I think there's a fundamental difference in how I see the role of an RPG. I come from years of playing board games and MMO's.

Combat is by far my favorite part of gameplay, and though all other aspects can be fun, I prefer everyone involved to have a true tactical role. Telling one player who focused on Presence to just be creative and come up with non-combat solutions to combat situations can be fun at first, but it's not in the spirit of the games I like to play.

Not everyone has to be great at combat, but I still feel like there should be at least one or two skill paths with direct combat application paired with each base stat. Right now, Brawn seems to be both combined as the tanking and close-range DPS stat, while Agility is the all-in-one ranged DPS stat. And Intellect is the go-to healing stat. That's only 3 out of 6.

I know my style of play isn't the only one in existence, but I'd like to see the tactical game contain interesting choices that are a bit more independent from the non-tactical game. Right now, it seems like you pick either a combatant or noncombatant (in terms of their potential).

Some people enjoy that style of play, and I don't want the game to become less fun for you. I just don't think we lose much by finding interesting combat roles for the other stats in addition to their non-combat applications.

I guess my thought was that if I planned on playing a combat character because I like combat (and I do) I have multiple options, but I also have multiple options I can rule out. I don't think it is a hinderance to have only a few attributes and skills that are obviously combat related. How I view it is that this system allows for a larger playset that isn't just combat. I would not pick a doctor as primary if I wanted to make combat a major facet of game play in our group.

"Telling one player who focused on Presence to just be creative and come up with non-combat solutions to combat situations can be fun at first, but it's not in the spirit of the games I like to play."

I don't think it is necessarily their need to be "creative" but to use the strengths they have. Conversely, if it is just one player and the "spirit" of the games that you like to play are different, this goes back to initial communication when starting off the campaign. Everyone should have an idea of what to expect. If there is one person at the table that plans on being different from everyone else, can that be worked in functionally to the game, or is that person just not going to enjoy? They may need to either fall in line for this campaign or they may want to sit one out.

The rules and system that is being outlined allow for entirely combat oriented games, and in those many of the attributes are just going to be less useful and I would expect your party to be created reflecting (and neglecting) those attributes and skills that don't contribute to the offensive play. There isn't anything wrong with that. I don't think that means there needs to be more offensive possibilities created for Presence, Intelligence, and Cunning, just that they won't play as big a role for some as they will for others. They are just there for others that wish to do things that aren't as combat oriented. I see it as an expanded system where Brawn and Agi are your main combat stats, and the others are necessary for a variety of other functions. Having a full group focused on only Brawn and Agility isn't bad, just a particular focus that can be well played as long as it is understood from the get-go by all involved.

Riot said:

See, I do see it as bad. D&D 4th edition, which has its flaws, was at least able to open potential combat niches for players that want to focus on one stat over another. Strength, Wisdom, Intellect, Charisma, etc. each had a potential role to play both in and out of combat. In its favor, I like the general flexibility that Edge is providing, and I like that Career is far more lenient a definition than Class.

But I'd just rather not lump all the combat skills into so few stats. Base stat expenditure is extremely limited and only happens once; it sets the tone for your character and is basically permanent. There are three stats that are nearly irrelevant, and it doesn't seem like a fair divide between the 6.

Presence, Cunning, and Willpower in particular could all use more combat-relevance. Likewise, Brawn could probably use a little more out-of-combat relevance.

The combat roles don't all have to be equal; they just need to be more tactically interesting.

Here's the thing. Nobody is going to start with a Brawn and Agility of less than two*, and it only takes 15 XP tops to get a rank of two in whichever combat skill you feel is appropriate for your character. Given the starting values, and the max starting skill value of 2, it's pretty apparent that 2x2 is a reasonably skilled (if not necessarily expert) individual. No, your Bothan isn't going to make as good of a brawler or melee combatant up front as a Wookie, but based on my reading of the odds, he's not going to be so out-classed that he's worthless either.

* Yes, a Droid character could start with a 1 in both Brawn and Agility, but it would be the player's explicit choice to do so.

Further, since I don't see an 'edit' option…

Examples:

A wookie character who puts everything he can into Brawl or Melee will spend 0-15 XP on the skill of choice, and 90 XP on his Brawn to get a grand total of 5 dice (2 Prof, 3 ability). He will have *no* other skills beyond the ones for his career and specialization. He'll be an absolute combat monster, but will pale in comparison everywhere else.

A bothan character who does the same will spend 0-15 XP on Brawl or melee and 90 XP on his Brawn of 4 to get a grand total of 4 dice (2 prof, 2 ability). He'll have 10 XP left over.

By this measure, there's comparatively little difference from an initial characteristic choice between the best and worst species option for a Melee or Brawl focused character. And it's certainly not completely unreasonable to expect that if someone wants to be basically capable in combat 2x2, they'll be able to do so without sacrificing everything else they want. (Since, even if their career and specialization doesn't give them *any* ranks in any combat skills, and they have a 1 in the matching characteristic, they'll only need to spend 35 XP to get there.)

I don't agree that we should be allowing substituted stats in combat. Here's why:

Characteristics are already a big deal in this game (maybe too much so) because they are the cheapest way of getting bonus and/or upgraded dice across multiple skills. I think it follows that your choice of which stats to develop should be a hard choice; allowing easily-purchased talents to mitigate this undermines that difficult choice. It also encourages munchkinism - for example, Intellect 5 skillmonkeys who can also fight exceptionally well because they took some "Clever Shot" talent.

Plus, it's not like Agility 2/Brawn 2 characters are that gimped in a fight - for a very modest outlay you can get the first rank of a relevant combat skill and get one of your ability die upgraded to a proficiency die. As long as you don't go for the really hard targets, there's a good chance that you are going to be able to succeed (so you hit somthing) or generate some advantage which you can pass on to your buddies - and they should be generating advantages and opportunities for you. If you can find a way of using one of your better non-combat skills in a fight, all the better - there's now a really good chance that you will be generating advantages which you can pass along to the guys who are fighting. Ducking behind cover while trying to talk the other side down, then passing your advantages on as boost dice for the team sniper? Go for it - besides, it's a staple "hostage negotiator" move trope. Allowing stat swaps instead of challenging the players to find tactical uses for the skills they have is less tactically interesting, IMO.

And if you find your Doctor or Politico is spending most of their time in stand-up fights with no opportunities for tactical use of your abilities - maybe that's a problem with the playstyle for the group not matching your expectations. If, as a GM, I knew that I was planning to lead my players into a lot of combat - I'd be warning them about this when they make their characters. If one of them still dumps all their combat options, screw them, they were warned (and more power to them for sticking to their metaphorical guns - or lack of them. I'll make it up to them by making sure they get other opportunities to shine.) If as a player I knew that I wanted to get into lots of fights - I'd tell the rest of the group about it and build accordingly.

I really think the main problem here (and maybe this has already been brought up, I'll freely admit to merely skimming most of this thread) is that people are delineating too much between "combat" encounters and "non-combat." Regardless of the situation the players find themselves in, it comes down to good encounter design and presentation by the GM. There's plenty of roles for any of the "non-combat" skills like Mechanics, Computers, or Knowledge skills in a pitched battle. Just as you can pull a blaster pistol and fire off a shot during a heated negotiation.

*shrug*

Cyril said:

Yes, that can happen. Remember, though, that the book even mentions that combat is one of those instances where results are less subjective. That's the sort of interaction I like to see during combat… something very boardgamelike, where the resolution of the player-NPC conflict is resolved through the tactics of the players and the behaviors of the NPC's. That's a part of the game I most looking forward to, and I'm always curious to see how well it turns out.

Though it's fun to think of alternate means of resolving combat, like using random environmental stuff to trigger some reaction, that just seems like cheating to me. And cheating can be fun too, but not always. It's like playing paper-rock-scissors with the kid who keeps throwing dynamite; it's funny once in a while, but it's just cliche eventually. But if looking for ways to resolve the fight without making combat rolls (or healing rolls, or relevant buff/debuff actions) is the most effective use of a PC's time, then they become the kid always trying to throw dynamite.

So that's why I distinguish between combat and non-combat skills. Combat skills follow a more rigorous set of rules when in use that allow for calculable tactics, and non-combat skills bypass those rules.

There need to be more combat skills, and I'm still of the opinion that combat skills in general should be better spread among the base stats.

cparadis said:

I have had this experience. Almost every player I've had at my table has spent XP at creation to increase Agility or Brawn, usually both. This has occurred regardless of class, role, etc.

Voice said:

Can we at least discuss this with the correct numbers? If a character is playing out of career prices for their combat skills, its going to cost them 25 XP for 2 ranks, not 15. Increasing one of the attributes to 2 may cost a player 20 XP. This is probably going to account for half of their starting xp.

GM Chris mentioned other systems where the players can petition to use any attribute for a roll, but require a degree of involved roleplaying. I think this sounds a bit extreme; I would think it should be up to the GM to decide the appropriate attribute and skill to use based on the character's proposed action, and there shouldn't be a carte blanche pairing system. Some limits are okay.

Also, I'm not sure how the idea of "stat substitution" entered the conversation, but I think we can agree that it does cause too much homogenization. Can we instead discuss other ways of broadening combat options, e.g. making Ranged(light) a cunning skill, at least under some conditions.

-WJL

LethalDose said:

See, the problem is, no matter how intelligent the person is, it is their motor control that determines if they can even make the shot. Cunning might help you formulate a plan, but Agility is needed to actually put it into motion.

Now, for other kinds of weapons, like indirect fire systems (mortars, rockets, etc…) I can see Cunning being used to aim those kinds of shots as these are less about motor control and more about planning.

Kallabecca said:

This touches on a preferred change to attribute definitions: I'd like to see Cunning incorporate more hand-eye coordination/dexterity ( typically more important in firing pistols), and limit Agility to more 'full-body' coordination ( typically more important in firing rifles). Regardless, It was intended to primarily as an example, instead of a primary talking point.

The REAL point is lets get back to looking at and generating new ideas that could allow a more inclusive combat experience for all characters, and stop the stagnant agreement that doesn't go anywhere. Thanks for working with me, Kal!

-WJL

just my 2 cents worth

Personally I would like to see space combat fleshed more out - with some more use of non-agi rolls either by way of having some pilot checks run off cunning or int … or by using computers etc more (this is already kinda done with the new actions) - Essentially I am a big fan of the idea of not hard-linking skills & stats. However, I am strongly against (I really dislike the D&D notion that any stat is as good for whatever as any other) the idea of allowing ranged shots using Int or Cunning - now I could accept formulating a good firezone-plan as part of an ambush using cunnning & ranged hvy giving boost dice to the actual combat checks …that would even be pretty cool…

Essentially I do pretty much like the system a is … and GMing (which Im not at the moment though) I would just wing any situations where an alternataive stat & skill combo check would make sense … in my book ALL the rules are simply suggestions to be modified at the GMs discretion …

ehm…

For one I don't see an issue with the combat system or the characteristics - this is not a boardgame or an mmo (its not intended to be either), its a roleplaying game brave enough to deviate from the established norm of Dnd 3ed screw-up of introducing and "demanding" the use squares and miniature: I like this turn of events, its taking us away from such silliness and crap. It demands something more than extravagant chesslike rules and skills on the player-side of things, it demands creativity and imagination - once the motto and catch-all phrase of good roleplaying games, but has since been relegated to the background for some reason, I guess due unimaginative players and GMs needing structures, rules and being told how-to and what-to, instead of doing, playing and creating.

When it comes to mixing and using characteristics for various types of skills, not currently tied to each other in the system, I'm all for that. Cunning and athletics could both work for stealth and coordination (which I think is already mentioned in the book)… cunning could also, I assume, be used as part of a sneak-attack with whatever weapon, but particularly up and close melee or smaller pistols, for the gun-fight I'd use agility, for the quick-draw - using cool as initative - I could also see cunning being used, but mostly I see it as an up close and personal sneak-attack type of characteristic. Willpower could also be used to certain physical task, particularly when wounded or the like, to use "pure will" to help someone, lift something - I can see it being used in conjunction with some Brawn skills - perhaps not brawl or melee, but hey who knows: what about like that final strike before going unconscious, that'd be willpower - activated when hit, damaged beyond wound/strain threshold, but opponent also rolled X amount of threats or a despair? It's house-rule material at least.

Further, cunning or intellect could be used in conjunction with at least large ship gunnery action, perhaps intellect on capital ships, cunning in transports and agility in fighters. It makes sense to me at least. This could also include the pilot skill, makes more sense to use agility in an airspeeder or starfighter than an ISD - even a YT could use some other characteristic, particularly in space - atmo flight should perhaps stay with agility?

So some more guidelines on this, perhaps some more talents that allows certain characteristics to boost or add to skills, or replace other characteristics might not be a bad idea. Although making all characteristics and careers/specs combat-oriented/effective? By that I understand good at shooting, hitting, kicking, killing more efficiently - nah, that could easily turn the game into a boring and one-dimensional experience of shooting ones way through every encounter, through every challenge, I mean why try to roleplay when I can just shoot and skip the roleplaying part and jump straight to the boardgame part… which isn't in this game even, they dropped the boardgame part, because they wanted to do something new (old), reinvigorate the imagination and creative potential in gamers, rather than the pure tactical and calculating part.

[digression]I remember when I was first met with alternate ways of understanding the term roleplaying, like the UNA roleplaying events, political simulation, hostage simulations/roleplays - these demands that people get into character, much like the old school roleplaying games… I reacted adversely to being associated with that sort of "thing", I mean, I was avoiding (and sometime skilling yes) stormtroopers, negotiating surrenders, finding old ruins and treasures on forgotten planets, convincing planets to join the rebellion and the like, it was not the same as what these other silly people did. After computer games started using the term (and I love some of those games) roleplaying games have become more or less synonymous with mmo-jargon, terms like "tank", "dps" are suddenly imperative for a good gaming experience, because the gaming experience is centered on the combat situation. Now I realise that the other definition and usage of the term, related to UNA political roleplay and the like, is a lot closer to what roleplaying means - playing a role, improvised theatre if you will, within a set of rules, guidelines and framing principles that constitute the shared imaginary space in which the game happens - than the more and more common understanding which has to do with stats, talents, skill and numbers; ie many aspects but basically one dimension: combat. And combat is great, few games and sessions are without this in my experience, but I applaud the players that try to find alternate solutions - violence and murder/killing is not a good thing if sometimes necessary in self-defence - I reward them with more credits, more xp for finding clever and smart solutions, its an incentive for role playing, it means that the players invest more in their characters emotionally and the overall experience becomes better for everybody involved (more or less). Disclaimer: this is only my experience gaming across various countries and with various people from all strata of society. [/digression]

LethalDose said:

Stat substitution came from the original post which said "Or maybe something like a low-level talent that allows you to replace one score with another"

So that's where it is coming from. I agree with you though that the majority of posters seem to agree that this is not a good idea. The best thing now would be, as you said, to discuss other ways - other than stat substitution - to increase combat inclusion.

Personally, I'd like to see more discussion of how to use non-combat skills in combat. Not that every skill will be useful in every combat situation (astrogation unlikely to come up all the time) but ways in which a character can use their social skills to either grant boost die to their allies or setback die to the enemies. The narrative dice mechanic is robust once players are used to it, but some more examples of how to use non-combat skills in combat scenarios would help.

Also, I'd like a rule describing how to add boost die where the character has a complimentary characteristic. Maybe half of the secondary characteristic rounded down? This might be a little too strong and maybe just adding one boost die if the character has a characteristic of 3 or higher would be more appropriate.

cparadis said:

My initial thought is that I like this…then I remember back to GURPS and AD&D 3rd and how when trying to utilize skills that got a boost if you had another, it always seemed that people forgot about linked skills, or trying to figure them out just became a pain . I like the idea of the mechanic, but in practice it always fell short for my groups. Constantly we would end up with situations where someone said, "Oh I should have had 1 more point on that roll because I had this linked skill…do I make it now?"

I see it being something that might be useful to word as a GM roleplaying feature. If the player brings up a secondary skill they feel is relevant and can describe why, the GM can give an extra die, or less powerfully, upgrade an existing die. Actually that would be my preference…if there is a related skill upgrade a skill die if available. Basically demonstrating how the related skill can assist in the action. If all existing die are already upgraded, then the secondary skill isn't necessary or can't help any further.

To Diplomacy - I understand what you are saying and don't see any flaw in it. Your preference is just different from mine and I just disagree based on preference alone, not anything mechanical in nature.

Even if the skills were to be unlinked to attribute (Which, IMO, would be excellent), Stats are of necessity going to dominate in starting characters simply because you can't raise them in play without alteration of the character's role/concept (by taking on additional specializations).

Plus, in 30+ years of GMing, I've run a lot of systems with unlinked atts. Most of the time, Agility or its equivalent dominates the desired stats for combat oriented play. The few I can think of where it doesn't have divorced attributes from skills (FUDGE) or lack attributes (FATE), or use skill-based attributes (HotB, B&H, WFRP1).

I'd much rather see stats "unlinked" and tasks specify stat and skill so that recognizing a particular pistol is "Intellect & Ranged (Light)", shooting it is "Agility & Ranged (Light)," etc. But combat tasks involving Ranged (Light) should be agility… unless you're doing something spectacularly stupid.