3 hours ago, 2P51 said:

I couldn't care less what was established in another thread. It's semantics and rationalization for cheating. Characters and what they can mechanically do begins at CHARGEN, not when a zygote is formed. The background is fluff and narrative, not mechanics.

So characters and what they can do starts at CHARGEN and improves based on XP which the GM Awards.

So if I say that a character quickly executes drawing a weapon and firing before the enemy am I then breaking the rules or am I simply using description to detail some part of the scene in a manner that is within the purview of the GM in your opinion? Have you ever narrated a resolution to some situation in-game that was not completely done by the letter of the rules?

If you have then you have allowed the character to do something that is not covered by experience or progression. I think there are cases when this happens in games as the GM switches gear in narration or is trying to emphasize something. It doesn't seem to me like this is something that breaks the game, certainly not to the level of overpowered but "legit" Talents or Items (which often end up on character sheets where they can bypass the Rarity code). The occasional unorthodox use of a Talen by a character who does not have it is the same as description of the character doing something like that talent.

You draw your pistol in a flash and fire as you move close to your target and take cover. Draw as incidental, move a range band, interact with environment.

I think the situation you are describing is the player anticipating trouble and either preemptively drawing their weapon or making their weapon easily available for during the fight. Either of those would be well within the rules as written and wouldn't overlap with quick draw - if its taking place before combat initiates then it's not within structured play/time.

If the player is rushing to cram in this prep as you're saying the words roll initiative or just after, it'd be a judgement call but usually I'd say they missed their chance.

5 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

Are you sure you don't just want to ditch the game part of this RPG? Because a lot of your peeves seem to come down to skills, talents, experience, players and dice results. So just getting rid of all of those parts in favour of your narrative might be helpful. That way you can make sure nothing gets in between your narrative and the Star Wars feeling you're after. In fact, just collaboratively (or not, after all sometimes they have other ideas) pre-write the dialogue and actions of the players as well, that way they can't deviate from the Star Wars feel. If you make the sessions last tops 2 hours then it will also feel more like the movies, since the important stuff can happen in that time frame and the nitty gritty parts of life won't interfere. You can also get rid of the players desires to improve their gear, since there isn't really a need because they're only as effective as the players descriptions of what they do. And the only times they can improve their skills, which isn't really important because they just succeed if they describe their actions well enough and it fits the story, is between sessions or with a training montage.

Hopefully this suggestion helps you grasp that nostalgic feeling of Star WarsTM that you have been chasing.

I apologise for the slight white Knighting here. Honestly, I have to say that I think OP has displayed in many threads a keen enthusiasm for the system and a manifest desire to discuss all aspects of it. I might not always agree with them but I respect their passion and I really think that they have clearly approached many topics with an open mind and willingness to listen and I've noticed them change their mind on several occasions. Above all, I think it is admirable that t hey have remained cordial and polite at all times that I've seen.

Besides, these discussions have helped me crystallised my own views and theories as I respond so that is also nice.

Apologies for the derailment, just though I should say something.

19 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Thanks for the in-depth response I enjoyed reading it and I think you make great points.

Well you bring up the problem of Paying for the Power, which I would agree is necessary if the character is going to be able to do it with any regularity, and perhaps a Destiny Point would be enough pay for you, but maybe not. But then again, what is this idea of Paying all about? Most people seem to give XP in this game every session with something like 15-25 points being average. Many people feel that the XP in this game isn't even tied to the experience of the characters but is actually just a mechanism to be used to have a schedule of advancement. The characters are supposed to get more powers as the game goes on, so If a Player makes a Bounty Hunter Gadgeteer he will get Dedication at some point. This game is about career planning, like in a video game. Given the low lethality of the system it is likely that our BH will hit Dedication for sure, and I think that box is aptly named because what it represents more than anything is playing the character until that box is reached. So did the Player/Character really earn anything? My suggestion is that the only trade off is the direction you go, because the advancement nearly assured and not a very big achievement at all. Giving permanent 100% available Talents based on XP disconnected form anything done in play seems like a meta participation award used to guarantee power climb on the graph. In reality this means that the GM is basically saying "Yes you can get that box now," based on the convention of this game's guaranteed meta advancement schedule. It seems to me just as ok to say "Yes you can draw that gun as an incidental" maybe even for something they described or did that was situationally appropriate for that action.

I think it is definitely easy to make a case for exclusion, but I also think that you can just as easily narrate that bodyguard having a moment of lightning reflexes even if he normally does not demonstrate such ability. People can do extraordinary things under extraordinary circumstances, so narratively it can easily make sense for someone t demonstrate some weird ability in a fluke that they might never otherwise. I definitely see the point of such exclusions when it comes to The Force/Magic where the effort is extra-physical in nature. But for something that a person can do regularly if they have the talent I feel like it makes sense that someone else could attempt that under the right circumstances.

I think keeping these things only for the characters who actually have the ability is a brain-energy saver that uses the game conventions to keep order. But if you are able to provide objective oversight to the narrative, and with the help of the players, you can open up such possibilities without disaster. The idea that only a guy with Quick Draw can do this makes it some sort of hyper-tuned ability. I knew an actual trick shooter in real life and he was a pretty ordinary (and slightly overweight) older guy whom I saw act in other fighting situations (we both worked in a facility where you had to physically stop people from hurting us and them) and he wasn't Spiderman. But he could pull that revolver lightning fast. He was teaching me to do it and I couldn't do it regularly, but twice I got a draw that he said was quite fast, and more times than that the weapon ended up on the floor when I lost control of it lol.

Anyway, my point is that yes, there are things you won't be able to do, but the story might benefit if there is some flexibility to this.

Well that's just it really. It is entrusting the character development to player agency so that the character will develop directly from their experiences; otherwise what else is to stop players drawing weapons as incidental actions most of the time? What's to stop a scholar from quickdrawing just because danger was suddenly sprung upon them just because they were aware of it? Suddenly the gunslinger that rolled up into the party sees their own abilities as less appealing as other members in the party are able to replicate it without the talent in exactly the kind of situations that the Gunslinger would naturally excel in. People turn up guns drawn, gunslinger draws his guns effortlessly from countless hours practice. To me a bodyguard isn't necessarily a bonified gunslinger; they are usually the person that gets the VIP out of the dangerous situation; covering him/her with their bodies if necessary, though a more experienced bodyguard might start learning other pointers that might mean that eventually they are quick drawing (they invest with a tree in quickdraw so that they can respond quicker so that horrible situation where they were too slow off the mark never happens again), or at the very least customise a weapon to respond to dangerous situations like this.

Given that there is at least 4 different ways to obtain quick draw (talent, modifying blaster, modifying armour, or just jacking the init score really high for those juicy Thriumphs), I feel there is no excuse for a character not to make some kind of investment toward it at this point, so I am more likely to be very strict on something like quickdraw which is super advantageous in their action ecomany. They either draw and shoot, move and cover or spend 2 strain to take that second move to allow them to do all three. Same for pilots; I wouldn't give them master pilot just because taking two actions would be really useful for that situation. They either have the experience to act in that manner or they don't.

I personally do not see specialisations and character trees as entirely separate mechanics from character development but rather I see the spend of XP, which is experience points, that the mechanical quantification of acquired life experience. Spending XP is a character either developing skills from talents and skills to fit situations, or training behind the scene, increased confidence (especially in social skills, the more experienced talker naturally has more experience in their particular trade. It's the difference between a school student who feels half arsed and the professional talk givers.) and so fourth. I wouldn't necessarily say you are wrong, but to treat character development (which is what their skillsets represent) and actual narrative as two separate things is a very slippery slope that I cannot get behind as a role player. I am very much of the opinion that the character can be whoever they want provided they have some credentials to back it up; if they aren't willing to invest, they shouldn't do it.I roleplay in a group with a guy who once claimed to be a scholar of his people with an int of 2 and no ranks in lore. Should he be given an auto-pass on things permitting to his people? I would say no given he made no investment in character to reach that destination; though his check would likely be easier/he might know the major sites. it's no different then a doctor that has 2 int and no ranks in medicine. Needless to say, we rolled some checks, had a right laugh about it and one of two things happened; they either developed to fit that niche a bit better or they dropped that angle for character consistency.

For example my character has a charm of 2 and while he does have the Influence Force power, he almost never acts as a social face in an honest conversation; I describe his mannerisms as somewhat crass, with the typical star wars outer rim slang, that he is often too talkative to be taken at face value which makes him really too blunt an instrument in talking to that royal princess for a favour. Do I suddenly get a couple of ranks of killing with kindness because I etherise with someone with a particular background? I don't feel so because those kind of narrative perks are already handled by the boost dice mechanic and I would expect to fail in that check much of the time as a result of that. I don't become better at something because the situation demands it, I become better at something because I (and by extension my character) invested time and effort into it. I feel that keeping things this way better builds an identity to who that character is, who they are and, equally as important, who they are not. That establishes boundaries between players to flourish independently.

In short, I can understand where you are coming from this but I can't agree; if a player wants his character to respond rapidly to suddenly developing situations I expect that player to invest that characters experience into improving those skills for future encounters. Nothing drives character development like failure after all, failure to save that diplomat because they were a moment too slow drives development to never be slow to react again. That is a the difference between a rookie and a veteran bodyguard after all. Though at the end of the day; one should always consider doing what is more fun at the table at the time.


Sorry if that was a bit long winded; I actually intended to have a bit of a talk to my fellow players about skill ranks at some point; so this wall of text serves duel purpose. Hope my perspective proves useful for you! ^__^

8 hours ago, LordBritish said:

Well that's just it really. It is entrusting the character development to player agency so that the character will develop directly from their experiences; otherwise what else is to stop players drawing weapons as incidental actions most of the time? What's to stop a scholar from quickdrawing just because danger was suddenly sprung upon them just because they were aware of it? Suddenly the gunslinger that rolled up into the party sees their own abilities as less appealing as other members in the party are able to replicate it without the talent in exactly the kind of situations that the Gunslinger would naturally excel in. People turn up guns drawn, gunslinger draws his guns effortlessly from countless hours practice. To me a bodyguard isn't necessarily a bonified gunslinger; they are usually the person that gets the VIP out of the dangerous situation; covering him/her with their bodies if necessary, though a more experienced bodyguard might start learning other pointers that might mean that eventually they are quick drawing (they invest with a tree in quickdraw so that they can respond quicker so that horrible situation where they were too slow off the mark never happens again), or at the very least customise a weapon to respond to dangerous situations like this.

Given that there is at least 4 different ways to obtain quick draw (talent, modifying blaster, modifying armour, or just jacking the init score really high for those juicy Thriumphs), I feel there is no excuse for a character not to make some kind of investment toward it at this point, so I am more likely to be very strict on something like quickdraw which is super advantageous in their action ecomany. They either draw and shoot, move and cover or spend 2 strain to take that second move to allow them to do all three. Same for pilots; I wouldn't give them master pilot just because taking two actions would be really useful for that situation. They either have the experience to act in that manner or they don't.

I personally do not see specialisations and character trees as entirely separate mechanics from character development but rather I see the spend of XP, which is experience points, that the mechanical quantification of acquired life experience. Spending XP is a character either developing skills from talents and skills to fit situations, or training behind the scene, increased confidence (especially in social skills, the more experienced talker naturally has more experience in their particular trade. It's the difference between a school student who feels half arsed and the professional talk givers.) and so fourth. I wouldn't necessarily say you are wrong, but to treat character development (which is what their skillsets represent) and actual narrative as two separate things is a very slippery slope that I cannot get behind as a role player. I am very much of the opinion that the character can be whoever they want provided they have some credentials to back it up; if they aren't willing to invest, they shouldn't do it.I roleplay in a group with a guy who once claimed to be a scholar of his people with an int of 2 and no ranks in lore. Should he be given an auto-pass on things permitting to his people? I would say no given he made no investment in character to reach that destination; though his check would likely be easier/he might know the major sites. it's no different then a doctor that has 2 int and no ranks in medicine. Needless to say, we rolled some checks, had a right laugh about it and one of two things happened; they either developed to fit that niche a bit better or they dropped that angle for character consistency.

For example my character has a charm of 2 and while he does have the Influence Force power, he almost never acts as a social face in an honest conversation; I describe his mannerisms as somewhat crass, with the typical star wars outer rim slang, that he is often too talkative to be taken at face value which makes him really too blunt an instrument in talking to that royal princess for a favour. Do I suddenly get a couple of ranks of killing with kindness because I etherise with someone with a particular background? I don't feel so because those kind of narrative perks are already handled by the boost dice mechanic and I would expect to fail in that check much of the time as a result of that. I don't become better at something because the situation demands it, I become better at something because I (and by extension my character) invested time and effort into it. I feel that keeping things this way better builds an identity to who that character is, who they are and, equally as important, who they are not. That establishes boundaries between players to flourish independently.

In short, I can understand where you are coming from this but I can't agree; if a player wants his character to respond rapidly to suddenly developing situations I expect that player to invest that characters experience into improving those skills for future encounters. Nothing drives character development like failure after all, failure to save that diplomat because they were a moment too slow drives development to never be slow to react again. That is a the difference between a rookie and a veteran bodyguard after all. Though at the end of the day; one should always consider doing what is more fun at the table at the time.


Sorry if that was a bit long winded; I actually intended to have a bit of a talk to my fellow players about skill ranks at some point; so this wall of text serves duel purpose. Hope my perspective proves useful for you! ^__^

Thanks again for the long response I actually love the big discussions so I appreciate your time and attention. I agree that you can't have people just doing whatever they want, but that also wasn't my intended use of some of these sequestered abilities. I think that they are often just some normal ability but with a canned narrative description.

I think it comes down to whether or not you feel the world you play in is this sort of mechanical place where the rulebook physics are always concrete and in place, or if it is a place where sometimes things happen that are unusual and different. There is if course a "too far" there, but I'm basically talking about the case of saying Never and Maybe in the right circumstances. You are on the Never side if I am understanding you correctly, and you state that it is game mechanics that dictate what you can do.

You gave an example of the character having a talent to accomplish a social skill, and my answer for which method works (exclusion or open approach) I would say both are acceptable. If the character is not able to do something by your adjudication of what the player is capable of then I would say they shouldn't be able to do it well in normal situations, but if impressing the Royal Princess is something crucial to his mission the character may have a moment of focus and decide to try and talk to the person in an appropriate manner. Then the player actually role-plays the conversation and turns that crass demeanor into something the Princess respects because the character explains their background and life where they are from. Is it not possible to do all of those social "smooth talking" type things by actually smooth talking? If the character was raised in a cave and knows nothing of how to converse then ok, it's not in character to be able to talk your way out of it, but if the character has some social experience and understands the context then those sorts of conversation powers are not the same as levitating a rock.

So in the case of the guy who made the claim to be the lore master of his people, was that something that you actually challenged or did it come to a head only when he tried to roll 2G for checks? Did the character think he was something that he wasn't, or was the player just making that a part of his concept but didn't have the points to build it to match the mechanics (assuming he didn't put everything in Ranged(light) or something and just used his points to min/max)? Were his people living in mud huts on a world that was isolated and therefore their lore wasn't very expansive? I think that you could have given him an auto-pass on the Lore checks if there wasn't much to know, but if the whole adventure rested upon this guy knowing if his ancestors knew or did something then I guess you would have to hold that line. But let's say you did and then he spends XP to now get ranks of Lore. How did that happen and why does he know it now but not before? Why did he say he was a lore master when he wasn't and now has that skill so is he now a lore master? There are problems with powers and knowledge that materializes suddenly after killing a bunch of Jabba's thugs in a mission to retrieve a stolen ship. Hey we did all that and now I know my people's lore!

I think that having the mechanics make all the decisions is as risky as using common sense to determine if someone can attempt something covered by a formally written Talent because the mechanics can do weird things just in the other direction.

Thanks again for the ongoing discussion and your polite response, I appreciate it.

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 10:31 PM, Archlyte said:

Thanks again for the long response I actually love the big discussions so I appreciate your time and attention. I agree that you can't have people just doing whatever they want, but that also wasn't my intended use of some of these sequestered abilities. I think that they are often just some normal ability but with a canned narrative description.

I think it comes down to whether or not you feel the world you play in is this sort of mechanical place where the rulebook physics are always concrete and in place, or if it is a place where sometimes things happen that are unusual and different. There is if course a "too far" there, but I'm basically talking about the case of saying Never and Maybe in the right circumstances. You are on the Never side if I am understanding you correctly, and you state that it is game mechanics that dictate what you can do.

You gave an example of the character having a talent to accomplish a social skill, and my answer for which method works (exclusion or open approach) I would say both are acceptable. If the character is not able to do something by your adjudication of what the player is capable of then I would say they shouldn't be able to do it well in normal situations, but if impressing the Royal Princess is something crucial to his mission the character may have a moment of focus and decide to try and talk to the person in an appropriate manner. Then the player actually role-plays the conversation and turns that crass demeanor into something the Princess respects because the character explains their background and life where they are from. Is it not possible to do all of those social "smooth talking" type things by actually smooth talking? If the character was raised in a cave and knows nothing of how to converse then ok, it's not in character to be able to talk your way out of it, but if the character has some social experience and understands the context then those sorts of conversation powers are not the same as levitating a rock.

So in the case of the guy who made the claim to be the lore master of his people, was that something that you actually challenged or did it come to a head only when he tried to roll 2G for checks? Did the character think he was something that he wasn't, or was the player just making that a part of his concept but didn't have the points to build it to match the mechanics (assuming he didn't put everything in Ranged(light) or something and just used his points to min/max)? Were his people living in mud huts on a world that was isolated and therefore their lore wasn't very expansive? I think that you could have given him an auto-pass on the Lore checks if there wasn't much to know, but if the whole adventure rested upon this guy knowing if his ancestors knew or did something then I guess you would have to hold that line. But let's say you did and then he spends XP to now get ranks of Lore. How did that happen and why does he know it now but not before? Why did he say he was a lore master when he wasn't and now has that skill so is he now a lore master? There are problems with powers and knowledge that materializes suddenly after killing a bunch of Jabba's thugs in a mission to retrieve a stolen ship. Hey we did all that and now I know my people's lore!

I think that having the mechanics make all the decisions is as risky as using common sense to determine if someone can attempt something covered by a formally written Talent because the mechanics can do weird things just in the other direction.

Thanks again for the ongoing discussion and your polite response, I appreciate it.

I do intend to reply, just been quite busy and I have written a lot. So I am just looking to refine it before posting. Not had much time recently.

Edit: And in sending that I deleted everything else I had typed before. Oh bother. XD

I don't have an issue with letting them attempt something they don't have a talent for, but I would always make the attempt harder. For example if it's something that becomes a passive ability, they would have to make a skill check of some kind each time they try it . If the thing already requires a skill check, then it will be a harder check, possibly requiring a destiny point flip too.

7 hours ago, LordBritish said:

I do intend to reply, just been quite busy and I have written a lot. So I am just looking to refine it before posting. Not had much time recently.

Edit: And in sending that I deleted everything else I had typed before. Oh bother. XD

Man I hate that. I feel your pain.

4 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

I don't have an issue with letting them attempt something they don't have a talent for, but I would always make the attempt harder. For example if it's something that becomes a passive ability, they would have to make a skill check of some kind each time they try it . If the thing already requires a skill check, then it will be a harder check, possibly requiring a destiny point flip too.

Yeah I think that is a great policy.

3 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Yeah I think that is a great policy.

I just think it's an much easier solution, than having to bring down the GM NO Hammer. It makes the talent better, perhaps MUCH better by comparison, thus always keeping it as an incentive to invest in it. "Oh, you are tired of having to always roll Coordination to do Quick Draw? Well how about you just pony up the XP and buy it, then it will happen automatically." Kind of thing that works pretty well with my players at least.

I think an easier solution is to tell players to follow the rules. When it's outside the rules we'll have a conversation, but not when it's clearly covered. No 'no hammer', just read the rules.

I think if you ascribe to a strict policy of RAW 100% of the time your stance on this issue goes without saying.

Where did I say I follow the rules 100%? I do think before RAW are bypassed the rationale needs to be better than simple impatience.

If it doesn't apply to you then it's not applicable. My point there was that this is about adjudication beyond the RAW because as far as I know the rulebooks are gonna say use our Talents only if you have them. There is language all over the books that say the GM has the final say but a lot of people ignore that.

And my point is there's no adjudication needed. The rule is simple, concise, and balanced.

You don't like contrary opinions, don't ask.

22 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

And my point is there's no adjudication needed. The rule is simple, concise, and balanced.

You don't like contrary opinions, don't ask.

Well I guess I was wrong and you are just advocating using RAW all the time. Unless I missed something. Also I appreciate contrary opinions and I was going to edit my post to say that I wasn't inviting anyone to shut up, but I felt it looked too weak and conciliatory for no reason. Not wanting to be overly passive I just left it alone. I see that this was a mistake and I should have edited that first post.

11 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Well I guess I was wrong and you are just advocating using RAW all the time. Unless I missed something.

I think what he's saying is that when the RAW is clear and concise , then there's no need to "rewrite" the rules or ignore them. It's only when the rules aren't as clear, when they leave things more open to interpretation, that adjudication becomes necessary .

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I think what he's saying is that when the RAW is clear and concise , then there's no need to "rewrite" the rules or ignore them. It's only when the rules aren't as clear, when they leave things more open to interpretation, that adjudication becomes necessary .

Thank you Tramp, I am corrected. I think some times tone can speak louder than content so I made a mistake there.

To be clear, I am talking about a character using or evincing an action that clearly is detailed on one of the Talents, when the character does not have that Talent. This being done because in the context or idea of the person controlling the character it seems cool or interesting.

I think I would be willing to flex the rules and allow the player to use quick draw even if they didn't have the talent. I wouldn't give them full use though. They'd probably have to spend 2 strain to use it along with a second maneuver.

Allowing a PC to use the capacity of a talent without spending the xps to buy it but by spending strain or any other means, is really unfair to those who bought that talent and spent all the xps needed to get it on their specialisation tree.

After allowing quickdraw to be used by spending only 2 strain, do you refund PCs who bought this talent regularly their xps spent ?

I spend two strain to roll some extra yellow dice since my character would totally be that good at stuff.

9 hours ago, Ahrimon said:

I think I would be willing to flex the rules and allow the player to use quick draw even if they didn't have the talent. I wouldn't give them full use though. They'd probably have to spend 2 strain to use it along with a second maneuver.

Which is pretty much just narration. Because mechanically they're doing it the way the rules describe. Which is the way I would go.

6 hours ago, WolfRider said:

Allowing a PC to use the capacity of a talent without spending the xps to buy it but by spending strain or any other means, is really unfair to those who bought that talent and spent all the xps needed to get it on their specialisation tree.

After allowing quickdraw to be used by spending only 2 strain, do you refund PCs who bought this talent regularly their xps spent ?

What Ahrimon described is how you have to do things if you don't have quick draw. Then you make a maneuver and either lose out on your free one or spend two strain on doing it. Bringing a weapon out and readying it is a maneuver. Quick Draw lets you do it as an incidental, which means it's no longer a maneuver then. That's it, that's the difference mechanically. Narratively there is nothing stopping you from narrating it like quickly drawing the weapon, you just have to pay the cost.

It reads to me like Ahrimon knows exactly that what they described is the actual rules. Hence the smiley.

On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 5:12 PM, WolfRider said:

Allowing a PC to use the capacity of a talent without spending the xps to buy it but by spending strain or any other means, is really unfair to those who bought that talent and spent all the xps needed to get it on their specialisation tree.

After allowing quickdraw to be used by spending only 2 strain, do you refund PCs who bought this talent regularly their xps spent ?

Well that assumes that the value of XP is really profound, but if you view XP as not that big a deal then it's less offensive. To me that much value on XP is not good.