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.

or it implies that while some people drive around them and forget about about it, others contact the whoever's in charge of fixing them so, y'know, they get fixed.

The game isn't perfect. There are problems that very few people will have (Wookiee Rage just requires a firm GM) and some that can't be avoided without rules (house or errata - Autofire + Jury Rig, for instance).

Or it isn't a pothole in the first place. Just because something hinders you does not make it a flaw. I'm not saying don't voice your concerns or that they are not concerns. But you are not the authority on what constitutes a pothole or a divot beyond your own game.

I have not claimed to be "the authority" - I give my advise which others are free to use (or not) as they see fit. Some people seem to like what I post, so it's unlikely that I'm wrong all of the time. FFG realized I had a point regarding capital ships and it led directly to the Massive trait (now in print as of Dangerous Covenants), and I've heard from others that have used my house rules and had a more positive experience from the game through them. That said, I see no reason to stop bringing potholes up when I see them.

Just because something hinders you does not make it a flaw. I'm not saying don't voice your concerns or that they are not concerns. But you are not the authority on what constitutes a pothole or a divot beyond your own game.

I agree, there. Something that doesn't work for you may work perfectly fine for others. But if something is a problem for you, attempting to fix it - and sharing solutions with those who run in to the same problem - is a good and nice thing.

I don't think anyone is attempting to claim any authority. I'm not sure how they'd go about exerting any perceived authority, either.

Unless they knew where I lived.

And had a gun.

And a lot of free time...

So, back on topic with criticals. From a GM perspective, simply because you roll the ability to use a critical, doesn't necessarily mean that it must be used. I think a big thing here is balancing out the use of criticals among other skills against the PCs. While, it may seem 'challenging' to continue to trigger/roll critical hits against the PCs, at some point, for the overall experience of the game, it may be time to do something else with the rolls, especially if its frustrating or turning off players. It's my belief (and opinion) that GMs are here to provide a fun and challenging experience for their PCs, not to roll 10 crits in a single session, as was previously mentioned. If that happened to me in a group I was in, I would let the GM know there are more things he can do on advantages and triumphs than crit the hell out of the group - it seems a little like the GM is trying to play against and/or beat the players in this circumstance, as opposed to providing the players with a fun, yet challenging game.

FFG realized I had a point regarding capital ships and it led directly to the Massive trait (now in print as of Dangerous Covenants)

Is this the case? Are you credited?

Not trying to be an ass about it, just curious.

FFG realized I had a point regarding capital ships and it led directly to the Massive trait (now in print as of Dangerous Covenants)

Is this the case? Are you credited?

Not trying to be an ass about it, just curious.

I discussed the issue and proposed two solutions, including the one they adopted, in the AoR Beta forums. The topic is still there. They don't have to accredit people for what's placed on their boards, but look at the dates and when the updates came out.

My only point is that not everything needs rules to codify it. Some things can be left vague so that individual groups can decide how they want to play it. One gamer's pothole is another gamer's divot or doesn't even register. And sometimes the problem is an incorrect interpretation of the rules, which seems to be somewhat the case here.

I've heard from others that have used my house rules and had a more positive experience from the game through them.

Have any inclination to post a thread listing your house rules? I'd be curious to see them, maybe nudge my GM in that direction.

I've heard from others that have used my house rules and had a more positive experience from the game through them.

Have any inclination to post a thread listing your house rules? I'd be curious to see them, maybe nudge my GM in that direction.

I have several threads, you can search for them by viewing my profile. Regarding the ones i mentioned above, the basic versions are:

1) Permanent increases (usually from Dedication) and decreases (usually from Critical Injuries) to Brawn and Willpower do change WT and ST.

2) Replace Wookiee Rage with one rank of Feral Strength.

3) Only one hit from any single Auto-fire attack can be allocated per target. Auto-fire is thus for hitting multiple targets, not for over-saturating a single one (since the attack roll already represents multiple shots on a target).

4) Stimpacks take one maneuver to draw/ready and a second maneuver to administer/use. I have 5-shot disposable injectors (for 125 credits) that reduce the need to draw/ready over and over.

5) Hiding things on one's person is Stealth, but hiding items in/on/with other items is Skulduggery.

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.

Then why not stop replying to HD's comments? Or stop reading them?

Honestly, I find your posts to be a lot more irritating than HD's. He sees a problem, and attempts to fix it, or asks for how others have handled it, and provides his insight on the issue when a question or request for advice comes up.

You, however, have posted a dozen times in this thread saying nothing but, "I don't like the things you say, or the way you say them."

If you don't find the issues he's bringing up to be a problem, provide an example of how it was handled in your game, or when the mechanics in which the discussed issue is couched came up, but didn't cause any problems. That's being constructive. HD is being constructive (well, except for the back and forth between the two of you).

Col. Oranger's extension of the pothole analogy works pretty well: some people see a pothole and drive around it, while others do something about it, calling it in, or going out and fixing it themselves. Other people don't see them and just drive right through, and as long as the hole didn't tear their wheel off, just shrug and move on, because the bumpy road didn't hinder their trip otherwise. And some people drive right into one of those car-eating potholes, and call for a tow to get them out of trouble.

You seem to be very much in the 'shrug and move on' group. That's fine, but dismissing everyone else is rude and not productive, and that's exactly what you're doing when you make comments like the one I've quoted. Just because you don't have a problem come up, or dance around the issue by making a "narrative" adjustment (which, in many cases, is really just making a mechanics ruling with window dressing), doesn't mean the problem shouldn't be brought to light by someone who has had a problem, or sees one coming up down the line. Your posts haven't been constructive.

HD's tone isn't negative; it's matter-of-fact. He doesn't say EotE is bad, or seriously broken, or unplayable.

I've played a variety of RPGs (fewer than some, more than others), and none of them have been perfect, and in all of them my group and I have run into problems in one way or another. Some because something was misread, others because something was poorly written or not explained, and others still because someone decided to be cheesy. These things all come up.

Solving things narratively often really means that the GM is making a ruling on something, maybe unconsciously, by saying he/she doesn't agree with how something is going, and will put a stop to it using the story, rather than start discussing or dealing with rules directly. That's fine for something that comes up once, but if it's something that is going to come up even intermittently, that's going to be a problem, since, even if the GM is content to deal with the thing as it comes up using the narrative, the player may feel that they are being blunted or nerfed, that maybe their choices were mistakes, or that they are being singled out. Of course this will vary from mechanic to mechanic, person to person, and group to group, but it's not likely to be an experience unique to a single person or group, no matter how much of a corner case it may be.

On topic, I think the crit system is interesting, but also acknowledge that it has some problems, such as possibly scoring several inconsequential crits and then unleashing something devastating, or even just jumping straight to devastating on a (un)lucky roll. Like I said up-thread, another player in my game had his character's leg blown off on the first hit he took in an encounter with no critical injuries outstanding. That's a pretty big deal. It's not all downside, because it helps keep players a little scared and cautious, maybe even a little humble, but it's also not especially fun. This player is probably going to be out of action for half of the next game session (knowing my GM), because the pilot on our ship decided to try and rush to our next location, when trying to get out of a tight situation, rather than making a short hyperspace jump just to get out of trouble, and we've stumbled right into more trouble without having had time to perform surgery on the maimed character, and now we probably won't get an uninterrupted half a day to do so for a while.

I've heard from others that have used my house rules and had a more positive experience from the game through them.

Have any inclination to post a thread listing your house rules? I'd be curious to see them, maybe nudge my GM in that direction.

I have several threads, you can search for them by viewing my profile. Regarding the ones i mentioned above, the basic versions are:

1) Permanent increases (usually from Dedication) and decreases (usually from Critical Injuries) to Brawn and Willpower do change WT and ST.

2) Replace Wookiee Rage with one rank of Feral Strength.

3) Only one hit from any single Auto-fire attack can be allocated per target. Auto-fire is thus for hitting multiple targets, not for over-saturating a single one (since the attack roll already represents multiple shots on a target).

4) Stimpacks take one maneuver to draw/ready and a second maneuver to administer/use. I have 5-shot disposable injectors (for 125 credits) that reduce the need to draw/ready over and over.

5) Hiding things on one's person is Stealth, but hiding items in/on/with other items is Skulduggery.

I'll take a look at the individual threads to get some of the background and reasoning behind these changes. Thanks.

Then why not stop replying to HD's comments? Or stop reading them?

Honestly, I find your posts to be a lot more irritating than HD's. He sees a problem, and attempts to fix it, or asks for how others have handled it, and provides his insight on the issue when a question or request for advice comes up.

You, however, have posted a dozen times in this thread saying nothing but, "I don't like the things you say, or the way you say them."

Yeti, I was the one who originally had a problem with HD in this thread. I have since remedied that by no longer reading his posts.

I disagree with your interpretation of things. I don't often get fed up with someone enough to lash out at them. I'm a super-tolerant guy and I love discussion. However, when you are having a discussion on these forums, and the same guy repeatedly turns up to crap all over it with blatant nay-saying negativity... eventually it gets really hard to take, so I lashed out.

If someone has a houserule or a suggestion for something they perceive as a problem, then its great to share that so that others who also like that houserule better can use it. To constantly turn up claiming that the current RAW sucks but you know how to fix it is irritating. To tell people that they just don't have enough play experience, or aren't qualified enough to judge for themselves that the rules are clearly broken and they just can't see it is just plain rude.

Houserule away, but don't act like we are all wrong because we like the RAW. I'm running three campaigns and I have never seen a single one of these problems mentioned in this thread crop up in my games.

This topic has degraded quickly...

Here's the thing, I think there should be a general respect of opinions here on the forums. I'm not sure why we've got such degradation, but it stems mainly from what I believe, is wanting to be 'right'. There's no fault in this, but at the same time, it comes to a point where respect for opinions, whether agreement or disagreement is present, should be held above all else.

Just because you don't agree with another posters opinions on the forum, doesn't mean you can't enter into a debate with them on interpretation, but upon entering that debate, we all must understand it's a debate AND THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER; none of us made this game and there thoughts and interpretations are all opinion, which may or may not work in a specific circumstance. Our suggestions may be thought of positively, implemented in specific games by GMs, or by the creators themselves. However, taking offense when another idea is suggested, or if your idea isn't useful to the GM (in their opinion) then you begin to take potshots at their competency, or reasoning is where the line should be drawn.

I've disagreed with HappyDaze on a couple of opinions, but also agreed with others. The same is true of my thought processes with many posters on the forums - I agree with some posters in certain situations, but other points or suggestions they bring up, I may disagree with. This isn't meant to offend, but realistically no one, including myself, is going to agree with everything someone says. I don't think HD has ever told me I was 'wrong' when I've disagreed, but rather said something like, 'that won't work in my game', 'I need some type of description/reasoning behind that', or 'this is why I'd do this, instead of that' (which doesn't imply you are wrong, it implies that to HD, the method suggested works better for them). To me, this is understandable - they are asking for suggestions by the community for their problems, like many of us do when we run into them. If my suggestions don't help, so be it. In contrary to this, I've had posters simply outright say that suggestions other posters or myself put up are completely wrong and only their suggestion is correct. I find these actions as significantly more rude and don't see as helping an OP with their question. I think this is a prime example of getting upset because another person doesn't see things 'our way' or doesn't run into the same issues as us.

If a player has an issue, no matter how 'trivial' you may believe it to be, they have every right to request the assistance of the members of this forum for suggestions, or advice to how to solve their issue. Whether they are pointing out what they perceive as a flaw in the rules/system, they are requesting aid to find a solution for a particular problem they've experience in the game, or just want general advice, the ability for them to go to the community first with their question should be welcoming. If you don't see the flaw, or experience the same problem that the poster is experiencing, perhaps its best not to insert an opinion on the issue, unless its constructive. These forums are partly here for seeking direction from the community as a means to solve problems, IF experienced; posts on the forum are not required to be read and are not required to have responses. If a poster has an issue and something that is constructive comes from the community for the issue(s) the player(s) are experiencing, then I believe in my opinion, that its a good thing, no matter how trivial the question or issue is to the OP.

I will say, what's more frustrating, at least from my perspective, is:

1. When a poster invades a forum and starts asserting their opinion like it's RAW.

2. When a poster invades a forum and derails the entire thread (like this) from the OP's question.

1. Its great to have an opinion and everyone should have their own interpretation of the rules, but we need to remember these are our opinions, they are not fact as we do not work for FFG and did not create the RAW. I'm not trying to be rude here, but anything that you think or theorize is not 'RAW', they are opinions/additions to the game. RAW is when someone has a question and the answer can be quoted verbatim from the CRB, or Additional Source books with a page number. If a rule is vague, and you provide your opinion on its interpretation, it is no longer 'RAW', it is an opinion of a 'RAW'. All opinions can be considered, but realistically, it's up to the OP to what suggestions they'd like to follow. If you have a suggestion, you shouldn't take a offense to other people's suggestions, or make it your goal to berate them for not agreeing with you (basically trying to beat them into submission to follow your idea). If the OP questions why you've made a suggestion or to explain it more, they've got every right to do so as they are trying to figure out a way to fix an issue with their game and really no offense should be taken when this happens. If you're not the OP, giving examples of how a poster's specific suggestion might have not worked in your case, suggesting example of how you'd modify it, or providing a suggestion for another interpretation is what I'd call 'constructive'. However, telling another poster why they are outright wrong, because you just disagree with them, or don't like their posts, is plain and simply rude.

2. There are private messages for a reason. If you've got a problem with someone, or take something personally, making use of private messages is the best route. I'm not a moderator, but I think it's pretty messed up that some threads get derailed to this point. Whether if it's from someone who just isn't respecting another posters opinions, or responding to another poster in a personal matter (albeit publicly), these issues should be taken to private messages and solved in dialogue with the two respected parties.

I know I just fed into this discussion, but I think this is what the community is saying in regard to 'negativity'... This post is about Critical Hits and whether there needs to be an adjustment or not... Why's its gone on for 2 - 3 pages criticizing individuals (it's gotten pretty personal) or questioning legitimacy of suggestions - it's a bit disheartening. I don't see how this is of any benefit to the OP at this point and if it continues, I'm going to PM the moderators to lock this thread, because this is absolutely ridiculous.

I think you are right. The discussion should have not taken place in this topic, however I would again like to state that I in no way tried to be an ******* towards HD nor any other poster. I was - for all it is worth now - just having a prolonged discussion that was honest and direct (but at all times respectful) with him. Yeah, the thread derailed and I appologize for the part I played in that.

I have mixed feelings about the critical hit system. As a player, it's frustrating to score a critical hit only to inflict a wound that will have no effect on the enemy, such as the one that penalizes presence. However, these less-than-stellar critical hits often provide fodder for humor. Perhaps more importantly, the underwhelming results shield the players from more devastating critical hits, which I suspect will become important as we encounter tougher enemies who crit more often.

Having said that, I'm glad the table contains deadlier results, such as the one that lets the combatant take an extra attack. That almost brought our main combatant to death's door, creating tension in what would have otherwise been a one-sided encounter. I also like the limb loss crits, as they provide a chance for even socially conscious characters to pursue cybernetic enhancements and put the spotlight on trandoshans' ability to regenerate.

Despite the potentially devastating results, I'm not sure I'll roll on the crit table much. There's enough randomness in it that the conservative side of me will insist on coming up with more creative and consistent uses for my advantages and especially my triumphs. That should make the combats more cinematic and varied, so perhaps it's a good thing.

So, back on topic with criticals. From a GM perspective, simply because you roll the ability to use a critical, doesn't necessarily mean that it must be used. I think a big thing here is balancing out the use of criticals among other skills against the PCs. While, it may seem 'challenging' to continue to trigger/roll critical hits against the PCs, at some point, for the overall experience of the game, it may be time to do something else with the rolls, especially if its frustrating or turning off players. It's my belief (and opinion) that GMs are here to provide a fun and challenging experience for their PCs, not to roll 10 crits in a single session, as was previously mentioned. If that happened to me in a group I was in, I would let the GM know there are more things he can do on advantages and triumphs than crit the hell out of the group - it seems a little like the GM is trying to play against and/or beat the players in this circumstance, as opposed to providing the players with a fun, yet challenging game.

While he crit us that many times, he didn't use all of them.

Knocks people prone all the time, uses environmental effects constantly, had part of a building drop and cut off an avenue of egress. We have pissed off a crime lord in the area and he sent heavy hitters. All the nasty was justified for this session and fit within the narrative. We hope to get payback tomorrow!

6 pages and no real alternatives offered to the existing system. I personally don't have an issue with the system and don't look at the crit table as underpowered as some claim. Of course it's not like anyone fell over themselves to actually discuss the issue at hand.

To perhaps steer the conversation in a more positive, or at least useful direction, might I suggest some brainstorming on how to make criticals more significant and worthy without raising the likelihood of lethality.

There have been some stellar house rules from these forums that I've incorporated at my table. The discussions have led me to look at portions of the game and come up with my own house rules I think work for me on some of the recurring issues like soak, and auto fire.

Allow me to begin. The rules are in fact somewhat contradictory between the wording on p. 113 and p. 219. I don't have an issue with a medical professional being able to treat more than one injury at a time. However, someone with multiple critical injuries logically it seems would be harder to treat. How about a rule that for each additional check made the subsequent check upgrades its difficulty. The effect would stack and be cumulative. In other words, that critical, whatever it is, owns that assigned difficulty until healed. In addition wounds must be addressed first to simulate a patient being stabilized before further treatment can be attempted. That would make multiple attempts harder and introduce Despair into the equation.

I'm wondering why people are wanting Criticals to be more harsh on PC's. The source material (films and novels) don't really show a super long recovery time for even very nasty injuries.

In the RPG, criticals can have long term affects on a group of PC's without a dedicated medic. I see it in all three of my games.

In a party with a dedicated medic, it sounds like they are much less of an issue. Really I would hope that this would be how it works. If a player dedicates most of their points to being able to heal others, I would hope that they are effective at it!

I'll admit, I've interpreted the RAW differently than some folks here. I don't allow a medic check for a critical until a week has passed. This makes it like natural healing, but with the benefit that you can attempt to heal multiple Criticals.

I think a lot of people forget this game is very narrative. I know a lot of people don't like to see that word pulled out, but there it is. GM's seem to be looking for every little nuance or possibility to be perfectly spelled out for them with a game mechanic in the RAW.

I'd never allow a medic in the field to just glue a hand back on, or replace an eye, etc.

Also, I think the narrative effect of criticals on NPC's solves the problem of PC's feeling let down by an NPC taking a critical that doesn't inst-gib them. If it makes sense for the NPC (if they are not a combat specialist) I'll often have NPC's begin attempting to leave the conflict after taking a critical hit. This of course only applies to Rivals and Nemesis, as Minions are already insta-dead from a crit.

Grimmshade, you and I look at healing criticals a little differently. I do checks right after combat, but those checks remove the "I have a critical hit against me" flag (or one of them if there are multiple) so further crits do not suffer the +10. Additionally, it removes the mechanical effect of that crit. Say for example a character gets their arm shot off by a critical. They suffer a setback die on all rolls and all future critical rolls are at +10. Once that crit is healed they are no longer suffering the setback die and don't have the +10 on the next critical roll. The arm is still gone though. It wasn't glued back on. It's just that the wound has been sealed up, the nerves deadened at the end, etc

Now, with the It's not that bad talent, where you can negate crits, there wouldn't be limb loss because you're altering the story to make it so it didn't happen.

One idea I had for a possible house rule is to make EotE's Critical Injuries almost-kinda-sorta-similar to FATE's mild/moderate/severe consequences: You can heal them like normal (attempting one Medicine check per week per Critical Injury) but you do not clear the slot for a period of time so crits get a chance to stack up if you are careless. Easy injuries can be cleared after an encounter ends, Average injuries can be cleared at the end of a session, and Hard and Daunting injuries clear after a week or longer. That way a bunch of Minor Nicks don't cause your character to start Bleeding Out but getting Maimed or Blinded can really make you rethink your battle strategy.

If you wanted to play that kind of game, that is. Just an idea.

I'm wondering why people are wanting Criticals to be more harsh on PC's. The source material (films and novels) don't really show a super long recovery time for even very nasty injuries.

In the RPG, criticals can have long term affects on a group of PC's without a dedicated medic. I see it in all three of my games.

In a party with a dedicated medic, it sounds like they are much less of an issue. Really I would hope that this would be how it works. If a player dedicates most of their points to being able to heal others, I would hope that they are effective at it!

I'll admit, I've interpreted the RAW differently than some folks here. I don't allow a medic check for a critical until a week has passed. This makes it like natural healing, but with the benefit that you can attempt to heal multiple Criticals.

I think a lot of people forget this game is very narrative. I know a lot of people don't like to see that word pulled out, but there it is. GM's seem to be looking for every little nuance or possibility to be perfectly spelled out for them with a game mechanic in the RAW.

I'd never allow a medic in the field to just glue a hand back on, or replace an eye, etc.

Also, I think the narrative effect of criticals on NPC's solves the problem of PC's feeling let down by an NPC taking a critical that doesn't inst-gib them. If it makes sense for the NPC (if they are not a combat specialist) I'll often have NPC's begin attempting to leave the conflict after taking a critical hit. This of course only applies to Rivals and Nemesis, as Minions are already insta-dead from a crit.

I think people are just not seeing what they are expecting when they see the word crit. In other game systems the minimum effect from a crit is double or more damage from an attack, which is more deadly. In EotE it seems like the majority of crits are "only" a +10 to the next crit roll and something minor like a SB die for a turn. Which does feel lack luster.

The beauty of this system is that players can get crit a lot and it builds the tension. Each additional crit has potential to be more dangerous than the last. If you're crit 5 times in a fight then you could die. On the flip side, it feels lack luster for the players when they are trying to crit the enemy. "What do you mean I have to crit him 5 times to get a chance to auto kill him?" While that may suck for normal players who want to one shot a guy with their gun, I think it's cool because it gives crit build characters a chance to grow into the niche.

As for the waiting a week before trying to heal a crit, that's how I first read the rule too. It took a while to realize that "can try to heal once a week" doesn't mean you have to wait a week before you can try. It means you can try right away and then not be able to try again for a week.

Even with my Medic character, I'm not always able to remove all crits from the players after every fight. I try not to rely on stim-packs too much (why spend a consumable?) and do medical checks for healing WT. Without rolling a Triumph, those crits are going to be sticking around until after a fight when the character isn't too banged up and would rather have the medical for the crits instead of WT recovery.

I have mixed feelings about the critical hit system. As a player, it's frustrating to score a critical hit only to inflict a wound that will have no effect on the enemy, such as the one that penalizes presence...

I too have seen the occasional lame, illogical, or boring crit result. Just spit-balling here, but...

What if modifiers to crit rolls (either by way of vicious, or as a result of pre-existing crits, etc.) rather than adding +10 each, allowed the one inflicting the crit a range band +/- of that amount to chose from?

Say you crit with a +20 bonus and roll 47. You can chose any result ranging from 27 to 67, depending on what you think makes sense (based on what you did to generate said crit), or because it has a result you think will be more meaningful.

Mind you this is just off the top of my head and completely untested. Maybe it would slow things down too much constantly pouring over and weighing all your options? Not sure. Hmmm...

The beauty of this system is that players can get crit a lot and it builds the tension. Each additional crit has potential to be more dangerous than the last. If you're crit 5 times in a fight then you could die.

Who're all these scary mofos surviving at least 5 hits during a combat?!