So, I had this idea yesterday, after my players complained that there were too many skills (I don't necessarily agree, except in the case of there being 2 Pilot skills; seems unnecessary to me). But anyway, it occurred to me that a way to encourage characters buying ranks in many skills was to have those skills offer a bonus boost die to another, similar skill. For instance, after having say, 2 or 3 ranks in Pilot (Space), gives you a boost die to Pilot (Planetary), and vice-versa. I know its not technically a skill, but maybe Melee and Lightsaber skills could do this for each other as well..it doesn't seem too broken to me, since its only adding a max of 1 boost die…

But I do see some problems. It encourages people to take skills in groups in such a way that it sort of discourages variation… What does everyone think?

I've also got an idea for limiting them to only certain situations, but that could get confusing… I'm at work,will post more later, but what do you guys think?

The system seems fine to me as is. At first I thought having two pilot skills was odd as well, but there is a big difference from piloting a land speeder to piloting a star ship. Personally I wouldnt use what you are suggesting, if they want to be skill monkeys they should invest as such.

I'd be cool with allowing a particular character a specific skill buff from another skill if the player really had an in game character background to justify such a thing. I'd "make" the player sell me on the idea, lol.

I think your idea is good. Nevertheless, it strikes me that your players find that there are too many skills; I think there are too few skills! May I ask to which rpgs have you played before?

Sounds to me like someone has been playing too much D&D

This is a skill based system. I would say there are too few skills. Synergies are too much like power gaming to me.

kinnison said:

That depends which version of D&D you are playing. D&D 3.5 and similar games (Pathfinder) have more skills than EotE.

I haven't acted as a GM for this, yet, but as a player I tend to agree that the selection of skills seem a bit limited. I don't like when things that are only vaguely similar get lumped into the same category. As an example, climbing and swimming are too dissimilar to be lumped together in athletics. On the same note, strength based athletics and nimble athletics (dodging, tumbling, balancing, etc) do not seem as though they should all relate to the Brawn attribute.

Maybe that's nit-picking.

Farsox said:

Athletics for swimming, climbing, lifting, breaking down doors, jumping and running - sure its broad, but I think it works. For balance, dodge and stuff like that you have coordination, which is an agility skill.

I don't think it's nit-picking, but I do think that this broadness serves the purposes of the intention of the game and how its intended to play out - "faster, more intense" as GL used to say sort of encapsules the Star Wars feel for some (most?).

I mean, if there is real need for specific and detialed skills you could always jump on the BRP, HARP SF or Spacemaster bandwagon (or one of the Traveller incarnations) - I sure do enjoy those games, but I think that a two page skill sheet with skill categories on one and specialisations on another might be too much for a Star Wars game (that would be referencing Spacemaster: Privateers). BRP or HARP SF might be a better fit for a more detailed approach, but having considered that myself it comes down to time, effort, desire and … do those systems really add anything to the Star Wars feel that EotE does not? When you have your own answer to that, proceed I decided against it for my own reasons - time is a scare resource for me. Although I do think a Star Wars hack for HARP SF would be really fun! If less flashy and simplistic as EotE is.

Jegergryte said:

Hmm, I had overlooked coordination, and that will put me at ease to at have an agility based athletics skill. Thank you for pointing that out.

While I do tend to like games that are heavy on the accounting side of things (like Classic Battletech), I am very intrigued by this system, and I can picture myself really getting into it. Though, I am curious if adding more skills would really make this system play much slower. It seems like the real factor in the speed of play is the abstract combat system. If a player wants to attempt something, he will most likely suggest it. If he can't discern which skill is appropriate, the GM will typically advise. I can see where a longer list of skills would add to the length of time to create or advance characters, but not where it would add length to actual play time. The beauty that I see in this system, is that it leaves room to add several custom skills, if it fits the style of play for the group. The Beta character sheet has room for up to 7 additional skills, which I see as plenty.

The main point that I meant to make in line with the OP is that I can't picture this game having less skills than it currently does. One could argue that the pilot skills could be lumped together or that the list of knowledge skills could be truncated, but I think that each of these skills has a clear purpose within the system. If the players find that there is no incentive to use a skill, I would probably create more opportunities for that skill to be used in my adventures.

Example: If they don't want to invest in the Pilot (Planet) skill, introduce the characters to a fast paced speeder bike or landspeeder chase. Maybe they were provided an unusual transport to get cargo to the landing dock where their ship is located, and they have to decipher the controls to drive it.