I have thought about this before, but since my players didn`t mind, I didn`t bother either.

But then the guy who plays a mechanic in my game asked if the Contraption talent isn`t what his character does to begin with, and have done through all the 4 sessions we have played.

I looked at it and I kind of see his point. As a mechanic you should be able to improvise and do a little MacGyvering without having to depend on a talent.

I kind of agree that talents like that kind of tie you down if you see it like that. But I told him it was probably meant for when you usually shouldn`t be able to or the gm would say no.

What do you think? Can you think of other examples of unnecessary talents that should just be handled in the narrative as something a career or character type should be able to do?

Or how would you interpret those kinds of talents?

Another player, smuggler, asked me about Hidden Storage. I told him that sure, you can have hidden compartments even if you don`t have the talent, but as a talent it could be anywhere and I wouldn`t let adversaries be able to detect it. He seemed saticefied with this.

No... "Why can`t the rules be different" is not the same as "Explain how this actually works".

If you read your original post, the parts in RED is "Why can't the rules be different?".

But I'll give you a lollypop for the part in BLUE where you ask "Explain how this actually works".

Anyway... the way I see it, you wanted people to agree with you, not people to confront the way you are thinking and playing.

Later

If you read your original post, the parts in RED is "Why can't the rules be different?".

But I'll give you a lollypop for the part in BLUE where you ask "Explain how this actually works".

Anyway... the way I see it, you wanted people to agree with you, not people to confront the way you are thinking and playing.

Later

Well, people ARE agreeing with me;)(I like talents and see the use for most of them) I asked this question to see what thoughts other people in the forums had on the subject and to help me answer my players.

Is it possible that the question in red is rhetorical? I wanted to get an interesting discussion going.

I didn`t want people to agree with me, I wanted to understand a couple of talents better, and I did, based on some helpful(and not bitter) answers:)

And to begin with it seems that you might misunderstand what I am asking. That may be my fault and just bad wording of course..

I am not asking about hard game mechanics, I am asking what people think could actually be handwayved and handled by the narrative and not put into things like talents and I provide a couple of examples.

It is the same as asking if you handle social interaction by rolling dice or with pure roleplaying and storytelling. Got it?

Sooner

And to begin with it seems that you might misunderstand what I am asking. That may be my fault and just bad wording of course..

I am not asking about hard game mechanics, I am asking what people think could actually be handwayved and handled by the narrative and not put into things like talents and I provide a couple of examples.

It is the same as asking if you handle social interaction by rolling dice or with pure roleplaying and storytelling. Got it?

Sooner

Isn't talking about not putting things into talents talking about hard game mechanics ?

The way I see it, you're asking about removing some talents to give their powers freely, handwaved or handled by the narrative...

Asking rhetorical questions when there is an answer to give might open some discussion you didn't intent or want... sorry for jumping on that train... a lot of people don't take the time to know the rules before trying to change them...

invictus_1693 gave a good exemple of the way I handle these kinds of talents... looks roughly the same as the exemples I gave too.

About social interaction, I always go by roleplaying first, giving boost to good roleplaying, and then I make them roll their skills... that's because the players social aptitudes aren't necessarily the same has their character's social aptitudes. Anyway, it's always a blast having social interactions... taking a player out of the group for a special interrogation by a Imperial Officer and having the player confess to being a rebel and giving away his contact on the planet... PRICELESS

Good luck with your game

GameMasters are a rare breed, we need them.

And to begin with it seems that you might misunderstand what I am asking. That may be my fault and just bad wording of course..

I am not asking about hard game mechanics, I am asking what people think could actually be handwayved and handled by the narrative and not put into things like talents and I provide a couple of examples.

It is the same as asking if you handle social interaction by rolling dice or with pure roleplaying and storytelling. Got it?

You certainly can just have them rolled into skills. You may want to eliminate talents across the board, so certain types don't get stuck with a "talent tax" while others can do it all with a single skill. As it is now everyone has their abilities spread out between skill rank and talents, so changes should be universal.

You could also take it a step further, and take out skills as well. Give the character ranks in their Specialization or even Career. If it is something a Mechanic would know (or Pilot, or Scoundrel, or Doctor, or Slicer, etc.) allow them to use their ranks in their Specialization.

This last way probably makes the most narrative sense, because the way it is now you can have odd situations of Slicers with no Computer skill, or Bodyguards with no Vigilance. With a ranked Specialization, you can do everything you are supposed to. Games like FATE run like this (you may consider checking it out if you haven't).

That said, while it makes narrative sense, it is not nearly as satisfying from a character-building perspective. That is a significant part of the game for many people, so consider that when making changes.

There are a few that I really don't like because they don't seem to offer anything that the skill doesn't already cover. The main examples are Familiar Suns and Museum Worthy.

There are a few that I really don't like because they don't seem to offer anything that the skill doesn't already cover. The main examples are Familiar Suns and Museum Worthy.

Those do need GM that thinks about his PC's talent when planning out sessions to make them worthwhile. However I wouldn't snuff at them.

Well, people ARE agreeing with me;)

You can always find people to agree with just about anything. That doesn't mean the initial pointbis any more valid though.

And to begin with it seems that you might misunderstand what I am asking. That may be my fault and just bad wording of course..

I am not asking about hard game mechanics, I am asking what people think could actually be handwayved and handled by the narrative and not put into things like talents and I provide a couple of examples.

It is the same as asking if you handle social interaction by rolling dice or with pure roleplaying and storytelling. Got it?

You certainly can just have them rolled into skills. You may want to eliminate talents across the board, so certain types don't get stuck with a "talent tax" while others can do it all with a single skill. As it is now everyone has their abilities spread out between skill rank and talents, so changes should be universal.

You could also take it a step further, and take out skills as well. Give the character ranks in their Specialization or even Career. If it is something a Mechanic would know (or Pilot, or Scoundrel, or Doctor, or Slicer, etc.) allow them to use their ranks in their Specialization.

This last way probably makes the most narrative sense, because the way it is now you can have odd situations of Slicers with no Computer skill, or Bodyguards with no Vigilance. With a ranked Specialization, you can do everything you are supposed to. Games like FATE run like this (you may consider checking it out if you haven't).

That said, while it makes narrative sense, it is not nearly as satisfying from a character-building perspective. That is a significant part of the game for many people, so consider that when making changes.

But why stop there? We have plenty of example of people working across their typical skills and understanding, particularly as the narrative calls for it. (Pilots who do mechanics, socialites who do slicing, jedi who do, well, everything) This makes careers redundant and over defining. Clearly, all you really need is ranks in how awesome your character is.

Well, people ARE agreeing with me;)

You can always find people to agree with just about anything. That doesn't mean the initial pointbis any more valid though.

Read what i wrote... I wasn`t looking for people who agreed with me.

And to begin with it seems that you might misunderstand what I am asking. That may be my fault and just bad wording of course..

I am not asking about hard game mechanics, I am asking what people think could actually be handwayved and handled by the narrative and not put into things like talents and I provide a couple of examples.

It is the same as asking if you handle social interaction by rolling dice or with pure roleplaying and storytelling. Got it?

You certainly can just have them rolled into skills. You may want to eliminate talents across the board, so certain types don't get stuck with a "talent tax" while others can do it all with a single skill. As it is now everyone has their abilities spread out between skill rank and talents, so changes should be universal.

You could also take it a step further, and take out skills as well. Give the character ranks in their Specialization or even Career. If it is something a Mechanic would know (or Pilot, or Scoundrel, or Doctor, or Slicer, etc.) allow them to use their ranks in their Specialization.

This last way probably makes the most narrative sense, because the way it is now you can have odd situations of Slicers with no Computer skill, or Bodyguards with no Vigilance. With a ranked Specialization, you can do everything you are supposed to. Games like FATE run like this (you may consider checking it out if you haven't).

That said, while it makes narrative sense, it is not nearly as satisfying from a character-building perspective. That is a significant part of the game for many people, so consider that when making changes.

FATE doesn't quite work that way. They don't have careers in most variants, but the skills are comprehensive to getting a job done. Most characters need a wide variety of skills to really be effective in that game. Or maybe I am just a skill horder? I think you are right that the OP may like the stunts more than the FFG SW Talents. Similar idea, but stunts allow things that really do need specialized knowledge or talent.

FATE doesn't quite work that way.

Yeah, I was thinking of Aspects in that game more than skills. The same basic idea is there: you have a descriptor – the aspect – that you can leverage for any reasonable effect.

FATE doesn't quite work that way.

Yeah, I was thinking of Aspects in that game more than skills. The same basic idea is there: you have a descriptor – the aspect – that you can leverage for any reasonable effect.

Gotcha. Yeah, aspects could be another way of looking at what he is interested in. I think stunts would be more applicable though.

Late to the party but ill give my 2 cents anyway.

One important thing you could discus with your group is the way a Talent tree is supposed to represent your path through a career. at the very beginning you are just starting out on the path to being that particular thing. This is the critical part to get across to the other players, yes they have a talent tree, but that means they will one day be very good at that thing, it does not meant they are good straight away.

For a long explanation:

If you talk to most people who have been in the workplace for 10 or more years in any industry they will tell you that:

1. when they completed university/apprenticeship/traineeship they thought they knew everything, they thought "I have learnt all there is to know"
2. 10 years later they now know they where very wrong to believe that.
3. another 10 years down the line they will be looking back going "Gee, i still didn't know that much did i..."

So the beginning of a talent tree is the newly graduated or just completed their apprenticeship. They have some basic skills, probably a natural ability, but they don't know all the tricks of the trade, the short cuts, the easy ways.

Talents are the easy ways to get things done in that respect, the Short Cuts...

Sure the smuggler who just picked up his first ship can hide stuff around the ship, but the CorSec guy with 10 or 20 years on the job knows all the obvious spots and finds it easy

every person is always trying to Dodge out of the way, all the time (thats why there are difficulty dice to hit! ) but some people get really good at dodging

basically everyone can do everything (except droids and the force...) but some people do it much better. Skill ranks are part of that progression, so are Talents.

To the OP, the reason I like these types of talents is that they don't represent things that can't be done without talents, but rather that they make a character REALLY good at doing this things. Contraption, for an example. Without the talent, I would generally put the sort of things you can do with this talent at an Impossible difficulty (5 purple dice, plus a Destiny point).

Plus that, they establish a kind of baseline: it takes a 25 XP talent to do this thing with a Hard difficulty, so that means that to attempt such a thing without a talent should be, at least, Formidable or Daunting.

It certainly doesn't mean that such things can't be done without such a talent. Again, these talents should simply be making such attempts at skillful application easier.

That said, I've played with GMs before who have actually run it that way ("There's a talent for that, and you don't have it, so you can't do it"). It's very frustrating. It's like, "dude, just let me make a Leadership check as my action, and let the benefits be less impactful than the Inspiring Rhetoric."

It certainly doesn't mean that such things can't be done without such a talent. Again, these talents should simply be making such attempts at skillful application easier.

... or more reliable. I think there are times a GM can legitimately say that something can't be done under the present circumstances. Having the talent gives the player more "push" in making it happen anyway.

There are a few that I really don't like because they don't seem to offer anything that the skill doesn't already cover. The main examples are Familiar Suns and Museum Worthy.

Same here. I rationalize it thusly: if there's ambiguity about whether X can be done with skill Y (either situationaly or generally), at least the talent positively asserts that, yes, he does X with the talent. It feels more like insurance, akin to setback removal talents where YMMV greatly. /shrug

Thank you, guys, this thread has been very helpful! Can someone give me a good example of using Hidden Storage in cool and interesting ways that you couldn`t have done without the talent?

Could it be as simple as: with the talent, your adversaries will never find it; without it they get to roll a skill to search for it?

Thank you, guys, this thread has been very helpful! Can someone give me a good example of using Hidden Storage in cool and interesting ways that you couldn`t have done without the talent?

Could it be as simple as: with the talent, your adversaries will never find it; without it they get to roll a skill to search for it?

I thought the big advantage of that talent is that you get this storage for free. Hidden compartments not only cost credits but they use up hardpoints, iirc.