So I am probably not going to say anything others have not discussed before but I did not see a designated thread. Anyways I and my group have been playing Star Wars Edge of the Empire for a few months for a while now and I have to say I am impressed. I have had the chance to play many different pen and paper games and from a mechanical perspective Star Wars is very unique. While we have gotten over 300 exp I do not feel like my character is powerful! In most games there is a definite power curve as experience increases. However in this game it feels less like my character is becoming more ‘powerful’ but rather more ‘capable’ so to speak. A few storm troopers still give us a hard time just like when we started BUT now it feels like we have a few more options or are more effective yet the storm troopers are still a major threat. It is very refreshing really.

So does this stay true even farther as you play and get upwards to a thousand? Or even more?

From where I am now it seems like I could have a huge amount of experience but still room for my character to grow.

I think it's just the game provides so many avenues of growth and tangents a player can expand into, the development is more slow. If someone were disciplined with xp expenditures, narrowed their objectives, and focused they could develop themselves into being very powerful quickly in a specific task or two. Most people prefer to feel useful and all around though, and just being Joe Gun and nothing but leaves you sitting at the table doing nothing a great deal.

I think the success of this depends on the GM. If you are slightly stingy with the XP rewards (at least, it feels stingy when you come from games that award 100-500 XP per session), and you make sure that your adventures require the players to use a broad range of skills and not just their ranged skill of choice and pilot, you should force your PCs to make their characters somewhat well-rounded. This makes for more fun and it lets a campaign go a long, long time before you start to run into issues.

On the other hand, if you just have combat encounter after combat encounter, youll find that all the XP goes toward melee and associated abilities, or ranged and associated abilities, and PCs can get to a point pretty quickly where they are rolling 3 greens and 3 yellows per combat check, which is usually against 1-3 purples. This is obviously pretty lopsided, and while its fine for that to happen every now again, the entire adventure shouldn't feel like that, and introducing nemesis characters or guys iwth adversary talents will only go so far to mitigate it. When you have triumphs and despairs coming up on most checks, it's probably time to retire those characters and start new ones. I mean, feel free to enjoy that level of proficiency for an adventure or two while you go against some truly heinous BBEGs, but when things start feeling that way, that's when its probably time for a re-roll, IMO.

As for when that happens, its really going to be different for every group.

I haven't gotten nearly that far (about 200 XP), but I've noticed two things. One: for the Jedi I'm playing to attain the level of "Jediness" that I'm looking for, I'll need something like 1,200 XP. Two: looking ahead, I notice that offense can seriously outpace defense with the possibility of maxing out a characteristic and a skill to roll 5 yellow and a green, maybe adding a couple of Boost dice to that, and with a few abilities available to upgrade that pool further (maybe 6 yellow and a green, or more), versus the relatively few ways of increasing defense...it looks like maybe 2 red and a purple, along with 3-4 Setback dice is going to be about as good as nearly any character could hope to get against a close shot from a blaster, or a melee attack.

As the other posters have pointed out, that point will vary from group to group, player to player, since this game has a lot of territory to spread out to without necessary moving upwards in power, but there looks to certainly be a point where things just stop getting especially challenging, or when everyone is playing rocket tag.

While I see the concern of offense out pacing defense, that can be fixed (to some extent) by the amount of baddies one has to face.

Put enough minions and rivals in front of a group and the only smart thing to do would be to put your weapon down or run.

Another thing to slow the offensive creep is to not allow the group to acquire much money. We are at 370ish xp and have yet to move to much out of our beginning gear. The only attachment any of us has is a scope.

Our group has not yet cracked 100XP (they're close), and there are examples of different approaches all around the table. I have two players who hyper focused their spending and have some pretty cool skills/talents now, however they have noticed a significant lack of proficiency in other areas, so now they are starting to spend more generously across the board.

I have one player who invested heavily into his talent tree, and utilizes those benefits well, but again, feels the pinch when it comes to general skill usage.

My tech/outlaw/doctor "Mr.Fix it" is way more focused on spending where he feels his character is needed within the party, but is behind the others because of the cost of the second non-career spec. However, because of his spending "swath" (mechanics, computers and medicine), is an integral part of the team.

After saying all that as a set-up, what I am getting at is the fact that this system allows for power curve WITH BALANCE. ie. If you spend XP on things to make you awesome at one thing, you will in turn be not awesome at something else, and even if you play in an "XP Hungry" campaign, you will have the opportunity to see tangible rewards for your spending.

I like our current XP distribution, because my players are putting real thought into how they spend those points. For them, every purchase counts in terms of what they are bringing to the group, and how they see their characters growing. It is a great boon for them when they get to change one green to a yellow, or add a green. After purchasing a talent the other night, our Politico was stoked to remove two SB dice from a Leadership check that was pretty important to the situation.

I have no idea how this will affect PCs as they start to max skills and finish talent trees, but I know that it will take a while to get there, and I'll have plenty of time to adjust the encounters to fit.

Another piece of advice I have heard is to look at the stats of the party and select similar adversaries, raising/lowering stats in proportion to the numbers of adversaries added (this is in the CB in the GM section). The advice comes from looking at those stats and tweaking them to fit the party. Take the Pirate Captain and re-jig him to fit the advanced party. Higher stats, better weapons, more powerful lieutenant rivals... As with much of this current system, it is left up to you and your party to make or break the game.

One of the long-standing concerns with a point-based character build system (which in spite of using XP values is what EotE ultimately is) is that the players have free reign to spend their build points in various ways, enabling them to really shine in their area of expertise but look like a fish out of water when outside that comfort zone. Having played Champions and Mutants & Masterminds for some time, you can see that quite often, particularly if you've got a PC that doesn't fully embrace the "fights crime in tights" mindset.

As the players earn more and more XP/build points, you'll see any disparities start to increase if the PCs stay focused on their areas of expertise. The combat-centric PCs will just get better and better at combat, while the social-focused PCs will be able to talk circles around NPCs, pilot-type PCs will make Han and Wedge start to look like slackers, and the techie PCs will eventually begin channeling the MythBusters when it comes to fixing and/or modifying things. Some players may try to keep their PCs on a somewhat "even keel" so that they don't have any major deficiencies and can at least contribute something other than a boost die in certain types of encounters (combat being the most notable one).

I find that the power curve in EOTE is rather linear yet relatively aggressive. Players get better at what they do, faster than with other RPGs. Sneaky guy gets way sneaky, shooty girl gets way shooty, defender man gets way defensive.

This means that you do need to be a lot cleverer about how you challenge your players. And for your players it's tactically about getting the right character for the job into the situation.

Avoid combat as your sole challenge, that is pretty much the default for most RPGs, hit them in the dump stats. Challenge them where they aren't good.

Recently, sneaky droid cannon balled out of the back of the ship using optical stealth and a Grav Chute, he snuck around some imperial facilities planting Thermal Detonators to distract the Imperials. This guy is very sneaky, he's also the Slicer.

The other characters attempted to follow him into a secure facility.. I tossed Dark Side at them so it would be challenging. When they got inside they faced Jedi killing droids with cortosis armour. Marauder and Gadgeteer up... They took the mother of all poundings and were genuinely concerned. They barely withstood huge amounts of damage even as they dished out. They had to use their last thermal detonator to trash the remaining droids.

In the fray, a single shot put down sneaky droid. *bang* lights out 100% wounds gone. Afterwards the player came up to me and said he had a great time and he really enjoyed contributing to the game, even though he got all blowed up at the end.

If you wanted to mess with the rules (I don't recommend that) you could restrict access to particular Specialization/Skill/Characteristic levels until the players earn particular levels of XP. Personally I find that the Specialization trees already do a pretty good job of slowing up the players. FSE Marauder has a pretty tough time advancing compared to say a Gadgeteer.

I find skill advancement to be the most devastating as a GM to deal with. Maybe no skills to level 4 until a specialization tree is filled? 5 after another tree is filled, etc. I dunno, just ideas.

I think that savvy players will get sick of the eggs in one basket approach if the setting is being run as FFG intends.

This is a well-rounded system after all, and it is trying to create a cinematic narrative. That means a balance of action, adventure and intrigue (I'll leave the romance and comedy aspects to my players).

I am seeing that my needle focused players are starting to feel the pressure to diversify their investments so that they can contribute something to more encounters more often. I also tend to employ the tactic of putting my fish out of water every once in a while as well, just to see how they do. Not in a crippling way, just to turn the tables.

Also, I find that if a player likes the "character" they have created, they don't often want to max out their strengths right away. My veteran "role"players know that when they create monsters, they tire of their awesome power quickly.

There is a lot in this system our group is still learning, but we are thoroughly enjoying the ride. Especially our Chiss BH/Assassin with YYYYG Rg(HV). And a jetpack. And a Flame Projector. Yeah, she has a great time...

I think the best way to force everyone to diversity is to have situations crop up at least once per session where EVERYONE has to make a certain kind of skill check. Maybe you are escaping from a prison, and everyone has to swim for it before it explodes. Now they are all making a big athletics or resilience check to make a distance swim. Or maybe you have a situation where two computers need to get sliced simultaneously to open a door. Or maybe the entire group has to make a climb, etc. This sort of thing doesn't just encourage more diversified characters, it also leads to clever role playing and problem solving, because now something that should be a simple task, like climbing a wall, becomes more complicated if the team's Houk merchant never took any ranks of climb, and he's way too big for another character to lug up on his back and increase the difficulty on.

Some skills are harder to make everyone invest in. Knowledge skills in particular are a case where it is generally acceptable to have a single character specialize and share that info with the rest of the group. Trying to force a This Is Jeopardy session to stress out those that haven't taken Knowledge skills is probably not going to be much fun.

My player's character have more than 2.700 XP (Force Powers included) and he fears every time I roll against him with 1 Yellow 2 Green thug minion pack against his awesome 4 Red Dices (Dodges and others) and even one Setback XD

He FEARS every combat! Of course an advanced character has a lot of more resources but, without considering the minion and rival fact, Edge is a cinematic non-heroic game.

Normal people that can improve a lot, but they are still normal people not a level 20 Barbarian with 200 HP with 25 AC and +24 attack against a level 1 Warrior with 14 HP with 11 AC and +1 to attack.

Cinematic, a lot; heroic (without considering the minion/rival rules) nope.

Personally, I love it You see a pregression, yes, slow proggression but with some nice configuration and thanks to talents, you can have the sensation that you are learning a new "skill/option" at lot XP cost.

I tend to run an action adventure...

I find that my biggest challenge is trying to think outside the box and create other challenges. Really, play is better if I can involve the other stars (players) at least once per session. Gunner needs to Gun.... Slicer needs to Slice... Mechanic needs to Mechanic... Doctor needs to medic and Knowledge, etc.

I feel that I've learned some bad habits from other RPGs and I'm not doing enough of the other stuff.

I think the best way to force everyone to diversity is to have situations crop up at least once per session where EVERYONE has to make a certain kind of skill check.

I think it might be better to have a discussion with players about the need to diversify even before session zero. This way they've been informed up front and can develop their characters accordingly, and no one feels as if they're being forced to do anything. If they fail to diversify the skill sets of their characters and repeatedly run afoul of obstacles as a result it's either chance or design, but not ever because the GM is specifically "out to get them".

I had this very talk with my players and stressed to them they need to not think like an mmo character looking for max dps. They took it to heart. I also am very aggressive in involving other skill sets and objectives that don't require gun fire, as well as, putting realistic caveats involved in gun fights.

It's easier to make other skills and skill checks popular by making them fun. I am busting out the poker chips this weekend and we are going to do some serious gambling and they will have the option of using Cool, Skulduggery, and Deception. Once they start winning some cash I'm sure they'll enjoy that.

I have plans for the Scoundrel style ring of thieves session that will involve working for the Hutt's posing as Imperials to rip off the Black Sun. Should be a good time. Point being there will be lots of Deception, Charm, Coercion, Slicing, Skulduggery going on in that session, which will lead to money and smiles I'm sure.

I think one of the keys to pushing players to diversify is going to be in forcing the group into situations where they are separated. The problem comes up in this being a terrible idea in, say, a D&D game much of the time. So much so that one player in my group makes an issue out of even the suggestion of splitting up, often browbeating anyone thinking about it into staying with the party.

The other problems with this approach are that it can be difficult to challenge more than one group of players at a time equitably (ie., you don't have the slicer and mechanic go off to do something that has little danger, while the rest of the group is having a shootout, but also don't put the slicer and mechanic, who may have little or no combat proficiency--think C3PO--in a situation where they are going to get killed), and it can be difficult, as a GM, to run scenarios for more than one group at a time. It's tough to divide your attention like that, and can easily lead to some people at the table getting bored and antsy, because they aren't doing anything for too long.

Still, I think it's something of a necessity in this sort of game, and especially in this particular setting. The Star Wars movies and books are all about splitting up characters--Jedi stuff almost never happens with the other major characters around, and everyone breaks off into different groups constantly. This helps to showcase characters in situations where they can shine without being overshadowed by someone who may be better at solving a particular challenge than they are, and forces players to find ways out of situations that they aren't well-suited for. In mechanics terms, it's really the only way to really emphasize to players the need for diversification without being explicit about it.

For example, a character in my game is very heavily combat focused, but so far is content in this, because he says, "I'll assist you with X," for a variety of skills, and feels that adding a Boost die to a check is enough of a contribution, apparently. He hasn't had to act on his own, or be the one rolling those skill checks, because there's always been someone around who's proficient with them. Put him in enough situations where he has to do some quick mechanics, or some fancy piloting, or talk his way through some trouble, and maybe he'll start to look at the character more roundly, and realize he needs to dial back the specialization a little.

And maybe not.

The PCs for my ongoing game have just started clearing the 300xp mark. I have kept the challenges diverse from Session 1. Of course the proportions slant more towards what they have been building proficiency at but I still keep it diverse enough for them to keep building wider skill bases. Only one PC in my group at this time has 5 proficiency dice in their main skill and that player rushed that one and is now moving toward greater diversity to accommodate the range of challenges I throw at them. By the time the rest of the career books come out and my players can get Career Signature Abilities for their characters (none of them are playing Hired Guns or Explorers at this time), I can see them having enough to keep them busy with their XP well into the 2k mark between multiple Specializations and Career Signature Abilities.

Multiple characters in the group have Big Epic Goals that they are working towards that can occupy them with growing challenges as they work towards them. For example, the Mandalorian Assassin in my game who is now running Agility 5 and Ranged-Heavy 5 has gotten the notion that he wants to become Mandalore someday. So he is now working on Mercenary Soldier spec and his Leadership abilities to work towards that goal. The challenges will scale accordingly the further he walks along that path. I am doing similar scaling on relevant challenges in relation to other PCs goals as well.

I suppose if your player group has wimpy goals, then yeah it's hard to justify bringing out the big guns on them in the various arenas of challenge. Perhaps the best advice is just to tell your players to Dream Big.

I suppose if your player group has wimpy goals, then yeah it's hard to justify bringing out the big guns on them in the various arenas of challenge. Perhaps the best advice is just to tell your players to Dream Big.

A healthy philosophy. Dream big, or go home. Its a Space Opera after all!

We're not Luke. We're not Obi Wan. We're not Han, Chewie or Leia.

We're the guys they call when they get into trouble.

As a an add-on to splitting up the party, this is a lot easier to do in this system. My group has split multiple times, and I always inwardly cringe.

However, I have found that because preparation is fast and the game moves so fast mechanically, I have had very little problem keeping up.

Also, I can use the activities of one group to put a kind of tension or pressure on the other group, especially if their simultaneous activities are time sensitive. After the smoke clears, there is usually a satisfying release of held breath.

Would I do that with other systems? Unlikely.

Also, one of our biggest problems with such an innovative system is casting off the habits of twenty +/- years of gaming. This is no slag on other systems specifically, just the observation that humans fear change and hold on to the familiar, and it sometimes takes conscious effort to start fresh.

Also, I can use the activities of one group to put a kind of tension or pressure on the other group, especially if their simultaneous activities are time sensitive. After the smoke clears, there is usually a satisfying release of held breath.

Would I do that with other systems? Unlikely.

I ran one simul-fight, and I highly recommend it. Its just like in the movies when it keeps cutting back and forth from one scene to the other.

On Cholgana, the Retreat was been attacked by Imperials, and just as that started, the rear cargo doors on the player's ship was blasted open. It was very memorable...

I'd never try that in another game system. Its hard to balance, let alone manage. It flowed rather well in EOTE.

I think the best way to force everyone to diversity is to have situations crop up at least once per session where EVERYONE has to make a certain kind of skill check.

I think it might be better to have a discussion with players about the need to diversify even before session zero. This way they've been informed up front and can develop their characters accordingly, and no one feels as if they're being forced to do anything. If they fail to diversify the skill sets of their characters and repeatedly run afoul of obstacles as a result it's either chance or design, but not ever because the GM is specifically "out to get them".

I am a firm proponent of talking to your players and managing expectations. It's not something I've personally encountered as a player as much as I'd like to have. GM's, in my experience, either don't want to take the time to talk to the players about what's coming up, don't have a good enough campaign outline, or are deathly afraid that they'll give away something important that the players should discover during play (and then, IME, hide that information behind skill checks in areas none of us knew to fill in, because...yeah)

At the end of my last session, I granted folks 10 XP, and I'm going to make them (again), that they can super-specialize, but that might not be the best approach. I've already told them a generalized campaign outline...where I expect things to go if they don't take things too far off-course, and last session was FILLED with opportunities for the entire group to make checks. Hopefully, they'll get the point.

Our PC's are now at a 95xp point but I already see the difference between the players. Some are quite versatile, looking for a balanced character that has a good set of talents and skills whereas others stick everything into one skill and seem to want to max that particular thing out as quickly as possible. Our assassin for instance now has 4 points in Ranged Heavy to accompany her 4 agility, our Pilot is investing heavily in talents and our Politico is spending XP all over the board.

This creates a situation where my pilot is constantely taking setback dice out off the game, the Assassin is hitting pretty much everything she aims at and our politico is seeing himself grow more and more useful at pretty much everything.

It is fun!

I don't know about 1000+ xp mentioned earlier in this game.

But our group has a Wookie Marauder with Heavy Battle Armor and a Vibroaxe, and a Gand Gadgeteer with Laminate and a Heavy Blaster Rifle.

Both are sitting on 250xp, the Wookie cannot be killed unless you go for his Strain (preferably with the active Stun), and he will crit you to death with his Vibro Axe. And the Gand slapped Jury Rigged and Superior on his Heavy Blaster Rifle, thus letting him trigger the Auto-Fire effect with a single uncancelled Advantage result on the die, he will kill almost anything he shoots at in a single round.

Does this diminish the fun at all for our group? Not at all. We cheer for eachother, and loudly, when one of us pulls off something spectacular like a particularly awesome kill against a well-statted foe.

The Wookie player is using his awesomeness to become Champion of the Arena at the Wheel, and the Gand is marketing himself like a more affordable Boba Fett. These players know their PCs are awesome and hard to kill, and it lets us play truly heroic characters. And we like this.

I never DID hit level 20 with any character in D&D.

Does this diminish the fun at all for our group? Not at all. We cheer for eachother, and loudly, when one of us pulls off something spectacular like a particularly awesome kill against a well-statted foe.

See, this is the part I sometimes think people don't get or they focus in on the rule minutiae too much imo. Are you having fun?? I guess for some GMs they aren't enjoying themselves unless they do at least 43.76% damage to every group member per combat. If Player X shoots a bad guy with a blaster machine gun, somehow the bad guy shouldn't be shot to pieces. I don't get it.

If you GM your focus should be on creativity and presenting a good story, whether your own or a canned adventure. You should enjoy being a host. You should enjoy entertaining people and making them laugh. If your focus is doing X amount of damage per turn or the game is broken I think you're missing the point. I don't think RPGing is your thing and you'd probably be happier with a tabletop skirmish game.

I don't fret over the soak monster too much because when combat occurs there is more point to it than a comparison of damage output and defense mitigation at my table. If the point of the combat was rescuing a hostage and they are killed, then the soak monster failed. It doesn't matter if they didn't take damage. My games have an objective and simply not suffering any damage doesn't automatically equal success.

I don't fret over the soak monster too much because when combat occurs there is more point to it than a comparison of damage output and defense mitigation at my table. If the point of the combat was rescuing a hostage and they are killed, then the soak monster failed. It doesn't matter if they didn't take damage. My games have an objective and simply not suffering any damage doesn't automatically equal success.

This. It's a challenge that puts the group beyond something than just defeat the stormtrooper minions. Having an objective that's beyond the scope of simple combat likely makes the group think a bit more and can provide an excellent means to execute their skills, while also being put in a situation where they need to think outside of just rolling their way to victory.

When the group gets high in experience, putting them in more serious and challenging situations that are creative from a storytelling perspective is a shift, we as GMs typically need to adjust with as well as allowing the PCs to enjoy roleplaying their wookiee soak monster murdering countless hordes of nameless minions...