Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 6402202" data-attributes="member: 1">Thanks for the feedback! Just following up on the player comments.  You mention "not enough careers" in a whole bunch of different ways, so I'm getting that that was important to you guys.  Don't worry, that's coming - it's just that the "system" stuff is the focus at present.  Adding careers and stuff is the easy part!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'll try to hit each point briefly, so apologies for any seeming brevity.10 is an average roll on 3d6.  So if you're not trying to do something wacky (i.e. use an exploit or something) you have a 50/50 chance with 3d6.  Using an exploit is deliberately making things more difficult for yourself in order to accomplish something specific.  Starting characters may need to pull in die bonuses from elsewhere at times to accomplish them.It is, although so far the careers etc. are certainly more Trek/Wars.  That's definitely just an "adding more stuff" thing rather than a system thing, so it's kinda low priority.It says "choose or roll". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Mentioned above.Again, mentioned above.How do you mean? Again, mentioned above. Though that's really "Musician".A generic astronaut/crewman type.I did that deliberately in the core rules.  Simple, archetypal alien types folks will be familiar with. That leaves design space to do weird and wacky stuff with settings and the like, while providing an easy intro point.  Anyone who has seen any sci-fi should find those aliens easy to play, and there are tools for making more exotic ones.Ah.  That sounds like an error.  INT used to mean INTELLECT.  It got split into INTUITION and LOGIC.  It sounds like some of the old INTELLECT references didn't get changed to LOGIC (and are now being confused with INTUITION). Thanks for spotting tha1Kinda addressed above, but the "adding more stuff" aspect is lower priority than the general "system" stuff - but more stuff of all types (exploits, equipment, careers, monster, ships, etc.) will be added.They're essentially keywords.  The idea is to not define them precisely - they don't do anything on their own, like a D&D skill does; they just add to an attribute check if the GM agrees it's relevant. I'm thinking of changing their name to something other than skills.Anything the GM agrees to.  Usually that'll be hiding with AGI or maybe bluffing with CHA or so on, but anything situationally appropriate is allowed. The player tell the GM what they're doing, the GM calls for whatever attribute checks he/she feels appropriate.It's INT with tactics bonus, yes. I'll double check the Initiative scores of the sample characters - some of them have career exploits etc. which add to Initiative, but there might be some errors.What's the issue with LUC/REP (though I notice they're reversed on Gorrat's sheet).As written, it's overwritten.  I could be convinced either way, though.</blockquote>

Verification