Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LibrariaNPC

Free-Form Chargen & Progression Concept

Recommended Posts

The game was designed with careers and talent trees. If you are going to rip it all apart for a free for all, you will have to rebuild that part of the game from scratch. You will probably need scaling costs and prerequisites at minimum in order to prevent abuse. So you will end up with some sort of constraints just as the game has now. Or any game for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As currently posted, Librarian, you need some form of check to keep players from buying talents ala carte as you have removed the current balancing factor. Perhaps something like you need X number of Level 1 Talents (The 5 xp ones) to progress to Level 2 Talents so on and so forth..

 

While I think removing the trees is a terrible idea, I wonder if you could go with something like the Order/Freedom/Autocracy Ideologies from Civilization V, where in order to buy one Tier 2 policy, you have to have two Tier 1 policies, and to get a Tier 3, you need two tier 2s and 4 Tier 1s.

 

Mind you, this does nothing to mitigate the problem of buying a boatload of Five Point talents and being able to deflect every black die generated while carrying around an E-Web and downgrading two incoming attack dice. I dont know, perhaps limit them to just eight Five Point talents forever and ever?

 

Frankly the whole thing seems like too much **** work, overhauling the costs of talents so you can buy them willie-nilly and then the extensive testing you'll need to make sure the talent effect justifies the cost. Just give the players an extra 10 points every week so they can buy whatever trees they want.

Edited by Desslok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I actually do think that a system that relies on "class" or "tree" based constraints to prevent balance or stacking issues has missed the boat entirely, and is fundamentally broken.

 
Then you probably should go play a different game. You hate careers, you hate skill trees and you hate signature abilities. The only thing left of character creation and advancement are the Skill Ranks. It sounds like you'd probably be better off playing WEG.
 
. . . . oh, wait. That has a increased cost for character advancement too.

 

 
*sigh*

 

Yes, the WEG system did include a higher cost to advance an attribute or skill as it went up -- it cost more to go from 4d to 5d than it did to go from 3d to 4d, and no one has disputed that. 

 

However, If we translate what FFG did into WEG d6 terms, then it would be something like saying "if you want these special abilities that really make the difference in piloting a "light freighter", you'll need to invest some extra XP in unlocking the Smuggler career first, and then go buy your way the tree until you get to those abilities".  

 

What WEG did NOT have was those special abilities, or the need to spend extra XP just to get into the career that has them.  

 

Obviously, I see those as fundamentally different, and you do not. 

 

Edited by MaxKilljoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As currently posted, Librarian, you need some form of check to keep players from buying talents ala carte as you have removed the current balancing factor. Perhaps something like you need X number of Level 1 Talents (The 5 xp ones) to progress to Level 2 Talents so on and so forth..

 

While I think removing the trees is a terrible idea, I wonder if you could go with something like the Order/Freedom/Autocracy Ideologies from Civilization V, where in order to buy one Tier 2 policy, you have to have two Tier 1 policies, and to get a Tier 3, you need two tier 2s and 4 Tier 1s.

 

Mind you, this does nothing to mitigate the problem of buying a boatload of Five Point talents and being able to deflect every black die generated while carrying around an E-Web and downgrading two incoming attack dice. I dont know, perhaps limit them to just eight Five Point talents forever and ever?

 

Frankly the whole thing seems like too much **** work, overhauling the costs of talents so you can buy them willie-nilly and then the extensive testing you'll need to make sure the talent effect justifies the cost. Just give the players an extra 10 points every week so they can buy whatever trees they want.

I think ultimately if I had a player who felt their concept was so completely held back by the lack of a talent in their primary tree I'd just allow a talent swap within the tree provided it fit the theme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think ultimately if I had a player who felt their concept was so completely held back by the lack of a talent in their primary tree I'd just allow a talent swap within the tree provided it fit the theme.

 

Have them buy - oh, lets say three trees. A combat tree, a vehicle tree of somesort and a social interaction tree - not a huge expenditure of points (perhaps waive the +10 points for the out of Career costs). Then you'd have to work with them swapping talents in and out, making sure that the swaps didn't imbalance anything. That still seems a bit fiddly and a whole lot of work for the GM - especially when magnified by 5 players - but that might almost be a workable option.

 

It's certainly better than my "Here's your eight 5 Point Tier talents" idea.

Edited by Desslok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguments aside, it is between you and your players. Is their dislike of the structure a deal-breaker to the point that they don't want to play at all anymore? If so, and if you feel it's worth your time to restructure the game for your own purposes, then it's the right thing to do. 

 

If it came up at my table, I would say that I am sticking with the Career and Specialization structure. I have several reasons that have to do with my literary preferences. The main one boils down to the type of storytelling that Star Wars is. It's not "the stand-alone hero". It's an ensemble cast of heroes, each with their own area of expertise. Some things your character is going to be good at, and sometimes you need to rely on another member of the team. 

 

And if there's no one in the party with a particular skill, you try it anyway or look for a workaround. The bunker scene on Endor gives a good example. "Artoo, we need you!" when the code was changed. Then, when R2 is incapacitated, Han attempts anyway, but he's nowhere near the slicer that R2 is. That didn't work, but either on a Triumph or a Destiny point, Chewie shows up with tools Han needs to use Deception instead.

 

Now I hesitate to include this next part, because the thread has gotten a little heated. However, I can't help myself, so please understand that this is intended in the spirit of fun. 

 

If you do decide to rework the system, allow me to recommend a change in cover art, under the spoiler tag. 

 

Lego-Star-Wars.jpg?15016e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think ultimately if I had a player who felt their concept was so completely held back by the lack of a talent in their primary tree I'd just allow a talent swap within the tree provided it fit the theme.

 

Have them buy - oh, lets say three trees. A combat tree, a vehicle tree of somesort and a social interaction tree - not a huge expenditure of points (perhaps waive the +10 points for the out of Career costs). Then you'd have to work with them swapping talents in and out, making sure that the swaps didn't imbalance anything. That still seems a bit fiddly and a whole lot of work for the GM - especially when magnified by 5 players - but that might almost be a workable option.

 

It's certainly better than my "Here's your eight 5 Point Tier talents" idea.

 

I think this may have been somewhat along the lines of thinking back in the EotE Beta initial hey day when there was a restriction of only three specs. This was dropped fairly quickly though. Although It is rare when i see someones concept needing to spread across more than three specs. At that point it seems to become more of min-maxing thing than trying to reach an actual concept.

 

I see something like this every time someone comes up with a new spec that is made up of cherry-picked talents. It more often than not stems from players that don't want to work for their abilities and think their concept should have everything rolled into one package making it easier to get all they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguments aside, it is between you and your players. Is their dislike of the structure a deal-breaker to the point that they don't want to play at all anymore? If so, and if you feel it's worth your time to restructure the game for your own purposes, then it's the right thing to do. 

 

If it came up at my table, I would say that I am sticking with the Career and Specialization structure. I have several reasons that have to do with my literary preferences. The main one boils down to the type of storytelling that Star Wars is. It's not "the stand-alone hero". It's an ensemble cast of heroes, each with their own area of expertise. Some things your character is going to be good at, and sometimes you need to rely on another member of the team. 

 

And if there's no one in the party with a particular skill, you try it anyway or look for a workaround. The bunker scene on Endor gives a good example. "Artoo, we need you!" when the code was changed. Then, when R2 is incapacitated, Han attempts anyway, but he's nowhere near the slicer that R2 is. That didn't work, but either on a Triumph or a Destiny point, Chewie shows up with tools Han needs to use Deception instead.

 

Now I hesitate to include this next part, because the thread has gotten a little heated. However, I can't help myself, so please understand that this is intended in the spirit of fun. 

 

If you do decide to rework the system, allow me to recommend a change in cover art, under the spoiler tag. 

 

Lego-Star-Wars.jpg?15016e

 

First of all... HA!  :D

 

Second... somehow, years ago, when we played a long Star Wars campaign using first WEG d6 and then the HERO system, we didn't end up with five cookie-cutter ultra-optimized characters.  While all the characters had a range of abilities, they all had their definite niche -- we had a Human "face", a Human "tech", an Ithorian Jedi, a warrior of some "felinoid" species (maybe Togorian), and a counter-intelligence/demolitions wonk of a bipedal kinda-gecko-like species.  

 

So while a system can enforce what you're looking for, it's not necessary nor is the "pro from Dover" syndrome inevitable in an open system.

Edited by MaxKilljoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although It is rare when i see someones concept needing to spread across more than three specs. At that point it seems to become more of min-maxing thing than trying to reach an actual concept.

 

Although to be fair, some concepts can easily encompass many trees. My princess turned businesswoman with a natural affinity with the force (via the Force Exile) could have easily reached a fourth tree if I decided to get good with a lightsaber - plus a little bit of the Move power, if you count that.

 

So rare sure, but not impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, If we translate what FFG did into WEG d6 terms, then it would be something like saying "if you want these special abilities that really make the difference in piloting a "light freighter", you'll need to invest some extra XP in unlocking the Smuggler career first, and then go buy your way the tree until you get to those abilities".  

 

What WEG did NOT have was those special abilities, or the need to spend extra XP just to get into the career that has them.  

 

Obviously, I see those as fundamentally different, and you do not. 

 

1. FFG is not WEG.

2. FFG does not have any talent that is specific to a "light freighter". There is Piloting Space. If you want to be better at piloting you can either buy the skill ranks directly at cost. Or you can invest in a tree that both gives you Piloting talents and reduced the cost of skill ranks.

3. WEG is not FFG, if you want to play WEG, go play it. It's a great game. But if your argument is simply that FFG is broken because it is not WEG then what is the point of posting all this **** if not to troll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, If we translate what FFG did into WEG d6 terms, then it would be something like saying "if you want these special abilities that really make the difference in piloting a "light freighter", you'll need to invest some extra XP in unlocking the Smuggler career first, and then go buy your way the tree until you get to those abilities".  

 

What WEG did NOT have was those special abilities, or the need to spend extra XP just to get into the career that has them.  

 

Obviously, I see those as fundamentally different, and you do not.

1. FFG is not WEG.

2. FFG does not have any talent that is specific to a "light freighter". There is Piloting Space. If you want to be better at piloting you can either buy the skill ranks directly at cost. Or you can invest in a tree that both gives you Piloting talents and reduced the cost of skill ranks.

3. WEG is not FFG, if you want to play WEG, go play it. It's a great game. But if your argument is simply that FFG is broken because it is not WEG then what is the point of posting all this **** if not to troll?

????

I was responding to someone else's WEG comparison -- I don't think I was even the one who brought WEG up in that exchange.

Also, please note that I said "somewhat like" and proceeded to post a hypothetical -- I wasn't making a direct statement regarding an exact tree or talent in FFG's Star Wars.

The point was that I find system design and modification a very interesting topic...

Edited by MaxKilljoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately it will come down to your players.

I once played in a WFRP 2nd (very class bassed) group and they'd taken out the class base on the system.

I quickly realised that whilst the members of the group had different types of characters there were certain helpful talents that they had all taken and whilst they weren't cookie cutters of each other it somewhat diminished their differences and cut down on those special hero moments.

Looking at the FFG talent trees there's certain ones that if I could always take then I would simply because they make sense to take.

Perhaps allowing players to start with 2 careers or getting new careers for free.

A better way I think would be to offer them a chance to learn individual talents from outside their career through roleplay and finding specialists teachers on an individual basis. Keep them different but give them a little boost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could take the Mentor idea from FaD and re-work it. The party have a Mentor for a particular career, letting them buy any of its specs for a discount (perhaps 10xp less). This would work for a campaign based on a particular Career, Rouge One, a bunch of Explorers, Core Worlders, Rebellion Diplomats, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like the easy answer is to just remove talents altogether and make the game about Abilities and Skills.

 

Most talents would just go away, while others would become abilities that everyone could do (like Dodge). You may want to keep a few in rare instances (such as Lightsaber style talents that shift the Lightsaber Ability used) that could remain (purchased al la carte). Ranked talents whose utility sticks around would have to run off of something other than ranks in that talent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think ultimately if I had a player who felt their concept was so completely held back by the lack of a talent in their primary tree I'd just allow a talent swap within the tree provided it fit the theme.

 

Have them buy - oh, lets say three trees. A combat tree, a vehicle tree of somesort and a social interaction tree - not a huge expenditure of points (perhaps waive the +10 points for the out of Career costs). Then you'd have to work with them swapping talents in and out, making sure that the swaps didn't imbalance anything. That still seems a bit fiddly and a whole lot of work for the GM - especially when magnified by 5 players - but that might almost be a workable option.

 

It's certainly better than my "Here's your eight 5 Point Tier talents" idea.

 

As good as any idea mentioned I think, but again, with a game with 18 careers, 100+ specs when it's all said and done, and the ability to buy whatever you want with sufficient xp, I just don't feel like the notion of anyone being "locked in" is accurate. It may take more table time to accomplish the same thing, but it isn't like the marauder can't become a ballerina if they so choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another possibly is to keep the talent trees as is, but allow players to take them for free as long as they provide a robust backstory or in-game explanation for how that character picked up those particular skills and abilities. So the buy-in goes out the window, but the GM still gets some juicy story to work with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like the easy answer is to just remove talents altogether and make the game about Abilities and Skills.

 

Gak! That's a terrible idea! Skill ranks is nice and all, but the real fun is the Talents. If I ever have to play WEG again, I'm going to figure out how to make talent trees for the game somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this has gotten close to de-railing and a bit of theoretically trolling, there's some solid gems in here, so thank you all for sticking with it!

 

I'd be here quoting all day to get back to everyone who shared an idea, so I'm going to hit the big ones that jump out at me.

 

 

 

 

As currently posted, Librarian, you need some form of check to keep players from buying talents ala carte as you have removed the current balancing factor. Perhaps something like you need X number of Level 1 Talents (The 5 xp ones) to progress to Level 2 Talents so on and so forth..

 
While I think removing the trees is a terrible idea, I wonder if you could go with something like the Order/Freedom/Autocracy Ideologies from Civilization V, where in order to buy one Tier 2 policy, you have to have two Tier 1 policies, and to get a Tier 3, you need two tier 2s and 4 Tier 1s.
 
Mind you, this does nothing to mitigate the problem of buying a boatload of Five Point talents and being able to deflect every black die generated while carrying around an E-Web and downgrading two incoming attack dice. I dont know, perhaps limit them to just eight Five Point talents forever and ever?
 
Frankly the whole thing seems like too much **** work, overhauling the costs of talents so you can buy them willie-nilly and then the extensive testing you'll need to make sure the talent effect justifies the cost. Just give the players an extra 10 points every week so they can buy whatever trees they want.

I think ultimately if I had a player who felt their concept was so completely held back by the lack of a talent in their primary tree I'd just allow a talent swap within the tree provided it fit the theme.

 

 

This line of thought is where some of my concerns were, hands down. Balance is ALWAYS the issue with these games, and I'm just trying to find ways of using a mechanic I'm loving to reach out to people who want something else (as, in my opinion, this is the best kriffin Star Wars game we've seen to date).

 

BigSpoon and Desslock, you basically voiced two of the ideas I was kicking around as a means to reach some semblance of balance. One of the ways I was thinking to reduce the obsession with cheap, useful, ranked talents was to cap them at 5-6 ranks, and then set up a tier system similar to Fate's skills (need at least one below to get to one above) or a proper pyramid (5 at 5XP, 4 at 10 XP, 3 at 15, 2 at 20XP, and 1 at 25XP). Neither seem to work out well on paper, though, especially as it is theoretically possible within the RAW to gain a massive number of the ranked talents.

 

2P51, this is also a valid idea. I have also been tempted to do a flat "You can buy one talent at an increased cost" to make up for some of these specifics, but they do get a bit dicey (especially with the aforementioned duelist concept I voiced).

 

For example, if I wanted to stat up an old non-Force Sensitive saber rake I was playing way-back-when, it'd make sense that I'd go with a Politico, but lightsaber would not be a career skill (the bread and butter combat skill for the concept), and all of the lightsaber talents would require the use of a Force-related talent tree. This concept was one of the reasons behind the exercise in the first place.

My wife ran into the same issue with a combatant that focused on unarmed combat, as there isn't a real talent tree for that (Warden is the closest to it now, but not two years ago). Marauder was the closest we've see, but that doesn't cover some of the martial arts styles from previous games (not saying they are NEEDED, but something to consider). She swapped characters four sessions in, but that was due to having a full-blown Marauder and a Heavy in the group that were supposed to be serving "under" her.

 

Another possibly is to keep the talent trees as is, but allow players to take them for free as long as they provide a robust backstory or in-game explanation for how that character picked up those particular skills and abilities. So the buy-in goes out the window, but the GM still gets some juicy story to work with.

 

This one has been on my radar for a while, and could help reduce the XP sink to gain new talent trees (a concern as I know a few character concepts that need at least three trees to have the necessary career skills at talents).

 

And lets face it: who DOESN'T love juicy story, especially if it's someone realizing they are Force Sensitive at an inopportune moment, ne?

(Of course, that opens the debate of "Should you still need FR 1 to gain an F&D tree, or just gain one of the two universals instead?").

 

 

I also want to clarify that I am not including Librarian in the above statement. I'm happy to continue an informed debate about the ideas you are proposing.

 

I appreciate that, and while we don't have to agree, I am glad that you and a few others have been willing to offer their opinions. Apparently there are a few here that are also curious just how far this game can stretch or fall down the rabbit hole; I'm just glad I'm not the only one!

 

 

Librarian,

It seems to me that you might be solving a problem that doesn't really exist. If I'm understanding you, a handful of players have basically told you that they want to progress faster and don't want to spend XP for new specializations because they feel like it's a lock out for talents. The first part of that is fine. If they want faster progression, bump them from 15 to 20XP per session. That's no big deal.

 

However, I think this other bit is a more difficult nut to crack because it strikes me as an issue of player entitlement (probably not the right word, but it's the best I can think of right now). RAW already allows a player to buy any additional trees she wants. As well as any individual skills she wants. What your players seem to want is the ability to buy any talent they want as well without having to invest into anything but the talent itself. But I don't think a character should just be able to buy a talent that way.

Here's an example: Field Commander is a strong talent from the Hired Gun and Soldier careers. If you allow free purchase, then you've got a Politico picking it up because it's a powerful talent that can synergize well, but narratively and thematically it doesn't make a lot of sense. Troops aren't going to respect this guy enough to really follow his Command. The two specializations that have the talent are about being tough, battle-hardened, and experienced. When that grizzled old veteran commander tells his group to move, they move without hesitation because they trust him. Some fresh faced nerf herder can't get that kind of loyalty just because he has 25XP to spend. But hey, there is absolutely nothing stopping that nerf herder from getting that experience, but it doesn't come easy. He needs to invest time and energy into becoming a military leader.

 

If you're hard set on doing it, I guess keep in mind that the trees were done intentionally in places to increase a talent's cost without actually increasing the cost. So you may have a 10XP talent that is really powerful for 10XP, but in the RAW it required another 10-15XP talent to get to. So you might not want to just go on cost alone.

 

 

"Entitlement" is a good term here, and I'm sure every GM here has had to balance between player entitlement, their own enjoyment, and keeping the general (non-entitled) players happy. I've had some players that, if there character took a single hit in combat, they'd storm out on a bad day or be angry on a good day.

 

That said, I'm not hard-set on doing it, and I can see (and agree) with your concerns. I personally like the idea that a Nerf Herder can move up the ranks to gain the ability, and agree that some players would snag any talent they want without a story behind it due to the bonuses (never a fan of that, which is one of the reasons why I felt the Dedication talent was kinda meh and promotes new talent trees for the sole purpose of stat boosts). 

 

At the moment, I don't have a solid answer beyond "GM approval" and some of the other thoughts listed above. It's really more like how a GM would create an NPC by having all of the abilities opened to them (and having players have set costs to do the same would make it easier to create villainous NPCs that are balanced with a PC or stronger).

 

 

Also, I have mixed feelings on forcing players to choose force sensitivity on creation, it is one of the things I like about the FFG system is you can have a character who you as a player are planning on taking FSEx or FSEmg but currently they have no idea they are force sensitive (ala Luke in ANH, or Corran in Legends). It is almost as if you are punishing a player for being Force Sensitive with less career skills and fewer ranks.

 

I pitched the idea since F&D used this approach, and skills are easy enough to acquire thanks to the ability to purchase talents that grant new skills (i.e. a player at my table was an F&D career and picked up Archaeologist because it made perfect sense; one of the earliest skills was Well-Rounded to make up some of the skill loss). 

 

I'm also one of those GMs that likes to know if a player plans on making their character Force Sensitive and/or if it will be a focal point of the character/campaign. That little checkbox in WEG's version was awesome, as it basically means there was no cost or limit to being Force Sensitive.

 

One idea I have had was asking players at chargen if they were Force Sensitive, and giving them an FR of 0; enough to be sensitive and noticed, but not enough to go any further. It also opened up the debate of "Will buying a Force and Destiny career later give me FR 1 if I noted this?"

 

 

It seems like the easy answer is to just remove talents altogether and make the game about Abilities and Skills.

 

Most talents would just go away, while others would become abilities that everyone could do (like Dodge). You may want to keep a few in rare instances (such as Lightsaber style talents that shift the Lightsaber Ability used) that could remain (purchased al la carte). Ranked talents whose utility sticks around would have to run off of something other than ranks in that talent. 

 

This is a valid approach, but I feel the game would be missing things because of it. I do feel the talents add so much to this game, so finding a replacement or alternative is a concern (thus the thread). 

One of the things an old friend asked was "Can this run Phantasy Star?" We used to spend our downtime playing the games between classes, and the attempts at an RPG always fell flat. I feel this one can be pretty close, but doesn't QUITE get there for what we need, which is another reason why I'm trying to see how far this can stretch (and if the idea is sound or just garbage).

 

 

 

It seems like the easy answer is to just remove talents altogether and make the game about Abilities and Skills.

 

Gak! That's a terrible idea! Skill ranks is nice and all, but the real fun is the Talents. If I ever have to play WEG again, I'm going to figure out how to make talent trees for the game somehow.

 

 

Agreed. Without the talents, it's just a power creep through skills and nothing really to modify them.

 

 

 

 

Thank you all for the input and thoughts so far. If I get any ideas while training at the new job, I'll be sure to share them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Although It is rare when i see someones concept needing to spread across more than three specs. At that point it seems to become more of min-maxing thing than trying to reach an actual concept.

 

Although to be fair, some concepts can easily encompass many trees. My princess turned businesswoman with a natural affinity with the force (via the Force Exile) could have easily reached a fourth tree if I decided to get good with a lightsaber - plus a little bit of the Move power, if you count that.

 

So rare sure, but not impossible.

 

I agree as long as someone is progressing thematically skipping around specs isn't a big deal.  Honestly, the notion that someone would advance themselves as an ace fighter pilot, card shark, wall street tycoon, and pastry chef all at once is far more artificial, which is theoretically the practical effect of letting players buy whatever they want, whenever.  The xp spent to skip around non career specs to me sort of narratively constitutes that time required to do. Someone could very well be a fighter pilot, olympic power lifter, and neuro surgeon in their life, but they certainly wouldn't do it all at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It seems like the easy answer is to just remove talents altogether and make the game about Abilities and Skills.

 

Gak! That's a terrible idea! Skill ranks is nice and all, but the real fun is the Talents. If I ever have to play WEG again, I'm going to figure out how to make talent trees for the game somehow.

 

 

I'm not saying it is an improvement, but if the exercise is to remove specializations then it is the simplest solution. It's not like people are going to make a bee-line to those black die removing talents when they can buy anything they want.

 

You could also just remake talent trees for each of the skills. Make them all 10xp and give the rows a skill rating requirement rather than the increasing cost. Some of them are pretty much done for you (i.e. Pilot and Slicer). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I see something like this every time someone comes up with a new spec that is made up of cherry-picked talents. It more often than not stems from players that don't want to work for their abilities and think their concept should have everything rolled into one package making it easier to get all they want.

 

 

We had a whole spate of 'let's make Batman/James Bond with one overpowered Spec' at one point.  

 

Experienced characters will, by their very nature, have multiple Specs.

Edited by MTaylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a quick & dirty solution might be to offer an option similar to the following:

 

Talent (A La Carte): You may purchase any talent, from any tree, at any time by paying 1.5x (round up to the nearest 5) the listed XP cost +5 XP per talent previously purchased in this way.  Increase the cost to 2x for talents in specs that the character does not have within their career and 2.5x (round up to the nearest 5) for talents in specs that the character does not have outside of their career.  Talents purchased in this way may not be used as a prereq for any other talents.

 

This would (seem to) largely eliminate the "slacker player doesn't want to spend the time gaining XP" objection as well as potential pitfalls that may come with allowing everything without penalty or restriction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Librarian - you should really take a look at Brashfink's work. He addresses (or is working to address) a lot of the concerns you're bringing up.

It seems like the two of you could join forces, at the very least...

 

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/191773-on-the-edge-rpg-generic-conversion/?hl=brashfink#entry1858603

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×