Squad Leader has 2 ranks.

Well that is nice. I wonder if it will still have both ranks in the finished version.

I didn't do EoE beta so I've no idea how much departure there was from that one's final errata to the core book. I know there were tweaks to the talent trees during AoR, but I think I've got the final versions of AoR talent trees for Beta and at least as of then it had 2 ranks.

To what degree do the GMs here have the PC builds dictate the scale of the different aspects of their game?

E.g. when Joe builds the berzerker god of dual chainsaws, is that a hint that he's tired of fighting plebs and wants to fight the most excellent swordsmen (and wimins) in the galaxy?

E.g. when Sue builds a YYYY charmer, I'm guessing she's expecting to be liked by all, and that even those sent to arrest her'll be laughing at her jokes. Is the GM then required to offer her situations where talking her way out of it will be very difficult (though not impossible, otherwise she's wasted all her points)?

To what degree do the GMs here have the PC builds dictate the scale of the different aspects of their game?

E.g. when Joe builds the berzerker god of dual chainsaws, is that a hint that he's tired of fighting plebs and wants to fight the most excellent swordsmen (and wimins) in the galaxy?

E.g. when Sue builds a YYYY charmer, I'm guessing she's expecting to be liked by all, and that even those sent to arrest her'll be laughing at her jokes. Is the GM then required to offer her situations where talking her way out of it will be very difficult (though not impossible, otherwise she's wasted all her points)?

I give the players what they want. The melee monster or soak monster gets minions and others to wade through so he can feel like the god of combat or I give lots of reasons for the charmer or slicer to use their abilities even if they seem like mundane at times. Plus the players come up with ways too.

What's the point of being the best there is at what you do if you aren't the best or you never get to do it?

To what degree do the GMs here have the PC builds dictate the scale of the different aspects of their game?

I enjoy it when a GM plays both to my strengths and my weaknesses. I feel that the GM should throw a player a bone and cater to what they built the character for every once in a while. They also shouldn't cater to every whim. A player needs to know what the weaknesses of their character are and be shown why they should branch out instead of being narrow focused.

I once had a GM who only played to our weaknesses and avoided our strengths. Are you resistant to fire attacks? Then you'll never see another fire attack. Are you really good at dealing fire damage? Then you'll never see anything vulnerable to fire attacks. That, I'll tell you, got to be no fun.

Interesting question Col. Orange, but what does it have to do with Smuggler:Pilot and Ace:Pilot being the same specialization?

I give the players what they want. The melee monster or soak monster gets minions and others to wade through so he can feel like the god of combat or I give lots of reasons for the charmer or slicer to use their abilities even if they seem like mundane at times. Plus the players come up with ways too.

What's the point of being the best there is at what you do if you aren't the best or you never get to do it?

I love this. But it means I don't know how to say the following without sounding like a **** - do you find that this limits the stories your group can tell?

By way of explaination:

I had a long running game of Warhammer a few years ago (using GURPS of all things) and the PCs were knocking around in Marienburg during a time when it looked like the Empire was going to invade. The players really enjoyed the campaign and did some amazing things to shape the story (sometimes wisely, sometimes to their detriment).

What the Empire was doing with the city's underworld to undermine its defences was a big plot point. Unfortunately this meant that many of the combat challenges fell flat - I couldn't throw truly dangerous people at them because I couldn't believe such folk would still be hanging around the poor districts (they'd have become personal guards or judicial champions or whatever for merchant lords).

It’s probably a bad idea to second guess myself like this - the players had fun after all - but it just feels like it would have been more exhilarating for them if they'd been less capable (and so in more danger).

I enjoy it when a GM plays both to my strengths and my weaknesses. I feel that the GM should throw a player a bone and cater to what they built the character for every once in a while. They also shouldn't cater to every whim. A player needs to know what the weaknesses of their character are and be shown why they should branch out instead of being narrow focused.

I once had a GM who only played to our weaknesses and avoided our strengths. Are you resistant to fire attacks? Then you'll never see another fire attack. Are you really good at dealing fire damage? Then you'll never see anything vulnerable to fire attacks. That, I'll tell you, got to be no fun.

Interesting question Col. Orange, but what does it have to do with Smuggler:Pilot and Ace:Pilot being the same specialization?

Related to the potential problem overspecializtion may cause. And the player choice vs. group fun balancing act.

I don't see spec selection as the principal indicator of over specialization personally. Unless there is a corresponding over emphasis on a single characteristic then to me there isn't a worry.

The example of the melee centric soak monster Marauder is used, but depending on race that player could have a 4 in Brawn and a 4 in something else potentially, or a 4 and 3. If they go 5 in Brawn then I think you have a case of over specialization likely. If they go with a 4/4 or 4/3 combo, then their dice pool is going to be varied enough I don't look at them as over specialized.

In the case of Pilot, if they focus their characteristics the same with Agility and Cunning, there are just too many skills that dovetail off of those characteristics to consider someone who focuses their spec selections on Pilot as over specialized. If they went 5 Agility then I think there might be an argument, but even then I'm not convinced since high Agility makes you by default good with blasters, Coordination, Stealth.

Spec selection alone does not indicate over specialization.

I love this. But it means I don't know how to say the following without sounding like a **** - do you find that this limits the stories your group can tell?

Not that I find. Ultimately the goal is for everyone to have fun. I find that the random nature of RPGs is more than enough for the occasional "put the fear of the GM" into any player. Any challenge has the potential for failure no matter how good your character is. You may breeze through all the easy difficulty moments, but then that daunting one comes up and even though a player can potentially make it look easy, that's where he fraks up. It is one of the reasons I find RGPs so much fun. When the characters are working the way the players designed them, they are usually enjoying them. I can challenge them in other areas, kick them in the dump stats or whatever if I choose to, but for the most part I let them run with their concept.