7 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

I wouldn't be happy with just an expansion for the current game (I know, everyone is surprised) because I think many of the fundamentals of the FFG line are terrible.

Examples:

• Specialization Talent Trees that guide/force development according to an archetype. Some people like class-based games, some don't. For SW, I don't.
• Talents...too many talents on high XP characters. I'd rather PCs have fewer but more powerful talents. I don't even mind talents that rank up (Point Blank 4 isn't any harder to remember to fully use as Point Blank 1), I just don't want characters with 20+ distinct talents.
• Hit Point/Wound Attrition Battles Starring Soak where it's so easy to hit, but so unlikely that a single hit from a military blaster rifle will be meaningful. I'd much rather the game focus on avoiding being hit but any/every hit being more meaningful.
• Critically Lame Critical Hits that just bore the crap out of me. The critical hits need to be made more nasty yet happen more rarely.
• Healing Potions/Stimpacks that can instantly cure the Wounds of blasterfire in seconds. Yuck.

Seems more like you are reading stuff into the rules that are not there. And expect the game to be more brutal than the source material.

3 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Seems more like you are reading stuff into the rules that are not there. And expect the game to be more brutal than the source material.

I know the rules better than most. If you want to attack my points, do so, but even my critics here will attest I know my rules.

That doesn’t mean you know them “better than most”.
Also, knowing them and using them appropriately are two very different things.

9 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

I think many of the fundamentals of the FFG line are terrible.

I think most people here disagree with that. I think the majority are because of how much we love the game.

Is it perfect? No.

Is it still my favourite RPG? Absolutely.

Really all ot needs an Advance Players guide/version 1.5, to freshen things up a little, and if that can include enough core rules to be a jumping off point for new players, then great.

3 hours ago, DanteRotterdam said:

That doesn’t mean you know them “better than most”.
Also, knowing them and using them appropriately are two very different things.

Can you explain your objections to how he is implementing the rules, or why he is wrong about disliking the rules? I imagine he probably does understand the rules better than most given the fact that he playtested it and that he's been around for so long, even if he dislikes them.

I see no errors with any of his objections, he simply disagrees with me about them.

With one sort-of exception, I disagree with each of his objections, but find them perfectly reasonable and to be simply a matter of different tastes. The exception being Talents, he has a point there. I don't really mind, but you do get a bunch of talents when you get to really high XP and it can bog down the game a bit or just get forgotten.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Can you explain your objections to how he is implementing the rules, or why he is wrong about disliking the rules?

I could if I had said as much. I didn’t.
All I said that knowledge doesn’t equal mastery nor skill. I have no idea whether he uses the rules as they were intended, I also have no idea if he doesn’t.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I imagine he probably does understand the rules better than most given the fact that he playtested it and that he's been around for so long, even if he dislikes them.

Neither means he understands them. He might, he might not. I am not at his table.
Also having playtested parts of the game doesn’t mean you know the rules any better than someone who didn’t per definition. I am pretty sure that anyone on this page knows quite a bit about this system.

I think calling Bad Motivator a bad akill because it is a player skill instead of a character skill shows, in my opinion, a complete misunderstanding of what the narrative system intends to do. It is a player skill and is intended to be. It (and many skills like it) are designed to have players add to the narrative of a session. In my opinion if you object to such a fundamental rule then you do not really understand the system all that well. Of course I don’t object to him disliking it but the wording of his objections make me question his knowledge/understanding of the system. Or disliking it for what it specifally sets out to do.

If Bad Motivator is supposed to be a player skill, then why link it to the character's Intellect/Mechanics? And then consider why it is linked to that when the character doesn't actually do anything at all to make the effect happen. Beyond that, the guidelines are crap, so you can do things like having an Inqisitor's lightsaber fail, or even the life support on Vader"s armor just die...because you "did nothing but spend an Action imagining how it could fail."

1 hour ago, DanteRotterdam said:

I could if I had said as much. I didn’t.
All I said that knowledge doesn’t equal mastery nor skill. I have no idea whether he uses the rules as they were intended, I also have no idea if he doesn’t.

I phrased that poorly. What I meant was, "Based on his comments, what issues do you see with his understanding of the rules or how they are implemented? What about the wording of his objections makes you question the knowledge and understanding?"
Everything he said is, I believe, mechanically correct. I disagree with his conclusions.

1 hour ago, DanteRotterdam said:

I think calling Bad Motivator a bad akill because it is a player skill instead of a character skill shows, in my opinion, a complete misunderstanding of what the narrative system intends to do. It is a player skill and is intended to be. It (and many skills like it) are designed to have players add to the narrative of a session. In my opinion if you object to such a fundamental rule then you do not really understand the system all that well. Of course I don’t object to him disliking it but the wording of his objections make me question his knowledge/understanding of the system. Or disliking it for what it specifally sets out to do.

48 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

If Bad Motivator is supposed to be a player skill, then why link it to the character's Intellect/Mechanics? And then consider why it is linked to that when the character doesn't actually do anything at all to make the effect happen. Beyond that, the guidelines are crap, so you can do things like having an Inqisitor's lightsaber fail, or even the life support on Vader"s armor just die...because you "did nothing but spend an Action imagining how it could fail."

Here's where there is, I think, either a lack of understanding or another fairly fundamental disagreement with the system. The "guidelines" are where it says "subject to GM approval." Given the nature of this talent as a narrative ploy, I commend the writers for not giving strict guidelines, as the exact same thing in different circumstances could have entirely different effects on an ongoing story, so giving a GM the right to veto its use in order to give the players a better story is, in my opinion, wise.*

Further, it is both a player talent and a character talent. It offers two different interpretations and leaves it up to the player: 1. The character actually does something to cause the item to fail, or 2. The item was about to fail anyway, and the player just noticed it. I think this talent has a very Star Wars-y feel to it, and does a great job replicating the demise of R5-D4 (at the hands of R2-D2?) in A New Hope.

As for objecting to a fundamental rule demonstrating a "lack of understanding," it does not. There may be a lack of understanding, but it is possible to object to something you understand perfectly. In fact, objection can often stem from understanding.

Disliking it for something it specifically sets out to do is also reasonable. I still disagree, but I can see where he's coming from.

*Take, for example, a speeder bike race (keeping in mind that some may interpret the phrase "device" to restrict vehicles. Still others might argue that you can cause a specific part of the vehicle to fail and render the target as a whole inoperable, and I would argue that it is all fair game as long as the GM finds it reasonable [but tending to narrate it as a single component failing, rendering the target inoperable]). The mechanic says "I want that bike to stop working, so can I make a Bad Motivator check?" The GM says yes. In another session, during another speeder bike race, the mechanic says "I want that bike to stop working, so can I make a Bad Motivator check?" This time, the GM says no.

Is this inconsistency? Not exactly. You see, in the first scenario, it was a race with several unimportant racers and the single protagonist. Whereas in the second, it was a 1v1 between a single protagonist and a major antagonist. The first doesn't cause any real problems and makes the mechanic feel useful, the second could completely derail the campaign.

25 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Is this inconsistency? Not exactly. You see, in the first scenario, it was a race with several unimportant racers and the single protagonist. Whereas in the second, it was a 1v1 between a single protagonist and a major antagonist. The first doesn't cause any real problems and makes the mechanic feel useful, the second could completely derail the campaign.

This makes it a "Mother May I?" talent that is unpredictable (beyond the chance imposed by the dice), and that is something I do not like, especially the fact that, as you set it up, the talent is only likely to work when it matters the least. IOW, it becomes a 'ribbon' effect that gets piled in with a heap of other unreliable/unimpressive talents. Considering that I prefer fewer but more useful/meaningful talents, you can probably see why I don't like Bad Motivator.

23 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

especially the fact that, as you set it up, the talent is only likely to work when it matters the least.

I disagree, and that was only one example. An example that was, intentionally, far on both ends of the spectrum. There are plenty of circumstances where it would be crucial without gamebreaking, or simply add something unique or interesting to the situation.

As for the rest of your objections, fair enough. I disagree, but I can see where you're coming from.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

This makes it a "Mother May I?" talent that is unpredictable (beyond the chance imposed by the dice), and that is something I do not like, especially the fact that, as you set it up, the talent is only likely to work when it matters the least. IOW, it becomes a 'ribbon' effect that gets piled in with a heap of other unreliable/unimpressive talents. Considering that I prefer fewer but more useful/meaningful talents, you can probably see why I don't like Bad Motivator.

A gm better have a real good reason to deny a player bad motivators use. Other wise they are beimg a jerk. A GM should remember it is not just the GMs story.

35 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

A gm better have a real good reson to deny a player bad motivators use. Other wise they are beimg a jerk. A GM should remember it is not just the GMs story.

That's my point; when I say that I don't like "mother May I?" talents, it's because what constitutes "a real good reason" is so very, very subjective (pretty much like "what constitutes a good Star Wars movie" is very, very subjective). I prefer mechanics to be as objective as possible, which is why I favor rolling back from such overtly "narrative" talents (and similar signature abilities).

14 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

That's my point; when I say that I don't like "mother May I?" talents, it's because what constitutes "a real good reason" is so very, very subjective (pretty much like "what constitutes a good Star Wars movie" is very, very subjective). I prefer mechanics to be as objective as possible, which is why I favor rolling back from such overtly "narrative" talents (and similar signature abilities).

The problem with objective rules is you end up with a 700 page book that still doesnt cover everything and create weird rules interactions that can be abused. Where as subjective rules give you guidence that you can apply to a wide range of situations.

47 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

That's my point; when I say that I don't like "mother May I?" talents, it's because what constitutes "a real good reason" is so very, very subjective (pretty much like "what constitutes a good Star Wars movie" is very, very subjective). I prefer mechanics to be as objective as possible, which is why I favor rolling back from such overtly "narrative" talents (and similar signature abilities).

Which is very incompatible with the “yes, and...” way in which this game was designed to function. I understand that this might not be for you, of course.

2 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I phrased that poorly. What I meant was, "Based on his comments, what issues do you see with his understanding of the rules or how they are implemented? What about the wording of his objections makes you question the knowledge and understanding?"
Everything he said is, I believe, mechanically correct. I disagree with his conclusions.

I don’t. I made a general statement concerning both self aggrandizing and overestimation of what it means to be a playtester.

11 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

I don’t. I made a general statement concerning both self aggrandizing and overestimation of what it means to be a playtester.

I never claimed that being a playtester gave me rules mastery. It's the other way around actually. I was selected to be a playtester because of my experience and contributions on these forums, IOW, my rule mastery (including the ability to use the subjective side of the game while also pushing for solid objective standards).

Just because I don't like the rules doesn't mean I don't understand them. In a similar way, some here will understand my arguments even if they don't agree with them. OTOH, there are some that will just lap up all the narrative milk and love doing it without realizing when the milk is spoiled.

18 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Seems more like you are reading stuff into the rules that are not there. And expect the game to be more brutal than the source material.

Which part of the source material shows a typical character taking five hits from a blaster without even slowing down, then getting knocked down by the sixth (with some pathetically unimportant critical hit) only to have a buddy pump him full of stimpacks until he's 100% fine only moments later?

21 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Which part of the source material shows a typical character taking five hits from a blaster without even slowing down, then getting knocked down by the sixth (with some pathetically unimportant critical hit) only to have a buddy pump him full of stimpacks until he's 100% fine only moments later?

I don't think an action/adventure RPG where one or two hits by a mook puts your badass warrior character out of the fight is going to be very fun.

And if it's not a crit, it's not a real injury.

Also, in the source material we generally don't see many protagonists with 'armour' better than soak 1 heavy clothing, often worse. Those that do go in for PC-style min-maxing of gear, like the Mandalorian, waltz through blasterfire like it isn't even there.

30 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

I never claimed that being a playtester gave me rules mastery.

I know you didn’t. Someone else did.

31 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

OTOH, there are some that will just lap up all the narrative milk and love doing it without realizing when the milk is spoiled.

Well if they are having awesome games and are having fun why shouldn’t they?

8 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

I don't think an action/adventure RPG where one or two hits by a mook puts your badass warrior character out of the fight is going to be very fun.

And if it's not a crit, it's not a real injury.

Also, in the source material we generally don't see many protagonists with 'armour' better than soak 1 heavy clothing, often worse. Those that do go in for PC-style min-maxing of gear, like the Mandalorian, waltz through blasterfire like it isn't even there.

The trick is to allow the badass warrior to better avoid being hit. However, FFG decided to go with a hit point system where characters get slowly worn down.

2 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Well if they are having awesome games and are having fun why shouldn’t they?

Fine for them, but when these Newcomers chug the chunky spoiled milk, they have to realize it might cause some revulsion in more traditional gamers.

That's a pop culture reference for those that missed it.

35 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Which part of the source material shows a typical character taking five hits from a blaster without even slowing down, then getting knocked down by the sixth (with some pathetically unimportant critical hit) only to have a buddy pump him full of stimpacks until he's 100% fine only moments later?

And this is where you assume wound damage is anything more than a graze. Clearly it is not. And every game uses a hit point mechanic. The numbers are different but they all do it.

12 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Fine for them, but when these Newcomers chug the chunky spoiled milk, they have to realize it might cause some revulsion in more traditional gamers.

That's a pop culture reference for those that missed it.

Spoiled milk...i dont know. Every objective game i have ever played ended up being an endless slog through overly complicated rules with tons of rules interactions that were a mess. Sooo yeah narrative is cleaner. I would say objective rules are more spoiled milk than narrative. If you have trouble maybe you need a better gm...

14 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Fine for them, but when these Newcomers chug the chunky spoiled milk, they have to realize it might cause some revulsion in more traditional gamers.

That's a pop culture reference for those that missed it.

You seem to miss that your opinion is a complete outlier and that just about everyone who tries to game likes it. A lot. Including a lot of “more traditional gamers”.

11 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And this is where you assume wound damage is anything more than a graze. Clearly it is not. And every game uses a hit point mechanic. The numbers are different but they all do it.

Yep, this was a particularly weird complaint especially seeing how this, in fact, is the most traditional part of this game...