I was pretty sure that this forum is for feedback on the BETA on what people want in the main game. Having you turn around and dismiss it because we can do whatever in our own home games seems to be kind of missing the point.

The answer from FFG may well be: "This is a Role Playing Game, and your GM will and can do whatever he wants to do. As for what he will do? That will be a matter of what will best suit his campaign and players desires." As my groups GM I know how I will be solving this issue, and it doesn't really matter to me how you solve the problem or your GM does for your group.

Making a fuss because that isn't the answer you want, may not prove as productive as you would like. I am sure the folks at FFG already have noted your concern, I don't think you are unique in having it.

At times you just have to stand back and say to yourself, "I have provided my feedback and the rule writers can agree or disagree with my opinion as they see fit." After that, you sit back and relax and grab the rulebook when it comes out and see what they thought of your feedback. As a playtester for Flames of War I can see some of my ideas in the rule books, and other ideas that didn't pass through the process.

The answer from FFG may well be: "This is a Role Playing Game, and your GM will and can do whatever he wants to do. As for what he will do? That will be a matter of what will best suit his campaign and players desires." As my groups GM I know how I will be solving this issue, and it doesn't really matter to me how you solve the problem or your GM does for your group.

Making a fuss because that isn't the answer you want, may not prove as productive as you would like. I am sure the folks at FFG already have noted your concern, I don't think you are unique in having it.

At times you just have to stand back and say to yourself, "I have provided my feedback and the rule writers can agree or disagree with my opinion as they see fit." After that, you sit back and relax and grab the rulebook when it comes out and see what they thought of your feedback. As a playtester for Flames of War I can see some of my ideas in the rule books, and other ideas that didn't pass through the process.

Unless MouthyMerc happens to be FFG, this is completely unrelated to the situation at hand.

But I'm bowing out. People are outright hostile on this board when people don't like specific parts of the rules. Which is incredibly silly considering that is the point of having a Beta.

The whole "Its narrative, numbers don't matter" song and dance is kind of pointless. You can apply that to every possible part of the game. Why even have rules?

The answer from FFG may well be: "This is a Role Playing Game, and your GM will and can do whatever he wants to do. As for what he will do? That will be a matter of what will best suit his campaign and players desires." As my groups GM I know how I will be solving this issue, and it doesn't really matter to me how you solve the problem or your GM does for your group.

Making a fuss because that isn't the answer you want, may not prove as productive as you would like. I am sure the folks at FFG already have noted your concern, I don't think you are unique in having it.

At times you just have to stand back and say to yourself, "I have provided my feedback and the rule writers can agree or disagree with my opinion as they see fit." After that, you sit back and relax and grab the rulebook when it comes out and see what they thought of your feedback. As a playtester for Flames of War I can see some of my ideas in the rule books, and other ideas that didn't pass through the process.

Unless MouthyMerc happens to be FFG, this is completely unrelated to the situation at hand.

But I'm bowing out. People are outright hostile on this board when people don't like specific parts of the rules. Which is incredibly silly considering that is the point of having a Beta.

The whole "Its narrative, numbers don't matter" song and dance is kind of pointless. You can apply that to every possible part of the game. Why even have rules?

Amen to that! If it's all narrative then ditch the dice, don some Jedi robes and go find some buddies to play pretend with.

Sorry. I don't buy that that initial 10 xp makes that much of a difference in the long run.

Making up for that 10 starting XP is a MINIMUM 75 XP deficit if it's used to allow purchase of an extra rank of attribute.

And, given the extreme power of a die of attribute - the green die is better than the purple is bad, and the Yellow better than the Red Die - the ability to get a 4th 3 or a single 5 is about the most powerful 10 points in the engine

The hostility, I think, is mostly imagined. But I'm sure it's easily perceived on both sides, which leads to escalation, as can be seen on multiple threads here. People have one way of seeing things (it's how we're built), and then other people come along and challenge that belief. The standard response is to defend one's belief, which can come off as hostility, which makes people more hostile, and hostility perpetuates itself, with each side in the discussion-turned-heated-argument feeling wronged and misunderstood.

Better IMO to take people's comments at face value, try to understand them, and then leave the conversation better off than you were before you had it. The exchange of ideas is the goal for me, not the annihilation-of-all-who-oppose-me. And I hope that I speak for others

I agree that the game is balanced with itself, and play groups who have access to AoR and EotE can gain Duty and/or Obligation as they see fit. I am fine with the way it is. Lots of others are too. But there are yet others who aren't okay with it. Let's not get our knickers in a twist

I suppose you could also point out, in regards to the OP's original point, that having a group of players in an EOTE campaign to begin with different Obligation totals is a mixed bag. If your group begins with Obligation 10, and one player increases it to 20 for a +10 XP boost, then you have the same problem; however, as we've discovered via play, this is not so much a deal-breaker as some folks seem to imagine.

I know people want to force the issue that EotE characters and AoR characters should "start on equal footing", but that ignores the fact that we're talking about two different games, each with a different tone that is reflected in mechanics:

In EotE, the characters are independent and forced to live by their wits. In AoR, they are part of a larger whole, devoted to a shared objective.

It makes complete sense that an EotE character should have access to a mechanic that enhances their individuality, while an AoR character has access to a mechanic that ehances their focus on a common cause.

That's not a narrative difference. That's an intentional tonal difference between the two games.

I agree that the game is balanced with itself, and play groups who have access to AoR and EotE can gain Duty and/or Obligation as they see fit. I am fine with the way it is. Lots of others are too. But there are yet others who aren't okay with it. Let's not get our knickers in a twist

I'm coming back mostly because I think I was a bit over the top myself. I've been dealing with a back injury and its making me more grumpy than I should be. So apologies to everyone about that.

Anyway, on the actual discussion:

Here is the issue. That 10xp matters to a lot of people who want the characters to start on an equal footing. For people who don't care and want to treat it as a seperate game entirely... How does the extra 10 XP even HURT your enjoyment of the game?

So on one side I see people like me who want a way to gain that 10 extra starting XP, becuase it feels better to them. And on the other side there are people who say "they are different games, what does it matter"... then why does it matter if they create a way to get that extra 10 XP? Why do you feel the need to shout down something that you think DOESN'T MATTER.

I agree that the game is balanced with itself, and play groups who have access to AoR and EotE can gain Duty and/or Obligation as they see fit. I am fine with the way it is. Lots of others are too. But there are yet others who aren't okay with it. Let's not get our knickers in a twist

I'm coming back mostly because I think I was a bit over the top myself. I've been dealing with a back injury and its making me more grumpy than I should be. So apologies to everyone about that.

Anyway, on the actual discussion:

Here is the issue. That 10xp matters to a lot of people who want the characters to start on an equal footing. For people who don't care and want to treat it as a seperate game entirely... How does the extra 10 XP even HURT your enjoyment of the game?

So on one side I see people like me who want a way to gain that 10 extra starting XP, becuase it feels better to them. And on the other side there are people who say "they are different games, what does it matter"... then why does it matter if they create a way to get that extra 10 XP? Why do you feel the need to shout down something that you think DOESN'T MATTER.

GM: "Free 10 starting XP if you write up a backstory for how your character became mixed up in the rebellion"

Done. I solve the world's problems. Now, someone call my Government and tell them to get back to work.

GM: "Free 10 starting XP if you write up a backstory for how your character became mixed up in the rebellion"

Done. I solve the world's problems. Now, someone call my Government and tell them to get back to work.

Once again: This is a forum for providing feedback on the Beta, as the rules have not yet been officially finalized. Responding to feedback with "The GM can do whatever he wants to do" is superflous. I can do that for every rule suggestion in this entire forum. Why even have a beta if the response to every suggestion is "Well if you are the GM you can ignore it and do what you want."

I KNOW I can play it however I want.

The question I asked is: Providing a way to get the extra 10 XP in the rules will make people who want even footing between characters in EotE vs AoR happy, and won't affect the enjoyment of people who don't care, while not providing it will annoy the people who want the even footing, and the people who don't care won't care. So why is it an issue that people find worth arguing that it shouldn't be there?

This is for feedback on AoR. There is absolutely no need for parity between characters created in AoR and EotE unless you are combining the games. If you are then it behooves you to give AoR characters access to the same options as EotE characters. If you are just concerning yourself with AoR thej they are already on equal footing. AoR doesn't need the option for more xp otherwise. That is why people are telling you that if you want more xp at character creation then give them more xp.

This is for feedback on AoR. There is absolutely no need for parity between characters created in AoR and EotE unless you are combining the games. If you are then it behooves you to give AoR characters access to the same options as EotE characters. If you are just concerning yourself with AoR thej they are already on equal footing. AoR doesn't need the option for more xp otherwise. That is why people are telling you that if you want more xp at character creation then give them more xp.

I love how you avoid answering the question:

How does a way of getting the 10XP in AoR at character generation affect you, as someone who doesn't want the option included? What is your reasoning for not having it be part of the rules, other than that it is not currently in the rules?

If you can't come up with an ACTUAL reason why it would be a bad idea to include some option to gain 10 extra XP in creation, other than "its a different game, and its not in the book right now", then what is the problem?

How does an official way, in the book, to get 10 extra xp at start harm your game?

So if you can't answer that question, what logic is there in not putting in an option for players who DO want something, that won't harm anyone else's game?

What is your valid reason for having it? Beyond EotE characters get the option. Because that is the reason you seem to be putting out there. "EotE characters get the option, so should AoR characters."

Yes, they are different games. But they are intended to be incredibly compatible. The fact that EotE characters have the potential to have higher characteristics than AoR characters doesn't sit well with me when compatibility was supposed to be one of the goals.

They are different games, but the idea that we should pretend the other doesn't exist and they aren't supposed to be compatible with each other is assinine.

And at least I have a reason. Your only reason for not doing it seems to be that it isn't in the book right now.

So answer the question: How is giving an official option for getting equivalent bonus XP to what you can get in EotE harming your game?

A lot of folks seem to be upset about the inability to purchase additional experience, and this might be an easy solution.

1) Why can't people view AoR as it's own game? If EotE had come out SECOND, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

Oh, yes we would, but it would be of a different tone.

Why should a human on the fringe be able to get that extra 10 XP that the human of the Rebellion can't?

And why can they convert 10 XP into extra cash?

Noting that Humans can generate any of the following stat arrays

• 120 XP: 5,2,2,2,2,2 (6)
• 120 XP: 3,3,3,3,2,2 (15)
• 110 XP: 4,3,2,2,2,2 (30)
• 90 XP: 3,3,3,2,2,2 (10)
• 70 XP: 4,2,2,2,2,2 (6)
• 60 XP: 3,3,2,2,2,2 (15)
• 30 XP: 3,2,2,2,2,2 (6)
• 0 XP: 2,2,2,2,2,2 (1)

The parenthesized number is the number of permutations. Red indicates only Edge characters, not AoR ones. 21 different attribute permutations gone of 88; without the 10 extra XP available, AoR characters are significantly LESS diverse.

They also can't get to attribute 5 without going the Dedication Talent route.

It is a compatibility issue, because it means the attribute scaling is inherently different.

Perhaps PC's could start in a "Duty Hole" - allow them to start with a negative duty; they don't get an extry on the duty table, and their first 10 points don't get them onto it. (For what it's worth, almost every one of my players took the extra obligation in Edge for the extra 10 points; the one who didn't was a non-human who was unable to get an extra attribute point out of it. I've had, by the way, 12 players between two edge campaigns, plus 3 one-shot players - and only one didn't opt for the extra XP; 2 of the players used the extra XP for extra cash, one in order to buy a bowcaster )

In a combined game, if duty and obligation both exist for the same character, it's a non-issue.

In a combined game where they don't stack, the Obligation characters can be long term better by at least 25 XP worth simply by taking the extra 10 XP for either 4x3s, or having a 5 stat. ANd they're better out the gate.

We don't know which it's going to be for combined games yet.

Attributes are WAY too important to ignore.

I think post very aptly summarizes the issue I was trying to bring to light with the Duty Mechanics.

One cannot access the set of 4 threes attribute, or the 5 attribute with a human. To me it seems arbitrarily limiting when precedent set by EotE says these characters exist at the start. I did bring this to light because it is a BETA and because I think its something that should be considered by the developers of the game. I STRONGLY disagree with the opinion that an extra 10 XP at starting doesn't make a difference, and this analysis of the possible attribute buys effectively makes that point. Also, this should have nothing to do with Obligation, since we are trying to balance Duty in the absence of having obligation, so I don't find that is an effective counter to this quandry.

All of the points made in response to this point about saying, that you can get XP and Credits and equipment and the like after you start playing discount the fact that attributes cannot be raised beyond character creation except through dedication. It seems like for a person who WANTS to make the character concept with all the attributes and none of the training that they could make in EotE, they cannot make in AoR unless their GM is merciful and grants them extra experience at the start.

There are a lot of people out there who really like to play the numbers game when making characters. I admit to being one, and a lot of the fun I have with these games is to try and figure out how the numbers match my character concept.

There are a lot of people out there who really like to play the numbers game when making characters. I admit to being one, and a lot of the fun I have with these games is to try and figure out how the numbers match my character concept.

Don't be surprised if someone comes in to tell you how wrong you are and how its NARRATIVE and you should just accept it and numbers are meaningless and if you care about the numbers you are doing it wrong.

There are a lot of people out there who really like to play the numbers game when making characters. I admit to being one, and a lot of the fun I have with these games is to try and figure out how the numbers match my character concept.

Don't be surprised if someone comes in to tell you how wrong you are and how its NARRATIVE and you should just accept it and numbers are meaningless and if you care about the numbers you are doing it wrong.

Sometimes problems can be created that don't actually need solving. The issue isn't that anyone is doing it wrong, or that it's a "narrative vs. numbers" argument. The issue is that some people think this is an issue, while others think it is a non-issue. There have been many reasons posted about why AoR characters shouldn't be able to increase their XP, and only some of them are numbers-oriented.

Sometimes problems can be created that don't actually need solving. The issue isn't that anyone is doing it wrong, or that it's a "narrative vs. numbers" argument. The issue is that some people think this is an issue, while others think it is a non-issue. There have been many reasons posted about why AoR characters shouldn't be able to increase their XP, and only some of them are numbers-oriented.

And sometimes people think that if its not a problem to them, it shouldn't be a problem to anyone. And not only that, they should condescend to anyone who considers it an issue.

Answer the question I've asked: What would it harm the people who think its a non-issue to add a way to gain the bonus 10 XP to bring the potential character stats up to equal with EotE characters?

If Person A thinks something is a problem, and Person B doesn't think its a problem, but changing it wouldn't harm them, logic dictates that working on a fix for that problem would be the correct course of action, since it would lead to the most people being content.

I would contend (as I said in the first page) that this "fix" would make AoR characters actually BETTER than EotE characters, when the whole system is considered. This "bonus 10 XP fix" for parity's sake is, IMO, misguided.

It focuses on 1 very small part of character creation: investing XP (step 6). It ignores Obligation effects, which are central to EotE but are completely untouched (by design) by AoR. And it ignores the fact that in EotE, PCs get a single used ship-and-that's-it, while in AoR the PCs get a squadron of Y-Wings, or an under cover Lambda-class shuttle complete with clearance codes, or a kitted-out base of operations and 2500 credits a pop.

If you're only playing AoR, IMO it's not an issue.

If you're playing EotE AND AoR combined, well then the GM and Players can choose whether they want Duty or Obligation or both. And IMO it's not an issue.

If you include F&D in the mix, who knows?

TL;DR: If you give your players an extra 10 XP as a standard RAW option, you've gotta rebalance a whole lotta other crap that is just well enough left alone, IMHO.

The thing is though, I want parity between the capabilities of the CHARACTER.

Duty and Obligation aren't capabilities, they are a campaign conceit. They are a way to drive the story in specific ways that match the tone intended for the game.

And honestly, so are the starting ships/lack of. That is entirely a campaign conceit. And those options are not even balanced inside of AoR. You really think 2,500 credits a person is equal to half a Y-Wing a piece? Or a Shuttle?

Answer the question I've asked: What would it harm the people who think its a non-issue to add a way to gain the bonus 10 XP to bring the potential character stats up to equal with EotE characters?

The solution of just adding 10xp is mechanical, and it completely overlooks the raft of suggestions that could be quite reasonable and much more eloquent solutions that exist to solve this issue. I think there are about 4-5 posts here on how various people will solve this issue for their players, and I think there are 4-5 unique ways this is achieved.

I understand the problem, but I do hope FFG solves it with some suggestions for GM's not just a bonus 10xp.

Hopefully people aren't specifically citing my posts as the difinitive "Just give them 10 xp" argument. My response was mostly a tounge-in-cheek comment.

Which in no way really aids in the discussion of AoR beta itself, so I'll just button my lips and bow out of this thread until I have something constructive to say that hasn't already been repeated several times over in this tread.

Yes, they are different games. But they are intended to be incredibly compatible. The fact that EotE characters have the potential to have higher characteristics than AoR characters doesn't sit well with me when compatibility was supposed to be one of the goals.

They are different games, but the idea that we should pretend the other doesn't exist and they aren't supposed to be compatible with each other is asinine.

The games are compatible, when combined. I've never said differently. EotE characters only have the potential to have higher characteristics if only they have access to Obligation. Taking the games separately there is no parity issue. It only comes up if you combine the games, but deny AoR characters the opportunity to take Obligation. On its own, AoR does not need a mechanic to dish out more XP. On its own, those AoR characters only need parity with themselves, which they have. On its own, AoR characters do not need parity with EotE characters.

And at least I have a reason. Your only reason for not doing it seems to be that it isn't in the book right now.

So answer the question: How is giving an official option for getting equivalent bonus XP to what you can get in EotE harming your game?

No, my reason is that I do not think it is needed, not that it isn't in the book. And if it is needed, because you are combining games, then you already have a mechanic which does that called Obligation.

EotE has a negative character tool in Obligation. AoR has a positive tool in Duty. Both can be used separately or combined. I'll be interested to see F&D's character tool and how it combines with these two.

Lastly, this perceived imbalance. I don't buy it. If that is the case, then every character that doesn't buy extra Obligation to boost stats is going to be, apparently, much worse off than characters that do. So if I don't max out attributes right off my character is going to be the worse for it? So any character in EotE created without taking any extra Obligation is going to be worse or unplayable or less enjoyable? Then why make it a choice?

If that were the case, then I doubt they would have set up character creation the way they did. Taking Obligation would have been automatic. But they didn't, they made it a choice.

The games are compatible, when combined. I've never said differently. EotE characters only have the potential to have higher characteristics if only they have access to Obligation. Taking the games separately there is no parity issue. It only comes up if you combine the games, but deny AoR characters the opportunity to take Obligation.

Yes, they are different games. But they are intended to be incredibly compatible. The fact that EotE characters have the potential to have higher characteristics than AoR characters doesn't sit well with me when compatibility was supposed to be one of the goals.

They are different games, but the idea that we should pretend the other doesn't exist and they aren't supposed to be compatible with each other is asinine.

Wrong. That the NPC's are scaled the same means that there IS a scaling issue. AoR and EotE characters without access to the 10 XP from increased obligation are below comparable vs the NPC's. It's an issue for GM's running crossover campaigns, and for those used to one when running the other as a non-crossover.

AoR characters are between very slightly and significantly less capable versus the NPCs, who are the same stats in both games. (the range is due to both player willingness to mathematically optimize for the role, and the difference between low- and high-att opposition character.)

Fundamentally, it's a small but significant error factor, magnified by the human tendency to power-monger and optimize.

I am sure this has been brought up earlier; but what is wrong with simply having an AoR character that wants +10 xp also get the whole package with Obligation too?