Everyone can ignore or don't. Drawing attention to your choice doesn't make anybody any happier.

Ha! Pun!

You're of course correct Col., although I'm not the one who broadcasts it in my signature.

HappyDaze has stated that they include their ignores in their signature because they don't want an ignored person being confused if they don't get a response to a direct question.

I understand the reasoning, but I think the chance of this happening is less than the chance you'll offend the person you're ignoring.

Personally, I'm ignoring one person (I had to ask HappyDaze how to do this ), and I don't even think they post on this forum anymore.

Let me guess; ErikB?

Could we perhaps hold off on the personal attacks?

Everyone can ignore or don't. Drawing attention to your choice doesn't make anybody any happier.

I was in no way or form trying to "attack" him. But, I don't think being honest is a bad thing.

"attack" is too strong a word (sorry), but I and others (Shakespearian_Soldier, for one) have noticed that these forums seem a little less friendly, of late.

Let me guess; ErikB?

No, not ErikB. And it'd be pretty hypocritical at this point if I helped you narrow it down further.

Hahahaha, that's right.

I did notice the slightly less positive and friendly vibe as well but I guess that comes with a growing forum for some reason. Perhaps that is why I was quick to address the negativity that has been oozing through some of the posts as I did.

Every time I see you weigh in with the "voice of experience" I think, "how come we never run into that problem at our table?"

Not everyone that uses a system (be it an RPG, a computer, an automobile, or whatever) pushes it in the same ways. You're certainly correct that it's likely a result of different styles of play. That said, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's not the system for me and my group - if you want ideal performance from a system (again, regardless of the types of system) it's best to find out its limitations and then customize it to meet your specific needs. I don't expect anything to come ideally suited for my needs out of the box.

Could we perhaps hold off on the personal attacks?

Everyone can ignore or don't. Drawing attention to your choice doesn't make anybody any happier.

I was in no way or form trying to "attack" him. But, I don't think being honest is a bad thing.

Well, consider that some of my 'negativity' might be more honest that some of the gushing praise I see around here. I typically give examples of why I have a negative view about something and I'm willing to discuss it. I'm not really into just saying something is crap without saying why I feel that way, and often what I think could be done to improve it.

A large part of this comes from my job where I'm constantly having to evaluate with a critical eye and to develop policy & procedure to address any shortcomings. It bleeds over into other activities too, but I don't think being critical is a bad thing.

Every time I see you weigh in with the "voice of experience" I think, "how come we never run into that problem at our table?"

Not everyone that uses a system (be it an RPG, a computer, an automobile, or whatever) pushes it in the same ways. You're certainly correct that it's likely a result of different styles of play. That said, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's not the system for me and my group - if you want ideal performance from a system (again, regardless of the types of system) it's best to find out its limitations and then customize it to meet your specific needs. I don't expect anything to come ideally suited for my needs out of the box.

I agree, somewhat... But I would never actively look for things not to like out of the gate. That would get in the way of a lot of my enjoyment of a system.

However I often times get the feeling, when reading your posts, that you bought a pocket multitool when a machette would have better suited your game.

Every time I see you weigh in with the "voice of experience" I think, "how come we never run into that problem at our table?"

Not everyone that uses a system (be it an RPG, a computer, an automobile, or whatever) pushes it in the same ways. You're certainly correct that it's likely a result of different styles of play. That said, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's not the system for me and my group - if you want ideal performance from a system (again, regardless of the types of system) it's best to find out its limitations and then customize it to meet your specific needs. I don't expect anything to come ideally suited for my needs out of the box.

I agree, somewhat... But I would never actively look for things not to like out of the gate. That would get in the way of a lot of my enjoyment of a system.

However I often times get the feeling, when reading your posts, that you bought a pocket multitool when a machette would have better suited your game.

I tend to be proactive and try to deal with a perceived problem before it has a chance to disrupt play. Sometimes I'm successful, other times less so (I still haven't seen much use made of Barrage at my table ). Like I said, identifying and dealing with problems is what I do whether I'm on the clock or not.

It bleeds over into other activities too, but I don't think being critical is a bad thing.

Being negative is though.

It bleeds over into other activities too, but I don't think being critical is a bad thing.

Being negative is though.

Where do you draw the line? If I say that I perceive something in the system as flawed and explain why I see it that way, that's a critical assessment. If I just say it's crap without saying why, that's being negative. Which way do my posts tend to go?

Is questioning bits you dislike rather than highlighting the bits you do like surprising, though?

• The good bits of the game (fast play and resolution, varied character builds) are self-evident. Drawing attention to them may be fun, in a "How great is this game?" way, but it doesn't usually improve your or anyone else's game.
• With the bad bits, at least someone here may be able to help you fix them. Improving both your game and the game of anyone else who reads the forum's solutions.

Is questioning bits you dislike rather than highlighting the bits you do like surprising, though?

• The good bits of the game (fast play and resolution, varied character builds) are self-evident. Drawing attention to them may be fun, in a "How great is this game?" way, but it doesn't usually improve your or anyone else's game.
• With the bad bits, at least someone here may be able to help you fix them. Improving your game and anyone else who reads about the forum's solutions.

Absolutely. There is a great deal I do like with Edge. I don't gush on it, because I don't see it serving a purpose. However, I'm pretty active here, and I certainly wouldn't be if I didn't enjoy the game.

It bleeds over into other activities too, but I don't think being critical is a bad thing.

Being negative is though.

Where do you draw the line? If I say that I perceive something in the system as flawed and explain why I see it that way, that's a critical assessment. If I just say it's crap without saying why, that's being negative. Which way do my posts tend to go?

I don't think it has to do with how you word your findings, it is the sheer volume and predictability of them.

We don't need every thread to sing EotE's praise but we don't this negativity in every one of them either. Obviously, there should always be room for voicing concern and having different opinions, but I, myself, always know you will come along to **** in the punch bowl, or so to speak.

Plus, I do feel a lot of your criticisme is not so much EotE's fault but more of you trying to put a square peg in a round hole, like when you were advocating the fact that EotE wasn't working out for a somewhat soldier focused campaign (I don't recall the exact details) or how when a weapon speciality was not used often at your table suddenly became the weapons fault instead of the way your GM didn't create the opportunity to use it.

I'll skip the negativity part but it seems to me if someone complains a system doesn't present enough of a challenge, and then ways to make it more challenging are pointed out that exist in a system, then the response is that's proof the system is flawed I'm just left agreeing that some people are contrary for the sake of it and offer little to the discussion. I make liberal use of ignore for that reason.

We have been playing since beta and no one in my group cares about criticals unless they are minion insta-kills, they are kind of lame unless it is your 3rd or more crit.

They wouldn't care about getting their legs blown off or something?

They wouldn't care about getting their legs blown off or something?

That is mathematically kind of impossible with normal weapons and a first critical, and not very likey on 2nd. I have only had 1 person in 2 years get more than 2 criticals.. and yes, they were a little nervous on that 3rd one, but nothing horrible happened. Besides, it is star wars... they are supposed to do crazy things and get away with it.

If you want a grittier feeling (which I have thought of using in more realistic settings) start with a +30 or +50 (!!!). People will get messed up quick!

They wouldn't care about getting their legs blown off or something?

That is mathematically kind of impossible with normal weapons and a first critical, and not very likey on 2nd. I have only had 1 person in 2 years get more than 2 criticals.. and yes, they were a little nervous on that 3rd one, but nothing horrible happened. Besides, it is star wars... they are supposed to do crazy things and get away with it.

If you want a grittier feeling (which I have thought of using in more realistic settings) start with a +30 or +50 (!!!). People will get messed up quick!

Wow... Our GM rolls in front of us and crits ALL the time. Wednesday's game he totaled 10 crits (it was a long fight) 5 on our Marauder and the only reason he didn't die was he was being nice.

We like the critical system as a whole and none of us really feel that it needs changed. More specifically, it doesn't need beefed up.

96-100 is Crippled, which gives the option of losing the limb.

101-105 is Maimed, which IS losing a limb, and mathematically possible with Vicious 1 on a 1st crit.

Loads of enemies in the Core book have Vibro-Axes, and they are Vicious 3.

One of my droid PC's has lost a limb twice already. (Arm first time, and Leg just this week.)

I've been considering using a different system for NPC crits, recently. Something simple, like add a threat die or even a difficulty upgrade for each crit on an enemy. Saves a roll, and always delivers.

The only issue would be for vicious weapons or other +to roll modifiers.

They wouldn't care about getting their legs blown off or something?

That is mathematically kind of impossible with normal weapons and a first critical, and not very likey on 2nd. I have only had 1 person in 2 years get more than 2 criticals.. and yes, they were a little nervous on that 3rd one, but nothing horrible happened. Besides, it is star wars... they are supposed to do crazy things and get away with it.

If you want a grittier feeling (which I have thought of using in more realistic settings) start with a +30 or +50 (!!!). People will get messed up quick!

Wow... Our GM rolls in front of us and crits ALL the time. Wednesday's game he totaled 10 crits (it was a long fight) 5 on our Marauder and the only reason he didn't die was he was being nice.

We like the critical system as a whole and none of us really feel that it needs changed. More specifically, it doesn't need beefed up.

Your GM sounds like a jerk. LOL

They wouldn't care about getting their legs blown off or something?

That is mathematically kind of impossible with normal weapons and a first critical, and not very likey on 2nd. I have only had 1 person in 2 years get more than 2 criticals.. and yes, they were a little nervous on that 3rd one, but nothing horrible happened. Besides, it is star wars... they are supposed to do crazy things and get away with it.

If you want a grittier feeling (which I have thought of using in more realistic settings) start with a +30 or +50 (!!!). People will get messed up quick!

Wow... Our GM rolls in front of us and crits ALL the time. Wednesday's game he totaled 10 crits (it was a long fight) 5 on our Marauder and the only reason he didn't die was he was being nice.

We like the critical system as a whole and none of us really feel that it needs changed. More specifically, it doesn't need beefed up.

Your GM sounds like a jerk. LOL

lol

No, he just doesn't pull punches. We faced (I'll see if I can get this right)

Short story... All the droids in town went 'mad' and started killing everybody. To include a construction droid. We will be investigating this issue...

Wave 1

4 Minion groups of 4

2 Rivals

1 Construction droid (our Mechanic managed to Bad Motivator this, and shut it down for a few)

Not sure of their stats, but 7 damage dropped a minion.

Wave 2

1 Minion group of 4

1 Walking turret with a HBR

1 droid 'tank' 2 HRBR (Some of our players now have a greater appreciation for cover)

It was a good time!

Some of you would have no issues with this, but since we are playing a starved economy at this point, most of us still have our starting gear and no attachments. Having our one big toy that we found (a missile tube) really saved the day, but we are all out of ammo now.

My issue with crits in this game is that there isn't really much middle ground between a whimper and a bang. My players fought off a planned paramilitary attack the other week. There weren't pulled punches, and so there were a lot of crits rolled. I think there was some tension there, as my players knew what those upper crits had in store for them, but most of them resulted in piddly things like Discouraging Wound, which while has a decent effect just is anticlimactic after that roll. But then I don't want Blinded and Horrific Injuries every game.

I don't know, 31-35 player is staggered until end of next turn. If they haven't acted before they are hit that means no actions for two turns. That's pretty crummy.

56-60, Agonizing wound, upgrade all Brawn and Agility checks till end of the encounter, that's pretty rough.

76-80, Overpowered and the bad guys a second free attack on you is pretty crappy.

I look at all these criticals and they are pretty middle ground in my mind. Some of them really screw you in the fight you are in and you are vulnerable to a more severe one potentially.

The maiming doesn't occur without boosts +100, as it should be, but I read a lot of these as a real pain in the @$$ during a fight.

If one felt the need for a house rule you could add to, or change, the critical bonus. Either add or change it to an automatic difficulty upgrade to all skill checks until healed. That doesn't spell death but it would make crits very unwelcome.