aramis said:

Seconded. An all-black version of this would be great.

doctorbadwolf said:

A lot of things about this game seem/are fun*, but my fears have been realized, and there just isn't any point in my group buying this game.

Man, I remember when it was pretty much understood that every RPG needed some houseruling to fit a group's tastes.

Now I guess having to make a simple change in XP cost disqualifies an entire line from even reaching the table. Rough times here.

It's a pretty important part of the system. I'm not going to rework the basic character advancement math just to make the game playable. the rest of the system is fairly cool, but not cool enough for that.

Kallabecca said:

Since I'm capable of reading, I'm quite aware of the reasoning for the idiotic progressive cost for new specs. I'm also quite aware of the lame excuses for keeping the entirely absurd higher cost for non career skills.

See, you don't have to play the updates in order to read them .

Jegergryte said:

A new specialty should always have the same cost. Progressive cost is a complication with no benefit. This game just isn't well made. There's certainly nothing intuitive about it costing more to go from gadgeteer to outlaw tech than it does to go from gadgeteer to assassin.

Donovan Morningfire said:

OK, I'm really not sure why people seem to think I haven't read the updates. I very, very clearly have.

Anyway, why would I play a game that I have to signifigently houserule just for it to be playable? That would be a waste of time.

For the record, I wasn't thrilled with the original cost setup, either. As I've said before, it's always seemed like a system that would most efficiently accomplish it's own goals by not having the carreers, career skills, or different costs for different specs/skills in any way.

The only way this system makes sense is if you gut out careers, make all skills available at the same price, keep the free trainings from specs, and make the other free trainings available from the entire list of skills. Otherwise, it's just…poorly thought out. Or, make career mean something other than a limiting factor, like having career talents that work outside specs, or something.

I don't see a progressive cost as a "complication" - you might, but I find that position to be odd and one that complicates simple things. The benefits are obvious: access to new talents and new careers skills. If that isn't a benefit I don't know what in your mind would count as a "benefit". When it comes to the price difference and progression between specialisations one can argue pretty well for both positions. I guess it comes down to how big a role and how important it is for all the players to get access to whatever they want with (close to) no cost and investment at all. For me it is intuitive that learning more and new things becomes more difficulty and requires more investment over time. If specialisations cost the same across the board, the prices should at least be increased a lot - and the benefits of which you speak should also be improved upon. Within its current version it works well, even if its got some sub-optimal solutions.

When it comes to skills and careers generally I do somewhat agree, but I've noticed through game play that it works well, it balances out and the players enjoy it. A career-less version would be nice sure, but surely having careers doesn't ruin the game. Having career skills and non-career skills makes sense to me, even in a career-less system I would have preferred to have that present - favoured and non-favoured skills if you will. It shows the focus of the character, what the character has been spent its time doing, learning and focusing on. Everyone can do everything sure (more or less), but some people require a lot more training, time and investment in learning certain skills than others. Having this tied to careers makes sense, when having a career-system, in a career-less system this should be picked in a different way. But such a limitation makes sense, is intuitive and creates a good frame and balancing point for the game and system.

As for house-ruling a game, I guess its down to each his own about that. I've never encountered a game that didn't need house ruling, perhaps 7th Sea didn't so much … but this game is very playable in its current form, I've only made one adjustment - the number of successes a triumph comes with. Which is the dice mechanic, not what you seem to be all flustered about.

Jegergryte said:

First, skills: Favoured skills are fine. We have that with the list of skills in which you get an automatic rank from your spec. I'd even be fine if career existed, but only as a way to determine your other auto ranked skills at chargen, and non-mechanically organize talents. Skill list restrictions are, however, not something I'm cool with.

The progressive cost is a complication. That is fact. You may consider it a minor one, and mathematically you'd be right, but it makes the system less simple, compared to each spec costing the same amount. I could possibly accept the progressive cost if the system had no concept of career vs non career for specs, and thus any spec cost the same, depending on how many specs you had. I still wouldn't be thrilled about it, nor would anyone else in my gaming group, but if skills also lost the career restrictions and thus extra cost, we might actually be willing to play this game.

Tthe "multiclassing tax" only makes sense if diversity unbalances the game. In this system, it does not. Therefor, there is no benefit. When I say benefit, here and in the text you quoted, I refer to the system, not a given character. Building the system in this way does not benefit the game.

doctorbadwolf said:

I don't understand this ridiculously overdramatic complaining about all this. If this is so gamebreaking for you, then get rid of it and play the game. Won't tolerate these "restrictions" you can't stop going on about? Then don't have them! It's not like you have to rewrite the rules and change a bunch of things…just don't have them. Allow anyone to get whatever skills they want at the normal cost. Problem solved. I don't understand why this is made out to be so complicated and appalling. You don't like careers? Throw em out and let people pick things buffet style if you choose. It's not that difficult.

Just seems to me you don't want to like or play this game no matter what since it doesn't do what you think it should do or be. That's cool, not everything is for everyone. It's a new system and I'm sure everyone will pick some things out or change some things up when they run it. That's what RPGs have always been about.

doctorbadwolf said:

About skills: I wonder what you mean if favoured skills are ok - would this only dictate the freebies? or differing skill prices? For me it entails varying cost. This is the only skill "restriction" - and its not really a restriction as such, you can always use a skill, there is no "trained" requirement. In the big scheme of things, varying skill costs are certainly not really needed, unless gaining a rank had some mechanical benefit beyond rolling proficiency dice. I've been toying with the idea for certain knowledge skills - and new skills I've been thinking about adding. Hand-waiving the varying skill cost isn't big systems surgery though.

I don't see progressive cost as a complication, nor that this is a "fact". It's an opinion, and its fine. Hand-waiving this away isn't a big problem though is it? Does it ruin the game that it contains rules that you don't need? Changing this for your group doesn't cost you anything but a thought. I think the limitation is a good thing, it can be seen as shoehorning - some players need that, but if you don't like it remove it. Requires little thought and work.

About the benefit thing. It seems unclear still, because the benefit you speak of apparently needs to unbalance the game - which would be a character trait and power increase, of any given character. So if progressive cost for "multiclassing" requires a system which will become unbalanced by such a move, then I think in this system its a benefit that it doesn't, even if its not unbalanced. It seems that you dislike it because they have managed to create a more balanced system, which still allows multi-classing, but doing so does not unbalance it - which is a bad thing? In some ways it does benefit, the character receives other abilities it should not have normally access to. Mechanically speaking this means that for instance a Bounty Hunter gains access to talents and abilities outside the archetype, which means that the BH will be superior in some ways to other BHs - this is a benefit, systemically and for the character. These two things - in my opinion - does not really exist isolated from each other, they are in fact tied together very closely.

Regarding Progressive spec costs: I feel like there should be a cap, say for instance that specs past your third, career, non-career, or universal, cost 50 xp. That's just a number, but I feel like using a static number is more…predictable interms of character development and cost, both froma designer standpoint and a player stand point. It feels less like a ceiling and more like a cost, and is a high cost without being so high as to cripple truly powerful characters.

However, seeing as a full tree is worth 300xp, and fully developing even 3 specializations would be approx 1000xp (not counting skill increases) I don't think it's soemthing that needs to be addressed. If any characters in the course of normal play reach 1000 xp before the next book (and next opportunity to address the mechanic in print) it's only 40-50 xp to get that 4th spec, and another 300 xp to fully develop that tree.

Long story short, While I think there should be a cap of a fixed cost, in the end the practical effect is minimal, since it's unlikely players would even hit my suggested cap over the course of play. YMMV of course.

djext1 said:

Oh please. This isn't about what I can allow or disallow. This is about the game being well made enough that I don't have to houserule fundemental aspects of the game in order to play it.

It's about the set up right now being crappy for no reason.

And there's nothing dramatic about my dissatisfaction with these features, nor with voicing that dissatisfaction.

Jegergryte said:

Favoured skills should only be those skills in which you gain free training. Skills should be otherwise decoupled from careers.

And progressive cost factually complicates the game. The only thing that can be in question is to what degree, and whether or not that's ok.

And getting rid of progressive cost and different cost for different skills does not unbalance the game. At all. The game, right now, rewards specialization above generalization, and it doesn't need to. The game is balanced without those features.

The prog. cost is bad for the same reason that the 3e DnD skill system was bad for MC characters. The math isn't hard, but that's irrelevant. It's annoying because it doesn't need to be as complicated as it is.

doctorbadwolf said:

1) I guess you understand the term "complicate" slightly differently and a lot more widely than me. I'll just have to disagree on that notion of yours.

2) This statement means you have already tested the game, more or less extensively, removing varied and progressive cost. This means that you have already performed the work you're saying is too much to play the game and the point is moot. Or its a speculative gesture on how you think it won't unbalance the game from a theoretical level, which is fine too - but it remains specualtion if this is the case. If you've tested it I don't understand what you're moaning about. It doesn't ruin the game, that much is obvious from actually play-testing it and most feedback on these boards.

3) Well, it being "annoying" is also irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things. Annoying doesn't mean "bad", it means that you don't like it - which is a fair and valid position, but that is something else than "ruining the game" - although "ruining the game for ME (i.e. you)" is completely valid, but something else than arguing that the game is void of worth due to some minor details that takes but a wave of the hand to remove - it requires no work at all. It's not even changing the "core mechanic" as you claim. Basically, this is a pile of naysaying and pointless arguments with little or no substance.

Sure, I'm a fan of the system, and therefore biased, you can take that to mean what you will, but … I find your lack of faith disturbing.

While I appreciate the Vader quote, you seem to be missing the point.

I'm willing to do work in the course of testing a beta version of a game that I'm not willing to do in order to play a published game. I shouldn't have to play game designer in order to play a published game.

The progressive cost is counter intuitive and entirely unneccesary. The combination of it and the different costs for non career specs doesn't bring anything to the system other than increased complexity and potential confusion for casual players, along with needless limiting of chargen character concepts.

There's nothing good about any of that.

doctorbadwolf said:

To you it might seem counterintuitive. But not to everyone. To me it makes sense as you are splitting more and more of your focus and limited time to learn more things. Knowledge is a use it or lose it thing, so any skill that you have, any Talent that you obtain, takes "time" to keep fresh. Same thing with trying to learn skills outside your primary area of focus… There are very few people that could even come close to be a jack-of-all-trades in our society.

So, as a game mechanic, having skills cost different (and the cost is minimal… about 25 XP difference to get the skill from nothing to rank 5 for career vs non-career). Really what you are actually buying by adding Careers/Specializations is access to the Talent trees… which are huge expenditures of XP (about 300 for the whole tree) and are what really represent the training of the character (far more than the skills and characteristics do). So, having a progressive cost to get access to more of them… Just Makes Sense…

doctorbadwolf said:

There's no need to "play game designer" to tweak a game for your own gaming needs - this used to be a standard phrase in RPG books' introductions, something along the lines of "these are but guidelines, use what you find herein that makes for a fun and entertaining game, throw away the rest".

I have one question, really. What roleplaying game(s), if any, do you play unaltered, with no house-rules or tweaks? In what games do you produce nothing of your own material, by which I mean new stats, new gear, new equipment, new classes/careers/archetypes, new skills, new spells/powers, new talents/feats/the like?

The last summary of yours is a purely subjective statement about taste and preferences in games. I respect that, but I do not agree with it. To me there is good stuff in that, there is no blueprint or definitive answer to this question. I can appreciate the "confusion for casual players", but again to me this is a negligible issue. If players are interested, they need only invest a modicum of effort to learn and understand, if not why are they playing? And if this is still a too big obstacle, hand-wave it away.

doctorbadwolf said:

Wow talk about whining for the sake of whining…

So basically your only problem is with the increased costs for Specs…ok then…use a cheaper cost for specs. If that is literally the only thing keeping your group from buying into this game then I pity you and your group for such a poor decision making process.

As for everyone getting Blaster pistol..thats just a stupid observation. Nothing is stopping every class from buying the skill (as with any other) but certain classes are going to be better at it than others…this is just common sense…oh and Pistols are not the only "fighting" skill so that argument is pointless too.

As for the "classless" system…works for many genres…but not for Star Wars…Heroic Archetypes are a fundamental part of the IP…without some kind of structure to lead players down an Archetypal path, you end up with min-maxed, generic supermen who are basically all the same. Thats just a fact of the classless game…

doctorbadwolf said:

Oh and progressive costs limit the number of specs that are practical…forcing someone who insists on having access to every talent in the game to pay out the butt for it. The devs aren't saying you CAN'T make a character who is a combination of every "perfect" talent and skill in the game (min-max) they're just saying you have to pay for the privelage. Call it a way to balance the rules lawyers who want 6 specs to get just the right power combo…when any Roleplayer knows that no character realistically would have anywhere near that many specs…nor would they need them.

And yea…any GM who never houserules something isn't doing his job. The perfect game doesn't exist…

aramis said:

Of course house rules shouldn't be required…but every good GM has some idea of things he can change or tweak…nature of the beast.

As for Palladium…ridiculous statement…literally one of the absolute worst game systems ever devised. Any GM who runs Rifts without severe changes is just wasting his and his groups' time. You get into Rifts for the world…which is pretty cool…but you do it DESPITE the mechanics…so it is "playable" as written…ok but its a heck of alot less playable than this game. If you honestly think this needs more work than Palladium you really need to take a looooonnnggg nap and re-read both systems.

Class Based system? Said it before, I'll say it again…no class = a party of near identical min-maxed supermen who all have the same talents and skills. I love the IDEA of classless RPGing…but I can't think of an example that works. Black Crusade comes close…but even that forces players down a "class" based on the choices they make (not criticism…I LOVE that system). Look at Gurps…run a non-combat game…it can be fine…run a combat oriented game and everyone ends up with an awfully familiar character sheet…

I agree with your scaling argument..but only in theory. The reality is that in an IP as well used as this one, you will ALWAYS find exceptions to every rule. So you found an episode where Troopers were hurting a tank with their carbines? Ok…but how about a repeating blaster that doesn't even scratch the Falcon? Wouldn't you agree the Falcon is on the Tank's same scale? The reality is that in both cases, the story won out over any "mechanics"…in one the Falcon needed to escape, in the other the tank needed to go down…both fit the story. So which is canon? Exactly…

Ship costs will be in a supplement I'm sure…either this issue would have been pointlessly shorted into a useless sidebar OR it would have taken up an entire chapter in a book that already had too much information to impart. It can't all be in there. Cargo obviously same story. In case you missed this, the game has a very "this is the story hook and this is how much it will profit you" vibe. Come to think of it…that stuff might not get a bigger treatment…don't think they meant for Excel to be a mandatory tool for playing this game. Although I for one love that kinda detail and I hope I'm wrong.

Actually, I don't think a tank and the falcon should be the same scale. That's where I found 1E WEG to work great - 3 scales, with an implied 4th - people, vehicles, ships, and an implied Capital Ships scale. 2E WEG had that nasty bit with walker scale and speeder scale, but otherwise, I liked the scaling.

My house-rule is simple - a Triumph to hit can be a crit if you did enough to get through the armor, or a single point past the armor no matter how thick… thus two threat is a crit no matter how tough the armor.

And, having run several palladium games (Mechanoids, Robotech, Palladium Fantasy 1&2E, Heroes Unlimited, TMNT, Rifts), Rifts is the one I hated. Palladium, as a system, works in a rather simple, but potentially highly cinematic manner, provided you can fill in the missing bits (most of which are covered in 1st Ed Palladium Fantasy or in Mechanoids Invasion. Yes, I'm THAT old…) It's stiflingly narrow constraints to the archetypes, but it's simple and it plays. And a lot of teens love it. I have seen as much Rifts as D&D in the high school halls in the last couple years (I'm a sub teacher, and have seen 4-6 groups playing at lunch in every high school I've been in in the last 3 years).

I'll also note that one can easily crib from Traveller or from WEG for trade good ideas.

Anyone has some clue on why was the Deadly Accuracy talent removed from the Assassin specialization of the Bounty Hunter? It doesn't make sense for me, at least flavor wise…

Jinks1337 said:

Closest we got to an explanation on this was "the change was made due to long term plans."

I've voiced my thought on Deadly Accuracy being removed quite a few times, including offering alternative suggestions that would keep both Deadly Accuracy and the defensive talent that it was replaced with.

While said feedback was acknowledged, no change was made, so the design team is apparently pretty happy with Deadly Accuracy being dropped from Assassins.

Donovan Morningfire said:

Pure speculation but perhaps the coming Soldiers core book will have a Sniper class. If Assassin had, "Deadly Accuracy", then giving it to a class like Sniper would not make it very special. Perhaps it would have created a situation that made the future Sniper class obsolete so they saved Deadly Accuracy?

Was the talent, Stalker in the Bounty Hunter - Survivalist talent tree ever updated to replace its surveilance entry with a different third skill, or is it just left to two skills?

I think Deadly Accuracy should be removed from or toned down in all talent trees, the talent is a little framebraking.

shaddai said:

As for Stalker, it's just Coordination and Stealth, which is plenty for a talent that provides a boost die, putting it on par with talents that only negate a setback die for two skills.

As for Deadly Accuracy, it's still in the game, as it's listed for the Gadgeteer specialization, which I think only makes Gadgeteer even more desirable since it provides Ranged (Light) as a career skill (most non-BH characters tend to favor pistols over rifles anyway) and some pretty darn effective talents that work at range or make your gear that much better.

Agreed. I think it needs to be removed from or reworked in Gadgeteer as well. Corrected my OP to reflect this.

A good concession would be to have Deadly Accuracy become an activated ability, and require a destiny point expenditure or something in order to utilize the talent when calculating damage. As is, if you aren't dropping into Merc or Gadgeteer to pick it up, and you use any weapon at all, in my opinion you're inherently wrong. Something akin to the above solution would also mitigate the stacking of multiple talents onto a character's damage output. My group will toss some more numbers around, but the potential damage output of some characters we statted with this talent were rapidly surpassing the defensive capabilities of some of the Nemisies listed in the book.