doctorbadwolf said:

Man, I remember when it was pretty much understood that every RPG needed some houseruling to fit a group's tastes.

Now I guess having to make a simple change in XP cost disqualifies an entire line from even reaching the table. Rough times here.

doctorbadwolf said:

Since you admit that you haven't played with the later updates, then you're missing the fact that costs of Specializations and skills were reduced. In the case of skills, they were returned to the original cost (5*new rank for career, 5*new rank + 5 for non-career). So, the cost of getting blasters to rank 5 from nothing is about 25xp different for the careers that have it versus the careers that don't. A whopping 2 game sessions difference at most.

Cost of the specs were introduced because the number of specs being limited was removed (originally limited to 3, now unlimited). The costs for new specs were also reduced in a later update.

Odd sentiments from mister doctor bad canine there I feel. I mean, certainly, one is entitled opinions and I haven't tested all the games out there, that would be nigh impossible with my schedule. I do agree that this system might have benefited from a career/class-less solution (some threads have ventured into such solutions and possibilities), but the restrictions that are put in place are neither too expensive - not according to my experience GMing the game at least and my players don't complain - nor "counter intuitive" from a roleplaying point of view. Although these arguments are subjective and not really "right" or "wrong" … although having all careers have ranged light combat skill would be counter intuitive - it makes little sense that every citizen in a galaxy be trained in combat skills. A note on this: skill levels means substantial amount of training and frequent use, not basic skill and knowledge. All skills can be used "untrained" (there is no "untrained" concept in this game as far as I know - not counting the use of lightsabers) by RAW, as far as I know, and as some threads have noted on, the actual possession of a rank does not really change the chances for success all that much, not until a high number of ranks - or substandard characteristics.

What I do react on is the bold, blunt and senseless accusation and wonderful statement that … and I quote: "[i]t's a matter of them screwing up their game" … I'm not only perplexed or slightly offended, I'm completely taken aback by the silliness of such a statement. It implies some sort of "objectivity" and calls on some authority of the power of definition - rather than admitting that it does actually, contrary to the posters statements, come down to taste, style of play and other such subjective (and inter-subjective) notions of what is needed for a good gaming experience for said group. Whereas the latter is not really debatable, I mean taste and feelings are not really something to debate or seek any "truth" in when it comes deep down to it. The former statement, the one I quoted, is completely silly. Yes. This game could benefit from a multitude of different solutions, many of which no one has thought up yet. It could use some other system already in existence. This does not mean that they "screwed up their game", there is no complicated math for the generic person that completed school with (less than) average grades - addition and multiplications of 5 and 10 is not complicated by any stretch. I apologise if this latter statement sounds elitist, but as a social scientist engrossed in qualitative methods I have no knowledge about complicated maths and numbers at all, but 5s and 10s added or subtracted (or multiplied by 1, 2, 3 and so on) can only be considered complicated for the worst cases of dyscalculia, and I mean no offense by using the term and what it could implicate. I'm neither insinuating that anyone on these boards, the poster or anyone else, is suffering from this…

Furthermore I would only like to "second" Doc, The Weasel and Kallabeccas sentiments on house-rules and actually testing the game. My own experience has shown me that even the worst looking games can work perfectly if actually tested.

doctorbadwolf said:

If you can't actually FACT CHECK the system before you ditch… LOL.  BYE!

I'm guessing we're better off without.

Jegergryte said:

Heck, people have been doing that to Palladium's in-house system for years, just to get something remotely playable

I've said this a thousand times before, but there's no such thing as a "universally perfect" RPG.  Every GM that runs a game is going to make various tweaks to better suit their style of GM'ing.

DoctorBadWolf,
If you don't like how FFG has chosen to handle specializations and non-career skills (even after checking out the rest of the updates), then simply house-rule them to a format that works for you.  You've got the original Beta book, and thanks to the way FFG did the updates, it's quite simple to go back to an earlier point and change as you feel is necessary.  If the costs of new specializations really bugs you, then simply change them back to their earlier values.

Quite honestly, there are some aspects of the updates that I'm not thrilled with, but that's not stopping me from playing the game or adapting a (rather small) set of house rules to "patch" what I feel are the problem areas.

BTW, if you'd just prefer a quick overview of what's in the Updates past 5 and 6, check out the GSA article about them here:

gsa.thegamernation.org/2012/11/15/star-wars-edge-of-the-empire-is-the-game-still-the-same/

Doc, the Weasel said:

 House rules should not be essential to play the game.

The only rule lacking for playability in Palladium is the rule describing how to read dice. It may not be fun, but it's definitely playable as written if one knows how to read the dice and use polyhedral dice. I've in fact run whole campaigns using Palladium Games' Fantasy and Robotech systems… which are in fact the same mechanics as rifts. Lots of stuff in the system I don't like, but it's playable as written.

Likewise, EOTE as written in the Beta book is quite playable. It has some suboptimal decisions.

First, the decision to use a class based system.

I can understand why they went with the class-based skill/trait acquisition, but in-play skill driven play. Houseruling around that is trivially simple… pick  one of the following:
A) 12 career skills, 6 of them receiving 1 rank each
B) 11 career skills, 4 of them at one rank each, 1 at 2 ranks
C) 10 career skills, 2 at 2 ranks, 2 at 1 rank each.
1st 4 trait ranks cost 5 points each, and have to appear on any extant tree's 5 line.
2nd 4 trait ranks cost 10 points each, and have to appear on any extant tree's 5 or 10 line
3rd 4 trait ranks cost 15 points each, and have to appear on any extant tree's 5, 10 or 15 line.
etc.

In fact, that might make an excellent "optional rule" in the back of the book (And I'd be thrilled if it made it in.) The extant system creates archetypes that resonate with the setting and give an instant "in" to the intended styles of play. Fortunately, the system only makes class strongly valuable for trait acquisition; skill gains are only mildly impacted by not being in-class.

The second suboptimal decision in the beta is scaling. Not that it uses scales, but that it has too few. The setting includes vehicles from 1.5m to 15km long… and the simplicity of the scaling mechanic is nice, but doesn't match all the canon sources all that well. (Tho' Clone Wars may not be one that they really considered. In at least two episodes, I've seen clonetrooper carbines do damage to starfighter sized tanks… and tanks should be less fragile than starfighters of the same size.)

The third suboptimal decision is to not have operational costs and expected "normal" income for ships.

The fourth was to not have a good ratio of what a ships' cargo enc is, and relating it to the Extended Universe data already out there.

None of these are fatal flaws.

Seriously, all the decisions I've isolated as suboptimal are issues, but not ones that break the underlying system. The only truly major flaw isn't one for me - the custom dice. It's a high barrier for some people, including my wife, but in play, I have been convinced of the value in play. 

And, once the big book is out, I'll be happy to houserule myself as needed… but the more houserules I need, the less likely I am to advocate for and/or use the system. (My general limit is 1 page of house rules. Possibly plus a 1/2 page list of canonical optional rules in force.) And my players tend to acquire rulebooks for systems they like when I run them.
 

 Still wishing there was a bit more love for droids (as well as a better-explained mechanic for ionization weapons), but overall the rest of these changes seem like they make sense.  Our group will try them out this weekend to see how they play.

Oh, and to the person who wanted a black-text version of the final changes, can't you just print it in grayscale?  That's what I'm doing with my cut-and-pasting of the changes.

JoeLastowski said:

aramis said:

Seconded. An all-black version of this would be great.

[QUOTE efidm=749209]

doctorbadwolf said:

Man, I remember when it was pretty much understood that every RPG needed some houseruling to fit a group's tastes.

Now I guess having to make a simple change in XP cost disqualifies an entire line from even reaching the table. Rough times here.

[/QUOTE]

It's a pretty important part of the system. I'm not going to rework the basic character advancement math just to make the game playable. the rest of the system is fairly cool, but not cool enough for that.

Kallabecca said:

Since I'm capable of reading, I'm quite aware of the reasoning for the idiotic progressive cost for new specs. I'm also quite aware of the lame excuses for keeping the entirely absurd higher cost for non career skills.

See, you don't have to play the updates in order to read them.

Jegergryte said:

A new specialty should always have the same cost. Progressive cost is a complication with no benefit. This game just isn't well made. There's certainly nothing intuitive about it costing more to go from gadgeteer to outlaw tech than it does to go from gadgeteer to assassin.

Donovan Morningfire said:

OK, I'm really not sure why people seem to think I haven't read the updates. I very, very clearly have.

Anyway, why would I play a game that I have to signifigently houserule just for it to be playable? That would be a waste of time.

For the record, I wasn't thrilled with the original cost setup, either. As I've said before, it's always seemed like a system that would most efficiently accomplish it's own goals by not having the carreers, career skills, or different costs for different specs/skills in any way.

The only way this system makes sense is if you gut out careers, make all skills available at the same price, keep the free trainings from specs, and make the other free trainings available from the entire list of skills. Otherwise, it's just…poorly thought out. Or, make career mean something other than a limiting factor, like having career talents that work outside specs, or something.

I don't see a progressive cost as a "complication" - you might, but I find that position to be odd and one that complicates simple things. The benefits are obvious: access to new talents and new careers skills. If that isn't a benefit I don't know what in your mind would count as a "benefit". When it comes to the price difference and progression between specialisations one can argue pretty well for both positions. I guess it comes down to how big a role and how important it is for all the players to get access to whatever they want with (close to) no cost and investment at all. For me it is intuitive that learning more and new things becomes more difficulty and requires more investment over time. If specialisations cost the same across the board, the prices should at least be increased a lot - and the benefits of which you speak should also be improved upon. Within its current version it works well, even if its got some sub-optimal solutions.

When it comes to skills and careers generally I do somewhat agree, but I've noticed through game play that it works well, it balances out and the players enjoy it. A career-less version would be nice sure, but surely having careers doesn't ruin the game. Having career skills and non-career skills makes sense to me, even in a career-less system I would have preferred to have that present - favoured and non-favoured skills if you will. It shows the focus of the character, what the character has been spent its time doing, learning and focusing on. Everyone can do everything sure (more or less), but some people require a lot more training, time and investment in learning certain skills than others. Having this tied to careers makes sense, when having a career-system, in a career-less system this should be picked in a different way. But such a limitation makes sense, is intuitive and creates a good frame and balancing point for the game and system.

As for house-ruling a game, I guess its down to each his own about that. I've never encountered a game that didn't need house ruling, perhaps 7th Sea didn't so much … but this game is very playable in its current form, I've only made one adjustment - the number of successes a triumph comes with. Which is the dice mechanic, not what you seem to be all flustered about.

Jegergryte said:

First, skills: Favoured skills are fine. We have that with the list of skills in which you get an automatic rank from your spec. I'd even be fine if career existed, but only as a way to determine your other auto ranked skills at chargen, and non-mechanically organize talents. Skill list restrictions are, however, not something I'm cool with.

The progressive cost is a complication. That is fact. You may consider it a minor one, and mathematically you'd be right, but it makes the system less simple, compared to each spec costing the same amount. I could possibly accept the progressive cost if the system had no concept of career vs non career for specs, and thus any spec cost the same, depending on how many specs you had. I still wouldn't be thrilled about it, nor would anyone else in my gaming group, but if skills also lost the career restrictions and thus extra cost, we might actually be willing to play this game.

Tthe "multiclassing tax" only makes sense if diversity unbalances the game. In this system, it does not. Therefor, there is no benefit. When I say benefit, here and in the text you quoted, I refer to the system, not a given character. Building the system in this way does not benefit the game.

doctorbadwolf said:

I don't understand this ridiculously overdramatic complaining about all this.  If this is so gamebreaking for you, then get rid of it and play the game.  Won't tolerate these "restrictions" you can't stop going on about?  Then don't have them!  It's not like you have to rewrite the rules and change a bunch of things…just don't have them.  Allow anyone to get whatever skills they want at the normal cost.  Problem solved.  I don't understand why this is made out to be so complicated and appalling.   You don't like careers?  Throw em out and let people pick things buffet style if you choose.  It's not that difficult.

Just seems to me you don't want to like or play this game no matter what since it doesn't do what you think it should do or be.  That's cool, not everything is for everyone.  It's a new system and I'm sure everyone will pick some things out or change some things up when they run it.  That's what RPGs have always been about.