Do your players at least have an idea of the correct way to play the game?
Have they had any experience playing at a table run by someone who uses a more accurate version of the rules as they were designed?
I'm just curious if they have anything to compare to, or if they're kinda stuck with your version.
I'm in awe at how many people have popped in, realized this is insane, and then said so and left. I'm even more on awe of how this dude just doesn't get how nuts these ideas are.
@mouthymerc
Prove it. You make a whole lot of claims there, but nothing to support it.
You know the difference between paying 100 XP for +2 Force, and climbing a tree for 100xp to get +1 Force? For the Healer (just picking the first one), he gets a Healing Trance, healing 1 additional strain as a Physician, gaining +1 strain threshold with Grit, Ability to spend a destiny point to heal additional wounds equal to Knowledge (Xenology), and reduce the Force power by 1 from an opponent, with of course the +1 Force. The Healer made out better in the deal.
And it's not that my players didn't take advantage... they did. 40 for the first force point, 60 more for the 2nd... that got taken. There was no way to "come out with a much higher Force Rating" (proof you're totally not reading my posts), especially since they can NOT go up various trees... I made it perfectly clear multiple times in this thread that the ONLY force specialization they get is their first one. Hence the -absolute maximum cap- of Force 4 (of which only one player can ever attain). And the guy with Force 4 "potential" spent 100 of his 160 on Force, so only got to raise 2 attriutes to 3 from 2.
All you people are seeing are the advantages, not the disadvantages. You're not weighing things here... you see a beacon and attack it with no consideration for all the penalties acquired.
And YES, for the upteenth time... the objective WAS a power boost. I have 6 players with 1k+ xp characters that I want to move to a "game update" without giving them their 1k XP. I totally planned that these players, who have no reason or desire to switch to the game update, to have some sort of edge to make it interesting and desirable. I'm not starting some new game here with new players. And if you know anything at all about gamers, just switching to a new game at the GM's discretion can be a group-killer.
Why the frak do I have to keep justifying myself to you types? There are 2 things to know. I house ruled the char-gen (and ONLY the char-gen), and if you think my House Rule is broken, you are wrong. That's all you have to know. There is no "balance skew" since you're neither taking into account the negatives, or the fact that we could just keep playing the 1k xp Beta EotE. I want my people in the updated game with the "fixed" rules, and as a GM I used the appropriate tools to encourage and excite them about the switch over. I could really care less about your broken opinion on my game.
I am not sure how you can't see how making things super easy for your characters does skew the balance.
Do you think allowing someone to put all 18s in their stats in D&D would not skew the balance?
@Desslok You are different than my players. They have even asked me to use their PCs as NPCs in my next storyline. Losing them and starting over is not easy for my players.
So go through character gen the correct way. Apply all of the XP they have earned in the last game after character generation. Now they are running their old characters under the updated rules. I don't see why you need to rewrite the character generation rules. There is likely plenty of xp to get the dedications needed to get the characteristics they want.
Edited by Daeglan@Daeglan:
Notice in that last post of mine the reciting of the Morality rules? Obviously, I'm very deep into the Force and Destiny rules... I practically cited them. If you want to continue telling me that I don't know the rules, at least show which rules I apparently am unaware of. Right now you're coming across as nothing more than someone trying to incite me using falsehoods.
Also, I do NOT keep saying I want a cinematic game, I said once, in the starting post, that my games are cinematic. And for the up-teenth time, I'm not "looking" for anything. I'm explaining why all the people who think my system is broken, are wrong. The real question is, what are you looking for? You're in a thread with a "House Rule" title, obviously not someone looking for canonical character creation, so you just keep repeating to not use House Rules. You're far too late for that, and your excuses for constantly demanding it are all false.
You did not recite the morality rules. You recited a bad interpretation of them.
They have even asked me to use their PCs as NPCs in my next storyline.
Just to make sure we're not misunderstanding - you're starting an all new campaign (with new characters) and the old ones (the ones with the incorrect character creation process) are appearing an NPCs?
If you're starting over, then what is the issue. Pick up the game with the proper rules this time, with a big XP boost if the high level is your thing and why bother fussing about with all this?
Losing them and starting over is not easy for my players.
Assuming the above is wrong, that you are continuing with those characters. . . I still fail to see what they are losing. They still have the same characters, same personalities, quirks and foibles.
Han Solo is the Cocky, the arrogance, the smooth talk, the huge pile of debt to Jabba, the walking carpet life debt, the rugged good looks. Han Solo is not a 10D+1 piloting skill.
All of Desslok's comments in this thread should be read with his avatar in mind.
Ok, enough eating popcorn...
We have arrived to a point that tension can be cut with a pair of scissors XD
Seems pretty clear that people here have two "almost absolute" opposite points of view.
Gryph have a set of rules specialized and adapted to its own game/players. Seems ok to me. No one (other than him or his players) can change it because are their "homemade rules".
By the way, I agree with some people here that can be frustrating that someone create a set if rules based on "highly possible" wrong or old rules from Beta books, and seems closed to other ideas from people here.
Also and again I can understand that a 1 vs The World puts himself on a defensive position XD (I see Setbacks on Negotiation mates XD)
Some people exposed their theories gently, other ones exposing "by brute force" (sorry for the sentence XD). Remember that a few centuries ago almost everyone in the planet believed that the Earth was the center of the Solar system and that it was flat instead round XD
Myself in this forums was too critic with some rules or I used my own patches to "fix problems". After discussing with people at the forums, not always of course, I discovered that some alternatives or a higher level of rules comprehension could be better than my own point of view. I made my main player update his PC above 6 or 7 times XD
If he wants to preserve that patch, fine for him. Also I posted a pair of links that analyzes the % dice mechanics that can help anyone to see where the game breaks. I tested it already in my own sessions as GM XD
Also, would be nice an open mind when people, is trying to help or expose their ideas. It's like if someone that comes to help you with something and you tell him " no thanks, I want to do it my own way". It's legit, but notice that person that you don't want his/her help on that field or s/he can be frustrated a lot XD
Too much words... I will end this post with Cool Penguin XD
Edited by Josep MariaAll of Desslok's comments
in this threadshould be read with his avatar in mind.
Fixed that for you!
Some people exposed their theories gently, other ones exposing "by brute force" (sorry for the sentence XD). Remember that a few centuries ago almost everyone in the planet believed that the Earth was the center of the Solar system and that it was flat instead round XD
Yeah, you can't use that excuse every time a minority disagrees with a majority. Using that kind of example suggests somebody can't put collective experiences properly in their relative context. In that case, nobody had any direct experience to tell them any differently. In this case, we have tons of direct experience to bring to bear. There's a huge difference.
Yep, I mean that not always "majories" are right. I wasn't commenting this precise moment. I was refering to sentences "like we are most and have the truth with us!" (not a real sentence XD)
I also believe that he would need to "expand" his point of view and have an open mind with so much people that already "test it", but with this puntualization of mine I was refering just to that fact "we are more" isn't the reason. I mostly agree with all the theories about how unbalanced (or how easy is to break the system) are his options in this post XD
Even I posted % stats that agree with the "common flow" XD
http://maxmahem.net/wp/star-wars-edge-of-the-empire-die-probabilities/
http://game2.com/eote/?montecarlo=100000
Edited by Josep MariaI also believe that he would need to "expand" his point of view and have an open mind with so much people that already "test it", but with this puntualization of mine I was refering just to that fact "we are more" isn't the reason.
Agreed, as far as a basic truthful statement. However, in this case, "we are more" is a shortcut for "there's a lot of experience to be had here, why ignore it?"
Edited by whafrog
Oh, you mean https://xkcd.com/386/ which is dated like four years earlier, on 2008-02-20? 
