And yet you are punishing people. Basically the guy who knows the game.

...

You are basically punishing the expert player for knowing how to build his character.

...

But your method basically means that the guy who knows the rules is being punished for having the audacity of knowing the rules.

Reward is the same as a lack of punishment.

You keep saying "punishment" yet besides all the long posts about math that are beyond me I have yet to see examples of this.

Thank you Lethal Dose! This math looks amazing! It looks like the differences I saw as YYGG and YGGG is only a 5-10% difference in performance!

I'll have to take a closer look at all of this tomorrow but at first glance this looks pretty good!

I agree with this, but are we not able to forgive mistakes? Why are we so strongly harsh on those that don;t know any better?

Likely because the rest of us understand that there isn't a way for an informed GM and an expert player to allow for a novice player to not know better. If the player doesn't know any better then his group has failed him. As the GM it's your job to make sure the player knows better. If after they are informed they still make the choice that's on them. But you as the GM already know how this works. You need to be explaining this stuff to your players.

Imagine a table where no one knows the rules, everyone is learning, or the expert player/GM makes a mistake helping at character creation, imagine forgiving them for making that mistake.

EDIT: for clarification: "the expert player/GM makes a mistake while helping at character creation"

Is that solely on the GM? The players at my table come with suggestions for roles all the time.

I think this is in response to GMs sticking to specific skills? I'm just going on experience as a player and GM that I understand when there are a few skills that get used more frequently than others.

If my players have Knowledge Underworld or Skullduggery then they will come up with suggestions for rolling them. I guess that is the difference between groups. I will often ask "What skill do you think applies to that?" and have them make a suggestion. This makes them think about using more than Perception and Ranged (light),

DanteRotterdam, on 08 Sept 2015 - 11:19 PM, said:

So basically FFG is advocating 'Power gaming' by telling us to focus starting xp on characteristics then?

I strongly disagree that adding to your chaacteristics at the only time possible is power gaming especially as they designed the game to work as such.

Powergaming is just the term I used for knowing the system, I only meant it as a convention, not the min-maxing munchkining found everywhere in DnD etc

I think a lot of the disagreement (at first) came from the use of these terms as they directly conflict with the point you were trying to make. Why not just say "experienced gamers" and "inexperienced gamers" for instance?

DanteRotterdam, on 10 Sept 2015 - 11:39 PM, said:

Isn't anyone playing this game for the first time either someone who's read the book, with someone who hasread the book, aided by someone that has read the book, playing with others who have read the book or has his/her game run by a GM that has read the book?

I think the whole premise of this topic is bizar it is like allowing new basketball players to second dribble because the others already know they aren't allowed.

Additionally the people refered to as Roleplayers are the 'noobs' in this scenario? While actually roleplaying is the thing (in my experiencing) new players find hardest to do....

I'm not sure what you mean here, of course at least a few people in a gaming group have read the book, what I'm arguing for is that we can make this game so that it won't be unbalanced if you haven't read the book entirely.

It's like playing basketball with NBA all stars and allowing non-NBA all-stars to grow two feet and gain manual dexterity so that they can play basketball just as well as the NBA all-stars can with the same height and same skill. You'll still get shorter 6ft players who are quick and taller 7ft players that can block, but now everyone's playing basketball fairly.

I chose those words (roleplayer) as conventions for explaining the house rule.

The game doesn't have to be unbalanced if anyone at the table understands the basics of chargen.

Also your NBA example falls flat as it is pretty easy to have anyone start out in a competitive starting position straight away. Your example means the GM would have to see how the character is not optimal but instead of helping the player out straight away you just let him mess along and give him some more XP.

DanteRotterdam, on 11 Sept 2015 - 12:04 AM, said:

JJrodny, on 10 Sept 2015 - 11:53 PM, said:

But - but - but - if someone creates a bad character then they are stuck with it? Isn't that punishment? If a player is asked if they want to put points into characteristics and they ignorantly say no, that they want to have skills, only to find out later that the math adds up against them, they should be punished with a weak character for it?

I don't know what kind of people you play with but if I would explain to my players why a certain way of building a character is preferable then that is what they would do.

Being obtuse does not equal being punished. Also, they could always start a new character....

I agree with this, but are we not able to forgive mistakes? Why are we so strongly harsh on those that don;t know any better?

But who is making mistakes? You are bringing a problem onto the boards that is not a problem at anyone's table and shouldnt have to be.

What inexperienced players that have not read the rules and do not understand chargen are building their characters by themselves in a vacuum?

Imagine a game where no matter how you made a character, it was balanced - the wizard is as powerful as a fighter, at all levels, but obviously not at all skills/activities (which is arguably not the case in DnD 3.5 and earlier). What I'm arguing for is that EotE can be that - it can be balanced for everyone to make characters that - no matter how you make your character - the power level of them all are balanced.

This is not to say they are all good at fighting - they'll all have their strengths and weaknesses - but imagine if it all balanced out, no matter how you made your character. It would be the end-all be-all of RPG systems. It would be the pinnacle of RPGs! I see EotE as very close to that!

Bah, so many unicorns. You haven't defined what a "balanced character" is. Nebulous concepts of "powerful" don't really exist here because "powerful" is contextual. Maybe D&D is easier because so much of it revolves around "hit points", and it's not very good at much more than combat. In that case you can directly compare wizard HP output vs barbarian HP output and decide who's more "powerful". But unless you run your EotE campaign like a D&D campaign and only look at Wounds and Strain, it's pointless. If you hold a tense negotiation and make a lucrative deal, are you more or less "powerful" than the Enforcer who takes out a mob of minions?

So let's be clear about what this thread is: a solution looking for a problem. It's also an exercise in math-geekery ... not that there's anything wrong with that! ... but I think you're more in love with the idea of solving a problem than actually identifying one that exists.

Not to mention: as long as the players feel their outcomes are roughly on par and they all get a chance to shine, there's not much more that needs to be done. D&D4 was pretty "balanced" -- there was some incredible math behind all the different powers and their damage output -- but it was completely tedious to run.

Take a look at LethalDose's math - its pretty clear that if you put points into characteristics you will succeed 5-10% more often. That's the problem.

Now maybe that's not that big of a problem for some, but I think I'll be instituting this houserule so players who didn't know the power of characteristics can upgrade their characteristics later (only using a total of 100xp (species specific) on characterietic increases).

But instead of going through all that trouble and unbalancing the game to accomodate those inexperienced gamers you could just, you know, help them out to begin with...

Imagine a game where no matter how you made a character, it was balanced - the wizard is as powerful as a fighter, at all levels, but obviously not at all skills/activities (which is arguably not the case in DnD 3.5 and earlier). What I'm arguing for is that EotE can be that - it can be balanced for everyone to make characters that - no matter how you make your character - the power level of them all are balanced.

This is not to say they are all good at fighting - they'll all have their strengths and weaknesses - but imagine if it all balanced out, no matter how you made your character. It would be the end-all be-all of RPG systems. It would be the pinnacle of RPGs! I see EotE as very close to that!

Bah, so many unicorns. You haven't defined what a "balanced character" is. Nebulous concepts of "powerful" don't really exist here because "powerful" is contextual. Maybe D&D is easier because so much of it revolves around "hit points", and it's not very good at much more than combat. In that case you can directly compare wizard HP output vs barbarian HP output and decide who's more "powerful". But unless you run your EotE campaign like a D&D campaign and only look at Wounds and Strain, it's pointless. If you hold a tense negotiation and make a lucrative deal, are you more or less "powerful" than the Enforcer who takes out a mob of minions?

So let's be clear about what this thread is: a solution looking for a problem. It's also an exercise in math-geekery ... not that there's anything wrong with that! ... but I think you're more in love with the idea of solving a problem than actually identifying one that exists.

Not to mention: as long as the players feel their outcomes are roughly on par and they all get a chance to shine, there's not much more that needs to be done. D&D4 was pretty "balanced" -- there was some incredible math behind all the different powers and their damage output -- but it was completely tedious to run.

Take a look at LethalDose's math - its pretty clear that if you put points into characteristics you will succeed 5-10% more often. That's the problem.

Now maybe that's not that big of a problem for some, but I think I'll be instituting this houserule so players who didn't know the power of characteristics can upgrade their characteristics later (only using a total of 100xp (species specific) on characterietic increases).

No that is not the problem. The problem is you not informing your player. As a GM you should be HELPING your player make an effective character. Stop blaming the system for the short comings of your table that you allowed to happen. Instead of sticking a band aid on the problem let the players rebuild their character to fix the problem.

Um, GMs helping out players!? That's not my job. If they don't read the book, how should that be my problem. After all it is me vs them. The player needs to take care themselves. -sarcasm font-

@JJR, I'm sorry, but I really hate the way you use your term roleplayer and power gamer. You do not know the meanings of the terms and are using them in the wrong context. You have actually shown me that you are the power gamer here, not players who build up their characteristics at char. Gen. You are overly concerned with math, and the about 5% better chance at success, not the enjoyment of the game or story.

According to our hobby, this is definitition for a power gamer:

"A gamer who learnes the rules of a game inside and out to perfection in order to become the best at that game. In games such as D&D a power gamer might sacrifice role-playing in favor of more power for his character, although most do not. Power gamers often make the game less fun for the rest of the playing group for the reason that their characters usually become far more powerful then all other characters in play. "

Using your starting XP to build characteristics is not power gaming! Now buying all the specs to get one talent, like, I believe it is True Aim, or even Tougned, just to get the Talents and have no regard for why your character would actually learn these specs is power gaming. I have seen this problem with Star Wars Saga, where people would actually build the character at level 20 and work backwards to make sure that every Feat Talent would be synergized and optimized is power gaming. It didn't matter how the game progressed, they would not deviate from that build.

I look at using I your starting XP to build Characteristics (char.) as what kind of a story of sorts for the Heroes beginning journey. Having higher base char. Is what separates them from the everyday guy. In their past they didn't learn a particular skill set, as they learned how to become a little better at a broad range of skills. Then as their heroic journey begins, they dive into a particular specialization.

If a Gmae Master does not teach players how to build a character it is not the fault of that system, it is the fault of that Game Master. I always inform my players about using the starting XP to build Char. Sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't. And you know what? There isn't a huge difference between the two. And either way does not affect our enjoyment of the game, just because one character "is optimized" over another.

I fail to see the problem here. Except maybe you not taking care of your players. And yes, I do allow new players to respec their character after a 2-3 adventures if the character is not working out like they thought.

Imagine a table where no one knows the rules, everyone is learning, or the expert player/GM makes a mistake helping at character creation, imagine forgiving them for making that mistake.

Wow! It's almost like I've gone back in time to the 70s. Back to a time where there was no internet and I had to learn for myself. Do like so many people have done before. Suck it up, buttercup , and move on having learned your lesson. Whether that be to read the books as a player or make sure your players are informed if the GM. I don't know how old you are but geez does this smack of the hand-holding and helicopter parenting that is so popular with some recently and today. Let people make mistakes so they can learn from them. I really do not understand the reticence to do so.

And why do people keep coming in here with issues of their own creation and then proceed to be contrary or ignore the advice given?

Best advice given, allow a respec if someone is really heart-broken over the very slight difference.

Take a look at LethalDose's math -

No, I trust mathematicians to do math...but you can't make me look at it!

Now maybe that's not that big of a problem for some, but I think I'll be instituting this houserule so players who didn't know the power of characteristics can upgrade their characteristics later (only using a total of 100xp (species specific) on characterietic increases).

I guess the term "house rule" implies a level of formality that seems completely unnecessary. What is the primary concern here, player satisfaction, or ensuring that everyone's average success range falls into a tight margin of error 19 times out of 20? If the latter...nobody can help you.

If the former, then simply letting them re-skin or create anew is far simpler. The parameters are already bounded by the XP they've earned, which will probably lead to a better result than an arbitrary house rule to fix an imaginary problem.

If the former, then simply letting them re-skin or create anew is far simpler. The parameters are already bounded by the XP they've earned, which will probably lead to a better result than an arbitrary house rule to fix an imaginary problem.

I also didn't quite get why we didn't use the "Hey Bob, why don't you just go ahead and respec with starting xp and then go ahead and spend your xp rewarded and re-image your guy the way you want them" option, prior to insisting the rules need to be altered. I mean, why would you alter rules someone didn't understand in the first place? Are they going to have enough calories to pay attention to the 'new and improved' rules as opposed to the old ones they didn't bother to learn?

2. Roleplayers can just take talents in dedication to increase their characteristics if they need it.

Yes, however that it a 75xp-95xp cost away, whereas the player that knew to put points into characteristics doesn't need to drudge through 4 or more talents in the talent trees to get at it, and already has a higher characteristic (and the powergamer can also get into the talent tree to get their characterstic even higher).

The Dedication talent cost 25 xp, and not one XP more. Your argument here completely discounts the value of every other purchased talent, which is completely bogus. Many talents on the way to the Dedication talent freaking rock. You state that the value of talents are difficult to quantify, but here you seem to have no problem assigning them a value of 0.

Point of correction - you are both right. Yes the dedication talent costs 25 points (occasionally 20) - but he is arguing from the point of coming from zero. To get to that talent costs you - at minimum, assuming you picked the right tree - 5+10+15+20+25 points.

Good point, I'm bringing it up because it has happened at our table, where some players knew to upgrade their characteristics while others didn't. The players that didn't put their points into skills and are necessarily gimped at only two proficiency dice for every skill in the long run. That means less triumphs and less probability of successes.

Add to that the math and we see that these characters are gimped in the early and late game, which seems unbalanced.

Well, the obvious out is implement my policy: every new game, every new campaign has a grace period or 6 or so games. At any point during that run, anyone can go "Man, I just don't see her working out as a Smuggler, I really think she'd be a Politico" and can respec that character from the ground up. No penalty, same experience points, same money and gear - just remake your character.

Same thing here. In a case like this, I would go "Okay, now that you guys have a better handle on the game engine, is there anything you want to do to your characters? Did you want to put your starting points into attributes or are you okay with them in skills".

And that way, everyone is happy. Problem solved.

Actually, as long as the inputs are alright (I still need to check that), his math is pretty legit, i.e. I agree with his methodology.

No, I trust mathematicians to do math...but you can't make me look at it!

For the record, I never claimed to be a mathematician. They're... a special kind of crazy.

2. Roleplayers can just take talents in dedication to increase their characteristics if they need it.

Yes, however that it a 75xp-95xp cost away, whereas the player that knew to put points into characteristics doesn't need to drudge through 4 or more talents in the talent trees to get at it, and already has a higher characteristic (and the powergamer can also get into the talent tree to get their characterstic even higher).

The Dedication talent cost 25 xp, and not one XP more. Your argument here completely discounts the value of every other purchased talent, which is completely bogus. Many talents on the way to the Dedication talent freaking rock. You state that the value of talents are difficult to quantify, but here you seem to have no problem assigning them a value of 0.

Point of correction - you are both right. Yes the dedication talent costs 25 points (occasionally 20) - but he is arguing from the point of coming from zero. To get to that talent costs you - at minimum, assuming you picked the right tree - 5+10+15+20+25 points.

I understand the point of view that both you and he expressed, I simply disagree with it: IMO it's unfair to count the cost of those talents without also counting the benefits of the talents.

As a human, a professional in the life sciences, a man who may one day have daughters, and a feminist, I simply have no words to express how much I despise that this exists.

Imagine a game where no matter how you made a character, it was balanced - the wizard is as powerful as a fighter, at all levels, but obviously not at all skills/activities (which is arguably not the case in DnD 3.5 and earlier). What I'm arguing for is that EotE can be that - it can be balanced for everyone to make characters that - no matter how you make your character - the power level of them all are balanced.

Might I point out a flaw with your thinking? What do you mean balanced? As in all characters can fight just as well as each other? That's a false line of thinking - my Politico would get completely dominated in just about every fight she'd be in. Hell, I spend most combats running away from the Big Scary People with Guns, hiding behind my marauder.

But I just picked up my Unmatched Expertise supertalent. That means that just a couple of Destiny Points and my silver tongue, I can sell sand to Jabba and make him think he's getting a fantastic deal out of the bargain. Lets see a marauder do THAT!

Thus - balance. Not everyone has to be equally good at all things.

JJR is pretty clearly talking about character balance *at creation*

And the term balance in the context of the thread is pretty clearly "Is everyone having fun"

Finally, quibbling about what the definition of "game balance" is anyway is pretty pointless, at least on these boards. Jay Little had an article up a few years ago labeled something along the lines of "The importance of game balance" and the first like was basically "Beats me what game balance is supposed to be" and then just rambled about how games are fun. (wish I could find it, but it looks like it got taken down)

Point being: If the lead dev of the game claims to not know and not care about what "game balance" is, it's exact definition probably isn't too relevant to the game anyway.

I am with several others here. I don't think there is any necessity for a change. Trying to force an all situations balance is a fools errand. There's going to be ways to make unbalanced characters. As for my opinions on the matter...

First, it is possible to gain characteristics after character generation already. And there's a fair chance that a character which has spent most their XP somewhere other than characteristics is some of the way towards one of these talents already. I don't see there is a need to push other means of doing this.

Secondly, as is stated in the original post and observed by looking at the pregen characters, the idea is that people will do a heavy investment of starting XP towards characteristics. Players familiar with the system should be aware of this already, players new to it should be getting at least some guidance from their GM who should point this out to them. If they are given this knowledge and choose to spend most their XP on skills and talents anyhow they've made a conscious choice that this is more important to them. It's not a wrong choice if they have fun with their character. I know plenty of people who make purposefully less than ideal characters because they like the concept and it will be fun to play. If that proves true for them then there's no need for concern.

Thinking of it another way, when playing D&D.. if someone chooses to be an Orc with a negative to their intelligence, and put a moderate roll/number of points into the stat but then takes the Wizard class. There's nothing /wrong/ with the character. If the GM reminds them this will limit the effectiveness of their spells and potentially the levels of spells they can attain and they still decide this is the way they want to go that is their choice and is completely legitimate provided they have fun playing the character they've chosen to make and play. There should be no need to introduce a rule saying that they can choose to gain a point of intelligence instead of a feat at the levels offering feats in order to allow them to 'catch up' with the players that distributed their starting stats differently.

I agree with this, but are we not able to forgive mistakes? Why are we so strongly harsh on those that don;t know any better?

Likely because the rest of us understand that there isn't a way for an informed GM and an expert player to allow for a novice player to not know better. If the player doesn't know any better then his group has failed him. As the GM it's your job to make sure the player knows better. If after they are informed they still make the choice that's on them. But you as the GM already know how this works. You need to be explaining this stuff to your players.

Imagine a table where no one knows the rules, everyone is learning, or the expert player/GM makes a mistake helping at character creation, imagine forgiving them for making that mistake.

You keep using the word mistake but I don't think it means what you think it means.

OP*, you assume the game itself is going to be one-tracked, basing power on one combat skill in your example. But if the game is well rounded and many different skills and encounter types are included, the specialized and focused min/max characters will be extremely good in one or a few aereas of the game and very bad at others, so it balances out. It doesn`t matter if the character is good at shooting if he or she only gets to shoot at something every third session.

If the gm plays it right and mix up the encounters and situations and the players are creative with what they got, that wil balance the game out for you.

* I`ve only read the OP.

Yeah, there's no need for a house rule like this. I'm starting up a Force and Destiny game with new players and I helped them during creation regarding spending XP on Characteristics.

It's really not that hard to help them out with a little GM guidance.

Take a look at LethalDose's math - its pretty clear that if you put points into characteristics you will succeed 5-10% more often. That's the problem.

Here is your problem. Youre so fixated on suceess that you've missed the fact that failure can be awesome too.

There have been dozens and dozens of sessions where a PC fails at something and it turns out to be epic. The time where in the middle of a den of scum and villainy, surrounded by goons on a delicate infiltration mission, my Jedi-in-disguise, saber hidden under his long jacket, dropped said saber - in plan and full view of everyone in the bar?

Or about the time where my Face was negotiating a deal to sell some controlled substances in the back room of a smokey den, failed the charm roll, convincing the contact that she was a cop and wearing a wire. Oh, and the despair meant that the smokey den was raided by the police in a completely unrelated incident just as she almost had them convinced otherwise.

Or the time my players hid in a cargo container to escape an imperial patrol, failing to notice any important markings or cargo manifests - and were loaded aboard a Star Destroyer.

Who cares if you succeed or fail! This game - if the GM and players are on the ball - is fun either way. I've had more awesome sessions spun out of a crappy, failed roll than I can count.

As a GM, in other game systems I generally encourage my players to build well rounded characters from the get go rather than point dumping to be "Uber" in one area.

With SWEOTE I changed my tune.

I encourage My players, as the book does, to spend as much as possible, upping the characteristics vital to the skills they will have the most of. In most cases my players have spent nearly all, if not all points in increasing stats.

WHy? Because This game Gives the players a Decent well rounded amount of skills.... and Even if they Don't have a skill developed, they still actually have the skill... just at characteristic base.... which in most cases means they will have 2 green dice for their chance of success.... Will they be spectacular at it? No.. but they still have a chance.

My view of the Game is that FFG designed it with the Idea that most(if not all) of the beginning EXP would be spent on stats. So this is what I promote, and I point this out to players(Like myself) that would normally go for more skills rather than increase stats.

So I don't really see it as a Problem if the GM does his job in explaining the system.

Even as it is Now, I have players who spent all their beginning points in stats wishing they could spend some of their NEW experience on stats.

Take a look at LethalDose's math - its pretty clear that if you put points into characteristics you will succeed 5-10% more often. That's the problem.

Now maybe that's not that big of a problem for some, but I think I'll be instituting this houserule so players who didn't know the power of characteristics can upgrade their characteristics later (only using a total of 100xp (species specific) on characterietic increases).

No that is not the problem. The problem is you not informing your player. As a GM you should be HELPING your player make an effective character. Stop blaming the system for the short comings of your table that you allowed to happen. Instead of sticking a band aid on the problem let the players rebuild their character to fix the problem.

Of course! I'm looking for solutions to mistakes like the GM didn't help the player!

But instead of going through all that trouble and unbalancing the game to accomodate those inexperienced gamers you could just, you know, help them out to begin with...

Sure! Of course! But what do we do if that doesn't happen?

I think the solution is to allow the player to one-time respec their character.

I think people are asking more why aren't you helping out the inexperienced gamers in the first place.