1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

But what I am really concerned about is that Twi'lek player, because I don't know the situation but maybe the player didn't want to be combat effective because they envisioned the character concept as being a dancer. There was no arc there that the player found satisfying enough to allow it to change the character, so the player protected the character concept by not spending XP. This was obviously a clash of playstyles because you and the rest of the group were playing the trees and XP totals, and that player wanted to put the concept first.

There is always what I like to call the "Buffy-Verse Philosophy" wherein we have seen cheer-leading skills as foundations for sword fighter training... and I am referring to Cordelia (not super-powered Buffy*), who combined her old cheer-leading drills with her training to advance quickly.
I could build a Twi'lek dancer that's never been on an adventure in her life using Smuggler/Thief and have them realize as the story plays out that they are far more capable than they knew. Right off the top of my head Coordination, Deception, Perception, Stealth and Vigilance are all skills a dancer in a perfectly reputable setting could nurture and that isn't factoring in things picked up if they danced in a less savory setting. Several talents also lend themselves as well: Black Market Ties (rich patron of the arts), Indistinguishable (make-up and costuming experience), Dodge (naturally) and Grit (again, naturally). Now, the player knows what's on the sheet, but the character thinks of themselves in terms of their concept and will learn through adversity what they are capable of.

This is not to say that every player could or would want to take this tactic, but solutions exist.

My sister-in-law wanted to play an alien dog-toting spoiled space socialite. After some failed attempts at creation to make Colonist work with the concept, we took a step back and created her using Explorer/Driver (she has a thing for fast speeders and a disregard for financial cost in her old life instilled in her a tendency to push vehicles beyond specifications that still persists). Yes, the character started as something of a joke but she quickly became a valued member of the team. A concept that seemed to not fit was given some room and worked out.

* Or, extrapolating the works of Mutant Enemy, the ties between River Tam as a dancer and as a fighter

2 hours ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

There is always what I like to call the "Buffy-Verse Philosophy" wherein we have seen cheer-leading skills as foundations for sword fighter training... and I am referring to Cordelia (not super-powered Buffy*), who combined her old cheer-leading drills with her training to advance quickly.
I could build a Twi'lek dancer that's never been on an adventure in her life using Smuggler/Thief and have them realize as the story plays out that they are far more capable than they knew. Right off the top of my head Coordination, Deception, Perception, Stealth and Vigilance are all skills a dancer in a perfectly reputable setting could nurture and that isn't factoring in things picked up if they danced in a less savory setting. Several talents also lend themselves as well: Black Market Ties (rich patron of the arts), Indistinguishable (make-up and costuming experience), Dodge (naturally) and Grit (again, naturally). Now, the player knows what's on the sheet, but the character thinks of themselves in terms of their concept and will learn through adversity what they are capable of.

This is not to say that every player could or would want to take this tactic, but solutions exist.

My sister-in-law wanted to play an alien dog-toting spoiled space socialite. After some failed attempts at creation to make Colonist work with the concept, we took a step back and created her using Explorer/Driver (she has a thing for fast speeders and a disregard for financial cost in her old life instilled in her a tendency to push vehicles beyond specifications that still persists). Yes, the character started as something of a joke but she quickly became a valued member of the team. A concept that seemed to not fit was given some room and worked out.

* Or, extrapolating the works of Mutant Enemy, the ties between River Tam as a dancer and as a fighter

It's hard for me to articulate my point, especially since you have great solutions. I also have to say that there are some concepts that I am more partial to than others, and have to assume that this is the case for everyone: that there are some concepts that are not fitting for a specific game.

I have a good friend who has a rule that he will not allow any player to make a character that is "not compatible with adventuring"

But assuming someone is running a game in which the game can absorb an imbalance of power between the characters, and that the players also do not perceive to be a problem of imbalance. A player may have a concept that they want to protect form the Progression Machine. This might include some level of not having the mechanical reality of the character be too much of a difference from the way the character is portrayed in the game space. So if I have a scientist I may want to portray a scientist who isn't really doing much besides being a scientist and isn't getting better at being a scientist by leaps and bounds.

Progression is so ingrained in RPGs that merely giving a game any kind of a progression feature tempts people into calling it an rpg. I have heard to people refer to shooters as rpgs simply because there is a tree and an unlock mechanic. And to their defense, Progression has been around since Dave Arneson told his kids to keep track of their minis stats from the game they invaded Castle Blackmoor until the following session (1973 or so?). So it's in the blood of every game pretty much.

But I feel like the compulsory progression thing is something that should be examined if you prefer to not have the mechanics lead the game. The mechanics are the rules of resolution, the physics of how, but I suspect that it isn't 100% necessary to let the rules determine the shape of the game because of form following function. If a player should want to have a character remain static during phases of the game or even through the whole game it seems to me that is a noble gesture as long as it isn't bringing down the game. In the games where its a race to 800 XP and disrupters and lightsabers such a concept would be disruptive and I agree with you Falcon that it's not appropriate. But I don't think it's always inappropriate.

I am not even thinking in terms of appropriate or inappropriate, just different ways to one can come at some of these notions.

11 minutes ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

I am not even thinking in terms of appropriate or inappropriate, just different ways to one can come at some of these notions.

Yeah I appreciate what you are saying too because as I said they are good solutions for making the concept fit within the standard operation, but I am really more talking about not using the standard operation in favor of a concept-led process.

Another thought occurs in terms of playing either an elite PC, or an inexperienced, ineffectual character: this system is designed to focus on the narrative .

So, the elite soldier missed several shots? That's because they were focused on keeping the enemies' heads down and keeping attention on themselves and away from their less combat oriented friends.

So, the street urchin blasted an entire squad of stormtroopers with a rifle they're untrained in? Everybody gets lucky now and then, and a stray shot hitting a propane tank and taking them all out is as if the force was helping them.

Now, both of those examples probably work best if results on the dice backed them up with triumphs and advantages. But I don't think this is required. What is required is that everyone at the table buy in to the same narrative. In the example above, if the elite trooper fails to get a hit in five combats, it's going to stretch disbelief a little and might wind up more comedic, "Yeah, he's the 'best there is at what he does', elite trooper Darren over there."

Conversely, I think it's easier to play the inexperienced option, as it's all in how they're played and skilled. @Silim 's example does sound like a horror story, but the player of such a PC could call for fear checks on themselves often, take actions that don't aid in the situations all that much, call for setbacks on themselves, etc.

I don't think the mechanics of how this game works impedes on character concept too much, and I'd probably get annoyed playing across the table from a PC who banked their XP with no plan to invest it.

42 minutes ago, Roderz said:

Another thought occurs in terms of playing either an elite PC, or an inexperienced, ineffectual character: this system is designed to focus on the narrative .

So, the elite soldier missed several shots? That's because they were focused on keeping the enemies' heads down and keeping attention on themselves and away from their less combat oriented friends.

So, the street urchin blasted an entire squad of stormtroopers with a rifle they're untrained in? Everybody gets lucky now and then, and a stray shot hitting a propane tank and taking them all out is as if the force was helping them.

Now, both of those examples probably work best if results on the dice backed them up with triumphs and advantages. But I don't think this is required. What is required is that everyone at the table buy in to the same narrative. In the example above, if the elite trooper fails to get a hit in five combats, it's going to stretch disbelief a little and might wind up more comedic, "Yeah, he's the 'best there is at what he does', elite trooper Darren over there."

Conversely, I think it's easier to play the inexperienced option, as it's all in how they're played and skilled. @Silim 's example does sound like a horror story, but the player of such a PC could call for fear checks on themselves often, take actions that don't aid in the situations all that much, call for setbacks on themselves, etc.

I don't think the mechanics of how this game works impedes on character concept too much, and I'd probably get annoyed playing across the table from a PC who banked their XP with no plan to invest it.

In fact, the Warleader specialization has a talent which specifically covers what you just described your “elite soldier” doing. It’s called, appropriately enough, Suppressing Fire , and allows the character and each ally within Short range to spend one Advantage from their failed combat checks to inflict one Strain per rank in Supressing Fire to their target.

33 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

In fact, the Warleader specialization has a talent which specifically covers what you just described

That's fine, but speaks more towards the mechanics rather than the narrative side of things which was my focus here. An elite character is going to be hungry for XP and has all kinds of ways to spend it such as this, but the OP was looking for ways to represent an elite character which mechanically may not be all that elite yet.

17 hours ago, Archlyte said:

I do like that the system is built to start with effective characters, but more than once I have had players ask if they could make a kid and work their way up to the starting XP and build specs. They asked me that because they were more interested in their concept than the way the system wanted them to start, and I don't see that as a bad thing really.

The game's meant to be a movie simulator with the PCs as the heroes. In that regard, the kid should be just as competent as the adults, like Anakin in Episode I or Ezra in Rebels. There's definitely room to grow and get better at things (since you get XP). But I guess my main point is that this system isn't built for hyper-simulation of reality, but rather of cinematic hero-centric reality.

At some point a player will realize that they chose to play Monopoly and that no amount of trips past "Go" will bring them any closer to deducing who killed Mr. Body.

On 10/25/2018 at 10:55 PM, Archlyte said:

It's hard for me to articulate my point, especially since you have great solutions. I also have to say that there are some concepts that I am more partial to than others, and have to assume that this is the case for everyone: that there are some concepts that are not fitting for a specific game.

I have a good friend who has a rule that he will not allow any player to make a character that is "not compatible with adventuring"

But assuming someone is running a game in which the game can absorb an imbalance of power between the characters, and that the players also do not perceive to be a problem of imbalance. A player may have a concept that they want to protect form the Progression Machine. This might include some level of not having the mechanical reality of the character be too much of a difference from the way the character is portrayed in the game space. So if I have a scientist I may want to portray a scientist who isn't really doing much besides being a scientist and isn't getting better at being a scientist by leaps and bounds.

Progression is so ingrained in RPGs that merely giving a game any kind of a progression feature tempts people into calling it an rpg. I have heard to people refer to shooters as rpgs simply because there is a tree and an unlock mechanic. And to their defense, Progression has been around since Dave Arneson told his kids to keep track of their minis stats from the game they invaded Castle Blackmoor until the following session (1973 or so?). So it's in the blood of every game pretty much.

But I feel like the compulsory progression thing is something that should be examined if you prefer to not have the mechanics lead the game. The mechanics are the rules of resolution, the physics of how, but I suspect that it isn't 100% necessary to let the rules determine the shape of the game because of form following function. If a player should want to have a character remain static during phases of the game or even through the whole game it seems to me that is a noble gesture as long as it isn't bringing down the game. In the games where its a race to 800 XP and disrupters and lightsabers such a concept would be disruptive and I agree with you Falcon that it's not appropriate. But I don't think it's always inappropriate.

Am I understanding correctly that the issue you are referring to is one of "preserving" a character concept throughout play? So a naive farmboy could remain a naive farmboy throughout? If so then that seems counter-intuitive to me.

I believe a primary purpose of the XP progression systems ingrained into most (but not all) rpg systems is to approximate the growth and development of a character through life experiences. Especially those systems like this one that don't reward through combat alone. Add to that, this game is explicitly based on narrative source material and uses the narrative dice system. The entire focus seems to be on telling a story and a crucial part of most traditional stories is that of character development.

However, it is also a roleplaying game and both the nature of how a character acts or reacts, and the direction of character growth are firmly in the player's hands. If the player wishes for their character to obstinately refuse to learn from life experience they can choose to a. Act accordingly in game and b. not spend xp. However, there must quickly come a point at which you have to wonder what sort of character that is? Certainly the sort that would wear thin on any travelling companions in the real world...

I certainly would not call progression compulsory in this or really any system. However, people who don't learn run a real risk of falling behind, as they would in any real life analogue.

I try to avoid making judgment calls about how individuals enjoy these games, but there is one area where I get really close: group consensus

These are social games by design and thus the group needs to... not always agree, exactly... but generally be on the same page regarding having a good time.

The meticulously designed dice-beast created with a threadbare premise in order to minimize the humiliation of a failed check can derail a game. So too can the preciously designed character that is too special to risk in an adventure and besides you spent hours on the backstory and you have a very specific idea of how you want their story to play out...

Yes, these are both very extreme examples.

Don't neglect the individual concept... but don't neglect the collective concept either. Particularly in a "Star Wars" setting.

As different as the Princess, the Farmboy and the Scoundrel are, collectively they are people looking for family (extended, figurative and literal) and are at their best when interconnected. Its telling that in the sequels, their tragic vulnerabilities seem the result of dealing with tragedy separately rather than as a group.

30 minutes ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

Its telling that in the sequels, their tragic vulnerabilities seem the result of dealing with tragedy separately rather than as a group.

Stealing this.

I don’t know where, when, or under what conditions. But I’m stealing it.

21 hours ago, SavageBob said:

The game's meant to be a movie simulator with the PCs as the heroes. In that regard, the kid should be just as competent as the adults, like Anakin in Episode I or Ezra in Rebels. There's definitely room to grow and get better at things (since you get XP). But I guess my main point is that this system isn't built for hyper-simulation of reality, but rather of cinematic hero-centric reality.

Wait, how is that more like a movie? I don't see where you are demonstrating that that is the case. In the movie they may have very disparate skill levels and the script simply makes it all work out. Plus the game doesn't play like a movie when it spans months of play with progression occurring at a constant clip by RAW culture.

Also I didn't say it isn't realistic I don't think, as what I am talking about is letting the concept drive progression not some arbitrary scale set up by FFG and the interpretation of the standard culture.

In a Star Wars movie / series anyway, protagonist youngsters are always as competent as the adults or the more experienced. It is very common across all movies.

14 hours ago, SanguineAngel said:

Am I understanding correctly that the issue you are referring to is one of "preserving" a character concept throughout play? So a naive farmboy could remain a naive farmboy throughout? If so then that seems counter-intuitive to me.

I believe a primary purpose of the XP progression systems ingrained into most (but not all) rpg systems is to approximate the growth and development of a character through life experiences. Especially those systems like this one that don't reward through combat alone. Add to that, this game is explicitly based on narrative source material and uses the narrative dice system. The entire focus seems to be on telling a story and a crucial part of most traditional stories is that of character development.

However, it is also a roleplaying game and both the nature of how a character acts or reacts, and the direction of character growth are firmly in the player's hands. If the player wishes for their character to obstinately refuse to learn from life experience they can choose to a. Act accordingly in game and b. not spend xp. However, there must quickly come a point at which you have to wonder what sort of character that is? Certainly the sort that would wear thin on any travelling companions in the real world...

I certainly would not call progression compulsory in this or really any system. However, people who don't learn run a real risk of falling behind, as they would in any real life analogue.

What I am saying is not that there should be zero progression. I am saying that progression should be a matter of reinforcing he character concept, not the opposite: namely progression bulldozing the concept because We must progress for the sake of it.

2 minutes ago, Darzil said:

In a Star Wars movie / series anyway, protagonist youngsters are always as competent as the adults or the more experienced. It is very common across all movies.

How do you know this? Cause Anakin? Why would all characters be bound by this?

13 hours ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

I try to avoid making judgment calls about how individuals enjoy these games, but there is one area where I get really close: group consensus

These are social games by design and thus the group needs to... not always agree, exactly... but generally be on the same page regarding having a good time.

The meticulously designed dice-beast created with a threadbare premise in order to minimize the humiliation of a failed check can derail a game. So too can the preciously designed character that is too special to risk in an adventure and besides you spent hours on the backstory and you have a very specific idea of how you want their story to play out...

Yes, these are both very extreme examples.

Don't neglect the individual concept... but don't neglect the collective concept either. Particularly in a "Star Wars" setting.

As different as the Princess, the Farmboy and the Scoundrel are, collectively they are people looking for family (extended, figurative and literal) and are at their best when interconnected. Its telling that in the sequels, their tragic vulnerabilities seem the result of dealing with tragedy separately rather than as a group.

Well yes of course you must have consensus in your group so I agree. And it might be that the group decides they are more interested in the special character than they are in the arbitrary collection of builds from the rulebooks slapped together in a mechanical lego set. I would say that for the sake of this discussion I feel it isn't about who likes what playstyle cause we will get bogged there. I feel that the lego character builder is just as valid as the precious character concept style.

4 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

How do you know this? Cause Anakin? Why would all characters be bound by this?

Anakin, Ezra, the young padawans in Clone Wars. It is hard to think of a Protagonist youngster in Star Wars that isn’t as competent (or more) than the adults.

it is probably just the competent protagonist approach that movies have. Outside comedies, incompetent protagonists are rare.

3 minutes ago, Darzil said:

Anakin, Ezra, the young padawans in Clone Wars. It is hard to think of a Protagonist youngster in Star Wars that isn’t as competent (or more) than the adults.

it is probably just the competent protagonist approach that movies have. Outside comedies, incompetent protagonists are rare.

Ok I agree with you that this is the case in those shows, but why would that have to apply to the game? So for instance lets say you are running a game on an agricultural world and the players make character that are all young people who have similar training levels and are essentially neophytes, and that's the point of their concepts. One player wants to play a mentor type character and the other players are liking this idea and so the Mentor guy starts much higher than the kids. The mentor is very experienced and dangerous, and the kids aren't and the players want to play that out for a good portion of the campaign. A new player joins and wants to make a protocol droid that is even less effective than the kids, and that's the point of the concept.

Is this just something that you feel must not occur? Thanks for the great points by the way I had to think about your point a bit before conceding

I’m certainly not saying it can’t be done. Played an Ars Magica game with one Mage character, but it was set in Historical Europe, so the Mages massive power level was tempered by the danger of using it.

But is unusual, and in my view to work well needs restraint from the higher powered character (for some good reason) and a group of players who are keen on the dynamic.

(For any unfamiliar, the difference in power level between mages and the rest in Ars Magica is the difference between human and superhuman)

4 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Wait, how is that more like a movie? I don't see where you are demonstrating that that is the case. In the movie they may have very disparate skill levels and the script simply makes it all work out. Plus the game doesn't play like a movie when it spans months of play with progression occurring at a constant clip by RAW culture.

Also I didn't say it isn't realistic I don't think, as what I am talking about is letting the concept drive progression not some arbitrary scale set up by FFG and the interpretation of the standard culture.

Sorry, I don't think I'm interesting in arguing with you whether FFG's Star Wars game is meant to be a Star Wars simulator...

I guess if your players all want to start with different power levels, let 'em. If that one player wants to play a kid with 25 XP instead of the recommended 100 or so, fine. Let him. The system is robust enough to allow it, but he's probably going to be frustrated when he's inept at most everything he tries. But, hey, he simulated a real-life toddler, I guess?

Another thought is if you dislike the talent trees so much, ditch them. Adopt the Genesys rules. Make up your own scheme for how people gains skills and talents.

6 hours ago, Archlyte said:

What I am saying is not that there should be zero progression. I am saying that progression should be a matter of reinforcing he character concept, not the opposite: namely progression bulldozing the concept because We must progress for the sake of it.

Ah, apologies i didn't get that from your previous posts. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

To be honest, though, I think I still disagree with this. To my mind, it is not necessary for character progression to reinforce the original character concept.

To me, the concept is your starting point. At the beginning of the game this is who your character is. But that character will change and develop over the course of a dynamic story. Unlike a book or film, where the characters development is predetermined, it is the nature of the game to adapt. However, in both cases I'd consider it unusual to actively prevent character development (by which I mean narrative development - their personal growth).

It does occur to me that another thing you might mean is maybe you're not satisfied with the talent trees? I can see that in order to purchase some talents you must first purchase other talents that you might be less interested in. Again, I don't see that as an issue personally as I believe the trees do a good job of producing thematically consistent talents and would still expect a person to develop subsidiary skills without necessarily intending to. However, from a mechanical standpoint I could see that not necessarily suiting every player.

Of course, there is still no requirement to spend xp or to traverse the talent trees unless you want specific talents. In the end, I would consider the players responsibility to develop their character as they see fit. But I'd struggle to think of a concept that can't be catered to with the degree of latitude in character progression.

For someone wanting to make a "Grizzled War Veteran" I use the example of (appropriately enough) the old West End Games version of Star Wars. One of the character types was a "Failed Jedi". A character who was a Jedi in the past and may have had glory but since then has fallen on hard times and let his/her powers and abilities atrophy. (It's very similar to the example given by Aluminium Falcon.) You see this example all the time in real life; the former pro athlete who hasn't been in shape for a decade, the college professor who lost their position after being got caught in a scandal and has been working at a grocery store, the one-hit-wonder pop star everybody forgot. You have an extensive background but you don't have the skills and abilities to match because you peaked long ago. Becoming a PC means that the character is getting a chance at redemption and may try to recapture the success they once had. (That's a good character motivation too.)

Remember that "beginning character" doesn't mean "beginning person". All it means is that your stats and skills and talents aren't very powerful. It doesn't dictate why that is. Most of the time this is because the character is young and inexperienced, or has lived a mundane past and is just now being called to a bigger life of adventure (or both for Luke Skywalker). But it can just as easily mean that a person lost what they once had.

I strongly discourage the idea of having different power levels with the characters in your game. That doesn't work well at all. Let everyone be on even footing so that you don't have Jimmy the Jedi Master taking over every scene while his proteges hide behind a pile of crates. The example of having a mentor with lots of XP and some kids with far less and a droid with even less than the kids is a really bad idea and will make for some bad experiences at the table. You can easily have those kinds of character concepts without severely crippling (and inevitably frustrating) the players of those characters.

Also, as far as character concept goes (with the example of a socialite using the Explorer/Driver career), I used to say this a lot on this board back in the day but don't let career descriptions and specialization titles define your character. Those are only paths toward talents and skills and don't dictate who a person is. I wanted to play a character who used to be an Imperial agent, was kicked out due to politics, hit rock bottom and just began to get his life together. He was an assassin for Imperial Intelligence, so I went with Bounty Hunter and chose the Assassin tree. But my character never registered as a bounty hunter, has never been interested in pursuing a bounty, and actually considers bounty hunters to be the lowest scum in the galaxy (reinforced by all of the bounty hunters he has fought in the game). The only reason I have that career path is because it fit my concept. I didn't have to make my concept fit my career path.

7 hours ago, SavageBob said:

Sorry, I don't think I'm interesting in arguing with you whether FFG's Star Wars game is meant to be a Star Wars simulator...

I guess if your players all want to start with different power levels, let 'em. If that one player wants to play a kid with 25 XP instead of the recommended 100 or so, fine. Let him. The system is robust enough to allow it, but he's probably going to be frustrated when he's inept at most everything he tries. But, hey, he simulated a real-life toddler, I guess?

Another thought is if you dislike the talent trees so much, ditch them. Adopt the Genesys rules. Make up your own scheme for how people gains skills and talents.

I just hope they don't decide to make "Kid" a Universal Specialization. "You were always a precocious youth, but now you can spend XP to realize that!" I don't like the idea of UniSpecs for remembering things that you used to be, but we already have a few of them in DoR, so it's likely we might see more.

On ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 5:48 AM, SavageBob said:

Sorry, I don't think I'm interesting in arguing with you whether FFG's Star Wars game is meant to be a Star Wars simulator...

I guess if your players all want to start with different power levels, let 'em. If that one player wants to play a kid with 25 XP instead of the recommended 100 or so, fine. Let him. The system is robust enough to allow it, but he's probably going to be frustrated when he's inept at most everything he tries. But, hey, he simulated a real-life toddler, I guess?

Another thought is if you dislike the talent trees so much, ditch them. Adopt the Genesys rules. Make up your own scheme for how people gains skills and talents.

Thanks for the response Bob and I didn't want to argue that either so I agree. I also think your advice about the Genesys setup is a good one but maybe not for the same reason I was after, but still a good suggestion I think. After more thought I think what it comes down to is that I feel like the design is not to my liking in that they did not tie progression to the character concept or story and instead chose the very common design route of an arbitrary progression system that is independent of the story/concept.

In the OP I was saying that I seem to see this issue in this Star Wars game versus others, and what this system has is a lot of canned talents and powers that can have very significant narrative footprints, which is where I start to feel it begins trespassing heavily into character concept and story when it's not wanted.

I think I know what I want to do to handle progression in this game but it's radically different from RAW. It will solve my problem though and will tie all progression to Concept/Story.

I think another thing that is different about the way I run is that I don't balance encounters or tune them. Whatever they meet is what they meet, so it doesn't matter if there is a war veteran and a kid in the group at the same time because the Galaxy is a dangerous place and they aren't in a mobile bubble of enemies tuned to the PCs capabilities. But for a normal game where the enemies are tuned and all that I imagine the D&D formula (characters of same level of ability, fighting enemies who wont outright kill the PCs or be stomped by them with ease) works just fine.