I suppose that I do analyze games for reason and themes more than I should, but then again I also enjoy creating them. I love more narrative games, but I like having that balance of clear and understandable terminology and reason. It is too easy in a narrative game to have a disagreement on what something means, such as what we are having, if there isn't enough descriptive fluff to justify the mechanics.

You are correct though, this pandora's box only opens if you allow PCs to take attributes below racial averages.

I get why you are analyzing it though - trust me. I think this is why the devs didn't implement a system where one can deduct skills at chargen, really to prevent this debate. It's a lot easier to say, 'this is the average Rodian' with most player comprehending that (especially first timers, which this system is very good at bringing in new table-top gamers). The system almost 'dumbs down', if you will many other dice-rolling table top systems, even other d6 narrative systems like WEG, which EotE is heavily influenced. It's creative streamlining and I know a lot of people like customization and this game really doesn't present a mechanic for doing so... It really streamlines down the character generation process, personally I appreciate that. While we can debate over what clearly defines differences in various characteristics, which is fine, at the same time I can just tell my players 'these stats are baseline states for a species, by adding characteristic points, it demonstrates how your PC is above average' is a lot simpler and less to explain than saying,

/joke 'you can trade your characteristics in, but now your will need to RP this way, and explain why your wookiee is 5'2, doesn't know how to climb, is weaker than an average human, somehow escaped the grasps of the empire on Kashyyyk, isn't easily captured (since wookiees are rare and prized commodities as is), has to wear a breathing mask because his lungs didn't develop properly (so I could get an extra XP like a Gand), knows how to speak basic, has the force and is smarter than Yoda at chargen. /end joke

Because the 'Below Average' stat for NPCs is considered significantly different from PCs; let's put it this way, while a PC may have 2 across the board be considered 'Average', 1 Across the board would be considered 'Average' for the majority of most PCs.

Stats don't make the hero, actions make the hero.

An npc human and a pc human both will have 2 as their average stats

1 is below the average of a human, its that simple

Stats don't make the hero, actions make the hero.

An npc human and a pc human both will have 2 as their average stats

1 is below the average of a human, its that simple

You're correct Hakon and incorrect at the same time; NPCs are constructed vastly different from PC heroes in the game.. The book even mentions that PCs will have generally higher statistics to NPCs (the average person in the Galaxy) because that's what sets them apart and allows them to perform the actions they do. I forget where in the CRB it says this, most likely early on in the CharGen section if I can recall correctly. Therefore what is considered 'average' by PC standards is considered 'above average' for NPCs. This is why NPCs are either not given any type of characteristic, or are classified as Minions, Rivals and Nemesis. That fact that an individual minion cannot use skills, and rival's don't have Strain is a telling enough sign that these are more mechanics than 'roleplaying' boundaries and that they are fundamentally 'weaker' than the average PC - an example would be, if you pit a minion wookiee and against a PC wookiee, the PC wookiee should exceed the minion wookiee in every way, they should be roughly equal to slightly better than a Rival and slightly weaker to even to a Nemesis (depending on experience).

In EotE not everything is held equal... Just because a Core World Guard has '1 Int' and a Bantha has '1 Int', does not mean that the Core World Guard has the same intellectual capacity as a Bantha.

the generally higher then npc's it refers too is due to the fact we can increase our stats as our characters level, not due to the fact we start higher.

that is a d20 way of thinking.

Stormtrooper Squad 4x1 Minion Group

Brawn Agility Intellect Cunning Willpower Presence

3 3 2 2 2 1

Soak Defence Wound Threshold

5 1 5

Skill Groups

Athletics, Ranged (heavy&light), Discipline, Melee

Talents

none

Equipment

Blaster Rifle, dmg 9, crit 3, long, stun

Vibroknife, dmg 4, crit 2, pierce 2, vicious 1,

2 frag grenades, dmg 8, crit 4, short, blast 6

...These are stats for 4 Individual NPCs grouped together as a 'Minion'... Not individuals...

Stormtrooper Sergeant

Brawn Agility Intellect Cunning Willpower Presence

3 3 2 3 2 1

Soak Defence Wound Threshold

5 1 14

Skills

Athletics 2, Discipline 2, Leadership 3, Melee 2, Ranged (heavy) 3, Ranged Light 2 Resilience 2, Vigilance 2

Talents

Advesary 1

Abilities

Tactical Direction - maneuver to direct a stromtrooper squad to do a maneuver or add [boost] to next check

Equipment

Heavy Blaster Rifle, dmg 11, crit 3, long, cumbersome 3, autofire

Vibroknife, dmg 4, crit 2, pierce 2, vicious 1

2 frag grenades, dmg 8, crit 4, short, blast 6

This are stats for a Rival, which are weaker than a PC Characteristically at chargen... Yes he's got better skills, but this is a Rival... And he's had years of experience...

This is not a d20 way of thinking, it's in the mechanics. If the CRB said that Int 1 means you can't functionally reason, or that brawn one means your inferiority of brawn creates difficulty with performing menial physical tasks, I'd be on the same page as you. While it does give a description, like 'one's ability to reason', it doesn't say that specific characteristic rank pigeonholes into a certain way of roleplaying. It mentions something of that nature in relation to ranks in a particular skill, for GMs to narrate how NPCs act (basically if you've got 6 skill in something, people seek you out because you're a Grandmaster), but not for characteristics.

The book and the NPCs in the book demonstrate that PCs are naturally above the average denizen of the galaxy; you can house rule that differently if you'd like, but trying to peg a player as 'RPing based off their characteristics' isn't anywhere mentioned in the CRB. In which case, you'll have to put some sort of measure of justification to each characteristic point as well as their 'ranks', which is going on within this thread. I don't think its really necessary, in my opinion once again. You can argue why your house rule on RPing your characteristics is justified, but please don't try to tell me that my referencing the CRB is a d20 system - that is false. EotE doesn't place restrictions on RPing; games like Pathfinder and DnD make it clear, that if you've got 7 intelligence, you can't speak properly. Like I've repeated, they are more abstract in this system and aren't held equal.

Even the "fool" in the party can sometimes surprise everyone with a good idea. This is why the dice are so crucial an aspect of roleplaying in this system. The GM gives a difficulty, the player accepts that difficulty, and then when his single Green die comes up with 2 success and the 2 purples and 1 red show all blanks...the fool has a moment of sheer brilliance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYMyIXR7d6o

That being said I'm uncomfortable if the guy with Int 1, Core Worlds 4 gets a better result than someone with Int 4, Core Worlds 1 and subsequently gets worse information because of his lower Int, as if the higher skill or even the pure result doesn't justify a certain level of info if your Int isn't higher. I'm even more uncomfortable telling a player "no you can't think to do that because your character is not that smart." To me that is very heavy-handed GMing, not encouraging roleplaying at all.

I am not suggesting that the results should be any less valid in your example. I would suggest that the diligence spent in learning so much about the topic (i.e. Skill Rating) should be emphasized during the narration, rather than the character's brilliance in deduction.

With this, I get what you mean but I think that there doesn't need to be a practical difference in the information gleaned, and in my opinion taking time to create such a narrow distinction in info given will almost certainly be a waste of time on the GM's part.

That being said I'm uncomfortable if the guy with Int 1, Core Worlds 4 gets a better result than someone with Int 4, Core Worlds 1 and subsequently gets worse information because of his lower Int, as if the higher skill or even the pure result doesn't justify a certain level of info if your Int isn't higher. I'm even more uncomfortable telling a player "no you can't think to do that because your character is not that smart." To me that is very heavy-handed GMing, not encouraging roleplaying at all.

It isn't heavy handed to expect a player to self limit herself while playing a character that isn't as smart as she is. It is a sign of good role-playing, and understanding what makes the character tick. GMs sometimes need to remind players about their limits in order to keep verisimilitude in the game. It is a similar concept to pc versus character knowledge. You wouldn't consider that heavy handed would you?

Smart is a difficult term to define. I am loath to tell, say, a Gammorrean's player that they are literally incapable of coming up with a clever tactical plan. I would probably have them roll it and interpret the dice appropriately - with low Int, 1-2 skill dice and perhaps Setbacks for being outside the character's normal focus, the chance of a lot of Threat is high, and that provides the limitations and incorrect inferences of the character (as well as new plot hooks), not the player having to dumb themselves down or be told "don't participate in this event because it doesn't make sense for you to."

In the way I look at it, I keep the player engaged and give them an opportunity to do something like flip Destiny for a possibly great result, with the threat of them coming up with very wrong ideas if the dice go against them. This is much preferable to me than "reminding players of their limits." I don't care about verisimilitude near as much as I care about players having fun and feeling engaged as much as possible.

And this isn't even implicating OOC/IC metagaming. It's quite different actually. You seem to be saying that you'd tell a player "your character isn't smart enough to think about that" versus seeing what the dice actually say. Metagaming is a player reading Wookiepedia's article on Darth Vader and his ex-Imperial pilot character somehow knowing about the Dark Lord's childhood. To me that is a perfect place to either say no or respond with a ton of (wrong) in-setting rumors, rather than chastising the player.

And I think it's a failure that the baseline for "average intelligence" is 2, and everything from a cow to labor droids to several notable sentient species are all represented simply by a 1. Gammorreans may be stupid compared to most species, but they're sapient in the end.

And this isn't even implicating OOC/IC metagaming. It's quite different actually. You seem to be saying that you'd tell a player "your character isn't smart enough to think about that" versus seeing what the dice actually say.

Why would you roll everything? Some of the best plans created by players have nothing to do with the dice initially. Now, in this system you could roll out every plan or idea and simply apply the results. It could work, I suppose. But doesn't that feel like you are taking away player creativity?

Perhaps I have played too much FATE, but I follow the idea of rolling only when necessary. Otherwise I allow the event to occur. Plans have always seemed to me to be a good reason to grant bonus dice or modifier in any system.

I think you are focusing too much on the idea of restricting skill rolls versus restricting plans and ideas that may generate those skill rolls.

I'm not suggesting to roll everything. If a player wants to figure out some tactics and isn't sure what their character would know, I'd have them roll it. The success/advantage axes would determine what they knew/didn't know, and how applicable or useful that might be. And if the character is very devoted to the skill in question and gets a lot of success, that translates to bonus dice or other good narrative situations that put things in their advantage.

Personally I think asking for a roll affects player creativity less than saying "with Int 1 there is no way you would think to do that." It's my experience that players told the latter contribute less than players told the former who just fail the rolls.

I have actually found exactly the opposite.

I have gotten more engagement when a player looks at a character as a more complex person, complete with limitations and advantages. Once people have an idea of what their character's can do, understand, and accomplish it is amazing the creativity that comes out to accomplish what they want to do. Perhaps the intelligent way of doing something isn't something that that particular character would suggest, but it doesn't mean that the player can't be creative for the character.

I think this is one where we are just going to have to disagree. We have already tied up the thread for awhile. I hope everyone else has found our discussion at least moderately interesting.

I've found it very intriguing! When I've been in situations like this in the past (a player with PC of less-than-average Intellectual acumen suggesting something rather brilliant), I asked my player, "Okay how would your character relay this plan?" And it's always resulted in some really great roleplay where the simple-minded PC suggests something and then the other PCs either pull a "No that's stupid...hey wait a sec, what if [insert stupid-PC's-plan-here]"-type of trope and "take credit" for the idea, or they say something along the lines of "That's just stupid enough that it might work!" Either way, it has led to some great narrative & cinematic moments.

In case anyone is interested, I was working on a system of Merits & Flaws while we were discussing this topic. I just finished up the article on my blog . I added a method of reducing starting attributes which is self limiting and based around the obligation mechanic.

I know that not everyone is going to like it, but it may help those interested in doing such to make their own home rules.

love it, makes character creation way more interesting.

love it, makes character creation way more interesting.

Thank you very much.

In case anyone is interested, I was working on a system of Merits & Flaws ...

I must admit, I approached this ready to dislike it. I usually don't like such lists for other games, but...

These are great! Nice and subtle, and making them based on boost or setback dice is simple and effective.

EDIT: I think you should make it a separate thread, it's bound to get lost...

EDIT2: doh! you did...

I like this a lot.

We already do something like it, though... I give out a lot of blue and black dice depending on whether it fits the character's race, career and personality. I find it covers a lot of stuff that the rules don't - Cynn has lots of shady contacts, Kimmy's a great dancer, Red has seen the Alliance from the inside. Jo's no good at chatting up guys, for all her 5 Presence and 4 Charm. BeeDee used to be a 'working girl'. Chakk's a calm kind of guy, but most people find wookiees are very scary.

I find the system really helps in making up neat little things like this on the fly.