I was just pointing out there is little benefit to the Scholar tree that does much for someone who just has a decent intellect and a point or two in the skill.

I think this is a bit subjective - as previously mentioned, realistically this is the same for every skill. I see what you're saying about knowledge checks, but if we go by the CRB, success gives general knowledge about something with Adv reducing the time it takes to figure it out (If I'm mistaken correct me as I don't have the book with me). The more successes, the more precise things get.

Here's an example: Let's the you give the group an objective is in the Outer Rim, if the player rolls one success no advantages on the roll, they'll figure out that the objective is in Hutt Space, but it may take them the entire day to figure that out. The player would need to dedicate game time to research the objective and where it might be, scanning the various literature on the Outer Rim looking for something specific. Let's say that character rolls an advantage, he'll get the same level of Knowledge, but faster... Maybe it takes him 6 hours... Now, if he generates more successes, he may find out that it's located in the Rorak sector, more successes, Rorak 5, more successes a certain Hutt has what you're looking for, more successes he's located here, more success, here's the defenses. Yes, it's a bit of a tedious process, but that's the way Knowledge, as written seemingly works (beyond the basics like adding/removing dice).

So, taking that into consideration, a Scholar will be more proficient at finding things, faster than a PC with high INT and a rank in a Knowledge skill. At the same time, any specialization can arguably do what your saying with any skill. A high agility Pilot can shoot a Blaster just fine, without any ranks in Ranged (Light) or Ranged (Heavy) - will they be as good as a Mercenary Soldier at killing things? No, but they can still cause damage. It's vice-versa as a Mercenary Soldier can be a decent Pilot with 4 AGI and no ranks in Piloting as well. To be honest, the Piloting skill is a bit ambiguous with Extra Successes and Advantages as well outside of opposed checks - if you make a successful piloting check, you're rewarded with not crashing. Extra successes and advantages give way to what can improve the vessel or how the pilot can do that particular situation better, which can be done by a Mechanic or high INT. Heck, even a 1AGI Trandoshan can fly in ship-to-ship combat with the only real drawback being sucking at Gain the Advantage. Fact of the matter is most PCs can do A LOT of general things if they have a high characteristic, and succeed, it isn't just knowledge. Talent trees provide a means for players to do a handful of specific things better.

If GMs don't want to use Knowledge skills because they don't fit in the type of game their running, or the players aren't interested in using them, its understandable. But equally, if a GM and players want to run a game based off knowledge skills the way they are mentioned in the book, the skills are available as tools for that type of system. While the latter may be 'boring' for some, others enjoy that style so I don't think there's necessarily a right or wrong answer here regarding skill use, other than to say that its going to depend on the game.

The problem is I'm not entitled to my opinion in your opinion, or put another way, you don't care if you're viewed as being insulting or not, and don't care what someone else thinks or feels.

*shrugs*

I guess that's on you man, because I'm not being insulting. Believe me that every single person reading this thread would know beyond a shadow of a doubt if I was insulting you. And yes, you have in fact ignored 50 percent of the build by just focusing on skills to the exclusion of all other. That is myopic.

Lets go back to the original question:

Do you have a scholar in your game? (someone with a primary focus on knowledge skills applies too) Are scholars useful in your game? Do scholars work better in more open ended games, or do they thrive in either railroad/open games? Do scholars feel like a difficult class to play?

Do I have a scholar in your game? No, a politico, but close enough by Hencook's standards that it counts.

Are scholars useful in my game? In MY game? Absolutely - the talents can really make the talking people shine.

Do scholars work better in more open ended games? I think they could be useful in either case - per my example a couple pages back citing the dinner party from Long Arm of the Hutt, and how gathering information on Duke Piddok can make things interesting and run smoother.

Do scholars feel like a difficult class to play? Lets open that up - are support classes difficult to play. Yes, in their own way. If you're looking for someone to throw down and do the heavy combat lifting, then yes, you'll find them quickly boring. However, after playing a long running faceman under the WEG engine and a primarily debuffing super hero in Champions for years - someone fast talks the enemy over shooting the enemy and someone who debuffs the enemy and buffs your side can be still be a blast. Just in their own way.

Knowledge skills are quite dependent on a GM. A GM can summarily take different approaches:

1. Go easy on the players. If they have a particular skill like Gunnery, the skill is somewhat houseruled into becoming an equal amount of ranks in Knowledge (Gunnery)
2. Go hard on the players. Steer the campaign to include all types of skill checks, regardless if the players have the skill or not. If a player runs into a situation where they needed a good knowledge checker but don't have one, they can either take the more difficult route (Han runs into 200 storm troopers) or pay someone (like Obi-wan paying Dex for the dart info).
3. Go easy on the players if they don't have a scholar/knowledge guy. If they do have a knowledge guy, go hard on them to show how useful the scholar guy is.

I would like the record to state that I in no way meant any insult to you 2P51. So if I said anything that came across as such I appologize. I might disagree completely with you on this but I do not disrespect your opinion.

Having said that I do not appologize for not agreeing with and engaging you in a discussion. I don't think telling someone it comes down to imagination is any worse than people telling someone the character they are invested in is useless. Sometimes these discussions get heated but it is unreasonable to act like a victim when they do, no one in this discussion was in anyway "piling on" from where I was standing you just happened to disagree with 3 people (and agreeing with 2 for that matter) who irrespectively of each other engaged you in a discussion about it. That is what these boards are for anyway, but I agree that we should remain respectful of each other even if you disagree with someone.

An RPG game is a cooperative art like a movie or TV series. All of the actors in the show have to have their share of "screen time" in the "spotlight".

It is incumbent in the players to build characters that have a purpose within the game/campaign being run.

It is incumbent on the GM to create a campaign that will allow the players to build characters that they find interesting and will enjoy playing.

But it is a trade off, not all campaigns can support all career/specializations.

If the GM and the Players both agree to an Archeologist or a Scholar, then by that agreement the GM has to provide "scenes" that require those archetypes. A campaign is not just a bunch of random PC's doing random stuff. It is an overall story arc with the PC's as major characters in the drama. The only difference between a show and a RPG is that the PC's have input and can make unscripted decisions/actions. But just like the GM's obligation to provide a good story of the PC's, the players are obligated to make their decisions/actions in a manner that fits the campaign world they are in. The game is not a personal platform for one or two players, it is a cooperative story for everyone.

To me Intellect and Knowledge are not the same. Without Knowledge my Intellect has nothing to base a decision on. No matter how smart I am I could not tell you who the current money launderer is for the biggest crime syndicate in real world Moscow or San Fransisco right now. The same is true in the game, without Underworld I could have an Intellect of 100 and no amount of Triumphs will tell me who the head of the Cartel on Coruscant is. Is it possible that a different skill such as Streetwise or another relevant skill could serve instead? Absolutely.

And if they fail the roll? Is that the end? Also absolutely NOT. Failure to make the roll only means that you don't get the answer directly. Instead I give another clue that will eventually lead to the information. That is what the GM's job is.

To present the opportunities for the players to have their time in the spotlight and to make sure everyone is relevant.

But that doesn't mean that treating Knowledge skills and Intellect as interchangeable is in anyway wrong. It may not be my choice, but if you are comfortable with it and your players are having fun, then you are "doing it right".

In the end if the "show" is a blockbuster, then the show is a success whether I personally enjoyed it or not.

[,,,] The whole dog piling thing occurs here at times and is precisely why Maelora doesn't post anymore, [...]

I better poor some dice out of my dice bag for my homies.

To me Intellect and Knowledge are not the same. Without Knowledge my Intellect has nothing to base a decision on. No matter how smart I am I could not tell you who the current money launderer is for the biggest crime syndicate in real world Moscow or San Fransisco right now. The same is true in the game, without Underworld I could have an Intellect of 100 and no amount of Triumphs will tell me who the head of the Cartel on Coruscant is. Is it possible that a different skill such as Streetwise or another relevant skill could serve instead? Absolutely.

This game assumes that all characters are broadly competent. Even if a character has never flown a starship, they can attempt it at their base Agility, and even someone without any medical training can attempt to treat wounds. Knowledge skills are no different. Even without any ranks (which represent dedicated effort in developing proficiency) the character has a lifetime of exposure to the galaxy and what it contains. With a high enough Intellect, the character can potentially recall a great deal. Characters with training can do so more reliably and have chances at outstanding capabilities (Triumphs).

To me Intellect and Knowledge are not the same. Without Knowledge my Intellect has nothing to base a decision on. No matter how smart I am I could not tell you who the current money launderer is for the biggest crime syndicate in real world Moscow or San Fransisco right now. The same is true in the game, without Underworld I could have an Intellect of 100 and no amount of Triumphs will tell me who the head of the Cartel on Coruscant is. Is it possible that a different skill such as Streetwise or another relevant skill could serve instead? Absolutely.

This game assumes that all characters are broadly competent. Even if a character has never flown a starship, they can attempt it at their base Agility, and even someone without any medical training can attempt to treat wounds. Knowledge skills are no different. Even without any ranks (which represent dedicated effort in developing proficiency) the character has a lifetime of exposure to the galaxy and what it contains. With a high enough Intellect, the character can potentially recall a great deal. Characters with training can do so more reliably and have chances at outstanding capabilities (Triumphs).

Absolutely, and yet nothing you said disagrees with anything I said.

"Recalling a great deal" or "being broadly competent" is not the same as knowing specific specialized details. Einstein was a genius, but I doubt he could have told you the names of the primary Soviet Agents in the US at the time he lived there. It is not that Einstein was an idiot or lacked intelligence. It was because 'general' exposure to information does not fill in specialized details.

If a characteristic can simply replace skills, then why have skills?

But this should be looked at as a positive not a negative. All characters need to have a reason to occupy the spot light. Skills do not prevent the PC from accomplishing their goals, instead they add to each PC's uniqueness and promote their ability to shine in the spotlight.

Sure a person without a medical degree or license can perform first aid. I am not a medical professional but the emergency procedures I learned while in the Navy have served very well in the past. But while they managed things at a basic level, they were in no way as competent as the EMT's were when they arrived or the doc at the emergency room. And even with that training there is no way I can step into a surgical theater and perform a surgical procedure. And I was not simply "broadly competent", I was specifically trained in emergency procedures.

The same for Knowledge. Having a broad general knowledge of a area is not the same thing as being trained in it or deliberate study of a specific area.

When I first saw the limited skills, I mean one skill to cover all of the Galaxies Underworld? Really. Then I realized exactly what you said above. The skills themselves are supposed to represent a broad understanding of their area.

But if you go too broad you will undermine the need for any skills at all. EotE has one of the shortest skill lists I have seen in an RPG. There are a couple that have less, but their mechanics almost eliminate the need for a skill mechanic at all, such as FATE.

While there is no wrong answer in this and I fully agree that if it works for a persons game, then it is the correct thing to do. I do, personally, think that diluting the skills too far removes a tool that would have given PC's yet another way to shine. Just an opinion

EotE has one of the shortest skill lists I have seen in an RPG.

Thank the Force. Skill bloat is one of the most obnoxious things in a number of systems (usually crunchier systems than this one).

And as to your examples: those are great real-world examples of the narrowness of knowledge and training BUT this game is not intended to provide a real-world simulation anywhere near as closely as many other games. The skills as they are fit the mechanics' central conceits of "cinematic," "relatively rules-light" and "creating an in-game environment that is true to the movies."

EotE has one of the shortest skill lists I have seen in an RPG.

Thank the Force. Skill bloat is one of the most obnoxious things in a number of systems (usually crunchier systems than this one).

And as to your examples: those are great real-world examples of the narrowness of knowledge and training BUT this game is not intended to provide a real-world simulation anywhere near as closely as many other games. The skills as they are fit the mechanics' central conceits of "cinematic," "relatively rules-light" and "creating an in-game environment that is true to the movies."

Absolutely. So you agree with me

The assertion that I don't agree with is that all the existing EotE skills can simply be replaced with Intellect rolls. ie a person that does not have a EotE skills can find out everything simply by rolling well with Intellect.

The assertion that I don't agree with is that all the existing EotE skills can simply be replaced with Intellect rolls. ie a person that does not have a EotE skills can find out everything simply by rolling well with Intellect.

Exactly! But even someone without proficiency can sometimes 'get lucky' and outperforms someone that is trained in a specific skill, even if just for a moment. Whether its a rush of adrenaline, a simple stroke of genius or by pure luck, as the book mentions, the setup of the game allows for this to happen (since it's dice rolls and partially based of luck..) Will they be able to create a masterpiece? No. Will they sometimes get lucky and out do someone trained in a specific area? Sure, but not often. From an RP perspective, it may not be as elegant as a Proficient skill success, but that's the fun on player interpreting their dice.

If a Scholar gets one success, he may recall the information from his studies, or know where he can locate the information in question. If the Hired Gun rolls two successes (with no training in the skill), he might be able to say, hey I remember encountering one of these things on a merc visit to this place... There hired gun won't be able to do it as often, or as fast as the scholar, but every once in a while, they'll be able to provide some help.

The assertion that I don't agree with is that all the existing EotE skills can simply be replaced with Intellect rolls. ie a person that does not have a EotE skills can find out everything simply by rolling well with Intellect.

Exactly! But even someone without proficiency can sometimes 'get lucky' and outperforms someone that is trained in a specific skill, even if just for a moment. Whether its a rush of adrenaline, a simple stroke of genius or by pure luck, as the book mentions, the setup of the game allows for this to happen (since it's dice rolls and partially based of luck..) Will they be able to create a masterpiece? No. Will they sometimes get lucky and out do someone trained in a specific area? Sure, but not often. From an RP perspective, it may not be as elegant as a Proficient skill success, but that's the fun on player interpreting their dice.

If a Scholar gets one success, he may recall the information from his studies, or know where he can locate the information in question. If the Hired Gun rolls two successes (with no training in the skill), he might be able to say, hey I remember encountering one of these things on a merc visit to this place... There hired gun won't be able to do it as often, or as fast as the scholar, but every once in a while, they'll be able to provide some help.

I'm right with you. We are thinking down the same line.

I try to set the bar based on the PC's and the need to support the PC's value.

If the group has someone with certain skills, that player can justifiably expect to receive value for selecting the career/specialty and/or spending points to get the skills. If a PC has the skills in question I tend to make alternative routes a little more difficult in order to focus the spotlight on the PC's that have filled that niche.

If no one in the group has the specific skill, then I am much more open to related skills, other option and pure luck.

But even if the skill is in a PC's stable, another PC that can try and if they come up with a really good reason based on Role-play and their character concept I will go with that too!

In my opinion the RAW is not a concrete set of requirements. It is a guide to help shape the adventure and I will deviate in a heart beat if it supports a great session. But I am always mindful that stealing the spotlight from a PC in that PC's area of expertise is not good.

I am glad the specialization is there, but I would assume it is not going to be a common pick for a space action/adventure setting. There isn't the same iconic representation as there is for other specs.

I am glad the specialization is there, but I would assume it is not going to be a common pick for a space action/adventure setting. There isn't the same iconic representation as there is for other specs.

You say that, but do you really think it is less iconic than driver, trader, etc.?

I guess I must have a soft spot for the odd-one-out because I instantely saw myself playing this career...

I am glad the specialization is there, but I would assume it is not going to be a common pick for a space action/adventure setting. There isn't the same iconic representation as there is for other specs.

You say that, but do you really think it is less iconic than driver, trader, etc.?

I guess I must have a soft spot for the odd-one-out because I instantely saw myself playing this career...

I'm not saying it has no place in the game. I'm also not saying that it is in some way inferior. It just makes sense why people don't choose it as often (or select it as a second spec). There are other specs that receive little love too for similar reasons.

I hope FFG keeps including them.

I agree.

Agree, however I would think the knowledge check to be average, the piloting check difficult and the mechanics check daunting.

Oh there should be a sliding scale of difficulty for the skill - and in fact there's precedence, the Mechanics to repair damage to a ship on the fly is only <><>, but using the Brawn skill (basically hefting a chunk of hull over the hull and slapdash-edly welding it into place) is <><><>. I could see a dedicated I Know Ships knowledge skill being as low as a <>, general mechanics being <><> and piloting being <><><> for identifying a ship.

Old post but the outlaw tech does have a known shmatic talent

(Modified, of course, on other circumstances surrounding the check)

IT'S the GM-- the GM need to make sure the game sessions should contain interesting things for each character. It's a little work to make a story involve rolls and interesting things for each character but doing so will make the character feel like they chose wisely. The doctor in my group will be mending players left and right but I noticed he has Intel xeno so I make sure there are some checks that relate to xeno...basically taking their main skills and second and third highest skills and making sure those play vital rolls in each game session or at least multiple rolls can be done by multiple characters skills.

It's a juggle but I make sure that a session will make characters shine and make them not regret they can talk a woman in a white dress into buying a ketchup Popsicle goes to waste when all there is is computer slicing and combat.

Nothing should be left off the table. Sometimes you look at the trees and just wonder "why the hell would I need all these Lores and knowledges when there is only space battles?

I quoted wrong before (annoying on phone will fix later)

I'm struggling to find places the scholar can use the researcher talent and respected scholar.

It would be nice if ffg gave one example of these narrative talents getting put to use

This is tricky.

Does the weight of all the narrative fall onto the GM?

Does the GM expect or even want participation off the players?

Do the players get involved?

I think a certain type of character could be a blast for all if the GM allows the players to control the narrative somewhat and the players are creative enough as to try and explore a variety of different ways to work towards their groups goals.

But the amount of and usefulness of that imput will vary from group to group because the fundamental answers to those questions I pose. 100%, no and no will be quite a different campaign feel to 50/50, yes and definately yes.

In our last game session, the players were negotiating with a Trandoshan. Negotiating would have been very easy if the players had understood what the Trandoshan wanted and how they were annoying it. I asked who had Xenology. No-one did. They chose how they would try to get the information from the Trandoshan and decided to use Charm to try and befriend him, make peace (mainly because one of the PCs had good Charm skills) so that he'd release the information. It didn't work. The Trandoshan was only interested in trophies and opportunities to advance his clan. Both of which the PCs had ample opportunity to address and one of them had taken the bowcaster that a killed wookie the Trandoshans had been fighting. After the initial disastrous negotiation, one of the players hit upon the idea of giving back the bow-caster and I then allowed them to try again with a different, Negotiation roll. But all of this (and near disaster) could have been averted by a simple successful Xenology roll that would have told them Trandoshans are a culture based around hunting and score-keeping. They were never going to get anywhere whilst stealing trophies and offering nothing in return for what they wanted.

Common sense or empathy might as been as useful

I've never seen Scholar in my games, or much of the knowledge skills in use. I suspect there's a general fear that knowledge checks are kind of useless in EotE. Knowledge checks seem difficult to directly apply to a situation, usually resulting in a boost die to aid the next skill checker with his test on any subject. (Like telling a hunter where to shoot, etc). I'm not claiming that scholars are useless, just that people in general approach the skillset of knowledge to be useless. I would like to be enlightened.

Do you have a scholar in your game? (someone with a primary focus on knowledge skills applies too) Are scholars useful in your game? Do scholars work better in more open ended games, or do they thrive in either railroad/open games? Do scholars feel like a difficult class to play?

During prep for a session I always consider placement of where a few knowledge checks (strange symbols, artifacts, people, historic facts of organization and groups) that the players can perform, because I always like to have some sort of opportunity for investigation For them. It's a great way to bring depth to story and when knowledge checks are passed it can give the players a better idea of why certain things are happening to them and maybe a better understanding of the consequences certain actions They may take can cause.

Common sense or empathy might as been as useful

I'm not familiar with a skill called Common Sense nor see how it tells you what an alien culture is like. As to Empathy, well they already knew that the Trandoshan didn't like them and wasn't happy, but it's not going to magically tell you what a Trandoshan values. And similarly, there is no skill named Empathy. Xenology is the appropriate skill here. Read the description of it - it opens with the "motivations, biologies and cultures" of alien species and references explicitly knowing what alien races want. I don't think any other skill is appropriate in this instance.