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!

The guy in the game I play in got his legs blown off on a first crit.

Remember, you don't need Vicious to boost that roll: getting a second triumph, or some excess advantage, or possessing some talents can do the job. Sure, it's not likely to lose a limb on a first crit, but it's certainly not impossible. I think that's kind of as it should be: you really want to be careful in this system, both of how much you're getting hit, and who you're getting hit by. You don't want to get cocky and ignore even kind of piddly threats, like a group of minions, because there can be some dire consequences for anyone.

I'm not totally thrilled with some of the balance in the system--for example, if you're playing a character who doesn't focus on Brawn, and isn't wearing one of the heavier armor types, you're very likely to get dropped in one or two shots. And it looks like that holds true even if you stack up Defense ratings, because Setback dice just don't counter Ability or Proficiency dice very well.

I have this feeling of dread that somewhere down the line, my Jedi will be fairly well developed, with Defense 3, and Sense Control Upgrades enough to upgrade the difficulty to hit me by 2 twice per round, and have the Blaster Bolt Deflection talent (Ways of the Force), and will still get shot, once, an drop, because I'll only have somewhere around 10-12 wounds (depending on how far along I am in XP), and 2-4 soak, and there are a lot of weapons and character types that can 1-shot a character like that if the land their attack.

I thought the Medicine check limited you to treating one critical injury per PC per week.

Man, I wish there was a PDF of the book or even an online SRD for Edge of the Empire so that I could look these things up.

Nope. One check per critical per week. Note that the first check can be made as soon as someone can get to it, and if it fails then you have to wait a week (only 5 days in Star Wars). If you have Intellect 3, Medicine 2, a Boost from a full medkit, and another Boost from an assistant, the chances of most criticals lasting past the first check is pretty low.

Oh, now this is interesting...

Page 113, first paragraph under Table 3-2: "Note that a character may attempt only one Medicine check per week when helping a character to recover from critical wounds."

But... Flip over to page 219, first paragraph on the second column: "A character may attempt one Medicine check per week per Critical Injury."

Given the more specific terminology used in the latter entry, "Critical Injury" versus "critical wounds" could indicate that the former may have been skipped in an editing pass. I would choose to abide by the latter rule on page 219, also because it's more favorable to the PCs.

That is interesting. I've been following the former, and I think it's my preference. Otherwise, any party with a doctor cannot be attritioned down (which I think works best for threatening players (Low damage per shot so they take more shots and possibly more criticals).

I see your point 2P51, so maybe it's just the descriptions I don't like. I suppose I can fix that myself. I definitely wouldn't call Overpowered a middle of the road crit. That thing is deadly.

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.

But how many of those perceived 'problems' aren't actually problems? I'm detecting just a hint of paranoia, there. What problems did you foresee and quash before they could happen?

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.

But how many of those perceived 'problems' aren't actually problems? I'm detecting just a hint of paranoia, there. What problems did you foresee and quash before they could happen?

Several: Auto-fire abuse, Wookiee Rage, Crits against capital ships (which led to the Massive trait), Brawn/Soak increase opp cost issue, and others. These may not be problems in the eyes of others, but they are for my group, so we dealt with them. Sometimes I discuss things here for additional feedback, sometimes I don't

It's all fun til someone looses a eye, arm or leg....

My trandoshan has been blinded and lost both his arms from critcal hits. One while struggling with Trex with a thermal detonator and the other being beatin up by Mandalorian.

My medic lost his arm last night in the opening volley. Those darn disruptor pistols are nasty.

Several: Auto-fire abuse, Wookiee Rage, Crits against capital ships (which led to the Massive trait), Brawn/Soak increase opp cost issue, and others. These may not be problems in the eyes of others, but they are for my group, so we dealt with them. Sometimes I discuss things here for additional feedback, sometimes I don't

Yeah, looking them up, I can't say that I see an issue with any of them. Is this an issue with the game, or an issue with your group? (i.e. they tend to be min-max'ing munchkins)

Enemies with the Adversary talent. Each rank of it upgrades the difficulty of all attacks against them (so your attacks hit them less often and (because of the success-based damage) the attacks you do hit with do less damage, keeping them around longer, prolonging the fight).

Rivals and Nemeses (chaps who can have Adversary) also get their own initiative slots.

I've looked at Debts to Pay, and as far as I can find, none of the NPCs have the actual Adversary talent. If the skill checks to attack all rivals and nemeses were upgraded, that would make the fights take forever. Is that what happened?

Several: Auto-fire abuse, Wookiee Rage, Crits against capital ships (which led to the Massive trait), Brawn/Soak increase opp cost issue, and others. These may not be problems in the eyes of others, but they are for my group, so we dealt with them. Sometimes I discuss things here for additional feedback, sometimes I don't

Yeah, looking them up, I can't say that I see an issue with any of them. Is this an issue with the game, or an issue with your group? (i.e. they tend to be min-max'ing munchkins)

Auto-fire is a common problem, Wookiee Rage is poorly written and leads to week-long rage parties, my input led to Massive to address the capital ship vulnerability to critical hits, and...

Well, like I said, not everyone stresses the system in the same way. I see it as issues with the game, and ones I work to address for the betterment of my experience with the game.

not everyone stresses the system in the same way. I see it as issues with the game

I think that you hit the nail on the head there. However, not in the way you intended to...

not everyone stresses the system in the same way. I see it as issues with the game

I think that you hit the nail on the head there. However, not in the way you intended to...

What are you trying to say?

Oh sorry, I thought it was clear.

Well what I meant was that you find fault in a system because you don't use it as it was intended. No, scratch that, you find fault in as system because you think in advance that it won't work, eventhough you won't use it as intended.

Oh sorry, I thought it was clear.

Well what I meant was that you find fault in a system because you don't use it as it was intended. No, scratch that, you find fault in as system because you think in advance that it won't work, eventhough you won't use it as intended.

What is the intended use of the Edge system? How am I not using it as intended? I beleive that I am using it "as intended" by playing the game, and that when the faults appear, I choose to deal with them rather than just ignore them.

Well, in fact you indicated you "dealed with them" before they "appeared".

But even then if you seem to run into trouble with certain things where no one else is then it seems unreasonable to find that it is the systems fault.

Well, in fact you indicated you "dealed with them" before they "appeared".

But even then if you seem to run into trouble with certain things where no one else is then it seems unreasonable to find that it is the systems fault.

Many times I've noticed that, when I've brought up a problem area, others have said something to the effect of "well, I just X" and dismiss the issue without actually dealing with it. That's not my way.

For example, as the rules stand, a Wookiee that gets a minor Critical Injury with a temporary effect (other than the +10 on further Critical Injury rolls) can effectively claim to be in a Wookiee Rage for the next week, or even longer if he fails the Resilience roll. Note that the rage doesn't hinder him at all, it's all good news for him. If he can't get a Critical Injury, he can still get some rage-on going by just suffering a single Wound. So we get Wookiees that self-inflict harm on themselves or simply abstain from treating injuries just to get a mechanical bonus. Not a fan of this at all, so I replaced Wookiee Rage with one rank of Feral Strength to avoid the issues above.

I also point out that I made the argument that led to the adoption of the Massive rules to keep capital ships from going up in flames too easily. FFG founf that argument compelling enough to adopt it into the rules. This one was dealt with before it appeared in my games just by running the numbers and toying with the dice app. It is possible to see a flaw in a system before you're knee deep in it.

So we get Wookiees that self-inflict harm on themselves or simply abstain from treating injuries just to get a mechanical bonus.

I think this encapsulates my problem with your posts...

It is absolutely unthinkable such things would happen at our table. Ever.

So we get Wookiees that self-inflict harm on themselves or simply abstain from treating injuries just to get a mechanical bonus.

I think this encapsulates my problem with your posts...

It is absolutely unthinkable such things would happen at our table. Ever.

I'm trained to see problems that others might not recognize, and I'm pretty good at it according to my evaluations. I've worked in corrections and in health care. In both cases the risks of not predicting the worst possibilities are high, so I try to stay proactive in dealing with issues rather than reactive. I don't expect everyone to carry such vigilance into gaming, but I also don't think I should be ridiculed because I do.

I am not ridiculing you.

However, I would never make my work ethique/experience carry over into my social life and games to such an extent.

I am not ridiculing you.

I appreciate that. Some posters have though, usually by being dismissive but sometimes by being openly contemptuous of my points simply because I approach the rules from a different background. It sometimes irritates me how often I hear "just handle it narratively" without anyone ever bothering to explain what they mean by that. I'm left to assume that they mean to just make an off-hand ruling of the moment for whatever story goal the GM has in mind, but to me, it sounds like a smokescreen used to cover over a rules issue that someone doesn't want to deal with, and that seems sloppy and unappealing.

I am not ridiculing you.

I appreciate that. Some posters have though, usually by being dismissive but sometimes by being openly contemptuous of my points simply because I approach the rules from a different background.

I think that has more to do with the general negativity that oozes from those points more so than anything else. Of course your experiences are equaly valid but, as I stated before, it does come across is if you are always looking for a negative angle and it is rather anoying to have someone **** in the punchbowl every opportunity they get.

It sometimes irritates me how often I hear "just handle it narratively" without anyone ever bothering to explain what they mean by that. I'm left to assume that they mean to just make an off-hand ruling of the moment for whatever story goal the GM has in mind, but to me, it sounds like a smokescreen used to cover over a rules issue that someone doesn't want to deal with, and that seems sloppy and unappealing.

Again with the negativity. It could just mean that those others actually find that letting rigidity out the window and "handling it narratively" really works. This system promotes such an approach and having a free flowing/narrative mindset is a boon.

Some people find fault where others see freedom. Being that FFG designed a narrative game, they have left many details to the people playing the game to regulate. Some people need more rigidity to the rules. That's fine but isn't always a solution as not everyone wants so many rules in their game. The gaming industry has seemed to have shifted away " a rule for everything" mentality. I think FFG picks and chooses which rules are needed and which can be left alone.

I understand the frustration that people can feel when you ask for advice but only get the answer "it's a narrative game". That, in and of itself, doesn't help anyone at all. What is needed are examples of solving the issue in the game, narrative or not. Remember though that these answers will be what other GMs have done and are not always "official". The game purposely leaves things open for GM interpretation. This is not a fault of the game, but a big plus for many playing.

HD I think the issue some people have is that when you bring up a problem, it comes across that you think it is some great fault of the game making it unplayable. Instead of coming in and say something like "I'm have trouble with this aspect and it isn't working for my game. Anyone have any ideas how it might work differently?" you say something like "This rule doesn't work because this or this. The game is faulty and it needs to be fixed." Already you are getting peoples back up as it seems you are being antagonistic. Then when people do give suggestions or ideas, you try to find fault in them, again getting people's backs up. Sometimes the answer is a narrative answer, which isn't always going to be perfect. If it doesn't work for you move on.

Take the Wookie Rage thing. Sure the rules don't say how long it lasts either way. Most people would let it run the encounter and then it has run its course. But now you would have us believe it is faulty because of it doesn't designate a timeframe? That some player is going to try and say that it continues as long as he has a critical wound? Or that he is going to wound himself to cause it (shield-biting)? The latter could go either way, yay or nay, because there is precedent of berserk cultures where they do something to whip themselves into a frenzy. Most of us don't find this an issue because we wouldn't allow something like that or we allow for it because we think it is a good fit. Either way we don't need rules for everything.

HD I think the issue some people have is that when you bring up a problem, it comes across that you think it is some great fault of the game making it unplayable.

That's not my intent, anymore than pointing out that a few potholes in the street means that the street is unusable. I just prefer to have the potholes fixed for a smoother driving experience.

That's not my intent, anymore than pointing out that a few potholes in the street means that the street is unusable. I just prefer to have the potholes fixed for a smoother driving experience..

Yes but a pothole implies that it is a problem for everyone which is not always the case.

That's not my intent, anymore than pointing out that a few potholes in the street means that the street is unusable. I just prefer to have the potholes fixed for a smoother driving experience..

Yes but a pothole implies that it is a problem for everyone which is not always the case.

It's a problem for anyone in the same lane, but we've already established that not everyone drives in the same lane that I do. It doesn't make my observances any less relevant.