True but like other posters thats definitely against the spirit of the game, and there is scope within the rules for applying a little common sense, the rules are written that loopholes should not be exploited, however I got a shock when I asked a question of the developers about a politico using scathing tirade as a maneuver (*2) and an action to causes massive strain damage that could drop a powerful nemesis in one round with little chance for failure only to discover that they considered that as working as intended, so I dont see how holding back xp is. Any different from that.

Who is to say that the reasoning of the 2 rank limit is to stop it being as an exploit of being able to avoid your free ranks to get skills that would normally cost 15xp (ie an exploit to reduce the amount of xp you pay to get rank 3+). Or is it to represent that players cant start with a level of expertise higher than that of someone who does something similar as a day job.

Just not a fan of fetishizing RAW really, since I've been playing games for 35 years now. D&D 4E really was an eye-opener for me, an entire generation of gamers who seem to have enshrined RAW as some sort of holy, sacred concept.

On this we agree!

There has definitely been a shift, not just in the games style, but also in the gamer. Role playing has taken a back seat to roll playing, by and large. For me, this started around 3 ^rd , possibly a bit after. I felt like the oddball because I didn’t min/max. Couldn’t stand it. I'm not sure if it was MMO bleed over, or what, but characters have developed less personality then they minis that represent them. Not all of them, there are some good cats out there.

I think this really has a lot to do with my need to post in this thread, and why I drew the line in the sand. I’ve met a ton of good players, old and young, through this game. It’s the first time I’ve been able to say that about a game in many years. There could be a number of reasons for it, but it has brought the “role” back.

Anyway, sorry if I offended anyone,

Believe it or not, I've never been asked this from the 15 people I've GMd this game for. Would never even have thought of it had you not mentioned it. I guess I've been lucky with my gamers/ and demos.

I hadn't been back here in a spell. HappyDaze, this can be read wrong and I just realized it. I didn't intend to degrade you by saying "I've been lucky", I meant to say that in regards to players I've come across have the same mindset as I do, not that I haven’t come across you.

If you took that wrong, that’s on me. I apologize if it was taken offensively. I don't agree with your side of this debate, but in no way did I intend to slight you for it.

R/

Sham

True but like other posters thats definitely against the spirit of the game, and there is scope within the rules for applying a little common sense, the rules are written that loopholes should not be exploited, however I got a shock when I asked a question of the developers about a politico using scathing tirade as a maneuver (*2) and an action to causes massive strain damage that could drop a powerful nemesis in one round with little chance for failure only to discover that they considered that as working as intended, so I dont see how holding back xp is. Any different from that.

Who is to say that the reasoning of the 2 rank limit is to stop it being as an exploit of being able to avoid your free ranks to get skills that would normally cost 15xp (ie an exploit to reduce the amount of xp you pay to get rank 3+). Or is it to represent that players cant start with a level of expertise higher than that of someone who does something similar as a day job.

I'm not sure anyone is really qualified to speak about the spirit of the game. As you yourself mention, the developers appear to be just fine with what many consider cheese, so the game's spirit might not be opposed to what I'm saying in the least.

Believe it or not, I've never been asked this from the 15 people I've GMd this game for. Would never even have thought of it had you not mentioned it. I guess I've been lucky with my gamers/ and demos.

I hadn't been back here in a spell. HappyDaze, this can be read wrong and I just realized it. I didn't intend to degrade you by saying "I've been lucky", I meant to say that in regards to players I've come across have the same mindset as I do, not that I haven’t come across you.

If you took that wrong, that’s on me. I apologize if it was taken offensively. I don't agree with your side of this debate, but in no way did I intend to slight you for it.

R/

Sham

No offense taken. I ask for clarity when I'm unsure if someone is being intentionally offensive. If they're just being unintentionally offensive, I'll usually mention it in hope that they'll stop (or else they repeat it and become intentionally offensive). For clear intentional offense, I go with Ignore,

My side of the debate is (mostly) hypothetical: In the game I run, I've had exactly one character - a Colonist (Doctor) that held the starting XP to hit Medicine 3 before the first die roll. Considering that rank 3 of a skill is considered to be the minimum level of training for a professional (per EotE, page 102), I had no objection.

Either way, I should have been clearer, it wasn't even meant to be an unintentional slight. I tend to write how I talk, and sometimes that is hard to convey in written word. In my head it sounded correctly stated, but on paper it doesn't. I'll try a few more proof reads next time.

Strictly speaking by the rules you are NEVER allowed to raise any skill above 2 during character creation and you are NOT allowed to spend XP at the start of a session , so for the rules lawyers p.35

"Players can spend experience points during character creation and at the end of each game session when they receive additional experience points. "

Not sure anyone mentioned that already.

Now this still allows for loopholes and ways around restrictions, ultimately a player could save 60 XP and have a level 5 skill anyway at the end of the next session.. To that I can only say, min/maxing has always been possible in every game and no game has ever been created with clever enough mechanical rules, that rules lawyers couldn't crack. There are a few here I'm sure they'll get right on disputing the above by quoting a few more pages to us.

The point is and this really goes to everyone, not just GM's. Remember, role-playing game mechanics ARE ALWAYS UNBALANCED. There is no such thing as a balanced role-playing game. The balance comes from players and GM's getting together and not exploiting the weaknesses of a system for the sake of a better game.

-Bigkahuna OUT!

Strictly speaking by the rules you are NEVER allowed to raise any skill above 2 during character creation and you are NOT allowed to spend XP at the start of a session , so for the rules lawyers p.35

"Players can spend experience points during character creation and at the end of each game session when they receive additional experience points. "

Not sure anyone mentioned that already.

yes , I did a number of pages back

Strictly speaking by the rules you are NEVER allowed to raise any skill above 2 during character creation and you are NOT allowed to spend XP at the start of a session , so for the rules lawyers p.35

"Players can spend experience points during character creation and at the end of each game session when they receive additional experience points. "

Not sure anyone mentioned that already.

I suppose you could have a situation, likely will have, where you would get Exp from a previous session and would spend them but even so it would be spending them before play begins so it's essentially the same as the end of a session.

Good catch.

Strictly speaking by the rules you are NEVER allowed to raise any skill above 2 during character creation and you are NOT allowed to spend XP at the start of a session , so for the rules lawyers p.35

"Players can spend experience points during character creation and at the end of each game session when they receive additional experience points. "

Not sure anyone mentioned that already.

Now this still allows for loopholes and ways around restrictions, ultimately a player could save 60 XP and have a level 5 skill anyway at the end of the next session.. To that I can only say, min/maxing has always been possible in every game and no game has ever been created with clever enough mechanical rules, that rules lawyers couldn't crack. There are a few here I'm sure they'll get right on disputing the above by quoting a few more pages to us.

The point is and this really goes to everyone, not just GM's. Remember, role-playing game mechanics ARE ALWAYS UNBALANCED. There is no such thing as a balanced role-playing game. The balance comes from players and GM's getting together and not exploiting the weaknesses of a system for the sake of a better game.

-Bigkahuna OUT!

Your points about no system being inherently balanced is well taken, although some are better than others.

I would hesitate to simply spend points only at the end of a session though. I like to allow skill purchases during a session when time is spent to actually learn or improve the skill.

New GMs should hopefully keep in mind that even a single Rank of Skill is a wide range of experience. Unlike many systems with percentile systems or modifiers to a d20 roll, there are only six ranks to describe everyone from the rank amateur (0 Ranks) to the most consummate professional in the universe (5 Ranks). Use these ranks to keep a hold of the scope of your campaign. If you want a more epic campaign (Star Wars), let the players loose with their XP. If you want a more gritty and local campaign (ala Firefly) then have them justify the expenditure as the story allows.

White wolf has a system similar to EotE's Skill Ranks. In the OWoD, characters could only increase a specific skill rating once per chronicle in order to keep verisimilitude. You don't have to be that choosy, but perhaps only once every three or so adventures depending upon the length in sessions for your adventures. Play with it and find the best balance for your group.

Its worth saying that skills themselves are considerably more effective then attribute scores and their is a firm application of limiting the advancement of attributes. The reason for this is clearly that attributes affect a wide array of skills, while any given skill, costing considerably much to get to higher levels only affects a single skill. As such a character having a 4-5 in a skill at the start I think would be bad, but workable, it would mean an automatic success by that character anytime he uses that skill in anything but the most dire circumstances.

Such things are however mostly inevitable anyway. After all, even if you give out a minimum of 10 XP per session after a half a dozen sessions most players could potentially have 4's in skills.

That said, its probably a good idea to limit it, after all, Edge of The Empire is all about "keeping them wanting" and I think just like limited resources and obligations, skills should be short on hand. Part of the fun is finding a way to make due with what you have. The game could be just as damaged by giving out too much resources, allowing players to clear obligations too easily and rising in skill too quickly. It all ties together.

I personally don't run a Star Wars game, I'm a player for a change. But in our game we spent every starting XP for every character and while no game is balanced, doing it this way has proven to be a fair bit better then good.

Strictly speaking by the rules you are NEVER allowed to raise any skill above 2 during character creation and you are NOT allowed to spend XP at the start of a session , so for the rules lawyers p.35

"Players can spend experience points during character creation and at the end of each game session when they receive additional experience points. "

Not sure anyone mentioned that already.

I suppose you could have a situation, likely will have, where you would get Exp from a previous session and would spend them but even so it would be spending them before play begins so it's essentially the same as the end of a session.

Good catch.

It is a good catch. Oddly enough the main areas where XP is covered (pages 30 and 92) don't mention this limitation. I'm not opposed to this rule, but they really should have put it with the main section on spending XP (as per the index entry).

Strictly speaking by the rules you are NEVER allowed to raise any skill above 2 during character creation and you are NOT allowed to spend XP at the start of a session , so for the rules lawyers p.35

"Players can spend experience points during character creation and at the end of each game session when they receive additional experience points. "

Not sure anyone mentioned that already.

I suppose you could have a situation, likely will have, where you would get Exp from a previous session and would spend them but even so it would be spending them before play begins so it's essentially the same as the end of a session.

Good catch.

It is a good catch. Oddly enough the main areas where XP is covered (pages 30 and 92) don't mention this limitation. I'm not opposed to this rule, but they really should have put it with the main section on spending XP (as per the index entry).

Yeah, I hate how they have important sections split up in two or three differing areas of the text.

Its worth saying that skills themselves are considerably more effective then attribute scores and their is a firm application of limiting the advancement of attributes. The reason for this is clearly that attributes affect a wide array of skills, while any given skill, costing considerably much to get to higher levels only affects a single skill. As such a character having a 4-5 in a skill at the start I think would be bad, but workable, it would mean an automatic success by that character anytime he uses that skill in anything but the most dire circumstances.

To be honest a starting character with a 5 starting skill can really only start with 2 or 3 in the related stat. As I mentioned earlier that same character could start off with 5 in the stat instead. Look at the difference in the roll that character has to make.

5 ranks/ 2 skill gets 5 dice with 2 upgrades.

2 ranks/ 5 skill gets 5 dice with 2 upgrades.

The first costs 60 xp, however all his other (related) skills are the just 2dice

The second costs 120 xp, however all his other related skills use 5 dice (not 2).

The first is not legal (to start with) , it is however the weaker of the 2 because the loss of ability with the other skills.Other than the fact that the first person is an expert in his field he is in fact no better off than the game legal character and is in fact IMO worse off. IMO the 5 stat character is more game breaking, if you can call it that. Now in comparison the illegal character does not seem so game breaking to me.

I would also like to add to this something I left out - the 5 stat player could then go to get (with one dedication) 6 dice on the check with 5 upgrades (and the same with additional stat related skills), whereas the 5 ranked skill player gets 5 dice with 3 upgrades with the same level of skills.

So given that both characters start with the same skill rolls. The game legal character ultimately ends up with a massively higher dice roll over the game illegal character, doesnt sound sensible. Id recommend that a PC start with neither of these options though.

Its worth saying that skills themselves are considerably more effective then attribute scores and their is a firm application of limiting the advancement of attributes. The reason for this is clearly that attributes affect a wide array of skills, while any given skill, costing considerably much to get to higher levels only affects a single skill. As such a character having a 4-5 in a skill at the start I think would be bad, but workable, it would mean an automatic success by that character anytime he uses that skill in anything but the most dire circumstances.

To be honest a starting character with a 5 starting skill can really only start with 2 or 3 in the related stat. As I mentioned earlier that same character could start off with 5 in the stat instead. Look at the difference in the roll that character has to make.

5 ranks/ 2 skill gets 5 dice with 2 upgrades.

2 ranks/ 5 skill gets 5 dice with 2 upgrades.

The first costs 60 xp, however all his other (related) skills are the just 2dice

The second costs 120 xp, however all his other related skills use 5 dice (not 2).

The first is not legal (to start with) , it is however the weaker of the 2 because the loss of ability with the other skills.Other than the fact that the first person is an expert in his field he is in fact no better off than the game legal character and is in fact IMO worse off. IMO the 5 stat character is more game breaking, if you can call it that. Now in comparison the illegal character does not seem so game breaking to me.

Yeah I think your right.

Its an oversight in the rules easily corrected by simply saying no.

In fact after this post I created a 2 new house rule at our table. You MUST spend all your character creation XP during character creation, anything unspent is lost. Max start stat is 4.

Pretty much solved the problem.