6 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

... you discount every non-Force-using character that lacks those talents along with non-saber FaD specs too...

Wrong. And it all goes back to engaging in the "arms race".

You dump melee spec, upon melee spec, upon melee spec, and you've said to your GM "you can't melee me anymore", and while that may be correct, it means you've created a character with a half-dozen other glaring weaknesses, and thereby an ineffectual character.

2 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Wrong. And it all goes back to engaging in the "arms race".

You dump melee spec, upon melee spec, upon melee spec, and you've said to your GM "you can't melee me anymore", and while that may be correct, it means you've created a character with a half-dozen other glaring weaknesses, and thereby an ineffectual character.

Armorer stops being an exclusively Melee spec once it has Saber Throw.

I would disagree that highly focused characters are ineffectual. They still have baseline capabilities in everything, and the Difficulty of many tasks is rarely so high that much more than Ability dice are needed to be able to contribute (and there is always Assist).

4 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Armorer  stops being an exclusively Melee spec once it has Saber Throw. 

lol, unfortunately for you that single Talent is not at all important to such a designation. There's a whole context here that demonstrates you're wrong.

9 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

I would     disagree that highly focused characters are ineffectual.

And yea, with certain GMs, power gaming certainly "works". And with others, well you get embarrassed.

46 minutes ago, emsquared said:

lol, unfortunately for you that single Talent is not at all important to such a designation. There's a whole context here that demonstrates you're wrong.

And yea, with certain GMs, power gaming certainly "works". And with others, well you get embarrassed.

You've described intentionally building threats around the capabilities of the PCs to bypass their strengths. While a dedicated opponent that has studied the characters may do so, most adventures are not set up that way, and doing so makes you an adversarial GM. The only embarrassment for the players in such a case would be to continue to play under you. And speaking of, I'm not going to play with you anymore either. Welcome to Ignore.

Warden is a good choice so is Sentry....

52 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

most adventures are  not set up  that  way

Ah, yes, cuz there is zero incidence of convenient plot devices leading to either character defeat, or success, in the Star Wars universe. It all has an absolute integrity and consistency that is never violated.

52 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

You'   ve  described intentionally building threats around the capabilities of the PCs to bypas   s  their streng  ths    .    

Wrong. I've described "building threats" to discourage a type of power gaming that is widely known to be able to negatively impact the enjoyment of the entire table.

52 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

...doing    so makes you an adversarial GM. 

Addressing an issue created by an Adversarial Play-style makes one an Adversarial GM?! Oh no! You've divided by zero! NOOoooo......

52 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

I'm  not going to play with you

Taking the ball and going home. Always the mark of someone who had a good argument.

Your building threats to discourage a type of power gaming sounds curiously like power gaming.

It may sound like that to you, but "building threats" (that's what I love about this system you don't have to build anything, it can all be allowed to emerge thru play) to discourage power gaming plays exactly like using the narrative tools that are built into this system, that enable a GM to keep the players on their toes (ie discourage power gaming), with mechanical reciprocity.

Roleplaying is not about beating the players. Roleplaying is not about forcing the players to adapt to playing the game the way you want them to.

A GM's job is to tell a fun story that gives the players challenges that they must overcome. FUN is the primary thing you should take away.

How they overcome the challenges is entirely up to the players. Tossing things into the game to prevent the players from playing in a way you don't like is failing at GMing.

Oh geez, I can't believe I've been doing it wrong this whole time!

So that lecture only applies to the GM, huh? Roleplaying for the players is about beating the game/GM? That's your implication.

That blurb is ignorant of the fact that it's a collaborative storytelling experience.

The thing you're leaving out here of course is it's just as much the Players responsibility to tell a fun story as the GMs. And that the GM has just as much right to enjoy what's going on as any given player. AND that a single player is fully capable of ruining the fun of other players by completely dominating any particular encounter, because they've built their character specifically for that one thing, because they think they can control what their PC has to do at all times.

Well, sorry, that's not this game.

Lots of players want to do cool things in combat, but not everyone wants to build a combat monster. Can be tough when you have a mix to let those other folks shine in combat. What do you do?

You flip a Destiny Point and split the party thru some plot device (air lock, NPC demands, whatever is convenient), now that combat power gamer is in the "stealth" part of the mission, or the social. And you've "paid" them for it with metacurrency. Not cheated them. And you can have a fun combat encounter for the "normies".

Or use that stack of Threats the combat monster just rolled to shutdown an Attachment, and you've thrown a wrench in they're One Thing of Awesomeness. It's not permanent, it just makes them have to improvise for one second (heaven forbid! having to do something different is no fun!), and guess what they can do it to you sometime. Meanwhile, the normies can feel like they contribute this fight (that sucks, letting other ppl do "your thing", I know).

Or use that Despair to have those B.A. cyberlegs you had installed (for no reason except to get that Agility boost) malfunction. Enjoy swinging your Lightsaber from the ground this battle! Meanwhile the non saber spec guys can enjoy a battle.

The list goes on.

This is a narrative system. I discuss campaign themes and tones and goals with my players. And given that, if you bring some munchkin thing to the table, the GM has the tools to keep things interesting with this system. And they should. If you can't handle having your One Thing meddled with every once in awhile... well, just glad I game with the ppl I do. Who neither power game, nor get butt hurt when everything doesn't go exactly the way they built their PCs to do things (some would call that "giving players challenges that they must overcome").

I think your missing the point of Collaborative try looking it up in the Dictionary...

Every Single one of my characters is a combat monster.

My first character is the Face of the Group he can hurl multiple 5 sil objects like tinkertoys. He can also make anyone pretty much do what ever he wants just by talking to them. He can absolutely dominate any combat encounter, social encounter and mass combat with the sheer power of the force. He has absolutely **** for gear. He doesn't need it. What he has is a few thousand xp and a force rating of 6...

My Second Character is a guy with Sharpshooter, Assassin, Gunner, and Trailblazer. He is an absolute monster stealthing sniper who drops people with a customized Air Rifle. With a real gun he can crit kill vehicles and space ships, he doesn't use a real gun to avoid killing fellow players, because yes his crits are pretty much auto kills. He didn't outshine anyone in the group, because the entire group was an Elite Rebel Commando squad. Each member of the well oiled team was good at one thing and it worked. I'd laugh at taking away his rifle its the thing thats keeping him from being really dangerous.....

Your problem is you think being specialized is bad, that being really good at one thing somehow detracts from the other players ability to be really good at another thing. You would absolutely fail at being a GM for pretty much every game I've been in, because I hate to say this people like being good at one thing and then have a GM who takes into account how to make them all shine.

8 hours ago, SithArissa said:

Coercion and Terrify use Willpower. And you get a talent to upgrade Coercion for strain.

... that's only 2 too... >_<'

8 hours ago, Decorus said:

...

What   he has is a few thousand  xp  and a force  rating    of      6      ...

...

I'd laugh at taking away his rifle its the thing thats keeping him from being really dangerous.....

Your problem is you think being specialized is bad

...

people like being good at one thing

lol, and you apparently need to look up power gaming in the dictionary.

For someone who knows what everyone thinks and wants, you sure do a crap job of explaining it.

This convo has deviated too far from being even vaguely related to the OPs inquiry.

I'll bow out in respect of that.