And running everyone off because you've badgered them to death with your questions and lack of answers doesn't count as a win.

1. I've answered most questions posed towards me. If I missed some, please point them out to me. Sometimes, I didn't answer specific lines because I was focused on another line of conversation that was going on in the thread, because that portion was more important to me at the time, so there are probably a few I really did miss.

2. As opposed to running people off by accusing them of not being roleplayers, of not understanding the game, of not understanding roleplaying, of being minmaxers? The only thing I actually badgered anyone about was them telling me I was factually wrong about something without providing a single shred of evidence I was wrong. Factually wrong. Not an opinion. FACT. I'm sorry, but if someone is going to accuse someone of being wrong, they don't get to just get it accepted as truth, they have to prove it.

3. Oddly, we are three conversations away from where I started in this thread, yet for some reason you can't catch on that I'm not talking about the same thing anymore, and so have obviously dropped that line of discussion, yet for some reason you are implying that I am still arguing the same points. Very difficult when we aren't even having the same conversation. We are currently discussing whether the specific names of careers and specializations have meaning or if its the capabilities that they embody that has true meaning. You are welcome to join the conversation of course, but you don't seem to actually want to, instead content to warn people off from discussing things with that person who is badgering on the same points even though we are three conversations away from the original point he joined.

The topic may have shifted, your tactics have not. Why would I wade into yet another debate when all it does is fuel your need to argue? This has gone well beyond any kind of rational discussion and has instead become a way for you to get all the attention you crave.

Also, you missed three questions in the post you quoted.

The topic may have shifted, your tactics have not. Why would I wade into yet another debate when all it does is fuel your need to argue? This has gone well beyond any kind of rational discussion and has instead become a way for you to get all the attention you crave.

Also, you missed three questions in the post you quoted.

I thought I answered them in the post I just made through the inference of what I was discussing, though they seemed incredibly rhetorical, but if you like i can answer them directly if that makes you feel better.

Why bother with the discussion when you can't come to a resolution?

If other people continue to have the conversation, and I see something that is a misinterpretation of my house rule as I perceive it (that it requires tracking, that its magically gaining XP back narratively, that it will allow you to gain more over time), I will indeed, respond to it. I don't see how you can blame me for discussing what other people are already discussing. When the subject moved to other things, I moved to those as well.

Is the end of it all everyone telling you you're right?

I suppose it will end when people get tired of discussing it. Both myself and others. If you are tired of discussing it, you are perfectly capable of walking away.

Is that how you see this ending?

I can't see the future, so I don't know how it will end. We're now talking about a totally new topic that I didn't see coming at all. And I certainly wasn't expecting this derailment. Isn't the future fun? So how do you see it ending? By you insulting me and derailing the topic to the point that no conversation will be had. I have no intention of that.

This will be the last time I respond to people attacking me rather than discussing the topic at hand. Now, can we get on with the actual conversation?

Back to the actual conversation:

If your playgroup sees a benefit to restricting careers by the literal name on them, that is great. I'm not trying to belittle anyone who does. It just feels awkward to me and I see no gain, but plenty of restriction.

I am asking questions because I'm trying to understand what the benefit people are getting from it. I'm not trying to trap anyone, I'm legitimately trying to understand because the idea feels completely foreign to me.

If I came off as a **** to anyone having the actual conversation with me about this subject, I apologize, it wasn't intended, and probably just had to do with misunderstandings, possibly on my part, of what was being said.

Backing up to the initial discussion (refunding spent xp when picking up new Specializations):

Do you plan on adjusting for non-ranked Talents too? For example, an Assassin takes Quick Draw for 10xp. If he picks up Scoundrel, it's available for 5xp. If he's already purchased it for 10xp (from Assassin), does he get refunded the 5xp difference?

Do you plan on adjusting for Characteristic inequalities? A character with Intellect 4, Agility 2 gains Dedication and becomes Intellect 4, Agility 3. His partner started at Intellect 3, Agility 3 and purchases Dedication to become Intellect 4, Agility 3. They are now the same except that the first character spent an extra 10xp at the start. Would the first character somehow get these 10xp back?

These were issues that came up in my discussion with a fellow player in my group. He (and I) feel that there are several areas where the opportunity cost of taking certain things early is going to be higher because you gain a benefit from it early on. Later you might not be quite as 'efficient' of a build, but that doesn't always matter to all players. Further, because of the exceptions I've listed - and others that are likely to appear on a detailed look through - I don't feel that I'll ever support house rulings that refund xp.

Backing up to the initial discussion (refunding spent xp when picking up new Specializations):

<snip>...</snip>

These were issues that came up in my discussion with a fellow player in my group. He (and I) feel that there are several areas where the opportunity cost of taking certain things early is going to be higher because you gain a benefit from it early on. Later you might not be quite as 'efficient' of a build, but that doesn't always matter to all players. Further, because of the exceptions I've listed - and others that are likely to appear on a detailed look through - I don't feel that I'll ever support house rulings that refund xp.

Agree. This isn't a level based system. Just because characters are at 400XP, doesn't mean they all have the same capability. Same thing with Savage Worlds or GURPS or Shadowrun or HERO System. It isn't about what your total XP is that matters, it is about what you can do with the character based on what you've already paid for.

You're a medic, not because you've spent 400XP on the talents and skills, but simply because you HAVE the talents and skills.

You're a pilot, not because you've spent 500XP on talents and skills, but simply because you HAVE the talents and skills.

Unlike D&D where encounters are calculated purely based on total XP earned (essentially since levels are all XP driven), this system is more about what the characters actually HAVE ON THE SHEET than on How Much They've Spent. You don't throw an army of Stormtroopers at the players just because they have 500XP spent each, but because they have 5 Ranks in Gunnery + Talents that make them highly effective in combat. Similarly you don't force characters into nuanced political situations just because they've spent 400XP, but because they have 5 Ranks in certain Social Skills and the Talents to go with it.

"Efficiency" of spending XP doesn't exist in point based systems because GMs should be tailoring things to the party not the party tailoring to the situations. So, what players choose to spend XP on should just reflect where they want their character to be. They don't gain XP for every minion destroyed. They gain XP just for being in the adventure and advancing the story.

"Efficiency" of spending XP doesn't exist in point based systems because GMs should be tailoring things to the party not the party tailoring to the situations. So, what players choose to spend XP on should just reflect where they want their character to be. They don't gain XP for every minion destroyed. They gain XP just for being in the adventure and advancing the story.

I'm not looking for parity between characters and enemies, I can always adjust that. I'm looking for more parity between characters, and trying to remove situations that don't make any sense to me (its more efficient for a person to buy a specialization they have no skill at all in). Also, just because players DON'T spend efficiently, doesn't mean efficiency doesn't exist. Especially if one player is spending as efficiently as possible, and another is not.

The talent and characteristic thing HappyDaze brings up is something I have thought about somewhat, but I feel that with Talents it makes too much book keeping for me personally (I suppose its just adding a "specialization talent?" tick box to the talents sheet) and it opens up making characters that are not possible within the current system, and I'd rather not do that, and with Characteristics its just a much smaller thing. Though the easiest way to fix the Characteristics thing is to give Characteristics boosts a flat cost at creation instead of an escalating one, but you would have to be very careful about how you price it, and as I said with Talents, its a situation where it allows you to make characters that would be unmakeable in the current system.

EDIT: Oh, I missed what you meant on Talents, sorry, I was thinking of something else entirely. In that case.... eh, I don't see it as that big of a deal. Its something that is going to happen much less, and it doesn't have the weirdness of buying specializations and talents in an area you have no skills being more efficient than buying skills in a specialization you plan on taking.

Though the easiest way to fix the Characteristics thing is to give Characteristics boosts a flat cost at creation instead of an escalating one, but you would have to be very careful about how you price it, and as I said with Talents, its a situation where it allows you to make characters that would be unmakeable in the current system

As another option, recost Dedication to be 0XP but taking it allows the character to raise one Characteristic by 1 point with XP for the same costs as in character creation. IOW, Dedication doesn't increase a Characteristic by 1, it just allows a one-time (per purchase of Dedication) exception to the rule that XP cannot be spent on Characteristics after character creation.

EDIT: Oh, I missed what you meant on Talents, sorry, I was thinking of something else entirely. In that case.... eh, I don't see it as that big of a deal. Its something that is going to happen much less, and it doesn't have the weirdness of buying specializations and talents in an area you have no skills being more efficient than buying skills in a specialization you plan on taking.

It may not appear to be an issue right now, but as more Specializations are introduced it might get more noticable. If you're going to build a houserule, I'd suggest building it to account for situations such as this fromthe beginning.

As another option, recost Dedication to be 0XP but taking it allows the character to raise one Characteristic by 1 point with XP for the same costs as in character creation. IOW, Dedication doesn't increase a Characteristic by 1, it just allows a one-time (per purchase of Dedication) exception to the rule that XP cannot be spent on Characteristics after character creation.

That actually does work. Though you could just write the cost of the talent as: Rank being raised to x10 instead of writing it up as an exception. I'm not sure I would use it myself, but I definitely see the reasoning and it is an intriguing idea.

On the Talents thing... I could see that one, too. And actually the more I think about it the less trouble it really seems like it would be to track.

I'm not sure I would USE these house rules, but at the same time, they do follow along the same lines I was already thinking. Thanks.