Or rather, it will expose a broken element in the system, one that is currently hidden behind a contrived extra cost.

Or rather, it will expose a broken element in the system, one that is currently hidden behind a contrived extra cost.

So lets build a character with the Higgledy-Piggledly talent system. I would pick up:

Dodge

Side Step

Lethal Blows

Grit

Toughened

Kill With Kindness

Plausible Deniability

Street Smarts

Convincing Demeanor

Galaxy Mapper

Gearhead

Skilled Jockey

Steady Nerves

Stalker

Wheel and Deal

Black Market Contacts

Durable

Point Blank

Barrage

Feral Strength

Intimidating

Burly

So, for just the 110 points starting points (for a max obligated human), I've managed to remove just about every black the GM cares to throw at me, added a blue die to several rolls, can buy and sell anything at a significant profit, removed 10 from every crit roll, increase my damage at engaged, short range, long and extreme range, upgraded the difficulty to hit me twice, downgraded any incoming coercion checks and can carry an E-Web. And that's not even bothering to get off the 5 point tier.

For another 80 points - one month's worth of play, assuming 20 points a week - I'd pick up Bad Motivator, Contraption, Natural Marksman, and Biggest Fan. Meaning I can reroll a blaster attack once, kill any machine once, build a gizmo to get us out of trouble and woo an NPC to my side.

Mind you, disallowing all duplicated Talents means that stuff like Sound Investments, stuff that is designed to stack, is now pointless and Dodge is hamstrung. But hey, your system isn't broken! Nope, not one bit!

Again, if the only thing stopping that sort of build ( presuming it's "bad" ) is the unlock cost of the extra "classes" and the tree structure of progression, then removing those things isn't breaking the system, it's revealing the way in which the system is broken to begin with. On the other hand, what is a character "giving up" in get those Talents?

Really, with the gimmick-based character building and balance built around artificial constraints and the goofy dice and so on, it's becoming clearer that the entire system would need to be reworked to not hit just about every "NEVER" button I have.

Or rather, it will expose a broken element in the system, one that is currently hidden behind a contrived extra cost.

So lets build a character with the Higgledy-Piggledly talent system. I would pick up:

Dodge

Side Step

Lethal Blows

Grit

Toughened

Kill With Kindness

Plausible Deniability

Street Smarts

Convincing Demeanor

Galaxy Mapper

Gearhead

Skilled Jockey

Steady Nerves

Stalker

Wheel and Deal

Black Market Contacts

Durable

Point Blank

Barrage

Feral Strength

Intimidating

Burly

So, for just the 110 points starting points (for a max obligated human), I've managed to remove just about every black the GM cares to throw at me, added a blue die to several rolls, can buy and sell anything at a significant profit, removed 10 from every crit roll, increase my damage at engaged, short range, long and extreme range, upgraded the difficulty to hit me twice, downgraded any incoming coercion checks and can carry an E-Web. And that's not even bothering to get off the 5 point tier.

For another 80 points - one month's worth of play, assuming 20 points a week - I'd pick up Bad Motivator, Contraption, Natural Marksman, and Biggest Fan. Meaning I can reroll a blaster attack once, kill any machine once, build a gizmo to get us out of trouble and woo an NPC to my side.

Mind you, disallowing all duplicated Talents means that stuff like Sound Investments, stuff that is designed to stack, is now pointless and Dodge is hamstrung. But hey, your system isn't broken! Nope, not one bit!

Again, if the only thing stopping that sort of build ( presuming it's "bad" ) is the unlock cost of the extra "classes" and the tree structure of progression, then removing those things isn't breaking the system, it's revealing the way in which the system is broken to begin with. On the other hand, what is a character "giving up" in get those Talents?

Really, with the gimmick-based character building and balance built around artificial constraints and the goofy dice and so on, it's becoming clearer that the entire system would need to be reworked to not hit just about every "NEVER" button I have.

Troll

Troll

Ironic, and ignored. Bye bye.

Troll

Ironic, and ignored. Bye bye.

I'm so sad, trolly mctrollerson....

General trolling

This is the point where I think we can just stop discussion. You are either ignorant about the basics of character creation in this system or you are intentionally being argumentative and obtuse. You're essentially saying, "When you don't follow RAW, it exposes how broken the RAW is".

I also want to clarify that I am not including Librarian in the above statement. I'm happy to continue an informed debate about the ideas you are proposing.

then removing those things isn't breaking the system, it's revealing the way in which the system is broken to begin with.

Good day.

General trolling

This is the point where I think we can just stop discussion. You are either ignorant about the basics of character creation in this system or you are intentionally being argumentative and obtuse. You're essentially saying, "When you don't follow RAW, it exposes how broken the RAW is".

I also want to clarify that I am not including Librarian in the above statement. I'm happy to continue an informed debate about the ideas you are proposing.

What I'm saying is that when the stated objection to taking off the career and tree limits is "but then everyone will take the same talents", then you have a game that's balanced by artificial limits, has clearly unbalanced talents, and too heavily "special talents" based to begin with.

If certain Talents are that much better, then just charge more XP for them, instead of hiding them behind a bunch of artificial constraints.

then removing those things isn't breaking the system, it's revealing the way in which the system is broken to begin with.

Good day.

Ah, so pointing out why you don't care for something in the system is now "trolling".

If certain Talents are that much better, then just charge more XP for them, instead of hiding them behind a bunch of artificial constraints.

Maybe that is the solution. But when will you do the work and provide the appropriate XP costs for several pages of Talents? Until then you're just being a critic.

Again, this simply bring us right back to the same issue -- if one Talent is more "powerful" than another, then give it a higher XP cost... or do a better job balancing the Talents. Don't create 26 versions of the same Talent or progressions of Talents that stack in effect to the point of causing a wreck.

I don't see you offering any solutions, only academic commentary about a design decision that can't be reversed.

The game is currently balanced on the structure of the trees. If you take away that structure, what are you going to replace it with?

If certain Talents are that much better, then just charge more XP for them, instead of hiding them behind a bunch of artificial constraints.

Maybe that is the solution. But when will you do the work and provide the appropriate XP costs for several pages of Talents? Until then you're just being a critic.

So no comments or concerns allowed unless you're also willing to provide a fully-worked-out solution?

If certain Talents are that much better, then just charge more XP for them, instead of hiding them behind a bunch of artificial constraints.

Maybe that is the solution. But when will you do the work and provide the appropriate XP costs for several pages of Talents? Until then you're just being a critic.

Critic is too kind I think.

So no comments or concerns allowed unless you're also willing to provide a fully-worked-out solution?

Of course you can comment, but that's a cop out in this case and you know it. I do not agree with the OP's premise, but at least I provided an alternate framework. Surely you, who insist a rework is necessary, could do at least as much.

May the Troll be with you.

So no comments or concerns allowed unless you're also willing to provide a fully-worked-out solution?

Of course you can comment, but that's a cop out in this case and you know it. I do not agree with the OP's premise, but at least I provided an alternate framework. Surely you, who insist a rework is necessary, could do at least as much.

So far, my comments have been entirely conceptual, and I guess I don't see why that's an issue. At the risk of dragging this thing out... do you have a source for all the Talents that doesn't involve investing in an entire set of FFG Star Wars RPG books for what would be an entirely theoretical exercise?

On the other hand, as much as I'm drawn to system design discussions and theory, perhaps I should stick to discussing the setting content and leave the system discussion to those invested in it as-is.

I do appreciate greatly that you haven't fallen back on the kneejerk defensive response that someone skeptical of FFG's system must "of course" be a "troll". Nothing I've posted here has been anything other than my honest opinion, as unwelcome as it might be.

So no comments or concerns allowed unless you're also willing to provide a fully-worked-out solution?

Of course you can comment, but that's a cop out in this case and you know it. I do not agree with the OP's premise, but at least I provided an alternate framework. Surely you, who insist a rework is necessary, could do at least as much.

So far, my comments have been entirely conceptual, and I guess I don't see why that's an issue. At the risk of dragging this thing out... do you have a source for all the Talents that doesn't involve investing in an entire set of FFG Star Wars RPG books for what would be an entirely theoretical exercise?

On the other hand, as much as I'm drawn to system design discussions and theory, perhaps I should stick to discussing the setting content and leave the system discussion to those invested in it as-is.

I do appreciate greatly that you haven't fallen back on the kneejerk defensive response that someone skeptical of FFG's system must "of course" be a "troll". Nothing I've posted here has been anything other than my honest opinion, as unwelcome as it might be.

Don't forget unnecessarily repetitive and baiting in nature, ie trolling.

(Sadly, having a person on ignore does nothing to keep their posts off the "latest posted" dropdown in the forum list of topics...)

If I'm actually trolling, you're doing a bad job not responding to it. However, It does seem VERY important to you to point out over and over what a "troll" I am, while ironically attacking my character as a person rather than the actual statements in my posts. Who exactly is it derailing the thread with repeated off-topic posts, at this point?

If I put somebody in the hospital because I took a claw hammer to their head, it's not my fault, it's the manufacturer's fault for producing an object capable of injuring somebody else, nevermindthatitwasneverinanywayintendedormarketedforattemptedmurder. Or maybe it's the fault of the other guy, for having a head so susceptible to being clubbed with a hammer; why would it be my fault he isn't resilient enough to take it and keep walking?

So I buy something, rip its guts out and use it in a way that it was not intended or designed, it was designed poorly and a *** product.

Ah, so pointing out why you don't care for something in the system is now "trolling".

When you're purposely going "Look how broken the game engine is when I remove this key component of checks and balances", well yeah. You are.

Your getting pissed at congress for coming up with whatever batshit crazy laws they want because you've removed the power of Veto from the President.

(Sadly, having a person on ignore does nothing to keep their posts off the "latest posted" dropdown in the forum list of topics...)

If I'm actually trolling, you're doing a bad job not responding to it. However, It does seem VERY important to you to point out over and over what a "troll" I am, while ironically attacking my character as a person rather than the actual statements in my posts. Who exactly is it derailing the thread with repeated off-topic posts, at this point?

I agree with whafrog, your comments at this point using words like "broken", "artificial" and "goofy" have nothing to do with constructive conceptual discussion, please dont bother trying to bullsh*t a bullshitter.

If I put somebody in the hospital because I took a claw hammer to their head, it's not my fault, it's the manufacturer's fault for producing an object capable of injuring somebody else, nevermindthatitwasneverinanywayintendedormarketedforattemptedmurder. Or maybe it's the fault of the other guy, for having a head so susceptible to being clubbed with a hammer; why would it be my fault he isn't resilient enough to take it and keep walking?

So I buy something, rip its guts out and use it in a way that it was not intended or designed, it was designed poorly and a *** product.

If we want to delve off into analogies... if you want to understand my actual position... I'd say it's more like having a hammer with a rubber strap around the head that seems to keep it from working as a hammer... but if you want to take that off, you're told "You can't take that off, it's the only thing that keeps the head from flying off and killing someone!"

I'm fairly certain that you'll disagree with my opinion, but please disagree with my actual opinion.

Ah, so pointing out why you don't care for something in the system is now "trolling".

When you're purposely going "Look how broken the game engine is when I remove this key component of checks and balances", well yeah. You are.

And I actually do think that a system that relies on "class" or "tree" based constraints to prevent balance or stacking issues has missed the boat entirely, and is fundamentally broken.

But we've all repeated our opinions on that matter, so at this point...

Librarian, I apologize for derailing your thread. Personally, I find your goal laudable and hope you succeed in finding a working solution.

Fantasy Flight didn't make a rubber hammer to prevent it's usage. They made a rubber hammer for a specific purpose, say metalworking. Me buying it and trying to break rocks only results in a broken, mangled and chewed up hammer. I don't get to blame the manufacturer for making the hammer wrong, I blame myself for using the wrong; I should have picked the sledge or the claw hammer instead for what work I was doing.

Fact 1: things are made to work a certain way, and for a certain purpose. Using them outside of these means they don't work well, might possibly break, but it is not the fault of creator because they were used incorrectly. That's not my opinion, or anybody's opinion. That's just the way it is.

Fact 2: FFG made their game, with the talents and the dice and the character creation, to utilize and be based around a class skill tree system. Everything is balanced with this in mind. Removing it causes problems. That's not my opinion, or anybody's opinion. That's just the way it is.

If your opinion is you don't like classes, fine. That's fine. But this is a system that uses classes. If you don't like it, you haven't been sold a defective tool, you've bought the wrong one.

Anybody can have an opinion. Having an opinion doesn't mean they can ignore reality.

And I actually do think that a system that relies on "class" or "tree" based constraints to prevent balance or stacking issues has missed the boat entirely, and is fundamentally broken.

Then you probably should go play a different game. You hate careers, you hate skill trees and you hate signature abilities. The only thing left of character creation and advancement are the Skill Ranks. It sounds like you'd probably be better off playing WEG.

. . . . oh, wait. That has a increased cost for character advancement too.

Nothing I've posted here has been anything other than my honest opinion, as unwelcome as it might be.

Your *opinion* is shared by the OP, which is not unwelcome. It seems to me the OP has received some constructive feedback.

However, I can't say your comments on your opinion have been very constructive. The Talents and the Structure work hand-in-hand to create a balance. If you remove the Structure you have to either create a new balancing Structure (which is what the OP did), or re-cost the Talents...this is obvious. If you pick the latter, really what you require is nWoD and a book of re-costed Merits, which is not a small task. Once you arrive at that point, there's not much more to say...you either accept it won't change, or you get busy and do the work.

But instead you seem to be berating FFG because their Talent+Structure doesn't work when you remove the Structure. That seems rather pointless.

Nothing I've posted here has been anything other than my honest opinion, as unwelcome as it might be.

But instead you seem to be berating FFG because their Talent+Structure doesn't work when you remove the Structure. That seems rather pointless.

^ This.