| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Eh, I think your question is already answered, so a little bit off the rails isn't going to do any harm. 
What you're laying out somewhat reminds me of various lifepath systems in different games... pick your interests, add dice from where they overlap, and stay at base rating for everything else... so April might decide "I want a gunslinger package, a tech package, and a pilot package", while Bob would say "Hey, how about two tech packages and a pilot package". Bob will be a better tech than April, about the same as a pilot (except where tech and piloting packages overlap), and a worse shot.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 911
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MrNexx wrote: | Eh, I think your question is already answered, so a little bit off the rails isn't going to do any harm.
What you're laying out somewhat reminds me of various lifepath systems in different games... pick your interests, add dice from where they overlap, and stay at base rating for everything else... so April might decide "I want a gunslinger package, a tech package, and a pilot package", while Bob would say "Hey, how about two tech packages and a pilot package". Bob will be a better tech than April, about the same as a pilot (except where tech and piloting packages overlap), and a worse shot. |
Bang on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shootingwomprats
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 2690
Location: Online
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 5:50 pm Post subject: Re: Bringing general skills up to specializations. |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | shootingwomprats wrote: | This is part of the reason I hate specializations. In the hands of a competent and mature gamer they can be interesting but typically, its a min/max mechanic with little thought other than +1D for a single pip dropped into typically martial skills or some attempt at intrapersonal skills.
Never surprises me when the player can read the +1D for +1 pip rule but fails to read the, "Specializations are separate skills. If a character improves the basic skill, the specialization doesnt improve; if the specialization is improved, the basic skill doesnt go up." With a bright and shiny example provided immediately below the section.
|
So cause of some bad players misreading the rule (deliberately it seems), that IYO means the rule itself is what's wrong, not the players?? |
No I think I quite specifically said, "... its a min/max mechanic with little thought other than +1D for a single pip ..." Nothing was said about the mechanic itself nor how it is written. This is an issue of the players not the mechanic. Yes I do not like the rule, I think it is open to abuse, I don't think it adds anything real to the game, I prefer not to have it in my games or use it as a player. Do others have to share my opinion about it? No. Can I not have insight into its application or mechanic even though I do not like it? Yes I can. Are you purposefully trying to troll me?
| garhkal wrote: | | shootingwomprats wrote: | | Its rules light for a reason. |
With how much you seem to want to add in/change up rules, isn't that kind of an oxymoron?? |
I explore different ways to do something for different applications. Just because I may suggest a different rule or changing of a rule does not mean that at the end of the day I do not wish to run a rules light version of Star Wars. Exploration of rule changes or new rules is a fun intellectual exercise. You do not have to support something to take part in its development. Again sir, are you looking to troll me today =)
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14214
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:09 am Post subject: Re: Bringing general skills up to specializations. |
|
|
| shootingwomprats wrote: |
No I think I quite specifically said, "... its a min/max mechanic with little thought other than +1D for a single pip ..." Nothing was said about the mechanic itself nor how it is written. This is an issue of the players not the mechanic. Yes I do not like the rule, I think it is open to abuse, I don't think it adds anything real to the game, I prefer not to have it in my games or use it as a player. Do others have to share my opinion about it? No. Can I not have insight into its application or mechanic even though I do not like it? Yes I can. Are you purposefully trying to troll me?
|
No i wasn't trying to troll you Shooting.. But it seems from the way your statement read, you was seeing the rule itself as the issue rather than the player's poor choice..
As to your above comment "its open to abuse" in what manner?
| shootingwomprats wrote: |
I explore different ways to do something for different applications. Just because I may suggest a different rule or changing of a rule does not mean that at the end of the day I do not wish to run a rules light version of Star Wars. Exploration of rule changes or new rules is a fun intellectual exercise. You do not have to support something to take part in its development. Again sir, are you looking to troll me today =) |
Again, not trying to troll, but usually when i see someone like you who seems to want to revamp quite a lot (almost like they are wanting to flat out rebuild the entire rules sets for many areas it seem), then they say "I like rules lite", it strikes me as being a bit of an oxymoron.. A bit strange..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tupteq
Commander
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 285
Location: Rzeszów, Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In my games if player raises a base skill he gets back all specialization CPs that would be "lost" because of skill raise. But these CPs aren't returned to general CP pool, they are already attached to related specialization, so they can only be used to lower the cost of raising specialization.
Example: Player has blaster 4D and blaster: pistol 6D and blaster: rifle 7D. When he rises blaster to 4D+1, specializations stay at the same levels but he gets back 2CPs for blaster: pistol and 2CPs for blaster: rifle. Now he only needs to spend 1 more CP to raise blaster: pistol (required 3CPs total, 2 "returned" + 1 "standard" CP) and 2 more CPs to raise blaster: rifle (required 4CPs, 2 "returned" + 2 "standard").
This requires additional bookkeeping, but there's on "CP loss" and raising costs don't depend on order of raising (sum is always the same). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tupteq wrote: | In my games if player raises a base skill he gets back all specialization CPs that would be "lost" because of skill raise. But these CPs aren't returned to general CP pool, they are already attached to related specialization, so they can only be used to lower the cost of raising specialization.
Example: Player has blaster 4D and blaster: pistol 6D and blaster: rifle 7D. When he rises blaster to 4D+1, specializations stay at the same levels but he gets back 2CPs for blaster: pistol and 2CPs for blaster: rifle. Now he only needs to spend 1 more CP to raise blaster: pistol (required 3CPs total, 2 "returned" + 1 "standard" CP) and 2 more CPs to raise blaster: rifle (required 4CPs, 2 "returned" + 2 "standard").
This requires additional bookkeeping, but there's on "CP loss" and raising costs don't depend on order of raising (sum is always the same). |
That seems unnecessarily complicated. Why not have the CPs invested in specializations discount the increase in the basic skill?
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10436
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 7:10 pm Post subject: Re: Bringing general skills up to specializations. |
|
|
Tupteq, I knew you'd chime in with "no CPs lost". 
| Dredwulf60 wrote: | I'm thinking "no".
He's thinking that specializations are therefore nearly useless, and wishes he would have just kept raising the base skill.
Thoughts? |
Something I've had to deal with since 1988 is player and PC attrition. Players' schedules change, and they just can't commit to a campaign anymore. And PCs sometimes die. I don't expect a player's replacement PC to be identical to their deceased PC, and replacement PCs aren't quite as skilled as the rest of the group. So inevitably, PC groups eventually have to cover the necessary skill set with fewer and less-skilled PCs, which is possible through general character advancement. The biggest problem in this is over-focused PCs, which is not just a consideration of specialty skills. That face character with mediocre Mechanical and not much starship experience may have to step in and be co-pilot someday, and your tech character with fair combat skills may end up having to be gun bunny jr. after the bounty hunter gets killed, etc.
With skill specializations, there is an even greater danger of a PC group being insufficiently skilled in general, so character creation and advancement are very important to me. I have had several campaigns with PCs that were in them the whole way, and I'm certain that not a single PC ever raised more than two signature skills above 8D. When they got them to 8D, they wisely expanded their horizons and branched out into other areas. Some of these advanced PCs even went on to be the stars of solo campaigns, which never could have happened if they weren't somewhat well-rounded.
Dredwulf60, if you were clear up front what rule set to use and the player just didn't read it very closely, I'd be inclined to agree with you in saying no. But that scenario would never happen with me because I always have an entire game session devoted to character creation and I am very clear up front about specializations. When I review a player's PC submission, I look for specializations and strongly discourage any specialization at all unless the player is absolutely sure he will never raise the base skill.
Specializations are not useless, and I don't disallow them because I like the player option to really fine-tune a character concept. I like the 'CPs lost' aspect of RAW because it serves as a deterrent to players over-specializing.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 911
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:04 pm Post subject: Re: Bringing general skills up to specializations. |
|
|
| Whill wrote: |
Dredwulf60, if you were clear up front what rule set to use and the player just didn't read it very closely, I'd be inclined to agree with you in saying no. But that scenario would never happen with me because I always have an entire game session devoted to character creation and I am very clear up front about specializations. When I review a player's PC submission, I look for specializations and strongly discourage any specialization at all unless the player is absolutely sure he will never raise the base skill. |
It was very clear. So clear in fact that after a few dozen sessions he developed additional specialties under the same base skill.
ie A specialty in blaster pistol...and then later a specialty in blaster carbine.
I guess my best analogy to him is:
You are a teacher. Your school is for blaster weapons. Your students are named holdout, pistol, heavy pistol, carbine, rifle, heavy rifle and light repeater.
All the students are in the third grade.
You decide to privately tutor pistol, taking him out of the class, spending months of your time...lets call them, 'calendar' points...or CPs.
Since it's private tutoring it's easier...you can get pistol schooled up to grade 6 in about half the time.
But now you back into the classroom to school the rest of the students. You spend the normal CPs to advance the class to grade 4.
Even if pistol is in that class, he's not getting any benefit, because he already is past everything in the syllabus. Having him in the class likewise doesn't make the teaching of the rest any easier.
You can always go back to tutor pistol again, or tutor one of the other students, but they will never advance again with the class until the class catches up with their grade level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10436
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 9:20 pm Post subject: Re: Bringing general skills up to specializations |
|
|
That's a good analogy.
| Whill wrote: | | Specializations are not useless, and I don't disallow them because I like the player option to really fine-tune a character concept. I like the 'CPs lost' aspect of RAW because it serves as a deterrent to players over-specializing. |
| Dredwulf60 wrote: | It was very clear. So clear in fact that after a few dozen sessions he developed additional specialties under the same base skill.
ie A specialty in blaster pistol...and then later a specialty in blaster carbine. |
Well maybe he's not the brightest bulb in the pack. I doubt I've ever had a player specialize in two different things under one skill. I do stat NPCs that way sometimes, but that's just to really fine tune the NPC based on their experiences and what they are supposed to be in the adventure. But NPCs are just poofed into existence with whatever skills they have when created, so there is no cost or buying involved.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 911
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:20 pm Post subject: Re: Bringing general skills up to specializations |
|
|
Thanks.
| Whill wrote: | | Well maybe he's not the brightest bulb in the pack. I doubt I've ever had a player specialize in two different things under one skill. I do stat NPCs that way sometimes, but that's just to really fine tune the NPC based on their experiences and what they are supposed to be in the adventure. But NPCs are just poofed into existence with whatever skills they have when created, so there is no cost or buying involved. |
He's actually pretty bright, though young.
I'm thinking that's what prompted the discussion in the first place, wanting to bring up the base skill, and realizing the CPs that are already spent...are gone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14214
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tupteq wrote: | In my games if player raises a base skill he gets back all specialization CPs that would be "lost" because of skill raise. But these CPs aren't returned to general CP pool, they are already attached to related specialization, so they can only be used to lower the cost of raising specialization.
Example: Player has blaster 4D and blaster: pistol 6D and blaster: rifle 7D. When he rises blaster to 4D+1, specializations stay at the same levels but he gets back 2CPs for blaster: pistol and 2CPs for blaster: rifle. Now he only needs to spend 1 more CP to raise blaster: pistol (required 3CPs total, 2 "returned" + 1 "standard" CP) and 2 more CPs to raise blaster: rifle (required 4CPs, 2 "returned" + 2 "standard").
This requires additional bookkeeping, but there's on "CP loss" and raising costs don't depend on order of raising (sum is always the same). |
So effectively they aer getting a double bonus for having specialties...
One in lowered cost to raise AND another in refunded CP when you raise the base skill..
| Whill wrote: |
Well maybe he's not the brightest bulb in the pack. I doubt I've ever had a player specialize in two different things under one skill. |
The only 3 skills i have ever seen that done with, are cultures, languages and scholar..
Well until someone 'gets to a sweet spot he likes in his first specialty then grabs a 2nd..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:13 am Post subject: Re: Bringing general skills up to specializations. |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: |
Agreed. Back in London in one of my 2 Star wars groups, we had one guy who took both melee and melee parry specialties in the Jengarrden double bladed vibro-sword, thinking the awesomness (and damage out put was worth it), not realizing that the weapon's size and restrictions would sorely limit him on when he could take it on missions.. So whined to the DM after almost 4 months of game play that "I should get refunded my spent CP and initial starting dice, cause i made a poor choice"...
|
This is one of those scenarios where I think the game is being taken too seriously. On one hand, the specialization rules are meant to be a trade-off. On the other hand, if a player makes a choice that he cannot foresee will be a "poor" choice (but the GM knows, because of the campaign setting and GM's style, etc), then I find it somewhat "totalitarian" to deny the player the opportunity to re-tool his character, if that will make the game more fun for him (since the point of playing a game is to have fun).
Some folks like to play for the hack and slash, others like to play for the intrigue, etc. I think an excellent campaign will address many (preferably, all) of the different elements that make a story fun to engage in.
With regard to the rules, I say, let the GM decide, but, when dealing with experienced players, give them some input as to what will make the most sense and be the most enjoyable. It's not like WEG wrote a perfect system. Maybe the campaign style requires some rules to be modified (and specialization could be one such rule).
In all honesty, I think that the specialization rules are broken to begin with because they are not consistent from one skill to another. For example, the "blaster" skill covers all blaster weapons: rifles, pistols, E-Web, etc. If you want to specialize, you just pick a type (such as "pistol" or "repeater" or what have you) and you then are specialized in ALL models that fit that category. So you could use your rifle specialization to fire an imperial blaster rifle, or a sporting blaster rifle, etc.
But with space craft, each "type" requires its own skill, and if you want to specialize, you have to select a specific model (such as X-Wing or TIE fighter, etc).
And then there are those "stupid" specializations... such as with dodge... "Oh, I can get out of the way of a blaster bolt, but I cannot dodge a projectile to save my life... literally." Makes no sense.
I rather prefer d20's method of "specialization." Take a feat called weapon focus (or skill focus, or spell focus, etc.) and then as your proficiency improves overall, your margin of skill remains constant between the specialized weapon and your overall skill... unless you take even more specialized feats, to widen that gap.
In d20, the currency is feats (at least, with regards to weapons proficiency). In D6, it's character points.
Incidentally, I am working on a system that will make it advantageous to specialize even just for 1 pip, while still relying on the basic skill. In other words, the character's specialization will be lower than his base skill (so he will roll the base skill, always), but the fact that he has "specialized" or "focused" training allows him to operate the weapon/device with certain benefits. The character still has to pay for that one pip of specialty, but then goes right back to raising the base skill. I'll post it in Tactical Combat later on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:27 am Post subject: Re: Bringing general skills up to specializations. |
|
|
| Dredwulf60 wrote: |
It was very clear. So clear in fact that after a few dozen sessions he developed additional specialties under the same base skill.
ie A specialty in blaster pistol...and then later a specialty in blaster carbine.
I guess my best analogy to him is:
You are a teacher. Your school is for blaster weapons. Your students are named holdout, pistol, heavy pistol, carbine, rifle, heavy rifle and light repeater.
All the students are in the third grade.
You decide to privately tutor pistol, taking him out of the class, spending months of your time...lets call them, 'calendar' points...or CPs.
Since it's private tutoring it's easier...you can get pistol schooled up to grade 6 in about half the time.
But now you back into the classroom to school the rest of the students. You spend the normal CPs to advance the class to grade 4.
Even if pistol is in that class, he's not getting any benefit, because he already is past everything in the syllabus. Having him in the class likewise doesn't make the teaching of the rest any easier.
You can always go back to tutor pistol again, or tutor one of the other students, but they will never advance again with the class until the class catches up with their grade level. |
Of course, I can only speak for myself.
The first weapon I learned to shoot was a rifle. Then, I started spending a lot of time focusing on pistol marksmanship, without ever laying hands on a rifle (a pistol was all I had available).
When I came back to rifle, my shooting had improved a lot. Just by practicing on my pistol everyday (even just dry firing), all of my shooting improved.
Having said that, I will say this: at least for gun fighting (as opposed to sniping, for example--which I am not trained in), I find that the pistol is the "hardest" weapon to master. This is probably because it is the least forgiving (at least, for me, anyway). I also find that there are many more nuances to pistol shooting than to rifle shooting (again, assuming its a gun fight, and not a stalk/sniper operation).
I don't mean to suggest that we need to re-write the rules to make pistols harder than rifles or anything. Only trying to show that, if we are using "real life" logic to try and explain a SWRPG rules system, we will probably fall on our faces before we make any actual sense of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthias777
Commodore
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 1835
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm late to the party, but my solution has always been to say that specializations always stay at least one pip above the skill. Say they have Blaster: Blaster Pistols 4D+1, and eventually raise their base Blaster skill to 4D+1 as well. The Blaster: Blaster Pistols specialization gets bumped up to 4D+2 at no cost. This lets the player feel like they didn't completely waste their CPs, but you're not doing anything drastic like refunding CPs or changing the cost in their favor on a large scale. That character will always just be a tiny bit better with that specialization they took way back when.
_________________
Arek | Kage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthias777 wrote: | | I'm late to the party, but my solution has always been to say that specializations always stay at least one pip above the skill. Say they have Blaster: Blaster Pistols 4D+1, and eventually raise their base Blaster skill to 4D+1 as well. The Blaster: Blaster Pistols specialization gets bumped up to 4D+2 at no cost. This lets the player feel like they didn't completely waste their CPs, but you're not doing anything drastic like refunding CPs or changing the cost in their favor on a large scale. That character will always just be a tiny bit better with that specialization they took way back when. |
That's a very good solution, though I'm already flooded with ways to abuse it... like, taking several specializations in a skill at low cost, then just continually improving the main skill. "Yeah, I'm specialized in Blaster Pistol and Blaster Rifle. Now, I'm improving just my blaster skill, and keeping that 1 point lead."
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
