Generally speaking, it seems players always advise a 4/3/3/2/2/1 split on creation (though I’m a bigger advocate of 3/3/3/3/2/2 myself). You can simulate that and the scaling of costs in creation by simply requiring a player spends XP equal to the level they are raising it to. So reverse calculating you got:
30 = 3 CP
40 = 3 + 4 CP
Total 10 CP
+1 to 11 CP so it’s Odd.
I’m not adept enough at advanced math’s to figure out if there are potential unique builds that could screw this before testing, but my hunch would be leaving it at an odd level would allow it so that anyone could make sure they can top off their scores (since they always have at least one 3 and 1).
Humans you may want to set to 12 CP instead because they typically start with that extra 10 XP and have all even scores.
Though in truth, this is a surface level fix because there are some races that have significantly lower XP pools than others.
If you wanted to cover all your angles there are other design elements you’d also need to consider such as:
Racial Balance to account for the new CP system
Dedication Talent
The Dedication Talent being more glaring because it actively encourages someone to barrel up one stat instead of being versatile. At Creation going from 4 to 5 is 50 XP but from 1 to 2 is 20 XP. With Dedication both of those cost 25 XP. Which is one (but not the only) reason I often advocate for the 3/3/3/3/2/2 split, because assuming your game lasts long enough it’s the most XP efficient method because they operate on different rules.
One House Rule my table does to address the disparity is make it so Dedication can only raise a Characteristic up to 1 higher than what another Characteristic is at, which encourages more versatility and makes the power crawl slow down a bit (note: this is a one-table experience where everyone did take the 3/3/3/3/2/2 route, so it might not translate so well for other tables with more specialized characters).
EDIT: Made a math error, corrected it. EDIT 2: Original cited arrays was factoring for point buys alone, this confused at least one user so I adapted it to include inherent racial characteristics.
I think it’s clear, what I don’t understand why is this different from the system? You just gave them 30 earned XP and took away the possibility to buy talents/skills with starting XP
That’s not been my experience. What I see most often is 433221 and 333222 (or 333322) builds.
Making each CP equal 10 XP for the purpose of upgrading Characteristics keeps balance, but I still do not understand what you gain over the approach of simply giving 30 bonus XP or whatever.
You’d have to balance for each individual species.
I’m not sure how to explain it any further. They can still buy skills and talents with the 30 XP.
So normal is around 100 XP. Most players rightfully sink nearly all of that into characteristics. If starting with all 2’s, they end up perhaps with a 4 (70XP) and a 3 (30XP), then 0 left over for skills and talents other then what is granted by Career (four rank 1 skills). If perhaps they instead chose three 3’s (90 XP) they still have only 10 XP left over for more skills or talents.
Let’s say you handed the players 130XP instead. What would most do? Probably add another 3 characteristic or a 4 depending on what they did with the first 100XP. They are still starting with nearly 0 talents and 4 rank 1 skills from their Career choice.
There may be players out there that instead may be doing something like only raising one characteristic to 3, then having everything else 2’s, then putting 70 XP into skills and talents. If they were in my group, I would be advising them greatly against that explaining how important characteristics are and how it will later be difficult to raise them. I just don’t see many players choosing that.
So, the idea was to grant 100 Characteristic Points, so they could still do the usual characteristic increases. Then, hand them 30 XP (or whatever you wish) of regular XP as if they had already adventured a bit. They can’t spend that on characteristics, so they are going to be able to start play with a molded character with some talents and more skill. If the 30 XP is too much, make it 10, 20, whatever you wish.
I was speaking on the point buy alone, so I wasn’t factoring in the ‘free’ characteristics that people got just by being a member of X species. I edited my post to clarify this.
I ‘believe’ they’re simply confused on why people don’t just add extra XP post-creation process instead (which would remove the ability to buy Characteristics).
P-47 seems to be looking at it from a layman’s everyday gamer perspective, where I’m trying to tinker behind the hood. I’m looking at how the design decisions of the current system psychologically compel players to respond to mechanics differently. I homebrew other systems regularly as well, I often get confusion from people who just don’t understand thinking about game design in that fashion (likely because they aren’t game designers, just gamers).
Where what what he’s suggesting would solve the issue on the surface level. It still leaves some holes in design such as:
What do races do with the ‘empty xp’ they can’t assign to a characteristic?
What if they’re in a large group, or with a GM whose stingy with Obligation so they can’t grab the bonus XP to help remedy it?
For a new player, it would still expose them to the trap of buying talents instead of characteristics. It’s the illusion of choice because one option is pretty much objectively better than the other. Where the CP approach avoids this by not tricking the player into thinking there is a choice where in practice there isn’t.
For another Psychological example, look at how SWFFG handles credits. The game uses Credits as a reward system for players, but at the same time offers very little content that credits can be used on. Where players can be geared with “end game” gear just a few sessions in. Which is compounded where when you look at Modules the designers seem to think handing out 50-100k credit rewards is the norm.
This causes a lot of GMs to panic, cause with a scale of progression halting they think players will no longer want to play, or that the game needs to restart. So to circumvent this you see a lot of DM’s advocate for excuse after excuse of stealing the credits from their players. Adding artificial barriers like “10k fee to enter the city” or a surprise TIE-Fighter encounter whose sole purpose is to inflict hull damage the players have to repair, or surprise bounties the players need to pay off etc. etc. This is a psychological response players have in response to a design flaw in Star Wars FFG (lack of buyable content).
This was an element I also attempt to address in Homebrew, adding a series of “Superior Upgrades” to ships, weapons, armour, adding “Superior Gear” which is like adventuring gear but stronger versions, and inflating the costs of the Crafting Rules in splatbooks (cause they are woefully underpriced when compared to other gear). Thus allow credits to actually become a means of progression again, rather than a source of stress for the game, with the GM trying to find the next reason the players become poor and the players becoming upset they never actually seem to earn anything.
My first thought was to have leftovers be converted to XP. But, that would need some controls if not it’s just XP. Have a rule that you CAN move CP to XP, but only if there isn’t enough left to raise a characteristic? I think you’re using 1 CP per level instead of 10 CP per level, so that would need to be converted by x10?
For example, all of the CP you can spend has been spent. You are left with 20 CP (2 CP). All of the character’s characteristics are already 2 or higher, so you can’t raise any of them further. So, the CP becomes 20 additional XP.
No they wouldn’t, because they can’t. They can only use Species Starting XP for Characteristics, they can’t use bonus XP on Characteristics.
Eh, not really. I’m pretty into the guts of this system myself and certainly have no problem tinkering with things. I just disagree that anything here needs to change.
1: Spend it on skills and talents, as the game intended.
2: Again, this is intentional. It’s just how the game works. If you’re in a group of 6, so you can’t get the +10 XP you need to pick up another Characteristic buff, that means that the group as a whole will have fewer raised Characteristics, providing more individuality and hopefully minimizing overlap, doing more to give each character a niche.
3: Sort of, but also no. Sometimes a character build might not need an extra Characteristic point (ex. 3-3s Human), so the “spillover” can be invested into talents or skills. There is plenty of choice. Let’s look at a few Characteristic build examples:
222222 Human can be built three different “max” ways: 3-3s, 4-3s, or 4/3. 3-3s is 90 XP (9 CPs), 4-3s is 120 XP (12 CPs), 4/3 is 100 XP (10 CPs).
322221 100 XP species can be built four different “max” ways: 3-3s, 4-3s, 4-3, or 433221: 3-3s is 80 XP, 4-3s is 110 XP, 4-3 is 90 XP, and 433221 is 100 XP.
That’s three different costs for Human, and four different costs for the other.
A psychological effect of giving a set amount of CPs is that they will want to spend them all, UNLESS you can refund them for XP, in which case it becomes a moot point since it’s practically the same as what we have now, just more complicated (another principle of game design: KiSS).
With the 4-3s Human build, I’ve played humans where I instead invested the 20 XP into skills or talents because I didn’t need or want a fourth Characteristic. Sometimes I even took bonus XP and still didn’t raise a fourth Characteristic.
If you want to solve this problem, there are two very simple things you can do: Advise your players to take on Characteristics at start, and give them some bonus XP. The RAW actually pretty heavily advises you to take on max Characteristics at CharGen already, but leaves the player with freedom of choice.
I depends on the situation. Ships are very costly, bases are very costly. The homesteading and workshop rules can be credit sinks, and damaged gear or ships can be expensive to fix.
I have not seen modules where 50-100k credits were offered as rewards, and so cannot comment on that, but if you look at the payscales in the EotE career splats, the prices are pretty reasonable unless you’re always giving your PCs Legendary targets or the like.
Every table is different, and there are many ways in which GMs can and will screw things up.
I admit I have not been as judicious as I should have been regarding credits in one of my games (aforementioned Legendary targets and the players heisted a Hutt’s bank), but things like ship repair, sudden expenses, operational costs etc. are good (unless handled badly) because they put pressure on the PCs to have credits and give them something to use the credits on. Obligations are another way to drain credits from the PCs, be that a favorite brother who keeps racking up gambling debts or a family farm in need of a quick bailout.
“Superior upgrades” and “superior gear” can only get you so far, because there’s still a limit to how much the PCs will decide they need, and in all likelihood they shift the problem to a different area, as now the PCs are likely a bit overpowered.
The crafting rules are a bit underpriced, but they usually intend that you’ll make several attempts. They aren’t too bad unless you’ve got a ton of XP and a ton of credits. Then it gets a bit out of hand. But if you pump up the costs too much, it’s not worth the effort until the PCs HAVE a ton of XP and credits.
Finally, long-term goals. If the PCs just want to stay in the black, they don’t need all that much in the way of credits. But if they want to start their own brewery on their homeworld, now they’ll be trying to store away tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of credits as they earn them. Or perhaps a PC doesn’t really have any long-term goals, so he just stores them up in the bank and tries to think of something, or takes the “dark side” route of blowing it all on gambling, fast speeders, and women.
It’s as much reliant on the players as the GM to keep the game’s economy flowing well.
If the players want to play rather than wanting to “win,” the monetary situation will be handled much better.
And so what if a character gets enough to retire? Maybe he does, and the player rolls up a new character.
Is the key issue that SW/Genesys has directly shared the costs of characteristics to all other things (skills, talents, careers)? Most systems don’t do that. You derive characteristics and you derive the other stuff without a shared pool. With characteristics being so important AND they can’t be increased as easily as others, it makes the initial creation very one-sided.
If someone is willing to separate the two in a house rule, it may be much simpler and remove the problems of the shared pool. It could be CP’s or simply +1’s and +2’s to raise characteristics. Then give XP for everything else.
If so, how much XP at character creation for everything else? How many talents, career skills, skill ranks, etc would be a good starting point? Too little and a player can’t design what he has imagined (an old soldier, a wise wizard, etc), Too much makes early, simple adventures too easy.
The game, as currently constituted, intends starting level to be very “weak” and “beginnery.”
My opinion is that the game’s design does what it’s intended to do, and that you’re trying to fix a problem that is misdiagnosed. You aren’t intended to have many skills or talents at CharGen. As written, I think that CharGen is quite good (admittedly, this may sound like beating a dead horse at this point). The solution is to give your PCs bonus XP.
I think Heroic/Knight-level (+150 XP, +9,000 credits) is a well-rounded starting point, and is what I use for most of my campaigns.
50 XP is my second choice, but it isn’t much. You could raise a skill to 3, a skill to 2, and then pick up three tier A and one tier B (or one tier A and two tier B) talents.
Playing older or “experienced” characters who have the same amount of XP as the other PCs is difficult, and there should generally be an explanation for why they are not as “powerful” as their age/experience might suggest (atrophied abilities, a relatively recent change in focus/discipline, etc.).
Hey sorry for the slow reply guys. Got held up the past couple days (combined with one instance of a Reddit spiral where I lost track of time).
My mistake, sorry for the false assumption.
As for your counter-points?
That’s sort of the issue, it causes some players have it easier than others because some get a latter starting load of Characteristics, and others are forced to spent their excess on Talents. It’d be different if it were a choice, but in this case they have to.
I never thought about it that way. Now you that you mention that, it does seem to be intentional design, the large the group the more specialized you have to make the character. That’s actually pretty ingenious of the Dev’s. And likely something I missed cause I always made a house rule of:
“Players always gain the max amount of Obligation typically expected for their party size. But they likewise always gain the +10 XP and +1,500 Credits, regardless of party size or total obligation”.
I suppose this ruling also leads to a question of, should players be expected to change their character build/concept for the party size? Not party composition, but strictly in response to the number of players in the party?
That is a good point in that you can have some concepts that don’t feel they ‘need’ the extra characteristic.
But those situations generally seem more remote. The game seems to heavily reward players for having higher/more versatile characteristics as a whole/
Perhaps, but that may just lead back to the question of “Why not just do XP buy?”. Another idea I have was just keep the CP on standby, and change dedication to provide a certain amount of CP.
I’ve been doing a Module-connection campaign, and it’s been pretty standard.
[MODULE SPOILERS BELOW]
Long Arm of the Hutt provides 10k per player plus another 10k in the Hutt’s room.
The EoTE Core Adventure lets you loot at least 30k of drugs from the den (assuming you don’t accidently blow it up, which my players did) on top of the other 20k or so of bounties.
Beyond the Rim you can earn up to 30k Credits depending on what you bring back, this is before any Negotiation rolls are involved.
And then Mask of the Pirate Queen (our current Module) starts off with offering the players 60k in Credits. [MODULE SPOILERS END]
Note, that is strictly the end-loot reward. All those Modules are also littered with other places where you can make more money as well that push those values up further (which where it leads up to a 50-100k total)
My players after doing 3 Modules to completion (Mask of the Pirate Queen we just started) now:
Have 1 Disruptor Rifle, 1 Light Repeating Blaster, 4 Genosian Rifles (Standard Blaster Rifle with Crit 2)
Four counts of Heavy Battle Armour (they’re looking for 2 more but have yet to find the right supplier)
A Fully Upgraded YT-1300
About 20k in Misc Gear they purchased as support gear
A Ship loaded Bacta Tank
Two Landspeeders (Technically they looted these from enemies, they didn’t buy these)
About 20k Credits in spare and another potential 10-15k Credits in sellable loot
An R4 Unit and a B1 Battle Droid
This party has earned about 300 XP so far across the Modules, and this is when we’re also using content like Operational Costs (but a simplified version tailored to be about the same costs) to add additional fee’s like Fuel and Rations to the mix, and where a lot of what I listed above was bought in the Outer-Rim meaning they were double the listed costs.
However, on the flip-end it is worth noting that there is a Quartermaster and Mechanic in the group, who combined have allowed stuff to be sold for more, bought for cheaper and make ship repairs cheaper. Which is probably also an explanation as to why this Credit disparity is happening.
And to clarify, this is not me complaining. I love how my players have these cool sets of gear now to reflect their experience and past adventures. But it does mean I as the GM need to be developing systems for more methods and means my players can spend their Credits on, else after a certain point the Credits will start to become meaningless.
I’m aware is a limited-time solution. But it does pad the time out quite a bit, by about 20 times if my math is right. Superior Mods are 10k each with 5k per extension. Ship Mods are about x10 that. I also added Superior Implants/Cybernetics and Superior Gear which are also x20 the cost of the vanilla versions.
And the idea is that they may eventually find themselves wanting multiple ships and weapons per player, so that will add in the duration that credits remain relevant. I will probably also allow Superior Homesteads in a similar manner (I am currently looking at how to make Homesteads applicable to a group that is always on the move, aka make their ship their Homestead).
Overpowered has never been a concern for me, regardless of the system I’m running. As the GM I have infinite tools to use to make things more challenging for the players if possible. Also Star Wars is a very ‘epic’ universe as well. Where you either go the Prequel route and heroes (or Han Solo) just charge straight into a horde of enemies and live to tell about it. Or you’re the Original trilogy where you have incredible luck/inaccurate Stormtroopers (I do play my Stormtroopers as actually being dangerous mind you). So to a certain extent I’m fine with exaggerating the encounters as my players scale up in XP and Gear. Every time I hear a GM complain that their players are too strong and they need to make things more exaggerated my response tends to be “Yes… This is Star Wars. That’s the point!”.
I only pumped it up by x4. And this is very much a “for our tables needs” fix as Players generally aren’t inclined to be crafting until they’re confident it can outcompete what they can simply buy from someone else. So I priced them still low enough to allow multiple attempts, but high enough to account for that you’re likely building advance tech out of it and to reflect how weapons “off the shelf” are likely cheaper due to the Mass Production of them.
Oh yeah, I know my players will want to pursue things like this eventually. Especially when their storyline (aka, their shared backstory) reaches a point that allows them to slow down. But I am curious, do you have any ideas for how I can mechanically represent this? Like make the Brewery or to reflect a characters benefits (and drawbacks) from living with vices?
Or would this element be better reflected with just player spending X credits and then I narrate Y situation to them and then we move on?
I don’t think retirement is something any of the characters intend to do (they’re playing siblings. So if one retires that’s likely just a group retire and us doing a new campaign instead).
I disagree. Usually, you aren’t going to have more than 15 leftover XP (max–usually no more than 10) unless you make a choice to leave more available. So you may have fewer Characteristic points than another player in the party, but that’ll usually be a result of choice. The species are all pretty balanced, with the exception of Pantorans who should have 5-10 less XP.
Yes, sort of. They should build their character to fit the game, and party size is one of the factors. In multi-PC games, I encourage more specialization. In games with a lower count, I encourage more diversity to make sure they cover all of their bases and don’t have any glaring blindspots.
For what it’s worth, I definitely disagree with your houserule. It takes away the cost of the bonuses and the meaningful choice of choosing to increase Obligation for that really juicy bonus. There are all sorts of narrative benefits to having to make that choice, not just in backstory but in the game ongoing. And sometimes, a character may specifically want a “stronger” Obligation than the other characters, for a variety of reasons.
Generally? Maybe. But when the party is already very diversified, you end up blending together and “stepping on toes” when specialties overlap. Having some “personal” talents like Athletics, Discipline, Vigilance, etc. in addition to your “specialty” talents is a sort of generality that is important.
The idea of changing Dedication to add more CPs (3 is probably the best number) is interesting, but I think it has two major problems:
First, it’s more complicated, and requires players to keep track of another number, one which does nothing.
Second, Dedication could end up doing NOTHING until you’ve got two of it, requiring a massive amount of XP.
Example: I build a Human with 333322, leaving me with 0 CPs. I don’t want 5 3s, that’s just ridiculous, so I have to get 2 Dedications before I can buff a Characteristic.
That actually penalizes more general characters as opposed to more specialized characters (43/333), since the specialized characters get to their “end goal” (44 or 433) faster than the more general character does (4333).
Although one could argue that it balances out since that means the characters all have +4 Characteristics, but more specialized characters are not going to be making as many checks with diverse Characteristics, and will be better at their specialty.
Additionally, it penalizes anyone who chooses to only raise 3 Characteristics (such as Human 333222) because they don’t get the immediate payoff of more skills or talents instead of that fourth Characteristic.
Okay, that does seem a bit excessive. I’d guess that perhaps they aren’t expecting the PCs to get all of the rewards?
That’s why I suggest “credit sinks” like maintenance, retirement plans, “charitable causes” (e.g. “The Death Star Kablooie Fund”), homesteads, family, etc.
Additionally, credits shouldn’t be the only reason for adventuring. If, at a point, the credits become relatively meaningless, come up with another way to keep the characters hooked (NOT your players; they shouldn’t be an issue here). Besides, it introduces all sorts of narrative opportunities.
“Stop, wait! I’ll pay you, just don’t do X.”
“Idiot, I’m not doing this for the money anymore.”
Whether that’s a massive shift in campaign tone as all of a sudden the Hired Guns find that this has just become personal, and they’ll stick around to fight X even though they aren’t being paid, the Bounty Hunters decide to become volunteer vigilantes, or the Colonists decide to fund an expedition to settle a world in the Unknown Regions, away from the Empire’s prying eyes.
It introduces a whole new way of looking at the game world, one that can be far more compelling with the right players and characters.
If they’re always on the move, maybe they still have some sort of safehouse or “home base” where they can leave their excess gear, park their ships, lay low when the heat’s too hot, or simply regroup and lick their wounds.
Some playstyles don’t like having things be so exaggerated. Besides the mechanics, there are all sorts of narrative effects that being “overpowered” comes with, to say nothing of how hard it can be to challenge characters with check difficulties that make sense. Especially if the PCs are specialized enough to the point where something that would be almost trivial for PC A is insurmountable for the rest of the party (Daunting Skulduggery check, for example).
In an AoR-style campaign, I think that’s much easier to deal with. But in an EotE- or FaD-style campaign, where the characters are interacting more often than just blowing stuff up, it becomes much more difficult to manage.
A note on the mechanics: oftentimes, damage increases more dramatically than protection/durability. The more you ramp up the damage, the more “swingy” battles become. Your PCs roll terribly in initiative, and then your outputter of ludicrous damage somehow manages to miss? Well, since they didn’t take out the three groups of 6 stormtroopers you expected them to, they’re now getting damaged far more than you intended or expected.
There’s much more margin for error on smaller scales, if handled right.
x4!? Yikes.
They’re generally half the cost of the stock item, so I’d say maybe x2 max.
The thing is, building an AR-15 or the like from a parts kit etc. is actually cheaper than buying one off the rack. There are multiple costs that are defrayed by doing the “building” yourself, and you’re able to customize things like trigger assembly or grip to get something that suits you better than a stock version, without then having to spend money on the aftermarket.
What I would suggest instead of increasing the cost dramatically is adding a parts cost to some upgrades. That could get complicated, but something simple like +10% per Advantage, +25% per Triumph should work (the increases don’t compound, you add, then multiply). That increases your cost and keeps it linked to weapon performance. Because who wants to spend twice the cost of a stock weapon for something that operates identically? And if they try to sell it, now they’re taking a loss.
As for the brewery, if you want a mechanical representation rather than just filing credits away at random, set a threshold they need to save up. Or if they get a jump on it and buy the property etc., frequent mortgage payments and the like. But in game terms, it shouldn’t be an “investment.” It should take more from the characters than it gives. Its benefit should be narrative (“I’m fulfilling my dream!”), and then pay off materially for them long term (if at all), after the campaign has ended.
As for vices such as drugs, “spend X, or take Y malus.” Or even “pursuit of your vice had A effect, spend B credits to smooth that over or suffer narrative maluses.”
I will note, part of the disagreement may be sourced from my specific experience with the system. With about 95% of the play experience I have is in the Module-Linked Sibling campaign I detailed above. Where due to the Sibling deal everyone is Human, where when combined with the Obligation House Rule gave them enough XP to do the 3/3/3/3/2/2 split.
It’s possible if I DM’d more for a variety of species that I’d be noticing other elements I’m just not considering right now. But even with that being considered, there’s something that just feels, off with some races being allowed to start with higher Characteristic totals than other races. Which then get’s locked in because after creation players can only raise them further via Dedication.
This an area I feel that the XP Buy nature of the system solves for itself. It allows players on a per-character basis to decide if they want to develop that niche where they feel specialized, or if they want to be more versatile for different situations.
For example, 4/6 of my players (Ace-Pilot, Soldier-Commando, Diplomat-Quartermaster, Technician-Mechanic) are pretty specialized in their particular fields, where Flying/Fighting/Negotiating/Repairing is very much their own field and focus where they get to shine.
Meanwhile the other 2/6 of my players (Commander-Instructor and Rogue-Assassin*) are more rounded out by nature. They still have specialties in a general sense of Leading/Stealth, but a lot more of their XP has gone towards versatility and being Jack-Of-All-Trades type of characters.
*Rogue is a custom career we built because none of the pre-existing careers seemed to be doing the job for what the player wanted. The Spec’s were pick by drawing equivalents from the pre-existing ones that matched 6 different typical Archetypes of the Rogue. So the spec’s are linked to the Career thematically rather than mechanically. So as the player develops and grows, he should still feel that same temptation to grab an out-of-career spec should he ever decide to double down in a specific direction
In a nutshell, this may be something for the GM to note in Session 0, much like how I told my players to try to have some variety of skills because general sentiment I read online indicated the game scales quickly if they over-specialize and/or just has them be disengaged. But other than that GM note, the players will spend their XP where they feel the most engaged, may that be having a specific quirk or being more versatile.
Misc notes that feel relevant but I couldn’t fit elsewhere. Although my players did pick majority AoR Careers, those were mainly due to the Careers fitting their concept. The Game and Modules are still very EoTE focused as of right now. Also, due to a combination of shared backstory and players all wanting to be able to contribute in combat at least (because, Star WARS) they were all given the Recruit Specialization for free on top of their starting one (free meaning, they do not count Recruit for XP costs of future Specializations). Also, in our own Session 0 there was a desire (partially due to the modules) to progress our way through EoTE, AoR and FaD stages. So we designed their history and general narrative in a way that would allow them to organically shift into each of those three styles of play when the time comes.
I was thinking 3 myself, but I decided not to say it yet so as not to taint what numbers others felt may be appropriate. xD
You do make good points though, it has the obvious flaws of more numbers to track and potential ‘empty’ talents. I really don’t have a strong counter to that.
I’m not entirely sure. The big credit rewards I mentioned specifically were all the big payouts, so unless if you royally screw over the quest (like accidently blowing up the drug shipment) there’s almost no way you could prevent yourself from getting paid.
Comparing it to paid Credit Rewards from Splatbooks, it does look like Modules are over-generous. Which leads me to suspect it could be a matter of either they expect Obligation to eat some of it, or maybe it’s just because the Modules are over a ton of encounters, while the Splatbooks are mostly one-and-done jobs.
It’s also possible that by fluke I just happened to pick the Modules so far that pay the most (but I doubt that. Since one is meant for begineer players. And I have whispers that the Jewel of Yavin is even more extreme).
Maintenance is what we use the Fuel, Ration and Repair costs for currently. Or is there something else you meant by Maintenance? Currently our table does allow the players to burn Setback and Despairs spent on Ship Rolls on damage the ship takes that requires maintenance (credits) to get rid of. But honestly, players have rolled so well in space encounters it just hasn’t come up yet.
Retirement plans is a good idea, I think that’s part of the mentality the players have in the 20k credit stockpile they currently have. But I’m not sure any of them expects it to be anytime soon, (especially with the EoTE-AoR-FaD plan).
Charitable causes? That’s clever, I’ll have to think of some more instances where “X friend or stranger in need helps. How much will you donate?”.
Oh, to clarify it never was. I’ve been modifying and linking the Modules together by either “X NPC blackmails or attacks the party” or by teasing the players with “You know your parents who left you? Well, NPC is X module knows where they might be”.
The reason I put so much effort on find more uses for Credits is because I like to think of it as a Material form of XP. It helps represent growth and progress. I’m confident I could make the Credit Costs close to zero and the players would still be taking the bait for what I have prepared for them.
Expedition is a good idea, I imagine that may be more relevant in the FaD stage. But I’ll try to keep my eye out for opportunities where player-funded projects could be a viable solution. One thing I already did was the players talked their way out of a Gang attacking them (they rolled a lot of threat looking for a Black Market Item. But then ace’d the following Charm and Negotiation checks) who made the offer of “Hey, if you ever find yourself in need of some muscle or backup. Just call us and we’ll help you… For the right price”.
It’s a good idea, just right now I struggle to think of a location that would make sense for them at the current moment. Ryloth maybe? Cause they ended up helping a Twi’lek settlement there quite a lot in the first Module.
That is fair, everyone plays differently.
Though what puzzles me is every time I see someone complain about scaling, they talk about it like it’s a universal problem. And not a “My playstyle” issue. Though, that could always just be a symptom of Internet people being like “Everyone should play like me, to play any other way is wrong”.
This is a good point. Admittedly the highest Characteristic in my table atm is 4, so we really haven’t had to deal with the effects first-hand directly yet (The GM mentality I referenced above is informed primarily by my DnD and Star Wars Saga experiences, combined with what I know of Star Wars Lore and Media). Combat would certainly be easier to scale that more ‘mundane’ tasks, I guess should start of thinking of ways to keep those more relevant as the power level scales.
This is a good point I’d failed to consider. Hopefully as the game progresses this can be mitigated some what by my players upgrading their armour (and by effect, Soak) and grabbing more instances of the Toughened Talent. But I will definitely need to think of ways to circumvent an Alpha Strike situation.
Maybe I through more enemies at them, but in waves rather than all at once?
This is a good idea! Accomplishes what I’m aiming for better than what I have currently set up. I may just use this as a system instead!
Yea, this may be an area I want to just abstract rather than have a mechanical representation. Feels weird whenever I have to go that route though. Where as Theatre of the Mind as Star Wars FFG is (which I love), we still have have 3 Core Rule Books and 18 Splatbooks for a reason, Mechanics help to flesh out and represent what we abstract and narrate.
Most species are balanced to be able to achieve a 333322 build, with a +10 XP bonus. The benefit of playing a 322221 species is that you can get a 433221 build at CharGen. While that’s technically 1 Characteristic behind a 333322 build, it’s probably better for most character builds.
I think you mean Threat and Despair? “Setback” is the die.
Yeah, that’s what I was talking about. I’m not suggesting it as something to add, but rather as an item in my list of costs.
Good. I wasn’t saying it was for you but rather addressing your more general statements regarding the game being too generous with credits.
Sure. Ryloth is good. Especially since there are uninhabited parts of Ryloth. It’s also the sort of planet where you could find convenient canyons and the like.
My personal pulp favorite is an asteroid base. I had my players for one of my campaigns start a base in a Recusant-class that had crashed on as asteroid. Lots of credits involved in that, and a fun exploration mission. I can give you more info on that if you’d like.
It’s human nature to see a problem and assume other people have that problem. But it’s pretty widespread for people to think it’s getting “overpowered” often because just about everyone has a line, even if it’s in different places.
If you keep reinforcements “waiting in the wings,” not only does it allow you to ramp up rather than crashing down on them, but it allows you to manipulate how many you’re sending at them without pulling sneaky GM tricks (that the players will catch on to) to draw down or increase the number of enemies.
