GoblynByte said:

I don't see it as an issue because someone would get something cheap. I see it from the other side. Players are penalized for not thinking things out 6 months in advance (or *gasp* changing course due to the story). 

Doc, the Weasel said:

Yeah, that was one of the elements I never liked about the d20 system in general, was that you could very easily wind up getting screwed out of a feat or prestige class that flavor-wise fits your character to a T, but you can't take it because you didn't take semi-obscure feat or pour precious skill ranks into marginally useful skill back in your early levels.

While the extra cost certainly isn't game breaking, it does feel unnecessarily punitive to the player that as Doc said, didn't obsessively plan their character's advancement out several steps ahead of time, or *gasp!* choose to make character advancement decisions based upon role-playing rather than roll-playing.

Sorry but I don't see Min/maxing as the reason that people roleplay, i thought that they roleplayed to be involved in a shared storytelling experience?

I also still don't see the issue with changing specialisations later in your career costing you more XP, especially in a narrative game.  In my current game I have had players spend skill points in home made skills such as playright and singing, which are only usefull as part of thier character design but useless in a general gaming situations.  And to be fair I don't give out XP (or character points) often and players treasure the moments that I do, but they are quite happy to spend points on skills that add flavour to thier character concept.

Why would it bother you to remove opportunities to min/max if you never min/max? I am thoroughly confused. Are you saying that it is futile to try to balance things? If so than either changing it or not would be invisible to you.

So if FFG fixes the problem so that it can not be min/maxed you would not have a problem. The issue would not be there. This is what good game design does, nips problems in the bud, and makes sure they are not in the final product. This is why we are in a beta.
 

You have $20. Do you buy XYZ for $20, or do you buy XYZ for $15? Are you being cheap because you avoided paying $5 more? I would say that you are being wasteful, lazy, and perhaps stupid for paying $5 more. Some people would call wanting to spend $5 less on XYZ cheap. While they are thinking this, I invest the $5 and make more money. Not only do I then make more money, but because investments are taxed at a lower rate, I then pay less taxes on the income I make as a result. After the magic of compounded interest I then retire with enough money so I do not have to sleep under a bridge and eat dog food.

Min/Maxing is making decisions in order to make a powerful character. Things like selecting a Bothan because Brawn is the least useful characteristic, or selecting a Rodian because Agility is the most useful characteristic is min/maxing. I don’t have a problem with someone wanting to play a gunslinger selecting Rodian as a race, but some would.
 

Making the most powerful character imaginable is not the same as wanting the ability to spend my points so that my flower selling hippy costs the same as the next flower selling hippy with the exact same stats.
 

I do not want to end up with my flower selling hippy costing more than the next guys. This makes me feel as if I was sleeping under a bridge and eating dog food . . . all because I let my character grow organically.
 

I would very much like 1-point to equal 1-point (+1 to a characteristic and -1 to a characteristic due to race is fine and dandy, but droids having -1 to all six characteristics is rather saddening).

darkrose50 said:

I didn't have a problem with the way things were, I don't have a problem with the way things are now and I probably won't have a problem if things change again.  Whatever the final decision is, its not going to break the system and if I think that its not right for my game then I will change it.

Its clear that we all have different gaming styles, different ways of running a game and different expectations to what we think makes a good game.  And as part of the Beta we get to give our opinions on all of this.  The problem is that instead of just dissagreeing with each other we try to change each others minds about such things, which most often ain't going to happen.

So if we do disagree, lets not get too snarky about it.  I respect your opinion and the arguments that you have put forward but I play differently to you so lets leave it at that.  Good gaming buddy.

I apologize.  I was upset over something quite serious, but completely unrelated and it seeped into my post.
 

darkrose50 said:

Using your example:
At noon:
Movie = $5
Lunch at PF Changs = $7.50

At 7PM:
Movie = $11
Dinner at PF Changs = 10.00
On Saturday I decide I want to go to lunch at PF Changs and catch a movie that evening.
It costs me 18.50

Apparently I am stupid and wasteful for not seeing the movie at noon and having dinner at PF Changs for 15 bucks?

LostPhoenix said:

Well, maybe just for eating at PF Changs
(truthfully, I've never had a good dining experience at any of the PF Changs in my region, and there's quite a few to choose from)

I think your example is a bit of "apples and oranges," and while not completely off-base, it may simply be a subjective matter.  As I said above, to me it feels punitive for not pre-planning your character advancement.  Obviously, not everyone feels the same way.

I do agree that in short-term costs, an extra 5 or 10 XP isn't much, but long run it does add up quickly.  Of course, the question of how many campaigns are going to run long enough for that recent non-career cost change to really matter is an entirely different matter.  If you're only playing those characters once a month for only a year or two, it probably won't matter, where a different group that's playing religiously once a week for that same time frame may find that mounting cost to be more of a concern.

As a wise man once said, it all comes down to your point of view

I was in a bad mood after writing that.  The bad mood was justified, but it should not have seeped into my post.  That was wrong of me.  I am sorry.

Having said that.  America has a problem with overspending.  I would not call this trait smart.

“. . . we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.”
President Barack Hussein Obama 02.24.2009

"Individuals, businesses, and governments borrowed beyond their means."
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner 02.10.2009

In 2005 Federal Reserve data showed money from refinancing mortgages reached $309 billion. $140 billion (45%) of that $309 billion went towards paying off credit card debt. -Kathleen Keest

So I figure that ~45% of the money from the housing debacle went to paying off credit cards.  This in turn was a arguably a huge contributing factor in the great recession as consumers with a need for a loan MUCH lower than a credit card offers represented ~45% of the money involved in buying those products.  I would call that very . . . unwise.  If we Americans know how to prioritize out finances, then perhaps the great recession would have been less severe.  
 

Soooo anyway … before this thread derails completely into politics and finance …

Does anyone have an argument for why XP costs should be different depending on when the spec is chosen? If they changed it would you argue against it, or is this more of a case of defending what is written?

Donovan Morningfire said:

That's hilarious! I've only eaten there once, and used it as an example because I have a gift certificate on my desk =)

darkrose50 said:

I think you're missing my point. It's not about the cost of dinner. It's about having the meal when I want it, not when it's cheapest. I could have saved more by bringing a packed lunch instead of going to PF Changs in the first place.

In game terms you're saying:
Well you shouldn't ever get a 2nd specialization because Americans spend too much XP in general.

darkrose50 said:

Fair enough buddy, I hope everything is ok?

 In a final rules set, the disparity in XP costs depending on the order you take specializations would be a bit of a deal-breaker for me, because you can actually wind up penalizing a character for roleplaying and following the story.

Say that my player has a Smuggler (Scoundrel) who we both know will one day want to become a better pilot, but in the short run he's been thinking about branching out and getting some more social skills and buying and selling advantages with the trader specialization, just to add more to the party (mostly a game system benefit.)  

I introduce an NPC that the characters will be working with for a while that is an old spacer with legendary pilot skills in this part of the outer rim.  My player decides that it makes more sense story-wise to take the in-career pilot specialization sooner and play it as his character learning from this legendary character I introduced.  It will add to the story and the impact this NPC has on the player's character, and provide additional narrative rationale for taking the pilot specialization and having new skills or talents available.

But by taking in-career specializations he had planned to get eventually before out-of-career specializations he had also planned to get eventually, to make for a better story, he gets an XP penalty in the long run because his character's path isn't optimized any more.

If characters let their characters grow organically according to the story, they take an XP penalty per the XP cost rules, whereas in most games it's recommended you give bonuses for roleplaying. 

And there isn't just an outside chance of this sometimes happening, at least for groups I've been in: our current GM for the playtest wants us to show how we're improving in skills during game sessions - we have to demonstrate that our characters are learning these skills we add to our character sheets.  I've been in several groups for different games that have been like this.  Opportunities to take in-career specializations could come up in the narrative before opportunities to take out-of-career specializations.  In fact, that seems likely to me because most campaigns start small in terms of story and then branch out. 

I have to respectfully disagree with those who say it's not much of an issue.  It's a potential XP penalty for developing your character through roleplaying rather than meticulous character building. 

Illya Mar said:

I completely agree.