Plenty of posters suggested respec early on in this conversation.

I even said something about Respec being allowed at my game... just not in the way your suggesting JJ.

I Review every character sheet before a Player can enter it into my game..

I do this for several reasons ( Especially if the Player Did not Make the Character Directly with me overseeing it)

#1 I have had more than my share of Cheating players.... whether it be cheating on the die rolls or... False Entries of Stats(ie making numbers up) Over spending Development poits/Experience/Build points Or even overspending Money I have seen it all.

#2 I want to make sure the Player didn't make any "mistakes" and short themselves or accidentally over spend or even just misunderstood something.

#3 I want to make sure I understand what they were going for, and make any suggestions that might help them fit their character better to the concept they were going for. These are suggestions only and I give my reasons Why. they can Take those choices or Leave them ... I may not fully understand what they were going for and Why they made their choices.... But once I go over their character and have that sit down... The character is set and No changes can be Made.

There is no Respec once the character is being played.

it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

If you don't want to help think of ways we can further balance the game then stop following the thread. Don't try to tell those of us who want to balance the game further that we can't. That doesn't help at all.

I kinda stopped following this thread a bit ago, because it's really devolving.

Did you address why allowing a respec doesn't sufficiently solve the problem and the proposed house-rule is still necessary?

At this point, it seems more about the argument as to why people should be trying to create house rules for an issue that is easily addressed by reading existing rules and players and GMs working together when they find an issue with how they are playing the game. The respec method was suggested, he even agreed at the time it seemed the way most people felt it was easiest to address, and then the thread continued on for 12 more pages.

Personally, I see no reason for a house rule or codifying 'people are allowed one respec'.. I think the simple, elegant answer is for the people at the table to behave like adults that are attempting to play the game in an environment that fosters mutual fun and entertainment and just work together as a group to address issues that might come up while gaming. This could be helping a player rebuild their character if it's not working how they want but carries through to basically any issues that might come up.

the simple, elegant answer is for the people at the table to behave like adults that are attempting to play the game in an environment that fosters mutual fun and entertainment and just work together as a group to address issues that might come up while gaming

I agree, ideally this happens at every table, but sometimes this doesn't always happen for various reasons (talking about it makes them more defensive about it, or they're a family member so you can't kick them out, etc)

So.. your 'solution' to a GM that doesn't feel that sitting down and working with a player who is having problems with their character to revise the character into something that does work for them is to suggest that this same GM introduce a new rule that changes the way they can spend their XP?

I'm sorry, but I don't see that this will fix anything as, from what I've seen of GMs, the GM that can't work with their player to revise their character isn't going to be interested in introducing your new rule either. So the player is still trapped. Any GM that might consider this new rule is likely already willing to sit down and work with their players and doesn't need the rule in the first place.

Unless you are hoping that FFG will introduce your change as some new official errata. In which case we fall back to the original real source of the problem. If the GM and player didn't read the rules well enough to realize that putting as much as possible into characteristics was the recommended process do you really believe they are keeping up with errata and reading those thoroughly.

To be clear, I'm not saying they should suffer for not reading the rules. I'm saying that new rules to address a problem that at it's root starts with not having read the rules is a flawed tactic. It's akin to telling someone who can't get their favorite latte because they can't drive to the coffee shop selling it that they could instead just drive to another coffee shop.The root problem is still there, they can't drive so a different location isn't really going to fix their problem.

No one has yet to suggest a new mechanic that might balance it (besides respecing). It doesn't matter whether it gets implemented or not, it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

Darn right. Why would anyone waste their time on that? I mean, I get it if it's a puzzle and you like puzzles, but that's critical time I could spend actually gaming, or prepping for one...or what have you.

The point is, pick your battles. If all your efforts can be hand-waved in five minutes, there's no purpose and nothing is gained.

This is the EotE forums. We get academic all the time.

it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

If you don't want to help think of ways we can further balance the game then stop following the thread. Don't try to tell those of us who want to balance the game further that we can't. That doesn't help at all.

Your argument is flawed. You aren't thinking of ways to further balance the game. The game itself is rather balanced in that regards. The rule you created changes the balance of the game to an imbalance since all the other gaming mechanics in it are based on the current rule and not your house rule.

We aren't willing to try because:

A. There is no such thing as perfect balance. It's an impossible dream that will never be achieved. As such it's pointless.

B. There is no real imbalance.

C. There are simpler ways to fix this "problem" than your house rule. We've actually covered those ways all of which you've dismissed because ..... reasons. This has clued us into knowing that you're not really out to get balance, you just want people to tell you your house rule is awesome.

If you're only going to say that the game shouldn't be changed then you're not helping the discussion

I want to figure out how to further balance the game - not if it should be further balanced than it already is.

Therein lies your problem. It SHOULDN'T be further balanced, so you are not going to find many people here that can help you.

If you're only going to say that the game shouldn't be changed then you're not helping the discussion

I want to figure out how to further balance the game - not if it should be further balanced than it already is.

You're not seeking game balance. If you were you would have accepted the easiest solution to the problem, as ultimately game balance seeks to find the simplest solution to a problem. Furthermore your refusal to accept the simple solution implies that you are again.

A. only really wanting validation for your idea.

B. Will never be satisfied with any answer given anyway as there is no way to achieve your desired goal.

I haven't, actually, I've been putting out fires and responding to people saying we shouldn't even have a respec.

I don't remember seeing someone saying this

See this:

I think the forum has come to this conclusion and I don't mind it - allow characters one respec.

I think the biggest problem I see here is the amount of anger and hurtful comments on this post in my direction about my age, intelligence, and GMing style.

Please, I didn't bring this topic up to have people attack me, I brought this topic up to discuss the merits and downsides of this approach.

I'm sorry if I hurt anyone in any way, I just meant to push the topic to get a full discussion as to why some people had some reasons not to.

Two posts later ...

I think the forum has come to this conclusion and I don't mind it - allow characters one respec.

I think the biggest problem I see here is the amount of anger and hurtful comments on this post in my direction about my age, intelligence, and GMing style.

Please, I didn't bring this topic up to have people attack me, I brought this topic up to discuss the merits and downsides of this approach.

I'm sorry if I hurt anyone in any way, I just meant to push the topic to get a full discussion as to why some people had some reasons not to.

The problem is you have been pushing an un needed solution. As in the game tells you up front spend as much xp on characteristics in the beginning and why you do so. One does not need to come up with a way for people to up their characteristics if one takes the time to read the rules. Or if people share basic information on the character. And only a mean GM would say no you are stuck with your character if the player says hey this character is not working the way I thought it would.

Then two posts further...

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?

But why? At what table would this happen??? At what table would a GM be unwilling to help his player build a good character but willing to maintain such an eloborate unbalancing "house rule"?

None of those posts you quoted suggest we shouldn't have a respec. In fact, they advocate for it. At this point I'm pretty sure you're just winding everyone up.

Also, wouldn't your house rule would completely invalidate spending your starting experience on characteristics at creation? Like, honestly, you could just pump all of your stuff into skills and talents since you can just buy characteristics afterwards, anyway. At that point, you may as well just remove the whole idea of spending experience on characteristics at creation.

Therein lies your problem. It SHOULDN'T be further balanced, so you are not going to find many people here that can help you.

If you're only going to say that the game shouldn't be changed then you're not helping the discussion

I want to figure out how to further balance the game - not if it should be further balanced than it already is.

I want to figure out how to further balance the game - not if it should be further balanced than it already is.

What your suggesting isn't Further Balancing the game. That is his Point and his right to making it.... Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean he isn't contributing to the discussion.

The Part of the Game we are discussing IS Already balanced.

If a Player Reads the rules and follows the Instructions of character creation, He can make a "balanced" character.

If they Don't This is Not an Imbalance in the game it is a Flaw/mistake of the player.

If a GM doesn't Review a character (and have read and understood the GAME himself) before game play, and talk to the player to understand what he was trying to make, Then that is a flaw/Mistake of the GM Not an Imbalance in the Game.

Not all Characters Will be equal in all things... That, regardless of a respec, WILL Always Be True. And that is not an Imbalance in the Game.

The Biggest Issue that Keeps People Going on the opposition of your Point Here JJ, is that you Continue to Insist that there is a Flaw and or Imbalance in the game that creates this problem and that the GAME Needs to be fixed.

There is Not an imbalance in the game that needs to be fixed. This is a GM/Player Issue ... The Game Does not NEED a Fix for a GM/Player Issue..... That is something to be resolved Between Players and GMs.

If you feel your table Needs such a House Rule.. Then More power to you. That is IF you are the GM.

How ever, If you are NOT the GM... I am in NO Way going to give MY support to your suggestion that you can Point to your GM and say "See!! They agree With me. Let me Respec My Character!"

If you can't convince your GM that you deserve leniency in this matter, then that is His call and you need to Buck up and accept that and move on and play, Make a new character, Or Find a new table to play at.

Therein lies your problem. It SHOULDN'T be further balanced, so you are not going to find many people here that can help you.

If you're only going to say that the game shouldn't be changed then you're not helping the discussion

I want to figure out how to further balance the game - not if it should be further balanced than it already is.

Once again, further balancing the game causes other things to become unbalanced. This specific rule is fine as it is - it doesn't need further balancing.

None of those posts you quoted suggest we shouldn't have a respec. In fact, they advocate for it. At this point I'm pretty sure you're just winding everyone up.

I think we're on the same page. I'm confused.

Therein lies your problem. It SHOULDN'T be further balanced, so you are not going to find many people here that can help you.

If you're only going to say that the game shouldn't be changed then you're not helping the discussion

I want to figure out how to further balance the game - not if it should be further balanced than it already is.

Please read my post a little closer.

I am telling you that if you are going to restrict the discussion to only allow posts that discuss how (not if) it should be changed, no one will continue posting.

Therein lies your problem. It SHOULDN'T be further balanced, so you are not going to find many people here that can help you.

If you're only going to say that the game shouldn't be changed then you're not helping the discussion

I want to figure out how to further balance the game - not if it should be further balanced than it already is.

The problem with this thinking is that the game is not imbalanced. You are trying to do something that is not really possible. Because A. the game is not imbalanced. and B. It is not really possible to make all characters balanced because the only way to balance characters in the way you want would be to give every character in the exact same build.

You are thinking about things in an entirely wrong manner. Which is why you are running into issues here.

Also, wouldn't your house rule would completely invalidate spending your starting experience on characteristics at creation? Like, honestly, you could just pump all of your stuff into skills and talents since you can just buy characteristics afterwards, anyway. At that point, you may as well just remove the whole idea of spending experience on characteristics at creation.

So (ignoring the dependecies between advantages, successes, and triumphs that LethalDose pointed out),

A Characteristic-focused character succeeds 10 percentage points more often, gets advantages 8 percentage points more often, and gets triumphs 2 percentage points less often

Comparing the percentages,

Going Characteristics will increase your character success rate by up to 33% , down to 5% at 400xp

(53/40-1 = 0.325, 55/49-1 = 0.11, 59/56-1 = 0.05)

It will increase advantage rate by up to 25% , down to 11% at 400xp

(38.5/30.5-1 = 0.26, 40/32-1 = 0.25, 44/39-1 = 0.11)

It will decrease triumph rate by up to 65% at character creation, decrease it by 25% 100xp in, and they'll be the same at 400xp

(1.5/4.4-1 = -0.65, 4.5/6-1 = -0.25)

If you do that then you will not get as many successes or advantages.

Also, wouldn't your house rule would completely invalidate spending your starting experience on characteristics at creation? Like, honestly, you could just pump all of your stuff into skills and talents since you can just buy characteristics afterwards, anyway. At that point, you may as well just remove the whole idea of spending experience on characteristics at creation.

So (ignoring the dependecies between advantages, successes, and triumphs that LethalDose pointed out),

A Characteristic-focused character succeeds 10 percentage points more often, gets advantages 8 percentage points more often, and gets triumphs 2 percentage points less often

Comparing the percentages,

Going Characteristics will increase your character success rate by up to 33% , down to 5% at 400xp

(53/40-1 = 0.325, 55/49-1 = 0.11, 59/56-1 = 0.05)

It will increase advantage rate by up to 25% , down to 11% at 400xp

(38.5/30.5-1 = 0.26, 40/32-1 = 0.25, 44/39-1 = 0.11)

It will decrease triumph rate by up to 65% at character creation, decrease it by 25% 100xp in, and they'll be the same at 400xp

(1.5/4.4-1 = -0.65, 4.5/6-1 = -0.25)

If you do that then you will not get as many successes or advantages.

Which then creates a problem therein and of itself. If new players are playing in a game that uses this house rule, and all of them follow the rule, then they would all be not getting as many successes or advantages then they would from following the original rules. See the problem?

Therein lies your problem. It SHOULDN'T be further balanced, so you are not going to find many people here that can help you.

If you're only going to say that the game shouldn't be changed then you're not helping the discussion

I want to figure out how to further balance the game - not if it should be further balanced than it already is.

You haven't identified a problem. If there is no problem you can not obtain suggestions on how to "further balance" the game.

In order to acheive your goal people would first have to recognize the problem. The problem is that we recognize the problem is not with the game but with the people. Thus all our suggestions for "re balancing the game" as you put it, are ignored.

To sum up in a nut shell

You: There is a problem with the balance of the game!!! Here's my new house rule to fix it!!!!

Us: That's not a problem, but lets humor you. Assuming that it's really a problem this is how you fix it.

You: That doesn't involve my house rule, why aren't you guys talking about balancing the game.

Us: We did, we just found an easier way to fix a non problem before it even actually becomes a problem.

You: Help me balance the game.

Us: ........

One of the biggest flaws in your argument is that you Are claiming that they will be less Successful and things than the SAME character Made based on Characterists in their Field.

SO Bringing ALL Skills Into the equation is a Fallacy ...

The base facts are the skill based character will have More Skills With at least 1 yellow die in them than the characteristic based character, so they will have a broader skill selection.

How ever... In their Primary Focused SKill(s). The Characteristic based Character will have a Small Advantage in success over the Skill based Character (13% at character creation down to 3% at 400xp.. being negligible at that point.)

I find no Imbalance in this... I have made Such characters in other game systems in the past where I wasn't as Good at the Primary skills as another similar character, but I had a Broader selection of skills with which I was good at so I was More versatile.

But you continue to suggest that My character is flawed... sorry... I disagree.

I may not be as good at shooting my blaster asthe other guy, But I may be better than Him and Talking My way out of trouble because I have a Skill developed that he doesn't....

I may be able to Negotiate a Better Price for My equipment because I have negotiation developed where he doesn't.

If you feel that the game is already balanced as best as it can be then I'm not going to be able to convince you that it isn't.

Please refrain from posting that we shouldn't even consider ways we can make the game better.

It does not help with the discussion.

I appreciate everyone's input into this topic, but let's have a constructive discussion. Thank you!

So.. your 'solution' to a GM that doesn't feel that sitting down and working with a player who is having problems with their character to revise the character into something that does work for them is to suggest that this same GM introduce a new rule that changes the way they can spend their XP?

To be fair, this is a misrepresentation of what the JJR has been saying (or at least what he was saying 10 pages ago)

He had a situation come where there was only a problem apparent *after* the campaign had started: A player that went skill/talent-heavy at creation felt woefully out-gunned by the player that went for a characteristic-heavy build. The situation could just as easily arise when all players, including the GM, are novices, so it doesn't really matter *how* it happened at the OP's table, it's a reasonable possibility.

Despite what some individuals have claimed in this thread, there is no text in the book that explicitly recommends players spend the majority of their XP at creation on attributes. I think even reading an implicit recommendation is a massive stretch. All that gets said on the subject is: "Characteristics may only be purchased with experience points during character creation, not at any later time." I don't interpret that as any kind of recommendation. Some people do, obviously, but it can hardly be assumed everyone would interpret that passage in that matter.

Similarly, the numerical benefit of buying up attributes at creation certainly may not be obvious (see all the math above).

Now...

Do I think the system is unbalanced? No.

Do I think the house-rule is needed? No.

Do I think the house-rule is good? No.

Does my opinion, or anyone else's, mean the situation doesn't occur? NO! It absolutely does occur, and I think it bears discussion on how to resolve it.

I think the solution is just to allow the respec. Other people say "Screw those morons". Some [quiet few] may like the house-rule.

I think, regardless of where you came down on it, you should at least be fair to the OP and not misrepresent his opinion.

Now, JJR, lets look at the first lines of your OP:

Dude.

We heard you out.

You're not getting support.

You've [unfortunately] brought very little new input to this 3-year-old discussion, and you indicated above, you were aware this isn't a new idea from the start. Feel free to use your rule it at your table, but it's time to stop trying to win the crowd.

Everyone else... you've been heard, at least as much as you're gonna be. It takes two to tango.

It's time to let it go, everyone.

PS Re: the 'narrative cost' of allowing the respect; Yeah, it might bite into the narrative a bit, but not as much as having one of these events:

Player : "I don't like how my character is turning out."

GM : "Sorry, no respecs."

Player : "Okay. My character kills himself. I want to create a new character with the same name and same class that looks exactly the same as my old character and he's built like [intelligent build based on experience]."

Just... allow a respec.

Guy, you're basically saying 'if you don't agree with me, stop posting'.

JJrodny, are you an astromech droid? Be honest!

I must be to withstand all of this negativity!

If you feel that the game is already balanced as best as it can be then I'm not going to be able to convince you that it isn't.

Please refrain from posting that we shouldn't even consider ways we can make the game better.

It does not help with the discussion.

I appreciate everyone's input into this topic, but let's have a constructive discussion. Thank you!

We have posted ways to make the game better. You just don't accept them as improvements.

Which in the end is cool since we don't accept your premise as an improvement either.

Therein lies your problem. It SHOULDN'T be further balanced, so you are not going to find many people here that can help you.

If you're only going to say that the game shouldn't be changed then you're not helping the discussion

I want to figure out how to further balance the game - not if it should be further balanced than it already is.

You haven't identified a problem. If there is no problem you can not obtain suggestions on how to "further balance" the game.

In order to acheive your goal people would first have to recognize the problem. The problem is that we recognize the problem is not with the game but with the people. Thus all our suggestions for "re balancing the game" as you put it, are ignored.

See math:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/187594-characteristic-modification-after-character-creation/?p=1798257