Training vs. "Adventuring"

[Naaman]

I agree on restricting the skills that can benefit.

[Mamatried]

A possible altenative can be some common and standarlized skill packages that replace the 7D for skills or parts of them.

You are a young senatorial but your home world in a battlefiled, and thus you recieved at least some basic training.

From your 7D to skills

1D Blaster
+2 Dodge
+1 RUn

leaving you with 5D for your senatorial experience

this training, or these thraning packeges can be as low as 1D and as high as 7D.

( and yes it could be other and more skills that was an eaxample)

[Mamatried]

Training/Education/Study vs "adventuring"

I would argue that you learn both diffent skills and learn skills differntly.

Lets tell the story of TK-1111 A stormtrooper on Endor

He is a well trained soldier, an elite and he does have 18D to attributes.
His Mechanical Attribute is 2D+2 and his only real training is in repulsorlifts which he has at 3D+2

During his fighting on endor he is forced to flee, he manages to steal an X wing and he manages to
fly it and get away, though not in the most elegant of ways.

Followign his adventure he got 2Cp, and he can increase his starfighter piloting from 2D+2 to 3D
However I would argue he is not a better starfighter pilot, but he he is better X wing pilot
he in stead get the specialization X wing: and then placing his 2CP he gets 3D still but keeps a CP
due the lower cost of specializations.

this becuse when he came back to the star destroyer, his skill in in starfighter piloting had not really increased
he manned the cockpit of TIE however he still needs to figure out how make the TIE fly, he is learning the
individual fighter, aka specializing.

Now he then starts the academy, learns how to pilot and use his earned CP to increase his base skills.

However the same should not be the case with blasters and some even most weapons.
If you know how to use blaster A then you know how to use blaster B, and here the specialization
would be regardless of training or adventuring a matter of what type blaster you perfer to focus on.

I think the greatest issue in the training vs adventuing is that there are some skills that simply doesn't make
senst that the character just suddenly learned, and some skills should be harder to increase than others.


maybe even disallow some advanced skills be to be learned without training/school or a teacher, maybe at times a teaacher isn't enough
and the GM gives a cap on a skill, you can allocate CP and increase your piloting skill to 3D however even if you could next adventure increase
it to 3D+1 the GM would disalow this, you don't have time, the rescourses to train like you would in a school
and thus you can only progress so far.

Once take some down time, you have this part of things, you then go to school and spend CP, then you naturally
"only" spend this on the school skills, you don't go to flight school to better your piloting skill and
your dodge, you go there to better your piloting skill and your starship gunnery skill.


So even with enough adventuring TX-1111 would not be allowed to go above 3D in his piloting skills unless he went to the academy
or had a flight instructor, tiem and means to learn properly.

even though his number of adventures would have allowed a +1 pip proression to his piloting to 4D.

[Bren]

[Naaman]

[Bren]

[Mamatried]

Flight School (civilian)

+1D either Space Transport or Capital Ship piloting

+2 to relevant shileds

+1D astrogation

+2 sensor
+1 communication
+2 repulsorlit repair (most ships have repilsorlift)
+2 Repair relevant ship type


total 5D
2D left for "hobby"

Flight School is a full time study, it is academically demanding and requires a certain level of
self dicipline from the students.

to me this is one way of introducing training, mostly for character creation though.

I do not mean for the training skills to be real world accurate, but to give the needed skill for a star wars setting

for training after creation I would give training packages based on a 2D attribute in CP cost.

that means 5 pip will cost 2+2+2+3+3 =12 cp

the skills in this case piloting related will be given unless the character has attribute +2D or higher
in skill, as in a TIE pilot having 6D in piloting, will thus not benefit from the package and should then be
if wanting a training package encouraged to take something else, maybe a repair pack for the same cost.
His technical is 2D+1 and he has not raised any skill to 4D+1 and thus he can pay the cost of the package and alocate the
various pips, given.


the time spend earning the CP is considered time that includes any study and practice.

[Naaman]

[Naaman]

[Mamatried]

[garhkal]

[Naaman]

I actually had a DM change a character's alignment on the spot due to an action performed that he felt didn't match up with the alignment the player had selected.

Since there are mechanics in place (such as holy or chaotic enchantments, etc.) which affect some characters but not others depending on alignment, I can see this being actually enforced via "the rules."

In a SW D6 setting (and this may turn out to be a wash), I have known some GMs to award CP for role play which adheres to a character's stated personality, especially when the character loses something tangible for the choice he made.

In my experience, players who are "serious" about the game will reliably make "in character" choices without regard for the opportunity cost. There are those casuals who show up once in a while and treat table top like agame of Diablo wherein LOOOOOOOOOOT and EXPEEEEEE are the only things they worry about.

They don't usually last long enough to be consequential, however.

[Naaman]

[Mamatried]

[Bren]