Padawan Universal Tree

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

31 minutes ago, whafrog said:

If you want that, just grant extra XP after chargen.  Best of both worlds.

Sure, but that doesn't help with different power levels in a party.

 

[AK_Aramis 1,002]

15 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Sure, but that doesn't help with different power levels in a party.

 

Give everyone that same boost - that is, BTW, how you do knight level... generate to starting level, then add some XP.

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

I'm talking about the equivalent of having what would be zero xp and thousand xp characters in the same party, like in the movies. And I'm disappointed that the game doesn't try to do that,  when other games have shown that it can be done.

 

 

[Darzil 778]

It can be done, it's just a GM / Game setup thing rather than a suggested party. Personally when I've seen such things done each player has a high and low xp character, and which is played varies (I've usually preferred playing the low xp one).

In many RPG's, and this is no exception, development of character skills during play is a significant part of the game, and the lower you start, the more impact this has. But you can always tune this to your game and setting, giving higher starting and less in game xp, or any variation you like (though less starting that base wouldn't be advised).

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

Ever-increasing power levels throughout play is another sacred cow I feel is often holding back RPG design. I like Marvel Heroic's approach of treating each big chunk of a campaign as a comics-style event. Characters can change (as in, actually switch out mechanically significant character traits, or powers) with XP, and just straight-up increase in power, too. And after the event is over, you figure out which changes you want to stick, and which were just part of that one big story and are left behind. Or maybe you want to switch to another character altogether.

 

[Kaigen 826]

7 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

I'm talking about the equivalent of having what would be zero xp and thousand xp characters in the same party, like in the movies. And I'm disappointed that the game doesn't try to do that,  when other games have shown that it can be done.

Kind of tangential, but what are some systems that you think have done this well? The only one I've played is Mouse Guard, where you can have a fresh potential recruit in the same patrol as an experienced guardmouse, but the system allows the former to improve skills much more quickly to catch up, and the latter doesn't bounce back as quickly from injuries and illness.

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

55 minutes ago, Kaigen said:

Kind of tangential, but what are some systems that you think have done this well?

Marvel Heroic and Smallville. They took this problem and turned it into an advantage.

[EliasWindrider 2,714]

20 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Marvel Heroic and Smallville. They took this problem and turned it into an advantage.

So basically "cortex plus" is it.

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

1 hour ago, EliasWindrider said:

So basically "cortex plus" is it.

Exactly. And with Smallville's version of the rules it's even expected to have heroes and villains in the same group, which can work really well for Star Wars.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Stan Fresh

[Daeglan 5,950]

21 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

But why assume PCs have to start at low power? What value is there in that over starting where the most iconic characters from the movies start, in the movies?

There are games that let you play dude with bow and god of whatever right from the beginning, in the same party, and have it work perfectly. Why not start with that as a design goal instead of emulating DnD's zero to hero approach that is so foreign to the movies?

It just seems like a basic mistake for a star wars game.

 

Most games do this in order to give characters room to grow. I have played doom using IDKFA. It is really kind of boring pretty quick. So pretty much every game starts you off at a much lower poer level. As earning the full knight power level is actually much more satisfying. It seems a lot of people get handed everything in life and are never satisfied. But the reality is they did also give us the tools to play at what ever power level they want via knight level. The suggestion of 150 XP is just that a suggestion. There is nothing stopping you from ramping up to what ever power level your play group wants. But starting a a lower power level helps GMs immensely with not having to deal with munchkins if they dont want to.

[EliasWindrider 2,714]

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

Most games do this in order to give characters room to grow. I have played doom using IDKFA. It is really kind of boring pretty quick. So pretty much every game starts you off at a much lower poer level. As earning the full knight power level is actually much more satisfying. It seems a lot of people get handed everything in life and are never satisfied. But the reality is they did also give us the tools to play at what ever power level they want via knight level. The suggestion of 150 XP is just that a suggestion. There is nothing stopping you from ramping up to what ever power level your play group wants. But starting a a lower power level helps GMs immensely with not having to deal with munchkins if they dont want to.

How much xp you give your players has nothing to do with whether they are munchkins, munchkin's are the  worst kind of power gamers, the ones who will rules lawyer abuse/misuse the rules to try to do something that rules just don't allow.  A munchkin's going to munchkin no matter how much or little xp you give them.  If you don't want to deal with a munchkin, you kick them out of your group.

Power gamers by comparison go for an optimized combination of what the rules actually allow.  A power gamer is going to power game whether they only get species xp or you give them 1000 earned xp.  Power gaming is not an inherently bad thing, it just how power gamers enjoy gaming.  Power gamers don't want to break the rules they like working within the rules to get the "best" character the rules allow according to their own definition of best, if there were no rules it wouldn't be a well defined optimization problem.  You give power gamer more xp combinations are possible, 

The only thing that changing the xp level does is change the power level the gm has to deal with.

[Daeglan 5,950]

1 hour ago, EliasWindrider said:

How much xp you give your players has nothing to do with whether they are munchkins, munchkin's are the  worst kind of power gamers, the ones who will rules lawyer abuse/misuse the rules to try to do something that rules just don't allow.  A munchkin's going to munchkin no matter how much or little xp you give them.  If you don't want to deal with a munchkin, you kick them out of your group.

Power gamers by comparison go for an optimized combination of what the rules actually allow.  A power gamer is going to power game whether they only get species xp or you give them 1000 earned xp.  Power gaming is not an inherently bad thing, it just how power gamers enjoy gaming.  Power gamers don't want to break the rules they like working within the rules to get the "best" character the rules allow according to their own definition of best, if there were no rules it wouldn't be a well defined optimization problem.  You give power gamer more xp combinations are possible, 

The only thing that changing the xp level does is change the power level the gm has to deal with.

Well given the number of options available will be severely curtailed with less XP available. And you have an easier time managing things if you doll out the XP at a reasonable pace. 

[EliasWindrider 2,714]

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

Well given the number of options available will be severely curtailed with less XP available. And you have an easier time managing things if you doll out the XP at a reasonable pace. 

Less xp would imply a lower power level which could be easier for some gms to manage, I perfectly agree with that.

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

7 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I have played doom using IDKFA. It is really kind of boring pretty quick.

Because you removed any element of risk from the game. But that's not at all what I'm talking about.

Look at stories about Vader or Thor or other high-powered characters. In well-told stories, they face obstacles that challenge even their abilities.

 

[Donovan Morningfire 10,200]

On 9/8/2017 at 10:38 PM, Stan Fresh said:

But why assume PCs have to start at low power?

Because it very quickly gets boring for the majority of players when their characters already start off being able to do all the cool tricks, having no place to really grow or develop.  About the only segment of tabletop gamers that doesn't suffer this are the munchkins, since their end goal is overpowered characters that dominate all they encounter, so starting out with all the cool tricks saves them a lot of time and effort twisting the rules; they're the same crowd that would complain that "Knight Level" should give 1500 extra starting XP and a double-bladed lightsaber with a fully-modded Ilum crystal rather than 150 extra XP and the option of a basic lightsaber.

There's much more of a sense and thrill of accomplishment from taking a PC that started out not being all that special apart from being a PC and having them grow and develop into a highly capable individual that can have far-reaching influence on the world around them.  I'd certainly find the campaign a **** of a lot more enjoyable if playing a PC that began with starting XP and gear that became a skilled Jedi over the course of several months of play than starting out as a full-blown Jedi Knight.  You see it with Harry Potter, who was entirely clueless about the magical world in book one, and by the close of book seven was a very capable wizard, especially in high-stress situations, and you see it with Harry Dresden, who is now capable of squashing threats that he would have greatly struggled against in the earlier books in the series.

As Eric42 stated, this game is built around replicating Luke's journey from naive farmboy to seasoned Jedi Knight, a journey that took him the better part of four years.  To say nothing of RPGs have been built upon the "zero to hero" model since the earliest days of D&D.

I can't speak for your experience with RPGs in general, but for a lot of the gamers I've rolled dice with are more interested in having a PC grow and overcome challenges gradually rather than being able to nearly steamroll all but the greatest of challenges right out the gate.  Having actually played Superman in a friend's Justice League Mutants and Masterminds game, being able to thwart physical encounters with no real risk got real boring once the initial novelty of "I'm playing Superman!" wore off by the end of the second session.  Conversely, I'm playing a Spider-Man knock-off in another friend's Emerald City campaign, and said character is far from being unmatched in anything, so there's always a challenge for him to overcome, which makes that character far more fun to play as there's still plenty of room for him to grow and improve mechanically to better overcome those challenges.

There are RPGs where one player starts out significantly more capable than the rest of the part, such as the old Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG where the default model is one player is the group's Buffy equivalent while the rest are the far less-capable Scoobies, but part of that game requires the entire group to buy-in those players who aren't the Hero of the team being okay with largely being support and probably just barely squeaking out successful checks while the Hero of the group is thumping bad guys with ease.  And I've heard and seen groups playing that game dissolve because one or more of the Scooby players eventually got tired of playing second-fiddle to the Slayer.

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

Why do you equate being powerful with not facing appropriate challenges? Does Vader not face significant opposition in stories focused on him? Does Qui-Gon just casually trounce all enemies he faces?

Also, where does that leave characters like Han, Chewbacca, Yoda, or 3PO? They show little to no change in their competence over time. Why should someone have to spend XP on getting better at things if the characters they want to play don't get better at things during the course of their story?

A lot of things have been done "since the start", doesn't mean they're the only or even best way to do it. That includes the zero-to-hero process. It's not necessary for an RPG, and realizing that opens up a lot of design space.

Just as an example, say a system doesn't force you to make your PC better and better at slicing up stormtroopers or crafting guns or charming the pants off Hutts, but instead lets you spend XP on how your character's personality is affected throughout the story, and giving that development mechanical weight. There are many games which model personality traits much more extensively than this one.

 

[Daeglan 5,950]

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

Why do you equate being powerful with not facing appropriate challenges? Does Vader not face significant opposition in stories focused on him? Does Qui-Gon just casually trounce all enemies he faces?

Also, where does that leave characters like Han, Chewbacca, Yoda, or 3PO? They show little to no change in their competence over time. Why should someone have to spend XP on getting better at things if the characters they want to play don't get better at things during the course of their story?

A lot of things have been done "since the start", doesn't mean they're the only or even best way to do it. That includes the zero-to-hero process. It's not necessary for an RPG, and realizing that opens up a lot of design space.

Just as an example, say a system doesn't force you to make your PC better and better at slicing up stormtroopers or crafting guns or charming the pants off Hutts, but instead lets you spend XP on how your character's personality is affected throughout the story, and giving that development mechanical weight. There are many games which model personality traits much more extensively than this one.

 

Why do you equate low starting power as bad?

[kaosoe 7,573]

The advantage my group has at starting at low power levels is not having so much stuff to remember that their character can do. Of everyone in the group, I think I am the only one who has actually read the rule book.

[Darzil 778]

35 minutes ago, kaosoe said:

The advantage my group has at starting at low power levels is not having so much stuff to remember that their character can do. Of everyone in the group, I think I am the only one who has actually read the rule book.

Yeah, this is really important to making a game accessible. You start simple and build up in your understanding of the character and system, and the character grows at the same time.

I've dived into games at high xp, and was never as effective as a same xp character I'd built along the way, due to understanding it less well.

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

5 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Why do you equate low starting power as bad?

I haven't done that anywhere.

I'm saying there should be a much greater spectrum of possible starting character concepts.

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

4 hours ago, kaosoe said:

The advantage my group has at starting at low power levels is not having so much stuff to remember that their character can do. Of everyone in the group, I think I am the only one who has actually read the rule book.

Sure, that can be an issue if greater power equals greater complexity. It doesn't have to, of course.

 

 

[Tramp Graphics 2,328]

R. Talsorian games' Fuzion system has a pretty good method of allowing players to build higher skilled characters by giving players the option of taking Complications to gain more Character Points to by up characteristics, skills, talents, and perks beyond what a starting character normally starts with.

[Edgookin 771]

On 9/9/2017 at 0:38 AM, Stan Fresh said:

I'm talking about the equivalent of having what would be zero xp and thousand xp characters in the same party, like in the movies. And I'm disappointed that the game doesn't try to do that,  when other games have shown that it can be done.

 

 

If I saw a game (or movie) like that, I would assume the 1000 xp character is a GM character.  Looking at the EP IV, Han, Leia, Luke and Chewie could all be built as starting characters.  Obi wan would need some extra power, and would be the NPC mentor to the group. 3PO and R2 are most likely NPC droids to fill out needs in the party (computer, repair, languages).  All the others were roughly equivalent in ability.

[whafrog 10,384]

1 minute ago, Edgookin said:

Looking at the EP IV, Han, Leia, Luke and Chewie could all be built as starting characters.

Oh, sure you could...if you made every task Average or less and kept the setbacks to a minimum, and all the stormtroopers had no training and Agility 1...okay, maybe that last bit works...

[Edgookin 771]

2 hours ago, whafrog said:

Oh, sure you could...if you made every task Average or less and kept the setbacks to a minimum, and all the stormtroopers had no training and Agility 1...okay, maybe that last bit works...

I really don't see the problem.  On Tatooine they fought stormtroopers for a single round, then ran.  Han got lucky and evaded the Star Destroyers.  They snuck around on the Death Star (with boosts from their stolen armor, when the Empire didn't know they were there).  They fought through groups of stormtroopers on the Death Star (at range short or medium) who were instructed to let them run.  They ran from Vader.  They fought 4 TIE minions, who damaged their freighter.  Then the final battle, which was admittedly a longshot, but was their only shot.  Doesn't seem outrageously hard.  Even Leia admits it should have been harder.