21 hours ago, Archlyte said:

The XP thing is more complicated. Regular XP is awarded by session with an arbitrary award of I think 5-20 points average with a bonus 5 for playing to motivation. So players climb their talent ladders, gain skill points, and buy new specializations based on a drip drip drip of XP. I use a system where I give XP based mainly on the player's plans for the character (and if they don't have one that's ok) and the story. I like to make these changes in power purposeful. I came from games like Mythras and Traveller where there isn't standard D&D pro forma progression, and I find that with power progression the players often like to have some control over that beyond the usual meter. If a player wants to do force Sensitive, we can work up a way for the character to have progression that makes sense for the level of discovery and training available. Or for a Pilot character there can be training and experience that explain a big jump in ability. Basically big boy rules.

I didn't honestly expect a clear response. Egg on my face for that.

I DID kind of expect that it would end up sounding like a system prone to favoritism and/or one that incentivizes each player to persue her own agenda, rather than cooperate and collaborate with the other players. Wouldn't be a game I'd play in, DEFINITELY wouldn't call arbitrary systems that rely almost entirely on GM fiat "big boy" rules.

2 hours ago, BrickSteelhead said:

I didn't honestly expect a clear response. Egg on my face for that.

I DID kind of expect that it would end up sounding like a system prone to favoritism and/or one that incentivizes each player to persue her own agenda, rather than cooperate and collaborate with the other players. Wouldn't be a game I'd play in, DEFINITELY wouldn't call arbitrary systems that rely almost entirely on GM fiat "big boy" rules.

I think of it as big boy rules because I primarily want the player to tell me how they see the power arc of the character going. If there is no plan then we can use the regular climb as a last resort. I don't use that term to mean anything other than me investing trust in the players to figure it out. If they control it appropriately I don't have to do as much of that. I still award it because I feel like it needs a gate of some kind. Thanks so much for the response. I appreciate that this isn't for everyone but I still like to hear the thoughts people have just in analysis.

Incentivising people to roleplay with mechanical benefits (XP) has always seemed weird to me. Maybe it's because I'm used to running games for groups that are very into character development and roleplay, but I feel like if you have to essentially bribe someone to have a compelling arc, maybe it's just not something they're into? Players who care about that stuff will do it themselves without a ton of prompting, as long as you provide the right in character environment.

10 minutes ago, Tom Cruise said:

Incentivising people to roleplay with mechanical benefits (XP) has always seemed weird to me. Maybe it's because I'm used to running games for groups that are very into character development and roleplay, but I feel like if you have to essentially bribe someone to have a compelling arc, maybe it's just not something they're into? Players who care about that stuff will do it themselves without a ton of prompting, as long as you provide the right in character environment.

I concur wholeheartedly; and it disappoints me a bit that I'm seeing this sort of thing in more and more RPG systems.

1 hour ago, Tom Cruise said:

Incentivising people to roleplay with mechanical benefits (XP) has always seemed weird to me. Maybe it's because I'm used to running games for groups that are very into character development and roleplay, but I feel like if you have to essentially bribe someone to have a compelling arc, maybe it's just not something they're into? Players who care about that stuff will do it themselves without a ton of prompting, as long as you provide the right in character environment.

The normal RAW XP mechanic is basically participation award with fiat bonus. I said I do not use a linear system and tie XP in with story-based advancement for the character. Not sure how I am reinforcing the player for this especially when the idea is for the player to describe the way that their character progresses instead of one size fits all.

That having been said, as someone who has played quite a lot of Fate I can tell you that using Fate point compels results in very fun and engaging situations in which a mechanical benefit/penalty is used to reinforce actions in game. I like how this ideal is always supposed to exist where you have to let the players do their thing without any interference. Isn't this a collaborative storytelling effort? Don't you all have to interact for that to work? Or is it just GM separate from Players? If they don't come up with it I said I deal with that, but I don't see the big injury in asking someone if they would try to do something creative.

1 hour ago, Vorzakk said:

I concur wholeheartedly; and it disappoints me a bit that I'm seeing this sort of thing in more and more RPG systems.

I wonder if there is a reason for this. Maybe it's related to having dice that provided more than binary pass/fail results. Players who dislike this system often point to the fact that the dice fill n blanks for you when in old d20 games you had to do all of that yourself so it was more pure.

On 11/7/2017 at 0:30 PM, Archlyte said:

As for shoehorning, I believe that you are right that I am basically editing out some possibilities, but they are possibilities that I am tired of seeing for now. I have the buy-in of the players so I'm good there, but I think that there is a thing in RPG forum discussions that exists in which a generalized set of rules is implemented by the social body. I don't ascribe to that, and instead I take each situation as it's own thing. In one moment it may be right to railroad, in another it isn't.

Can you maybe elaborate for me a bit on why you feel these things are inherently frustrating and un-fun?

For some games, there's an inherent logic to editing out certain player options. A fiddly game like Pathfinder has so many built in traps with character creation that a wise GM may dissuade players from accidentally falling into them by taking the possibility off the board. It would make little mechanical sense to encourage people to take cold based magical powers while adventuring in a wintry realm since cold-based powers would potentially do less damage to cold-themed monsters. If a player insists on playing a frost wizard, I'll either suggest they sit out this campaign or I'll switch my campaign setting.

However, eliminating player options because you as the GM find them uninteresting isn't about saving players from bad rules. It's dictating to the players what they should find interesting, thus removing a massive amount of player agency. At that point, you're not adapting your story idea to fit what a player wants to do, you're adapting a player to fit what you want to do.

It's one thing to have a generalized set of rules implemented by the social body if there's a mechanical issue with a game. It's a different thing to implement rules to increase someone's level of fun or interest. If your players are cool with this, they're a lot more pliant than any gamers I've ever played with, which would make me question how invested they are.

Quote

The normal RAW XP mechanic is basically participation award with fiat bonus. I said I do not use a linear system and tie XP in with story-based advancement for the character. Not sure how I am reinforcing the player for this especially when the idea is for the player to describe the way that their character progresses instead of one size fits all.

That having been said, as someone who has played quite a lot of Fate I can tell you that using Fate point compels results in very fun and engaging situations in which a mechanical benefit/penalty is used to reinforce actions in game. I like how this ideal is always supposed to exist where you have to let the players do their thing without any interference. Isn't this a collaborative storytelling effort? Don't you all have to interact for that to work? Or is it just GM separate from Players? If they don't come up with it I said I deal with that, but I don't see the big injury in asking someone if they would try to do something creative.

I play Fate games too and Fate points are a different animal from advancement points. Fate points are scene-based and are intended to provide temporary bonuses to players who choose to take risks. Short-term risks make the game interesting and unpredictable without bogging it down. The Fate point economy revolves around the idea of constantly spending and receiving Fate points, much in the same way Dark Side/Light Side points work in this game.

Normal RAW XP has fiat bonuses but those bonuses are pretty limited, typically a one-and-done and nothing that's going to propel a PC far into the lead in terms of XP. What you're describing is a game that's less communal and team-building and more adversarial. It encourages players to hog spotlight time in order to get their XP, rather than share in the spotlight together in order to accomplish a goal. When XP rewards are assumed instead of sweated over the game focus shifts from a win-loss (or advance-stagnate) to group problem solving. Everyone swims or everyone sinks.

On 11/6/2017 at 1:58 PM, Archlyte said:

No Droid PCs

I hadn’t seen this one, but if I did, I would have commented on it.

Why? Just... why?

1 minute ago, Yaccarus said:

I hadn’t seen this one, but if I did, I would have commented on it.

Why? Just... why?

Yeah, that one bothers me too. Droids are a key component of Star Wars .

47 minutes ago, Concise Locket said:

For some games, there's an inherent logic to editing out certain player options. A fiddly game like Pathfinder has so many built in traps with character creation that a wise GM may dissuade players from accidentally falling into them by taking the possibility off the board. It would make little mechanical sense to encourage people to take cold based magical powers while adventuring in a wintry realm since cold-based powers would potentially do less damage to cold-themed monsters. If a player insists on playing a frost wizard, I'll either suggest they sit out this campaign or I'll switch my campaign setting.

However, eliminating player options because you as the GM find them uninteresting isn't about saving players from bad rules. It's dictating to the players what they should find interesting, thus removing a massive amount of player agency. At that point, you're not adapting your story idea to fit what a player wants to do, you're adapting a player to fit what you want to do.

It's one thing to have a generalized set of rules implemented by the social body if there's a mechanical issue with a game. It's a different thing to implement rules to increase someone's level of fun or interest. If your players are cool with this, they're a lot more pliant than any gamers I've ever played with, which would make me question how invested they are.

I play Fate games too and Fate points are a different animal from advancement points. Fate points are scene-based and are intended to provide temporary bonuses to players who choose to take risks. Short-term risks make the game interesting and unpredictable without bogging it down. The Fate point economy revolves around the idea of constantly spending and receiving Fate points, much in the same way Dark Side/Light Side points work in this game.

Normal RAW XP has fiat bonuses but those bonuses are pretty limited, typically a one-and-done and nothing that's going to propel a PC far into the lead in terms of XP. What you're describing is a game that's less communal and team-building and more adversarial. It encourages players to hog spotlight time in order to get their XP, rather than share in the spotlight together in order to accomplish a goal. When XP rewards are assumed instead of sweated over the game focus shifts from a win-loss (or advance-stagnate) to group problem solving. Everyone swims or everyone sinks.

I think maybe I didn't explain my XP system accurately. Let me know if this is what you thought I meant or it's different if you don't mind.

Player comes to game with concept for character (Callow Youth, Grizzled Veteran, Washed-Up Paragon) and then we decide how the XP would probably fall on this character. Is it going to be linear, is it going to happen as result of events in the character's life, is it going to be a non-progression but the character is already competent so there won't really be much XP because the character is starting with a loan or front of XP. The XP has a schedule, not a system based on what they do or how they do it. It gets awarded not at al by performance but by the character's development in the story.

Yeah I have taken on the role of Director in this game because I have done the "Player Agency is awesome" bit and what it gets you is a big salad of stuff that is never really all that cool. "Hey you guys make what you want," always seems to result in the confetti party who are the sum of the player's desires from the show they watched last night, the character they always want to play in every game, and whatever flavor of the month jumps out of the books. I don't believe this is worth putting on the pedestal that it gets put on by the larger RPG community. Is it a nice thing? Yes. Is there room enough in the big tent of RPG philosophy for a more controlled approach? I would hope so.

30 minutes ago, Yaccarus said:

I hadn’t seen this one, but if I did, I would have commented on it.

Why? Just... why?

Droids are sidekicks. I want my players to be main characters.

28 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Droids are sidekicks. I want my players to be main characters.

I’d sarcastically argue abot Droid Rights, but my support of the CIS requires otherwise.

I see your point.

2 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Yeah I have taken on the role of Director in this game because I have done the "Player Agency is awesome" bit and what it gets you is a big salad of stuff that is never really all that cool. "Hey you guys make what you want," always seems to result in the confetti party who are the sum of the player's desires from the show they watched last night, the character they always want to play in every game, and whatever flavor of the month jumps out of the books. I don't believe this is worth putting on the pedestal that it gets put on by the larger RPG community. Is it a nice thing? Yes. Is there room enough in the big tent of RPG philosophy for a more controlled approach? I would hope so.

The stuff that has worked best in games I've played has been where Players and GMs (normally from a background idea from the GM, pitched to the players to see if they are interested) have met together and brainstormed group backgrounds and composition til they come up with something that enthuses everyone. I think for me I'd want an outline framework from the GM, not a rigid box.

I'm thinking in particular of : Nobel Lady and retinue trying to restore her lost lands in Holy Roman Empire (Ars Magicka) and Entrepreneurs trying to make it rich out west (Deadlands).

2 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Droids are sidekicks. I want my players to be main characters.

droids quite often steal the show - both in movies, larger universe and in the game. Droids can be great to roleplay and bring additional spices to the game in terms of mechanics.

I love players picking droid as they intentionally go for something less ordinary taking on certain limitations (and perks!). Also, if all players want to be stars of the show and you are GMing for more than 2-3 players you might well have a tough job managing them. some players just love to play sidekicks and love to observe the story played out by the others at the table as much as they want to have a chance to shine on their own.

just don't get let the idea of creating a perfect party of PCs get ahead of what your players want. Or find players who fully share your ideas on this and you can play happilly forever after cheers

Yeah I think that the following syllogism applies:

Players have equal agency

The GM is a Player

Therefore the GM has equal Agency

6 hours ago, thesaviour said:

droids quite often steal the show - both in movies, larger universe and in the game. Droids can be great to roleplay and bring additional spices to the game in terms of mechanics.

I love players picking droid as they intentionally go for something less ordinary taking on certain limitations (and perks!). Also, if all players want to be stars of the show and you are GMing for more than 2-3 players you might well have a tough job managing them. some players just love to play sidekicks and love to observe the story played out by the others at the table as much as they want to have a chance to shine on their own.

just don't get let the idea of creating a perfect party of PCs get ahead of what your players want. Or find players who fully share your ideas on this and you can play happilly forever after cheers

I said no droid PC's. Not No Droids. lol

yes, that's exactly how I understood you and what my post is about.

if it works for you and your group, there is nothing wrong with this. this limitation just makes no sense for me at all.

On 6.11.2017 at 8:58 PM, Archlyte said:

• No Droid PCs
• One Non-Human Alien, No more than 2 Near-Human Aliens

I really have to ask... Is your setting an Empireal one? That would clarify this xenophopia... Or is it just you how don't like anything that is not Human?

is this rule there to protect your Player from beeing hated by you because they wouldn't be able to gain your full GM support as Human-Chars would do? (and thus getting lower EXP through you strange XP "forward loan"/ "backward rushing" earnings?)

I don't really get your point here, at one point you say you don't want the PC to be even near the same skilltrees but than they all have to be Humans or fight over the ONE alien spot during sessions zero? or have to take the "alien but look like Human" versions... No Wookie, Gand, Verpine, Muun combis?

And no droids because you think they are sidekicks? that said it sounds as if only you see them as Sidekicks and thus again you will treat any player that plays a Droid as an Sidekick?

For your XP system... well it is total confusing... you should let any character start with more exp than any other (no "loans" as you call them) that way this character will mostliky hog most of the spot light just because he will overshadow those lower ones in most cases thanks to better talents, more skills and most likely higher attributs due to dedication.

Tht way the low starting PC will have a hard time to catch up since they won't be able to act in the rare spot light that they have to share enought.

and if you turn it around by saying "They will get so much more ep until they catched up for everything they do" then the "higher" player will grow unsatisfied over time since all his doing will give him only so much as breadkrums... while the low starting pilot gets tons of EXP just for sitting in the Fly-Simulator Offscreen...

That is no really good base to keep all players satisfied espacially not that poor guy that isn't as strong in RPing than some others and is played to the wall and may even don't have a better than plan for his char than to gain EXP to better Gun-Man... "poor guy s**ks to be you, no plan, not as great in RP as the rest... so no EXP."

If you now say "But then I'll went back to give him session XP" all other players will get Grumpy "He get's Exp for doing nothing While i get Breadkrums for fantastic RPing?"

Long text short: I'd start with everyone at the same lv and keep it fair with the exp, make it group EXP for the sessions and some small bonuses to reward the strong RPler.
Just remember if you want you don't have to reward in steps of five. (E.g. I give reward in steps of 5 for sessions and story rewards, RP-ing is rewarded by 1-3 EXp so that bouns would get out of hand but will accumulate over the long run)

About your "narrative" initative system, while I am sure that this system works well with some RP-systems and groups, I am afraid that you'll here will nerf a lot more than just cool and vigilant...
How do you handle Talent and Powers that allow the players to alter the initative check out comes? Like "Rapid Reaction", or most of the "Forsee Power"? you would just right of kill those if you swap the initative by not making check "Hey Mr. Gunslinger you don't mind to invest 25 of your hard earned XP into ranked talents that won't bring you ANYTHING! Oh and you Mr. Forcy how about buying into Forseen, just don't bother to buy in the big left side of the tree since we don't check for initative here!"

your PG and opposite sex rules are obviously taste questions - if you or anybody in the group had bad memories about something that happend before it is absolutly ok to enforce this rules...

Only don't make any exceptions ether it counts for everybody or for nobody, other wise the second player that wants to play that way and get the NO while the first get the GO will be salty

7 hours ago, thesaviour said:

if it works for you and your group, there is nothing wrong with this. this limitation just makes no sense for me at all.

Heh, if I agree with Archlyte on one thing in this thread it's this. I'd rather not have someone bleeping and blorping at the table, it would get really old, really fast. Thankfully I have no players who want to play one. That said, if someone really wanted to try, I suppose I'd give it a shot, there might be someone out there who could alleviate the annoyance factor.

For the rest...too many rules. It would be like a medieval campaign where, if you can't speak like Chaucer, you have to at least give Shakespearian a go.

10 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Heh, if I agree with Archlyte on one thing in this thread it's this. I'd rather not have someone bleeping and blorping at the table, it would get really old, really fast. Thankfully I have no players who want to play one. That said, if someone really wanted to try, I suppose I'd give it a shot, there might be someone out there who could alleviate the annoyance factor.

For the rest...too many rules. It would be like a medieval campaign where, if you can't speak like Chaucer, you have to at least give Shakespearian a go.

And the French are just sidekicks.....

21 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Droids are sidekicks. I want my players to be main characters.

Well, in one group I play in, it would totally prohibit the character in the group who’s turned out to have one of the strongest character arcs and the best RP of the group.

An IG assassin droid who likes blowing things up, was secretly reprogrammed by another PC with loyalty protocols to the group in general but that PC above all else, and who recently purged that programming, and single-handedly defeated a Mandalorian warlord in trial by combat, assuming command of the warlord’s organization.

But sure...sidekick.

If these restrictions and homebrew rules work for your group, great. Have fun. Personally, it’s not a game I’d want to play in. Such a large sandbox, but only allowing access to a single bucket of sand, and then setting further limits on what you can build with that small bucket’s worth.

On 11/6/2017 at 3:39 PM, Archlyte said:

For instance the FFG material gave Ord Mantell like 3 moons while wiki had 15.

Did some research, and it turns out the original number (15) is correct and FFG is mostly wrong. (Two of the moons are much larger, so the others are sometimes considered smaller satellites.)

You don't seem to have much trust, or faith, in your players ability to bring the awesome. If so, why play with them?

4 hours ago, penpenpen said:

You don't seem to have much trust, or faith, in your players ability to bring the awesome. If so, why play with them?

Well that's 34 years of playing for ya. I have had games numbering probably in the hundreds where I allowed the PCs to make whatever. Despite the ideal, what you will get is a weird combination of stuff that is about each player coming up with some idea and then that idea interfacing with the actual game. Sometimes you get lucky and it works, but often what you get is something that is needlessly exaggerated or hackneyed. I think that in past groups I would not have had to set such rules, but for the kind of players I am meeting these days this will work to guide the game into the right range so that I don't have to contemplate shooting myself so I don't have to withstand another session of "Let the players do what they want."