I highlight this, because it brings something important up, related to what 2P51 said.

In these forums every other day appears a post of the like "this (insert here: auto-fire, soak, vibroax...) is very powerful, what can I do?" These sort of posts, like the one we are derailing right now, appear often in these forums. Call it design mistake, as 2P51 did, or design decision. Reality is this game system creates this issues, and it will keep on doing it, while (many) other RPG systems do not. And honestly, I don't know for the rest of you, but for me as a GM, it is a pain in the a$$ if I have to spend time thinking how I can challenge the different PCs builds (some times it seems we are talking of World of Warcraft here) instead of spending my energy in creating an appealing history for my players to play it.

And by the way, I also want to express my opinion in that players do not need pcs with 13 different powers to feel awesome. In a rpg players with characters that have lived many adventures, survived impossible perils and have had an impact on the game world also feel awesome. Not need for superpowers.

What systems work better you think? Honest question, not **** headed challenge.

I will say this game's variety is part of the 'problem'. You end up with multiple points of failure potentially.

On a completely unrelated note, you have Rank 4 and 5 spells in WH3E for the Mage schools that didn't get done?

Meanwhile, to me, being able to mow down mooks isn't "awesome", it's cartoonish and I'm not interested in having that at my table; so a tweak to a rule helps everyone remain immersed. If you scale the opposition consistently, then the player's investments will still bear fruit in their eyes, and they'll feel plenty "awesome" in the context of your campaign.

I'm guessing you've never seen footage of troops in WWI or WW2 charging at a machinegun nest... That is autofire and a bunch of mooks. It isn't cartoonish.

when i think of star wars charging machinegun-nests is usually the first thing that comes to mind.

I don't understand an earlier comment. Why would Narative limitations (NPC reaction, law enforcement, bounty hunters ETC) be labeled "GM Fiat" but the GM creating a House Rule is not. A HR is changing the actual games rules, while the Narrative option can be used to enhance the story. Both systems work perfectly well I'm sure, so I guess it depends on your tables opinion of HR vs RAW vs RAI.

IMHO this issue (and other "game breaking" issues) should be resolved in conversation outside of play.

1. A discussion before character creation about how perceived imbalance will be dealt with during play. Cover common issues such as AF and DB Lightsaber, discussing the narrative consequences of carrying such equipment, as well as any HR that could be used. If a PC wants to head down that path, discuss their vision of what they will be doing.

2. When one of these issues comes up during play a whole table discussion should be had, covering the Narrative and HR options. If your table decides to change things then you probably need to offer a 1 time XP backtrack to the affected character

What's posted below should not be read as a defense of the EotE system. Additionally, any qualifications are opinion based on my experience and observations at the game table and on these forums.

In these forums every other day appears a post of the like "this (insert here: auto-fire, soak, vibroax...) is very powerful, what can I do?" These sort of posts, like the one we are derailing right now, appear often in these forums. Call it design mistake, as 2P51 did, or design decision. Reality is this game system creates this issues, and it will keep on doing it, while (many) other RPG systems do not. And honestly, I don't know for the rest of you, but for me as a GM, it is a pain in the a$$ if I have to spend time thinking how I can challenge the different PCs builds (some times it seems we are talking of World of Warcraft here) instead of spending my energy in creating an appealing history for my players to play it.

First, IMO, I think a lot of the "X is overpowered" threads we see in these forums are based on a misunderstanding of the RAW governing the item in question, or (and this is totally my opinion) an over-statement of 'overpowered'.

Another issue is that some limitations intended to throttle equipment-derived benefits (e.g. Obligation, encumbrance, rarity, "restricted" classification) is easily overlooked by players and GMs. Additionally, cost can be used to control access to gear, but in practice this is often ineffectual since a one-time boon of cash or characters pooling money can create long-lasting headaches for the GM.

There are also rules that give GM the power to limit the gear the players can have access to. A few include:

• "[The starting characters] may not purchase Restricted ® items unless specifically given dispensation by their GM." (Starting Gear, EotE Core, p 97)
• "Of course, whether or not an item is available for purchase should never solely be a matter of rolling dice. Instead, the needs of the plot make it at least partially the Game Master's decision." (Rarity, p 149)
• "Not all good are available on all planets. A city might outlaw weapons within its limits, and most planets forbid thermal detonators." (The Black Market, EotE Core, p 150)
• "Exactly what is illegal on each world is up to the Game Master or may be specified in that world's description." (The Black Market, EotE Core, p 150)
• The entire Keeping the Crew Hungry sidebar on p 151.

Citations are included so context can be provided. Again, the content of this post is my opinion based on experience and my interpretations of those passages. Additionally, some people may see exercising or enforcing these rules as less preferred to house rules. That's fine. Personally, I think house-rules are just a form of GM fiat, but there's no way I'm engaging in a conversation on that topic given the hostility I've seen here.

I think it's very reasonable for the GM to simply say you can't get starting gear above a certain rarity (e.g. 5).

I completely agree that it makes GM'ing a total PITA when players get gear or talent combinations that throws them way off the power curve. I've also found that those headaches go away and I can run game and serve the plot as I need to when I actually do use those rules and keep them from getting that gear in the first place. The problem there is that there's a loud and frequently hostile contingent on these forums that flip their $#!t whenever someone suggests a GM can and should say "No" to a player.

The point : A GM can handily keep gear that they view as too powerful out of a players hands until the appropriate time in the story, but it requires saying "No" to the players and exercising some authority that players probably won't like.

Reality is this game system creates this issues, and it will keep on doing it, while (many) other RPG systems do not.

What? This system is hardly unique in having dark corners where things don't work quite as expected. Personally I think this system is far more robust and "error tolerant" than most, one reason I've decided I won't play anything else...even if it's a fantasy campaign I'll be using one of the several well-constructed adaptations.

Sometimes a "one size fits all" approach, as they've done for Weapon Qualities, doesn't quite fit. The trade-off is simplicity so it's easier for all players to remember what triggers one. But if the GM and table can handle a minor tweak that allows greater immersion, I think that's a more sound strategy than the GM just upping the body count or making a nemesis more resistant. Those are strategies which have their own implications right from the start, and leave very little room at the high end.

Meanwhile, to me, being able to mow down mooks isn't "awesome", it's cartoonish and I'm not interested in having that at my table; so a tweak to a rule helps everyone remain immersed. If you scale the opposition consistently, then the player's investments will still bear fruit in their eyes, and they'll feel plenty "awesome" in the context of your campaign.

I pretty much agree with all this, especially the last point.

To address this:

Part of the fun for players is being awesome. Yet I keep seeing instances of GMs wanting to squash players being awesome. Stop it. Let them be awesome. Use the tools available to challenge them as well.

I think both of these are important:

i have an autofire abuser in a current group and i prefer the sessions when he is not there, cause then combats are fun. no "yay, 6 hits for 15 damage each... again!". (and the character is far from being maxed out.)

And honestly, I don't know for the rest of you, but for me as a GM, it is a pain in the a$$ if I have to spend time thinking how I can challenge the different PCs builds (some times it seems we are talking of World of Warcraft here) instead of spending my energy in creating an appealing history for my players to play it.

To address this:

I have an autofire abuser in a current group and i prefer the sessions when he is not there, cause then combats are fun. no "yay, 6 hits for 15 damage each... again!". (and the character is far from being maxed out.)

Do you use cover? Do you use armor? Do you use tougher bad guys? Sounds to me like you are not using the tools available in the system.

I'm aware of the various upgrades to opponents. Are people really serious when the counter to my example of a session zero PC and what they can do with Jury Rigged and autofire is to use a Nemesis with 3 ranks of Adversary as the counter weight? Really?

Ever think that people might have reason to disagree? Your opinion is no more right than mine.

Do you use cover? Do you use armor? Do you use tougher bad guys? Sounds to me like you are not using the tools available in the system.

AFIAK you've never been at my table and I never said anything like this, so I'm confounded how you could possiblly claim to know anything about what system tools I use or really anything to do with my GM style, obviously beyond what I've explicitly stated in these forums. And even then I doubt you've read every one of my posts, because I've discussed using all kinds of methods to design encounters, including everything you seem to know I don't use.

Additionally, this has nothing to do with my post, and in fact appears to be actively avoiding the obvious point of my post: one player ruining the fun for anyone else, including the GM, is a problem.

Finally, none of these points really deal with the problem a broken mechanic creates. Simply put, an encounter should be designed to serve the plot, not the meta.

HBR is 1,500 cr, which is 100% of starting credits for a player who spends an additional 5 obligation. It also requires a 3 brawn (which, for a heavy isn't a big deal, but I mention it for completeness).

ACP Repeater Gun is 1,000 cr.

Everything else with AF is restricted.

So, while it's certainly possible to start with it, it'd be very difficult to walk around anywhere in public and not get noticed.

All it would take to cause issues is damaging it as a starting character isn't going to have enough money to repair it quickly.

Sure. This could be an issue, but the character is a one-trick pony that should get in trouble with whatever law enforcement is in the area very quickly...

Hmm.... Just had a thought. What about adding a strain cost to additional hits? Strain seems to be a limiting factor to balance a number of mechanics. How about utilizing it to balance AF? Then the choice is more hits or recover to hit again...

I a player goes to Session 0 and says "I'm making an AutoFire Gun Bunny" you have problems.

Instead of that player says "I really like this AutoFire weapon and the Gadgeteer spec. So I would like to use them, the thing is these weapons are outlawed on most planets, and here's a cool back story of me getting mine, but I also have this Ciminal obligation because the local police don't think I should have it. I try not to carry it around, so I have a pistol on my hip, but when someone messes with us the wrong way, I'll deal with them. while I do the rest of the group can relax!"

I guess I have to repeat myself again.

The point isn't whether you make a houserule on autofire, use the fact something is restricted, or its cost (which, an HBR is no big cost), The GM having to approve what PCs have access to, scale encounters around autofire, or any of the other things mentioned. That's all mentioned in the same breath with this one weapon effect.

You don't read about people setting up encounters a certain way because of Blast. There are not numerous threads about the problem of Burn. No one gripes about Ensnare and Jury Rigged. It's always autofire.

I just want the mechanic to work so I don't have to flip the table over because someone takes out an autofire weapon. I don't want to scale encounters around a weapon effect. I don't want to tell a PC that wants to do that no. I'm not going to shake down someone's favorite bounty hunter concept because they don't have their autofire weapons permit. I don't see HBRs as Excalibur, since they're all over the friggin place in the movies.

So I adopted a houserule that means people can carry what they want, and I don't have to have two kinds of ideas ready for every combat, the autofire and non-autofire options. I don't need to use the restricted label as anything more than a plot hook when I choose to. Finally, most importantly, I can use autofire weapons on PCs without fear of automatically turning them into a greasey smear, or having to lie about the dice pool result.

Seems to me being shot at by a machine gun and surviving should make the most self esteem deficient PC feel good about themselves.

Meanwhile, to me, being able to mow down mooks isn't "awesome", it's cartoonish and I'm not interested in having that at my table; so a tweak to a rule helps everyone remain immersed. If you scale the opposition consistently, then the player's investments will still bear fruit in their eyes, and they'll feel plenty "awesome" in the context of your campaign.

I pretty much agree with all this, especially the last point.

Just curious, which part? The "cartoonish", or part about that if you scale consistently, the player's investments will still bear fruit?

I just want the mechanic to work so I don't have to flip the table over because someone takes out an autofire weapon. I don't want to scale encounters around a weapon effect. I don't want to tell a PC that wants to do that no. I'm not going to shake down someone's favorite bounty hunter concept because they don't have their autofire weapons permit. I don't see HBRs as Excalibur, since they're all over the friggin place in the movies.

So, there’s a problem here. You can’t fix all the books that have already been published. And an official errata is only going to go so far.

In the short term, if you’re going to “fix” this issue, I don’t see how you can do that without doing one of the following:

1. Being more careful in how you generate your combat scenarios to account for the jury-rigged autofire problem.

2. By using the more narrative aspects of the game to discourage excessive presence/use of autofire weapons.

3. By creating some sort of house rule that sufficiently dials the jury-rigged auto-fire problem back to a more reasonable level.

I don’t see any other possible solutions to the problem, at least not in the short-term.

Long-term, FFG would have to do one of the above (probably #3 or some combination of #2 and #3), and make that change in the next edition of every single book that they print which discusses the issue of autofire, as well as all upcoming books that have not yet been printed.

Like it or not, making a change like that to a pretty core mechanism in the game doesn’t seem like something that FFG could do easily or quickly — if at all.

So, as a GM in this game, or as a player who is considering this issue, I think your options are limited and you’re going to have to decide what you’re going to do in the games that you play in.

And then you can hopefully move on to other topics that are more fun, and try to get back to the real reason why we’re playing these games in the first place.

I guess I have to repeat myself again.

The point isn't whether you make a houserule on autofire, use the fact something is restricted, or its cost (which, an HBR is no big cost), The GM having to approve what PCs have access to, scale encounters around autofire, or any of the other things mentioned. That's all mentioned in the same breath with this one weapon effect.

You don't read about people setting up encounters a certain way because of Blast. There are not numerous threads about the problem of Burn. No one gripes about Ensnare and Jury Rigged. It's always autofire.

I just want the mechanic to work so I don't have to flip the table over because someone takes out an autofire weapon. I don't want to scale encounters around a weapon effect. I don't want to tell a PC that wants to do that no. I'm not going to shake down someone's favorite bounty hunter concept because they don't have their autofire weapons permit. I don't see HBRs as Excalibur, since they're all over the friggin place in the movies.

So I adopted a houserule that means people can carry what they want, and I don't have to have to kinds of ideas ready for every combat, the autofire and non-autofire options.

except it is not always autofire. I have seen it about a dozen different things. All of which can be handled easily if the gm puts some thought into the encounters. being chased by the empire? The empire is going to start sending guys equipped to handle the party...Star Wars Rebels even shows this happening. What I keep hearing is GMs saying its to hard... Really? Too Hard? Maybe you should learn what happens in real life with autofire. don't bunch your guys up. When someone opens up with autofire call in back up. Like people would in real life. use cover. Use concealment. etc. Play your NPCs like they have brains.

Use The List from order 66.

Thanks 2P51, I can understand the want to not have to think too hard about dealing with the weapons, it works for your table, so cool. And of the HR options yours seems the best as it isn't changing core dice mechanics, just an extension of the cumbersome rules.

I still think it's valuable to give other options to the people who post these types of questions though. Some groups will really like the other options that are offered, the different house rules or especially the Narative ways to encourage PC's to be more than 1 trick ponies. This system IMHO was written where Narative is part of the balancing the Devs do, and a lot of people either miss this or don't like it. Your providing a great option for those who don't want to meticulously plan every encounter, I'm trying to offer other options that keep the RAW for those that like it.

Meanwhile, to me, being able to mow down mooks isn't "awesome", it's cartoonish and I'm not interested in having that at my table; so a tweak to a rule helps everyone remain immersed. If you scale the opposition consistently, then the player's investments will still bear fruit in their eyes, and they'll feel plenty "awesome" in the context of your campaign.

I pretty much agree with all this, especially the last point.

Just curious, which part? The "cartoonish", or part about that if you scale consistently, the player's investments will still bear fruit?

Mainly this:

"If you scale the opposition consistently, then the player's investments will still bear fruit in their eyes, and they'll feel plenty "awesome" in the context of your campaign."

But this is also really important:

"so a tweak to a rule helps everyone remain immersed. "

because it very neatly sums up one of the most important reason to use houserules: Transparency. I really think that the rules should support the narrative to the point where they're an afterthought. Mechanics and rules are 'bad' if they pull you out of the action, and I see why obviously doing way more damage than everyone else will pull you out and remind you you're playing a game (I suspect Yepesnopes, and Shlominus would agree).

On the face of it, I don't have really strong feelings about gunning down loads of mooks being particularly "cartoonish" or "awesome". /shrug.

One thing I have to wonder is...What range band our you designing your encounters at? Are they all happening at short range? cause the only way I could see someone getting 6 hits is when they are shooting a minion group at short range...

I don't understand an earlier comment. Why would Narative limitations (NPC reaction, law enforcement, bounty hunters ETC) be labeled "GM Fiat" but the GM creating a House Rule is not. A HR is changing the actual games rules, while the Narrative option can be used to enhance the story. Both systems work perfectly well I'm sure, so I guess it depends on your tables opinion of HR vs RAW vs RAI.

IMHO this issue (and other "game breaking" issues) should be resolved in conversation outside of play.

1. A discussion before character creation about how perceived imbalance will be dealt with during play. Cover common issues such as AF and DB Lightsaber, discussing the narrative consequences of carrying such equipment, as well as any HR that could be used. If a PC wants to head down that path, discuss their vision of what they will be doing.

2. When one of these issues comes up during play a whole table discussion should be had, covering the Narrative and HR options. If your table decides to change things then you probably need to offer a 1 time XP backtrack to the affected character

Not sure if this is addressed to me but I'll respond anyway...

I agree about discussing things with the group about expectations.

Narrative options should be used to enhance the story? Exactly. Not to hedge against game mechanics that are "too powerful".

If a GM feels like auto-fire (or auto-fire + whatever) imbalances the game then I think the best approach is to deal with it mechanically.

The narrative consequences for using rifles (or whatever else) should be, in my opinion, centered on creating a good story and not creating mechanical balance at the table.

Yes, both are GM fiat to a degree but they are different tools to accomplish different things. Narrative tools should accomplish narrative things, rule changes (or limitations) should accomplish mechanical things (like balance).

A GM may feel like auto-fire is something they can handle via encounter construction and/or they don't think they have any players that will build their character to the point of auto-fire being a problem. But if they do think it's a problem then a potential solution is to tell the players you expect them not to take it too far (and be clear about what that means).

I think "warning" them about narrative consequences is a counter-productive approach and potentially confusing.

"If you use your lightsaber too much then an Inquisitor will show up!"

"You mean I'll get to duel an Inquisitor? Awesome!"

"No, no, they'll paste you!"

"Oh, so this really isn't a narrative element, it's you using the story to stomp my character for using mechanics in a way you don't like?"

That may be a bit of an exaggeration but that's essentially what I hear when people suggest a narrative solution to mechanical imbalance - it's a subtle or not so subtle threat to a character for "stepping out of line".

Want to throw an Inquisitor at the party that can take the whole party? Great, if it's part of a good story. But not if it's meant to enforce PC behavior, in my opinion.

Do you use cover? Do you use armor? Do you use tougher bad guys? Sounds to me like you are not using the tools available in the system.

AFIAK you've never been at my table and I never said anything like this, so I'm confounded how you could possiblly claim to know anything about what system tools I use or really anything to do with my GM style, obviously beyond what I've explicitly stated in these forums. And even then I doubt you've read every one of my posts, because I've discussed using all kinds of methods to design encounters, including everything you seem to know I don't use.

Additionally, this has nothing to do with my post, and in fact appears to be actively avoiding the obvious point of my post: one player ruining the fun for anyone else, including the GM, is a problem.

Finally, none of these points really deal with the problem a broken mechanic creates. Simply put, an encounter should be designed to serve the plot, not the meta.

you should go read one of the posts you quoted from. As they said they have the problem and were getting 6 hits...IE this post was not about you...

There are also rules that give GM the power to limit the gear the players can have access to. A few include:

• "[The starting characters] may not purchase Restricted ® items unless specifically given dispensation by their GM." (Starting Gear, EotE Core, p 97)
• "Of course, whether or not an item is available for purchase should never solely be a matter of rolling dice. Instead, the needs of the plot make it at least partially the Game Master's decision." (Rarity, p 149)
• "Not all good are available on all planets. A city might outlaw weapons within its limits, and most planets forbid thermal detonators." (The Black Market, EotE Core, p 150)
• "Exactly what is illegal on each world is up to the Game Master or may be specified in that world's description." (The Black Market, EotE Core, p 150)
• The entire Keeping the Crew Hungry sidebar on p 151.

Citations are included so context can be provided. Again, the content of this post is my opinion based on experience and my interpretations of those passages. Additionally, some people may see exercising or enforcing these rules as less preferred to house rules. That's fine. Personally, I think house-rules are just a form of GM fiat, but there's no way I'm engaging in a conversation on that topic given the hostility I've seen here.

I think it's very reasonable for the GM to simply say you can't get starting gear above a certain rarity (e.g. 5).

I completely agree that it makes GM'ing a total PITA when players get gear or talent combinations that throws them way off the power curve. I've also found that those headaches go away and I can run game and serve the plot as I need to when I actually do use those rules and keep them from getting that gear in the first place. The problem there is that there's a loud and frequently hostile contingent on these forums that flip their $#!t whenever someone suggests a GM can and should say "No" to a player.

The point : A GM can handily keep gear that they view as too powerful out of a players hands until the appropriate time in the story, but it requires saying "No" to the players and exercising some authority that players probably won't like.

I find the way this system handles gear - rarity, restricted, the advice you quote - confusing and odd for a "narrative" system. Even Sam Stewart in one of the recent Order 66 podcasts said that when a GM gives a player a double-bladed lightsaber they are really affecting the balance of the game and to be aware of that...

I can understand putting up barriers to getting gear in order to make the story more interesting or add some actual cost to getting the gear as some balance but the FFG approach puts up enough barriers that aren't real (or literal) costs to getting the gear that it's not really a balance or just a way for the GM to hassle the player about getting gear (or just outright denying it, which is fine as long as that's something said upfront).

Gear can be a really powerful source of improving a characters combat potency and the wishy-washy gear guidelines don't really address this in a clear way. I guess each table has to find the balance that's fun for them.

Gear can be a really powerful source of improving a characters combat potency and the wishy-washy gear guidelines don't really address this in a clear way. I guess each table has to find the balance that's fun for them.

That last point got it spot on. Some players like to have Gear that feeds the Narative, others just see them as tools. Every table is different and as such every time someone asks "is this broken?" There should not be an argument over HR vs Narative, we should as a group be offering the best of all the solutions so that each table can make the decision on their own.

Edit: Grrrr phone typing.

One thing I have to wonder is...What range band our you designing your encounters at? Are they all happening at short range? cause the only way I could see someone getting 6 hits is when they are shooting a minion group at short range...

i like how this question was completely ignored...I would like an answer from those who have a problem with autofire...I suspect range is a major factor in the problem. If the target is at short range so the difficulty is only 2 purple....Of course they are going to completely hose your guys...

I've yet to alter anything major, but after discussions here I think I'm going to simply implement that Jury-Rigged can't affect Auto-fire advantages.

In my games it's an incidental to flip a weapon on or off auto-fire. While on, difficulty is increased per RAW, advantages may trigger extra hits, and a new house quality "Ammo Hog" is in effect. I never liked the added description on the Heavy Blaster Pistol about 3 threats to run out of ammo. That sounded like a quality to me, so I created "Ammo Hog" which does the same thing and applied it to the Heavy Blaster Pistol. Later, I gave the Ammo Hog quality to any weapon running in auto-fire mode. If you start spitting out more rounds you will tend to run out of ammo sooner.

Would you charge the guy pointing a machine gun in your direction? No, then don't have your character do it!

It's not even that Auto-Fire is deadly, Viciuos is. Yes, a few hits will take you out of the equation, but it won't kill you. It doesn't matter whether you take one wound beyond your threshold or 50; you'll be out for the encounter and maybe have to rest and stim a few days. What really scares the crap out of me is a Jury-Rigged disruptor rifle.

And, I know a trained repeater gunner can "mow down" a bunch of minions; why, do you think, is this figure of speech being used in the automatic weapons context?

If you want to play a game that's all balanced and where every character's combat abilities are really the same thing in different flavours, you'll have to go back to 5th Ed. Have fun!