But you're not just getting a free attribute boost, you're paying for it with XP. Why would someone automatically assume that XP spent on attributes and the same amount of XP spent on relevant skills and talents is not the same effectiveness? There is no reason to make that assumption right off the bat.

Because in any system in which you your dice pool is skill + attribute if you can't buy one or the other post char creation it becomes obvious that it's important to raise the one that can't be bought post char gen. It's also more than obvious that if we compare stats the guy with the higher stat is more likely to be better than the guy with the lower stat. This is a lesson we learn not only with this game, but pretty much all games we've played in.

That is of course if we're judging effectiveness by using math. I honestly do not want to meet the player who can't make this simple leap of logic.

What are you judging it by, if not the results of the dice?

How much fun I'm having? Whether or not my concept works? How much fun I'm having? Do I succeed at the task I set out to do? How much fun am I having? Whether I can do what my character was built to do? How much fun I'm having? Did I get a purple double bladed lightsabre? How much fun I'm having?

But I don't really take the time to judge if I'm 5% better than someone else in the same party. It honestly doesn't matter. I'm not competing with the other party members. It's a team game afterall. The only time me being 5% better at something than someone is important is if I'm trying to kill their PC. Then that extra 5% matters. But PC killing should be a rarity.

We're talking about a situation where Player A and Player B are making the same choices with characters that were rolled using different methods, and noticing that one character is less effective than the other.

If they were rolled differently why are they assumed to be equal? Also any player who can't see that having an Agility of 2 is going to make him less effective than the guy with Agility of 4 has bigger issues to deal with honestly.

The only way to make two equally effective characters who are equally effective at the same task is to build them the same way. There is no logical reason why building two characters differently shouldn't result in one being more effective than the other. If we aren't comparing them to the same task (which is the only reason why effectiveness should matter) then we are really just wasting our time.

Also, and this is important, it's the GM's job to make sure every PC shines at what they set out to be effective in. Challenges should be scaled based on what the characters can do in their area's of specialty. Not the area of specialty of the other guy.

Edit: In other words the GM should be making sure that even if I didn't mathematically optimize my character I should still be effective at what I built my character to do. The GM should always be scaling things so that the challenges faced work for the characters actually abilities and not some imagined level of perfection.

I can see why. Coming to the EotE board with even the mildest hint of a suggestion that the system may not be perfect seems to warrant nothing but unending hostility and rage.

We never said it was a perfect system. That's never been the argument. The contention is not in the fact that you claim the system isn't perfect. It's in that you are blaming the system for something that is the players and GMs fault.

I can see why. Coming to the EotE board with even the mildest hint of a suggestion that the system may not be perfect seems to warrant nothing but unending hostility and rage.

Gee, lame. I could just dismiss your argument as simply being a "h8ter", and this thread would really get cooking, wouldn't it?

A bunch of us disagree with you because you're simply wrong. I have plenty of quibbles with the system, space combat for one. But all that's going on here on this topic is new people pontificating, making mountains out of nothing, and refusing to learn. You can pretend it's because everybody else is a fanboi, but usually when you think it's "everybody else" it's a good time to look in the mirror.

It's also worth pointing out that if you don't find your characters effective if there is a 5% difference between your character and another then it is your job to learn the ins and outs of the system so you can achieve your mathematically perfect character.

It's more than obvious that if I don't have equal attributes to someone else then I'm going to be less effective overall when that stat is called into question.

But you're not just getting a free attribute boost, you're paying for it with XP. Why would someone automatically assume that XP spent on attributes and the same amount of XP spent on relevant skills and talents is not the same effectiveness? There is no reason to make that assumption right off the bat.

Also most of us aren't swayed by the 5% argument because .... and this is really important we aren't judging effectiveness based on mathematical optimization.

What are you judging it by, if not the results of the dice? Someone who has invested all their XP into their Characteristics will roll more positive results (Successes, advantages, and triumphs) than someone who has not. Are you judging it by player choice? Because those are assumed to be equal. We're talking about a situation where Player A and Player B are making the same choices with characters that were rolled using different methods, and noticing that one character is less effective than the other.

But please spare me how this is some "situation" created by the game itself. That is such BS. There is no "situation". I've been here since the beta and I have never heard anyone, till now, complain their character was 5% less capable because they didn't familiarize themselves with the game properly and "oh the unfairness of it all!"

I can see why. Coming to the EotE board with even the mildest hint of a suggestion that the system may not be perfect seems to warrant nothing but unending hostility and rage.

As opposed to unending redundancy and need to have the last word....

You wouldn't need to read all 443 pages of the book...

But if your going to make a Character, Especially without GM help... I would expect the common sense of reading the Character Creation Section...... AS has been stated... the recommendation, by the authors, of Investing heavily in characteristics at character creation is right there in plain text In the Section ON creating a Character. Real Hard to Miss Unless you don't read how to make a Character in the first place.... Which of course... as a GM.... If your Not making the character With me but on your own.... you only have yourself to blame for not reading the rules.

I very much Dislike Players who claim a System is broken and Needs fixing or house ruled when they didn't even Read and Know the rules in the first place.

Read the rules

Understand the rules

THEN come tell me it's broken and how/why.

When I make a Character for the first time for ANY system, I DO it While I read and Follow the the Rules in the book for doing so.

Just look at it a diffierant angle, the "Power Gamer" has become a specialist while the "Role-player" has become a Jack-of-all.

Now if you where talking about a "Real Power Gamer" they would be choosing a race that gives them the best advange as well.

I have to ask why this argument is going on for 8 pages? If a player's character is less effective than they like because they did not understand the rules. Let them rebuild it. Done problem solved. We do not need new rules. Can we stop beating this dead horse already?

I'm more confused about why they're arguing about a completely random percentage that I pulled out of my ass.

Just to be Clear here.

You have stated you didn't Read the rules..... that You ASSumed what the rules were.... Missed a Key piece of Information about character creation...

And some how this is a Game Design Problem.....

And we are all Fan boy idiots for telling you you were the one who was at fault rather than the game?

ya Good luck with that type of logic in life.

Is this discussion still going?... Skills are cheaper than Characteristics, so you have more xp to spread out among other Skills or to use on Talents. You don`t get as specialized and one-tracked, but you get a broader character. It balances out.

Just look at it a diffierant angle, the "Power Gamer" has become a specialist while the "Role-player" has become a Jack-of-all.

Now if you where talking about a "Real Power Gamer" they would be choosing a race that gives them the best advange as well.

A real power gamer wouldn`t get much out of this system.

Just look at it a diffierant angle, the "Power Gamer" has become a specialist while the "Role-player" has become a Jack-of-all.

Now if you where talking about a "Real Power Gamer" they would be choosing a race that gives them the best advange as well.

A real power gamer wouldn`t get much out of this system.

I can vouch for that. Ran a short series of micro-adventures for some local gamers at the FLGS not long after EotE came out. Two of the players were notorious power gamers, with a well-earned reputation for tweaking every last iota of benefit out of the rules of any RPG they played (says something that 4e and Pathfinder were their favorite RPGs). One of them hated this system almost from the get-go because there was no way to ensure a near-automatic success at attacking or a near-automatic miss when being attacked, and pretty much rage-quit half way through the first session out of frustration.

The second one toughed it out through the second session, but stepped down because he really wasn't enjoying himself, thanking me for running but that the game just wasn't for him.

I can see why. Coming to the EotE board with even the mildest hint of a suggestion that the system may not be perfect seems to warrant nothing but unending hostility and rage.

No. I can acknowledge when someone has point, unlike here. And I by no means think this or any game is perfect. I just can not abide laying the fault with the game when it so obviously is with the player(s). Saying this with my unending hostility and rage!

Thank for illustrating what I was talking about so perfectly. "My opinion differs from your own, so therefore I will make a conscious decision to deride you, tell you everything is your fault, and generally not converse with you in a polite and decent manner."

I have to ask why this argument is going on for 8 pages? If a player's character is less effective than they like because they did not understand the rules. Let them rebuild it. Done problem solved. We do not need new rules. Can we stop beating this dead horse already?

I'm more confused about why they're arguing about a completely random percentage that I pulled out of my ass.

For my part to be a pedantic ass mostly. I'm not sure why he was doing it though.

Thank for illustrating what I was talking about so perfectly. "My opinion differs from your own, so therefore I will make a conscious decision to deride you, tell you everything is your fault, and generally not converse with you in a polite and decent manner."

He didn't illustrate your point. His post was neither hostile or rage filled. Except for when he stated it, but that was more done as a joke than to exhibit any real form of hostility and rage. And we aren't deriding you. You admitted you didn't read the rules properly. Therefore we can't take your complaint seriously. It's not an act of derision. Our position is that the rules are clear and that if you take the time to read them you wouldn't miss things. You aren't deriding someone by pointing out that reading the rules in full is better than skimming them.

Also ..... dude ...... come on ...... it is your fault if you don't read the rules. You can't blame the game for not making the matter clear if you didn't take the time to read all the rules. You are not going to generate any sympathy from anyone on this forum if you admit to not reading the rules.

I have to ask why this argument is going on for 8 pages? If a player's character is less effective than they like because they did not understand the rules. Let them rebuild it. Done problem solved. We do not need new rules. Can we stop beating this dead horse already?

I'm more confused about why they're arguing about a completely random percentage that I pulled out of my ass.

For my part to be a pedantic ass mostly. I'm not sure why he was doing it though.

Thank for illustrating what I was talking about so perfectly. "My opinion differs from your own, so therefore I will make a conscious decision to deride you, tell you everything is your fault, and generally not converse with you in a polite and decent manner."

He didn't illustrate your point. His post was neither hostile or rage filled. Except for when he stated it, but that was more done as a joke than to exhibit any real form of hostility and rage. And we aren't deriding you. You admitted you didn't read the rules properly. Therefore we can't take your complaint seriously. It's not an act of derision. Our position is that the rules are clear and that if you take the time to read them you wouldn't miss things. You aren't deriding someone by pointing out that reading the rules in full is better than skimming them.

Also ..... dude ...... come on ...... it is your fault if you don't read the rules. You can't blame the game for not making the matter clear if you didn't take the time to read all the rules. You are not going to generate any sympathy from anyone on this forum if you admit to not reading the rules.

This conversation has become a slew of substanceless childish attacks on anyone not defending EotE as perfect.

Listen to others who have a different opinion to yours, summarize it entirely, and try to understand where they come from.

Kael, don't say anything someone says is invalid because they played the game once without reading the book first. We're better than that.

We're better than this. Please, let's talk about the pros and cons of the system, not attack each other because they disagree with us.

Math of the Empire

This conversation has become a slew of substanceless childish attacks on anyone not defending EotE as perfect.

Again the issue isn't that people said the game isn't perfect. The issue is laying blame on the game when the fault lies with the player. If you don't read the rules you can't blame the game for not knowing the rules.

Kael, don't say anything someone says is invalid because they played the game once without reading the book first. We're better than that.

You don't have a valid argument if you don't read the source material. This is true for this game as it is in any discussion. If you didn't read the rules then you can't blame the game for your lack of understanding. You don't have a valid point if you didn't read the material. If I complained that I can't modify weapons and that this game sucks because of it and then admit that I didn't read the weapon mods sections of the rules people have every right to tell me that my opinion is invalid.

We're better than this. Please, let's talk about the pros and cons of the system, not attack each other because they disagree with us.

No one is making attacks on other people, and we certainly aren't doing it because they disagree with us. We are just placing blame where blame belongs. If you don't read the rules it's not the games fault you don't understand something. Pointing out that you can't blame the game for something you did is not an attack on them.

Sometimes the fault is the system. Sometimes the fault is the player. It's ok to say when it's the players fault. Just like it's ok to say it's the systems fault. Pointing out that it is the player that is wrong is not an attack on them.

I'm totally lost now on this thread.

This thread went off the rails, then called in an orbital strike on them.

I'm totally lost now on this thread.

This thread went off the rails, then called in an orbital strike on them.

I say we Nuke it From Orbit. It's the Only way to be sure.

Pro: If you read the rules and understand them then creating characters and playing the game generally works well.

Con: If you don't then problems will arise. The extent of which can vary.

Pro: If you read the rules and understand them then creating characters and playing the game generally works well.

Con: If you don't then problems will arise. The extent of which can vary.

Something that is true for every single RPG on the market . This has been a facet of the RPG industry since the early days of D&D and will be a facet of future RPGs.

D&D 4e is the closest I've seen to "idiot proofing" the process of character creation, and even then it was quite possible to build a sub-optimal character (and even then it could be done).

As others have said, the core fault lies NOT in the rules, but the fact that a player that was completely unfamiliar with the system wasn't given any help in building their first character. Maybe I've been a gamer for long enough that it's second nature, but generally speaking when you've got a new player that doesn't know the system, then as the GM you help them out when building their initial character! That doesn't mean you build it for them, but at the very least you help them make informed choices, and if they want to take a sub-optimal route (such as spending the bulk of their starting XP on skills and talents instead of characteristics), then so be it, but at least they're not doing so out of ignorance. And if it turns out they really dislike how the character shook out in those first couple sessions, then you let them re-spec the character to be something more enjoyable.

That doesn't mean you build it for them, but at the very least you help them make informed choices

*sheepish look*

Actually, my friend with the Seonian thief? When he was working on his character, I wound up building one and showing it to him, "this is what I would do if I were you".

He wound up ignoring me and doing his own thing.

I would point out that while I don't think there is an issue with the game, LethalDose's math shouldn't be taken as gospel, because while technically correct, it ignores a huge issue: The person who bought up the attributes is going to be way better at a host of other skills. The person who bought up just skill is going to be hyperspecialized to that one skill.

The effectiveness is much more than just the small percent he claims.

This thread made me play around with the character generator and I made a few characters without spending any xp on characteristics. I didn`t manage to make one that wasn`t capable.

Why are specialized characters supposed to be best or more "powerful" in a system that is so spread out, has a cap on skills and is narrative? This is by no means a system for power gamers.

Some characters are more rounded, some are more specialized and focused, is one better than the other?

And what does powerful even mean in a system that have so many areas of focus?

I`ve said it before, the character in my game with the most xp by far, has used no xp on combat skills or combat related talents. Does that make him less powerful?

The system does not give extra xp for combat, for solving encounters or killing monsters, the game gives bonus xp for roleplaying and following motivation. You are not meant to be able to fight everyone or everything,

you are not meant to win every encounter, or succeed every skill, failing is fun and interesting too.

I would point out that while I don't think there is an issue with the game, LethalDose's math shouldn't be taken as gospel, because while technically correct, it ignores a huge issue: The person who bought up the attributes is going to be way better at a host of other skills. The person who bought up just skill is going to be hyperspecialized to that one skill.

The effectiveness is much more than just the small percent he claims.

Watch it, son.

Where do I make a single claim re: efficacy!? Especially after I reported those values. If you find it, I'd like to see it, because the only thing that comes close I see is in my final stats post is:

Prior to those values, I think I may have said it'd doesn't matter much. I still don't think it's an issue, but I have really high threshold for where I'm willing to say they're a meaningful difference. And even that I've clearly qualified as opinion. Beyond that section, I did nothing other than objectively report the results.

And I'm not asking anyone to accept those values as "gospel" or anything beyond accurate . I simply generated side-by-side results for several example dice pools (And after the OP started talking stats) and provided them for reference. Most of those dice pools are based on pools the OP proposed, not me.

That doesn't give anyone, including you, the right to go and put words in my mouth. If you can't, won't, or don't appreciate the work that went into producing and reporting those values, fine, but I won't tolerate you misrepresenting the content of my posts.

Now if there are results you want to see that I didn't include, and you ask nice, I'll post them, no problem. I've provided everything necessary for total transparency regarding how those values were produced.