Or maybe everyone can play how they want to play at their own table.

If somebody wants to use different rules for child PCs in their own games which are not where you live and don't involve you, that could just be their prerogative, right?

This is a discussion started from a question posed by the OP. We all present what we know of the RAW, if anything, or what we think the RAW implies, or just our opinion, then we discuss them. You know, Forum stuff. I couldn't care less how other people play it at their own table but that isn't a terribly convincing argument in a discussion.

It's not that you can't have an incredible 10 year old PC, it's just that you shouldn't make them as capable as an adult PC.

Question for you, FG. I understand the want to limit a starting child character compared to a normal starting adult character. I agree that a 10 year old has half the life experience as a 20 year old. When a player wants to play a 40 year old war veteran, do you give them twice the starting experience? A 40 year old has had twice the life experience as a 20 year old.

Well a 10 year old really has significantly less than half the equivalent experience of a 20 year old since the first few years are spent just learning how to use the rapidly developing body and mind you've found yourself in. Most people can't remember much of their lives prior to two or three years old and even amongst normally developing children 5% of 10 year old's still wet the bed. Your brain is still developing, even teenagers have an underdeveloped amygdala and don’t think things through or fully consider the consequences of their actions, and pre-teens are just figuring out social connections. The there are the physical differences which should be pretty obvious and in the context of a game with a scale of 1-5 with the race average being 2, well even if you go with just half that gives you a base of 1. So as you've agreed, there are significant differences between a child and even a young adult and that, in my opinion should be reflected when making a child PC, especially if you are going to run a mixed group of children and adult characters.

As for the difference between a 20 year old and a 40 year old PC. All things being equal such as general health and similar level of exercise and such the physical differences between a 20 and 40 year old are mostly appearance. That's not to say there aren't differences but in the context of a game with a scale of 1-5 or 6 their not enough to be quantified if, as I said you are healthy and fit. I can tell you this from experience, my endurance is a little less and hangovers are worse but I can do pretty much what I could when I was 20, more or less. The real differences come in knowledge and life experience, but even these are subject to a scale as well as when one enters the realm of the Hero.

In an RPG that is designed to play adults it is generally assumed that a PCs begin with the same range of Attributes because thats when they began life as a Hero. Their previous experience being effectively the same value because prior to becoming a Hero they either didn't stand out, or a lot of that time was between heroic stuff, or whatever, or maybe they did and now they're a Hero. If you want to say that your PC is a 40 year combat veteran that has been consistently acting at a heroic level that entire time, well there are rules for that, you give them more EXP. It's going to depend on your back story and what your GM will allow. But unless there is a compelling reason why one Player should have more experience than another there is no mechanical reason to do so just because the started their Heroic journey at 40 rather then at 20.

But unless there is a compelling reason why one Player should have more experience than another there is no mechanical reason to do so just because the started their Heroic journey at 40 rather then at 20.

Exactly. Unless there is a compelling reason why one Player should have more/less experience than another there is no mechanical reason to do so just because they started their Heroic journey at 40 rather then at 20 or at 10.

Mechanically, there is no reason why one character should have more or less XP than any other character. (Other than the difference of the starting racial XP.) The point at which they start their Heroic journey is the point when they leave the character creation and start adventuring. It doesn't matter if they are 10, 20, 40, or 80. When they start adventuring they start their heroic journey and should start with the same XP. This maintains a balance between characters and in my experience maintains fun between the players.

There are ways to create your character to simulate a body that isn't the same as a 20 year old. One method would be to spend XP on skills instead of stats. Lots of skills on the old would simulate an old veteran who's body just isn't the same any more. Lots of skills on the young would simulate somone who has a natural knack for doing things (or received advanced schooling at a faster pace than normal kids), but their body hasn't fully matured so their stats are kept low. The best way to simulate the young or old is through character design and choices, not through artifically increasing or decreasing the character's XP.

If a GM wants one character to have more or less XP than the rest of the party members, they can. A GM can do whatever they want. No one here is the RP rules police. If giving out more or less XP to one character is fun for the group, then sure. However, in my opinion and experience, having characters at unequal power levels can breed malcontent. My group has always given out the same XP rewards to everyone. No one gets extra from great RP. No one misses XP for not showing up one week. People can become jealous of a character who has a bunch more XP. People can become frustrated that they have half as much XP. Jealous and frustrated people are not happy players. Unhappy players drop out of groups and can cause games to fall apart. I would strongly recommend any GM who wants to give one player more or less starting XP to think long and hard about their choice. Will the choice hurt or help the game? Will it be more or less fun? Are all of the players on the same page?

If a player wants to to play a child or elderly character, I'd suggest the player and GM discuss the choices and make sure it works within context of the game. For my games, I'd probably shy away from even allowing such an extreme character. Like one of the posters in this thread had said, the one time they saw someone play a child, the player didn't have the maturity to properly play the character. In my opinion, role playing, approperate boost/setback dice, and proper character creation choices are the best way to create a child or old character.

But unless there is a compelling reason why one Player should have more experience than another there is no mechanical reason to do so just because the started their Heroic journey at 40 rather then at 20.

Exactly. Unless there is a compelling reason why one Player should have more/less experience than another there is no mechanical reason to do so just because they started their Heroic journey at 40 rather then at 20 or at 10.

I've explained why a 10 year old is different and why it should be handled as such, to me it's compelling enough. If the PC was 70 (or whatever the geriatric equivalent is in the SW universe) it would be compelling as well. I can't explain it any clearer than I already have.

But unless there is a compelling reason why one Player should have more experience than another there is no mechanical reason to do so just because the started their Heroic journey at 40 rather then at 20.

Exactly. Unless there is a compelling reason why one Player should have more/less experience than another there is no mechanical reason to do so just because they started their Heroic journey at 40 rather then at 20 or at 10.

I've explained why a 10 year old is different and why it should be handled as such, to me it's compelling enough. If the PC was 70 (or whatever the geriatric equivalent is in the SW universe) it would be compelling as well. I can't explain it any clearer than I already have.

Right, because clearly Old Ben had been hit with a nerf bat for being too old. How much XP did yoda start with, for being over a thousand years old?

Right, because clearly Old Ben had been hit with a nerf bat for being too old. How much XP did yoda start with, for being over a thousand years old?

You probably won't bother but look up Straw Man fallacy.

Any way. "Old Ben" and Yoda are NPCs, they would not and should not be built as a PC would, however if you wanted to start the game as an old person, one that is old enough to actually have the attributes of an old person, I would say that you would have to adjust your physical Attributes such as Brawn and Agility down to reflect your decrepitude, and you'd likely adjust your mental Attributes up to reflect more life experience. And because this is when you began your Heroic life you'd then build your PC as you would any other with the EXP that you'd normally get. Basically you take into account the necessary differences from your age and go from there.

But getting older is, at least up to a certain point, not the same as being a child. An older person may loose some physical prowess and may forget how to do some things they haven't done in decades, but a child never had either of these things to loose in the first place. So when you create an older character you approach it differently than you would a child.

@Jamwes,

Mate, an Eighty yo Bounty Hunter: Gadgeteer. Pimp out my walking frame!!

Personally I agree that a child PC should just be made as a normal character. So that's how I'd run it in my own games, where I can establish some of the rules.

But this is true of every character in your game right? If a player want to play a child they need to justify the idea narratively, just as you would have a player with a Twi'lek Dancing Girl concept justify the 5 Intellect they wanted.

You aren't exactly limiting players by imposing rules, but you work with the player to reach what they want and allign it with your idea of how it fits into the world. This game requires the cooperation of two people the GM and Player, just as the immature player who couldn't run a child, you may also have a problem if the GM doesn't allow for what playing a child may mean to the player.

As such this concept pretty much applies to the game in whole, there are players that should play the opposite sex, or aliens, or droids. Usually though you don't get the chance to figure it out before you allow them to play the female alien droid. Then, it all comes crashing down on your head.

There are a few things that seem to be getting missed here. First off, Star Wars, as a movie and story, is an action-adventure fantasy. We are talking about great heroes and larger than life characters. Second, as a game, this Star Wars is about narrative and fast play, not simulationist gaming. Nowhere in this combination should we be talking about realistic portrayals of... anything. What child characters we know of are far from simulationist or wholly accurate portrayals of average children.

We see young Jedi as inexperienced but world saving space knights. We see Anakin as a racing class pilot and master mechanic. We see a young Boba Fett as a manipulative thief and criminal, rather than a bed wetting grade schooler with a bad temper. These are not realistic portrayals of people, let alone children.

But it's a story. And in that story, we have children who periodically take the role of the protagonist. And in an action-adventure fantasy story, that means they are going to be unrealistic and kind cool.

So phooey to simulationist gaming and realistic portrayals, because those don't belong here. If we were playing a simulationist game set in a more down to Earth setting, this would be a different discussion, but we aren't. We are talking about an action-adventure fantasy, where arbitrarily limiting characters has nothing to do with the narrative at hand.

I would start a typical youngling with base characteristics, almost no xp invested in anything. (They still have the full xp of a starting character, they just have to raise their characteristics during play.)

Since children learn more quickly than adults, they are allowed to raise skills with less downtime, more or less on the fly to represent the effect of having "just got the hang of it."

As an exception to the rule, they are allowed to invest up to their starting xp in raising their attributes, representing them "growing up".

I would start a typical youngling with base characteristics, almost no xp invested in anything. (They still have the full xp of a starting character, they just have to raise their characteristics during play.)

Since children learn more quickly than adults, they are allowed to raise skills with less downtime, more or less on the fly to represent the effect of having "just got the hang of it."

As an exception to the rule, they are allowed to invest up to their starting xp in raising their attributes, representing them "growing up".

I'm not sure if you'd need to be able to increase their characteristics. Since it sounds like you are banking your XP, you are going to power through your Spec tree pretty quickly and thus get to Dedication relatively more quickly than other characters. That "faster" Dedication acquisition should represent that growth.

I'll become a Nightsister shaman if a revive so many old posts again XD

Hi again!

I was reading something interesting about beasts and I remembered this post. I'll copy it It's from F&D Beta I think.

To represent a juvenile version of a creature, the GM should apply the following:

• Decrease the creature’s silhouette by 1 to a minimum of 0.
• Decrease the creature’s wound and strain threshold (if applicable) to half normal (rounding up).
• Decrease the damage of any weapons or attacks the creature possesses to half normal (rounding up).

The rest stills the same.

PS: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/120741-child-pc/#entry1239586 Ghostofaman answer was awesome XDD

Good Find

Make the character as normal. GM adds setback dice liberally. Done.

Why do so many people want to unbalance the game and make the character weaker or give them a disadvantage or limits often with no advantages to balance the scale? Making the character as normal but adding extra setback dice is massively unfair IMO. If you want to give them disadvantages for being a kid you need to give them advantages for doing so as well.

Social protection XD

Without considering Anakin's carnage, they will not be "shoot at sight" as other players. You can translate this to boosts or setbacks to the target on social checks. Also size itself can be an advantage.

Also I have to add that I don't necessarely believe on "balance". If two people go the the university, both of them always achieve the max results, so at academic level are the same, but one of them have a "weak" constitution and the another one is Vin Diesel... why do you have to balance that? XD Life is unbalanced itself!

Interesting idea, Josep, but I can see it being abused (as well as the entire concept feeling out of place; EoE feels far less cutsey than most concepts of Star Wars; some of the adventures like 'Debts To Pay' really are quite dark...)

I think it was a deliberate balance not to have too much min/maxing. There are no real 'dump stats' for a human character, as everyone has a base degree of competency. I can play my character as a big, clumsy dumb guy, but he actually won't be any more stupid or awkward than any person on the street. I can play a child or a feeble old man, but they are still going to have Brawn 2.

I think those rules were included to let a PC have a smaller animal companion of a favoured type ('It's my cute baby rancor!'), rather than be used for PCs... If a player must have a dump stat, they have to play an alien...

Probably right Mae, but imagine the "weaker" version of an especie (a human itself or an alien), a child. Let stats the same way, would be the easier, but reduce melee/unnarmed damage and even wounds or strain doesn't seem so difficult to change.

Based on the opposite side. A Rancor. Its Brawn its between 5 and 6, the same as a Wookie gladiator or a strong human to let mechanics intact BUT, additional rules like: Extra Soak, Wounds, Strain(?) and melee/unnarmed damage are increased.

This way you have a resistent creature without breaking the game mechanics without the need to have tons of dices.

I know that a GM can use really DARK scenarios not so much suitable for childs (look Gryph posts XD) but as general sensations those child characters use to be far from battles.

And I want to precise something, when I mean Child, I'm probably not refering to Teenagers like Ezra.

Every table is different, obviously. But I think changing the stats is likely to disrupt the balance that's written in to the system.

Also, it's not just 'dark' situations kids are unsuited for. Child characters aren't suitable for a range of missions, such as diplomacy. An immature character just isn't going to understand the adult nuances required for negotiation.

But hey, groups can play what they want, so anyone who wants to play 'Caravan of Courage' can of course do so!

You are right, again. I will let child with some "common sense" restrictions like "Encumbrance logic limits", size and social Advantages and Disavantages.

I probably will let those rules just for beasts.

Make the character as normal. GM adds setback dice liberally. Done.

Why do so many people want to unbalance the game and make the character weaker or give them a disadvantage or limits often with no advantages to balance the scale? Making the character as normal but adding extra setback dice is massively unfair IMO. If you want to give them disadvantages for being a kid you need to give them advantages for doing so as well.

Do you have children? Or spend time around children? The reason I suggested this, is kids aren't as developed, for the most part, as adults. A kid making a brawl chech should have a setback, same as the one makeing a knowledge outer rim - they are still learning.

Also, with this method, you don't have to keep track of increases/decreases as a character ages.

Adults don't take kids seriously and listen to them at times. The setback die is as much a social penalty as a physical. If many adults just say 'he is just a kid' and don't take them seriously on say, a leadership check, then the setback die comes from the prejudicial nature of the adult. I would do similar if a female character tried the same check on a chauvinistic male society, or a male character on matriarchal species. There are lots of prejudices about kids in terms of what they are capable of.

As for assigning advantages in situations I agree. There will be fewer instances I'm sure, but they will be there.

The fact is this: human children need guidance/protection for nearly the first 16-18 years of their life as they learn and develop. Rather than do a messy addition and subtraction of numbers to represent age categories, a GM applying a setback (or boost) is the easiest and cleanest solution in my opinion.

Do you have children? Or spend time around children? The reason I suggested this, is kids aren't as developed, for the most part, as adults. A kid making a brawl chech should have a setback, same as the one makeing a knowledge outer rim - they are still learning.

Also, with this method, you don't have to keep track of increases/decreases as a character ages.

Adults don't take kids seriously and listen to them at times. The setback die is as much a social penalty as a physical. If many adults just say 'he is just a kid' and don't take them seriously on say, a leadership check, then the setback die comes from the prejudicial nature of the adult. I would do similar if a female character tried the same check on a chauvinistic male society, or a male character on matriarchal species. There are lots of prejudices about kids in terms of what they are capable of.

As for assigning advantages in situations I agree. There will be fewer instances I'm sure, but they will be there.

The fact is this: human children need guidance/protection for nearly the first 16-18 years of their life as they learn and develop. Rather than do a messy addition and subtraction of numbers to represent age categories, a GM applying a setback (or boost) is the easiest and cleanest solution in my opinion.

I agree, but we're not talking about a game based in reality. We're talking about a game where a 9 year old sneaks into a starfighter and blows up a capitol ship. We're talking about a game where Jedi take on kids and go on very dangerous missions with them.

The argument isn't to reflect real-life. It's to allow for players to play a concept they want to play without being inferior to everyone else because of it.

Depends on the kid, I guess, and the kind of game you want to play.

Newt in 'Aliens' worked.

Ofelia in 'Pan's Labyrinth' worked.

Cole in 'Sixth Sense' worked.

Anakin in 'Star Wars'... didn't.

Why has nobody mentioned Short Round from Temple of Doom, and the Kid template from West End Games' version of the SWRPG?

I'd say treat the character as normal, but allow the player to drop stats to reflect their concept and no other limitations. GMs should be finding more ways to say "yes" to a player than to find limitations that may stifle creativity and restrict the narrative.

Just my 0.5 credits.

Although, in certain cases, Setbacks may not apply if a guardian is nearby. Especially if the guardian is carrying a big gun...

Sigh...the live through another character since my previous character died..."my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father; prepare to die."

The classic resurrection PC. Tell him no and make s new character please. Living through a new character from a previous just makes the character immortal -- tell them to try a new concept it's a game have fun with it...try something new!

Otherwise...1's across the board and 50xp for whatever race. He's playing a child. He'll be able to make rolls which is more than a normal NPC child would be able to do.

Otherwise...1's across the board and 50xp for whatever race. He's playing a child. He'll be able to make rolls which is more than a normal NPC child would be able to do.

EotE core, page 399: Spaceport Urchin [Minion]

Plus they have Stealth as a group skill, which is awesome as it means it's harder to see 6 urchins than 1.

They also have Survival, which thanks to the rules in Stay on Target means a half-dozen orphans riding a Rancor is actually a dangerous foe.