Hi all

I just thought I'd share something I've experienced in my games.

There's a lot of questions asking about how experience should be used at characterisation, and a lot of people have replied suggesting that it's important to boost your characteristics straight away, because they're so difficult to raise during the game. And, of course, mechanically this is true. And it's pretty much what I did. I raised as many characteristics as I could to 3, and spent the leftover on skills.

One of my party members, however, ignored this advice. He plays a Smuggler/Charmer, and as the face of the party his left his Brawn at 1 and his Agility at 2. The result? He's having twice as much fun as me. Every time he has to roll a skill check for Brawn, it's tense; every time he fails he laughs at how useless his character is; every time he succeeds he properly celebrates. Meanwhile I'm rolling 3 green dice for pretty much everything, and it's much less exciting.

My conclusion: for good, narrative fun, having low characteristics can be much more interesting.

Indeed, some of the most fun characters I have ever seen where what I like to call "min-minned." In a D&D 4 campaign, one of my players was a real min-maxer, and my wife was the party's min-minner. We used to joke around with the min-maxer, saying my wife's character was just trying to maximize the group's challenges by being non-maxed.

Absolutely agree, for me the joy of roleplaying and indeed story-telling in general stems from failure. I always think players should be encouraged to try and fail, rewarded with new and interesting directions for the story to provide opportunity overcome their failures or even new consequences. Failure often breeds interesting narrative situations and at the same time the real risk makes succeeding that much more meaningful.

Very much depends on the player. Personally I'd have fun with it: if I ever get to play it will be a Weequay Enforcer with 1 Intellect, but lots of Knowledge Underworld, and maybe branch into Demolitionist for the Mechanics...dim, but experienced, would be fun to play.

But all my players went for the 4/3/2/2/2/2 option, and then got frustrated because they couldn't decide where to put that 4. So after a session of waffling they all went for the 3/3/3/3/2/2 option and have been happy since.

It's all part of the RP in RPG. If someone plans their concept for it, then it'll be fun. If it's just to min/max CHARGEN, they'll wind up being frustrated with that dice pool routinely.

To each their own... Personally, I have real issues with not being able to do what I focus my character on. Therefore, I min-max for that targeted role. This, naturally, leaves a hole elsewhere for the GM to exploit and, as I didn't focus on that area, hilarity can ensue when my character is asked to do something for which he's not specialized. I find that this provides a balance to the game that would not be present were I to create a character as well-rounded as many suggest.

This is, naturally, a personal thing and, for individual players, YMMV. However, there's nothing more frustrating to me as a player when our XXX specialist isn't as good at their specialty as I am when I'm the party's YYY specialist.

To each their own... Personally, I have real issues with not being able to do what I focus my character on.

That's cool. I guess what we are really talking about here is having fun playing your mins as well as your maxes.

At the end of the day, as long as everyone is having fun it's all good.

However, there's nothing more frustrating to me as a player when our XXX specialist isn't as good at their specialty as I am when I'm the party's YYY specialist.

Why is that frustrating to you? It's their PC...

Hence why I've always thought the spending XP on characteristics is a subjective issue. Other than making sure everyone understands that it is the only time you can spend XP on them, it should be up to individual players. As a GM I can always offer a rebuild if they feel lacking after a session or two.

However, there's nothing more frustrating to me as a player when our XXX specialist isn't as good at their specialty as I am when I'm the party's YYY specialist.

Why is that frustrating to you? It's their PC...

There are two main reasons this frustrates me. The first is that we succeed or fail as a team and a team is only as strong as its' weakest link. If the computer specialist can't handle the computer-related tasks as well as a generalist, it means that the character isn't built well and will fail to do their job when faced with a challenge appropriate to the party's capability as a whole. This causes a limiting of the courses of action open to the party to accomplish their goals (assuming they want to succeed - which is what this is all predicated upon) and forces the rest of the party to compensate for a weakness.

The second reason is I don't want my character to be the one doing everything. It's unfair to the party, the GM and the other players if it's always XXX and his merry assortment of henchmen that he really doesn't need but keeps around because they're PCs. The entire point of the game is for everyone to have their moment to shine and, when the opportunity arises, to have a better chance of success by having one character do everything leads to resentment and irritation on both sides. The player always making the rolls resents the rest of the party for not being useful and the rest of the party resents that player because they're always showing up their characters.

This is why I prefer to have a party balanced, focused and targeted -- which naturally leads to a certain amount of min-max'ing in order to ensure competence and a minimum of overlap.

I understand that this may not be the way everyone does it and that there are certainly other ways of setting up parties, but the important thing, to my mind, at least, is to ensure that everyone has a role in which they excel. If that's not the case, the torch holders tend to get irritated after a while.

However, there's nothing more frustrating to me as a player when our XXX specialist isn't as good at their specialty as I am when I'm the party's YYY specialist.

Why is that frustrating to you? It's their PC...

There are two main reasons this frustrates me. The first is that we succeed or fail as a team and a team is only as strong as its' weakest link. If the computer specialist can't handle the computer-related tasks as well as a generalist, it means that the character isn't built well and will fail to do their job when faced with a challenge appropriate to the party's capability as a whole. This causes a limiting of the courses of action open to the party to accomplish their goals (assuming they want to succeed - which is what this is all predicated upon) and forces the rest of the party to compensate for a weakness.

The second reason is I don't want my character to be the one doing everything. It's unfair to the party, the GM and the other players if it's always XXX and his merry assortment of henchmen that he really doesn't need but keeps around because they're PCs. The entire point of the game is for everyone to have their moment to shine and, when the opportunity arises, to have a better chance of success by having one character do everything leads to resentment and irritation on both sides. The player always making the rolls resents the rest of the party for not being useful and the rest of the party resents that player because they're always showing up their characters.

This is why I prefer to have a party balanced, focused and targeted -- which naturally leads to a certain amount of min-max'ing in order to ensure competence and a minimum of overlap.

I understand that this may not be the way everyone does it and that there are certainly other ways of setting up parties, but the important thing, to my mind, at least, is to ensure that everyone has a role in which they excel. If that's not the case, the torch holders tend to get irritated after a while.

What if a member of the party is killed or disabled? Cross-specialization is a hallmark of a Green Beret A team.

Understood, but I think this is on the GM, it shouldn't reflect back down to the players. IOW, the GM should make sure it's not a source of friction. I kind of have this with my group: there is some skill overlap between PCs, so I've had to come up with strategies.

First, it's up to the GM to tailor the difficulties for the specialist. If the mechanic has a better dice pool than the slicer, if I'm after the same level of "comparative difficulty" and "player satisfaction", then the difficulty pools have to be different.

Second, I've found it's important to have multiple things to accomplish and have a ticking clock, so that one PC can't handle it all. This prevents the group from just deferring to the "best" PC for a task, and also pulls PCs out of their comfort zone, which can be tense and amusing in the same way mentioned by the OP.

So I'd say if you don't want your character to "be the one doing everything", then the GM needs to take a more active role in making sure that's not happening.

However, there's nothing more frustrating to me as a player when our XXX specialist isn't as good at their specialty as I am when I'm the party's YYY specialist.

Why is that frustrating to you? It's their PC...

There are two main reasons this frustrates me. [...]

What if a member of the party is killed or disabled? Cross-specialization is a hallmark of a Green Beret A team.

That's what secondary and backup spec's are for. But when the primary electronics guy isn't as good at electronics as the primary demolitions guy and there aren't any demolitions around, why bring the primary electronics guy along? Cross-training and secondary MOS's are essential to a proper military organization. However, they retask soldiers' primaries if they're better at X than Y so that they have the best coverage in the field. All I'm asking for is that the guy whose role is X is at least as good at X as the guy whose role is NOT X.

There are two main reasons this frustrates me...

Understood, but I think this is on the GM, it shouldn't reflect back down to the players. IOW, the GM should make sure it's not a source of friction. I kind of have this with my group: there is some skill overlap between PCs, so I've had to come up with strategies.

First, it's up to the GM to tailor the difficulties for the specialist. If the mechanic has a better dice pool than the slicer, if I'm after the same level of "comparative difficulty" and "player satisfaction", then the difficulty pools have to be different.

Second, I've found it's important to have multiple things to accomplish and have a ticking clock, so that one PC can't handle it all. This prevents the group from just deferring to the "best" PC for a task, and also pulls PCs out of their comfort zone, which can be tense and amusing in the same way mentioned by the OP.

So I'd say if you don't want your character to "be the one doing everything", then the GM needs to take a more active role in making sure that's not happening.

I've posted a lot on the GM side of things about multiple concurrent actions and opportunities to engage players' secondary specs, as I'm sure you're aware, so you know that I agree with you about there being options to mitigate that on the GM side of things. However, I'm advocating for player action as I've found the person over whom I have the most control is myself. Therefore I'm suggesting a course of action that attempts to mitigate this preemptively. That way the GM doesn't have to worry about it, too. Everyone should take an active role in trying to make the game as fun and enjoyable as possible, players included, IMHO.

There are two main reasons this frustrates me. The first is that we succeed or fail as a team and a team is only as strong as its' weakest link. If the computer specialist can't handle the computer-related tasks as well as a generalist, it means that the character isn't built well and will fail to do their job when faced with a challenge appropriate to the party's capability as a whole. This causes a limiting of the courses of action open to the party to accomplish their goals (assuming they want to succeed - which is what this is all predicated upon) and forces the rest of the party to compensate for a weakness.

I can see exactly where you hail from on this but I don't think I agree (although horses for courses applies). Firstly, a team is only a strong as its weakest link is something the sales team opposite us says all the time and it bothers me largely because I don't think it's correct. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link and if your team is being subjected to torture then the first one to break will be the measure. But in almost all other cases, a team is as strong as the sum of its parts.

And FFG have produced a great system to reflect that, in that your team can in many instances provide support for each other and upgrade the check.

The second reason is I don't want my character to be the one doing everything. It's unfair to the party, the GM and the other players if it's always XXX and his merry assortment of henchmen that he really doesn't need but keeps around because they're PCs. The entire point of the game is for everyone to have their moment to shine and, when the opportunity arises, to have a better chance of success by having one character do everything leads to resentment and irritation on both sides. The player always making the rolls resents the rest of the party for not being useful and the rest of the party resents that player because they're always showing up their characters.

I'm much more on board with this one, although my experience tells me that half the time it works out this way for reasons other than character build - a particularly strong personality at the table, the situation feeds into one player's style more than another or most commonly, some players prefer to take a back seat frequently.

I think it probably depends a lot on how each player likes to play. Some people like to play it like many other games - the objective being to win. Others for the chance to tell a story or develop an a particular character. Player motivations are varied. Although I think you're right, torchbearers probably are more likely to become frustrated. But I think it's worth recognising all the sources from which players and parties are deriving enjoyment.

Again, I think FFG have produced a game that, in the character building and narrative focus allows for both a great tolerance of sub-optimal builds and also for groups to have a lot of fun with sub-optimal results.

Second, I've found it's important to have multiple things to accomplish and have a ticking clock, so that one PC can't handle it all. This prevents the group from just deferring to the "best" PC for a task, and also pulls PCs out of their comfort zone, which can be tense and amusing in the same way mentioned by the OP.

So I'd say if you don't want your character to "be the one doing everything", then the GM needs to take a more active role in making sure that's not happening.

This,

I ran a test scenario with group of friends over the weekend. We are all experienced long time gamers, had never played the system but wanted to try out the rules and feel out the options, so everyone created moderately powerful characters. 3 types of force users, a pilot smuggler type, and an a astromech mechanic/slicer.

The final scene was a giant complex scene adapted from the end of Operation Shell Game, with multiple goals including slicing access to the prototype ship they wanted to steal, powering it up and exiting the hanger before the blast doors closed, escorting injured alliance agents they had rescues safely through the blasterfire in the hanger, and finally fighting a rear guard action against the two storm trooper minion groups and the inquisitor that had just arrived at the base to determine if one of alliance agents was Force-sensitive.

Everyone had something capital "I" important to do for mission success, and everyone had high levels of tension and satisfaction enjoyment when they barely held off the Inquisitor and escaped with the rescued alliance members and the prototype. In this case it was less about ensuring choices from skill overlap, and more about providing multiple tasks that needed to be accomplished for group success and the need for the group to determine who would attempt which tasks, but the principle is the same if their is huge skill overlaps in a party. Providing multiple goals and means to accomplish them help provide higher levels of player satisfactions in my opinion, because it becomes the player's choice how their character accomplish their goals. Honestly, the more I learn about this system and its narrative aspects, the more I feel this is one of its greatest strengths.

@Braendig

I don't think we're necessarily talking cross-purposes here. I agree that if someone is a Slicer they should have good Computers and/or Intelligence (preferably both), mostly because that makes most sense for the character (also, since the Slicer talent-tree is probably the most single-skilled oriented one in the game, if they don't have good Computers/Intelligence they are going to be very bored. But I digress).

I also agree that it's nice to have a balanced party, if possible, because that means that every PC has a chance to be involved at different points, and has a chance to shine. And, as you say, it gives the party a better chance of dealing with whatever the GM throws at them.

I'm not even opposed to min-maxing, really. In fact I'm kind of coming out "pro" min-maxing, in some ways. I'm simply suggesting that the "min" part can be a great deal of fun, and that plugging all your starting exp into characteristics runs the risk of the player losing that opportunity.

To continue with the Slicer example, that moment when they have to roll a Computers check should be their opportunity to shine, but that moment when they're forced to roll an Athletics check (Edit: this hypothetical Slicer has a Brawn of 1) is their opportunity to land the party in trouble (or, in other words, fun).

Everyone should take an active role in trying to make the game as fun and enjoyable as possible, players included, IMHO.

Absolutely. But IMHO this does not have anything to do with team balance.

That way the GM doesn't have to worry about it, too.

With the right approach, the GM would not have to worry about it. It's about how strictly the opposing test is designed. If there is a locked door, it's easy to assume the Skulduggery guy picks the lock; but if there are two Skulduggery PCs, or if the Slicer is looking bored, it's pretty easy as the GM to add some feature that requires another set of hands appropriate to their skill set...maybe a Perception check reveals that there is a piece of paper wedged in the door to reveal if somebody broke in, so it's the second person's job to make sure that is caught and replaced while the first picks the lock. Basically, approach the opposing test creation as if there will always be multiple elements. So far I've found this fairly easy to do on the fly, because the overlap issue doesn't come up that often.

The main thing is the balance issue, I've been working away from the concept and have found it liberating. In fact I've been discouraging my players from making PC development decisions based on team balance, but instead to focus on their character and what they want them to be like. If I end up with a team of all-nerd white-hat slicers, then so be it, I will just have to make sure that the tech challenges are suitably complex...and that the social encounters are suitably embarrassing and amusing

@Braendig

I don't think we're necessarily talking cross-purposes here.

Agreed, and I realized I never asked about the context. If the point of the campaign is to have a well-balanced team, where the theme and the thrust of the adventures and the reputation of the party is based on it, then that is a different matter.

I'm not sure why a generally built PC would ever be better than a specialist? If someone is a purpose built Computer oriented PC they should be better. Now the Computer guy probably isn't the go to alternative for a Negotiation check, or they might be depending on stats, but to me the generalist is there to be the 2nd wrung in the ladder and wear a lot of hats.

This thread is about leaving a stat 1 and role-playing the PC who thinks they're good but aren't for the fun of it. I don't know how that morphed into a Jack of All Trades is now better than a laser focused purpose built min/max PC?

I'm not sure why a generally built PC would ever be better than a specialist? If someone is a purpose built Computer oriented PC they should be better. Now the Computer guy probably isn't the go to alternative for a Negotiation check, or they might be depending on stats, but to me the generalist is there to be the 2nd wrung in the ladder and wear a lot of hats.

This thread is about leaving a stat 1 and role-playing the PC who thinks they're good but aren't for the fun of it. I don't know how that morphed into a Jack of All Trades is now better than a laser focused purpose built min/max PC?

I've often played "ordinary joe" average characters without being super specialized. I've found a large part of the fun of them is taking them through the heroes journey where they develop specializations through the story. Several times I have been deeply surprised at they direction they ended up evolving due to campaign needs. This system seems perfect for that sort of character since it is divorced from the level grind of many other systems.

As far as having a low characteristic and playing as if the character thinks they are normal or great at it, I don't think I have ever done that. I have fairly often played characters with deficient characteristics due to age, illness, injury or race and played the characters with the source of the deficiency in mind for role playing fodder. Those characters I enjoy greatly (low intelligent salt of the earth sailor with high knowledge skills from all his travels, 80# soaking wet ninja girl that is a hell of a combatant but can't lift hardly anything and can barely take a hit, ect), but just min-maxing stats to create a great specialist I find extremely boring personally.

I typically GM but when I play I try never to let my stats determine my character's actions. If my PC needs to pilot then I am going to have them pilot, ranks be damned. With the scenario the GM sets I try my damnedest to have my character react in a genuine way, not in a metagame way. If my PC is fighting someone on a cliff ledge, instead of shooting them (agility) I might try to run up and throw them off (brawn), because that is more exciting. This system really allows for someone who is not a specialist to still succeed.

All I'm asking for is that the guy whose role is X is at least as good at X as the guy whose role is NOT X.

To each his/her/its own, but wow...that sort of mentality, and really the way you approach the game mentally is so far from what I find acceptable (let alone enjoyable) that I'd leave any group where it was the norm. If I were the GM, players with that mentality would either be asked to revise their thinking or not be invited back to the table, and if every player had that mentality, I'd probably just pull the plug and look for other players. That's not to say your approach is wrong, just that for me, it reduces the endless possibility and nuance of a wide-open RPG system to being as closed-ended and repetitive as a video game grind.

To me, that's a highly non-productive way of approaching the game, unless the GM never goes beyond the grind of having the whole group move around together, and throwing obvious, one-dimensional challenges at them one at a time, clearly tailored to the specialties of the group, and at a difficulty level where only the specialist can address it...all while totally omitting any challenge where there's nobody in the group specialized in it.

With highly specialized character, while I'm not going to single them out to pick on them, there's going to be enough variety in any game of mine, that they're only very rarely going to find themselves ideally suited to a challenge, and then, they'll likely be overqualified. The other 95% of the time, they're going to be the "weak link" as you put it, since that specialization comes with the cost of being less-capable in every single other area. I've often found that the least specialized characters can often be the most valuable members of the team. In a 4-6 character group, that's a max of 4-6 specialties that can be covered. If one or two decide for a general build, that means that there are 2-4 kinds of situations that the group has a specialist answer to. For every other situation, those generalized characters are as good as it gets.

When you look at it that way, those generalized (or just less-specialized, considering that allows them to be better at other things) characters might just as accurately deride your specialist for not being able to do any number of other tasks as well as them. So you're the slicer that's crazy good at slicing (let's just say you have an arbitrary success rating of 85). They're the group's best option at planetary piloting, at, say 65. You look at that and say, "Jeez, you really need to bone up on that. My own planetary piloting is like 50."

Meanwhile, all of your other skills are, on average, in the 10-20 rating range, as a side-effect of your devoting time and resources to bumping your slicing and piloting skill. Now you also have specialists in heavy combat, and brawling in this 4 person group, with similar levels of specificity as you. Now, any time you get into a situation where you need deception, skulduggery, ship piloting, light ranged, negotiation, charm, or medicine, you specialists find your average success rates in the 10-20 range to be mostly useless, while your generalized character is in the 40-50 range...not as good as you are at one thing, but passably good at "the rest". Would it be fair of them to be upset with you for making a character worse than them at all of those things? Basically, their specialty is giving the group a decent shot at being able to handle a wide variety of obstacles, not just one thing.

This type of character quickly proves their worth in two situations: party splits and indirect objectives. In the former, your group needs to hack the imperial database...to falsify records to secure the release of your slicer, who was picked up by authorities. Or the group voluntarilysplits up (say to locate some spare parts, get in touch with their boss, and look for clues as to the whereabouts of their target), and the heavy combat guy finds himself dealing with a droid infochant that's uncooperative, the faceman gets jumped, and the medic ends up in a sticky situation with the authorities and needs to talk his way out. In the latter situation, one character, regardless of who it is, may need to complete a variety of objectives...don a disguise to get into the governor's dinner party, sweet talk a few senators into giving them clues, then slip away and find an unguarded computer terminal to grab some files from the governor's system, then hotwire a speeder in the garage and take off back to the ship under pursuit...all the while, the rest of the party needs to be in other places doing their thing (the dedicated slicer is jamming communication at the local garrison while the heavy keeps the base's troopers pinned down, and the diplomat has to meet the group's shady contact). In this case, you want and need someone who's pretty okay at a bunch of stuff, as opposed to the specialist slicer that can hack the system with ease, but they're never going to pull off the bluff to get them to that point...or the former holovid star that can fit right in at the party and charm the senators, but doesn't know a computer terminal from the hind end of a bantha.

Typically, most character should probably reflect what we see, both in Star Wars and in real life: one or two primary areas of focus, with at least 3-4 secondary areas of experience. So the slicer focuses on computers, but also knows some first aid and is handy enough with a spanner to help the tech with repairs. The tech, for his part, is second to none on modifications and jury-rigging in the heat of battle, but he's also no slouch with a blaster, and can drive a speeder with some skill...as well as negotiate a fair price on spare parts. The combat heavy might have no social skills at all, but he makes up for that, outside of combat, with a tiny bit of skill in just about everything else...not really able to tackle difficult tasks alone, but able to provide meaningful help in any situation...and finally, there should be no shortage of the all-around adventurer, who's a decent shot, able to patch up a damaged arm and stabilizer equally well, slip a bribe to an already-corrupt official, and plot a hyperspace course given enough time and little distraction. Each all-around character is going to be a little different, which spreads the team skillset around a bit, but the advantage is that while they may not be able to excel at crazy-difficult situations, they are well-rounded enough to avoid that sort of dilemma in the first place.

I have great fun playing a Hutt with 1 agility. He is not capable of handling a blaster correctly but it spice up combat.

Hi all

I just thought I'd share something I've experienced in my games.

There's a lot of questions asking about how experience should be used at characterisation, and a lot of people have replied suggesting that it's important to boost your characteristics straight away, because they're so difficult to raise during the game. And, of course, mechanically this is true. And it's pretty much what I did. I raised as many characteristics as I could to 3, and spent the leftover on skills.

One of my party members, however, ignored this advice. He plays a Smuggler/Charmer, and as the face of the party his left his Brawn at 1 and his Agility at 2. The result? He's having twice as much fun as me. Every time he has to roll a skill check for Brawn, it's tense; every time he fails he laughs at how useless his character is; every time he succeeds he properly celebrates. Meanwhile I'm rolling 3 green dice for pretty much everything, and it's much less exciting.

My conclusion: for good, narrative fun, having low characteristics can be much more interesting.

As others have said Attributes are only part of the system and a PC with a low Brawn, for example, can later make up for it with a high Skill. More importantly one should roleplay first and roll the dice second. Your friend isn't having more fun because they have a low characteristic, they're having more fun because they are playing their character. You should too. Your PC is, apparently, more capable in some areas so play that, "I'm good at everything, see" but push it as well, do things that push your skills to the limit if that makes you feel good. Or when you get annoyed when this other party member tries things they aren't good at roleplay that. "You know you really should work out noodle arms... let me get that" and when they try anyway and fail "Okay, can I try now?", or when it's a life and death thing and you really are significantly better, Assist (EotE pg 25) or communicate in game that you should do this. Most of all don't get pissy or if you are in a bad mood that day then ROLEPLAY your attitude just do it in a fun way.

In the game I GM I have a rule where the Player that comes up with the idea is the first PC that should act on that idea even if they don't have the best Skill. If they want to let someone more Skilled do it they must communicate it in game "Hey XXX could you reprogram the doohickey yadda yadda?" or " Hey XXX, you're a sneaky bast*rd, you sneak up...". I do this because thats how sh*t really happens, sometimes the best person isn't the first to try, plus it's fun because the results can be entertaining. Further it also adds suspense and tension because in some situations communicating in game can be hard without giving away your intentions to the opposition.

I am currently playing a Nikto with a Presence of 1. It was great fun trying to portray that lack of social grace when he had to have a one-on-one meeting with a powerful hutt. I had him use terrible titles, be confused and backtrack within a sentence and so forth. It was much more entertaining than playing a "normal" person in the same situation. And lucky for me he survived the encounter

Playing a droid and the only reason both my Brawn and Agility aren't 1's (instead of just Brawn) is because I felt I needed a 2 Agility to be able to competently handle ladders, an important skill for a ship's mechanic I think.

Although in hindsight I likely could have just trained athletics or something...