The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Duros 2.0 (and a poll!)
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Characters, Droids, and Species -> Duros 2.0 (and a poll!) Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Which version of Starship Intuition best fits Duros?
v1.00 as presented in WEG's GG4
22%
 22%  [ 2 ]
v2.00 excellent pilot/navigators, well traveled through the galaxy
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
v2.01 excellent pilot/navigators+
66%
 66%  [ 6 ]
v2.02 excellent pilot/navigators
11%
 11%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 9

Author Message
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since we are on the topic of attribute dice, I've never understood why GMs care about PC "over focus." I've always interpreted the concept of a PC party to be based on the notion that each character is the ONLY one in the galaxy (or at least in the local area at that particular junction) that cando what he does (the proverbial "destiny mechanic that is so prevalent in epic sagas), and that it takes this particular combination of characters to save the damsel/town/city/nation/empire/galaxy, etc.

When a player wants to be hyper focused, it gives them the ability to dominate one particular kind of encounter, but they become even more reliant on their friends when their specialty isnt relevant.

So there IS a cost. As a long time player, I'll admit to being a character creation snob: I cannot enjoy a game if the GM places restrictions on character creation that prevent me from making exactly what I want to play. I have been known to negotiate on things in order to get the exact representation that I envision on the character sheet, even taking on disproportionate "disadvantages" in order to have a "more powerful" character.

But for me, its not about being more powerful, but about getting the rules to represent exactly what I want them to all the while realizing that--as an experienced player, having too much power can ruin the fun for others, so I place certain codes of conduct on my characters (kinda like how Superman holds back on purpose most of the time because its WHO HE IS, not because the writers [GMs] have to artificially restrain him for the sake of "equal opportunity").

Placing greater restriction on players than the RAW does creates the sense that the GM doesnt "trust" the player with "too much" power. But really, the GM can throw anything he wants at the players. PC wookiee too strong? Have the empire put a contract on his head and let a Yuzzem bounty hunter pick it up.

Anyway, each GM does what works for his style of play and that's cool. Out of respect for the GM, I'd give the game a shot, and if it didnt work out (wasn't fun), I'd revert to just making artwork or painting minis for the rest of the group, do a snack run, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
Since we are on the topic of attribute dice, I've never understood why GMs care about PC "over focus."
Because "over focus" can make the game less fun (even not fun) for some of the players. Since it's a group activity I have to be concerned with not just the fun of one person (whether that is me or some one else), but of the entire group.

Quote:
I've always interpreted the concept of a PC party to be based on the notion that each character is the ONLY one in the galaxy (or at least in the local area at that particular junction) that cando what he does (the proverbial "destiny mechanic that is so prevalent in epic sagas), and that it takes this particular combination of characters to save the damsel/town/city/nation/empire/galaxy, etc.
I won't say I've never, ever interpreted things in this way, but if I've done that it has been extremely rare.

Quote:
When a player wants to be hyper focused, it gives them the ability to dominate one particular kind of encounter, but they become even more reliant on their friends when their specialty isnt relevant.
Obviously this is situation (and player) dependent, but one player dominating an encounter may be not fun for the other players. Especially if one or more of the other players had the notion that their character might be useful and needed for that sort of encounter.

Quote:
So there IS a cost.
I don't especially care about cost per se. I'm concerned whether any given PC will be a good fit with the group, whether that PC's player will be fun to play with if they run that PC.

Quote:
As a long time player, I'll admit to being a character creation snob: I cannot enjoy a game if the GM places restrictions on character creation that prevent me from making exactly what I want to play. I have been known to negotiate on things in order to get the exact representation that I envision on the character sheet, even taking on disproportionate "disadvantages" in order to have a "more powerful" character.
They are beginning heroes. They aren't Superman. I expect that your character will not be the exact representation of what you would like or envision. Moving the character towards what you envision is what Character Point expenditure in a long term campaign is for.

Quote:
Placing greater restriction on players than the RAW does creates the sense that the GM doesnt "trust" the player with "too much" power.
I often GM and play in unbalanced parties. The issue isn't the power of the character per se, it is how the character fits with the group, how the character and the character's player impact the group. And whether I can throw challenges at the group that are interesting and fun for everyone.

Quote:
But really, the GM can throw anything he wants at the players. PC wookiee too strong? Have the empire put a contract on his head and let a Yuzzem bounty hunter pick it up.
One problem with this as a solution is that a Yuzzem bounty hunter isn't like Kryptonite. The Yuzzem doesn't just weaken or harm SuperCharacter the Yuzzem is also a serious threat and problem for all the Lois Lanes and Jimmy Olsens in the party. Probably more of a threat to them than to SuperCharacter.

As a side point, I've never been especially fond of things like Hunted or Enemy in point buy systems because I see that sort of Flaw or Penalty as a cost that is distributed among the entire group (because everybody's PC is going to get targeted by or dragged in to fighting the Hunter or Enemy). The benefit on the other hand goes all to one PC.

Quote:
Anyway, each GM does what works for his style of play and that's cool. Out of respect for the GM, I'd give the game a shot, and if it didnt work out (wasn't fun), I'd revert to just making artwork or painting minis for the rest of the group, do a snack run, etc.
That seems an eminently reasonable point of view.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
Since we are on the topic of attribute dice, I've never understood why GMs care about PC "over focus." I've always interpreted the concept of a PC party to be based on the notion that each character is the ONLY one in the galaxy (or at least in the local area at that particular junction) that cando what he does (the proverbial "destiny mechanic that is so prevalent in epic sagas), and that it takes this particular combination of characters to save the damsel/town/city/nation/empire/galaxy, etc.

When a player wants to be hyper focused, it gives them the ability to dominate one particular kind of encounter, but they become even more reliant on their friends when their specialty isnt relevant.

So there IS a cost. As a long time player, I'll admit to being a character creation snob: I cannot enjoy a game if the GM places restrictions on character creation that prevent me from making exactly what I want to play. I have been known to negotiate on things in order to get the exact representation that I envision on the character sheet, even taking on disproportionate "disadvantages" in order to have a "more powerful" character.

But for me, its not about being more powerful, but about getting the rules to represent exactly what I want them to all the while realizing that--as an experienced player, having too much power can ruin the fun for others, so I place certain codes of conduct on my characters (kinda like how Superman holds back on purpose most of the time because its WHO HE IS, not because the writers [GMs] have to artificially restrain him for the sake of "equal opportunity").

Placing greater restriction on players than the RAW does creates the sense that the GM doesnt "trust" the player with "too much" power. But really, the GM can throw anything he wants at the players. PC wookiee too strong? Have the empire put a contract on his head and let a Yuzzem bounty hunter pick it up.

Anyway, each GM does what works for his style of play and that's cool. Out of respect for the GM, I'd give the game a shot, and if it didnt work out (wasn't fun), I'd revert to just making artwork or painting minis for the rest of the group, do a snack run, etc.

It's not about lack of player trust for too much power for me. Ultimately, game balance is up to the GM over the long term in play, and as a GM I am also not over focused on certain types of characters, encounters, adventures and campaigns. I have to be flexible to cater the adventures and campaigns to the characters I have to work with at all times. And I am totally in support of PC groups being teams that need to rely on each other for success.

I started running this game 29 years ago next month. It has been my experience that there is almost always player attrition in campaigns. Players get new work schedules, get new jobs, start college, move, get transportation difficulties, get girlfriends, get married, have children, etc. So inevitably, fewer PCs eventually have to cover the general skill set needed for the group. When that happens, the more well-rounded advanced PCs are, the better. I've ran several group campaigns that eventually whittled down to solo campaigns for one experienced character from the group. Sure there can be some basic NPC support but the star of the story needs to be able to hold his own in multiple areas. If you don't have that experience and you never lose more people from campaigns than you gain, then that's great and I am a little jealous. I have to deal with reality I am given, not the ideal I wish I had (unshrinking player groups).

Also, even near the beginning of the campaign, I don't like have too many encounters where some PCs are completely worthless and sit completely out. For example, starship combat. We intentionally have ships (usually modified) that can have a station for every single PC that does something in space combat, even if it just astrogation for the escape from the system or monitoring and maintaining jury-rigs or in-flight repairs. If a player's PC concept is "bad @ss character-scale gun bunny" or "university professor", he might not have anything to do in space combat but sit around and watch the action. I still don't even require starting skill dice allocation to whatever role the PC is going to have on the ship. If they don't start out with the skill then they still have the station and will hopefully have some successful uses and gain experience, or get training, to work on advancing the skill for that space role over the course of the campaign.

All PCs in any campaign of mine will have their own areas of expertise at all levels. Complete and utter player freedom to have any character concepts they want is a double-edged sword because some PC party roles could be left unfilled, and two players may have very similar character concepts. The first step towards being a unique character in the galaxy is to be a unique character in his own PC group. In my game, the group decides as a whole which players' PCs will handle which types of character roles (which can still have some degree of overlap), and we don't proceed with char gen until we all unanimously agree.

And PCs in my game start out with 8D-12D skill dice depending on species (Duros and Humans have 12D), so I really don't feel I don't trust players to run powerful characters. The more skill dice a PC starts out with, the more fine-tuned they are to their character concept and the more unique they are in the galaxy. 18D attribute characters like all PCs in my game (or above 18D for some NPCs) are already extremely rare in my game, much less than 1% of all sentients in my SW galaxy. My players are fully empowered in my game to make their character unique to an extreme degree, and I really enjoy when they do. (Of course beyond game mechanics, I can't stress enough how important the roleplaying and PC personality are towards this goal.) I have a handful of optional low-power advantages available for purchase for 1D out the skill dice poll that can further define a character beyond what skill dice allocation alone does to help with fine-tuning a character concept. After a group discussion about the campaign and general character roles ideas that the players and I hash out together, I individually get with each player to discuss their more fine-tuned character concept (including future character story arcs), and players are free to have non-obligatory disadvantages that help their character concept (like player willfully making a willpower roll to resist gambling). I don't have any set of disadvantages for the group that a player can take for the PC to provide a game mechanical bonuses in some other area, but I most certainly would consider a player bargaining to get an advantage in trade for a disadvantage. I have a base game system to go by, but I am not inflexible to player ideas to do things differently. I just handle those case-by case.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage


Last edited by Whill on Sun May 21, 2017 8:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14023
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
Naaman wrote:
Since we are on the topic of attribute dice, I've never understood why GMs care about PC "over focus."
Because "over focus" can make the game less fun (even not fun) for some of the players. Since it's a group activity I have to be concerned with not just the fun of one person (whether that is me or some one else), but of the entire group.


Exactly. Take the gun-bunny, someone focused for only ground combat. How fun is it for him to sit around, twirling his thumbs in a space combat scene, some times those can last just as long if not longer than a ground combat..
Or the opposite, a fighter jock, having to stay hidden so he doesn't get shot in a ground fight.

Bren wrote:
Naaman wrote:
I've always interpreted the concept of a PC party to be based on the notion that each character is the ONLY one in the galaxy (or at least in the local area at that particular junction) that cando what he does (the proverbial "destiny mechanic that is so prevalent in epic sagas), and that it takes this particular combination of characters to save the damsel/town/city/nation/empire/galaxy, etc.
I won't say I've never, ever interpreted things in this way, but if I've done that it has been extremely rare.


Same here. I've not seen that mentality for base 18/7d starting out PCs. Maybe for an increased game like where someone starts with say 12-15d, that they are 'the best in the sector'. BUT those are also generally going to BE more high power campaigns.

Bren wrote:

Naaman wrote:
As a long time player, I'll admit to being a character creation snob: I cannot enjoy a game if the GM places restrictions on character creation that prevent me from making exactly what I want to play. I have been known to negotiate on things in order to get the exact representation that I envision on the character sheet, even taking on disproportionate "disadvantages" in order to have a "more powerful" character.
They are beginning heroes. They aren't Superman. I expect that your character will not be the exact representation of what you would like or envision. Moving the character towards what you envision is what Character Point expenditure in a long term campaign is for.


Again, i agree with Bren here. You are making someone up who's starting out. NOT someone who is "Wedge, or Hobbie, or General Smack'em'up. That's what you Work towards, not what you start out.
And to Namman, so you say that you can't enjoy a game if the DM has restrictions? So if the DM says "OK we are playing in a Rise of the Empire campaign, 2 yrs after order 66. So only one force user can be in game, and someone else took that spot, you would not 'enjoy it, cause you might have wanted to play that spot?
Or if the DM restricts what aliens he has in game? Or only lets the templates as listed in the books, which have ships start game with a ship?

Bren wrote:
Naaman wrote:
Placing greater restriction on players than the RAW does creates the sense that the GM doesnt "trust" the player with "too much" power.
I often GM and play in unbalanced parties. The issue isn't the power of the character per se, it is how the character fits with the group, how the character and the character's player impact the group. And whether I can throw challenges at the group that are interesting and fun for everyone.


But what do you count as 'greater restrictions'.?
DM limiting the # of this or that template or race?
DM not allowing force users other than jedi?
DM not allowing jedi cause he more adheres to the Original films where there were no 'dozens of force users just hiding out all over the place'?
It would help if you actually identified what counts as "Greater restrictions"..

Bren wrote:
Naaman wrote:
But really, the GM can throw anything he wants at the players. PC wookiee too strong? Have the empire put a contract on his head and let a Yuzzem bounty hunter pick it up.
One problem with this as a solution is that a Yuzzem bounty hunter isn't like Kryptonite. The Yuzzem doesn't just weaken or harm SuperCharacter the Yuzzem is also a serious threat and problem for all the Lois Lanes and Jimmy Olsens in the party. Probably more of a threat to them than to SuperCharacter.


Exactly. it's the same thing with sending a storm trooper squad who are augumented by a pair of Medium repeaters or a single E-web. Yes the wookie can tough it out being shot by those. But say that Duro smuggler or other template who only has a 2 to 3d str is going to be really buggered up being shot by that gun.. Unless you deliberately have it that the person shooting said big gun does NOT target anyone else BUT the wookie, even once the wookie's taken out...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill said a lot that I agree with. Rather than rephrase most of what he wrote, I'm going to me relevant parts of what he wrote.
Whill wrote:
It's not about lack of player trust for too much power for me. Ultimately, game balance is up to the GM over the long term in play, and as a GM I am also not over focused on certain types of characters, encounters, adventures and campaigns. I have to be flexible to cater the adventures and campaigns to the characters I have to work with at all times. And I am totally in support of PC groups being teams that need to rely on each other for success.
Yep. Me too.

Quote:
I started running this game 29 years ago next month.
I started running Star Wars D6 22.5 years ago. So Whil has me beat there. Laughing (I also ran a Star Wars playtest game for a previous licensee back in the early 1980s so maybe I get a consolation prize for that.)

Quote:
It has been my experience that there is almost always player attrition in campaigns. Players get new work schedules, get new jobs, start college, move, get transportation difficulties, get girlfriends, get married, have children, etc. So inevitably, fewer PCs eventually have to cover the general skill set needed for the group. When that happens, the more well-rounded advanced PCs are, the better. I've ran several group campaigns that eventually whittled down to solo campaigns for one experienced character from the group. Sure there can be some basic NPC support but the star of the story needs to be able to hold his own in multiple areas. If you don't have that experience and you never lose more people from campaigns than you gain, then that's great and I am a little jealous. I have to deal with reality I am given, not the ideal I wish I had (unshrinking player groups).
This has also been my experience in general. And I've also run (and played) a lot of duet Star Wars where a too narrow focus just doesn't make for interesting play.

Quote:
Also, even near the beginning of the campaign, I don't like have too many encounters where some PCs are completely worthless and sit completely out. For example, starship combat.
I completely agree.

One advantage of the MAPs rule is it provides a mechanical advantage to having a different PCs take different actions e.g. piloting, astrogation, shields, sensors, communications, gunnery, power shunting, and damage control. One PC trying to do 4 or more of those in the same round is at a significant (-3D or more) mechanical disadvantage.

Quote:
If they don't start out with the skill then they still have the station and will hopefully have one successfully use and gain experience or get training to work on advancing the skill for that space role over the course of the campaign.
Yes. Same thing if they started out as a mild mannered academic or nerdy engineer non-combatant. Picking up a blaster or vibroshiv in the middle of a battle and then learning from it makes sense. I may be more generous than Whill in that even failing with a blaster, knife, or dodge would count as skill use to allow advancing that skill.

Quote:
Complete and utter player freedom to have any character concepts they want is a double-edged sword because some PC party roles could be left unfilled
This doesn't automatically concern me. We routinely had party that had some roles unfilled. Sometimes intentionally. Occasionally a role might be filled by an NPC, but often the players and PCs just needed to work around their lack of skill(s) in that area.

Quote:
And PCs in my game start out with 8D-12D skill dice depending on species (Duros and Humans have 12D), so I really don't feel I don't trust players to run powerful characters.
I like starting new players creating new characters with the default 7D. I've sometimes allowed players to create more powerful PCs. Usually when they are joining an already established group of PCs who are more powerful. And for experienced players I've sometimes gone with a 10D starting skill dice.
Quote:
Of course beyond game mechanics, I can't stress enough how important the roleplaying and PC personality are towards this goal.
Agreed.

Quote:
I have a handful of optional low-power advantages available for purchase for 1D out the skill dice poll that can further define a character beyond what skill dice allocation alone does to help with fine-tuning a character concept. After a group discussion about the campaign and general character roles ideas that the players and I hash out together, I individually get with each player to discuss their more fine-tuned character concept (including future character story arcs), and players are free to have non-obligatory disadvantages that help their character concept (like player willfully making a willpower roll to resist gambling). I don't have any set of disadvantages for the group that a player can take for the PC to provide a game mechanical bonuses in some other area, but I most certainly would consider a player bargaining to get an advantage in trade for a disadvantage. I have a base game system to go by, but I am not inflexible to player ideas to do things differently. I just handle those case-by case.
Have you posted write ups of these advantages/disadvantages for purchase? If not, I'd be interested to see what you have used.

Not only are Whill and I in agreement, it also appears Garhkal and I are substantially in agreement. Global catastrophe may be imminent. Razz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the summer of 1983, I co-created a homebrew Star Wars RPG based on the game system of Basic D&D. My childhood RPG group and I only played it a few times before we went back to D&D and other published games. When I once claimed to have invented the first ever Star Wars RPG, I was told that gamers were using Traveller to play in the Star Wars universe as early as 1977. I haven't seen any other evidence of that but I can't disprove it. Traveller may have even been inspired by Star Wars so it certainly is possible.

Bren, what company did you playtest for an early 80s Star Wars game? What was the game system like?

I actually agree with garhkal on a lot of things. But certainly not all.

Yes I have rough draft advantage write-ups but they are in dire need of an edit and my attention is elsewhere right now. There aren't many and there isn't much to the document.

I have had campaigns that start out with fewer players than I would have preferred so gave the players extra skill dice to allocate to their starting PCs.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
Bren, what company did you playtest for an early 80s Star Wars game? What was the game system like?
Milton Bradley. I believe it used a percentile based system. Stats and skills ran (more or less) from about 10 to 100. It used some type of tick mark skill check for improving things. So if your STR was 20 and you got 20 checks you improved STR by some amount. Can't recall exactly how much it improved. At a guess it was probably something like by 5. This was somewhat like Runequest in that it allowed for gradual increases and no need to give out or track experience per se.

One cool thing it had was a system for starfighter combat that used a device that was like a matrix slide rule. You chose a maneuver, your opponent to chose their maneuver (simultaneously as I recall) then you slide the slider on the device to reflect attacker and defender alignments and the device told you what your resulting angle of attack was and what sort of bonus or penalty that gave you and your opponent. It was like a kind of more complicated rock-paper-scissors determination. I believe the intent was to do something similar with lightsaber combat, but I might be misremembering.

There was a game, Space Quest, back in 1977 that was (sort-of) designed to play games like Star Wars. More so than Traveller at least in that it included a weapon called a luxblade. You can guess where that idea came from. It was level based (so kind of like D&D) and I think it used a D30 for some unknown, dare to be different, kind of reason. I played it a few times and ran it briefly. The cool thing about that game was the rules for creating a section of the galaxy. It had decent random star system roll up rules and it used a three dimensional map using Cartesian coordinates. You'd have liked it. You had to use the Pythagorean theorem and take square roots to find distances between star systems. Laughing

It also used parsecs, lightyears, AUs and such and a metric system of time: 100 seconds to the minute and such. I suspect that decision was based on someone getting one two many classes in High School or Junior High on the metric system. It was the Seventies after all.

Quote:
Yes I have rough draft advantage write-ups but they are in dire need of an edit and my attention is elsewhere right now. There aren't many and there isn't much to the document.
I'd be interested in taking a look when you have the time and feel like sharing.

Quote:
I have had campaigns that start out with fewer players than I would have preferred so gave the players extra skill dice to allocate to their starting PCs.
Makes sense. Even from the very beginning I've occasionally run games for some small groups. In the original OD&D days a solo run as player or DM was not at all unusual. I had a pretty big group of players for Runequest back in the 1980s, but now I mostly run games for small groups. My current gaming group for Honor+Intrigue was 2 players, then 3 players, briefly 4 players, than back down to 3 players. We did have a couple of guest players one session that bumped the group up to five.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To answer garhkal's question, yes: I literally cannot stand to play a character that is forced out of the concept that I envision. Some input for everyone else:

Character design and creation is possibly my biggest passion. I literally create characters because I love to. RPing gives me a means to express the character in a unique way where I am not in control ofthe world in which the character exists.

I put a LOT of time and thought and effort and time into creating a character, from highly detailed back stories to fully fleshing out the characters in the backstory, even. I spemd weeks working on the appearence of the character making dozens of finished concept drawings in full color and tweaking even the most minute details of the personality, appearance, strengths AND WEAKNESSES of the character to create a complete concept.

I consider myself a responsible RPer, taking into considerations what it is like to GM, and having GM'd plenty of games I understand the effects of various styles of play (power gaming, min-maxing, etc), and I consider it each player's responsibility to impose quirks on his character and other traits that male the character interesting.

So, since I put more time into a single character than anyone Ive met (and probably as muxch time as the average GM puts into the campaign, I get a bit miffed when GM feels the need to nerf my character because of his opinion on what is "balanced." I consider it the GM's responsibility to achieve balance via situational developments when the dice happen to get out of whack. Acharacter with 14D in blaster and base attributes for everything else can easily be challenged by putting him insituations that a blaster cannot solve.

In my OPINION, there is no such thing as too powerful of a character which is why I dont believe in enforcing balance through numerical means (to an extent: the total capability of each PC should be close enough together that everyone can realistically contribute in some way).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FWIW, Whill, my original point about your character gen rules still stands. In particular, I don't think it is unfair to give extra dice in addition to stipulating that a character must place some here or there by consensus of the group.

If you were mucking around with my 7D, though,I might just not play.

My issue stems from the notion that"some skills" are more valuable than others. Blaster, for example, is more likely to be regulated than, for example, bureaucracy. How much difference would it make to the game if a character started with, say, 12D in bureaucracy or archaic weapons repair or even swimming?

Some skillsare obviously less valuable than others, so it may be worthwhile for GMswho want "well-rounded" characters to incentivize the less valuable skills. It would likely also lend to the development (nand role play) of much more fleshed out characters.

Free dice in scholar: art history to account for my character's backstory? Cool!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
My issue stems from the notion that"some skills" are more valuable than others. Blaster, for example, is more likely to be regulated than, for example, bureaucracy. How much difference would it make to the game if a character started with, say, 12D in bureaucracy or archaic weapons repair or even swimming?
Whill may have other thoughts. For me, among other things, it would make that one character very, very, very unusual compared to every PC I've ever run game for, run, or even seen in a game. I'd have to wonder (as a GM or another player) why a lower score like 9D isn't good enough for someone's starting character. 12D is a phenomenally high score. That character is among the best in the galaxy. Finding a reason why the best bureaucrat in the galaxy is going on adventures with the PCs whose best scores in anything are 6D (or maybe 7D) or less is likely to seriously stretch if not outright break my suspension of disbelief. Super-Bureaucrat would better serve whomever or whatever it is he serves sitting at a desk being super bureaucratic instead of flying around the galaxy getting shot at and killed by some average storm trooper.

To provide some context, at the end of a 10 year long Star Wars campaign with thousands of hours of play the highest skills for the most played PCs were

(1) Best 2-way tie 8D, next best 2-way tie 7D.
(2) Best 8D+2 with a specialization of 9D+2. That character's next best skill was 6D+2.
(3) Best 7D. That character's next best skill was 6D+1.
(4) Best 6D with a specialization of 8D. That characters next best skill was 5D+2.
(5) Best 3-way tie of 6D.
(6) Best were specializations of 7D, 6D+2, and 6D+1 with the best non specialized skills being 6D.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14023
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
To answer garhkal's question, yes: I literally cannot stand to play a character that is forced out of the concept that I envision.


So lets say you work for 110 hours creating this awesome backstory for a new character you wanna try out. You get an email from your gaming buds "hey we are gonna play on day X, ya wanna come, PS Character's will all be created at the table", is that a thing that would make you go
"Sorry, but i have a character i want, if i can't play it, i won't join in"??
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Naaman wrote:
To answer garhkal's question, yes: I literally cannot stand to play a character that is forced out of the concept that I envision.


So lets say you work for 110 hours creating this awesome backstory for a new character you wanna try out. You get an email from your gaming buds "hey we are gonna play on day X, ya wanna come, PS Character's will all be created at the table", is that a thing that would make you go
"Sorry, but i have a character i want, if i can't play it, i won't join in"??


In Star Wars, "created at the table" doesn't matter as much, because there's no randomization. If I show up knowing exactly how I'm going to allocate my 25 dice, it doesn't terribly matter whether I did that at the table or if I did that at home... 99% of the decisions come down to "How do those 25 dice get placed."

We're not talking D&D, where your character concept might have to adapt heavily to the dice rolls you made ("Well, he always WANTED to be a Paladin, but I don't have anything above a 16, so..."), but a system where character creation has no random elements.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
In Star Wars, "created at the table" doesn't matter as much, because there's no randomization.
In my experience what gets created at the table matters more in Star Wars than it does in many a D&D game. Star Wars expects that part of the creation of characters is done as a group so that the players and the GM can create connections between the characters. Unlike some games (and D&D in its various versions is one of them) "Connection with Other Characters" is a specific section in each of the character templates and the templates even include specific suggestions for how to connect that particular character to others. The section Character Connections of the 1E rules cover most of pages 8-10 and includes an extended example of 2 players and a GM creating connections between two PCs, a Bounty Hunter and a Kid.

An 11 page backstory and a laser sharp and detailed character focus may limit the opportunity for other people at the table to include their own input or fit in their own character ideas since they have work around a lot of detail someone else created in isolation. I'm guessing that's the issue Garhkal was referring to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Naaman wrote:
To answer garhkal's question, yes: I literally cannot stand to play a character that is forced out of the concept that I envision.


So lets say you work for 110 hours creating this awesome backstory for a new character you wanna try out. You get an email from your gaming buds "hey we are gonna play on day X, ya wanna come, PS Character's will all be created at the table", is that a thing that would make you go
"Sorry, but i have a character i want, if i can't play it, i won't join in"??


MrNexx addresses this fairly well. The available character gen rules will determine how the conept is expressed mechanically. In D6 SW, its just a matter of finding a way within the rules to portray a character.

One of the things that was mentioned earlier (house rule) was that no PC could start with more than one attribute higher than 4D. As it turns out, my absolute favorite character of all time absolutely NEEDS two attributes at 4D (species max) in order for the concept to work. Dice roll-wise, knocking one of them down to 3D+2 makes very little difference to the rolls, so for me, its not an issue of rolling fewer successes, but rather that the concept has been broken and part of the identity of that character is no longer intact.

Since the RAW allow for it, having a house rule force the character out of concept just rubs against my grain.


I'll give you an example how I self regulate my characters: the character mentioned above was a Jedi with anger issues who was a former professional athlete at the pinnacle of her sport (litterally the female in the entire galaxy who had more athletic potential than any sentient being). But due to background (which included a nemesis that theGM could use for character arc development), the character BEGAN PLAY with 1D3 DSPs (ended up rolling a 1). In ADDITION, due to the bloodline, she was always at risk for accumulating DSPs against her "will." Any time she spent a FP, she first had to make a willpower check (difficulty basedon current number of DSPs). Failure meant that sheinstead called on the darkside (gaining another DSP.




IN ADDITION, for her bloodline, the lure of the darkside was so strong that to atone, she has to spend TWO FPs per DSPshe she has to spen ld TWO force points for each DSP.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry: user interface sucks....


IN ADDITION, as long as she has ANY DSPs, she gets fewer CPs at then end of the adventure.

If she ever manages to reduce her DSP total to zero, she gains a +1D bonus to willpower. She STILL must roll to avoid calling on the darkside, but if she fails, she may instead forgo the use of the FP and gain nether its effects or a DSP (but she doesnt lose a FP, either).

While her DSP total is zero, in addition to the +1D bonus to willpower, her "true" potential is achieved. She gains a +6 bonus to all of her athletic skills (basically mimicing the emptiness power, but for physical skills, and bonus is permanent while she has zero DSPs).

But the lure of the darkside is strong in her family... at anytime, she may willingly accept a DSP. If she does, she immediately gains the benefits of the rage power for the durationof the scene (and is thus reset to her original "tainted" state, losing the benfits of having zero DSPs and needing to expend two FPs to atone, etc).

Luckily,GM saw a lot of meaty story potential in all of this, and let me play it as I had written it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Characters, Droids, and Species All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 3 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0