Alright all, I do understand your points. I want to playtest higher stats and see if it feels better if every player ups their stats, not just 1 or 2. Anyway may I see a link to where the devs say it's the intention to dump ar char gen? I think id like to read their thought process.

When first playing aor my soldier was 232222. I had more skills and a couple of talents. It didn' take long to realize that was not so useful when it was a lucky shot that succeeded on a roll for anything other than my main skills (ag). I'm talking about failing a simple roll like cool or vigilance for initiativemore often than not. A few sessions in the gm allowed us to redo our characters (after we had a bit of an understanding of the system) at which point I did make proper use of starting xp. It made a world of difference on playing my soldier. I'm not saying he succeeds every time but he doesn't fail every time now either. Rolling the dice isn't such a chore now knowing I have a chance to succeed rather than only a lucky long shot.

1 hour ago, Darth Tolzan said:

Alright all, I do understand your points. I want to playtest higher stats and see if it feels better if every player ups their stats, not just 1 or 2. Anyway may I see a link to where the devs say it's the intention to dump ar char gen? I think id like to read their thought process.

It right in the core books
It right in the genesys corebook even more drastically formulated.

5 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

It right in the core books
It right in the genesys corebook even more drastically formulated.

I haven't seen it. Do you know where?

6 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

It right in the core books
It right in the genesys corebook even more drastically formulated.

How 'more drastically'?

Regarding house rules, I wonder if one might not turn things around a little and consider the starting XP simply the maximum sum that can be spent on the characteristics whenever the player wants, whether they're paid from the actual starting XP or those acquired later.

So two human characters have 110 starting XP.

Character 1 raises one ability to 4 (2->3->4 = 70 XP) and one to 3 (2->3 = 30 XP), leaving him with 10 XP to raise a skill from 1 to 2. After receiving 30 more XP in game, he buys three talents for 5, 10 and 15.
Character 2 raises one ability to 4 (= 70 XP) and a skill from 1 to 2, but thinks that her character concept works much better if she gets the three talents (5+10+15) first. When she receives 30 XP during game play, she can buy that characteristic advancement from 2 to 3 since she still has spent less than 110 XP in total on characteristics.

(Characteristics raised via Dedication are priced as if Dedication had not been bought, so a starting characteristic of 2 that is improved by 2 dedications to 4 would still cost 30 XP to advance to 5.)

The result should be that players are less forced to sink their starting XP into characteristics because it's obviously the best investment they can make and more able to build the character as they imagine it right at the start.

12 minutes ago, Cifer said:

Regarding house rules, I wonder if one might not turn things around a little and consider the starting XP simply the maximum sum that can be spent on the characteristics whenever the player wants, whether they're paid from the actual starting XP or those acquired later.

So two human characters have 110 starting XP.

Character 1 raises one ability to 4 (2->3->4 = 70 XP) and one to 3 (2->3 = 30 XP), leaving him with 10 XP to raise a skill from 1 to 2. After receiving 30 more XP in game, he buys three talents for 5, 10 and 15.
Character 2 raises one ability to 4 (= 70 XP) and a skill from 1 to 2, but thinks that her character concept works much better if she gets the three talents (5+10+15) first. When she receives 30 XP during game play, she can buy that characteristic advancement from 2 to 3 since she still has spent less than 110 XP in total on characteristics.

(Characteristics raised via Dedication are priced as if Dedication had not been bought, so a starting characteristic of 2 that is improved by 2 dedications to 4 would still cost 30 XP to advance to 5.)

The result should be that players are less forced to sink their starting XP into characteristics because it's obviously the best investment they can make and more able to build the character as they imagine it right at the start.

While I like this, Cifer (and I do like it, it fits very well with my GMing style), I worry about the trouble of tracking what you've raised with Dedication and what you haven't. Most people don't write that down, they just pay for the rank and then bump up their characteristic. Plus it opens up some issues with tracking the total xp spent on characteristics.

Nothing insurmountable, especially for someone good with charts and numbers (raises hand), but it does have some potential pitfalls that one would need to be aware of before implementing.

True enough, though I imagine most players will spend the remaining characteristic budget before Dedication becomes an issue. Plus, you could simply mark Dedicated (or cybernetically improved) characteristics with a number of asterisks so you could backtrace the starting number based on that.

I have quite a few issues with the way character creation is set up and how the different parts are being weighted. That being said, yeah it simply makes sense to spend as many of the starting xp on characteristics as possible (especially in a campaign). The whole orientation phase, were in your character is a blank slated newbie maybe nice to learn the game, but with some experience in this and other games, it gets old really fast. So honestly I do not see much of a point to start below the, somewhat misleadingly named, Knight Level. Thinking up a concept and then creating a character to fill that role in a competent manner seems all the more rewarding to me than to wait until I can finally start playing the character I imagined.

Long story short, in the end there would be some xp left after the starting xp anyway (on Knight Level that is), which softens the blow of the ever so softly coerced min maxing.

I think if you want to keep the racial differences in stats, and restrict, maybe don't allow starting xp to be used to raise a stat more than once.

I think you'd see similiar statlines, but different races chosen to get them.

I'd not personally do this, as I know too many players who like playing against type.

On 12/5/2017 at 5:48 PM, Darth Tolzan said:

I think you guys are misunderstanding me. Within RAW, it is possible for players to get their characteristic of choice to 4 before session 1 starts. That is incredibly strong and does not reflect a "starting adventure". Having a dude with 4 agility being able to pass any piloting, stealth, and ranged check with his 4 green dice against the easier difficulties of a new campaign is unfair.

No it isn't. You are assuming he will always succeed at these rolls. That's just not the case. He has the potential to succeed, but it's not guaranteed. In fact, given my personal experience with failing dice rolls where I had the numerical advantage, I'd say he's still only got even odds to actually pull off the action he is trying to accomplish.

On 12/5/2017 at 5:48 PM, Darth Tolzan said:

If players are allowed to dump into stats it alao largely invalidates the inter-species differences. Why would anyone ever play a trandoshan when you could be a human or pantoran with 110xp and just increase your brawn once?

Because people like playing Trandoshans, and they like having the racial ability of regeneration, (something no amount of starting XP will get you). Do you honestly think the ONLY thing that makes the Trandoshan special is that single point of Brawn above normal for the weaker species? And do you honestly think that this means EVERY Trandoshan is stronger than EVERY human? Sorry but there is genetic variance. There are plenty of examples of animals that exceed the statistical norm for their species in some way or another. There is no reason you can't have a Human as strong as a Trandoshan, or a Trandoshan who happens to be as brilliant as ....the space hamsters, I forget their species name. The ones that start with an Int of 4. They would be the Trandoshan equivalent of Einstein, and there's no reason they can't exist. Which is why players are permitted to dump starting xp into Characteristics. To allow for this variance, and to play outside the norm for the species.

On 12/5/2017 at 5:48 PM, Darth Tolzan said:

From a narrative standpoint, there isn't a logical reason why a duros or a twi'lek should be as strong as a wookie or a trandoshan. Racial rules exist because some species are better at certain checks than others. If a player wants to play a Marauduer for example, a species with a natural 3 brawn is clearly a better choice than another with a 1 or 2.

So apparently you only believe in the World of Hats trope then. Wookies are stronger than humans, so everyone should always play Wookies if they want to play a strong character. I'm trying to think of a polite way to say this, but I can't, so take this with only a minor bit of snark please but...who are you to tell us who we are required to play for any character concept? Did I miss the meeting where you were put in charge of character concept approval? Also, I honestly can't believe that you are this unaware of genetic variance in a species. Are you saying that just by looking at the human variations on our planet alone, that everyone is just 2/2/2/2/2/2? That DJ Qualls has the same Brawn score as the guy who plays the Mountain on GoT? Because that's just silly, and easily refuted.

Plus, your "this species is clearly better because numbers" reason, fails to account for all the other stats. Brawn isn't the only thing that a melee character needs. I mean, unless all you ever make are one trick ponies, but even then, you need decent stats in at least one other Characteristic, for pretty much every specialization out there. So sure, Wookie's might have better Brawn, but they suck at some other stat that is important to your character concept. Not only is he a Marauder, but he's also a charismatic Marauder. He doesn't just hack people. he leads raiding parties through his Charm and Presence. And oh look, perhaps Wookies don't have good stats for Presence (I don't know offhand if they do, don't have the sheets in front of me, but you get my point for this example), so instead you go for a human who you can buff up both the Brawn and Presence, with a little XP, and you have your template.

Besides, the only Wookie we really see from the movies, doesn't actually do anything to show his "massive strength". Sure, Han says they can rip people's arms off, and Chewie doesn't refute the claim, but he never actually rips anyone's arms off. All he ever does is shoot a gun, fly a ship, and fix things. None of which have anything to do with the Brawn score. We see him smack some troopers around in Empire, but what he does could easily be done by a human of sufficient strength. I mean, the person who was actually doing the work is human , so it's hardly outside the realm of capability for a human to pull off those feats of strength.

On 12/5/2017 at 5:48 PM, Darth Tolzan said:

The way to make each PC feel different is with talents and ranks in skills. Each game (whether it's WoW, D&D, or Star Wars) has racial differences make up the basis for a character foundation, so I don't see why Tramp Graphic is making a point to call that aspect out.

That's an incredibly narrow, and flawed view on how to make characters. Also it just simply doesn't jive with storytelling conventions and tropes at all. There are countless examples of the "oddball creature" in storytelling. The one super juiced alien, from a species of relatively wimpy ones. The super intelligent orc/troll, traditionally known for being nothing but mindless brutes, etc etc. In fact, those unique characters are so common in storytelling, that I propose the "average" representation of the race, isn't actually "average", simply due to frequency of representation.

@KungFuFerret Clearly the Mountain and Conor McGregor are the same Brawn! All humans 2/2/2/2/2/2 confirmed.

Usually, if the species in question is not human, I would speak of playing them despite of the stats, not because of them. There are cases of really nice abilites, but usually the stats are better, the closer they are set up to humans. So my main reason would be the species, the background and traits... the fluff really; always hoping that the stats do not turn out to be much of a bummer there.

1 hour ago, Shlambate said:

@KungFuFerret Clearly the Mountain and Conor McGregor are the same Brawn! All humans 2/2/2/2/2/2 confirmed.

And clearly the same Agility...

I always try to go for at least 3 to 4 threes, unless I’m playing a droid. Versatility is awesome in rpg’s.

In my opinion flat dices are always a better alternative than talents. Most talents gives you some conditional benefit which is by far worse than getting 1 more die to like 5 different skills (well unless it is willpower. Skills there are crap)

1 hour ago, Xelian said:

In my opinion flat dices are always a better alternative than talents. Most talents gives you some conditional benefit which is by far worse than getting 1 more die to like 5 different skills (well unless it is willpower. Skills there are crap)

Vigilance and Discipline are crap??

I would say of all the characteristics, Cunning has the worst menu of skills. No combat or initiative skills, and two of the four are niche skills that only underworld characters will get much use out of.

1 hour ago, DaverWattra said:

Vigilance and Discipline are crap??

Discipline is relatively fine if you are a Jedi. Vigilance is bad. It have almost no other use outside combat initiative and even there it can be replaced by Cool. Which also happens to recover strain after combat. So unless you are a Jedi you can scrap Willpower and replace the effects with Cool for the majority of the time.

As for Cunning:

• Deception is probably the most important social skill. Whether you will play a Rebel or a Smuggler or a Jedi in hiding the whole Universe revolves around the Empire finding you.
• Streetwise is needed to obtain illegal things. Almost all of the best equipment is Restricted so you need to obtain in via Black Market.
• Perception is an all around skill which you need so you don't get ambushed or to notice the trap, the secret door to the container with the nice loot and so on.
• Survival and Skulduggery are niche I agree. They are very dependent on the environment.

59 minutes ago, Xelian said:

Discipline is relatively fine if you are a Jedi. Vigilance is bad. It have almost no other use outside combat initiative and even there it can be replaced by Cool. Which also happens to recover strain after combat. So unless you are a Jedi you can scrap Willpower and replace the effects with Cool for the majority of the time.

As for Cunning:

• Deception is probably the most important social skill. Whether you will play a Rebel or a Smuggler or a Jedi in hiding the whole Universe revolves around the Empire finding you.
• Streetwise is needed to obtain illegal things. Almost all of the best equipment is Restricted so you need to obtain in via Black Market.
• Perception is an all around skill which you need so you don't get ambushed or to notice the trap, the secret door to the container with the nice loot and so on.
• Survival and Skulduggery are niche I agree. They are very dependent on the environment.

Don't forget Coercion. It's useful to a lot of character concepts, and it powers the Scathing Tirade sequence of talents.

I think you're confusing Vigilance and Perception; they aren't equivalent. Vigilance is what you'd use to avoid being ambushed or to notice a trap, not Perception. Perception is actively looking for something. Vigilance is just passive awareness. And if your GM is letting you roll Cool for initiative in every combat, your GM is not using the rules properly.

1 hour ago, Xelian said:

Discipline is relatively fine if you are a Jedi. Vigilance is bad. It have almost no other use outside combat initiative and even there it can be replaced by Cool. Which also happens to recover strain after combat. So unless you are a Jedi you can scrap Willpower and replace the effects with Cool for the majority of the time.

As for Cunning:

• Deception is probably the most important social skill. Whether you will play a Rebel or a Smuggler or a Jedi in hiding the whole Universe revolves around the Empire finding you.
• Streetwise is needed to obtain illegal things. Almost all of the best equipment is Restricted so you need to obtain in via Black Market.
• Perception is an all around skill which you need so you don't get ambushed or to notice the trap, the secret door to the container with the nice loot and so on.
• Survival and Skulduggery are niche I agree. They are very dependent on the environment.

Discipline is amazing whether you're a Force user or not:

--It resists most social skills, including Deception (which I agree is very good)

--It resists almost all Force powers, so if you have low Discipline, you're easy prey for dark-siders

--It helps you recover strain after an encounter

50 minutes ago, SavageBob said:

Don't forget Coercion. It's useful to a lot of character concepts, and it powers the Scathing Tirade sequence of talents.

I think you're confusing Vigilance and Perception; they aren't equivalent. Vigilance is what you'd use to avoid being ambushed or to notice a trap, not Perception. Perception is actively looking for something. Vigilance is just passive awareness. And if your GM is letting you roll Cool for initiative in every combat, your GM is not using the rules properly.

I used to think that as well. It does make sense in my book. My players argued the **** out of me and it turned out they were right. A quote from the perception skill (I hope I'm not violating some rules with that)

Quote

A character who is unprepared for a trap or an ambush may have an opportunity to make a Perception check to avoid being surprised. Alternatively, this might oppose an attacker’s Stealth check.

As for Coercion - it is still subpar to deception or charm. At carries a lot of narrative negatives compared to the other two. Lie to the officer, charm the officer or intimidate the officer.

18 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

Discipline is amazing whether you're a Force user or not:

--It resists most social skills, including Deception (which I agree is very good)

--It resists almost all Force powers, so if you have low Discipline, you're easy prey for dark-siders

--It helps you recover strain after an encounter

Resisting Dark Side powers assume that you are in a Force User campaign. If you are not, the Discipline value is highly diminished. As I said it is useful for Force users (and against them) but for pretty much everyone else it is bad.
High Presence with Charm and Cool is better than High Willpower with Discipline and Coercion.

13 minutes ago, Xelian said:

I used to think that as well. It does make sense in my book. My players argued the **** out of me and it turned out they were right. A quote from the perception skill (I hope I'm not violating some rules with that)

Huh, good point with that quote. They really have made some odd and unintuitive choices with differentiating the skills.

Anyway, I agree with you that Presence is better for a jack-of-all-trades character who isn't a Force user than Willpower is. I would still say, though, that Willpower is better than Cunning for a character like that. Initiative is important enough that you want good Vigilance, and a low Discipline means that either a Force-user or a skilled liar or intimidator can really mess with you. On the other hand, if you want good Perception you can just buy up ranks in that one skill and leave Cunning low.

If you're in a game where you don't care about resisting Force powers or social skills, though, I can see doing the same thing with Willpower and just buying ranks in Vigilance.

5 minutes ago, Xelian said:

I used to think that as well. It does make sense in my book. My players argued the **** out of me and it turned out they were right. A quote from the perception skill (I hope I'm not violating some rules with that)

As for Coercion - it is still subpar to deception or charm. At carries a lot of narrative negatives compared to the other two. Lie to the officer, charm the officer or intimidate the officer.

Resisting Dark Side powers assume that you are in a Force User campaign. If you are not, the Discipline value is highly diminished. As I said it is useful for Force users (and against them) but for pretty much everyone else it is bad.
High Presence with Charm and Cool is better than High Willpower with Discipline and Coercion.

Deception and Cunning is the weakest of the three talking options. As it offers only an offense an offense mind you countered by willpower. A player needs two other stats both will and and charisma to be able to defend. Forgoing will leaves you weak to Coercion, leadership and Deception (Ironic you could deceive others, but you couldn't help yourself).

If instead you ignore deception and have both high will and charisma, you can attack in a conversation with Negotiation, Charm, or Coercion and you can defend with either Discipline, Cool or Negotiation.