| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1859
Location: Norway
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Mamatried wrote: |
I mean there are systems where pilots are pilots but can not fly, then a concept of a flying pilot is not unreasonable.
I want to be chuck norris ( with the memes) is unreasonable. |
So you want uberness right out of the gate?? That's what it sounds like. A starting character with 3d mech and 2d placed in piloting is already better than most NPCs, at 4d professional level, so how is that 'not being a flying pilot'?? |
I did say some systems, not this one, as here you have at least you attribute by default.
That being said I did play another star wars rpg, a new one, not too long ago where I as a military pilot had no military training, but I could fly-ish, by the raw.
Add then houserules to avoid people or the immature payers to go overboard and such with character, and thus we have to reduce.....our hero needs to know less, be less in everything then the accurate guy around, after all it is heroes.
I don't want uberness right of the gate, but at the same time I don't want handicaps.
And I can not see how limiting a players choices unless they really really break the game needs to be limited.
Isn't it better RP if the players "learn" to be responsible and think about things before they decide to do?
Like considering is a +1 or a +2 on this attribute really really that important.
My personal favourite is being as versatile as possible, but also being specialized at least enough to fit my concept.
To me the techie that has a 4D tech but focus all his efforts on his 2D+1 Dex skills, is not a techie.............
My own Attribute range is 4D, 3D, 3D, 3D, 3D, 2D
when I decide to "dump" one , and 4D, 3D 3D 3D, 2D+2, 2D+1 when I don't
my main issue with limiting potentials is that I seldom can see why it is a must.
Now some do it to keep book keep down, but to me 4D and 6D and 2D 9D takesjust as long to write.
a 4D, placing 2D to a skill at creation, with possible bonues can in fact end up with a stating rank of 8D.
A 4D corellian pilot using the "special abilities" and adds +2D on cration comes out I thnk at 7D....which is huge to start with.
But as a GM I either let the players feel they are chuck norris for a while or if I really have to I simply make things alot tougher.......like all of a sudden the stromies actually hits something.
I became a no-limitations, demander after playing many other games.
I can remember where in D&D I ran around as a level 4, and no one in the entire world was over over level 5.....but exit my front door and try to pick a fight, odds are the guy is above ( lvl 5) my skill in fighting and beats my @$$,
I did this with a group, they were strong, some GMs might say too strong.
They were all legit, all rolled their characters openly and their characters was much stronger than any point buy.
One even rolled a minimum 14, with no less than 3 18s.
As a GM I simply made world realistic, the guy by the bar in the inn could be any level, pick a fight and it could be a lvl 20 fighter and then they die.....
But I have never understood why a 18 all over character is a problem? I have though never had one in a group or played one., but is seems some GM runs into a wall when their players reach a certain level of skill.
House rules is something I personally feel is there not to replace but to add to or improve.
I houserule damage like that, I add to the existing, not changing it too much.
if hit and taking damage over the #of dice you have, even if under the category stun, you are at a +1 penalty to next action, then nothing.
Cumulative to a max +2 penalty but only to next attack, this indicates being hit, but not injured in any way, but the force of the hit "knocking you back/down/out" etc and will reasonably make any next attack be slightly lower.
Last edited by Mamatried on Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Mamatried wrote: | I would Not be able to play the game if I could not play my character's concept.
If the rules allows for xD to place on attributes with YD as a max, then my allocation is how I see the character.. |
For one, not every DM allows custom builds where you get to allocate as you wish. Some flat out only use listed templates..
And i've never understood the "i won't play if i don't get what i want" mantra.. |
Seems a lot of GMs live by that mantra...
It boils down to a game being an expenditure of time, which is a non-renewable resource. The purpose of a game is to have fun. If letting players play how/what they want isn't fun for a GM, then he won't let them do it. Likewise, for a player (and I am one of those players, who became that way after several decades of capitulating to GMs who insist on certain things), if the game isn't fun because a character concept just isn't fitting into the GM's standards, then the "game" becomes a chore instead.
As Whill mentioned earlier, most of us here have decades under our belts. It is just as reasonable for a player to have "standards" of play groups/styles that he reasons are worth his time (for the sake of having fun) as it is for a GM to have them.
The best games I've ever played are ones that had the least amount of restrictions on character creation. I had a GM for a while who said, "put whatever attributes you want; just don't make your character good at everything."
But that play style suits a player like me, who considers character creation/design an art form unto itself. In other words, I like to find ways to make the dice express who the character is: rather than emphasize a distinction between role playing and roll playing, I like to merge the two so that the rolls match the roles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tol-Yun
Cadet
Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mamatried wrote: | | Tol-Yun wrote: | Why not degrading the Str attribute for resisting damage when successfully resisting damage? A similar approach as with star ships and loosing shields maybe?
Higher Str characters then could soak up a considerable amount of damage but would still be taken out by concentrated blaster fire.
My approach would be (affecting all characters):
Whenever a Character is hit, but resists the damage (stun or lethal), he looses 1 pip from his Damage resistance (Str + Armour).
Or (more focused on high Str tanks):
Whenever a Character is hit with a damage code equal to or under his Str attribute, but resists the damage (stun or lethal), he looses 2 pips from his Damage resistance (Str + Armour).
The degraded value stays until treated (techanical or medic) up to the pips lost. A character may choose if the degraduation affects himself or his armour, but he may only treat it with the appropriate skill (e.g. Str is treated with the first aid or medic skill, armour with armour repair). |
Nice idea.
I have to ask though, this soaking you here describe, loosing a pip etc which seems to make sense.
Is this for the round, tuns etc?
For multi hits only?
If the payer was hit earlier in the mission, then later takes another hit is the pip then still deducted? |
The degraded value stays until treated.... So the stat is decreased until the character gets treatment of the appropriate sort. This is also to improve the importance of the first aid, medicine and repair skills.
| garhkal wrote: | | Tol-Yun wrote: |
Whenever a Character is hit, but resists the damage (stun or lethal), he looses 1 pip from his Damage resistance (Str + Armour).
Or (more focused on high Str tanks):
Whenever a Character is hit with a damage code equal to or under his Str attribute, but resists the damage (stun or lethal), he looses 2 pips from his Damage resistance (Str + Armour).
The degraded value stays until treated (techanical or medic) up to the pips lost. A character may choose if the degraduation affects himself or his armour, but he may only treat it with the appropriate skill (e.g. Str is treated with the first aid or medic skill, armour with armour repair). |
BTB you already DO lose from your resistance WITH ARMOR degradation, as when you get injured, SO DOES IT get damaged. However, if you don't wear armor, there's no degradation.. |
True. My approach sees an additional reduction and can be used for both high strength characters and armour-tanks and even a combination of both.
For the repair of the armour only the damage suffered by injuries would cost credits according to the level of injury.
Let's see it in example:
We have the Wookie character with 5D str. and a blast vest +1D physical and +1 energy getting hit by a blaster 4D+2. The damage of 4D+2 is rolled against the total damage resistance of 5D+1 of the Wookie. Let's say the Wookie wins the roll off. He then decides whether his str. for damage resistance or his armour shall degrade and reduces then his total damage resistance by 1 pip (or 2 in my second approach since the blaster damage of 4D+2 is less or equal to the Wookie's str. of 5D).
For the remainder of the game or until he gets the appropriate treatment, the Wookie's total damage resistance is 5D (4D+2 in my second approach).
If the Wookie loses the roll off, the normal RAW are applied without further degradation.
This means the Wookie can still be a tank and soak up enemy blaster bolts, but only to a certain extent as he is grinded/worn down by consecutive hits. It also emphasises the real threat of a group of armed opponents even to a character tough as nails. Think of it as a good narration/movie, where the seemingly invulnerable character gets weaker after taking a punishment of hits like a seemingly unsinkable WWII battleship getting hit by several bombs and/or torpedoes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14173
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: |
Seems a lot of GMs live by that mantra...
It boils down to a game being an expenditure of time, which is a non-renewable resource. The purpose of a game is to have fun. If letting players play how/what they want isn't fun for a GM, then he won't let them do it. Likewise, for a player (and I am one of those players, who became that way after several decades of capitulating to GMs who insist on certain things), if the game isn't fun because a character concept just isn't fitting into the GM's standards, then the "game" becomes a chore instead. |
True, time is a non-renewable resource, but since GM's spend most of the time setting the game up, running, having the books and other resources etc, shouldn't it stand to reason his views should have more weight than players??
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1859
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Naaman wrote: |
Seems a lot of GMs live by that mantra...
It boils down to a game being an expenditure of time, which is a non-renewable resource. The purpose of a game is to have fun. If letting players play how/what they want isn't fun for a GM, then he won't let them do it. Likewise, for a player (and I am one of those players, who became that way after several decades of capitulating to GMs who insist on certain things), if the game isn't fun because a character concept just isn't fitting into the GM's standards, then the "game" becomes a chore instead. |
True, time is a non-renewable resource, but since GM's spend most of the time setting the game up, running, having the books and other resources etc, shouldn't it stand to reason his views should have more weight than players?? |
Yes and no.
I woud say a GM flat out denying someone their character over a +1 pip is petty, more petty than a player wanting that character.
I would say there is no way a 2 x 4D attribute characer is game changingly different than a 3D+2 and a 4D attribute character.
And to me it makes even less sense when it was by "your house rules" stated that you would accept a 2x 4D attribute template from the books.
What is the difference in a player generated character with 2x 4D to attributes, and a template pre made with 2x 4D attributes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you are conflating garhkal's GM rules with Whill's.
For what it's worth, I don't think either of them is unreasonable with their standards.
But for me, as a player, I tend to be snobbish about playing exactly what I want. If I can't, then I just won't really care about the game or what happens to the character I'm playing.
A s a result, the effort thatthe GM put into creating dramatic tension is wasted (at least on me). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1859
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | I think you are conflating garhkal's GM rules with Whill's.
For what it's worth, I don't think either of them is unreasonable with their standards.
But for me, as a player, I tend to be snobbish about playing exactly what I want. If I can't, then I just won't really care about the game or what happens to the character I'm playing.
A s a result, the effort thatthe GM put into creating dramatic tension is wasted (at least on me). |
The GMs efforts are always important. and usually the players forget the time spent preparing.
That being said, I can not still see personally a need to limit the players creation choices.
If they were to sneak into an imperial base and they are all strong wookies, then they will have an issue.
So I really can't see the need. In fact to me there is no such thing as overpowered, it is all about how it fits in rp and concept.
I would even argue a group of players with character with very different levels of experience can be great, one will be better at something, one will most likely be the worst at most things, but if rped it works.
So I can't see personally any situation in any game, let alone star wars d6 where even a maxed out character to any extent allowed by creation is in any way an issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1859
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | I think you are conflating garhkal's GM rules with Whill's.
For what it's worth, I don't think either of them is unreasonable with their standards.
But for me, as a player, I tend to be snobbish about playing exactly what I want. If I can't, then I just won't really care about the game or what happens to the character I'm playing.
A s a result, the effort thatthe GM put into creating dramatic tension is wasted (at least on me). |
The GMs efforts are always important. and usually the players forget the time spent preparing.
That being said, I can not still see personally a need to limit the players creation choices.
If they were to sneak into an imperial base and they are all strong wookies, then they will have an issue.
So I really can't see the need. In fact to me there is no such thing as overpowered, it is all about how it fits in rp and concept.
I would even argue a group of players with character with very different levels of experience can be great, one will be better at something, one will most likely be the worst at most things, but if rped it works.
So I can't see personally any situation in any game, let alone star wars d6 where even a maxed out character to any extent allowed by creation is in any way an issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I fully agree. But not everyone does, obviously. Also, I have played with folks who come to the table with an MMO mentality, being sure to kill (as opposed to just letting incapacitated Stormies lie) every single enemy in order to lay claim to as much "XP" and loot as possible.
I try to avoidgroups that turn games into Diablo or other systems that rely on spamming power moves to gain mor power to gain yet more power... ad nausium |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14173
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mamatried wrote: |
I woud say a GM flat out denying someone their character over a +1 pip is petty, more petty than a player wanting that character. |
If as the DM i've told everyone, make up a PC using one of the existing templates only, that's it. AND Apply it evenly to everyone, that's NOT me being petty to say to someone who demands "Hey i want to take a template but modify it around unlike everyone else".. That's being consistent.
| Mamatried wrote: | And to me it makes even less sense when it was by "your house rules" stated that you would accept a 2x 4D attribute template from the books.
|
You seem to be mixing me up there Mama...
| Mamatried wrote: | | That being said, I can not still see personally a need to limit the players creation choices. |
Say i am running a beginners game, 5 players all new, one who's old hat.. (that's a phrase i keep hearing). The newbies all get told "make a PC by the base RPG book only, using the over a dozen templates in the back only. Would that DM not be in his right, to tell the old hat to do the same? Or would IYO that be "limiting"??
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1859
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Mamatried wrote: |
I woud say a GM flat out denying someone their character over a +1 pip is petty, more petty than a player wanting that character. |
If as the DM i've told everyone, make up a PC using one of the existing templates only, that's it. AND Apply it evenly to everyone, that's NOT me being petty to say to someone who demands "Hey i want to take a template but modify it around unlike everyone else".. That's being consistent.
| Mamatried wrote: | And to me it makes even less sense when it was by "your house rules" stated that you would accept a 2x 4D attribute template from the books.
|
You seem to be mixing me up there Mama...
| Mamatried wrote: | | That being said, I can not still see personally a need to limit the players creation choices. |
Say i am running a beginners game, 5 players all new, one who's old hat.. (that's a phrase i keep hearing). The newbies all get told "make a PC by the base RPG book only, using the over a dozen templates in the back only. Would that DM not be in his right, to tell the old hat to do the same? Or would IYO that be "limiting"?? |
Yupp a litte mix up there.....
I would say yes it would be reasonable that the old player also then used the book and the templates the others chose from.
BUT I would say that it would not be reasonable to say that regardless of what the boo or template states I don't allow the attrinutes there, you can only have one xD and so and so.......... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10406
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mamatried wrote: | Yupp a litte mix up there.....
I would say yes it would be reasonable that the old player also then used the book and the templates the others chose from.
BUT I would say that it would not be reasonable to say that regardless of what the boo or template states I don't allow the attrinutes there, you can only have one xD and so and so.......... |
Mama, you've restated this same thing multiple times. As I've started:
(1) R&E p.30-33 states, "If you still can't find what you're looking for, you can create your own template... When you're done, show your new template to the gamemaster for approval. The gamemaster can change or cross out anything". I agree with this rule. The gamemaster is the master of the game.
(2) I do allow my players to have the opportunity to sell me on their character concept requiring two attributes of 4D or more. The few templates that I have with two 4D or more attributes are "pre-approved" character concepts. If a player is designing his own template, I have to consider the template for approval anyway, attribute dice allocation and all.
| Naaman wrote: | I think you are conflating garhkal's GM rules with Whill's.
For what it's worth, I don't think either of them is unreasonable with their standards. |
Thanks! That means a lot coming from you.
Naaman has shared with me an in-depth character background he crafted for a character. I would have to say that most GMs have never had a player like Naaman. He is the type of player who might get me to approve his PC with multiple 4D or more attributes. He could earn it with pouring so much detail into his character.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1859
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | Mamatried wrote: | Yupp a litte mix up there.....
I would say yes it would be reasonable that the old player also then used the book and the templates the others chose from.
BUT I would say that it would not be reasonable to say that regardless of what the boo or template states I don't allow the attrinutes there, you can only have one xD and so and so.......... |
Mama, you've restated this same thing multiple times. As I've started:
(1) R&E p.30-33 states, "If you still can't find what you're looking for, you can create your own template... When you're done, show your new template to the gamemaster for approval. The gamemaster can change or cross out anything". I agree with this rule. The gamemaster is the master of the game.
(2) I do allow my players to have the opportunity to sell me on their character concept requiring two attributes of 4D or more. The few templates that I have with two 4D or more attributes are "pre-approved" character concepts. If a player is designing his own template, I have to consider the template for approval anyway, attribute dice allocation and all.
| Naaman wrote: | I think you are conflating garhkal's GM rules with Whill's.
For what it's worth, I don't think either of them is unreasonable with their standards. |
Thanks! That means a lot coming from you.
Naaman has shared with me an in-depth character background he crafted for a character. I would have to say that most GMs have never had a player like Naaman. He is the type of player who might get me to approve his PC with multiple 4D or more attributes. He could earn it with pouring so much detail into his character. |
I must have misunderstood then as it seemed to me it was only the "pre made" templates with a 2x 4D combo. that you accepted, this due you you stating 1 4d, and could be 4d+1, and then a 3d+2, but not 2 at 4d.
I am all about the character and the why and how for almost every skill that have been any pip or skill dice.
that being said, I can't really see how it should matter how the attributes range, as long as they conform into a min/max range then I can not see how this can be a balance issue.
to me the 4D 4D 3D 3D 2D 2D is basically the same as the 4D 4D 4D, or the 6x 3D, with a simple and by creation negitable differences.
As you stated you liked versitile characters, and to me it seems you have experienced most being overly specialized, maybe.
I can not see this in any way, regardless of how the attributes are allocated.
Not that I personally would ever do it, but I can see value in a 4D 4D 4D 2D 2D 2D attribute range.
2D is considered a minimum, depending this is either the heroic minimum, or the race. we do see nopcs humans (2d/4d all over by the average) with attributes in the 1D range.
this means as you very well know, that 2D is not low.
meaning a total of 18D, force skills included ( or house ruled) should then be allowed freely.
I can not see how you "break" a template giving it a 18D total.
I am trying to look at my custom template array, and this is 4D 3D 3D 3D 3D 2D.
but I am considering making another at 4D 4D 3D 3D 2D 2D.
What I want to know is how a template can be made so it is "unbalanced or broken" within the rules?
And no a 2D mech pilot is stupid, 3D is not however, 4D is a natural talent.
to me this is what I go by, before allocated skill dice, I would not allow a 2D mech character to hold any "title" professionally as a pilot, 3D would allow this imo.
so to me you can be a good pilot, 2D+2d skill+xp/D special abilites you can bump it to 6D at start. but that would be less than smart imo, so I would either let the character play the world's mot incompetent pilot or advice to place at least 3D in the attribute.
I use 3D becuse seeing some of the heavy weapons a 3D minimum str is at some required, and imo, it makes some sense.
3D is a strong guy, 2D not so much but no peewee,
I am actually intersted in seeing the diference in a 18D template with 2x 4D you would accept and one you would not, because I can not see that there could be any diference actually |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tol-Yun
Cadet
Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
And I thought this thread was about damage and how to imply some means of balancing high str. characters in a fight...
Does "broken templates and why they are broken/ the deeper meaning of attribute limits" not deserve a topic of its own? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1859
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tol-Yun wrote: | And I thought this thread was about damage and how to imply some means of balancing high str. characters in a fight...
Does "broken templates and why they are broken/ the deeper meaning of attribute limits" not deserve a topic of its own? |
you are right.
Few characters can start with a 5D strength.
so I don't see the issue.
It is not so that the stamina skill is rolled to resist damage, strength is.
with something like a wookie needing very customized armors, I dont picture a wookie in armor as a major concern.
this leaves a 3D+2 str human in a stromtrooper armor more bullet proof than a wookie.
as to indicate that being hit even if not actuaally injured actually do hurt like a wookie's fist to face I house rule giving penalty +1 and +2 pips to next attack really, getting them out of aim, little out of focus, but they are not stunned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
