The galaxy is dangerous. If players never feel that sense of danger, then they will also never feel the same levels of triumph when they overcome it. If some people prefer to play their sessions safe, then I guess that's their prerogative. But I'll say that as a GM it would be mind numbingly boring to play with that group.

I think some of the (closet) munchkins here need to ask themselves one question: Which is more memorable and enjoyable for everyone at the table: A character who is role played as overcoming a flaw from some major adversity? Or a character who does more damage than everyone else at the table?

I personally love the flawed characters. They are more interesting to play as well as more interesting to play with (when it's someone else who is flawed). I have a player who decided to make use of the drugs table in EOTE and make his character a junkie. Knowing full well that this decision will have negative consequences (and his drug of choice gives him no benefits), it makes the stories that much more memorable and that character more memorable.

Hell. Who here has heard of Raistlin Majere? A powerful wizard from the Dragonlance books. Very popular in that world. While he is very powerful, he is also very weak and sickly. Prone to illness all the time. This is because that character was based off of a D&D character who the creator ended up rolling a 3 for Constitution (where the average is 10). Instead of whining about it, fudging it, or rerolling, he used that flaw and turned his character into someone far more memorable than "generic powerful wizard 4.0."

And also one last thing, never forget that a GM is not required to spend advantage on a crit. He can spend it in other ways. So if he's attacking with a vicious 5 weapon and the player already has 3 critical injuries, he's not obligated to crit (unlike most d20 games) when the dice give him the ability to.

Hell. Who here has heard of Raistlin Majere? A powerful wizard from the Dragonlance books. Very popular in that world. While he is very powerful, he is also very weak and sickly. Prone to illness all the time. This is because that character was based off of a D&D character who the creator ended up rolling a 3 for Constitution (where the average is 10). Instead of whining about it, fudging it, or rerolling, he used that flaw and turned his character into someone far more memorable than "generic powerful wizard 4.0."

While I love the character, and you are correct about his flaws...

...the man became a frickin God and gave it up.

Hell. Who here has heard of Raistlin Majere? A powerful wizard from the Dragonlance books. Very popular in that world. While he is very powerful, he is also very weak and sickly. Prone to illness all the time. This is because that character was based off of a D&D character who the creator ended up rolling a 3 for Constitution (where the average is 10). Instead of whining about it, fudging it, or rerolling, he used that flaw and turned his character into someone far more memorable than "generic powerful wizard 4.0."

While I love the character, and you are correct about his flaws...

...the man became a frickin God and gave it up.

I admit to not reading the books beyond the first few. I was actually turned off by the fact it read like I was sitting in on some other group's campaign. RPG stories are a lot like your dreams at night: Really cool when they happen to you directly, less cool to hear about other people's. ;-)

The galaxy is dangerous. If players never feel that sense of danger, then they will also never feel the same levels of triumph when they overcome it. If some people prefer to play their sessions safe, then I guess that's their prerogative. But I'll say that as a GM it would be mind numbingly boring to play with that group.

There is more danger in the galaxy than losing a characteristic point. Removing that effect hardly makes the players safe. Some players just prefer not to have that specific danger.

I think some of the (closet) munchkins here need to ask themselves one question: Which is more memorable and enjoyable for everyone at the table: A character who is role played as overcoming a flaw from some major adversity? Or a character who does more damage than everyone else at the table?

And here we go again...

That probably was overly harsh and bit prejudiced on my part. I'm fairly new to this board and coming from other boards where it's much more of a warzone with far less mature players, my post was born more out of raw emotional opinion.

The big picture, is really this: No person is likely going to be 100% happy with every single thing printed in the core rulebook. And no two parties will get the same enjoyment as everyone else.

That's why there's house rules. I recommend they be used for the people that don't like critical injury 126.

The majority of my other post was really just my personal opinion that I like the rule as is.

That probably was overly harsh and bit prejudiced. I'm fairly new to this board and coming from other boards where it's much more of a warzone with far less mature players, my post was born more out of raw emotional opinion.

The big picture, is really this: No person is likely going to be 100% happy with every single thing printed in the core rulebook. And no two parties will get the same enjoyment as everyone else.

That's why there's house rules. I recommend they be used for the people that don't like critical injury 126.

Thank you for this. It takes a lot to admit a fault, wether or not one believes it existed in the first place.

I applaud your maturity.

Also, actually from a personal perspective, I think that there is some understanding even from a real life view of why some players would hate it more than death of the character.

To be honest, I'm more frightened of losing my mental faculties than of dying. The idea of being mentally crippled by something just actually bothers me in real life. The only thing I find more frightening than that is something happening to my kids.

And that is the thing that bothers me about the whole situation. Removing one danger doesn't make things safe. Even removing DEATH doesn't make things safe (though once again, I wouldn't remove gruesome injury or death from my game personally). I just feel that saying doing those things removes all danger is a strawman. There are a million ways to hurt someone without ever touching them. Go after their friends, their family, put pressure on their business somehow, danger isn't just taking a blaster bolt to the face and lying in a pool of your own blood.

I will say that we are both right. Why? Because it all boils down to the players themselves.

You and your players may find more peril in thematic situations. Some of mine do as well. But I have other players who are very much the munchkins I referenced before (and there is nothing wrong with that). Even death doesn't scare them, because to them that means "Party time! New character!"

Potential for characteristic loss though makes them feel dread in ways that those same types of players haven't felt since 2nd Edition D&D and meeting up with a vampire. They are now feeling tension (and relief) on an entirely new level.

When the face character loses the tip of his goddamn nose to a vibroblade, I don't see how hitting someone's Presence by 1 permanently is unfair. It adds an extra danger to the game besides dying. One thing I have about Pathfinder is how unimportant injury is. You can drop to -9 with a con score of 10 and then get healed up to full eight times in a row without any horribly disfigurements or mental trauma.

And here we go again...

Again?

Also, actually from a personal perspective, I think that there is some understanding even from a real life view of why some players would hate it more than death of the character.

To be honest, I'm more frightened of losing my mental faculties than of dying. The idea of being mentally crippled by something just actually bothers me in real life. The only thing I find more frightening than that is something happening to my kids.

Yes but these are stories about characters. As a person, I sure wouldn't want to get my arm chopped off or get shot in the leg and gain a permanent limp, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to participate in a story where that happened to a character.

I think that perhaps we should stop equating it to having your arm chopped off in game considering that with the way cybernetics work in game that is only a permanent handicap if you have hit your cybernetics threshold and/or are very poor.

Also in the description of the prosthetic, the existence of cloned organs is mentioned, meaning that for enough money, even someone who has hit their cybernetics threshold could still get a replacement with no permanent loss of ability. (Hello Obligation).

(And no, saying you can get +1 to your Brawn using Cybernetics to counter a loss of 1 point isn't the same, considering that someone who lost none can do the same thing to get a net +1, also -1 Presence, -1 Will, and -1 Cunning don't have a cybernetic replacement)

Though you could conceivably make a cybernetic part for any of those.

Cunning: Cybernetic eyes that help you pick up on social cues and anylize heart rates, etc (Perception, Deception, etc).
Presence: Plastic Surgery to make you more charismatic in one way or another. (If your character loves charming people, your augmentation would be a bit different than if you focus on Leadership)
Willpower: Heart Rate monitor that automatically releases X Anit-Fear drug into your system to help you act rationally and with expedience.

BTW I'd like to point out that no one WANTS to lose their arms or stats, but sometimes that HAPPENS. You don't always get to pick what happens to you.

I mean look at *MAJOR GAME OF THRONES SPOILER* Jaime Lannister and his hand. I can guarantee you that he didn't want to lose his Sword Hand, but as soon as he did, he rapidly became one of the best characters in the series. Crushing limitations don't always mean that your character is a useless sack of **** anymore. There's always room to change.

Once again: removing a single danger from a game is not removing all danger and unpredictability from the game. No one WANTS to be chased by bounty hunters. No one WANTS to be indebted to a crime boss. No one WANTS to owe a favor to a corrupt official.

Just because a player group accepts that some of these things are going to be part of the story, does not imply they have to accept all bad things happening to their player as fun for them.

Its not an either or. Its not a dichotomy.

I'm keeping the gruesome injury, but if you don't like it in your game, change it. Here would be my concept on changing it:

Instead of just dropping it, have it happen, but it is curable in some way. But have the treatment be very difficult and require expensive materials (extensive bacta treatments, custom grown clone parts, custom cybernetics (I would have these be independant of the standard boost pieces so that it doesn't take up the characters ability to up their characterestic with cybernetics), etc.). That way, its still a major thing, but it stings in a way that isn't an issue to players who don't like a permanent hit to their capabilities. You have to find a doctor capable of performing it if you don't have anyone highly trained in medicine, you have to find a way to pay for it (either by making some big scores or racking up a bunch of obligation).

Instead of just dropping it, have it happen, but it is curable in some way. But have the treatment be very difficult and require expensive materials (extensive bacta treatments, custom grown clone parts, custom cybernetics (I would have these be independant of the standard boost pieces so that it doesn't take up the characters ability to up their characterestic with cybernetics), etc.). That way, its still a major thing, but it stings in a way that isn't an issue to players who don't like a permanent hit to their capabilities. You have to find a doctor capable of performing it if you don't have anyone highly trained in medicine, you have to find a way to pay for it (either by making some big scores or racking up a bunch of obligation).

How is this different from RAW? Serious question as it seems at least 95% the same.

Instead of just dropping it, have it happen, but it is curable in some way. But have the treatment be very difficult and require expensive materials (extensive bacta treatments, custom grown clone parts, custom cybernetics (I would have these be independant of the standard boost pieces so that it doesn't take up the characters ability to up their characterestic with cybernetics), etc.). That way, its still a major thing, but it stings in a way that isn't an issue to players who don't like a permanent hit to their capabilities. You have to find a doctor capable of performing it if you don't have anyone highly trained in medicine, you have to find a way to pay for it (either by making some big scores or racking up a bunch of obligation).

How is this different from RAW? Serious question as it seems at least 95% the same.

How is it the same as RAW? By RAW there is NO way to recover the loss of characteristics from the gruesome injury result. Yes you can take some cybernetic pieces to give you a +1 to brawn, agility, or intellect, but A. there is no way to gain +1 to the other three characteristics from cybernetics. B. Anyone can take these independant of any loss., so if you hadn't had a hit, you are still 1 behind what you could have been in the same situation.

This gives people a way to recover the characteristic loss, but at a price in some other way (credits, obligation, etc.) Its still a loss, but you are hitting a character in a different way.

How is it the same as RAW? By RAW there is NO way to recover the loss of characteristics from the gruesome injury result. Yes you can take some cybernetic pieces to give you a +1 to brawn, agility, or intellect, but A. there is no way to gain +1 to the other three characteristics from cybernetics. B. Anyone can take these independant of any loss., so if you hadn't had a hit, you are still 1 behind what you could have been in the same situation.

This gives people a way to recover the characteristic loss, but at a price in some other way (credits, obligation, etc.) Its still a loss, but you are hitting a character in a different way.

RAW the only way to increase characteristics after character creation is via the Dedication Talent, so there is a way to recover the loss. Replacement/prostethics specifically cite no mechanical implication on a character (outside of the three cybernetic entries). If you wish to allow for there to be in your games that is completely within your rights.

Digiblade

But XP does affect the fluff of what your character can do. This is why in level based systems groups don't always start at level 1, because starter characters can't always do what is cool and expected heroes. Would you join a gaming group that's already level 7, but the GM insists you start at level 1, when the ECL of enemies would be level 7? Playing the underdog is fun, isn't it? Think of the challenges you'll have to overcome! Let's be honest, this wouldn't happen, if you didn't die immediately, you'd be a hindrance to the group. (And have a GM horror story to share)

I see no reason why xp would effect the descrpitive elements on what my character can or cannot do. Equating the loss of a single upgrade to a variety of rolls in this system to the vast gulf of ability differential between a D&D character at lvl1 and lvl 7 is an exaggeration at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst. A more appropriate comparison would be equating a starting EotE character with one that has garnered several hundred to a thousand xp, in which case they may or may not still be playable.

Digiblade

Star Wars is about playing All The Awesomes. I honestly don't see why wanting to play the loser is appealing and thus why a rule is in place to force you to play a loser.

Your assumption is that a single reduction in a characteristic directly equates to said character being a "loser". You are entitled to your opinions, but I believe several people have very fond memories of playing through characteristic loss and labeling those characters losers is insulting.

So he disagrees with you on what Star Wars is. So what? He isn't telling you what to think Star Wars is. He isn't telling you if you think differently then you might as well go play a video game, that you only care about mechanics and don't care about roleplaying.

"I honestly don't see why wanting to play the loser is appealing and thus why a rule is in place to force you to play a loser" <===This encourages discussion, as it gives you an option to respond with why you would want to do this. He isn't saying you are WRONG for wanting to play that, he is saying he doesn't GET it. He isn't insulting anyone who does want to, he is claiming a nonunderstanding.

On the other side "The only way it makes sense is if you don't care about roleplaying" is shutting down discussion. Its saying you already know why they are doing it, assigning motives, and very insulting ones at that.

Do you not see a difference?

As stated above he is implying that suffering a characteristic loss would make a character a loser, which most people would take as an insult.

Several times in this thread people have said the only reason you would want to drop a character with a gruesome injury is if you only care about the numbers and not the "roleplaying".

If you don't see that, then you are being willfully blind.

If you could please cite your sources.

How is it the same as RAW? By RAW there is NO way to recover the loss of characteristics from the gruesome injury result. Yes you can take some cybernetic pieces to give you a +1 to brawn, agility, or intellect, but A. there is no way to gain +1 to the other three characteristics from cybernetics. B. Anyone can take these independant of any loss., so if you hadn't had a hit, you are still 1 behind what you could have been in the same situation.

This gives people a way to recover the characteristic loss, but at a price in some other way (credits, obligation, etc.) Its still a loss, but you are hitting a character in a different way.

RAW the only way to increase characteristics after character creation is via the Dedication Talent, so there is a way to recover the loss. Replacement/prostethics specifically cite no mechanical implication on a character (outside of the three cybernetic entries). If you wish to allow for there to be in your games that is completely within your rights.

Digiblade

But XP does affect the fluff of what your character can do. This is why in level based systems groups don't always start at level 1, because starter characters can't always do what is cool and expected heroes. Would you join a gaming group that's already level 7, but the GM insists you start at level 1, when the ECL of enemies would be level 7? Playing the underdog is fun, isn't it? Think of the challenges you'll have to overcome! Let's be honest, this wouldn't happen, if you didn't die immediately, you'd be a hindrance to the group. (And have a GM horror story to share)

I see no reason why xp would effect the descrpitive elements on what my character can or cannot do. Equating the loss of a single upgrade to a variety of rolls in this system to the vast gulf of ability differential between a D&D character at lvl1 and lvl 7 is an exaggeration at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst. A more appropriate comparison would be equating a starting EotE character with one that has garnered several hundred to a thousand xp, in which case they may or may not still be playable.

Digiblade

Star Wars is about playing All The Awesomes. I honestly don't see why wanting to play the loser is appealing and thus why a rule is in place to force you to play a loser.

Your assumption is that a single reduction in a characteristic directly equates to said character being a "loser". You are entitled to your opinions, but I believe several people have very fond memories of playing through characteristic loss and labeling those characters losers is insulting.

So he disagrees with you on what Star Wars is. So what? He isn't telling you what to think Star Wars is. He isn't telling you if you think differently then you might as well go play a video game, that you only care about mechanics and don't care about roleplaying.

"I honestly don't see why wanting to play the loser is appealing and thus why a rule is in place to force you to play a loser" <===This encourages discussion, as it gives you an option to respond with why you would want to do this. He isn't saying you are WRONG for wanting to play that, he is saying he doesn't GET it. He isn't insulting anyone who does want to, he is claiming a nonunderstanding.

On the other side "The only way it makes sense is if you don't care about roleplaying" is shutting down discussion. Its saying you already know why they are doing it, assigning motives, and very insulting ones at that.

Do you not see a difference?

As stated above he is implying that suffering a characteristic loss would make a character a loser, which most people would take as an insult.

Several times in this thread people have said the only reason you would want to drop a character with a gruesome injury is if you only care about the numbers and not the "roleplaying".

If you don't see that, then you are being willfully blind.

If you could please cite your sources.

Don't bother, he can't. He's just so convinced, and concerned with telling us, that we are 'doing it wrong' that he's inferring all sorts of ill will from people that simply doesn't exist, all while piling on his own.

If it rolls up on the Obligation chart, then it is gonna happen. If my PC is super upset about it, then I'll suggest that their character retires somewhere safe because his trigger finger ain't never gonna work that swell again.

I mean, look at Darth Bane. When the (SPOILER) Orbalisks got removed from him near the end of book 2, he had several Gruesome injuries. They straight up said that he was a little bit weaker and a little bit slower because of it, and not just because he was around 40 or so (AKA Gruesome Injury -1 Brawn, -1 Agility.)

How is it the same as RAW? By RAW there is NO way to recover the loss of characteristics from the gruesome injury result. Yes you can take some cybernetic pieces to give you a +1 to brawn, agility, or intellect, but A. there is no way to gain +1 to the other three characteristics from cybernetics. B. Anyone can take these independant of any loss., so if you hadn't had a hit, you are still 1 behind what you could have been in the same situation.

This gives people a way to recover the characteristic loss, but at a price in some other way (credits, obligation, etc.) Its still a loss, but you are hitting a character in a different way.

RAW the only way to increase characteristics after character creation is via the Dedication Talent, so there is a way to recover the loss. Replacement/prostethics specifically cite no mechanical implication on a character (outside of the three cybernetic entries). If you wish to allow for there to be in your games that is completely within your rights.

Or you could actually pay attention to what I wrote, as I directly stated I had no problem with the rule myself, and that it was a suggestion to people who didn't like the rule. You know, just giving a suggestion to people who don't like a rule that doesn't bother me one bit.

Also, I don't consider using the dedication talent to up a characteristic as regaining it in the sense that someone thinks of mechanically. That is like giving someone a fighter a permanent -1 to BAB in D20 and then saying he "regained" it by going up a level. No he didn't, he is still 1 behind where he would have been had it not happened.

Don't bother, he can't. He's just so convinced, and concerned with telling us, that we are 'doing it wrong' that he's inferring all sorts of ill will from people that simply doesn't exist, all while piling on his own.

Yeah, I totally made up those lines about people saying "well yeah if you only consider your character nmbers on a sheet".

Yeah, I totally made up those lines about people saying "well yeah if you only consider your character nmbers on a sheet".

Well, the furthest you came earlier was telling me I "heavily implied" something. Calling me willfully blind basicallly was doing unto others what you were accusing them of, being rude and dishonest.

By Tenrousei

If you could please cite your sources

While I am not Emperor Norton , I have been generally agreeing with him on this discussion so far, and will seek to attempt the sources where this was shown, or otherwise implied.

I think an important note, is that most games only last a certain number of sessions. Obviously no campaign goes on "forever", and can be hard to guess how many sessions a given game will be. It taking 4-5 sessions down the road to regain something, can very well easily never happen, and that player ends up essentially penalized for the rest of the game.

Considering XP is to open new options, or "advance" the character, using it to gain back what was previously there isn't "advancement". You're simply backtracking to going back to the way you were, you do not become "better" (as any increase to skill or like without that penalty would've been a genuine advancement in regards to the character). Any skill increase, Cybernetics, Dedication or otherwise, isn't improving the character, you're just paying a tax to maintain your concept, or playing "catch-up". I doubt it's "fun" from the character building angle to never truly advance in those X sessions, and basically get the feeling of having to "grind back to normalcy".

I'd also like to point out people's repeated notions of not using permanent damage isn't the same as "no danger in the world", or otherwise advocating the notion of PC's being invincible.

by Tenrousei

I see no reason why xp would effect the descriptive elements on what my character can or cannot do.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding here but, XP defines what options you have within the rules. You don't have Skullduggery skill unless you payed certain amount of XP to attain it. While yes, ye could still perform said skill without it, that is besides the point of the example. You couldn't honestly say for example "My PC is a master Pick-pocket vs." if he has 1 Agi, no skill, and obvious 4-5 difficulty against him. Sure, there's a "chance" dismal it may be, he could succeed, but that's obviously unlikely. Obviously you can't perform the function of talents you do not have, perform consistently well on checks lack skills/characteristic for (RNG of the game speaks for that fact), and can't even lay claim to things character doesn't have written down without GM fiat, plus a Destiny point.

Yay! Indignation, interpretation and accusation. I love it!

Just read this whole ordeal, and while people are generally nice to each other here (which changes at one point a page or two back, when it all suddenly goes downhill), its obvious that some are determined to interpret and then feel indignation based on this interpretation, whatever the intention behind the text. This is completely unnecessary, but understandable, I mean, the basic premiss for communication seems to be, here and everywhere else: what One has said, is what has been understood/interpreted by the Other (who cares about intention and what was meant?). So we're all always inn the right, we can always feel slighted and insulted based on assumptions about the content of a remark made jokingly, "honour" and pride becomes guiding factors, self-irony disappears behind pretentiousness. It's beautiful! I love it!

Now, please don't mind me, I've made up my mind about this question, it's just a game, its fun and should be challenging, stupidity should also not be rewarded.

On 8/12/2013 at 7:15 AM, Poseur said:

This is how I see it. It's just not fun to be permanently worse at a lot by an injury and have to pay a lot of experience to buy it back when you could place those xp on something more funny.

mmmmmm and i bet you play computer games on easy!

Like good wine, you can only appreciate that comment after a few years.