View previous topic :: View next topic |
BY the character creation rules, can you put more than 1 of the 3 "pips" into the same specialty, giving you 2D over skill? |
Yes |
|
23% |
[ 5 ] |
No |
|
57% |
[ 12 ] |
Other |
|
19% |
[ 4 ] |
|
Total Votes : 21 |
|
Author |
Message |
garhkal Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14359 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Crimson_red wrote: | decided on her own to move the second specialty die into a third specialization (Swoops: JR-8) when she learned the two would be receiving a swoop with their starting equipment. |
Plus with swoop races being a good money maker, its a great way to stay in some cash.
i wish more would think like that.
Quote: | Mind quoting the text where you're getting your first paragraph from, Orion? |
Here it is again (reposted from page 2).
Quote: | You can spend 1D of your character's beginning skill dice to get three specializations; add 1D to each specialization.
Each skill in the chapter on "Attributes and Skills" lists several specializations; you may create new specializations with the gamemaster's permission.
You roll the specialization's die code only when you use the specific item or knowledge covered by the specialization; otherwise, you roll the basic skill (or the attribute if you haven't improved the skill).
Example: Greg decides to use his remaining 1D of beginning skill dice to get three specializations.
Greg decides Thannik specializes in blaster pistol (a specialization of blaster), Wookiees (a specialization of alien species), and Ghtroc
freighter (a specialization of space transports). He adds 1D for each specialization. |
_________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bren Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
garhkal wrote: | Cause it gives them somewhere to dream towards. | You are going to have to explain this because it makes no sense to me.
A) After creation a character can gain a specialization for 1/2 the CP cost. So a character could spend 6 CPs to gain three new specializations at 4D+1 each.
This is hardly a difficult or lofty goal. Certainly it is nothing on the order of reaching galactic level skills of 12D.
B) A character who starts with specializations is limiting his or her general skill. Sure the character who starts out with Space Transport 6D, (s) YT-1300 7D is a very good Space Transports pilot and a great YT-1300 pilot, but the character is now stuck either being limited to a YT-1300 going forward or essentially wasting CPs as she raises Space Transports to a level equal or greater than the specialization. Remember increasing the base skill does not increase the specialization. So spending 6 CPs to increase Space Transports gives the character Space Transports 6D+1, (s) YT-1300 7D. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bren Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orion wrote: | 2. Though a rule set should be written as a technical document, at least in my opinion, this one is written in a casual style..."You can spend 1D of your starting characters skill die to get three specializations; add +1D to each specialization". | And if it was a real conversation then I might reply “I only want to specialize in Survival Desert, can I do that?” And the author now saying, “no specializations must come in threes with +1D to each.” Makes me go – huh!?! WTF?!? "Hey GM what's the rationale for that?"
Which is why I strongly prefer precise wording for rules and casual convesation for examples. Mixing the two - which WEG did - just adds confusion.
Orion wrote: | My point is that if the author's intent was for the ratio to be the important thing they would have worded the rule to emphasize that instead and that the examples and following text would also support it, as that is what your saying is the author's important point, isn't it? | It’s how I would word it sure. But then if my intent was instead as you suppose I would have added the word “only” as I indicated. So obviously the author is either not trying to be precise in his writing or he is unable to be precise.
My interpretation follows from the extension of the casual conversation you suggested above.
Orion wrote: | I just don't think it's what the author's was intending. | I don’t know what the author intended. I hope it was my reading as that would be a reasonable and well thought out design decision, albeit with overly casual and sloppy implementation. If the intent is as you read it, then I must presume sloppy writing and a poor (and to me nonsensical) design decision.
Orion wrote: | As for a reason I gave one a few posts back. I could see the author trying to limit min/maxing with this rule…Hey I'm the blaster guy, I've got 21D in my blaster pistol.  | But limiting specializations isn’t what fixes this. Limiting the total number of dice that a character can add does. We have a limit for that: +2D to base skill and at most 3D total (including any addition for the base skill) for a specialization. You can't get to a 21D add to a specialization any more than you can get a 7D add to a general skill. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Orion Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 146
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bren wrote: | And if it was a real conversation then I might reply “I only want to specialize in Survival Desert, can I do that?” And the author now saying, “no specializations must come in threes with +1D to each.” Makes me go – huh!?! WTF?!? "Hey GM what's the rationale for that?"
Which is why I strongly prefer precise wording for rules and casual convesation for examples. Mixing the two - which WEG did - just adds confusion. | I agree wholeheartedly on your last point, unfortunately they don't seem to agree with us, based upon how they were written. With regards to the previous, I agree the conversation is, shall we say less than complete, that after all is the reason we are having this discussion.
Bren wrote: | It’s how I would word it sure. But then if my intent was instead as you suppose I would have added the word “only” as I indicated. So obviously the author is either not trying to be precise in his writing or he is unable to be precise.
My interpretation follows from the extension of the casual conversation you suggested above. | Spoken and written communication differ greatly in their preciseness. While some people are very precise in the speech, most are not. The way this text is written, the author may have sat down with some notes and a micro cassette recorder and dictated it, then passed it on for someone else to type up. I'm sure the author would have proof read it, to do some editing, but if they were thinking in terms of a spoken conversation, they probably wouldn't see the problems we are having with this, as they are also thinking of the style they are trying to impart. The point I'm trying to make is that the mindset of the author may have prevented them from seeing the impreciseness of the rules they wrote. That's just my opinion, of course, but they did go to a lot of trouble to impart a style of casual conversation to the rules. Bren wrote: | I don’t know what the author intended. I hope it was my reading as that would be a reasonable and well thought out design decision, albeit with overly casual and sloppy implementation. If the intent is as you read it, then I must presume sloppy writing and a poor (and to me nonsensical) design decision. | Not unreasonable presumptions given the state of the rest of the rule set. If you want my opinion about why the rules set is the way it is, I think they let D6's strength influence the writing process too much. Fast and 'loose' is great for game play but it's less than ideal as a method for writing a rules set.
Bren wrote: | But limiting specializations isn’t what fixes this. Limiting the total number of dice that a character can add does. We have a limit for that: +2D to base skill and at most 3D total (including any addition for the base skill) for a specialization. You can't get to a 21D add to a specialization any more than you can get a 7D add to a general skill. | Ah, see I wasn't sure if you supported double/triple specializing a single skill, the text I wrote did, but even with the 3D limitation, everytime you go through the specialization process you essentially gain 2 dice, granted they are for specializations and there are ways to handle an over specialized character. You and I and undoubtedly most of this board have been GM'ing RPG's of one kind or another for years, but would a brand new pre/young teen GM, know how to do those things, and if he did could he do them in a way that doesn't upset one or more of their players. Remember that the rules are written for GM's with no experience, because those that have experience will house rule things anyways. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Orion Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 146
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm going to follow Bren's example of using a seperate post for replying to each person, simply because it's easier that quoting from different posts and will probably make it easier to follow the discussion. If a moderator has a problem with it, let me know and I will desist immediately.
Fallon Kell wrote: | Mind quoting the text where you're getting your first paragraph from, Orion? | Part of it comes from the text that Garhkel posted, but I believe your referring to the skill descriptions part, which I would have thought was apparent from the way the mechanics of skills work, simply writing a skills name on a character sheet imparts no benefit to the character, you must also add dice to the skill to receive a benefit, but since you asked for a reference:
On page 38 of 2R&E the very first tan box has skill descriptions in large font and bold letters. In looking though the skill descriptions, no where in any of the other tan boxes will you find any benefit for the skill in their descriptions. Their benefit comes from skill dice, as you get more you get to roll more. Hope that clears it up for you. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
garhkal Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14359 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bren wrote: | garhkal wrote: | Cause it gives them somewhere to dream towards. | You are going to have to explain this because it makes no sense to me.
|
Cause they are not the 'schnizit' they want to be, they have to get their through gaming, but do start a little above the mundane masses.. _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fallon Kell Commodore


Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 1846 Location: Tacoma, WA
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orion wrote: | Part of it comes from the text that Garhkel posted, but I believe your referring to the skill descriptions part, which I would have thought was apparent from the way the mechanics of skills work, simply writing a skills name on a character sheet imparts no benefit to the character, you must also add dice to the skill to receive a benefit, but since you asked for a reference:
On page 38 of 2R&E the very first tan box has skill descriptions in large font and bold letters. In looking though the skill descriptions, no where in any of the other tan boxes will you find any benefit for the skill in their descriptions. Their benefit comes from skill dice, as you get more you get to roll more. Hope that clears it up for you. | Garhkal's quote doesn't specify three different skills. How can you determine that the author definitely meant what he didn't say, if there's even the nebulous possibility of another meaning? _________________ Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Orion Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 146
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fallon Kell wrote: | Garhkal's quote doesn't specify three different skills. How can you determine that the author definitely meant what he didn't say, if there's even the nebulous possibility of another meaning? | Ah now I see what your asking, sorry for not articulating it clearly enough for you to understand. A skill's name is it's descriptor, which I get from the Skill Descriptions template I referenced, so when you pick the skills name you are picking it's description. Since picking a description more than once doesn't alter it's description in the slightest, it's still the same description, hence only 1 skill, not the 3 required.
Now if you want to say that you write it down 3 times, which by the way is the only the words would allow you to add the +1D to them to get the 3D your after, then you would need to treat them as separate skills, because to combine them, which nothing in the RAW suggests you can do, is to acknowledge that they are the same skill which gets us back to you only picked 1 skill not the required 3.
Another way to put it, is that it says "get 3", it doesn't say "go through the selection process 3 times". Getting 3 means you end up with 3, to end up with less, means you either didn't get 3 to begin with or you did something not prescribed to end up with fewer than the requirement.
Edited: to add more clarity |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fallon Kell Commodore


Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 1846 Location: Tacoma, WA
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orion wrote: |
Now if you want to say that you write it down 3 times, which by the way is the only the words would allow you to add the +1D to them to get the 3D your after, then you would need to treat them as separate skills, because to combine them, which nothing in the RAW suggests you can do, is to acknowledge that they are the same skill which gets us back to you only picked 1 skill not the required 3. | "Need to" is a strong phrase in this instance. How can you be certain there is no other way, that your way of looking at it is the only possible correct application, and mine is wrong? That strikes me as a rather whopping and insurmountable burden of proof... _________________ Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Orion Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 146
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did you post before or after my edit? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bren Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orion wrote: | I think they let D6's strength influence the writing process too much. Fast and 'loose' is great for game play but it's less than ideal as a method for writing a rules set. | On that we are in 100% agreement.
Orion wrote: | Ah, see I wasn't sure if you supported double/triple specializing a single skill… | I’m fine with double or triple specializing – though I think it is generally a poor decisions for a PC to start with and as a GM I will make that tradeoff matter at some point – but that still doesn’t exempt you from the general cap on 3D total to a specialization.
Orion wrote: | Remember that the rules are written for GM's with no experience, because those that have experience will house rule things anyways. | I didn’t really think about that. Possibly because it’s been a long time since I was a teen or because as a young teen my friends and I were arguing about the rules for board games from Avalon Hill and SPI (which did tend to have precisely written rules) and we had to teach ourselves how to play the original version of D&D – also not the most precise rules ever written. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bren Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fallon let me take a try at explaining what Orion is saying. He is referring to the quote from the rules:
Quote: | You can spend 1D of your character's beginning skill dice to get three specializations; add 1D to each specialization. |
means that by spending 1D you get three specializations adding 1D to each. Since it refers to three specializations (which are a type of skill) each specialization is different. This would be similar to saying you can add 1D to three skills. By implication these are three different skills.
I'm not questioning that interpretation - in fact I agree with it.
My point regarding the rules imprecision is that the sentence "You can spend 1D of your character's beginning skill dice to get three specializations" does not exclude other ways of spending beginning skill dice to acquire dice in specialization. For example, there would be no contradiction in saying "You can spend 1 pip of your beginning skill dice and get 3 pips to spend on specializations" nor would there be any contradiction in saying "You can spend 2D of your characters beginning skill dice to get three specializations; add 2D to each specialization." |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Naaman Vice Admiral

Joined: 29 Jul 2011 Posts: 3190
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In our games, and unused specialization dice revert to a proportionate number of pips for standard skills (i.e. a character can choose a single specialization, and then get two pips added back into his remaining 6D). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
cheshire Arbiter-General (Moderator)

Joined: 04 Jan 2004 Posts: 4866
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fallon Kell wrote: | How can you determine that the author definitely meant what he didn't say, if there's even the nebulous possibility of another meaning? |
Put a language barrier in there, separate yourself from the author by a continent or two, throw in a dead culture and a couple of millennia and you've just described my job.
There are actually several clues you can use to help determine this, but I won't go into all that much exegetical mish mash now, but if we're really that fired up about what the author meant, why not go ahead and ask him. I've got a line on a couple of the people who made the R&E. I'm not sure I want to come calling again on a matter like this, but if I did, would it really settle the matter? Seriously, would it? Or would you just house rule it afterward. If you'd house rule it, then just say you're happier with the house rule than what is intended, and go with what you enjoy best. _________________ __________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fallon Kell Commodore


Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 1846 Location: Tacoma, WA
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orion wrote: | Did you post before or after my edit? | Uh... I don't know. Bren wrote: | Fallon let me take a try at explaining what Orion is saying. | I can see where he's going with it, but I don't think his interpretation is airtight. That's kinda my whole point. You see it one way. Most of the rest of them see it another. I'm sure one side is right, but we can't be certain which.
cheshire wrote: |
Put a language barrier in there, separate yourself from the author by a continent or two, throw in a dead culture and a couple of millennia and you've just described my job.
| You have a tough job, and that's coming from a guy who is often physically assualted for hours at a time at his. cheshire wrote: |
I've got a line on a couple of the people who made the R&E. I'm not sure I want to come calling again on a matter like this, but if I did, would it really settle the matter? Seriously, would it? Or would you just house rule it afterward. If you'd house rule it, then just say you're happier with the house rule than what is intended, and go with what you enjoy best. | I started out stating that I'd house rule it. I'm not personally invested in this discussion, I'm just involved because I think I'm right.
So, yeah, a word from the authors would settle the matter, though I wouldn't waste the call on an issue like this. (I'd wait for this thread to sink awhile and then try and get 'em to join. ) _________________ Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|