Jump to content

Garran

Members
  • Content Count

    415
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Garran


  1. "Your character spilled all kinds of secrets and you the player don't even know about it yet," is liable to antagonize the players since it removes all sense of agency. A single skill check is sufficient to counter that but it has to actually matter - success should mean that they avoided giving anything over.

    This also allows for some options as to how the character resists the interrogation. Discipline/Coercion is an obvious case, but Deception/Cool is another possibility, and I can imagine several other skills (not just social ones) coming into play, albeit probably at a higher difficulty, for specific character archetypes.


  2. Given that it was discovered via Seek it's entirely plausible to give the player a "This doesn't feel right..." speech when they focus on the planet name.

    That said, making it part of the project (and/or linked to the project, as per Lordbiscuit's suggestion) seems like a natural followup. The reference is still there, just buried a bit deeper in the happenstance of the setting.


  3. It's important to point out that "an NPC bad guy with force powers and/or a lightsaber" is not automatically one of the Sith. Most are just dark side force users; some might belong to other traditions. On the whole, lightsaber combat is similar to fighting with other melee weapons, albeit with a few talents that specifically require force sensitivity to use; Reflect is the most significant of those for defense, and is essentially just a vs-ranged version of Parry.


  4. 57 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

    That depends.

    If you're allowing material from the Force and Destiny book, then the chapter in FaD on integrating the three games pretty much says "if you've got a Force Rating, you've also got Morality," and even spells out that a PC can't take advantage of increased starting Obligation or decreased starting Duty and the Morality bonus at character creation.

    But if you're strictly sticking to EotE and/or AoR, then Morality doesn't apply since that mechanic isn't a part of either of those books, the same as Obligation or Duty not applying if all you're using is FaD.  A GM can chose to add one or both depending on their campaign; for instance I could see PCs that are members of the Jedi Order and part of the Grand Army of the Republic during the Clone Wars as having both Morality and Duty, even if none of the PCs are using AoR careers.

    No matter which of the three core books you're using you can use or set aside any of those three systems as appropriate to the theme of the campaign and the interests of the players. Regardless of whether the PCs are all force-sensitive, if no one's really interested in playing out (and mechanizing) internal emotional struggle as part of the narrative then morality doesn't suit the game (and insisting on using it regardless won't do anything useful since, of all three systems, it's pretty much entirely dependent on player engagement to work at all).

    If morality isn't being used then it's largely a judgement call (and matter of intent) as to whether the PC is light or dark. It's not like that makes a huge difference to how the character operates, either: you use one or the other color of pip and some powers function a little differently.


  5. I think that part of the problem is that the EotE book encourages GMs to take things away (that "keeping the players hungry" sidebar). It's not only problematic in itself (especially since obligation didn't really get fleshed out as an alternative currency), but GMs who come from more adversarial systems are liable to take that sidebar as a license to make the PCs' lives miserable.


  6. The Lightsaber and Warfare skills aren't referenced in the other core books because they're written assuming that you don't have the others. A purely Age or Edge game character doesn't NEED the Lightsaber skill because without F&D, lightsabers use Melee. Warfare is Age-centric and probably not needed in a purely F&D game, and in that context military matters would be handled by Education, Core Worlds, and/or Outer Rim depending on the application.

    It's only when you start crossing them over that you see a problem come up because of the lack of cross-reference - strictly as written you end up with antique lightsabers that use Melee alongside newly-built ones that use Lightsaber. I doubt that anyone actually uses it like that, but we still have the wrinkle of an extra knowledge type that grabs some functions away from others.

    There's an easy out, however: mentors can provide a discount to relevant skills, and that includes Warfare.


  7. In the case of the character with Influence, just the Influence basic power would be enough to get it not to attack - Charm isn't needed there.

    If you really wanted to handle it via skill check I could see allowing the Influence skill boost to apply even though it isn't normally used with Survival since this is a case where Survival is effectively functioning as a social skill.


  8. I will reiterate: I don't agree with the "teach them a lesson!" mentality that many of the other posters here are expressing. The answer is not to passive-aggressively 'punish' the player/character for being good at something (combat or otherwise) by constantly sticking them into situations that they can't cope with. It's to make sure that storylines give all of the characters opportunities to show off how awesome they are at their particular thing (combat or otherwise). Social encounters are there to make the social character look awesome, not to make the combat character look stupid.


  9. "By the book" doesn't work well with this system. It's deliberately open ended (or vague, take your pick) on points like that since so much of what goes on in the game is situational, and a GM that tries to impose a 'exactly as written' mentality will result in a dysfunctional game.


  10. In the case of the exploding computer I'd say that the doctor can treat the person. If this is part of a larger action sequence (infiltration mission, etc) then it counts as the use for that encounter. If it's standalone then it's essentially an encounter unto itself.

    Rather than worry too much about whether structured time is involved (it's a good indicator, but not the only one) or whether combat takes place, consider it from the perspective of a story scene/sequence. Has a complete one occurred? Then it was an encounter.


  11. I don't see it as an inherent problem that one character is good at combat as long as the other characters have their own specialization. It's always a bit odd to me that "Argh! The combat character demolished my combat encounter!" comes up but you only occasionally see "Argh! The social character demolished my social encounter!" and when a medic, scout, etc, does the same thing to the carefully designed scenario related to their field? Oh, no problem there!

    Let them do their thing. It won't solve every challenge that they're dealing with and knowing that a tough opponent isn't going to stop them just means that you don't use a tough opponent to stop them. Mr. Combat may one-shot a rancor but they aren't going to one-shot the avalanche blocking the path, etc.


  12. 18 hours ago, Imperial Stormtrooper said:

    The problem with this is that it makes talents like Nobody's Fool worthless since they rely on being targeted by those skills.

    Even if you house-rule it otherwise, personally I think that never having NPC's roll against PC's in social checks would be a bit odd, it would be like allowing the PC to roll the dice when their being shot, but that's just my thought process.

    Nobody's Fool still works as-is. It just means that the upgrade is to the player's green/yellow rather than the player's black/red.

    Attacks aren't a contested roll in this system. If they were then it would be doable there too, although bullets and blasters don't usually have the same feels-off-to-the-player issue.


  13. Keep in mind that Charm is *not* a mind-control effect as per the typical fantasy RPG use of the word. While it can be used to convince people to do things, it's far more limited than the out-and-out mind control that is often associated with it in other systems.

    One other suggestion that I'd make is to turn the check around: Cool (PC) vs Charm (NPC) rather than Charm (NPC) vs Cool (PC). This has a small effect on the die pool and odds, but more importantly it makes the PC the 'active' character in the interaction and therefore the player probably less reluctant to go along with the results.


  14. Hitting most of the time is normal, unless perhaps you're dealing with a complete noncombatant, and even then they'll hit more often than not. If the encounter is taking place at very long range then misses will crop up more often but the system doesn't expect most PCs to have Stormtrooper accuracy.

    Powering up opponents is liable to turn things into an arms race as the players sink all of their resources into catching up to the opposition, whereupon you end up raising the power level further, making for even more attack optimization by the players, etc. Don't go that route. Minions are supposed to drop like flies and rivals aren't really meant to be movie-narrative "rivals", just one of a set of ordinary opponents.

    Rather than worrying about the power level of the opposition, worry about the scenario in which the fight is taking place. Having a battle just to have one isn't terribly satisfying and this system really isn't written around it (unlike dungeon crawlers, which are); there should be something - not necessarily the same thing - that the PCs and/or bad guys are trying to accomplish (beyond 'mow down the opposition') and the firefight makes the job more complicated, but not so overwhelming that the actual task has to be ignored completely.


  15. On 2017-06-20 at 4:30 AM, edwardavern said:

    One idea I've been toying with is introducing random encounters (not "random combats" - actual encounters) to my game, precisely to do this.  For example, let's say the PCs are in a hurry but they witness a speeder accident.  Do they stop and help they injured passengers?  If they do, they risk being late for saving the world, but if not, that seems like a point of conflict right there.

    Lend what aid you reasonably can in the circumstances. You can't save everyone from everything and priorities have to be set - and failing to save the world will render their speeder bike accident irrelevant anyway. :P  Moreover, conflict is supposed to be generated by taking the easy or selfish path, not by taking the right path, or one right path among several options.

    While the way that characters respond to something (and the reasoning behind it) can be telling - what is reasonable in that circumstance? - slapping the players with no-win situations re conflict is liable to put them off of the system and it stops working when that happens.


  16. 39 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

    It is reversible, this is what cybernetics are for, not for power gamers to stack dice pools.  Cybernetics are there as a means to mitigate serious injuries people suffer.  Just ask Luke and Anakin.

    Those two aren't comparable because neither of them were someone's PC, and neither were altered because of a random die roll.

    My experience is that anything that mucks around with a player's image of their character - and that includes mechanical and thematic messing around like permanent/crippling injuries, limb loss, blindness, etc -  requires buy-in from the player ahead of time. If not, they're liable to reject the arbitrarily re-imaged character as no longer being theirs, and that's a perfectly valid feeling.


  17. Gruesome Injury is one of those obnoxious outcomes that really shouldn't have been in the system to begin with, and I'd suggest treating any sort of perma-cripple effect as reversible in the future. You're seeing why: for various reasons - thematic and mechanical - many (most) players would rather have a character outright killed instead, and now that he expressly wants that to happen (which doesn't excuse the passive-aggressive in the meantime), it's better to do that and be done with it; trying to further muck about with the character by turning them into a bad guy off camera is just going to make them angry again.

    If the rest of the party wants to get into and then extricate themselves from the mess in the meantime, stick to dealing with that part of the story.

×
×
  • Create New...