I'm fine encouraging things in the fluff - obviously humans are the dominant species of the Empire and the most populous species in the Star Wars galaxy. There are significant benefits to being human aside from their chargen mechanics. Those mechanics are just the icing on a very nice cake.

Humans being the most significant in movies is kind of a no-brainer: they're the most-relatable by the audience (for obvious reasons) and also the least budget-heavy (not requiring as elaborate of costumes). Humans aren't inherently "better" or "more heroic" than any alien though.

I'm fine encouraging things in the fluff - obviously humans are the dominant species of the Empire and the most populous species in the Star Wars galaxy. There are significant benefits to being human aside from their chargen mechanics. Those mechanics are just the icing on a very nice cake.

Humans being the most significant in movies is kind of a no-brainer: they're the most-relatable by the audience (for obvious reasons) and also the least budget-heavy (not requiring as elaborate of costumes). Humans aren't inherently "better" or "more heroic" than any alien though.

No, they're not inherently better, but as you state, they're the easily the most popular choice since the audience is (most likely) exclusively human. OTOH, there are some species that are portrayed as inherently less heroic. The Hutts are an example. It would take a great deal of effort to convince many players that a heroic Hutt PC is a good idea.

Humans being the most significant in movies is kind of a no-brainer: they're the most-relatable by the audience (for obvious reasons) and also the least budget-heavy (not requiring as elaborate of costumes). Humans aren't inherently "better" or "more heroic" than any alien though.

No, they're not inherently better, but as you state, they're the easily the most popular choice since the audience is (most likely) exclusively human. OTOH, there are some species that are portrayed as inherently less heroic. The Hutts are an example. It would take a great deal of effort to convince many players that a heroic Hutt PC is a good idea.

I know two, maybe three, players who'd love the chance to play a hutt as an Edge character. Not because they're heroic, but because not all protagonists need be "heroic"...

Breaking Bad survived nicely on nought but antiheroes. Dune's Leto II is exceptionally unheroic (God Emperor of Dune, Heretics of Dune)....

Heck, Captain Vorpatril's Alliance has a non-heroic protagonist ("Ivan, you idiot!!!" is a common enough turn of phrase around ImpMil HQ.)

Even in AoR, a Hutt would be reasonably playable, as long as he's not trying to cram into a cockpit nor go as a trooper. (Tho', if you want one as a trooper, read Phule's Company for ideas on how to make it work.)

I think some may be looking at this backwards.

If a player chooses to create a Duros he is saying he wants a game that focuses on space action. If a player stats up a Mon Calmari she is saying that she wants intellectual puzzles and some aquatic action. If a player stats up a Hired Gun maxed out for close combat, well, what they are looking for should be obvious.

When I read about GMs feeling that such characters are underpowered because their game is set on desert planets in urban areas and have only range combat encounters, I have to think that those GMs are not considering the sorts of stories their players are interested in.

Why should every possible character be equally well suited to every possible adventure?

Why should every possible character be equally well suited to every possible adventure?

They shouldn't - but the baseline is a mixture of ground and space action (and the rules really don't work well for larger space actions, or even PC squadron combats), so it's highly reasonable to expect the balance to be based upon majority ground action with some space action - based upon adventures to date, about 2/3 ground, 1/3 space, with half the ground being social.

Mon Cal have an over-narrow-for-the-fluff skill. opening it to any one single knowledge isn't a major balance issue; alternatively, upping them by 5 points-to-spend would make them a more attractive choice.

Duros astrogation isn't terribly useful, because the benefits of an advantage result are REALLY quite weak.

The Ithorian's Bellow attack mode is only useful groundside, but is REALLY useful in odd situations.

A sullustan's skill and trait is wasted on anyone but a spacer - it doesn't make them attractive, even then, unless going for a pilot. An extra 5 points would make them more attractive. Or including instead of Astrogation, the natural compass as defined in prior games' fluff, that would be a particularly useful talent. Not one that's overly powerful - but one that's powerful enough to be useful for even space based games, and yet is very ground focused.

Take Mon Cal. Currently, they get Education as a skill. Why? Are all Mon Cal University grads, or are there plumber Mon Cal? What are the designers trying to say? I think they are trying to get at the idea that Mon Cal are smart and learn quickly. Wouldn't giving them a choice of any skill better convey that then Education (which is specific)? One pigeon holes Mon Cal and makes them less interesting, the other makes them more useful and thus more interesting.

I never got the impression that they were naturally adapt (could get any skill), ever in star wars. Like you, I got the impression that they were smart, but I took it as book smart, not necessarily street smart. They, as a culture, put a premium on schooling. Just because a Mon Cal knows how to "use a gun", doesn't mean he actually could do it well. I would think their physiology (webbed flipper hands, skin drying out, etc...) would make most applications more difficult (Something, I believe, the Mon Cal jedi healer chick from the books, had issues with). Not to the point of applying a negative, but certainly to the point of not allowing a bonus in them.

Book smart is something only an education skill would represent. A Mon Cal could know all about war, and war fighting (Ackbar), but most of their experience is probably nil or limited to the water and the quarren opposition. Basically they are nerds, history buffs, Big Bang Theory types.

I'm not saying this is correct, it's just the impression on got on the species, over the years. That is represented by an education skill, so I thought that sounded "correct".

I admit my EU knowledge is limited to RPGs and novels up to the vong, so something could have come around post that, or in the comics. I, honestly, never saw it as "if they are smart, they should be able to learn anything", but I can see where that is coming from, now. I guess it's just on how you wish to represent the culture, book smart or leg-up smart, either could work.

When I read about GMs feeling that such characters are underpowered because their game is set on desert planets in urban areas and have only range combat encounters, I have to think that those GMs are not considering the sorts of stories their players are interested in.

It's a balance. The players' interests are not all-controlling. The GM should not feel the need to radically adjust plot ideas to make the guy who can breathe water shine at breathing water. I like races to be unique, but I question pigeonholing them into specialty niches that are either super fringe or force the GM to bring up unusual conditions to make that weird thing shine, or both.

Not saying the Players' interests should be all controlling. It is indeed a balance.

We had one player who would always create useless characters, by which I mean characters who had no situation in which they could shine, he would then spend every session sulking because he couldn't do anything.

We tried every solution to this we could think of. We would tell him that Gordy the Janitor was not really a good adventurer concept. We would tell him that the adventure was going to be a combat heavy infiltration mission requiring high shooting and stealth skills only to see him roll up a champion swimmer and chess nerd.

I suppose part of it is that if you want to play a Mon Cal you need to be aware of the limitations and accept them. Either that or all the Beta playtesters need to unite and send FFG feed back on how to make them more playable. I think giving an extra 5 exp to the under powered species is not a bad thing at all

It's a tricky issue. On the one hand you don't want a d&d 4th situation where game balance is so important that you render everything formulaic and stale. On the other hand you don't want to make game rules that are superfluous because few players are tempted to use them. Rules we never use are a waste of space and time.

Just because a few Mon Cal enthusiasts love them and will play them does not excuse bad game design. Mon Cal don't feel right to me. I actually don't like the idea of giving them "any" skill. It doesn't make sense. I don't see them as being great at any skill and besides that's a human thing.

I do like the idea of giving them access to any knowledge skill. I would prefer they do something more interesting than just amphibious and a skill, however. How about a benefit related to the idea that Mon Cal must have incredible special processing capability. They grow up moving in three dimensions as compared to other races two.

I think people may be underplaying the usefulness of the Education skill. Read the description closely. It is the default knowledge skill for anything not covered specifically by the other Knowledge skills.

Want to whip up a batch of plastic explosives in the kitchen sink? Education covers chemistry.

Need to navigate the local bureaucracy? Education. Need to identify which alien plants are likely toxic and which harmless? Education covers botany.

I think Education may be one of the broadest and most potentially useful skills in the game. If you could have learned it in school or read it in a book this is the skill.

Humans being the most significant in movies is kind of a no-brainer: they're the most-relatable by the audience (for obvious reasons) and also the least budget-heavy (not requiring as elaborate of costumes). Humans aren't inherently "better" or "more heroic" than any alien though.

No, they're not inherently better, but as you state, they're the easily the most popular choice since the audience is (most likely) exclusively human. OTOH, there are some species that are portrayed as inherently less heroic. The Hutts are an example. It would take a great deal of effort to convince many players that a heroic Hutt PC is a good idea.

I know two, maybe three, players who'd love the chance to play a hutt as an Edge character. Not because they're heroic, but because not all protagonists need be "heroic"...

Breaking Bad survived nicely on nought but antiheroes. Dune's Leto II is exceptionally unheroic (God Emperor of Dune, Heretics of Dune)....

Heck, Captain Vorpatril's Alliance has a non-heroic protagonist ("Ivan, you idiot!!!" is a common enough turn of phrase around ImpMil HQ.)

Even in AoR, a Hutt would be reasonably playable, as long as he's not trying to cram into a cockpit nor go as a trooper. (Tho', if you want one as a trooper, read Phule's Company for ideas on how to make it work.)

Many of my players (and I) like to play something other than just humans. We get to be humans all the time, it is fun to try something different. Humans get a significant advantage with the Empire being humanocentric; they don't need massive game stat advantages as well. If a player wants to play a non-human race they shouldn't look at their race then look at humans and say "Hey my race really stinks". The non-human races should have some area where they have some advantage. Nothing too major, but something roughly equivalent to a talent that will be helpful sometimes, but not overpowering. I think most of the species are fairly well balanced, but the Mon Cals are a bit weak.

I think some may be looking at this backwards.

If a player chooses to create a Duros he is saying he wants a game that focuses on space action. If a player stats up a Mon Calmari she is saying that she wants intellectual puzzles and some aquatic action. If a player stats up a Hired Gun maxed out for close combat, well, what they are looking for should be obvious.

When I read about GMs feeling that such characters are underpowered because their game is set on desert planets in urban areas and have only range combat encounters, I have to think that those GMs are not considering the sorts of stories their players are interested in.

Why should every possible character be equally well suited to every possible adventure?

I think people may be underplaying the usefulness of the Education skill. Read the description closely. It is the default knowledge skill for anything not covered specifically by the other Knowledge skills.

Want to whip up a batch of plastic explosives in the kitchen sink? Education covers chemistry.

Need to navigate the local bureaucracy? Education. Need to identify which alien plants are likely toxic and which harmless? Education covers botany.

I think Education may be one of the broadest and most potentially useful skills in the game. If you could have learned it in school or read it in a book this is the skill.

I think you might giving Education more credit than most GMs. Whipping up a batch of C4 might be Education, but navigating a bureaucracy almost certainly isn't.

Maybe the filling out forms part of it, but bureaucracies are about people and navigating people is about social skills. You might use Coercion to scare someone with the threat of a supervisor or the media. You can use Charm to get the people who actually make things happen (usually a secretary) to help. You can use Leadership to motivate people.

The point is that the system allows flexibility in how you accomplish things and a Twi'lek with Charm is way ahead of a Mon Cal with Education in the sort of situations that PCs encounter. Does your GM really make you role play going to the DMV?

Even if you can make C4 you would still need to make a Mechanics check to properly destroy your target. Making stuff that goes boom isn't that hard. Blowing up only the stuff you want to is where the magic happens.

Knowledge of toxic plants is Xeneology, not Education. Applying that knowledge, however is Survival. Which makes Survival the trump skill. Unless, your GM makes you role play publishing academic papers?

While Education is far from a useless skill, it's neither the sexiest nor the most broadly called upon. It also doesn't make sense that nearly all Mon Cal are educated.

From a discussion I had with Fiddleback a couple nights ago, it seems that a lot of GMs aren't giving the Knowledge skills that much credit to begin with, mostly as they're difficult for newer GMs (or GMs just new to this system in general) to really draw a bead on "what does this skill let the character find out?"

If anything, when hunting for "what skill works for this situation," it feels like a number of GMs treat the Knowledge list as more of an afterthought. And if the GMs do that, that's less incentive for players to pick up any Knowledge skill ranks unless they either get a bunch of them as starting career skills or it really plays into their character concept.

I honestly think DavetheLost is on the right track in just how valuable a free rank in Knowledge (Education) can be. Chemistry, basic Biology, complex mathematics, basic galactic history (pretty much the major highlights without much detail)... pretty much anything you were exposed to in high school or at the college level. So it can be fairly broad, if the GM is willing to take their blinders off and look beyond the list of general skills for what might be a skill applicable to a given situation.

I think most GMs put things into the categories they are already familiar with. For most Knowledge skills get put into the "Theory" box while General skills are the "practice" box. Some rolls are clear cut. Who Jabba the Hutt is falls into the Underworld realm.

But where does knowledge of toxic plants fall?

If you want to find some food it's clear that avoiding deadly flora is Survival. If you want to list the qualities of Dathomiri Elm then its Xeneology. If you want to make a poison from the same? Then it gets murkier. I don't honestly know the answer. I think that's a group decision. I'd probably say it's a Survival roll to brew up some death tonic.

For me that's the theory versus practice thing. Knowing the scientific name is great, but brewing poison in the field without a chem lab? That's an applied skill. Different GMs will see it otherwise.

I think that it's inevitable that players will prioritize active skills over passive knowledge. We want to be playing heroes who do stuff, not schlubs who merely know stuff.

There's also the issue of the groups' knowledge versus the character's knowledge. Highly educated players will tend to assume that things are obvious or basic knowledge, even if they aren't. They won't see a reason to make an Education roll in the first place because, "Who doesn't know what mitochondrial DNA is? I mean really. How dumb is my character?"