5 hours ago, KRKappel said:

There are four ways to ensure your PCs remain challenged in combat play regardless of their XP level.

1.) Increase minion group sizes. In large enough numbers, stormtroopers are still a threat to high-level PCs, and the dice pool won't shrink too much if a few die. If combat is too easy, just add two more minions to each group, and repeat as necessary until you find the balance you want.

2.) Adversary rating on important NPCs. Don't be afraid of adding whatever level adversary you need. Don't forget to add reflect or parry and use as needed.

For an extra special good time, give your minion groups an Adversary rating when you increase their size. A couple rankings in Bodyguard have recently turned up as a great way to keep the BBEG in play as well.

I like to present countdown clocks, non-combat challenges, and environmental factors in combat encounters as well - 100XP or 1000XP, the clock ticks at the same rate, the environmental conditions add setbacks, and there's always something for the character that fumbles with a blaster to do to aid the group's success. A particularly well-oiled group works to place these things to their advantage.

Our GM rebooted his homebrew three times and we never really reached an 'End of Season' point... now we'll never know as he's lost all Hope.

Current group I'm running gets a lot more xp than the books suggest per session. We're around 600xp earned and approaching 1 year of play. I plan to conclude the story arc and take a few months off of GMing when we hit 1 year.

When we come back to it, I'm going to give them the choice of either continuing with the same characters and follow their adventures or switch it up to a new set of characters with a different focus. It's been a Jedi/Sith centric story set in the Old Republic for this story arc.

If they continue with the same characters, I don't really see the need to slow down on xp gains or cap it but the adventures will get incredibly deadlier with the stronger they become (council gives them more important missions, their presence attracts larger threats, etc).

Personally to keep things interesting, I can my players skills at level 3, but once they reach that, they have to find someone to train them in that skill, they could find someone that session, it could take a few sessions, maybe it's a session more based around the character that wants said skill, and the person they find agrees to help them on a certain condition that they help them out, I've had campaigns, and been in ones that have lasted well over a year, and people still find enjoyment, I allow people to kill off their character if they feel the need to and create a new one, while still continuing with the people who wanna keep their's.

On 12/22/2018 at 11:12 AM, Kalronus said:

Personally to keep things interesting, I can my players skills at level 3, but once they reach that, they have to find someone to train them in that skill, they could find someone that session, it could take a few sessions, maybe it's a session more based around the character that wants said skill, and the person they find agrees to help them on a certain condition that they help them out, I've had campaigns, and been in ones that have lasted well over a year, and people still find enjoyment, I allow people to kill off their character if they feel the need to and create a new one, while still continuing with the people who wanna keep their's.

I've been toying with the idea of capping skills as well, but realized pretty quickly that there wasn't much need for it, since people to a lot greater extent go after talents and force powers. Every campaign I've been part of, skills tend to lag behind rather shoot ahead. I've felt a stronger need to cap characteristics at 5 (barring special circumstances) than even bothering with skills.

We've got a problem in a game in which I'm a player where one character is making combats trivial with the Jury-Rigged autocritomatic. And that is at only 300XP. I think there is a lot to be said for how the build matters, not just the XP.

18 hours ago, RecklessFable said:

We've got a problem in a game in which I'm a player where one character is making combats trivial with the Jury-Rigged autocritomatic. And that is at only 300XP. I think there is a lot to be said for how the build matters, not just the XP.

Exactly. How you spend XP is much more important than how much XP you have available to spend.

My game went on for about a year and the team was around 600 exp when it was getting very easy for the group, we finished our story and then called it.

To extend the play time a lot of it depends on the players, if they balance out their characters then you can go much longer. If they focus their specialization then they will peak a lot sooner and make the their tasks too easy. Force characters will last longer since they have more areas to send their exp in if they balance between talents, skills and force powers.

One thing you can do which I don't like to keep the game going longer is to change your difficulty or the checks to account for their higher skills. so what was average is now hard, you can narrate this as your group is now working with more advanced enemies which is increasing the difficulty. I'm not fan of this path, but it can be used to extend the campaign.

One thing you can do to help balance the characters is when you award Exp for your session, give it to an area for them to increase. So it can only be spent on Skills, Talents or Force powers(if applicable). This will force characters to spread their points around versus racing through Talent trees to get dedication (this was my groups approach).

600-800xp earned in my group now at a year of play (17 sessions, they earn around double the normal rate). They are all strong but that's ok, they are the heroes of the story. If I really wanted to challenge them I'd put a tank or a TIE in their path and watch them run for cover. I'm not so concerned with forcing a tough combat, done that in the past. I'm more interested in fun stories we can create and tell. I'll start being concerned about when to end it when we hit around 2k xp. Even then, I might just cap xp off or decrease the rate they earn it if we all wanna keep playing with the same characters.

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 7:07 PM, GroggyGolem said:

600-800xp earned in my group now at a year of play (17 sessions, they earn around double the normal rate). They are all strong but that's ok, they are the heroes of the story. If I really wanted to challenge them I'd put a tank or a TIE in their path and watch them run for cover. I'm not so concerned with forcing a tough combat, done that in the past. I'm more interested in fun stories we can create and tell. I'll start being concerned about when to end it when we hit around 2k xp. Even then, I might just cap xp off or decrease the rate they earn it if we all wanna keep playing with the same characters.

I think in the end we are all forced to play the zero-sum game in any game with progression (Players have +7 ergo bad guys have +7), but I think you are absolutely right that what saves you is that interesting stories are power agnostic if you do them right. This means that the starter character stuff I love is just as valid as after everyone has disruptors and modded lightsabers and two full trees behind them.

I will say that I think the expectation and schedule of how RAW XP is awarded in this system was poorly done. One of the things that seems a bit phoned in to me. It amounts to a generosity of the GM based award that is there for time in play. This means that the XP in the game is not connected to the story and events of the game so much as it is connected to the time played. This results in games that run longer having to butt up against the upper power restraint, which many users put at about 5 points into a given skill (at which time anything other than a crazy negative dice pool will result in a successful check for the character).

Characters really should be important to their owners without having to constantly climb in power. In long campaigns where you as the GM don't want a crazy incline in the power chart you are essentially forced to give out less XP or at least not give it out each session. Because XP awards are a reinforcement, the players react to it on a behavioral level so they will not be used to not getting XP, and will probably feel some disappointment. While this is strange for adults, it's nonetheless something that is a reality in my experience. But if you follow the FFG guidelines for XP and use bonus for Motivation they will advance pretty quick at first. I have seen an inflationary effect take place where in order to maintain that rapid advancement the GM starts giving out bigger awards as the game goes on. You can't complain about overpowered characters if you do this. You also can't take XP back in this game through Undead or that sort of thing, so the progression mechanic is a juggernaut. If you let it build up momentum it is harder to stop.

Ideally I think that XP should be awarded when a character would actually benefit from something that happened in a game or when the player took the time and effort to include an interesting scene in which they learn something. This means periods with no XP though and only the game itself to enjoy. I know, what a bummer.