. But it's still totally you!" Just use vanilla character creation, and tell them they can make appriximations of themselves. Don't over complicate this. It's not worth it.
  12. 'End of The World' settings- Apocalypse how?

    Well, I was being a little harsh about EotW's mechanic. It's fine for what the system was really designed for: oneshots or very short (3-4 sessions at most) "campaigns". It actually has some interesting parallels to the Narrative Dice System, positive/negative pools in one, the dice can "stress"/harm you. That - in principle - I like. The all d6s though just aren't flexible enough. My table played with it for like 8 sessions and so long as you pay attention to, and use, the "Require more successes for harder tasks." rather than just adding more negative dice as the system seems to prescribe, it's passable. You can make it work. Though there are still places where it breaks down ... Like players become afraid to try anything risky or interesting as it can literally kill them just for trying. Anyway, original point remains. You can use Genesys as-is to approximate yourself. You can use Genesys as-is to play a modern era zombie apocalypse game. It would do quite well with it even - Minion Groups, Structred Social encounters, the ability to treat zombies as "environmental" challenges and still damage/tax PCs. And the fluff (and art, ye gods what a gorgeous book) from EotW is usable in just about in any system. I've been slowly working on a very generic, robust "modern" hack, and a large part of that was to run a zombie apocalypse game.
  13. 'End of The World' settings- Apocalypse how?

    I have EotW:ZA. Man that dice mechanic sucks. The game/concept ports over beautifully into Cortex Plus (soon Prime), which is a great dice mechanic. Into this system however, there would be some obstacles. Primarily the creation of your own (I forget what they're called in EotW) "Distinctions", which is kind of a signature of that system. As a mechanic they would generally map fine as Talents I think - although they are supposed to potentially be negatives too. However, you'd be creating a whole new dynamic in Genesys to allow ppl to create their own Talents. It'd require some sort of standardization and deconstruction. Also Genesys has a lot more granularity with regards to Skill selection, which there is basically none of in EotW. Maybe that would be part of the dissolution of the self-made Distinctions though? Anyway, the fluff from those books are great and would port over fine into any system equipped to handle a "Modern" setting - which Genesys is/can be. But porting even the spirit of that system over (create yourself, group consensus/vote), much less then "offensive/defensive stat" dichotomy, would be more of a challenge to translate than it's worth. Use the EotW ideas/fluff. Use the Gensys system, as-is. You'll be good.
  14. A horde of enemies!

    Based on my Star Wars rpg experience, it depends on your groups combat power/xp level. Groups of 6 make pretty solid combat pools (not to mention Wound Thresholds) for Minion Groups (YYYG), assuming a base pool of GG. Going over 6 members in a Minion Group is gonna result in some ridiculous pools once you throw in Boosts for Aiming or previous Advantage, Story Points, etc. ... A party of 5 new, or nearly new, PCs - with at least 3 combat-capable PCs - could go up against maybe 2 Groups of this size of without taking heavy damage (just "some damage")? PCs w/ around 300 earned-XP could maybe stand up to a number of Groups of this size, equal to their party size? So if there's 5 PCs w/ ~300 xp, they could handle maybe 5, 6-Minion Groups? That's 30 foes. The higher the xp level the more likely it is that your party can handle greater numbers of smaller Groups, than they could small numbers of large Groups... The caveat I'll throw in here, is that Star Wars has Lightsabers/Parry/Reflect, which may skew these numbers upwards due to their defensive capabilities that aren't necessarily available in any given Genesys campaign...
  15. Writing a series of thesis paper-length posts about ANYTHING in the Star Wars universe is silly, and I just realized why. Wait. No. No, I've known why for a long time... Hate to break it to you (anyone who didn't know), but Star Wars is the KING of worldbuilding fails. The number of bits of irrevocably canon lore and world-elements that had absolutely no forethought to what they meant, or history to where it came from, or would go, is innumerable in this IP. There was no grand cohesive vision for any of this universe, even by the time this nugget popped out of Yoda's mouth in 1999, and a grand vision that was there from the start is what would be required to make this initial statement, or the mind numbing debate that spring from its loins, mean anything at all. It had just barely gotten its act together by the time Drew Karpyshan was tasked with fleshing the premise out in the Bane Trilogy, 6 years later. But by that time he of course had this mish mash of decades of meaningless, disparate canon elements that he had to make into a novel. You're critiquing a marketing maneuver.