Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by edwardavern

  1. Oooh... so I love the idea that there's someone else on the ship who's leaving a trail of dead stormtroopers in their wake!! That's really cool. Thanks! Nice, I like this.
  2. Hi all I've been out of the game for a couple of years, but what with quarantine and everything I'm running my first session in a while, as a one-shot. The adventure is inspired by Chapter 6 of The Mandalorian, where the party (none of whom trusts each other) have to infiltrate a ship to recover... something. The ship is an Imperial transport ship, with a regiment of Stormtroopers on board, so that's one very obvious obstacle, but I was wondering what other obstacles might exist, other than the standard locked doors, elevator shafts, and so on. Brain's a little rusty after too much time away from the dice, and I'm struggling to come up with original, exciting hazards. Also - because why walk if you can try to fly - I'm giving all the characters secret agendas that conflict with one another, and I'm anticipating some PvP, which I've never run before. Does anyone have any tips on how to do that well? Thanks in advance.
  3. Hi all Slightly off-topic post, but figured you folks know your way around the world of RPGs as well as anyone on the internet. I'm looking for any novels and/or short stories that are specifically about roleplayers, i.e. where the main characters are gamers, and the game is an element of the story. There's plenty of stuff at the moment that references game culture (Ready Player One being the most obvious example), but I haven't found anything where roleplaying games are a key aspect of the characters. The only thing that comes close that I can think of is on TV, which is Stranger Things. Or, actually, the other thing you see on TV which is arguably a bit closer to what I'm after are those sitcom episodes (I'm thinking of Community and Big Bang Theory here) where the characters all play a game for an episode. Just wondered if anyone had come across any stories that come close to this, at all? Thanks in advance.
  4. This is a good point - I feel like she selected a motivation from the CR list (can't remember it off the top of my head), but hasn't really thought about it at all. I'll push her on this and see what she says. Yes. I'm working on this - it's definitely the most interesting aspect of the character so far. Going to be building on that. I agree in principle, but in practice I can't seem to help making the effort. #noyouredesperatetopleaseeveryone This is a great idea. Totally going to do this. Yes, that's also a good idea. Thanks all. Really helpful stuff.
  5. One of my players recently told me that, although she's enjoying the game, she feels a bit like a passenger - that she reacts to stuff, rather than ever making decisions. She accepts that part of this is because she's never really taken the time to flesh out her character (so, in her own words, her character is "plot-driven" rather than "character-driven"), and also is aware that it's partly because her character is quite a quiet, sneaky sort of dug, who isn't instinctively at the forefront of what the party decides to do. I'm talking to her to see if we can find ways for her to feel more involved in the decision-making, but I just wondered if other GMs out there had had similar issues, and (if so) how did you address them? Thanks in advance.
  6. One of my PCs was blinded, so I gave him an invisible lightsaber crystal - now he can't see the blade, but neither can anyone else...
  7. I trialled the new system the other day, with component strain instead of universal system strain. Worked OK - a few kinks, but TBH the main issue was that I had forgotten how good the ship's mechanic is. I swear she doesn't even have that much XP, but she managed to get the ship out of the encounter in better condition than it went in. Next trial I'll be hitting them with some heavy ion weapons.
  8. I use Resilience checks when PCs exceed their Wound Threshold. Instead of instantly becoming incapacitated, I let them make a check to see if they can limp on to the end of the Encounter (although they still suffer the crit, of course). Makes them slightly less glass cannon-y, and brings the skill into more prominence.
  9. My players want more space encounters, and I've already used "ship graveyard". I'm thinking space minefield could be fun, but it would be great to have some other cool space environments in which to set encounters.
  10. ... er, why? Isn't "hull trauma", you know, trauma to the hull? Or, to be less facetious, I suppose I always interpreted HT as actual damage, while SST was more... electronic damage, or overheating, and stuff. In fact... *goes to check book* ... the CR says "the strength of a capital ship's keel, the studiness of a speeder truck's chassis, or the general spaceworthiness of a starfighter's spaceframe are all measured by hull trauma threshold", while "System strain... is an aggregate of the efficiency and status of computer and navigation systems, engines and hyperspace drives, power generators, and a host of other delicate systems necessary to ensure peak performance". Obviously I'm not wedded to RAW, given that this whole post is about a HR, but I feel that it's not unreasonable to break SST down and not HT. Actually, reading your comment back, I feel like there may have been some crossed wires. I'm not suggested that SST can be "soaked" by temporarily shorting out a system. I'm suggesting that I do away with shipwide SST, and instead break it down into constituent System STs of considerably lower value. The aggregate of these is equivalent to RAW SST; taken individually, however, they short out specific systems if thresholds are exceeded. Does that make more sense? (Apologies for confusion.)
  11. I wouldn’t make it so that the components had be disabled before a kill can be made! This is to replace System Strain, not Hull Trauma. So even if I do it for NPCs as well, the PCs can still just blast them from the sky.
  12. Hmm. I don’t mind a little bit extra book-keeping, and I don’t anticipate the “only worried about Main body”’problem with the way I’m going to break it down. However, you’re right that I haven’t thought about how I’m going to extend this to NPCs, or multiple PC ships. Good point. Will think. Yeah, it could slow things down a bit, but I want to give the engineer some actual decisions - I would keep it simple enough that “puzzling out” wouldn’t necessarily take too long, but while I really like your narrative suggestions, they don’t actually give the engineer any decision to make: it’s just the GM saying what happens, and the engineer having no real choice but to fix it. Does that make sense?
  13. Been working on sprucing up ship combat with a load of house rules, including plenty of stuff from these forums (thanks to all, BTW). One of the things I want to do is to bring the party mechanic into space combat a bit more. I'm thinking of Han Solo running around the Millennium Falcon trying to fix the hyperdrive while dodging TIE fighter blasts, or Kaylee setting Serenity up for a crazy ivan - trying to capture that slightly mad feeling of being down in engineering, rewiring things and putting out fires and staggering around in a Star Trek way when the ship gets hit. I was playing Captain Sonar recently, and one thing I quite liked was the way different components went offline and had to be repaired in order to be used (albeit in a somewhat abstract way). I was thinking that instead of each ship having System Strain, each system (e.g. shields, hyperdrive, sublight engines, etc.) would have System Strain. Over the course of a combat, the ship's mechanic would have to work to keep different systems operational, either by repairing the System Strain or simply redistributing it, deciding which system was most important. If a system exceeded its threshold, it would go offline; maybe if it exceeded its threshold, it would suffer a Component Critical hit. This would give the mechanic some actual decisions to make, rather than simply "make a generic Mechanics check". Anyone have any thoughts on how that might work/not work?
  14. I obviously meant Tatooine. No idea what happened there...! I somehow missed the post originally. That's awesome. I mean, it's literally the exact opposite of what I'm trying to do... but it's still awesome. Oooh, wow, I somehow missed this one as well. That's... interesting! I have no idea if it would work, or if I even like it - why is there a random element, after all? - but it's a really interesting way of thinking about it. Fuel and docking fees are two things I started doing and then instantly regretted. It became so unnecessarily fiddly, and I never could get the amounts to work - either they were too harsh, or just not large enough to be interesting. It was fun crunching the numbers as an exercise, but in-game it just became a chore. I'm kind of intrigued by an idea where players have an abstract amount of resources (X units), but those resources have to be committed to things. Maybe ship maintenance/fuel requires 4 units to be committed, for example; the players can take resources out of that pot, but as soon as they go below the threshold the starts to break down. Maybe, as with VtM, players can commit X units to lifestyle, or to weapon maintenance, or something. Buying small things is handwaved; larger things maybe reduce the player's available pool... ...although TBH, now that I write that down, it doesn't feel like it's going to be any less book-keepy. Hmm.
  15. Hmm, yes, removing a fiddly system to replace it with a fiddly system is a bit pointless.
  16. This feels like the sort of thing that I could spend days getting sucked into. I'm kind of intrigued by the idea of Resources=green dice, but I can also see that being an unnecessarily complicated system. Like you said, there's some decisions to be made there about how that works. Will think on it. Ooh, that's interesting! Yes, I'm very intrigued by that possibility. Essentially creating an abstract Wealth tracker. You're right that the maths needs a bit of thinking about... maybe it's more like Silhouette, a kind of exponential chart...? Things like "payment in advance" is a good point to consider. That is something my players often go for, and hand-waving it potentially robs them of that. So I'll have to give it some thought. Good point. My players pretend to like getting stuff, but actually haven't accumulated much in the way of "gear". Occasionally one of them will decide to buy a better weapon, but since they're based on Coruscant it always feels like a let-down. "Yes, you find a weapons dealer easily. Yes, they have a marginally superior weapon. It costs 1000 credits. Well done." Players don't remember that stuff. But they absolutely remember the weapon they took from the Wookiee gladiator, or the blunderblasters they confiscated from illegal arms-runners. Narrative weapons are interesting. This is a valid point. Fortunately, none of my players current has these specs, and I'd probably just ask them not to take them. If they really want to I'll have to rework all the talents, of course...
  17. Yeah, I don't know Shadowrun, but the description that @the mercenary posted didn't fill me with confidence that that would be less book-keeping-y. I sort of see what you're saying. But does it have to be a "number indicator". Could you not just have, for example, something similar to the way range bands work? "Broke", "Poor", "Comfortable", "Well-off", "Wealthy", "Stupidly Rich", and "JK Rowling", or something? That way you're not just handwaving it, but you're also not bogged down with 5 credits at a time, or whatever. Yeah, that's sort of what I do. But then I just wondered whether I actually care how much a blaster rifle costs. Like, does that matter? If the players have to do a job before they can afford it, then just do that. Or just let them have it, if it's not narratively significant. It's not gonna break the game. Am I wrong?
  18. Hi all I'm preparing to revamp my campaign a bit. I've played this system long enough now to know what works well and what annoys the crap out of me. And among other things, that means stepping back from some of the really nitty-gritty book-keeping stuff that - I can only assume - was designed to appeal to D&D fans. Do we need the specs for a million types of blaster pistol? Or attachments that can only be fixed to blaster rifles, meaning you can't (RAW) give certain effects to slugthrowers or blaster pistols? I like the fluff around a lot of this stuff - that's all cool lore - but I find the mechanics seem at odds with the core "narrative" concept of the game. It's unnecessarily fiddly. (The 'Genesys' CR, which obviously doesn't have space for all this stuff, is actually much more streamlined in this area as a result. But I digress.) This brings me on to money. Take a show like Firefly. Because, let's not kid ourselves, 90% of us are basing our EotE campaigns on that vibe. That's literally what the vibe was built around. Find a crew. Keep flying. All that jazz. And in that show, they're always struggling for money. Except for the episode when they aren't. But we are very, very rarely told how much money. We're just given a general sense that, for example, River's bounty could buy a better ship than Serenity, or that a compression coil is expensive enough that Mal won't fork out on a new one even when his mechanic tells him he should (fool). In fact, I think the only time that explicit amounts of platinum/credits are discussed, it's when Simon tells the crew how much medicine costs. Even in Star Wars, amounts of money aren't really discussed. I mean, sure, we know that Obi-Wan offers Han 17,000cr to travel to Alderaan, but the number isn't really important: what's important is that it's a lot of money, enough to get Solo out of a bit of trouble. Even in the prequels, which opens with a Trade War, the only mention we get of money is that 20,000 Republic Credits are not considered a suitable currency on Alderaan. That's it. Because what matters narratively is that they don't have enough money to buy the parts they need ("No money, no parts, no deal"), so that Qui-Gon can come up with some hairbrained scheme involving illegal gambling, risking the life of an underage slave, and an enjoyable but unnecessarily long race sequence. The amounts are not important. All this fiddling with 25cr for a medpac, or 500cr for a blaster pistol, or whatever, seems folly - and is, I suspect, partly a hangover from D&D and partly something borrowed from computer games, where keeping track of lots of tiny numbers is extremely easy because... well, because that's basically what computers do. So, I'm thinking of developing a system where money is just handwaved. The party either has enough money, or they don't. If they've recently done a job, they can afford cooler stuff than if they hadn't recently done a job; if it's been a while since they had any success, maybe they aren't able to afford fuel and the tanks are nearly dry. Narrative play. But I'm sure there are some massive holes in this kind of thinking. Most significantly, I can see that not having credits to reward players with might make them feel a bit futile. I'm going to discuss it with them, and see what they think, but in the meantime I figured I'd ask the wise and benevolent community of the FFG forums to point out all the ways in which this is a terrible idea, and why I should just give up GMing and go and herd nerfs for the rest of my life. Thanks in advance.
  19. OK, thanks all - I'll pass this onto the player. Cheers!
  20. I award a small amount of XP to players who miss sessions. As other people have mentioned, disparity between XP in this system is not really a problem - because XP doesn't generally affect things like wounds, strain, or even characteristics, the fact is that a 25XP Marauder is still going to be more effective in combat than a 600XP Scholar, and a 25XP Charmer is always going to be better in social situations than a 600XP Heavy. So one character having less XP is not a big deal. In addition, a lot of my players are inexperienced roleplayers. So I like to make sure that if they get new talents or Force Powers or skills, they have a chance to get used to them. If they miss a session or two, spend it on talents and suddenly have a load of extra stuff to think about, I feel it can be a bit overwhelming for them. But that's just my take.
  21. I mean, I really liked TLJ, personally. And I thought TFA was better on second viewing, after being disappointed initially. Haven't really dived into the books, although did try Aftermath and struggled with it. FFG's stuff is fine, although TBH the more I play the less I'm actually using the published material. In short, I kind of feel like your question is a bit meaningless. Because all this stuff is subjective...
  22. Hey all One of the PCs in my group is a Bothan Charmer. Now, this is something the player brought up, not me! Basically, he felt that spamming Inspiring Rhetoric every turn during combat was...well, both OP and boring. Obviously he can choose to do other things, but I just wondered whether anyone else had felt this was an issue, and imposed any sorts of limitations on it - say, once per encounter? Or is that just unnecessary? Thanks in advance.
  23. Oh FFS. Can't be bothered with this anymore. Long story short, for anyone who cares - I ran these houserules on Sunday. There were some issues, and it wasn't perfect, but the duel was decently cinematic and the player was happy. Thanks to those who provided constructive advice.
  24. I disagree. *Shrug*. You could say the same thing about a massive space battle and a standard combat. Ooh! How have I missed that rule?! That's great - and yes, absolutely that could be ported over. And actually I much prefer using Threat/Despair that way, because it means that the player wouldn't be forced into making a default decision every time they roll a triumph; they can be more creative with it! Thanks @panpolyqueergeek .
  • Create New...