Consider buying into an out of Career skill. Most of us did at our table to give our characters depth. We were hesitant at first due to the XP cost, but were better off for it.

Running with the idea of comic relief posted earlier... Increase Charm and make a list of one liners from movies or books. Use them while in social situations and try to be funny, or to lighten up a tense situation.

Just a thought.

Rogue7, First off, welcome to RPGs, I hope you enjoy them. Let your imagination take over and let loose.

Now I have a similar situation within my group. One of my players is a droid that is entirely combat oriented. He throws [now] 5 Proficiency dice, 1 Ability die, 3 boost dice, and generally only 4 difficulty against any enemy he gets the jump on. Now granted this is due to True Aim + Aim, then fire with an Auto-firing gun. I hate it as the GM, because he's a 1 man tank then wrecks any fight no matter what. When you can 1 roll kill a Krayt Dragon with its 12 soak, and 55 wounds.. you may be a bit too strong for anything in the game. [He pierces 5 soak mind you] Now I do not agree that everyone should just shoot down your opinions or ideas, thats a terrible thing, but from the way I understand this game, Having 2 Proficiency dice and 1 ability is a good roll. When you start getting into like 4 Proficiency or more..it starts to get annoying to find encounters that are balanced enough for everyone else in the party in terms of fun. Its like in the older SW rpgs, Do you play all Jedi.. or no Jedi at all. The Jedi are going to fight the cool super stuff..and the non-jedi are going to stand there with a silly look on their face.

Even now, before F&D comes out, a Jedi character can be so insanely powerful. Force Move for example, if the Jedi player gets 4 light pips, can throw a Starship [sil 4] at extreme range, doing 40 damage to someone. However unlikely, it is possible to do with a Force Rating of 2, which only costs 75 xp within the Emergent tree to get to FR 2. [if I math right?]

Should you feel bad? No. You are doing things completely allowed within the game. Does it make it a pain sometimes? Probably, but you can always overcome it. Decide to take/buy/"acquire" your own 1 man ship, and do your own thing for a minute. Watch when all of those people who were against your powerful rolls beg you to come save them. Why should you? They never appreciated you before? Charge em for it, You are a Mandalorian! Getting paid for doing jobs is what you do, hon. A little extra on the side never hurt anyone!

To explain my character a bit better, I wanted to make someone who had a lot of raw skill and training but not much real world experience. IIRC my character is the youngest in the group. So as I use skills (that I didn’t get from boot camp) I spend xp on them. Like recently I’ve been using stealth quite frequently so it’s due for some upgrades once we get to a point where we can spend our xp.

So I think that part of the problem is me just being new to table top games. I’m not very good at role playing, I’m getting better, not I’m not as good as the others in the group. My inexperience is perhaps playing into the stereotype. Sometimes I’m not sure what to do with myself, and usually wait to see what everyone else is doing. Like one time our group was tracking down an informant\contact the bulk of the group decided to go into the lobby of the apartment building and charm their way past the clerk and guard. Not being good at social skills I decided to scale the building and break into the apartment from the outside. Before I went in I did a check for traps or alarms, and saw that the window and the door were rigged with explosives. I decided to wait for the rest of the group. Our droid was then able to disarm the bombs.

In our last session our talky guy was able to convince the leader or the yar yar clan to meet so we could “share” the treasure from the ship. While the main group of bad guys was distracted by the rest of my group I was able to sneak onto their ship. My plan was to stealth kill the guys left on the ship, but outside things went pair shaped pretty quick so I just went into T-800 mode.

I’m getting better at using the rest of my skills, and noticing opportunities to use them. I like it when I can spread my wings and be a bounty hunter, but I also enjoy putting a hole where someone’s face used to be

I'd still like to hear why the Jedi is so down on combat. I can't believe he went Jedi to talk things over.

Maybe he did 2P51, maybe he did.

Jedi: "Credits will be fine."

Dealer: "Credits will be fine, Not! Guards here is a Jedi, Guards!"

Jedi: "And now, we run."

In my opinion this issue has very little to do with a game system and everything to do with personality combinations at the table.

It is for sure more related to personality combinations as you say, but definitively there are many rpgs where the system does not allow you create this sort of characters, because the tools simply are not there to do it.

“Is it normal in table top games for people to hate the damage characters?”

Far from it. It sounds like your group is jealous because you ‘steal the spotlight’ in combat encounters. That would be as absurd as anyone being jealous of the ‘Face’ for stealing the spotlight in social encounters. In a group where the party is well-rounded, I expect 1-2 PCs to excel in combat. After all, this is Star Wars, not Star Tiddlywinks. And I'd expect the non-coms to be just as competent in their skills/talents. Anyone jealous of a character excelling in their chosen role... that’s silly.

Drawing from experience, my group consists of 3 Hired Guns (all different specs), 2 Bounty Hunters (Assassin, Gadgeteer), and a Smuggler/Thief-Scoundrel. The rest of the group is grateful for the Smuggler, because she takes on the role of ‘Face’ for the group. She also is very handy with Skulduggery, Computers, and underworld-type stuff. Because she does this, the rest of the group can focus on what they like: combat.

However, the group learned early on to take non-career skills, especially for when the Thief can’t make a session. She had all the skills the rest of the party lacked in the beginning: social, Skulduggery, Computers, etc. When we ran Jewel of Yavin, she did very well. But without her present, the group struggled in non-combat situations. Now at 250+ XP, the group does well enough to compensate for the fact that it is a combat-focused group. But they are professionals and far from murder-hobos (save for the drug-addicted Wookie marauder, who lives to hit things with his vibroaxe, but even he comes up with non-combat solutions for problems).

It sounds like your group prefers non-combat situations and dislikes combat-focused characters. That may be well and good, but again this is Star Wars. There will be times when the group faces a Nemesis that cannot be reasoned with or talked down. There will eventually be combat. They will need you. So play what you like, and if possible maybe pick up some non-combat skills here and there.

My final point is about min-maxing. Given the XP level of my group, from my experience min-maxing is not as much a problem with this system. The Gadgeteer started with an Intellect of 4, which was boosted to 5 with Dedication. She has Mechanics of 3. Thus she is extremely competent with her primary skill, does very well with Intellect-based skills, and does well in other areas of competency for her profession (i.e. combat, stealth, etc.) But she still fails with YYYGG from time to time, especially with repair rolls for the ship. Those with YYYY also fail from time to time. Even with the group’s highly-proficient combat skills, combat is never a sure thing. So I don’t mind if people start with 4 in a Characteristic score and increase that score to 5 later. I can still make any situation, combat or otherwise, challenging with a little creativity.

Rogue7, You mentioned that this one guy is giving you grief and the GM has said that it is a bit difficult to create encounters, but what about the rest of the group?

My guess is they're quiet, right? Well if they are then it's likely that that either don't care or are leaning towards agreeing with the grief guy. They may think this guy is an a$$ as well but that doesn't mean they don't agree with him. It seems like you just ended up in a group that doesn't like min-maxing or combat heavies so I'd suggest you start branching out your character's development to match the overall leaning of the group. Tell them thats what you're going to do and see how it goes. Or find another more combat heavy group to play in. Look role playing is a group thing and sometimes you have to go with the flow.

Personally I like more well rounded PCs, I think you get more interesting games when combat is more of a challenge.

As an aside, I'm not sure why the GM has a hard time developing encounters. That's what minion groups are for, or you can swarm the combat monster with ungrouped minions, meaning you can only kill one per turn. That'll keep the combat monster busy...

I think the group should have more respect for the fact that the original poster is new to the hobby and earnestly trying to make a fun character that will be useful to the group.

When people are making snide comments like "Well I guess we won't get to fight" or whatever, in a passive-aggressive way, to me that is a symbol of a bigger issue with the personalities.

definitively there are many rpgs where the system does not allow you create this sort of characters, because the tools simply are not there to do it.

Yep, the lack of 'out of combat' stuff is what ruined 4E D&D for me.,

I really like that EoE puts emphasis on different aspects of the game, more or less equally. This is Star Wars, so at some point, you're bound to have a battle and a chase scene. But other elements like investigation and diplomacy are equally important, to the point that many careers are built to have a wide range of options.

You don't have to be 'optimised' to contribute - in most cases, skills of 1 or 2 and stats of 2 or 3 will give you a pretty good chance because of the way the dice are weighted slightly towards the PCs.

I love the way that the published adventures have showcased different skills - playing in a SW game should be much more than constant MMO style 'raids' using min.maxed characters.

If you ever want to practice roleplaying, make a character that is intentionally NOT good at combat. By doing so, you'll instinctively try to avoid combat by any means. I wouldn't replace your current character, just if you get the chance in another campaign or game.

Also, it sounds like your "Pen-Guy" isn't considering how overpowered other characters become as well. My presence 5 charm 4 politico can charm just about anyone except a Hutt, and even then has a decent chance. Our Intelligence 5, mechanics and computers 4 Mechanic can mod and repair just about anything, slice anything, etc. The only difference is that combat is already statted in the books, while other skills are introduced as the GM presents them. Next time your "Pen Guy" throws down a charm roll (or whatever he's good at), roll your eyes and be like "Well I guess this encounter is over."

Next time your "Pen Guy" throws down a charm roll (or whatever he's good at), roll your eyes and be like "Well I guess this encounter is over."

Two wrongs don't make a right. This is supposed to be a fun thing for everyone.

Rather than be snarky back, raise the issue between games and talk about it like adults. If the player has a problem with you or your character, discuss it with your GM about ways you can all enjoy things.

Politely inform the other player that his attitude is bothering you, and try and find some compromise where you can both enjoy the game. If that means your character branching out into non-combat roles (like Mechanics), then consider it.

Next time your "Pen Guy" throws down a charm roll (or whatever he's good at), roll your eyes and be like "Well I guess this encounter is over."

Two wrongs don't make a right. This is supposed to be a fun thing for everyone.

Rather than be snarky back, raise the issue between games and talk about it like adults. If the player has a problem with you or your character, discuss it with your GM about ways you can all enjoy things.

Politely inform the other player that his attitude is bothering you, and try and find some compromise where you can both enjoy the game. If that means your character branching out into non-combat roles (like Mechanics), then consider it.

But isn't that what a good blaster in the @$$ is for?? (On stun of course)

Rogue7,

One thing has been tickling the back of my mind concerning your reply of some of the gaming sessions. When the group is doing activity X (bargaining with the pirates, or talking with the Hutt, or whatever else you mentioned), you said you took actions to go do action Y, or Z (sneak into the ship and steal stiff, climb the wall to break in to an upper story window). This _could_ be seen by other people at the table as trying to monopolize the game with actions for your character (common thing for new players to do, they _want_ to be involved in everything). It is not in itself a bad thing to want to be involved in what the party is doing (and I actively encourage players to DO things in the game, even if it is not their strong suit); however, if your choice of actions detracts from some other player from showing off what their character can do with their big dice pools (negotiating the AMAZING discount on MacGuffins so your group earns 250% profit, heals up the Governor's near death child earning you a nice safe haven), you may be crossing the line. Take actions, sure; try not to take actions that will derail what the party is trying to do.

You have the sneaky shooty guy. Great. Your party is negotiating a contract. Instead of trying to sneak in to steal the good you want (effectively removing the need to do the action your party-mates are doing), try sneaking to a sniper spot and protect the meeting from a rival gang. Maybe the rival gang will show up, and maybe they wont, but your action would be supporting the groups plans, rather than possibly running counter to it.

Possibly the biggest difference between Console/PC gaming and Table top is the Cooperative element, and things NOT being about combat. Pretty much all RPGs that get turned into computer games are about trading math and blowing stuff up when you boil it down. That is because doing math is what computers are REALLY good at. So, EVERY computer RPG boils down to killing things faster (or keeping your buddy alive longer, or taking more damage for a longer period). When your only tool is dealing damage, or healing damage, or taking damage (to use the standard MMORPG trinity), then EVERY problem starts to look like MOAR DPS, or MOAR HEALS, or MOAR ARMOR [when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail].

In the world of Tabletop there is never just one way to solve a problem, or even 10... there are incalculable ways to achieve the goal(s) desired. My personal character is the shoot-em-up guy in our group. I have been involved in precisely ONE combat so far, and it was very one sided in my favor. The rest of the time I did things like try to negotiate for a better price on armor I could not afford (with my 2 greens in Negotiate), or drank brandy at the bar, or generally relaxed and did nothing major until my skills became needed. My party supported me by helping me do the things that mechanically my character is not good at; and I return the favor. One hand washes the other.

Anyway, just something to thing about. I do not think anyone is flat out wrong here, though I do think there are things that can be done to mitigate hurt feelings in the future on all sides.

Kevynn

One thing has been tickling the back of my mind concerning your reply of some of the gaming sessions. When the group is doing activity X (bargaining with the pirates, or talking with the Hutt, or whatever else you mentioned), you said you took actions to go do action Y, or Z (sneak into the ship and steal stiff, climb the wall to break in to an upper story window). This _could_ be seen by other people at the table as trying to monopolize the game with actions for your character (common thing for new players to do, they _want_ to be involved in everything).

Agreed, that did strike me as setting oneself up to be at odds with the group.

Rogue7, You mentioned that this one guy is giving you grief and the GM has said that it is a bit difficult to create encounters, but what about the rest of the group?

My guess is they're quiet, right? Well if they are then it's likely that that either don't care or are leaning towards agreeing with the grief guy. They may think this guy is an a$$ as well but that doesn't mean they don't agree with him. It seems like you just ended up in a group that doesn't like min-maxing or combat heavies so I'd suggest you start branching out your character's development to match the overall leaning of the group. Tell them thats what you're going to do and see how it goes. Or find another more combat heavy group to play in. Look role playing is a group thing and sometimes you have to go with the flow.

Personally I like more well rounded PCs, I think you get more interesting games when combat is more of a challenge.

Yeah I think this is pretty close to the situation. I've been thinking of ways I can branch out but very few of the other non-shooty talent trees interest me. I'm really liking enforcer so I may give that a go when I have enough XP.

My group makeup is Talky/pilot, Tech guy/Medic, Force/melee/talky guy, Talky/melee/shooty guy, and the human turbo laser. I really do love my group tho, we've have some fantastic moments. The fun can sometimes grind to a halt when the bickering begins.

Rogue7,

One thing has been tickling the back of my mind concerning your reply of some of the gaming sessions. When the group is doing activity X (bargaining with the pirates, or talking with the Hutt, or whatever else you mentioned), you said you took actions to go do action Y, or Z (sneak into the ship and steal stiff, climb the wall to break in to an upper story window). This _could_ be seen by other people at the table as trying to monopolize the game with actions for your character (common thing for new players to do, they _want_ to be involved in everything). It is not in itself a bad thing to want to be involved in what the party is doing (and I actively encourage players to DO things in the game, even if it is not their strong suit); however, if your choice of actions detracts from some other player from showing off what their character can do with their big dice pools (negotiating the AMAZING discount on MacGuffins so your group earns 250% profit, heals up the Governor's near death child earning you a nice safe haven), you may be crossing the line. Take actions, sure; try not to take actions that will derail what the party is trying to do.

You have the sneaky shooty guy. Great. Your party is negotiating a contract. Instead of trying to sneak in to steal the good you want (effectively removing the need to do the action your party-mates are doing), try sneaking to a sniper spot and protect the meeting from a rival gang. Maybe the rival gang will show up, and maybe they wont, but your action would be supporting the groups plans, rather than possibly running counter to it.

It's generally more how a character is played rather than what sort of class/career they are that causes the most discontent. The name of the game is "Star Wars" which certainly would be ironic if there weren't any combat related fellows moving about.

^ I can't like that enough....

I think, if I'm reading the OP correctly, the problem is in "jumping the gun" so to speak. In EtoE violence isn't always the best solution (its always an option). A good percentage of the classes aren't even minimally equipped for it, out of the gate. Other avenues should be explored prior to shots being fired. Once those have failed then, and only then, should guns start blazing. Basically, the combat classes are really more threat deterrence, until they are needed.

If the Politico attempts to talk his way past the guards, and fails miserably, then having the marauder there, as back-up, is always a blessing. But if the politico is never given the chance to show his stuff, because the marauder tends to handle the "politics" (or stealth, or diversion, or charm, or etc...), then said marauder can become more of a pain then they are worth.

No matter how you get past said guards, the xp is still the same. Doing so without lost skin, is always a bonus.

I, sometimes, have the same problems in my groups. For instance, I have a guy with an itchy trigger finger and out of the last 7 fights the group has gotten into, 5 of them were avoidable with the very basics of efforts... however; said trigger-man decided to shoot first. This has lost the group out on side quests, rewards, and in one case continuation of the plot they were working on because the dude they need to get the info from is now dead. As GM, I know I can story another informant in, but why?, that means no repercussions for actions, so I don't in most cases. The other players handled this issue relatively quickly once they realized I wasn't punishing them for doing so. I'm not an interfering GM, it's your group, handle it or live with it.

To explain my character a bit better, I wanted to make someone who had a lot of raw skill and training but not much real world experience. IIRC my character is the youngest in the group. So as I use skills (that I didn’t get from boot camp) I spend xp on them. Like recently I’ve been using stealth quite frequently so it’s due for some upgrades once we get to a point where we can spend our xp.

So I think that part of the problem is me just being new to table top games. I’m not very good at role playing, I’m getting better, not I’m not as good as the others in the group. My inexperience is perhaps playing into the stereotype. Sometimes I’m not sure what to do with myself, and usually wait to see what everyone else is doing. Like one time our group was tracking down an informant\contact the bulk of the group decided to go into the lobby of the apartment building and charm their way past the clerk and guard. Not being good at social skills I decided to scale the building and break into the apartment from the outside. Before I went in I did a check for traps or alarms, and saw that the window and the door were rigged with explosives. I decided to wait for the rest of the group. Our droid was then able to disarm the bombs.

In our last session our talky guy was able to convince the leader or the yar yar clan to meet so we could “share” the treasure from the ship. While the main group of bad guys was distracted by the rest of my group I was able to sneak onto their ship. My plan was to stealth kill the guys left on the ship, but outside things went pair shaped pretty quick so I just went into T-800 mode.

I’m getting better at using the rest of my skills, and noticing opportunities to use them. I like it when I can spread my wings and be a bounty hunter, but I also enjoy putting a hole where someone’s face used to be

I'd still like to hear why the Jedi is so down on combat. I can't believe he went Jedi to talk things over.

Because if they hold true to from, the jedi "should" be avoiding combat at all costs. If for no other reason then to avoid witnesses.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending "pen-guy", but I can see where it could get annoying after 24+ "a few dozen" game sessions.

I think the group should have more respect for the fact that the original poster is new to the hobby and earnestly trying to make a fun character that will be useful to the group.

When people are making snide comments like "Well I guess we won't get to fight" or whatever, in a passive-aggressive way, to me that is a symbol of a bigger issue with the personalities.

I agree with guiding the noob along, but 400 xp deep, with a few dozen game sessions, isn't exactly a "noob" any longer. My groups have been playing over a year (since beta), bi-weekly, and including their species starting xp, they are only just around that level of xp, think 385 was the rolling tally from the last game session.

Great post, Ogg.

This tends to be a bit of a problem with many Droid characters (I assume your Int 1 chacater was a droid?). Some players see the customisation as a chance to create a min/maxed abomination, essentially a gun or vibrosword with a body to carry it around... rather than trying to play an R2 or 3PO character, or 'humanity-within-the-machine' as in Mass Effect.

Heck, even HK47, as close to a 'murder hobo' Star Wars character as you can get, had quirks and an amusing personality!

It's amazing what a good EMP weapon will do. Especially once they've added cybernetics to the mix. Droids are the simplest to shut-down. Wookies too, once someone switches to stun. I fear the spec'd trandos and ithorians much more, that bellow is for the birds.

In my reading of Rogue7 latest post he hasn't started any fight if there has been any kind of way to solve them peacefully but when the things have gone Ploin shaped, he hasn't hesitated to bring fire down.

In our non-EotE games many times some Stealth/Combat heavy guy has given us advantage when Face-guy has almost failed his stuff. Either by warning the group "It's a Trap" or rolling good Intimidation roll "It's better to take this deal, you wouldn't like to anger us."

Some people who make combat heavy guys tend to be that. just combat nothing more nothing less. But like many people have said in EotE/AoR you can more easily make guy who can do anything.

It doesn't sound to me like you're being a murder hobo at all, and I'd be willing to bet the Jedi guy didn't roll a Jedi to commune with the universe every session or to grow a kickin beard. What precisely does the Jedi think you are supposed to be doing? What is it he isn't able to do or what specifically is the problem? It's one thing to be a combat spec, it is something else to be a murder hobo. So far my conclusion is the Jedi is just a PITA.

Rogue7,

Thank for the reply. I hope it does not sound like I am bashing your playing, as that is not my intent. From the further details it sounds like you are helping the party out not detracting. Perceptions can be weird though.

When I set up my EotE game, I made a COLOSSAL mistake in that I did not build the group to work together with a common goal, trusting my players to do that on their own. BOY was I ever wrong. I had one brand new to table top gaming 15 year old on one end, and 25+ years of experience multi-system players on the other. I thought my weight towards the more experienced players would help. It did not. I chose to wake the group up (it was a large group, 8-10 players) with the action in medias res. They had either just woken up from Carbon Freezing, or had been knocked over and switched on as the ship was jostled. After they got all the players awake, scavenged some tools (I left them their starting gear), the learned that the ship had been pulled out of hyperspace and attacked and was in very bad shape. The original crew either abandoned ship or got sucked out of the cockpit (hooray for backup bridge). They limped into port, and I thought things were good to go. Until they started talking about what to do next. Eventually, one of the players (who was playing a Protocol Droid Politico) decided it was taking too long, and simply declared himself the captain of the vessel and proceeded to roll persuasion to convince everyone else he should be captain. I did not see it then, but in hind sight, I should have not allowed this. The player was new to the group, but said he had lots of experience and had run multiple games before, so I figured it would not be too bad. BOY HOWDY, was I ever wrong. His action generated animosity with EVERYONE around the table. Not just their characters, but the PLAYERS around the table. His choice of action effectively removed the ability to Role Play out the encounter, and took the possibility of actions away from the other players. It took me the better part of 9 months to convince him this was bad, and come up with something to fix it and keep him in the game. I am not completely pleased with how it is going now (I traded GM duties with one of the players, so I could play), and he eventually decided to leave (he was burned out). The moral here is to make sure to keep communicating with the other players (not just their characters) at the table, and work out any problems away from the table if you can. SOME groups may enjoy inter-party conflict of the non-humerous kind, but most do not.

If you can, try to take 'pen guy' aside for a bit, and ask if there is something you are doing that is annoying him, and let him know that some of his behavior is annoying you, and see if you can work it out. Just a thought, but it may save a lot of strife later on down the line.

Anyway, I wish you the best of luck in your table top gaming, it has been one of the more rewarding things I have done in my life, and I hope you get as much joy out of it as I do.

Kevynn

It doesn't sound to me like you're being a murder hobo at all, and I'd be willing to bet the Jedi guy didn't roll a Jedi to commune with the universe every session or to grow a kickin beard. What precisely does the Jedi think you are supposed to be doing?

then in my game the Jedi wouldn't be a Jedi. They should never start fights, looking for every possible method to avoid them. If all else fails and they become aggressive, then a Jedi will finish the fight.

That said, unless this cat is mixing his words, this GM isn't exactly making life easier on himself. Using a full on Jedi without rules is a hurt locker for "he should be able to... He said, she said."

Placing a mando, again without rules, in a party with a Jedi is also iffy. Not un-doable, but defiantly out of the ordabiary.

The time line is a mess, as the youngest member is also a Jedi hunter? Did I read that wrong? What Jedi is he hunting, and how the heck did he survive?

As to the second part, I think the Jedi kinda wants him to support the other party members as the expanded information provided sounds more like he is undermining them at best, purposefully using them for distractions. While they are attempting to negociate peace talks, he's going in behind them and going all Hannibal on the very people they are attempting to converse with. Or launching up bedroom windows for whatever reasons as if the "face" character isn't trying to get everyone in, just himself I presume.

I'm not trying to sound down on 7, but the logic isn't adding up. Unless I'm reading something wrong in his posts. It's sounding like the party and his character have very different objectives, and perhaps a new character is in order. Preferably not a carbon copy. No matter how hard you try a square peg isn't gonna fit in a round hole. If the party's trust/confidence is gone in this guy, then a new character is the only way to go.