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.

A few posts ago I went over a few of these concerns. And I understand your position!

And I'm in the same boat of allowing players to respec their character after 2-3 adventures.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

PS Sorry if you think this is an overload of math, but

1. It's the kind of info that you have to produce to make any claims about imbalance
2. Like I said, I do this for a living.

I'm a Tax Manager. After a 9-10 hour day of trying to get the dang 9/15 filings done, I get home and let's check out the forum for my favorite game. And I send up seeing things along the line of the project as we sell one of our companies.

Nothing personal, but math overload kicked in.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Hi all,

I know this has been brought up a ton before, but before you click away, hear me entirely out.

Increasing characteristics can only be done during character creation, with the XP given for your species.

A powergamer that knows there will be 10+ sessions to gain XP (using arguably out-of-character knowledge) will see that this is the case, hear that developers suggest increasing characteristics at character creation, and use all of their starting experience to upgrade their characteristics and use future XP for skills and talents.

A roleplayer interested in enjoying the game and creating a well rounded character may increase one characteristic, but will mostly upgrade skills that fit their character idea during character creation, and use further xp to increase skills and talents.

I love EotE and how amazingly balanced it is, however, this is the sole case in which the game becomes a little bit unbalanced. And this happens in every other RPG I've played, the DnD powergamer is leaps above the DnD roleplayer in terms of power.

6 sessions in, the powergamer has 4 agility and 3 ranks in ranged (light) and plenty of room for improvement in the skill (GYYY), while the roleplayer has 2 agility and 5 ranks in ranged (light) GGGYY and cannot become any better at it (unless he wants to become part robot, which kills his character concept).

Now this is the only unbalanced part of the game - not knowing or not planning characteristics at character creation.

I would like to suggest - and I'd love to hear feedback - that throughout the campaign, a character may upgrade characteristics up to the maximum allowable at character creation . Not indefinitely racing to get all 5's in all characteristics, just allow anyone throughout the game to upgrade their characteristics as if they knew at character creation what the powergamer knew about characteristics.

What this means is that the roleplayed human at 6 sessions in can upgrade his characteristics as if he had powergamed at the first session, essentially evening the playing field between a powergamer and roleplayer. The roleplayer would be able to upgrade his characteristic to be that of the powergamer's.

E.g. Powergamed human takes 3,4,2,2,2,2,2, (spending 100xp on characteristics) and roleplayed human goes 2,3,2,2,2,2 (spending 30xp on characteristics). Later on in the game, 6 sessions in, the roleplayed human can still use 70xp that he's earned in the game to go towards characteristics. He can't upgrade characteristics past that. He can't spend 500xp to upgrade all his characteristics, he can just upgrade his characteristics throughout the game as if he knew that he should have done it during character creation .

This still keeps the roleplay aspect to the game, as characteristics aren't changing by very much but do show with a little hard work you can improve yourself a little bit, but crucially , it balances the game between a powergamer and a roleplayer.

This would be the first RPG I have seen that would be able to do that - balance the game between a powergamer and a roleplayer, and I'm excited that while this is still new we may be able to help to make it so balanced.

Let me know what you guys think, I'd love to hear good points against this idea.

EDIT: Clarifiation:

The term Powergamer is used as a term here for someone who knows that starting XP should be spent on characcteristics, while a roleplayer is used as a term for someone who does not. I'm sorry I chose those words, I should have labeled them A and B.

Also see this post for more clarification:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/187594-characteristic-modification-after-character-creation/?p=1786148

Wow. Six pages. I'm assuming it got acrimonious there. I haven't read through, so a similar opinion to mine may have already been stated, but I'm gonna do it anyway. Let me start by saying I get where you're coming from, but I also understand the rationale behind FFG's system. Characteristics are meant to respect the maximum aptitudes of the characters, to set a hard limitations on how characters can grow in a system otherwise very flexible to a range of differentiation. Let me put it in context with the two EotE games I've been involved in. The first I was a player, the second (and presently ongoing), I'm a GM in.

The first I was playing a former Imperial surgeon turned fugitive following a malpractice situation on an Imperial officer. I wasn't able to reflect my character's aptitude at character creation and had to make some sacrifices. Ultimately this meant sacrificing some characteristics I think he should have had for the sake of giving him the range of abilities that fit the character. I'm fine with that and realized I could more or less put him where I want to be by spreading his career trees down to the bottom to give him a couple of characteristic bumps. In my perfect world, I would have been able to make a characteristic bump with experience over the course of the game and would have attributed these increases to him reconciling his problems with alcoholism (shaky hands, foggy memory). But those are the rules of the system and I'm fine with that. C'est la vie.

The second game was my first time GMing in the setting, with a group of experienced players, and the players realized pretty quick the advantage of investing in characteristic primarily. As a result, characters emerged from stats rather than the other way around. Again, that's ultimately fine, but I suspect the players could have benefited in this situation as well, by having a slightly more flexible system that allowed them to build the characters they wanted without concerns about it inhibiting their long term growth.

I don't think it's the case for every situation, but I feel like in these two, a more flexible growth system could have beneficial, by allowing players who want to min-max their characters more opportunity to think about character first, and people who put character first to not worry about falling behind. Granted, I don't think it's a big deal in the long term. The value of my doctor, for instance, isn't predicated on him having an equivalent stat pool to the crew's bounty hunter or slicer in their respective categories. It's about creating a compelling character and filling a niche. As long as he's a competent enough doctor and face who rapports well with his teammates, that's all that really matters.

Still, I don't see the harm your alteration could do, as long as everyone's having fun. But I wouldn't sell it as a way to give a leg-up to the "roleplayer". I'd sell it as a benefit for everyone to have flexibility without the worry of long-term repercussions.

As an alternative, I'd suggest letting players respec their characters after a few sessions. With new players (and even old players trying new builds), there's still likely to be mistakes, either because they haven't seen how all these stats interact in play, because the GM is running a slightly different game than what they expected, or the stats on paper don't quite match up to the character now that he has breath and life beyond a sheet. I'd advise you to possibly put a cap on how much of their starting XP they can sink into characteristics in the respec though. Otherwise they'll just sink ALL their starting XP into characteristics and then exclusively rely on the experience earned in the interim for talents and skills.

As a third option, perhaps allow players to flag one characteristic for increase during game (which might not directly balance everyone but which could serve as a neat roleplaying tool), contingent on GM approval and pending an act of substantial character growth. Your former military commander character made a wrong decision that cost the lives of his squad? Mark your sheet and you can spend experience on it for a single point upgrade when your guy finds his moment of redemption. Your mechanic developed a crippling stutter at a young age following the murder of her family? Leave a note by your Presence score and we'll reassess it when she comes to terms with the tragedy. In most instances, I'd apply these to characteristics that aren't part of the character's career focus, scores that are presently assigned values of 1 or 2.

Is the game more fun when it gets to be this much number crunching?

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"?

Is the game more fun when it gets to be this much number crunching?

Player: So I want to weave my speeder bike around the convoy of dewback farmers, flip off the bike and onto the top of the train, and carve a hole into the roof to duck into, just in time before I get flattened by the tunnel ahead.

GM: Cool. Solve for x.

The game IS balanced! As long as you don`t only play one type of encounter everytime, but spread it out. How does high Agility and Ranged attacks help you out when you have to navigate hyperspace, charm an officer, bribe a crimelord, Find a cure for space flu, sneak into and out of an imperial prison, repair a ship, hack a computer or resist the Force? Why is a combat focused(or one aerea specialized) character more "powerful" in your opinion?

In my game, the character with the most XP is the most useless guy in combat by far, but he is far from a useless character in the campaign as a whole.

Skills are cheaper so you get to spread out more and focus on other stuff too. "Power" is relevant.

Also, the system assumes failing is fun too..

@RC. Wha!!??? Um,this game has the word "Wars" in it!!!! That is what it is about, and all that other junk you mentioned has no place here!!!! 100% combat all the time!!! How is it my fault as the GM if you can't build a combat heavy Politico or Slicer!? Knowing is NOT half the battle!! Fighting is all the BATTLE!!!!!!

@RC. Wha!!??? Um,this game has the word "Wars" in it!!!! That is what it is about, and all that other junk you mentioned has no place here!!!! 100% combat all the time!!! How is it my fault as the GM if you can't build a combat heavy Politico or Slicer!? Knowing is NOT half the battle!! Fighting is all the BATTLE!!!!!!

You IDIOT! It also has the word "Star" in the tile, so unless you are a luminous ball of gas comprised of hydrogen and helium , you CAN'T fight.

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.

That's what my wife and I did when, after picking up AoR for me to run a solo campaign for her, we screwed up making her character by not shoving all her XP into characteristics. I committed the cardinal sin of assuming the game disallowed increasing characteristics directly with XP at char creation because the intended way to level them after character creation was through talents. I just didn't realize the talents were spare and in no way a substitutions for loading up at char creation. Serves me right for not trawling every forum and devblog about the game, I guess.

But yeah, a free respec fixed the issue.

Not liking all the comments saying "This will never happen at someone's table!" It happened at mine. Both my wife and I were new to the game and mistakes happens. As long as the GM isn't set on punishing players for not having complete system mastery before they even finish creating their first character, it shouldn't be a problem. Given some of the attitudes I've seen in this thread, though, I'm not sure you can fully rely on that.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Believe it or not, it is possible to disagree with someone without jumping down their throat and insulting them on a personal level.

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.

That's what my wife and I did when, after picking up AoR for me to run a solo campaign for her, we screwed up making her character by not shoving all her XP into characteristics. I committed the cardinal sin of assuming the game disallowed increasing characteristics directly with XP at char creation because the intended way to level them after character creation was through talents. I just didn't realize the talents were spare and in no way a substitutions for loading up at char creation. Serves me right for not trawling every forum and devblog about the game, I guess.

But yeah, a free respec fixed the issue.

Not liking all the comments saying "This will never happen at someone's table!" It happened at mine. Both my wife and I were new to the game and mistakes happens. As long as the GM isn't set on punishing players for not having complete system mastery before they even finish creating their first character, it should be a problem. Given some of the attitudes I've seen in this thread, though, I'm not sure you can fully rely on that.

Emphasis in bold.

Umm you mean you didn't "Read" the book before beginning? You didn't need to read through Forums to get this understanding, When it Explicitly Encourages you to spend as much as possible in characteristics.

Again, the fault here isn't the game itself... it isn't even the GM's fault..

Pure laziness in not reading the rules.

Should a GM help a New player learn the system? Yes.

But e players need to also OWN their Own responsibility in Learning the game.

I have no use for Players who want me to do all their work for them, and then Give them a Muligan when it doesn't work out for them because they didn't READ the Rules.

That's what my wife and I did when, after picking up AoR for me to run a solo campaign for her, we screwed up making her character by not shoving all her XP into characteristics. I committed the cardinal sin of assuming the game disallowed increasing characteristics directly with XP at char creation because the intended way to level them after character creation was through talents. I just didn't realize the talents were spare and in no way a substitutions for loading up at char creation. Serves me right for not trawling every forum and devblog about the game, I guess.

But yeah, a free respec fixed the issue.

Not liking all the comments saying "This will never happen at someone's table!" It happened at mine. Both my wife and I were new to the game and mistakes happens. As long as the GM isn't set on punishing players for not having complete system mastery before they even finish creating their first character, it should be a problem. Given some of the attitudes I've seen in this thread, though, I'm not sure you can fully rely on that.

See, but the thing is, is that the proposed solution in the first post is based around the idea that a GM starts up the game, knows the rules, and doesn't help new players that don't know better on how to craft their characters, and instead implement an unbalanced solution that can be abused easily. In your specific case, neither you nor your wife fully understood the rules, and so it's not exactly like you could help your wife better make a character, since it's not like you were intentionally withholding information.

And in regards to the "trawling every forum" thing. It's literally in the book in the section called "Invest Experience Points". It's a literal step in the character creation process. Please don't try to imply the authors of the book hid the information somewhere in some tiny section on a random page.

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.

That's what my wife and I did when, after picking up AoR for me to run a solo campaign for her, we screwed up making her character by not shoving all her XP into characteristics. I committed the cardinal sin of assuming the game disallowed increasing characteristics directly with XP at char creation because the intended way to level them after character creation was through talents. I just didn't realize the talents were spare and in no way a substitutions for loading up at char creation. Serves me right for not trawling every forum and devblog about the game, I guess.

But yeah, a free respec fixed the issue.

Not liking all the comments saying "This will never happen at someone's table!" It happened at mine. Both my wife and I were new to the game and mistakes happens. As long as the GM isn't set on punishing players for not having complete system mastery before they even finish creating their first character, it should be a problem. Given some of the attitudes I've seen in this thread, though, I'm not sure you can fully rely on that.

Emphasis in bold.

Umm you mean you didn't "Read" the book before beginning? You didn't need to read through Forums to get this understanding, When it Explicitly Encourages you to spend as much as possible in characteristics.

Again, the fault here isn't the game itself... it isn't even the GM's fault..

Pure laziness in not reading the rules.

Should a GM help a New player learn the system? Yes.

But e players need to also OWN their Own responsibility in Learning the game.

I have no use for Players who want me to do all their work for them, and then Give them a Muligan when it doesn't work out for them because they didn't READ the Rules.

You mean, did I read 443 pages cover to cover and memorize all of them? No, no I did not. I skimmed through the eighteen talent trees because I made the quite reasonable assumption that a narrative game would not require me to know every single last talent in order to create a decent character. And in fact, I was actually trusting what I had heard: that the game is very well balanced, and that it's quite hard to break it. I was told it was a narrative game where the rules are not as rigid and unforgiving as DnD, and that there was a lot less Ivory Tower BS that basically required you to treat the game as a competition to create a halfway decent character by avoiding "trap" options.

And for the most part, they were right. This is probably the least amount of imbalance I've seen in an RPG, and I've been playing them for fifteen years now. That being said, there is imbalance, and we did need to address it. I'm sorry that not completely memorizing each and every rule, talent, and piece of equipment isn't something I really have time for these days, but then that's why I picked a narrative-focused system instead of a gamist or simulationist one. But hey, go ahead and keep being toxic, you're a real credit to the community.

That's what my wife and I did when, after picking up AoR for me to run a solo campaign for her, we screwed up making her character by not shoving all her XP into characteristics. I committed the cardinal sin of assuming the game disallowed increasing characteristics directly with XP at char creation because the intended way to level them after character creation was through talents. I just didn't realize the talents were spare and in no way a substitutions for loading up at char creation. Serves me right for not trawling every forum and devblog about the game, I guess.

But yeah, a free respec fixed the issue.

Not liking all the comments saying "This will never happen at someone's table!" It happened at mine. Both my wife and I were new to the game and mistakes happens. As long as the GM isn't set on punishing players for not having complete system mastery before they even finish creating their first character, it should be a problem. Given some of the attitudes I've seen in this thread, though, I'm not sure you can fully rely on that.

See, but the thing is, is that the proposed solution in the first post is based around the idea that a GM starts up the game, knows the rules, and doesn't help new players that don't know better on how to craft their characters, and instead implement an unbalanced solution that can be abused easily. In your specific case, neither you nor your wife fully understood the rules, and so it's not exactly like you could help your wife better make a character, since it's not like you were intentionally withholding information.

And in regards to the "trawling every forum" thing. It's literally in the book in the section called "Invest Experience Points". It's a literal step in the character creation process. Please don't try to imply the authors of the book hid the information somewhere in some tiny section on a random page.

First of all, I've had several games where it's just "make your characters on your own, show up to the first session, and off we go." Some GM's don't want to have to spend a lot of time on character creation, others are too worried about having too much influence on the PCs (I've had one GM who refuses to look at any character sheet before the game starts. He considers it a point of pride. Frustrating as hell.), you name it. And when it comes down to any problem in a system, of course the GM can fix it. But it's always better for the system not to have the problem in the first place.

I do agree that allowing free upgrade of characteristics would be overpowered for the same reason that putting all XP in them at char creation is the "better" choice.

Regarding the "trawling every forum" , I was not referring to the rule that characteristics can only be improved after char creation. My wife and I knew that from the onset, as I said in my earlier post. I mean the fact that NOT investing heavily into characteristics results in a significantly less powerful character than you otherwise would.

I think EotE and the rest are pretty newbie friendly, and that the whole problem can be addressed by allowing a free reallocation of starting XP. My main beef in this thread was the sheer amount of pure hostility and hate the OP got lashed with for no other reason that proposing a house rule that people didn't like. I had really thought better of this community until now.

Can we just agree that sometimes character creation doesn't go to plan (be it because of unintentional negligence on the part of players or GM's, not realizing some of the implications of how the rolls will balance in actual play, or realizing the character on your sheet doesn't necessarily match the character in your head) without blaming anyone on either side of the argument, and instead focus on balanced ways to redirect the game's course when builds do go awry?

I for one had a hell of a time getting copies of my players' sheets before the game started, due to technical issues, forgetfulness, and conflicting schedules. We've had to do a bit of work shopping on some of the sheets over the course of the first few games, and I've had to introduce some homebrew balance rules to account for some of the players exploiting the system in ways that makes them terrifying combat monsters. Is that a failure on my part? Sure, the argument could be made for that, but the game is a work in progress, and everyone seems to be having fun regardless.

First of all, I've had several games where it's just "make your characters on your own, show up to the first session, and off we go." Some GM's don't want to have to spend a lot of time on character creation, others are too worried about having too much influence on the PCs (I've had one GM who refuses to look at any character sheet before the game starts. He considers it a point of pride. Frustrating as hell.), you name it. And when it comes down to any problem in a system, of course the GM can fix it. But it's always better for the system not to have the problem in the first place.

To be clear we aren't contending that there aren't GM problems. What we are contending is that a GM should be fixing these problems before they start. So if your GM doesn't look at sheets before character creation to make sure they are ok that's the fault of the GM not the game. The issue many of us took was that this problem was portrayed as a fault of the game, which it isn't. If people are not understanding how to make characters that's the fault of the group (namely the GM) and not the fault of the game. The proposed fix attempted to fix the game for something that needed to be resolved at the person level.

This isn't a system problem on any level. The rules are clear on the matter. The fault lies with the people in this case, not the game.

So if your GM doesn't look at sheets before character creation to make sure they are ok that's the fault of the GM not the game. The issue many of us took was that this problem was portrayed as a fault of the game, which it isn't. If people are not understanding how to make characters that's the fault of the group (namely the GM) and not the fault of the game.

If there's one single way to make strong characters and every other way is suboptimal, I'd 100% call that a fault of the system. What you're saying is that the GM should be aware of this system fault and help his players avoid falling into the trap, and I agree there. I also agree that OP's suggestion wouldn't solve the problem, and would cause other imbalances in the game. However, the fact that this starting imbalance exists IS a system fault.

I contend the issue is the GM does not want to allow the respec even though that is the most logical solution. instead they want to come up with the un needed band aid to fix the problem. When the solution should be to allow the player to correct their mistake.

I contend the issue is the GM does not want to allow the respec even though that is the most logical solution. instead they want to come up with the un needed band aid to fix the problem. When the solution should be to allow the player to correct their mistake.

Actually, I'd flip that around: allowing a respec is the band-aid. It doesn't fix the existing problem, just lets you reverse the damage it can potentially cause before it gets any worse. An actual solution would be a houserule that equalizes the capabilities of various skill/talent/characteristic spreads at character creation so that there's not such a disparity.

So if your GM doesn't look at sheets before character creation to make sure they are ok that's the fault of the GM not the game. The issue many of us took was that this problem was portrayed as a fault of the game, which it isn't. If people are not understanding how to make characters that's the fault of the group (namely the GM) and not the fault of the game.

If there's one single way to make strong characters and every other way is suboptimal, I'd 100% call that a fault of the system. What you're saying is that the GM should be aware of this system fault and help his players avoid falling into the trap, and I agree there. I also agree that OP's suggestion wouldn't solve the problem, and would cause other imbalances in the game. However, the fact that this starting imbalance exists IS a system fault.

There isn't one single way to make a strong character. You don't need to raise your attributes to have a strong character. And strong is relative as you can have a strong character and not need to roll a single die. If you're defining strong character purely based on their attributes then you're going to be disappointed no matter the system.

But your contention that there is an imbalance isn't true. Is it possible to make a subotptimal character? Sure, but only if you don't read the rules. That's assuming of course that you buy into the idea that a system is imbalanced just because you can't roll 5% higher in later levels of the game. Most of us just don't see a system imbalance on the level of math we are talking about here.

So if your GM doesn't look at sheets before character creation to make sure they are ok that's the fault of the GM not the game. The issue many of us took was that this problem was portrayed as a fault of the game, which it isn't. If people are not understanding how to make characters that's the fault of the group (namely the GM) and not the fault of the game.

If there's one single way to make strong characters and every other way is suboptimal, I'd 100% call that a fault of the system. What you're saying is that the GM should be aware of this system fault and help his players avoid falling into the trap, and I agree there. I also agree that OP's suggestion wouldn't solve the problem, and would cause other imbalances in the game. However, the fact that this starting imbalance exists IS a system fault.

There isn't one single way to make a strong character. You don't need to raise your attributes to have a strong character. And strong is relative as you can have a strong character and not need to roll a single die. If you're defining strong character purely based on their attributes then you're going to be disappointed no matter the system.

But your contention that there is an imbalance isn't true. Is it possible to make a subotptimal character? Sure, but only if you don't read the rules. That's assuming of course that you buy into the idea that a system is imbalanced just because you can't roll 5% higher in later levels of the game. Most of us just don't see a system imbalance on the level of math we are talking about here.

Pardon me, a strongER character. The fact that dumping XP into characteristics always results in a strongER character than if you did not is a fault of the system.

And strong is relative as you can have a strong character and not need to roll a single die.

I am defining "strong" in this case as "more likely to succeed in certain tasks." I.e., mechanically strong. You can make a strong character that has a good background and awesome motivation and everything else regardless of that character's stats.

But your contention that there is an imbalance isn't true. Is it possible to make a subotptimal character? Sure, but only if you don't read the rules.

I read the rules, and skimmed the talent trees. When I read the section that said "You can only upgrade characteristics with XP at character creations, after that you upgrade them with talents," I did not immediately rush to the conclusion "I must buy characteristics and only characteristics if I do not want a suboptimal character." Instead, I figured that this game was balanced such that you could just as easily upgrade your characteristics with talents as you could pump it up at character creation, and neither route would punish the player. I figured wrong, obviously.

That's assuming of course that you buy into the idea that a system is imbalanced just because you can't roll 5% higher in later levels of the game.

No one likes to be punished for the crime of not having 100% system mastery the first time they make a character. And yes, having an additional 1/20 chance of failing at something (where you otherwise would have succeeded except that you didn't have that system mastery right at the outset) IS an imbalance. WHFRP 2e uses the percentile system, and attributes (which translate directly to your odds of success) are advanced in increments of 5% every 100 XP. It's not an insignificant amount.

Sorry this balance thing is a myth. Someone who is born thin and weak can become strong through diet and training. Someone born big and strong has a leg up. The small person can train to match them but it takes time. The naturally bigger person starts ahead of them. That's a very simple and accurate comparison of RL to RPGing. Because some PCs lack the patience to earn the level of xp required to achieve that is not a fault in the system. That's real life and that's what's emulated in the CHARGEN system. Frankly it's what's emulated in more or less every RPG system, because it's how things really are. It's one of the simplest concepts and most accurate to translate over from RL to RPGing. Seeking to impose some sort of artificial balance at the outset is just that, artificial. The CHARGEN system is just fine as is.