|
We played our first game of EotE recently. I'm doing a Bounty Hunter/Gadgeteer thing and I'm loving it. The system is all kinds of fun and simple. I find that players are more apt to take risks thanks to the relatively straight-forward approach to unskilled rolls. The low and often times fun and flavorful results of failure are often a source of enjoyment too. Opposed rolls seem all kinds of jarring though. I remember we're bopping along, about a 50/50 mix of successful and failure, when our GM brought out our first opposed roll. The enemy pool consisted of 2 challenge dice and 2 difficulty dice (easily equivalent to a highly focused starting character). I don't blame the GM for it but it was just sudden. I don't like the way the game handles stun damage. Strain-as-resource is an interesting mechanic. But there was one point where we had been wailing on this giant space crocodile for a while on some bog planet. Blasters mostly. The thing gets up in my face and it would have been really cool to just punch the thing. I have the skills for it. But because Brawl does Strain damage, it would have started in on an entirely different wound track and therefore have been a waste of time. This is probably a problem with any system that has two wound tracks (Shadowrun, for instance). Liked the game a bunch. Would play again.
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
I just love the potential in the system too. Need a monster with whacky powers? Have them operate off of Advantage (offensive powers) or off of the players' Threat (defensive powers). Want to have some kind of side-plot where a Bounty Hunter gradually advances on the players? Mark progress with the amassing of Threat. Better yet, give players a choice to spend Advantage to buy off the arrival of such a Nemesis. So many great possibilities.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Many of the Talents are pretty dull, and their importance to a given character concept seems to only really emerge once you've taken a lot of them. For instance +1 health or +1 soak isn't a huge deal, mechanically, but taken in totality it can be pretty cool.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
What are the thoughts on the Street Smarts talent in the Force Sensitive Exile tree? Technically the talent also exists in the Fringer tree but it's much cheaper there and less of a problem. Street Smarts appears twice in the Exile tree and it's 20 XP in both cases. I challenge the usefulness of removing a setback die from Streetwise and Knowledge (Underworld) rolls particularly in light of the expense. I feel like a talent that added 1 automatic advantage on those checks would be about the same (worse in cases where setback dice actually appear, better in all other cases). More generally I'm curious what people think of the talents that remove setback dice on specific checks or under specific circumstances. They just never feel as useful as other talents (I'm looking at you, Slicer). They seem like speedbumps and competency tax that would better be solved in some other way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Yeah as I understand it, Knowledge checks don't really represent gathering information. It's a check to see if you know something. I could see trying to recall an obscure fact in a stressful situation warranting a setback, or maybe if the fact is only tangentially related to the Knowledge skill, but that's about it. If information is difficult to acquire because of obscurity, it should generate difficulty dice, full stop. Setback dice should represent factors that increase the liklihood of failure, but which are secondary to the difficulty of the action. I could see the presence of enhanced law enforcement on a given planet adding black dice to Streetwise checks (hard to work the criminal underworld when they're all in hiding) or Threat from previous social rolls adding black dice. What I'm saying is that it's not hard to imagine where those dice would come from, but they're probably not going to be present on every roll. Or very often. The number of times I need to recall an important Underworld fact while in the midst of gunfire is going to be pretty low.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:I ran the beginners game today for my friends and it went super well overall which made me feel pretty good since I'm a pretty green GM. The biggest stumbling block was the space combat section at then end. I didn't read that section of the beginners rulebook ahead of time and I still don't quite get it. The range abstraction in regular combat is kind of weird to get used to but I didn't get it at all for space combat. I also had problems since I was running a 5 man party (who steamrolled most encounters but that was okay for this session) and so wasn't sure what to do with the fifth person. The pilot felt kind of useless too as it didn't seem like he had a lot of options. I'm curious what was confusing about the range bands in space combat? They function exactly the same as personal scale range bands except that they abstract much larger distances. The important thing to remember about piloting and movement is that almost all personal-scale ship weapons are limited to Close. So that means if your pilot can put any distance whatsoever between himself and the other target, you can pretty much make yourself immune to harm. Flying in the dead of empty space does certainly make that less interesting, though. Typically we let the pilot do any kind of 'stunting' that might be appropriate for the scene, which is especially rad in space combat. If nothing else the pilot can typically generate enough Advantage to make the Gunner and Enginners' jobs easier.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
So range band wonkiness: The game has a weird quantum problem where you need to know where you're going to end up before you start moving. Which is weird. At any given time a character can be at Short with one character, Medium with another and Long with a third. For purposes of this argument, let's assume all three of the distant characters are in a straight line away from the primary character, at increasing distances. If our primary actor tries to move away how many maneuvers does it take? He's moving to Medium with regard to one character, but he's moving to Long and Extreme with regard to the other two. So what gives?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Right but this gets especially frustrating when you have multiple PCs involved and a lot of enemies. An example that actually came up in play: The reverse example. Three enemies (A, B, C) at Medium, Long, and Extreme range. I take a maneuver. Does my character need to take two maneuvers to close with enemy B? I move to Close with enemy A, that's obvious. But is enemy B now at Medium with me, or is he half-way to medium? Enemy C is clearly halfway to long. Is that correct? e: Further complication. Let's assume we have another PC at the original starting point. How does that work? Mendrian fucked around with this message at 16:31 on May 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
homullus posted:I think you either need to use a grid and do it the old-fashioned way or go with whatever the GM says in the moment. Even using a grid doesn't clarify things because you have to figure out how everything moves relative to you every time any figure moves. Like look at this. We have two PCs next to a table on a Freighter. A squad of Stormtroopers breaches the hull, and they're at Long range, at the end of a corridor. PC A takes two Maneuvers and ducks down into his bunk, moving to Extreme (with regards to the Stormtroopers). This means PC B is at Medium with regard to PC A, but Long with regard to our Stormtroopers. If he wants to perform an inspiring speech (requiring Short range), he would take one Maneuver to be at Close with PC A. But wait! PC A had to take two Maneuvers to get to Extreme with regards to the Stormtroopers. So what the hell? We could rule that PC A took one Manuver to go halfway to Extreme with regards to the Stormtroopers and to Medium with regards to PC B; then he takes a second Manuver putting him at Extreme with regards to the Stormtroopers and halfway to Long with regards to PC B. In this scenario, PC B spends one Manuver to go to Medium and then another to go halfway to Long, putting them in the same half-range band. But then the waveform collapes and they're both at Extreme with regards to the Stormtroopers. I think this whole business of half-range bands is dumb and I think we should just be using Range bands to determine weapon distances.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
homullus posted:I don't think this is true, because you assign numbers of squares to the range bands, and likewise assign a movement maneuver to a number of squares. You will always be moving a set number of squares, and always be able to count squares to determine range. Except that moving from Medium to Long or Long to Extreme costs two maneuvers. And the only thing that determines that requirement is relative position to another figure. So you have two choices: You can either introduce two new range bands (Medium.5 and Long.5) and just straight up count those when determining distance. Or you can drop the nonsense about moves to some squares requiring extra movement.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:I think the key to understanding these range bands is to not get bogged down with specifics or think about it too much honestly. With your freighter example I see no reason why PC B can't take one maneuver to be in short range to PC A and stay in Long Range with the Stormtroopers. I also wouldn't fiddlefuck with half ranges unless the book says to keep that in mind (it might, I only have the book that came with the beginner name and haven't read it cover to cover). If next round PC B wants to then move into extreme range from the Stormtroopers and they haven't moved then I'd rule that he still needs to take 2 maneuvers to do so. It's all abstract, so there's nothing to say that each maneuver is actually moving you the same amount of distance, or that one range band is exactly proportional to another. It's a big deal when you basically need to take damage to take an extra move, though. The game can be extremely lethal and a lot hinges on what seems like a small difference. I think I'd just say that Close-Medium is 1 square, Medium-Long is 2 squares, Long-Extreme is 2 squares, and everything else is basically Extreme.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
PantsOptional posted:Barnes & Noble has the publication date listed as today, which I'm told usually corresponds to the street date. Will check later. To add to that: By all accounts this means that B&N can sell it if they have it, since there's no other SoS date listed with the book. However if FFG hasn't shipped it to them yet, obviously they can't sell it. Generally this isn't done terribly often in the publishing world. You (typically) want to send the book out to your distributors before hand where they ripen in a warehouse until the SoS date. There's no 'Pick Up in Store' option listed for EotE which might be telling. Still, check in with your local B&N by phone to see if they have it. Report back if successful! edit: ISBN:9781616616571
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
If anyone actually gets ahold of the book, I'm intensely curious what has changed/been updated since Beta.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
alg posted:Good lord this is a giant book. I can look up specific stuff for y'all if you want. The Gamemaster kit is really nice, too. The screen looks excellent and has a ton of good info. It comes with an adventure and a guide to creating nemesis enemies. Is the Streetsmarts talent still present in the Force Sensitive Exile tree? Does it still remove Setback dice from Streetwise and Knowledge:Underworld checks? If so how much does it cost? This is critical. Mendrian fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jul 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
PantsOptional posted:But why would you want to remove such a fantastic talent? Shhh, I'm holding my breath. Also I'm really curious about what was offered in terms of new equipment but if you aren't familiar with the beta it's going to be hard to compare. I was really hoping they'd fix autofire and dual-wielding a bit more but from all accounts that hasn't changed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
alg posted:Yes. Costs 20 That makes me sad. I'd had hopes that there would have been some rebalancing of the really boring talents and Streetsmarts was by far the worst offender in that regard. Ah well, I'm still really stoked about the rest of the system, it was a nitpicky problem at worst. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Kenderama posted:Question on weapons and weapon ranges. The range of the weapon determines the maximal range you are allowed to shoot at, period. The range difficulty chart tells you how hard to is to shoot from any given range band. There is no inherent bonus from being able to shoot at your weapon's maximal range, except, as you say, the knowledge that you can shoot a dude from downtown. This is actually a pretty huge deal though. It takes two Maneuvers to get from Medium to Long so the ability to shoot from Long is very nice. As a Ranger (Light) player I cannot tell you how many times I have been jealous of our long-arms users, since all blasters are limited to Medium. Was there something else you're missing? It seems like you've already got a grasp on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 13:16
|
|
|
treeboy posted:that's really dumb... (i mean that's cool, but it'd be nice if there was some indication on the talent sheet) Well, the instinct is still in the right place. You need to increase both to reach maximum effectiveness, and since one is much harder to come by than the other, Characterstics still end up being king, at least during Char-gen.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
I'm not sure what constitutes 'high level play' but my group is running north of 300XP at this point if you have any questions. I haven't noticed things getting too complicated, but things like autofire have started to move things in the direction of rocket tag. On the plus side, the system is robust enough to encourage non-combat actions anyway, so that hasn't really been a problem for us. It's not like D&D where combat is half the game and if you suck at it you might as well go home.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Droid freedom-frighters are absolutely part of a Rebellion story. The characters on the Rebellion side of the war seem to be more empathetic towards droids than the Empire, which is a tool for underscoring how the Rebellion are the 'good' guys. However I think if you wanted to do that in 2013, you'd need to really go a lot further than Lucas did to demonstrate that, since while the Rebellion doesn't casually abuse droids the way the Empire seems to, they certainly take advantage of them. If anything I think it helps complicate the Star Wars universe in a positive way and helping a droid establish his independence is very cool. This is certainly the first Star Wars system where I would want to try playing a droid. Further it's useful because it's an obvious conflict that is not the Rebels vs the Empire. We already know how that conflict shakes out; if you're worried about cleaving to canon,it makes more sense to pursue a parallel conflict rather than being directly involved in the Battle of Yavin or whatever. Edit: ^^^^This is a good point too. The droids we're looking at are either outcasts themselves (like IG88, let's say) or they are the droids of outcasts. That's pretty ripe for a breaking-of-bonds story.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
At the end of the day there really isn't any difference between your starry-eyed Imperial recruit and your average Alderaanian ground troop. Storm Troopers aren't like, automatically bad guys. They joined the military for all the same reasons that anyone joins a military. Even if it was a purely military installation, it's a pretty weird thing to say, "They were part of the Imperial military, therefore, it's okay to kill them." Like, sure, maybe you're a bartender conscripted by the Imperial military or a coffee vendor working for Imperial credits. That doesn't make you part of the military, and being part of the military doesn't mean you ought to die. That being said I think everybody can agree that giant superlaser needed to go. Alderaan didn't have the capability to blow up other planets. I'm pretty sure that's what makes it okay, not the contents of who was on board. But it is a pretty weird utilitarian ethical message.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Encumbrance is another reason. Typically rifles are two handed, so that's yet another reason. If we're talking about raw combat effectiveness rifles are almost always an upgrade but there are a variety of very good reasons not to use them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
devilmaydry posted:Yeah, the problem with melee is that there isn't an "opportunity attack"-esque mechanic. This is partially made up by the fact that if your character is specialized in melee you'll probably have critical hits every 2 or 3 attacks, but it can still lead to scenarios where you're just chasing the rifle guy around comically. I agree with that in a vacuum, sure, but there are a couple of things that make the engage/disengage dance worth doing: It ensures that the disengaging character wastes a maneuver to go from Engaged->Close. They have to spend strain to draw a weapon, get to Medium, or Aim. That's a good advantage, but on its own isn't great. If they don't spend the strain to take a second maneuver, your character has lost literally nothing, while they've wasted the opportunity cost of Aiming. It also means that the ranged members of your crew can probably stay at Medium with regards to the target. This also assures that the target can't go Prone in response to your ranged characters since that would give Melee Guy a big advantage. There's been at least one time in my game too where a disengage maneuver was legally allowed but which made no sense in the context of the scene. That sort of thing is going to vary by table though. Mendrian fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Bularin posted:Can someone please explain mods to me in something that at least resembles traditional English? I've read it like 5 times, and the whole Mod/Options/Traits/Add-Ons/Extensions/Superfluous Spikes thing makes no sense to me at all. I didn't get it at all the first time I read it either. Alas I don't have the book in front of me, so someone is going to need to correct my specifics: You add Attachments to items. This costs the listed number of credits, requires no roll, and consumes a certain number of item Hard Points, which exist only to measure how many Attachments an item can accept. Mods modify Attachments and typically add a few additional perks to an item. Mods do not consume hard points. Instead, each time you add a Mod to an Attachment, you must spend 100 credits and perform an increasingly hard Mechanics check. I can't speak to your specific example because I don't have the book in front of me but I'm sure someone can.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
devilmaydry posted:Well, a Bowcaster Accelerator has to be buit first, but lets ignore that for now. Well yes but things are going to get messy for him either way. Once you break out, for instance, Auto-fire, Melee is going to look increasingly lovely compared to anything else. A dude with a blaster at Close is going to look pretty lovely too. I think Melee has a pretty big advantage of Ranged (Light). If anything I'd say the real issue is that Ranged (Heavy) is just too awesome. EDIT: There are ways to mitigate damage but there's no way to mitigate Auto-fire really that I can tell. And obviously anything that mitigates damage for Melee Guy applies equally well to anybody else.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
devilmaydry posted:It makes me wonder why they didn't just put an attack of opportunity mechanic. With that, the Melee Guy has what essentially amounts to a human shield against other ranged attacks, and he's in his element. As far as I can tell, that'd be a pretty good way to balance it all out. Ehhhh I would personally hate that and I think it's not really in theme for the game. Really I think something that makes disengaging unpleasant is probably a fine idea but free attacks are probably poor form. Maybe a character receives a setback die on all actions for the rest of the turn after disengaging from an enemy? And then you could even build talents around the same idea that are designed to increase that penalty. EDIT: ^^^If you have AoO, you'll end up with more characters using Melee. With even one character per side per encounter using Melee that's a pretty big cost on the backend. I'd rather impose some kind of immediate, passive penalty that you can roll into other actions since that's much friendlier to the system. It doesn't really endorse superfluous dice rolling. Mendrian fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:The easy way out would be that the penalty for being engaged doesn't fall off unless you started your turn that way, or reduces to a "mere" setback die if you started your turn engaged, or can be removed by an additional maneuver, etc. I like the idea of just keeping the +1 difficulty baked into somebody's turn. That does introduce some weird corner cases (like, for instance, what if you're melee and you disengage? What if you disengage with one melee'r and then engage with another one?) but you could probably smooth it out. In that case with a judicious use of Destiny that difficulty die might become a Despair. And if they roll a Despair on their turn, I can see Melee Guy getting a free attack. Some way of upgrading Difficulty for characters who disengage might be neat but that seems like the purview of talents rather than general maneuvers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Tharizdun posted:I'm doing a chargen/team-building session tonight, with possibly a mock combat if there's time so everyone can get familiar with the rules. Any suggestions on helping players get a handle on chargen, particularly tricky/unclear things, etc? We have 3+ copies of the real book, plus I printed out little 1-page cheatsheets with page references and the order in which to do things to help them along. How long term is your game? If it's set to be a regular game with a reasonable amount of XP ahead of them, emphasize Characteristics. They're really hard to raise later on and Skills are comparatively easy. Try to prevent everybody from dogpiling on Combat if you can avoid it. It's realllly easy to end up with 5 people who all take Agility 4 at char gen and nobody takes anything else. If that's the game you want to play ignore me; the game is flexible enough where even if that does happen (it's exactly what happened in my game) it can still be extremely enjoyable. A little more diversity is also fun though. Players won't end up with a lot of defining Talents or Career-based stuff at char gen. That's pretty normal. They won't have enough money for what they want. This is also normal. Encourage players to have related Obligations so things will be easier for you as a storyteller. They don't all need to have identical Obligations but at least one pair is probably a good idea. The reason for this is that I think Obligations work best when you actually work them into the game in a concrete way. The fewer moving parts you have to work into the game the less you have to contort to make that happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Tharizdun posted:Thanks. I read about how Characteristics were super-important, and I'll mention it to them. This is for a theoretically ongoing game. It's entirely possible and pretty easy to build a character who is pretty much no good at combat. Granted most Specializations have combat-applicable talents in them somewhere but if you think about it combat is pretty much limited to 4 Skills and nothing forces you to take those Skills. If you know your game is going to include like 50% combat by all means encourage your players to take combat stuff. But yeah it's entirely conceivable that a character might not be good at combat at all, for a character to dabble in combat (I think this is sort of the normal default) and for a character to specialize in combat. It's pretty hard to be good at combat and absolutely nothing else. Remember that for instance a high-Agility character is good at piloting, acrobatics, stealth, and more. Not having Proficiency dice is not the end of the world. Remember that combat is just a Skill test like any other Skill test. Characters who are not very good at combat should still be able to find something to do that isn't shooting. Even rolling just two dice at Close range it's pretty drat easy to deal damage to mooks. Listen to your players and adjust threats accordingly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Bularin posted:Gear was probably the worst part of chargen for me. A whole lot of effects tags that you have to look up, mods, the way armor stacking does and doesn't work, encumbrance, etc. Add in some of the other rules questions that relate to it like dual wielding or crits, and it becomes a real pain in the rear end. I barely had enough money to afford a weapon, mediocre armor and a handful of other gear (and all I got was a simple Blaster Pistol). I didn't really have to worry about tags/mods/etc until I had some money under my belt.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Springfield Fatts posted:Got a question about Force: Sense. Is the player is interpeting this right? Yup. Remember the Force Die is committed and I believe it takes some kind of action to commit the Force Die, though in theory it remains committed until he uses the Force Die for some other purpose or otherwise deactivates the power. Upgrading difficulty is a big deal, but a close range attack is only difficulty 1 to begin with. It's powerful, but it certainly isn't crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Tendales posted:No comment of the rest of your rant (other than I look forward to seeing it C&Pd into grognards.txt), but I just have to point out that, unless you have some evidence for how the app's PNRG is either biased or predictable, then this a wrongheaded thing to say. A dicerolling app is going to be more "random" than rolling even gamescience dice, by any useful of the definition of random. Yeah this. All the statistical analysis I've seen show that while Gamescience has a substantially more favorable standard deviation and distribution than say, Chessex, it's not 100% random. And also the number of rolls you need to make in order for that kind of thing to even make a difference is... immense. Like 5 or 10 out of 1000 will be influenced by the dice themselves. But I mean, the broader point - that FF is basically forcing you to buy their own peripherals to support their line - is valid. The reasoning puts my brain in a knot but the complaint is valid. Though there is that free roller that got posted, along with several others on the internet. EDIT: In my experience the benefits of the EotE system are just so great that I can't imagine my dice preferences getting in the way of that. I mean if you're testing the system, you're testing the system, not reviewing FF's business practices. Though that would probably also be a neat article.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
One thing I would say is that unlike most systems, I find pretty much every roll to be more compelling than combat. Combat is cool and all but I love the way the dice add tension to things like social and knowledge rolls, because they add so much non-binary complication. In fact, as a game climbs up into higher XP I find the combat system tends to break down more and more, but non-combat stuff tends to be much much cooler. I guess 'breaks down' is an unfair assessment. The thing is, offense is king in this game. With stuff like auto-fire you can push your damage pretty high. Unless you're dealing with some kind of super defense Wookie or something it is unlikely that your defensive stuff will ever approach the upper limits of offensive stuff. This means high level play starts to look an awful lot like rocket tag and the tools you need to survive (the ability to upgrade difficulty against you, Defense-based talents) aren't explicitly spelled out. So many talents are combat-oriented it can be easy to lose track of this and assume that more XP == more combat competence, but that's not always the case. All this means to me is that I have a vested interest in avoiding combat most of the time but I play with some people who love it so what do I know.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
As far as expansion goes, isn't the entire EU basically null now that Disney owns things? I thought that was one of the big reasons they set the game in the established trilogies to begin with. I could be wrong on that one but I don't think they have the ability to talk about EU stuff anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
Tharizdun posted:So my players had to fight a Gundark today. To use ranges more tactically than "you are either engaged or close," which has been my default setting, I did this: This is really cool and works great when you have one enemy to fight. It was very cleverly employed in this scenario. We made the mistake of trying to do something like this for a while, only with multiple combatants, and there are a lot of stupid relativistic bullshit things that happen with it as a result. In summary: great for what you did, don't use the same method for multiple combatants or weird things happen.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
What's the general consensus on the game's upper tiers of play? Our game has been going on for a while now and it's getting a little rocket tag-y. Most combats between similarly skilled opponents are over pretty quickly and I find for the most part, with higher soak values and Adversary ratings, you pretty much need to go big or go home when it comes to weapons and skill ratings. I guess what I'm asking is how would you design a high XP game.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Everblight posted:No, and it's why the game is so good. There's a significantly gimped "Force-Sensitive" in the back of the main book, but it's way too much XP for what amounts to Improved Initiative and +1 Dodge. Move and influence are pretty versatile powers even when they only work some of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
Prefect Six posted:How do you guys conceal being force sensitive form other players? I'm about to start a campaign and one guy wants to be force sensitive, but I talked him into keeping it a secret. Do you just not mention when you give him a boost die on perception checks? Or do you just tell the players and expect them to roleplay? I've had stuff like this in my games since I was like 15 and I've never been a fan of it. There's always somebody who wants to keep a secret OOC and then at some unspecified date there's going to be a big reveal and everybody will be like "WOAH SO AWESOME" and it'll be great. Except it never loving works out that way - in my experience somebody finds out the 'wrong' way and every game becomes a comedy of errors. Not to mention the Secret-Keeper tends to get all smug about his or her secret. I've found that it tends to be far more dramatic if everybody knows OOC since then you can sort of relish those near-misses together. Of course, sometimes there's that one person in the group who will say or do anything to turn OOC knowledge into IC knowledge but yeah secrets are frustrating and dull. But yeah trying to keep everybody unaware that you get a special secret boost die on perception tests or that you can cancel black dice on Streetwise checks is like the opposite of fun.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
I don't think playing a Jedi assumes 1 Force Die. One thing of note is that activating a Force Power often doesn't require you to roll any other dice. Outside of combat, that means using your powers is going to be a foregone conclusion isn't it? Finally if you want certainty out of your powers, focus on powers that let you dedicate a die to them. Then they always work!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 07:36
|
|