http://www.madadventurers.com/meet-the-party-force-and-destiny/

I like a lot of stuff on madadventurers.com, but with "meet the party" I've never seen a decent build for this game. As far as I can tell, all characteristics are left at the racial baseline, or barely above, which would only be frustrating for the players long term.

I'm not advocating a complete focus on min-max, but I think it is important for a game if most people create the characters using similar criteria, and IMHO most people are happier with a greater initial expenditure on characteristics. It helps the GM as well for scaling encounters if people use similar criteria for their builds.

I suppose if everybody used the "meet the party" criteria that would work for GM scaling...

Thoughts?

Do we really have to make the game like Pathfinder or D&D 3.5 or 4E, where everyone makes an identical wookiee or droid marauder with a level dip in Doctor?

I agree with your point about characteristics, but only if it's a long-term game. Putting your initial XP in skills is fine for a one-off.

These certainly aren't min/maxed, but at least some thought was given to the role they'd play in a party and how it ties in to a background.

"Decent build" is a matter of perspective I guess. Personnaly I found these characters well done.

I am sorry to tell you that but sound like a min/maxer. if, in your universe, all mechanics are also great scholars, slicer and doctors just because they all start with 4+ intelligence score, that fine but you can also do it differently.

I think it depends on how one approaches character creation. It seems true that upfront xp expenditure on characteristics is better in the long term but you sacrifice a lot of options at char gen doing so. Multi-specializations, boosted skills, Force Powers, etc... I say "seems" because I'm not really seeing it in my long-running game.

I'm all for a session 0 to go over who expects what out of the game session/campaign but forcing some sort of "design criteria" I'm just not a fan of. My take on it as a GM has always been; as long as we can work the characters together story-wise, the players may build them according to RAW however they see fit.

From my perspective, I prefer to dump -all- the XP (including extra from Obligation/Duty/Morality) into stats at creation. I prefer species that allow for two stats at 4 off the bat and I double up on skills from career and specialization. It's definitely a min-max perspective, but it tends to allow me to be very competent in my area of contribution. After charater creation, I start diversifying, but I feel that a character should be able to initially fill their role well enough such that the rest of the party can rely upon them to succeed when needed.

I've been building my F&D PCs with as much EXP as I can on Attributes but diversify my skills. I'm happy with 3's and 2's, I don't see a need for 4's. I spend any leftover EXP on skills. My first EXP gains go to Force Abilities then Talents.

I think character creation is a very subjective topic. Personally I can see the point of dumping xp into characteristics at creation as it is the only time you can spend xp on them. Afterwards only Dedication talents benefit them. Mind you I don't see a big disparity if you choose not to. After the initial game all xp can be spent how you choose. So bumping up skills can close gaps quickly enough. The builds seem playable and don't strike me otherwise. One is even starting with 2 Force dice. Others are starting with some nice talents out of the gate. All in all not too bad.

I am sorry to tell you that but sound like a min/maxer.

Well, I do prefer GMing a "broadly capable" party, but I'm not sure that qualifies as min/maxing. As a human with some Obligation you can get four 3s...going for 3 and some Talents, or a 4/3/2... build seems more reasonable to me, and has more long term legs.

Maybe it's the labels, but nobody in the builds will be much good at anything other than Easy or Average tasks. And my players at least don't seem that happy when they see a sea of GG on their skill list.

I generally agree that it's best to make the PC you want to play and not worry too much about stats but in this case I tend to agree that it's a good idea to buy your stats up at Character Creation. I will disagree on a need for a 4 Attribute, I just don't think the kinds of challenges you should be facing in the beginning of your PC's journey warrant four dice.

I generally agree that it's best to make the PC you want to play and not worry too much about stats but in this case I tend to agree that it's a good idea to buy your stats up at Character Creation. I will disagree on a need for a 4 Attribute, I just don't think the kinds of challenges you should be facing in the beginning of your PC's journey warrant four dice.

The problem is that it is very difficult to go up from 3 after you create your character. Minimum 75 XP spend, depending on the specialization. Some require 125+ XP to reach dedication. Some don't even have dedication.

I generally agree that it's best to make the PC you want to play and not worry too much about stats but in this case I tend to agree that it's a good idea to buy your stats up at Character Creation. I will disagree on a need for a 4 Attribute, I just don't think the kinds of challenges you should be facing in the beginning of your PC's journey warrant four dice.

The problem is that it is very difficult to go up from 3 after you create your character. Minimum 75 XP spend, depending on the specialization. Some require 125+ XP to reach dedication. Some don't even have dedication.

Still it is game/campaign dependent. If you are getting 25 XP per session (the recommended) that is only 3-5 sessions till you get a Characteristic bump.

I should add the caveat that I have been running a low-powered campaign: 10-15 XP per session.

I think the beauty of this game system is that there really is no need for min/maxing. The multitude of options that are available to diversify your character are somewhat endless (limited only by XP). Players that are going to boost a single characteristic to 5 at char gen tend to be looking for the max benefits on a narrow focus. I would argue that the narrative nature of the game sort of goes against that idea. The mechanic in my game started as a min/maxer and quickly grew bored because his Int of 5 and 4y1G2b for mechanics ensures success almost every time, which is boring in actual play (despite the very challenging things I throw at him). He is now a vibro-rapier duelist and medic! How cool is that!? Same with the wookiee vibro-axe wielding marauder who finally branched out into mercenary soldier to improve his social skills. My point is, it is far easier and generally more enjoyable to have characters that are more diverse skill, talent and specialization wise than a one trick pony. Again, this is just speaking from my experience and what I have seen at my table. The only place min/maxing has really been a boon is in d20 games where it is all about the numbers.

My favorite character to date is my spy who started out with 3s and 2s. He's a Social Support/Melee Support character who uses mostly Deception and a bit of Charm in social encounters and a whip/shock boots in combat. He's decent in both roles and can step in as the party face or the front line of combat when needed. It took a while to get those Dedications, but the journey has been a blast.

I think focusing in one area is great if that's your thing! The beauty of this system is that a spread in skills and characteristics is also viable with a little bit of patience and rp. In my campaign we have characters of both types and they mesh well. It's awesome that SWRPG accommodates both styles, unlike many other RPGs.

I am defenitely with Whafrog on this.

Using your starting xp on your characteristics is not min/maxing. It is adhering xp to what your baseline traits will be made up of. In fact the CRB specifically states that it is encouraged and recommended to spend most of your xp on characteristics.

Now I am not saying going a different route is "wrong fun" or that it shouldn't be done, but writing an article about character design and providing PC's for readers that goes against the design of the game is not a great idea.

I agree with your point about characteristics, but only if it's a long-term game. Putting your initial XP in skills is fine for a one-off.

Yup. Generally, I'd use ~ 90% of my starting xp for characteristics, but for one-offs, I have a different preference: If you spend most of your xp on skills & talents, you get to test a couple of interesting abilities right away that would otherwise require several sessions of playing a dedicated character.

I generally agree that it's best to make the PC you want to play and not worry too much about stats but in this case I tend to agree that it's a good idea to buy your stats up at Character Creation. I will disagree on a need for a 4 Attribute, I just don't think the kinds of challenges you should be facing in the beginning of your PC's journey warrant four dice.

The problem is that it is very difficult to go up from 3 after you create your character. Minimum 75 XP spend, depending on the specialization. Some require 125+ XP to reach dedication. Some don't even have dedication.

Still it is game/campaign dependent. If you are getting 25 XP per session (the recommended) that is only 3-5 sessions till you get a Characteristic bump.

I should add the caveat that I have been running a low-powered campaign: 10-15 XP per session.

Are 25xp/session really the recommended baseline? I seem to recall it's only 10xp. Additional xp are supposed to be granted only for roleplaying your motivations and reaching story milestones.

Although, I have to admit I'm in favour of granting more xp, especially if the group's new to the Star Wars RPG, because it allows for more experimentation.

It is 10 to 20 XP, plus 5 for reaching milestones or completing story arcs and another 5 for playing Motivations. Additionally, the GM is encouraged to grant small amounts of XP for roleplaying.

I agree with your point about characteristics, but only if it's a long-term game. Putting your initial XP in skills is fine for a one-off.

Yup. Generally, I'd use ~ 90% of my starting xp for characteristics, but for one-offs, I have a different preference: If you spend most of your xp on skills & talents, you get to test a couple of interesting abilities right away that would otherwise require several sessions of playing a dedicated character.

For one-off's I usually build a starting character and then add 150xp in skills and talents as to reflect that you are not going on the heroes journey but are having fun with a specifically built character for this one session.

Now I am not saying going a different route is "wrong fun" or that it shouldn't be done, but writing an article about character design and providing PC's for readers that goes against the design of the game is not a great idea.

I guess I never did spell that out, but that was the main motivation behind my OP. I would have expected if they're going to go against the core recommendations to at least acknowledge it.

http://www.madadventurers.com/meet-the-party-force-and-destiny/

I like a lot of stuff on madadventurers.com, but with "meet the party" I've never seen a decent build for this game. As far as I can tell, all characteristics are left at the racial baseline, or barely above, which would only be frustrating for the players long term.

Okay, but your concern was raised in the comments to which the author responded:

Realistically I can expect an article to be used in 1 of 3 ways: inspiration, a one-shot/short game, or a long-running campaign. Of the three, I expect that the first two are more likely; using a character someone else made for a campaign that goes on for ages isn’t very common in my experience.

So the goal is to provide some inspiration or characters for a short lived campaign; not provide an optimal build for a long-term campaign. With that in mind I think it makes perfect sense to focus more on talents than characteristics because it lets a PC have role specific talents right away.

On a slightly related note: I think it's important to realize that the GM scales the encounters to the group he or she has. So if the PCs are mostly rolling GG and the GM is giving out lots of PPP+ checks, then the GM is either a dumbass or and *******, but either way he's an ass.

The books do tell people that they should consider spending their initial XP on characteristics, but I have to wonder if this doesn't create some of the issues that some people complain about such as not being able to challenge their players properly. It seems that some take this to mean they should jack themselves up as much as possible in their favoured attribute almost making themselves immune to failure right off the bat. It may be taking it too far. Personally I think characters with 2s and 3s are perfectly servicable and they have room to grow. I think some people have taken this "spend on characteristics at character creation" too much to heart.

Dbuntu just beat me to the punch about what I see Meet the Party characters being used for, so that saved me some typing.

Granted, I do try to make sure that the party is at least viable if they're taken for a long-runner, and would be extremely flattered if they were. Long-term troubles seem to be the core of the issue that some people are having, so going forward I'll have to consider tweaking the algorithm a little. Awaypturwpn provided some very helpful notes in the article's comment section, and going back I realized that this was in fact the first FFGSW Meet the Party where nobody had a 4 in a characteristic. Post-mortem, I'd say that's a symptom of wanting to get Force powers involved for inspiration and one-shot purposes, which further dilutes the starting XP, a facet of of Force and Destiny in general that I've seen brought up a few times on these forums.

A Knight Level Meet the Party, with the 150 XP like DanteRotterdam suggests, is in the works, so maybe folks will be able to take a look at that one and make a judgment about which level of play is better for a pre-made F&D character. I'm a little wary of adding that level of XP to every FFGSW article, though, again because of who is most likely to be using pre-made characters: beginners. While not exactly on the same grade as the Beginner Game characters, I try to keep Meet the Party at roughly that level. But maybe that's a misplaced assumption on my part, and there's a bigger pre-made market among veterans, and I should adjust accordingly. Thoughts?

Thanks for reading/chiming in so far, and again special thanks to Awaypturwpn for taking the time to flip through the books for advice.

Now, there's really two topics here, only one of which is about Meet the Party. Onto the second one:

Obviously I've wandered into a bigger debate, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing a Force and Destiny topic in the Edge forum. I'll simply say that in my own experience that characters who focus too narrowly have had mixed success. I've had a bounty hunter who got bored with autofiring everything to death and retired the character, and a slicer who dumped so much into Intellect and Computers that towards the end of the campaign she felt hemmed in by her choices and was scrambling to find something else to do. But then I had the heavy who decided that autofiring had gotten dull, so he picked up a stealth field and that crazy tractor beam gun and a bunch of ranks in Stealth and starting hurling people around while invisible, having a great time. And there was the droid doctor who put all his starting XP into Intellect and Brawn, bought some shock gloves, and greatly enjoyed lightning-punching people out the entire campaign.

As people have mentioned, it's a very subjective process, and while I lean towards broad capability in my personal characters (except that one time with the Ithorian and all the Force Lightning), my place in the larger debate is strictly neutral. I've seen both broad and specialized characters have a great time, and so long as that's happening, it's all good.

The choice to spend on "stuff" (skills, add specializations, talents) or characteristics should really come down to how the player wants to represent themselves. If a player's character is a 15 year old technical wizard, it might make sense to say that they have a 4 Intellect to showcase their natural aptitude, however, I would be hard pressed to justify a second "4" stat (and it would be unlikely they have a 3 at this age either). On the other hand, if you were creating a 40 year old Rambo Clone that served in the Republic Military before joining the Rebellion, then it would make sense to get a few "3" stats here and there with a "4" in your primary focus. This shows years of developing your body and improving your knowledge base.

Ultimately, there isn't a "wrong" or "OP" way to make your character, because all XP is XP, and FFG has done very well with maintaining an internal balance of Characteristics/Skills/Talents. I attribute this to their desire to create a truly "narrative" driven system that removes the "PCs vs. Encounter" mentality that typically seeps into RPGs. They chose to focus everything, enemies and challenges included, towards driving forward a narrative, a story. This means that the only thing that should ever drive a decision, from enemy encounters to character creation to what shiny wiz-bang blaster to buy with your hard fought credits should be motivated by this single underlying narrative. Anything else is distraction.

Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I admit I'm a theater geek, so there's that.

http://www.madadventurers.com/meet-the-party-force-and-destiny/

I like a lot of stuff on madadventurers.com, but with "meet the party" I've never seen a decent build for this game. As far as I can tell, all characteristics are left at the racial baseline, or barely above, which would only be frustrating for the players long term.

Okay, but your concern was raised in the comments to which the author responded:

Okay, but I posted before there were any comments, and I seem to have misplaced my time machine.

Truthfully, I think the only time a character is not "optimally built" is when the player winds up not having fun with that character. Kyla's hit the nail on the head that there's no "wrong" way to build a character, just as there's no "one true way" to stat up various iconic figure such as Luke, Han, or Vader.

As the GM, the most we should be doing is offering advice and suggestions, but ultimately it is up to the individual player to determine what is "optimized" for what kind of gaming experience they're after. For a GM to insist that they definitively know better than their players what sort of character those individuals should want to play is just plain hubris. And it may very well sour those players on the game, if the GM is harping on about how "inefficient" or "sub-optimal" a given character build is. D&D 3.X and 4e had enough of that crap flying around, and it rightly soured a number of folks on those systems who got sick of being told "you're doing it wrong!"

For the characters I play and build, I avoid putting any stat at a 4, and instead aim for an even split of 3's and 2's in characteristics with any left over XP split between talents, ranks in skills that I wasn't able to grab as starting career/spec skills, and Force powers (for FaD characters). But that's how I roll, and I routinely game with players that prefer to spend over half their starting XP on talents or even skills. And I'm certainly not egotistical enough to claim that my way of building a character is definitively better than theirs or anyone else; I can disagree with how they did things, but that doesn't mean they were wrong. If the player is having fun and enjoys playing that character, mechanically optimized or not, then the character was built correctly.

I'm running a Force and Destiny campaign, and whafrog would probably be channeling Gorden Ramsey at how "un-optimized" most of the group is. But the characters they are playing are quite competent within their chosen niche, have a variety of interesting things they can do that are unique to them, and most importantly the players have having fun.

And at the end of the day, that's what's most important, is that the players are having fun with the characters they've built.

I'm running a Force and Destiny campaign, and whafrog would probably be channeling Gorden Ramsey at how "un-optimized" most of the group is.

Ah, no, I wouldn't. If it works for you, it's none of my business.

I'm running a Force and Destiny campaign, and whafrog would probably be channeling Gorden Ramsey at how "un-optimized" most of the group is.

Ah, no, I wouldn't. If it works for you, it's none of my business.

Then why are you being so critical of some pre-gens some random guy on the internet made?

Seriously, if you don't care about optimized builds why are you specifically calling out this guy for making up a handful of characters that are not optimally built? Hell man, you're clearly not playing with these pre-gens why bother even starting a damned thread about them if you have the "if it works for you, it's none of my business" mentality? It's like you specifically made it your business to criticize someone else's creative work.

And before you mention me being rude, let's all acknowledge that you specifically changed the title of your thread to be provocative and condescending.