7 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

Nope. I've seen games last in which all of the players were munchkins and the (idiot) GM was an archetypal Monty Haul.

Ahh, it doesn't have to go this route though. A GM can cater to player's desire for wanton destruction without the dreaded Munchkin Syndrome. It becomes clear quickly when players want to just mow through minions, why would a GM not want to entertain that proclivity? A GM can make this fun and challenging just the same, unless their preconceived notion of fun isn't in line with the players. If that's the case, no amount of rules will replace a quick, frank chat.

21 hours ago, Desslok said:

Fine. Do whatever you like.

You don't like Jedi, you don't like the force powers, you don't like hardpoints - what the hell about the system do you like?

A target to complain about, apparently.

11 hours ago, ShadoWarrior said:

This happens a lot with players whose sole prior experience of RPGs is D&D, or worse, computer RPGs of most genres. Goal: get the +5 sword of insta-death and the +5 armor of godhood. Play: "where's the loot? is it better than what I have now? move on to next victim." Repeat until everyone gets sick of playing and game group falls apart.

It's roll-playing, not roleplaying.

There's nothing wrong with that play style, if the group enjoys it. If they don't and their game indeed falls apart, they'll either shift gears or stop playing. There's a ton of easily found and digested resources online to facilitate a better RPG experience. If an unhappy group doesn't want to find and implement them, the hobby isn't going to miss them.

20 hours ago, Aetrion said:

I like Jedi just fine, I just don't like that there is no limit to how many force dice you can have because it doesn't encourage people to make broad characters in long running games. I also like most of the force powers just fine, I just think Move was written for EotE way back when and keeping it backwards compatible has deprived us of more specific and balanced powers in F&D, and some of the dark/light requirements are a bit extreme. I also like hardpoints just fine for the purpose of making modifications to the ship's actual characteristics, they just become stupid when you're talking about how many hardpoints it takes to serve nice food on board.

You forgot the morality system. I think that system is also extremely weak, because it would make people who say mean things three times a session fall to the dark side, while people who murder a child every year at their birthday party would be paragons of light for the other 11 months of the year.

Other things: The defense system is weird because it's rarely clear what stacks and what doesn't, a simple cap would have been nicer so that lots of paths lead there without encouraging endless stacking. Taking cover is way too weak of a move, leaving the game without any decent defensive plays you can make that don't cost strain and require a heap of talents. Ship shields just adding black dice completely contradicts how people seem to treat shields in the movies and shows, where they are more like star trek shields and serve as a form of ablative armor that is generated from energy fields. Oh, and personal scale really needs to have rules that allow you to add a similar effect to "massive" to resisting various weapon effects like autofire. Maybe roll that into a better cover system, so you can make smart defensive moves against overwhelming firepower.

So, yea, that's pretty much the list of stuff I don't like about this game.

What I do like about the game?

Uhh... everything else.

I normally don't get this confrontational but, you're viewing things poorly. Do you really need rules to support the measure of evil for murdering children? Do you actually have a PC that does that? Is it truly that important to have rules telling you how many Boost dice a gourmet Bantha burger gives a character? Is it not within your bounds to change how the Move power functions?

Star Wars (and RPGs in general) is (are) perceived countless ways and FFG did an amazing job finding that very difficult middle ground. The rules are robust enough to provide number-crunchers with plenty to fiddle with, while also not drowning more free-form fans in minutiae. It captures a rather balanced view of what the fans of the franchise expect, but in doing so cannot hand everyone everything they want. That's an impossible task.

Put all the parts together and you have an extremely solid base system that hits between narrative and numerical, but also gives a strong basis for the setting and themes of Star Wars. From there you can make it your own, which is what any good RPG helps you do. Are there things "missing" from the game? Absolutely! But ask what and you'll get a million different answers. What's important is to give fans a working toolbox to extrapolate from and build upon. The game does just that.

The Morality system works better than any other iteration of Force, well, morality. It's nuanced and again, gives a solid framework to build upon. I see so many people focusing purely on the mechanics at the expense of common sense and immersion. If you break it down to focusing on things like your annual child-killing example, the game will not work for you.

Every RPG has a social buy-in that the group will support the themes of the game. If you and/or your players can't honor that and use the strengths of the game to your advantage, it simply will not be the experience you want it to be.

28 minutes ago, Alderaan Crumbs said:

Do you actually have a PC that does that?

My impression is that most of these complaints are based on hypothetical breakings of the system and not actual play experiences. He claims that high powered Jedi play will overshadow non-Jedi, but my personal experience from two 600+ XP campaigns that were Jedi heavy that this is not the case. A Marauder is far more deadly and my Engineer is in no way a sidekick.

I'm guessing the same thing here - has he actually run into this problem with hardpoints in game-play? Or is this someone sitting down with a book looking for ways to break the engine?

33 minutes ago, Desslok said:

My impression is that most of these complaints are based on hypothetical breakings of the system and not actual play experiences. He claims that high powered Jedi play will overshadow non-Jedi, but my personal experience from two 600+ XP campaigns that were Jedi heavy that this is not the case. A Marauder is far more deadly and my Engineer is in no way a sidekick.

I'm guessing the same thing here - has he actually run into this problem with hardpoints in game-play? Or is this someone sitting down with a book looking for ways to break the engine?

I'd like to think that his group (any group, really) will give it a good run, then give impressions after. If needed, they can seek advice in shoring up problems instead of simply complaining and not argue with people who have experience to share.

47 minutes ago, Desslok said:

I'm guessing the same thing here - has he actually run into this problem with hardpoints in game-play? Or is this someone sitting down with a book looking for ways to break the engine?

I described the problem in the opening post. I was trying to customize a ship as a mobile command center of sorts and found that after adding a hangar bay to the ship I could theoretically gain access to every single extra room and amenity the game currently contains that cost hardpoints by putting them on crawlers and parking the crawlers in the ship's hangar bay. I could not however put them on the actual ship. If I can park a vehicle that has a theater command and control center, a holotank, a briefing auditorium and a holonet pirate array on board in my ship then it becomes highly questionable why I can't put them in my ship without the vehicle. None of these items are part of the ships actual statistics, so it simply doesn't matter if they are contained in another vehicle, so why should they take up hardpoints?

17 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

why should they take up hardpoints?

Game balance. It's the only answer that makes any sense. However, one person's idea of "balance" is not the same as another's. Installing a lot of stuff on a ship may not seem game-breaking to you, but the developers do not seem to agree.

My own take is to add house rules enabling the conversion of space to more HPs. This stays, more or less, within the framework of the FFG mechanics while allowing GMs and players to trick out ships beyond what the very limited FFG RAW permits. I'm happy, my players are happy, and I don't need to throw out the rules or accept limits I disagree with. It's also consistent, so I can apply the same revised/enhanced mechanics to more than one gaming group.

I also agree that FFG's shield mechanics do a piss-poor job of reflecting what we see in canon. Shields as a means to reduce the odds of getting hit is just stupid. Canon shields reduce damage, they have no effect on whether the attack strikes the ship or not. Solution? Use one of the many available GM-created sets of house rules that treat shields somewhat like ablative armor (which is what they really are in canon).

There are quite a few other shortcomings related to space combat and starships (like sensors), but this topic isn't titled "Everything that's wrong with the space system and what can be done about it".

On 1/29/2017 at 8:05 PM, Aetrion said:

I mean, an example of where the Hardpoint system just absolute craps the bed:

Indulgent Class Luxury Starliner. It's literally a space going cruise ship, and it comes with 1 hardpoint. (Which makes perfect sense as long as hardpoints are used for engines, weapons, armor etc.)

Onboard Amenities Unit: 1 Hardpoint

Luxury Quarters: 1 Hardpoint

You literally have a luxury cruise liner that cannot gain the mechanical benefits of having a kitchen and luxury quarters on it at the same time.

So of course at that point you'd say "Well this is ridiculous, a cruise ship obviously has a variety of fancy restaurants, and the amenities unit is meant to be something you install in Sil4 ships to convert them to comfortable homes, not something that indicates whether or not a ship has an actual kitchen." But the way the system treats those objects still means you have to houserule them into the luxury liner in order to get the mechanical benefit from inviting people there for negotiations.

If those items were simply bound by encumbrance it wouldn't be any issue, but someone made them hardpoint items, so luxury liners have fewer mechanical benefits from being luxurious than a YT1300 can have.

I bolded that statement you made, since it invalidates your argument. Unless of course you don't believe in GM fiat...?

You've shown common sense: at some point you ask yourself the question, "What systems and amenities are already installed in a luxury liner?"

Here's more common sense: the players ask the GM if their awesome starship could impress any dignitaries or other individuals that come aboard for negotiations of some sort. The GM rules that yeah, that makes sense.

Just because there exists a specific item with a specific mechanical effect doesn't mean that that's the only way to get that mechanical effect. At that point, as the GM, I'd say, "Hey, that vehicle attachment gives me an idea for how your luxury cruise ship could be treated, if you ever brought people aboard for negotiations." Or, "Hey, that vehicle attachment gives me an idea for how that bar you always keep fully-stocked could impact your having guests aboard the ship."

It's not really house-ruling, as you call it. This kind of stuff is firmly within the realm of GM fiat, which is a huge part of the game (and why we still have pen-and-paper games!). Trying to allow for every possible combination and every possible scenario would leave us with an unusable and incredibly expensive tome, thousands of pages long. And people would still complain that X scenario doesn't work with the rules as written.

But I bet the artwork would be cool...

3 hours ago, ShadoWarrior said:

Nope. I've seen games last in which all of the players were munchkins and the (idiot) GM was an archetypal Monty Haul.

But that is not abusive behavior, that is adapting the game to the liking of the groups. And while I would not touch such a group with a 10 foot pole, they are still doing it "right" as they play and have fun. And technical even a 100 feet pole would not be long enough to get involved with a dungeon crawler group which plays perfectly by the rules. ;-)

" … de laisser à chacun gagner Paradis comme il l’entend." , sums it up pretty well, let them gain paradise in whatever way suits them.

2 hours ago, Alderaan Crumbs said:

There's nothing wrong with that play style, if the group enjoys it. If they don't and their game indeed falls apart, they'll either shift gears or stop playing. There's a ton of easily found and digested resources online to facilitate a better RPG experience. If an unhappy group doesn't want to find and implement them, the hobby isn't going to miss them.

So you are saying that people play DnD on purpose and not because they just don't know better? SCNR, I am joking, I am joking. Refer to above post, as the new forum seems to have issues with copy and paste, while still not supporting auto-merge …

2 hours ago, Alderaan Crumbs said:

Put all the parts together and you have an extremely solid base system that hits between narrative and numerical,

And btw, while I agree with basically the rest of your post, I refuse the notion that this system has a solid base. It has a great idea of mixing narrative action with simply skill checks, that is really a great idea, but it fails already on execution of that basic idea as the mathematical foundation for the result distribution is rather wacky. Basically even simple skill checks are already badly executed. There are far more simpler systems with much more robust dice systems which offer a great deal of narrative options, like for example the french Agone or Ubiquity, etc

Still the system is interesting, the characters are as well and while the dice results are often bogus, like rolling 14 advantages, but not a single success … the system is still fun enough. ;-)

58 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

If I can park a vehicle that has a theater command and control center, a holotank, a briefing auditorium and a holonet pirate array on board in my ship then it becomes highly questionable why I can't put them in my ship without the vehicle.

For the same reason that my Brawn 3 character with an encumbrance of 13 and a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack can't carry around a Star Destroyer: it makes no F'ing sense.

I played D&D when I didn't know any better (from 1979 up until 1994). I no longer play level-based games, unless they are CRPGs (like Fallout or Dragon Age or Deus Ex). There are simply better skills-based game systems out there for each and every gaming genre than the d20 crapola most gamers don't any better than to play, or are too lazy to move out of their comfort zone and try something that is new to them.

I was delighted when WotC lost their SWRPG license and then FFG picked it up. Saga was the last level-based system I used, and I was never happy using it. I only did so because it was easier to work around the flaws in Saga than try to fix all of the holes and imbalances in WEG's old system. There were then, and to this day are, more players still playing WEG's d6 SWRPG than any other SWRPG. Part of that is people who just don't like moving away from something that they know (and/or love), and part of that is that there are still many old gamers that don't know that there is a newer, skills-based SWRPG than WEG's that is put out by FFG.

9 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Like the power grid, cpu core, power core, communication grid, the hull itself. inertia stabilizers and the environmental systems themselves?

I will not agree, as I like my star wars simple, I think the system is unnecessary rules heavy, clumsy, spread out and unfocused on actually playing the game, instead gaming the system. But I like the idea in general for games which focus more on the ships, actually I think having those things for shipbuild would even work for star wars.

That is going too far. I mean like the hyperdrive, the engines, each weapon system. communications. Like some ships may have 0 engine hard points but have hard points available on each of the guns. A different ship has hardpoints on the engines and hyperdrive but none on the weapon systems. Corellian ships have hard points on them all. The problem thith them being all general is they are too limiting and the ships end up being too cookie cutter. And you end up having weird trade offs like the amenities suit...

3 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

To be fair, a lot of his problems would be solved as well if the GM would just introduce fitting attachments with zero hp cost like the core books suggest the GM should do if the situation calls for. ;-)

There are a number of "ugly" spots in the starship/vehicle modification rules.

I've always wondered why a ship with a Class 1 hyperdrive can't directly modify the existing hyperdrive down to Class 0.5 rather than install a useless (the base ability does nothing) Hyperdrive Generator and then modify it.

I also think it's silly that replacing a pair of linked weapons with another pair of linked weapons (such as a switch from twin Medium Laser Cannons to twin Light Ion Cannons) still takes a hardpoint. You might as well just add them in addition rather than replacing.

I still don't think that adding smuggling compartments should cut into the ship's EC. The whole point is to have added storage volume that is concealed, and EC is more about volume that mass. With the current set-up a ship with fully loaded smuggling compartments (Modified) is going to have it's normal holds half-full (at best) yet be unable to put anything else into them...

It's too easy to double post on these forums now.

12 minutes ago, Desslok said:

For the same reason that my Brawn 3 character with an encumbrance of 13 and a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack can't carry around a Star Destroyer: it makes no F'ing sense.

Actually it makes a lot of sense and you want with the wrong analogy. A separate ship has it's own power source, hardpoints, integrated functions and huge price tag attached. There is literally nothing wrong with having something like this in the hangar for special functions. Star destroyers for example send out TIE/rc to increase their sensor range, they send them out and coordinate that way a much bigger sensor grid that their own internal sensors could operate.

So the basic premise is not that wrong. If you have a huge hangar bay and want instead store in that hangar pay guest quarters than by all means, allow this as a GM. it just cost you most of your hangar in that case. Besides, having a dedicated ship for VIPs instead of having them assign to military quarters on the ISD makes sense as well … now why you would like to store a luxury yacht in that ISD hangar instead of just flying along side is beyond me. ;-)

6 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

I also think it's silly that replacing a pair of linked weapons with another pair of linked weapons (such as a switch from twin Medium Laser Cannons to twin Light Ion Cannons) still takes a hardpoint. You might as well just add them in addition rather than replacing.

That is btw something so silly that the character generator downright ignores it. Upgrading from twins to quads cost not a single hardpoint, and it becomes an even worse offense when you consider that sil 4 and up can anyway just install quad-laser cannons as single weapon system. Just ignore that silliness

25 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

So you are saying that people play DnD on purpose and not because they just don't know better? SCNR, I am joking, I am joking. Refer to above post, as the new forum seems to have issues with copy and paste, while still not supporting auto-merge …

And btw, while I agree with basically the rest of your post, I refuse the notion that this system has a solid base. It has a great idea of mixing narrative action with simply skill checks, that is really a great idea, but it fails already on execution of that basic idea as the mathematical foundation for the result distribution is rather wacky. Basically even simple skill checks are already badly executed. There are far more simpler systems with much more robust dice systems which offer a great deal of narrative options, like for example the french Agone or Ubiquity, etc

Still the system is interesting, the characters are as well and while the dice results are often bogus, like rolling 14 advantages, but not a single success … the system is still fun enough. ;-)

I'm saying people often get behind a One True Way to play which doesn't fit every system. I'm a recent convert to the Powered by the Apocalypse system because of Blades in the Dark (a fantastic game, BTW), but had to rethink my GMing. Luckily, this new way to play hits the mark but if it didn't, I wouldn't try to play my way and be frustrated. I'd try to mold things to work for me and if they didn't, I'd stop playing it. FATE was like this and while I recognize it's good, it's not for me.

We can agree to disagree on the results and if they're good, that's perfectly fine. I see the dice mechanic as it's strongest facet and rolling things like a bunch if Advantage with not Successes a feature not a bug. YMMV, of course.

2 minutes ago, Alderaan Crumbs said:

We can agree to disagree on the results and if they're good, that's perfectly fine. I see the dice mechanic as it's strongest facet and rolling things like a bunch if Advantage with not Successes a feature not a bug. YMMV, of course.

Not a bunch, 14. ;-)

And that is just an extreme case, the whole chance distribution of the results is a little odd, while the basic idea of having narrative results included in the dice roll is really nice. Another one of the odd things is for example that more dice are always better than upgrading dice. The effects of advantages vs success are very chaotical uneven, sometimes successes are trump, sometimes advantages are worth 5 times more than success as long as you have one success on your check, and this varies from skill to skill, sometimes even from weapon to weapon. On top of that are impossible checks trivial for anyone even remotely competent, etc

It almost like someone design a system without calculating the odds … which makes designing the system super cheap to design, but creates a lot oddities in the system. I have seen drafts for systems with more consistency ;-)

Still a fun system, I enjoy playing it. And space combat is brilliant, the basic idea for the dice as well.

34 minutes ago, Desslok said:

For the same reason that my Brawn 3 character with an encumbrance of 13 and a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack inside of a backpack can't carry around a Star Destroyer: it makes no F'ing sense.

That's hardly the same thing. The hangar bay is specifically an attachment for vehicles that allow them to carry other vehicles. Why would the on board systems of a vehicle become non-functional if it lands?

The whole point I'm making is that something that is stupid is rules legal and something that makes a lot more sense is not.

1 hour ago, awayputurwpn said:

I bolded that statement you made, since it invalidates your argument. Unless of course you don't believe in GM fiat...?

You've shown common sense: at some point you ask yourself the question, "What systems and amenities are already installed in a luxury liner?"

Here's more common sense: the players ask the GM if their awesome starship could impress any dignitaries or other individuals that come aboard for negotiations of some sort. The GM rules that yeah, that makes sense.

Yes, the DM should absolutely do that, but this topic isn't about telling the DM to circumvent holes in the system, it's about pointing out a big hole in the system and ruminating on how it could be done better in future iterations of the game.

Maybe there just needs to be a separate game systems discussion forum, because people here never seem to understand the difference between a discussion about systems and a discussion about running a game.

If the discussion was "My party is holding negotiations on a luxury liner, what kinds of benefits should I give them for renting that space?" I might very well say "Well, the system contains some rules for amenities and luxury quarters, you could invoke those", but that's a different discussion than saying "Why is the hardpoint system designed in such a way that it doesn't differentiate between adding weapons to a warship and adding tasteful decor to a pleasure craft, resulting in a system where warships end up being better suited for entertaining guests?"

But that's my point. Obviously, with hard work and attention to detail (installing the attachment), a warship could be made into an impressive place to host negotiations. But a Luxury ship should already have that effect. You shouldn't have to install a luxury guest quarters in a luxury yacht; they should just be there already. And now we've been given rules for what kind of impact such quarters should have on the game, so GMs don't have to guess at it. Or, they could take the idea from the attachment and run a different direction with it.

Where you see a hole, @Aetrion , I see an opportunity. I think the hardpoint system is fine as it is, because it is flexible, and malleable, and jives with the rest of the game really well. And if I feel like it doesn't work for X ship combined with Y attachment, then I can easily fix it with a hand-wave.

The problem, with your problem, is that it's a very specific problem about a small piece of how one rule interacts with another rule. And even if such a thing is a problem (not that I think it is, but even so) you don't implement sweeping, systemic changes to fix a minor issue. You just address the minor issue as it crops up. And if the minor issue continues to be an issue, perhaps establishing a pattern or a more prolific phenomenon, then you address it on a more systemic level.

52 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

Maybe there just needs to be a separate game systems discussion forum, because people here never seem to understand the difference between a discussion about systems and a discussion about running a game.

Having such a forum here would be pointless as the FFG guys are not allowed to discuss things here. Now there are roleplaying theory forums which will had this discussion most likely already a few times and it is likely that the FFG developers are frequenting these forums as well, just like tons of other game designers you can meet there.

Having discussions about fixing the game here is often not the best place, because this would be digging deeper into game development in have a much broader focus than official forums here provider. If you want to give feedback, there is a contact formular to reach out to the developers directly.

The forge might be actually to your liking and creating your own system and/or gameworld is something amazingly entertaining. But sometimes you just do not want to bother and just use a silly attachment with a simple cost of 1 out of your 6 hardpoints and be done with it, which is the reason why the hardpoint system and the system in general is as simplistic as it is in it's base and adds a lot of silly extra rules and stuff via expansions of the game for people who are interested in that kind of stuff. Not my favorite style of distribution of content, but certainly one which generates revenue. (Though from a revenue standpoint the pathfinder multi-path adventures imo take the cake, splitting a campaign into something which basically becomes a modular adventure subscription for as long as you play pathfinder. Now that was a clever business model for their system and acknowledging that the target demographics changed and time is sparse, while money ain't.)

I'm all about game tweaking and development. It's fun! But the devs do not, in fact, frequent these forums (except of course Mr. Keith Kappel, freelancer extraordinaire). The Beta testing was in place for each Core Book and that was the time for development feedback.

Now, we are pretty much "locked in." Especially since Christian made it clear that the Star Wars RPG line was complete at GenCon 2015. So if and when they do a next edition...and if and when there's a beta test period for that...then development feedback would be very effective!

But until such a time as that, we are left to either homebrew solutions, hand-wave problems, or slightly tweak our perspectives on what we initially perceive to be problems.

This discussion makes me feel like it bears reminding that the first and foremost rule of any roleplaying game is to have fun, and I think we all encourage people to chuck the rules they don't like. It is a very large galaxy and I would find it nigh impossible that there wouldn't be exceptions to rules -- for example, hardpoint counts. A GM can tweak whatever they like whenever they like to suit the story, and there is no requirement to allow players to do the same (within reason of course.)

19 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Show me a link to the post in question, because I think you're grossly misjudging what has actually been said. A "weapon system" is what you can operate with a single skill check, typically a single weapon or a set of linked identical weapons. Multiple discreet weapons are not a single weapon system.

Here is the post I was referencing:

Hard Points and Ship Weapons systems

Question asked by Yepesnopes :

In the core book, on page 271, it says "Hard Points Required: 0 if replacing an existing weapon system. 1 if adding a new weapon system. Weapon systems combining two or more weapons always cost 1 hard point, even if replacing an existing weapon system."

I am confused by the last statement.

1st question. If my ship comes by default with a Medium Laser Cannon, and I want to use the Upgrade Weapons attachment to replace the Medium Laser Cannon by a Two Medium Laser Cannons with the Linked 1 quality. Ho many HPs does it cost?

2nd question. If my ship comes by default with a Two Medium Laser Cannons with the linked 1 quality, and I want to use the Upgrade Weapons attachment to replace them by a Two Concussion Missile Launchers with the Linked 1 quality. Ho many HPs does it cost?

3rd question. If my ship comes by default with a Two Medium Laser Cannons with the linked 1 quality, and I want to use the Upgrade Weapons attachment to replace them by Three Concussion Missile Launchers with the Linked 2 quality. Ho many HPs does it cost?

Answered by Sam Stewart:

1. 1 Hard Point.

2. 1 Hard Point.

3. 1 Hard Point.

After reviewing it again, I do think I read too much (or maybe too little!) into it. Suffice to say, based how on this question was asked, I am not really sure what the answer is for the number of hardpoints weapons or 'weapon systems' take, especially when taken together with the last clause about adding weapons systems of two more weapons costing 1 hard point.