Edge of the Empire Beta Update: Week 7

By FFG_Sam Stewart, in Star Wars: Edge of the Empire Beta

Posted at

Actually, I found with a little playtesting the same cost for all skills works great! Can't leave it at current (too cheap), But 5 x Rating for each point in a skill (5 for 1 rank, 10 for two ranks [total 15] 15 for 3 ranks [total 30 points] etc.) for skills seems to balance out well enough. Since skill distribution is rather poorly done in some places (explained earlier) it solves the problem without alot of work on my part. Characters even stopped trying to pick up several Specialization due to the fact that trying to solve the Skill ccost 'problem' was no longer necessary. I even got some better storylines for background for those trying to explain skills that wouldn't be considered "normal" for their chosen specialization.

On the negative side the costs did end up a little too cheap for the In-Career specializations, but that happened alot less often, and since only TWO of the specializations for class applied when it came to the discount, it didn't make much overall impact, even less so since skills were not an issue anymore. Since there is no true limit to the ranks of most talents save how many times it showed up on the tree, it left room for some abuse for those who grabbed several Specialization trees for the same talent, but that seems to be an issue so far no matter which way the skills go. XP was worth a little more because the OOC issue wasn't there, but that also meant that giving a little less base xp allowed me to reward better roleplaying without unbalancing the group overmuch.

Best part was that the creation was easier to explain, less cumbersome and ZERO difficulties about how a character could build what they wanted without taking an unnecessary number of Specializations to get some skills cheaper.

Just preliminary results, mind you, but I'm seeing NO reason to use what's there so far. It's convoluted, difficult to explain and even less appealing to try to help character get what they want without breaking a broken system. The dice are mind-bending enough as is. The math has already proven NOT too add up, but the idea was to keep less dice on the table to roll. I now must add Difficulty Dice, Setback Dice, Challenge Dice AND/or advantage dice to skill dice and ability dice, The number of dice on the table end up about the same as half the other games I play that DON'T work on this dynamic.

Try it for a while. I'd like to see some other's use results on this one. Mine have been pretty good, but I can always use more input. Besides, this is Beta TESTING. Aren't we supposed to be trying new angles?

Posted at

Doc, the Weasel said:

I don't think having a significantly different cost for character creation is a good thing. It encourages certain build strategies over others to get the same character. This has the opposite effect on RP-based choices than what you are suggesting: players are encouraged not to buy what makes for the character, but instead delay those purchases until play. At that stage, players aren't making choices based on RP.

It also has the secondary problem of not being able to tell how many XP a character is built with without knowing how points were spent at chargen.

Delay purchases until play…aren't those Roleplay-based choices since they are done while roleplaying ? Besides, if saving xp until RP is an option for PCs, those who would exploit this will do so regardless of cost. Not seeing you point, here.

Posted at

Rikoshi said:

eldath said:

(To think of it another way, if this were D&D, and you had a party of characters at Level 6, you're probably better off with a build like Fighter 4/Rogue 2 as opposed to Fighter 1/Wizard 1/Cleric 1/Druid 1/Bard 1/Rogue 1. And that may sound like a silly example, but I think it's also a little silly to say that your character concept needs four or five specializations early on in order to reflect what he or she is good at.)

This.

Rikoshi said:

eldath said:

The other thing I keep hearing is that people seem to be in agreement that adding specializations should represent a major change in a character, but someone needing to bank XP for something like three sessions to add on that third or fourth seems like too long to folks. I'm honestly curious: compared to leveling in other systems, does this seem too long to people? In my experience, this is on the short to moderate end for advanced character growth, but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts.

I haven't found the XP-gaining to be too slow at all in my games. However, if you find it too slow-paced, you might do what you can as a GM to let characters buy down their Obligation so that they can take more for more XP. Or be generous with the +5 per session for good roleplaying :)

Posted at

awayputurwpn said:

Rikoshi said:

eldath said:

(To think of it another way, if this were D&D, and you had a party of characters at Level 6, you're probably better off with a build like Fighter 4/Rogue 2 as opposed to Fighter 1/Wizard 1/Cleric 1/Druid 1/Bard 1/Rogue 1. And that may sound like a silly example, but I think it's also a little silly to say that your character concept needs four or five specializations early on in order to reflect what he or she is good at.)

This.

Rikoshi said:

eldath said:

The other thing I keep hearing is that people seem to be in agreement that adding specializations should represent a major change in a character, but someone needing to bank XP for something like three sessions to add on that third or fourth seems like too long to folks. I'm honestly curious: compared to leveling in other systems, does this seem too long to people? In my experience, this is on the short to moderate end for advanced character growth, but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts.

I haven't found the XP-gaining to be too slow at all in my games. However, if you find it too slow-paced, you might do what you can as a GM to let characters buy down their Obligation so that they can take more for more XP. Or be generous with the +5 per session for good roleplaying :)

The whole thing depends on your group, how often you get together and how LONG you plan to stretch your campaign. If your group plays twice a week or longer sessions once a week (basically more playtime with shorter pauses between sessions) you can afford to be more economical with your XP per session. If you have less time, get together less often, or have a limited time for the total campaign economical xp dispersal may be discouraging to players who may see little progress for alot of work. I do alot of traveling as part of my career, so overly long campaigns as a GM or player means I simply won't see a finish, if indeed I see any REAL progress by the time it's done. Since I spend alot of time with building (player background or setting 'set-up') in either case I find it seriously dissappointing to end a game before seeing some progress. Kind of wastes the time I put into it. Just check with your people to see what THEY expect, and why.

Posted at

dreddwulf1 said:

Doc, the Weasel said:

I don't think having a significantly different cost for character creation is a good thing. It encourages certain build strategies over others to get the same character. This has the opposite effect on RP-based choices than what you are suggesting: players are encouraged not to buy what makes for the character, but instead delay those purchases until play. At that stage, players aren't making choices based on RP.

It also has the secondary problem of not being able to tell how many XP a character is built with without knowing how points were spent at chargen.

Delay purchases until play…aren't those Roleplay-based choices since they are done while roleplaying ? Besides, if saving xp until RP is an option for PCs, those who would exploit this will do so regardless of cost. Not seeing you point, here.

I think you and I may have a different view of what "roleplaying-based choices" are. What I'm talking about are choices made based on what is appropriate for the character (their concept, their personality, the story, etc.). What I'm getting from you is that RP-based choices are any choices made during gameplay.

Posted at

What you are referring to is BACKGROUND choices. In-game options and training are ROLEPLAYING choices in real time. In an involved and alive RP setting, Concept can change over time, as can the character's ideals…Just like real people. These aren't immediate changes, but changes based on situation and experience over a period of time.

In any setting there are times when a character learns a few things not normally within their character's purview depending upon the situations in which they are placed. A Career fencer may pick up some piloting or blaster skill based on the fact that it was useful and saved their lives at certain times. These are natural things people do over time. Only the most one-dimesional individuals keep to a given model to the exclusion of all else, such an idea is unrealistic, simple and BORING. Even movie heroes change and grow in more than one direction (if it's a good movie).

Doesn't mean that there is no consistency within this change, but the changes do occur. Some people change professions, finding a different job more to their liking. Player Characters are no different (if their are actually being roleplayed and not roll-played).

As for telling about how much XP a PC used, ask them to keep a running tally. I always do when I play a character, so that there is no question as to what I'm doing and why. As a GM, I also must keep tally of NPC XP as well as PC XP. The people around the players are learning, too. Especially the enemy. Keep the bad guys out of Cardboard cut-out land.

Got a little carried away with explanation, but it's a subject I enjoy discussing. Thank you for your comments. happy.gif