Posts made by ixokai

This... sounds like the best idea ever. But I don't have OMage Revised books anymore, just M20!

@WTFE said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

You keep using this word "slice" in its various forms.

WTF does it mean?

'Slicing' is 'hacking' or 'manipulating technology'. What RT-D2 does is slicing when he plugs in.

This isn't expressly said in the movies, but shows up in the games and the EU and other spaces.

@Kairos said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

Hull, Shields and Sensors will all have stress tracks. (Why sensors? A slicer can use the relay to put out crazy stuff to jam your signal) Damage done does shields until its gone, then hull, and once its gone, everyone better get their ass to an escape pod. Once Sensor Stress is gone, hit the FTL and get the hell out of there in a random direction.

Point of curiosity: What's the thought behind a sensor stress track? From your basic write up it looks like you're looking to represent things like jamming progress with it (with, presumably, consequences inflicted being something along the lines of 'sensors jammed', 'no communications' and similar?). It may be helpful to consider how. such damage is counteracted. With shields and hull damage the answer is generally 'reroute power / perform repair actions' to both remove stress and initiate consequence recovery. For counter jamming kind of things, that might possibly be less immediate than you want, especially if using standard consequence rules.

This is too early to think too much about specific numbers, this is conceptualization. But, the point of a 'sensor stress track' is indeed jamming -- a way to sneak in without engaging.

The point of sensors/relay as a pairing is sorta to give a reason why its valuable to have someone with some slicing know-how in a ship. Not every ship needs it, but if your crew has one they aren't just there for show. I want as many different types of people to have meaningful interactions.

In theory if a slicer uses relay to send out some jamming signals, a slicer on the other side can use sensors to repair the sensors and counteract it. In theory. I might toss this track away but right now its what I'm considering.

Basically the sensor track determines how 'hardened' the sensors are in the target.

I might suggest looking at representing this kind of thing with aspects created via the create an advantage action since this would allow ships with counter jamming personnel and equipment to remove the negative 'status effects' in a manner that doesn't require consequence recovery.

I'm going to use advantages for various add-hoc effects but I want something a bit more meaningful to engage potential slicers.

Additionally, as a lore matter if I'm remembering my Star Wars fu correctly by this point in 'history' navicomps and astromechs are the primary way of calculating hyperspace jumps in most places as opposed to the much older hyperspace beacon networks and that misjumps are generally a result of either not doing the calculations (jumping too quickly) or sustaining physical damage to those components.

I intend on largely handwaving all things related to FTL as story elements.

Ships get 2 refresh per refresh used to buy the ship: refresh can buy stunts or extras.

The 'system pyramid' is capped at +1 the refresh cost of the ship.

A common basic frighter might have for 1 point, might have:
+2 Engines
+1 Hull, Relay

An effective, 2 cost cool ship might have:
+3 Weapons
+2 Shields, Engines
+1 Hull, Sensors, Relay

It might be more crunch than you want but you might also consider capping the amount of refresh / the skill pyramid by its class or size or something similar. A given hull will only take so much tweaking and modification before there's just no more room / the engines aren't powerful enough / you've essentially rebuilt the whole thing into something else. Could be that's actually too 'simulation-y', since the point of going with Fate is generally to reduce crunch, but again, it's a thought.

We'll handle this through judgement calls mostly. The chance of us approving any ship over 2 refresh is almost zero. Those are largely relegated to NPC ships, I expect.

Big glaring hole: Exactly how 'PC skills affect ship systems in their efficiency'. I haven't even really gotten to that stage of deciding yet. I have this vague idea that the player rolls the appropriate skill and it adds a bonus like, Shifts (success over difficulty) / 2, to ship skill. But that's so off the cuff, whoa.
The simplest one that comes to mind is to use a ship's skills as a 'cap' on the relevant player skills. So you have an X-Wing pilot, for example, with a piloting skill of +4. That's great in his X-Wing which has an engines rating of +4, but stick him in a freighter with engines of +2 and he's not going to be able to use his skill to it's full potential.

This is a good idea but as I have it the ship skill trees are MUCH smaller, partly because there are far fewer ship skills then there are player skills. I'm not sure how I'd balance pyramid size and refresh cost if ships were capable of having skills at like +4 or so.

If you really want a crewman to be able to improve the ship's performance, you might allow crewmen using a system at which their relevant skill is better than the ship's rating to either create advantages related to pushing the performance or to gain a +1 synergy bonus (similar to the 'teamwork' bonus given in some combined rolls). So in this case, a rebel pilot flying an X-Wing with engines at +4 and a piloting skill at +4 is using it to it's maximum potential. A pilot flying at +5 can push his system's performance because he's just that good, and gain a +1 synergy bonus to the roll, effectively letting him use his whole skill. A mythical pilot flying at +6 (if such a thing exists) is still only rolling at +5. He's got the same ability to push his ship to the limits, but in this case his ships' limits are holding him back. There's only so much the tech can do for him, despite his incredibly high level of skill.

Hm. I'll give this some thought.

You might consider also using a 'traits' system (ala Transhumanity's Fate) to append and clarify the ship's basic aspect. If you don't have access to that book or haven't read it, Traits are 'sub-aspects' that are attached to a given aspect and are invoked and compelled via that aspect, but serve as justification for doing things related to that trait. So you might give our example X-Wing a High Concept 'Red Squadron X-Wing' with the traits 'Starfighter', 'Maneuverable' and 'Hyperdrive'. Those traits all 'live on' the High Concept aspect and serve to justify things like flying through Beggars Canyon (because 'Starfighter' tells me it's small and 'Maneuverable' says it should be able to do this) whilst 'Hyperdrive' serves as justification for long range travel but can //also// be compelled (via the parent aspect) for it to break down or get damaged and strand the pilot. Again, this might be more crunch than you're looking for, but it's a suggestion.

I do intend on having something like this that I'm calling attributes, for things like 'hyperdrive' and such, but they're not things that are charged for, not really. Things like size, cargo hold, hyperdrive, etc, are just not things that I see as important in our system. In our system the only things that matter are what engage players in fun RP: everything else we handwave. A unarmored frighter and a shuttle might both cost 1 refresh: one's bigger then the other but we aren't charging more... why? Because it doesn't let the player DO anything really in a challenge.

What the two let a player do is move off planet at will on their own. That one lets someone RP buying cargo is just... story. Since we don't have money or anything like that, being detailed doesn't matter.

Now if you want to be able to fight, that's gonna cost more-- because that lets you do something the shuttle/frighter can't do.

More then that is probably sorta out of the scope of our ships. A cost 3 ship is going to be super rare outside of NPC owned ships, I think.

Finally you'll need to decide how and when characters can make ships do things. I'm a big fan of Aether Sea's 'stations' mechanic for this. A ship has so many stations and those stations do specific things. A piloting station lets a crewman make piloting rolls and move the ship. A weapons station lets a crewman make attacks and so on and so forth. I am personally a fan of this because, one, it allows for another level of differentiation between ships and two it allows you to express certain concepts mechanically provided you have enough people. (Also I suppose, three, it gives players clear indications of how to use all those shiny stats the ship has).

Yeah this I am not a fan of at all. No stations or anything like that. There will be a +ship system to help make rolls easier and track aspects/advantages/boosts on the ship and stuff like that, but nothing as technical as stations. A ship doesn't need more then one person to do everything: more crew just add advantages.

Thanks for the input!

@DownWithOPP said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

@ixokai Big glaring hole: Exactly how 'PC skills affect ship systems in their efficiency'.

If I'm reading it right, something like Well Fed you put in your post earlier?

The first two I thought of were both Star Trek homages - 'She Can't Take Anymore!' - Rolling mechanics to lessen repair time.

'I'm Giving Her All She's Got!' - Using this aspect temporarily increases a ship's speed by 1.5 times.

Oh, 'Well Fed' is an aspect and in Fate all aspects have the same mechanical effect. If you can creatively come up with a reason they make sense, you pay a Fate Point and invoke them after a roll, and either retroactively add +2 to your existing roll or you reroll your failed roll. The more varied the aspects that are available the easier it is to come up with an excuse to invoke them... and the more opportunities your GM has to compel them to give complications (and more fate points).

What i mean by 'affect ship systems', let me give you a scenario.

Let's say we have an expert pilot and a novice pilot in an identical ship. Both ships have Weapons at +3, Shields and Sensors at +2, and Relay, Hull and Engines at +1.

Those 'system skills' are skills, so the novice rolls Weapons vs the expert's Engines. He has a pretty solid chance of hitting him.

But the expert has Pilot of +5! And the novice has a Shoot of +2. Somehow the PC skills should impact the ship vs ship performance.

See, I believe that the quality of the ship should matter in a fight. But the quality of the people should matter too.

One thought I have (really, the simplist), is just to add them up. So the roll is the novice's ships Weapons + novice's Shoot against the expert's ship Engines + export's Pilot. This is a un-Fatey mechanic, but I like how it makes both matter. Granted, it might tend to have big numbers but in Fate all that really matters is the relative difference between results.

@ThatGuyThere said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

Have you looked at Diaspora? It is Fate and while it is more traditional Sci Fi compared to the Space Opera of Starwars it could be well worth it to look at how they handle ships, as well as being a good read in general. It also has a chapter on social political conflicts which might be useful for things like the Rebels and the Empire trying to influence the populace of Corelia.

I haven't, but I'll check it out. Thanks for the pointer!

I wasn't originally going to open this up to discussion here, but I figure, why not. For anyone who is making a character in-game, input there will be valued more then input here.

If you are anti-Fate, I respect you being anti-Fate, but am not interested in your input then. You hate the system, that's your right, but your critique on something derived from something you hate I don't think is fundamentally... useful.

This is the very basic framework for how I am thinking of dealing with ships. I've spent the night reading various Fate books that deal with vehicles. I note, this system encapsulates only the engaging part of ships: stuff PC's interact with and do fun stuff with. Things like.. 'can FTL?' and 'cargo capacity?' are not engaging and will be relegated to attributes and not part of the system. As players spend their precious refresh for ships-- refresh which lets a player DO THINGS-- every point must directly lead to them being able to DO THINGS with their ships.

Every ship has:

Name - This is Star Wars. The name of your ship //matters//. Some might be Millennium Falcon, some might be the TIE Fighter TI-87Z. Each has a different impression based on the culture.

High Concept - 'Old Freighter Retrofit Continually'

One Aspect per Crew (PC or Droid) - This aspect is tied to the specific crew member, applies only when they are on board, and if they stop being crew, goes away. New crew add new aspect. Hire a cook? The 'Well Fed' aspect might be added. Who cares if a ship is Well Fed? Believe me I can think of situations I might invoke Well Fed to get something cool.

Systems (ship skills) - and the PC skills that affect their efficiency:

Hull (Mechanics)
Weapons (Mechanics, Shoot)
Engines (Mechanics, Pilot)
Shields (Slicing, Mechanics)
Sensors (Slicing, Pilot)
Comm Relay (Slicing)

Hull, Shields and Sensors will all have stress tracks. (Why sensors? A slicer can use the relay to put out crazy stuff to jam your signal) Damage done does shields until its gone, then hull, and once its gone, everyone better get their ass to an escape pod. Once Sensor Stress is gone, hit the FTL and get the hell out of there in a random direction.

Ships get 2 refresh per refresh used to buy the ship: refresh can buy stunts or extras.

The 'system pyramid' is capped at +1 the refresh cost of the ship.

A common basic frighter might have for 1 point, might have:
+2 Engines
+1 Hull, Relay

An effective, 2 cost cool ship might have:
+3 Weapons
+2 Shields, Engines
+1 Hull, Sensors, Relay

Big glaring hole: Exactly how 'PC skills affect ship systems in their efficiency'. I haven't even really gotten to that stage of deciding yet. I have this vague idea that the player rolls the appropriate skill and it adds a bonus like, Shifts (success over difficulty) / 2, to ship skill. But that's so off the cuff, whoa.

Also I can code a lot of stuff to make this all really easy to manage.

@Kairos said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

There's a lot of good ideas out there to steal. I may not be pointing you at anything you haven't found already, but http://www.faterpg.com/licensing/licensing-fate-cc-by/ has a repository of 'System Resource Documents' which have a lot of good stuff in them. SRD's are bare-bones, no fluff rules documents from various FATE resources that Evil Hat has licensed for public general use (the details of how to make use of that license are on that page but the short version is 'you have to credit them for their work'). The ease of legal use is one of the reasons I'm a big fan of FATE Core and Evil Hat in general.

Yeah I actually have the fluff version of most of those because I was an original kickstarter of Fate Core so got a ton of pdfs with their main ones.

Buut--

DriveThruRPG also has a bunch of fate supplements available on 'Pay What You Want'. Not sure how many of them might be helpful but they're handy to pick through. There's also a bunch of more traditional offerings (ie, ones you have to pay for) that have ideas. If anyone on your team is up to spending the money, I'd recommend Transhumanity's Fate (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/176939/Eclipse-Phase-Transhumanitys-Fate?sorttest=true&filters=0_0_44284_0_0) and Jadepunk (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/127543/Jadepunk-Tales-From-Kausao-City?filters=0_0_44284_0_0) for general ideas stealing, but your mileage may vary.

Those look interesting, I'll check them out.

Also, the Fate System Toolkit (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/119385/Fate-System-Toolkit?sorttest=true&filters=0_0_44284_0_0) is available for pay what you want pricing and I've found that one pretty handy in my own fate hacking efforts.

Yeah the FST is invaluable if not for what it does but how it makes you think about the ways you can tweak and alter Fate without breaking it.

@Kairos said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

Hello there @ixokai

Hi! Thanks for the pointers, I'll get those and check them out. I'm liberally stealing ideas from implementations of Fate Core.

And just as a FYI so its clear if its not obvious, I'm Artichoke in-game. (I have no interest in any SW FC ever so am making a ton of OC's and enjoying helping people come up with fun stunts and aspects)

@GentlemanJack said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

Maybe it could work. But another thing that made Star Wars cool was space, space fights, ships flying around. With everyone on a single planet I don't know if you will still allow that.

To further answer this question, while others have mentioned-- as a function of plots (and temporary rooms/the anywhere nexus), scenes can and will take place anywhere. People will be flying around in space.

There will even be space combat.

BUT, it will NOT be simultationist. Not only do I have absolutely no desire to code it, I have even less desire to configure something like HSpace (even though it has been ported to Rhost) -- partly because I don't find hSpace fun and everything I put my coding effort into is to make it so people can more easily have fun, and also because HSpace doesn't have any hooks to tie into 'stats'. And what the hell is the point of Pilot as a skill and cool stunts and ship-based aspects if they have absolutely nothing to do with it?

So most space travel will be handwaved as just happens. Except the fun stuff. Flying into an Imperial station, dodging some TIE fighters, slicing into its network to get docking bays, etc.

Our space will be far more narrative then 'coded space' usually is, any part of it that isn't fun and story-related gets skipped over.

This will use the Fate mechanics (not interested in criticisms here: its a done deal), specifically, the Bronze Rule, where when faced with an uncertainty how to handle something: Make Everything A Character.

Ships, stations, and droids will all be Characters with skills, aspects, and stress tracks. Don't worry, they will be much smaller characters that are easy to stat and our +assets system will track them and integrate with some space combat code I am tinkering.

But I don't expect space-fu to be anything but handwaved as a series of rolls run by a GM until the code is in place to support it, and in alpha that is NOT my priority. My current priority is character to character balancing and playtesting now that all the primary ground based code is done.

But I'll be working on assets (ships and droids) soon.

@bored said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

It wasn't my intent to 'bash' the game, but to offer vigorous and honest criticism. While an open alpha may not be an invitation for a popularity contest on MSB to determine policy, it is a moment in time where the game creators can probably make more use of criticism than at any other time. That they choose not to is fine, but I'm not going to sugar coat how bad an idea I think FCs are (the same way I won't really sit and equivocate on the typical nepotistic tier/feature character stuff in other genres; it's always a shitshow, and you're bad for doing it, and no your explanation as to why you're not bad isn't an exception).

The bukkake thing was just a callback to a prior joke. I thought it was a humorous summary of one (of many) issues with FCs, how they tend to get into very non-canon relationships that are often cringeworthy and theme-damaging.

Please note that no one affiliated with this game said you bashed the game nor have any of us taken the criticism as bashing: nor did we turn aside criticism. We welcome it, especially in Alpha -- we're designing core systems still and player input is incredibly valuable. I had an intensely useful conversation on the nature of advancement today and although I'm not yet ready to put a purposal forward, we're moving that way.

That said, I want to note two things: 1) The level of... criticism that is not about US, but about general STUFF, I don't find useful. This conversation has occasionally diverted to a point where they aren't even talking about is. I don't mind that talk, I'd just wish it happened not here.

And thanks to Faraday for defending us though she isn't one of our staff, but is acting as a challenge against the criticism that isn't really based around what we're doing. I don't feel comfortable doing that because I know very well there's this line with defending your game on boards like this and if you get too defensive its not useful. She was more defensive then I was, and I thank her for the effort.

That said, onto topic. We welcome feedback, BUT. Some things simply are.

We are a Fate game.
We are a Star Wars game that is diverging from canon after New Hope.
We allow FCs.

FCs and OCs are by system equal: its a true fact that simply being a FC might mean people want to RP with them more. We know this. It is a true fact that being a FC means you get a level expectation of awesome that is over other people that you simply will not have here. We know this.
On SW:I, we are entirely aware of these facts and we know some people are not into them but this is the game we are doing. This will not change.

We welcome everyone, I go out of my way to help and encourage people, but this is the game we are doing.

Our decisions are not out of ignorance. Its not even unanimous: of our five staff, only two have an interest in playing a FC. But those two are also some of the most amazing and inclusive and interesting plot staffers we've worked with. Without them, the game doesn't exist.

Its not even a question.

Now, all that said. Please try us out. We're in alpha and are open to changing at LOT. Many things are in flux. Our focus is not on stats and details but on story. We love Star Wars and want to play an alternative universe Star Wars universe. Some of us want to interpret FC's, some of us don't. Either way, everyone is on an equal footing.

We are entirely aware that having a certain name, ie, 'Luke Skywalker', might draw people. But we fully believe that embracing the wider potential of people making interesting characters they enjoy will be what drives RP.

I got nothin' else to say.

@Seraphim73 said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

I think that you're ignoring the mentality of players here, and it's something you're very much going to have to look out for. In general, if players check a Where list looking for RP and see that Luke Skywalker is in one room, and Abist Trass is in another, unless they've RPed with Abist before, they're going to be heading for the room Luke is in. I honestly don't know what the solution to this is (besides no FCs except as quest-givers, but I understand why you don't want to go that route), if I did, I would happily suggest it. It's definitely something you're going to have to be aware of, however, as FCs will generally get more RP, more weight behind their RP, and thus more position in the metaplot simply due to the OOC weight behind their names.

I'm aware that this can happen, but I don't think its at all as prevalent or guaranteed to happen as you suggest it is. But we'll see.

@Ghost said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

One thing I think this game has going for it is the FATE system. You're right, @ixokai , in FATE these things need to be BOUGHT, which presents an interesting concept that doesn't exist in some other systems. To have that kind of authority, or riches, or benefit, it needs to be bought, which balances out the character sheets in a way most systems aren't used to.

The major question, though, is are the character sheets of FCs such as Darth Vader going to have additional purchases so that the character FITS the FC version?

In short, no.

In long, we've chosen to put everyone on an "even" playing field in Fate point terms, even if that means that certain characters (like, Darth Vader) are, if they are PCs, are not able to quite live up to what they were in canon. This is a purposeful decision that was thought about.

Our tier system is how we address stronger-then-average, but even then 'FC' does not mean 'Tier 1' -- FC's can be apped at any tier and Staff explicitly does not judge a character to see if its 'worthy' of the Tier choice of the player. We do look at how much refresh is left over and try to get it into a number we're more comfortable with, but we do so by encouraging the player to either lower the Tier (and since players can have only one Tier 1, and only one Tier 2 character, saving the higher tier for a concept that needs it to make sense), or by buying additional stunts or extras to have more abilities.

We have only two characters on our banned list right not: the Emperor and Yoda. For different reasons we don't think either should be in play or fit into the system except as quest givers. Maybe Vader should be on the list too, but I don't know for sure. Alpha.

During FATE character creation, there's a # of skills that can be selected via character generation. There's also alternate ways to make veteran characters, etc.

So using Darth Vader in mind:

• Sith Lord
• Former Jedi
• Master Force User
• Commands the Super Star Destroyer
• Pilot
• Parent to 2 major FCs. Ahsoka?
• Has his own legion of Stormtroopers
• Fought in the Clone Wars (Skills, Aspects)
• Fame. Rank. Infamy. Fear?
• Throneworld: Vjun. He has his own throneworld.

Do note that although we are based on Fate Core, our power level is significantly bumped up from the baseline. Our skill pyramid tops out at +5, we allow five free stunts and seven aspects (we don't require them all to be set at chargen. Fate takes some getting used to and aspects sometimes take time).

I think Vader actually fits into our power level quite well. What he doesn't do is fit into the game as better then every other person of the same tier. But that's intentional.

I think the challenge that your game may face is in asking themselves "How do we make this FC what the FC really is without writing prepackaged player benefits into the character sheet? Do these FCs get extra benefits that OCs don't in an effort to make them truly the FCs they are?"

Our answer to that last question is a resounding no. If someone wants to play a FC they have to accept that. Does this potentially make FC's less attractive? Perhaps. It might disappoint a Vader player that he is not the best lightsaber combatant to be found: but he can still have Superb Fight and get Legendary hits from time to time. Of course, my OC Tier 1 guy can too so he might be a match to Vader.

Given the possible outcomes of A) Be True to the FC and B) The OC's must have an equal footing, we choose B. This may diminish some FC's and we're aware. Perhaps those that can not fit onto this scale shouldn't be PC's (Maybe Vader), but I don't see any problem with the likes of Dash Rendar and Leia -- they fit just fine.

@Faceless said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

@Akurel pretty much.

Do I think the game can work? Sure. In fact, my biggest issue is with the one planet aspect. The FC presence is a thing, one which I've saw fail time and time again in the past. In nearly two decades of various Star Wars games, I can say I've not saw it work out with 100% success. Moderate? Sure. Full? No. In fact, a recent conversation about another Star Wars game had mention of how some staffer's special snowflake character got hitched to Jabba the Hutt(the FC) so she could become "Empress" of a terraformed Tatooine. So, yeah.

Hey, stupid people can want to do stupid things if someone is an OC or a FC. I see that as Staff is there to try to minimize the stupidity. I don't see FCs as being inherantly more prone to stupidity.

No, my biggest qualm is with the whole rebel cell on Corellia thing. There's a reason that the Rebel Alliance kept largely on the backwater planets; safety. Yavin, Hoth, Dantooine(in mention), Sullust(used as a rally point), and all the EU mentions. The Rebellion runs, that's what they do. On a planet like Corellia, I imagine they'd be discovered within a few days. Star Wars Rebels provides evidence that a planet-based insurgency on a world with a moderate to heavy Imperial presence would quickly be put on it's heels and would have to flee; and that's on a relatively minor planet, by all appearances. The Rebellion runs, it's their thing. That too, of course, can be overcome. It only requires a level of disbelief suspension that I can't thoroughly wrap my head around. So that means the game is not for me, which does not mean it's not for others, and that's okay.

There is some validity to this point, but this is exactly why we chose Corellia over, say, Coruscant. In the EU, Corellia does have some rebel activity, and despite being a Core World, it is not the average Core World. Corellians are rebellious and independent and not wholly under the Empire's thumb. We're nudging things a little bit farther so out beyond Coronet City there is a rebel installation. The rebels will still hit and run: they'll just retreat to safe houses instead of across the galaxy.

Does it stretch the imagination some? I'll admit it does, a bit, but I only think a little bit.

But plots will take people throughout the Corellian Sector and beyond, so its not like the Rebels are going to be bringing heat home all the time and the Imperials come off as incompetent bumpkins for not finding them.

That's the intent, at least. We'll see how it works out.

@Ghost said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

If FCs are no different, even stats-wise from OCs, then why differentiate between the two? Why apply for FCs? Why do FCs typically get handed off to friends of staff and favored players?

I don't know what is 'typical', I only know what we're doing. If people want to get into a general discussion of FCs in theory, then I'd happily ignore the thread, but if people keep posting in this thread with comments that are not about us, its awfully confusing.

On SW:I, the only difference between FCs and OCs is (once I have the system in play), FCs have a certain minimal activity requirement, and that there's some people who really want to play their favorite people. That's all.

If there is no difference, stats-wise, between FCs and OCs, then what is the point?

The answer:
FCs come prepackaged with guaranteed roleplay opportunities and "main character" time in plots. FCs are automatically roped into game metaplot, whereas OCs need to find their own roleplay and means to being roped into (and more importantly, relevance in) metaplot

This is not correct. FC's are not given special access to plot: no one is going to start an event and reserve a slot for Luke. They are not positioned as 'main characters' in plots.

That said, our hooks system is specifically designed as a conduit of communication between players and Plot Staff for the express purpose of getting characters involved with plot and finding ways to connect people, so its incorrect to say that FCs are "automatically roped into game metaplot" and OCs "need to find their own roleplay and means".

Some FC's have positions of authority, but this is bought and is no different then OC's with positions of authority. We already have a few OC's with authority

In the canon SW Universe, Luke is a special snowflake who solves the metaplot. In SW:I universe, he does not have this destiny. He might play a significent role, but it is not written to be so: it will be on Luke's player to make it happen.

@bored said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

@ixokai said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

I'll point out that our FC's do not get any special privileges. If they want to be a leader in the rebellion (like, Leia), she pays for it. If an OC wants to be a leader in the Rebellion too, they pay for it. Our OC's are exactly in line with the FC's, power wise. If someone apps a Tier 1 Vader, he will have the exact same amount of points, powers and privileges as someone else apping a random Tier 1 Sith.

Being a fate game, this is somewhat easier but also all a bit wishy-washy since I assume the 'cost' is that they have an aspect 'Rebel General' or something like that, which is worth either a) exactly as much as any other vaguely officer-y aspect, or b) whatever you decide it's worth in the totally arbitrary and hard-to-quantify terms above (spotlight, leadership pecking order, plot shield, etc). Which is why I really find it hard to trust the whole thing. Even if Leia doesn't get better stats than Rebel Officer #132, Leia is Leia.

The cost of leadership (and many extras in general) is fundamentally subjective, yes, but I would point out as an open sheet game, we are not hiding anything from anyone. Everyone can see what we charge everyone for everything they buy. On some things we have crystal clear rules: Special Weapons and Armor that grant automatic damage and mitigation cost refresh equal to their rating. On other things, like organization influence/leadership, its a bit vague, and we're working on it.

We're also alpha and no stats are final, and we'll look at defining orgs and influence more clearly as time goes on.

Put another way, when I hear stories about Luke getting killed in normal combat and Vader getting demoted and locked in a box somewhere because the Imperial officer corps is tired of him choking their Admirals, I'll believe you that it's really equal... but then still probably not want to play in a universe where Vader is a bitch. Double edge sword there, I guess.

I think this comes down to: there's no pleasing you It's not the game for you and that's fine.

We were well aware that some people would not be willing to play on a game with FC's, but that's something we simply are not going to change.

There's been some misunderstandings we'd like to clarify.

FC and OC have the exact same number of points to build their characters. FC's do not get a single point or ability that is not available to everyone else.

We have a concept called Tiers, which grant extra refresh to support concepts that are 'heavier' -- but this has nothing at all to do with FC vs OC's. This is an initial bonus, but the same Refresh Cap applies to everyone so its a leg up to start with, but not a permanent advantage.

All Tier 1 characters have the same amount of refresh, the same number of abilities and point spread. All Tier 3 characters have the same amount of refresh, the same number of abilities and point spreads. There is an exception, Tier 4, which IS weaker then others: this is for certain concepts who the basic numbers make too powerful. Grunt level Stormtroopers, for example.

A Tier 1 FC and a Tier 1 OC have the exact same amount of power and abilities.

Now, we do state in 'news refresh' that we prefer people not to have a lot of refresh. You don't need it: GM's will offer compels to get you more Fate Points as scenes progress. We think 3-4 refresh after all the buys is ideal, and anyone 5+ over -- be they a FC or an OC -- we talk to in order to encourage to either drop a tier level or consider buying more stunts or equipment to make yourself more powerful.

This isn't about making OC's "weaker" then FC's, because, again-- FCs and OCs have the same exact rules and numbers. We encouraged Luke to buy more stuff to lower his refresh from what he originally had. We encourage OCs and FCs alike to try to get around to 3-4, which we consider the ideal point to be able to be awesome but still participate in the important Fate Point Economy (where you are encouraged by not having effectively infinite fate points to accept compels from GM's except where it really matters to you)

Finally, though we encourage a certain level of fate points, we allow you to make this decision after we give our advice. If someone wants to make a T1 and never buy a thing and hoard all the refresh ever, they can. We think that is ultimately not fun, because GM Compels are a major way that scenes are kept interesting, but it is your decision to make.

@Misadventure said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

Maybe there shouldn't be any NPCs.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this?

@gasket said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

@bored

If we replace 'FC' with the also-accurate 'massively skilled and/or overpowered character with nigh-unto limitless resources compared to everyone else on the game', it's suddenly less of a mystery why FCs never, and will never, work.

I suppose staff feel less like they're rewarding themselves or the chosen few by not calling them that, though.

I'll point out that our FC's do not get any special privileges. If they want to be a leader in the rebellion (like, Leia), she pays for it. If an OC wants to be a leader in the Rebellion too, they pay for it. Our OC's are exactly in line with the FC's, power wise. If someone apps a Tier 1 Vader, he will have the exact same amount of points, powers and privileges as someone else apping a random Tier 1 Sith.

And we're an open sheet game: everyone can see everyone's stats.

@Wizz said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

@ixokai said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

Its not 'shoehorning' Luke (a staff alt)

.........

I appreciate the transparency, I really like the setting, and I actually like Fate, but FCs are strike one and staff-played FCs are strikes two and three for me. Purely personal preference and opinion but I wouldn't touch the place unless Beta saw FCs done away with altogether.

That's fair and entirely understandable, but isn't going to happen.

@bored said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

@ixokai

I think you misread my comment about the single planet thing, although it's understandable as my sentence was ambiguous. I meant that, given your setting is totally divorced from anything in the movies, it makes no sense to get movie characters into things.

I didn't mean that I didn't get the motivation for picking a single planet, but for shoehorning in Luke Skywalker when we never see him do anything on Corelia anyway.

Ah, I did misread your comment.

Our position is between Episode IV and V, a lot happens. What? Who knows. On our game, there's a focus on Corellia. This didn't happen in canon: but we aren't a canon game. Episode V may never happen.

Its not 'shoehorning' Luke (a staff alt) or Leia (not a staff alt) into Corellia, its that from the point of Episode IV, we're telling a new story. The Rebel Alliance is going after a Core World. The movies never have such ambition.

We'll see how it plays out.