Members | Sign In
Modiphius > Mutant Chronicles Playtest Discussion (CLOSED)
avatar

Beta 9.5 Discussion

posted Jul 11, 2014 18:04:35 by ChrisBirch
Please post your views and queries of the final Beta test document here.
[Last edited Feb 10, 2016 00:04:54]
Founder & Publisher
page   first prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next last
656 replies
avatar
JakeBernstein said Jul 21, 2014 22:47:28
Yes, that's how the original game worked--half the fun of that original system was having the dice add (AND SUBTRACT!) from your stats while also providing a fun narrative history for your PC.

You'd want to make sure that PCs don't become too cookie cutter, but with 8 stats, I think it's EASIER not to be cookie cutter, compared to just 6 in the previous edition.

Anyway, I'm fine if crunch isn't in the main book, some kind of "Sergeant's Tactical Handbook" would be awesome as an expansion later on.
-Apoc527
avatar
Nicholas Simpson said Jul 22, 2014 00:10:18
@Jake
"For example, let's say there's a simple fight in a small section of Luna City--maybe some alleys, some streets, and a building. Keep it small scale, kind of like the example battle in the old first edition MC core book (with McBride and his buddies). I describe several zones: the front of the alley, the back of the alley (where the PCs are), and the windows in the buildings. I am just having a really hard time comprehending how a GM should adjudicate this battle without distances measured in feet/meters/yards/etc, especially when it comes to movement. "

How I'd do this:
First, there'd have to be a little bit of detail added. I'd say the buildings on both sides are a few stories tall. I'd say that one of them has a fire escape that counts as its own zone (Fire Escape, Difficult Terrain, difficult terrain to cross to from the ground). I'd say the windows are a few stories up and make them into medium range from the ground. The fire escape counts as adjacent to both the ground and one set of windows, so it will take a couple of moves to get up it and to the windows from the ground. I'd say that one side of the alley has no exit and a bunch of trash and a dumpster. The other side is an exit but can be blocked by someone who you have to roll against to get past. Both windows would count as medium range to the front and back alley, or close range to the fire escape. If I were drawing the map completely flat it would be:
(Front Alley)
(Windows)(Fire Escape)(Back Alley)(Wall)(Windows)

So I think that wound run the scene pretty well and allow you draw more zones in if you desire.

@Benn
I'm just glad to be heard. Regardless of how things pan out, this kind of beta testing always helps me to figure out possible house rules I'd like to use as well. I'll say that I'm not particularly interested in making combat more granular, as I love its current incarnation. I think that adding a note about range band distance approximations could be helpful, but it does go against the nice ability of this system to model larger scale conflicts. As far as adding support for abstract AND complex combat, I feel ambivalent. I'd worry about this diverting resources in order to balance both options out unless the complex combat option was strictly a conversion guide. I think the quick and dirty one would be to make movement a standard 30 feet and adjust stance 5 feet and then use the ranges you gave for weapons (close is 30, medium 60, long 100) with reach as 5 feet (ie adjacent square)

To everyone unsure of using abstract ranges, being able to scale up both the amount of space a range band represents and the amount of time that a round takes can be a lot of fun. Picture this awesome use of abstract ranges:

Luna city is currently under siege by a mad bomber and the players must track him down before he blows up the town. You draw out a map of the city and label neighborhoods as individual zones. Each round takes 1 hour and you have 24 hours until midnight when the bomber will strike again. The players have to spread out among the zones and balance moving between them and using skills to investigate different areas. Maybe a player runs into some thugs and does a quick battle in the zone against them. Maybe players don't have comms and if they want to communicate information they have to be in the same zone or both be at payphones. All kinds of cool things could be done with this using zones.

For close encounters like the alley battle I mentioned, I don't really see what is lost from not using a grid besides the tactile feel of moving miniatures and the very granular tactics. Again, I see the zone system as essentially being a way to cut out all of the dead spaces and only include the interesting ones. It also makes preparing battles easier, at least in my mind. You just decide what ranges you want bad guys to be at, how long it takes to reach them, and then add some set pieces.

I think the biggest mental hoop that people have could come from the following example. Let's say you have that alley fight, announce that the bad guys are on the third or fourth floor, and are at medium range. Later, a player who calculates that the fourth floor was 12 meters away, decides 12 meters must always be medium range. The team is on a 12 meter boat with bad guys on the other side and when he uses his medium range weapon the GM tells him that this is actually close range. The player becomes upset because the range isn't consistent. This, I think, is most people's worst fear when it comes to range. This can first be avoided by trying to limit combat to abstract ranges as much as possible on the part of the GM. For players, it's important to realize that there's a good bit more give and take from the GM for defining the terms of combat. As Rickard said, this transition to thinking in range bands can happen pretty quickly if you're willing to give it a shot. Keep in mind that the grid system itself is not really conducive to how actual movement works in a fight. Everyone who has played the grid system has had to make the conceptual leap to begin thinking in its terms and its way of abstracting distance. Keep that in mind when you're adjusting to the zone system, that it is an alternate way of abstracting distance from grids, rather than grids themselves not being abstractions.



avatar
Nicholas Simpson said Jul 22, 2014 00:13:36
@Benn
I would NOT be in favor of special events modifying stats unless they were standardized (i.e. every character will of gaining an equal benefit, even if it is different). I think things like the strange events table that don't directly affect the rules are a better way to go for making a character narrative during creation. I'd prefer to see more of those.
avatar
JakeBernstein said Jul 22, 2014 00:26:23
I would NOT be in favor of special events modifying stats unless they were standardized (i.e. every character will of gaining an equal benefit, even if it is different). I think things like the strange events table that don't directly affect the rules are a better way to go for making a character narrative during creation. I'd prefer to see more of those.


Whereas I see little real value to events that don't have any in-game effect. EVERYTHING must have an in-game effect on those event tables or NOTHING should...otherwise, it will be unfair to those who get benefits (or get screwed) and those who roll "narrative" stuff will feel cheated. I like the non-Strange Events tables because every result does both. The same is largely true of the original tables, all of which had game effects, even if some were good and some were bad.

-Apoc527
avatar
rickardwaern said Jul 22, 2014 00:29:11
One of the early design goals was to have the cocky teen and the jaded vet in the same party so yes its on the wish list. I'll make sure that Crunch is brought before Chris and will see what he comes back with. It might be it skips the main rule book though.


That sounds pretty much perfect to me - especially if characters fortunes can fluctuate during character creation, possibly being forced to change careers etc. What I really want to make clear is that I would really like to see different advantages for players depending on wheter you have done many iterations or few. I envision a system where older characters are perhaps more skilled (or maybe more broadly skilled) than younger characters, but younger characters having some other types of advantage to give them an edge.

I am absolutely fine with this coming later on, myself. For me it is a very important part, and haste makes waste as we all know.

If there was an optional rule that special events in the life path granted concrete modifiers to the character in Stats and Skills would you be in favour?


Yes. Modifiers should not be large, however, giving flavor rather than defining your character. And if we are thinking about a table where you only roll once I would suggest getting both a good and a bad with every result. For tables were you could roll multiple times, such as when doing iterations, things could be a bit more mixed up. For such tables, I would suggest giving minor effects mechanically, but impacting your future iterations. Things like being promoted, fired, getting a chance for a new career, enemies, allies etc. comes to mind.

Concerning the discussion on combat, I will simply state that I prefer a fluid and cinematic system over a detailed one, but having more detailed options for those who prefer is good as long as it does not create unnecessary confusion.

Either way, thank you for listening to our suggestions. Even if most of what we wish for will not make the cut, I will feel good knowing it has been discussed!
avatar
JakeBernstein said Jul 22, 2014 00:31:48
Luna city is currently under siege by a mad bomber and the players must track him down before he blows up the town. You draw out a map of the city and label neighborhoods as individual zones. Each round takes 1 hour and you have 24 hours until midnight when the bomber will strike again. The players have to spread out among the zones and balance moving between them and using skills to investigate different areas. Maybe a player runs into some thugs and does a quick battle in the zone against them. Maybe players don't have comms and if they want to communicate information they have to be in the same zone or both be at payphones. All kinds of cool things could be done with this using zones.


An interesting take, but I think you lose a lot of rich roleplaying possibilities by zooming so far out of the action. I've recently had a lot of success doing the opposite--zooming WAY in and worrying about small details. It helps make the world come alive in a way that this broad, action-movie-esque time-lapse cut sequence would not.

Now, obviously, there's little point in having a BadWrongFun argument, but I just think that MC would benefit from being able to appeal to both types of players--narrative and abstract and groups that prefer concrete and measured systems.

If not, it's okay, I can always do what I had been planning on and just convert MC3 to a system of my choice.
-Apoc527
avatar
Nicholas Simpson said Jul 22, 2014 00:33:19
@Jake
"Whereas I see little real value to events that don't have any in-game effect. EVERYTHING must have an in-game effect on those event tables or NOTHING should...otherwise, it will be unfair to those who get benefits (or get screwed) and those who roll "narrative" stuff will feel cheated. I like the non-Strange Events tables because every result does both. The same is largely true of the original tables, all of which had game effects, even if some were good and some were bad."

I should clarify. In my list of suggestions, I mentioned wanting the Adolescent Events table to either have every option include a weakness AND a benefit, or to just include a weakness. I wanted the strange events table to be mandatory for everyone. Finally, I wanted the career events table to provide a Conflict AND benefit for each option.

Here's my rationale for balancing it out like this. The most memorable events in creating a character are either getting something awesome or getting a bad weakness, right? Why not have this balance out so that you get something awesome and a cool weakness EVERY time. That way you can end up with a character who has both had interesting things happen to him/her and has cool abilities.
avatar
JakeBernstein said Jul 22, 2014 00:46:55
Interesting, but if everything balances out, what's the point of random chargen? In other words, part of the fun of MC chargen was that you weren't guaranteed anything at all. Sometimes you'd get an unemployed criminal with a bad back, other times you'd roll up a Bauhaus noble with Long Legs and Extraordinary Chemical Resilience. If you make it so balanced, then I would just as soon use a point-buy chargen system so players can just make what they want.

Out of curiousity, what's your "RPG resume?" In other words, what have you played and GMed and for how long? I don't ask to compare for purposes of "who knows more" but rather just to get a picture of your background and from whence you came.

For myself, I've been forged by the following:

* Been gaming since 1993, when I was 12.
* Have GMed or played (with more GMing) more or less continuously since then, with a few different groups
* First game ever was original Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay in 1993
* First game I ever bought myself was WEG Star Wars (with the d6 system)
* SECOND game I bought was...MUTANT CHRONICLES
* Played MC for years and years
* Never played D&D until 3.0 in 1999 or so. THen played some longer campaigns.
* Played a lot of Palladium games, like Rifts and especially Heroes Unlimited, early on, but really never loved them. They were formative, in a way, for what I *don't* like in a game system.
* Other games include Cyberpunk 2020, Earthdawn, Alternity (A LOT of Alternity), GURPS 3rd Edition (which I grew to hate), GURPS 4th Edition (which I now love...go figure), CoC (various editions), Runequest (various editions), Silhouette and SilCORE (Jovian Chronicles, Heavy Gear), Shadowrun (various editions), Traveller (mostly Mongoose, but also GURPS Traveller), other d20 games (Star Wars Saga Edition, d20 Modern, a bit of Spycraft), and a very small amount of some more recent games like Serenity RPG. Also have played OLD SCHOOL Star Frontiers (yes, the 1970s version).

What is MISSING is anything like Dogs in the Vineyard, FATE, or basically anything that would be considered an "indie RPG." So, if I sound like a stick in the mud, it's partly due to lack of experience. Like I've said, I'm WILLING to try this new edition of MC, but it's not gonna be easy to take the last 20 years of RPG experience and knowledge and kind of shunt it aside to try playing in a way that might just feel unnatural.
[Last edited Jul 22, 2014 00:47:59]
-Apoc527
avatar
Nicholas Simpson said Jul 22, 2014 03:10:57
@Jake

Well, technically, the point of truly random chargen is to speed up the process of creating a distinct character. This comes from old school D&D where characters had high mortality and being able to whip them up quickly prevented that high mortality from becoming annoying. This was also not designed with story or roleplaying in mind, as D&D was seen as more of a wargame. In addition, the increased number of characters that a player would make helped to even out the probability curve (the more times you flip a coin, the closer you get to the expected probability of outcomes). All kinds of rpgs have since copied randomized character creation, oftentimes without considering how long-lived these characters are expected to be or how long character creation is still going to take.

Lifepath generation is a bit different, as it's purpose is both to act as a bit of a minigame itself and to produce randomized stories for characters. The randomization adds to the minigame aspect and also allows players to do a creative exercise by making up a story around their result. However, that randomization is not in itself an effective balance for different options, due to the fact that these created characters do not exist in a vacuum and instead work alongside other characters and in a story that may have to be heavily adapted just to involve them properly.

I understand that it can be fun to be given a crap character and try to make him work. That's not really the normal game experience for a lot of people, and it's not fun for a lot of people compared to having a competent character. What makes having a competent character with interesting weaknesses different from an incompetent character with weaknesses n terms of being less enjoyable? I'm not really sure if there's enough of a benefit to bad characters over their detriments to justify them being one of the default outcomes of character generation. I'd say that the random generation's benefit in this case comes from narrative effects from events as well as possible synergy of them. Some random characters will be better by dint of them ending up with higher XP values worth of skills, attributes, etc. This is balanced by the Life Points which allow players some agency in choosing what they want. The fun of randomness is the weird combinations, special abilities, gear, and so on that you can start out with, and what kind of story you can make. That to me is the point of it, not just having the chance of having a really bad or a really good character.

As far as my gaming experience, I'm about five years younger than you. I started gaming in the early 2000s around age 13 or 14. My first gaming experiences were Vampire: The Masquerade which we just played as super heroes with fangs, and very simplified D&D that only used ability scores and a d20. I played some 4th Edition D&D in my 20s and liked it well enough, but found combat to take too long. I've played a lot of 40K RPGs, mostly Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy. I've run games of Shadowrun, Star Wars d20, FATE, Dungeon World, and Star Wars Edge of the Empire. I also own and have read far more games than I've played, as I think most GMs do. I have two main gripes with really crunchy games. The first is that they're often very poorly balanced and belie a lot of fundamental misunderstandings of physics, fighting, socializing, and so on that the designers have. The second gripe is that running these games is a nightmare to me, as I am a stickler for rules and am just not capable or remembering all of the little details. I've much preferred to lighter games, and also play in them.

As I said earlier, I honestly think that a lot of the new concepts introduced in newer games aren't necessarily that much more abstract or unintuitive than what currently exists, it's just that most people (myself included) have a lot of inertia going when it comes to what they've already learned and cemented as "the way it's done." Go ahead and shunt those old memorized rules to the side and try something new. Nothing will stop you from picking up the old stuff again if you don't like it. Heck, you may at the least find some cool ideas to port back over.

Also, for the example of chasing a mad bomber around a city, I don't propose that as THE WAY to do that kind of thing, but I think that it would be a creative way to use zones and also emphasize the time limit faced by the characters. It can be a nice change of pace to switch things up like that and use it in conjunction with more focused in events (such as the final confrontation of the bomber).
avatar
Nicholas Simpson said Jul 22, 2014 03:57:36
So, in continuing with Talent Analysis, I've broken down the talents into further categories. Again, Level 1 talents are the first talent in a tree, level 2 are those after it that cost 200xp, Level 3 are the ones for 400xp, and level 4 are those that cost 600xp.

The Categories are:

--Reroll 1d20: This is pretty much a level 1 Talent.
--Reroll 1d20 per number of Talents: Another level 1 skill used by all of the combat skills
--Reroll all failed dice: This is also a level 1 Talent, which seems kind of unbalanced.
--Other Rerolls: One allows everyone making an assist check to reroll all failed dice and the other allows dice to be rerolled equal to Thievery expertise on attempts to overcome security systems. Both of these are level 3 talents.

--Roll additional d20 after a successful test: This is either per rank of talent (level 1), or only an additional d20.
--Gain additional d20 to a skill roll: This can be for a specific use of a skill, to any use of a skill, only adding 1d20, or adding 1d20 per ranks of the talent or training in the skill. This ranges from level 1 to 4.
--Gain an extra success to a successful skill roll: This is level 1 or 2.
--Improve Assistance rolls: This can increase how many dice a success on an assist roll adds or how many dice the assister can roll. These are both level 2 talents.
--Improve Gear: Only one level 2 talent that improves medkits/automeds

--Reduce Difficulty by 1 on a specific use of a skill: These are all level 2 talents except for a level 3 that works on recovering from status effects.
--Reduce Difficulty by 1 on all uses of a skill: One of these is level 2 and also improves Exploit Weakness and the other is Level 4.
--Reduce Difficulty per Rank in Talent on specific use of a skill: This ranges from level 2 to 4.
--Reduce Difficulty per Rank in Talent on all uses of a skill: This is level 2 to 4 as well.
--Ignore Penalties from other factors: This can be Level 2 or 3
--Reduce the difficulty on Willpower Test for others: A single level 2 talent does this.

--Gain a new action: This takes the form of a test with variable difficulty that grants a special insight or improves another skill. Ranges from level 2 to 4.
--Gain a new action for 1 DSP: As above, but costs 1 DSP or 1 CP to use and may not require a test.
--Improve an Existing Action: These may allow certain restrictions or penalties on actions to be ignored, make the actions take less time, or increase the effect of actions. They have some level 2 and some level 3.

--Substitute the Skill for 1 Other Skill: These are mostly level 2 and one level 4.
--Substitute the Skill for 1 Other specific use of a skill: These range from level 2 to 4.
--Substitute the skill for 2 other skills: One level 3 skill
--Substitute for specific uses of 2 other skills: These range from level 2 to 4.
--Substitute the Skill for specific uses of 3 other skills: One level 4.

--Have DSPs add 2d20 to a specific skill use instead of 1d2: These range from level 2 to 4
--Reduce the DSP cost of an action: These are a level 2 to make parry free and a level 3 to make dodge AND parry free.

--Momentum spends add extra benefit: These may increase how much damage momentum can add, how much extra health they can recover, how much time they can reduce an action by, and others. These go from Level 2 to 4.
--New ways to spend Momentum: These talents are both level 2
--Decrease cost of momentum for some actions: One level 1 talent

-Increase Stats: These can increase earnings, Influence, or Mental Health

--Some final Miscellaneous Talents: These are mostly acrobatics and athletics talents that add weapon qualities to attacks, allow different attacks or obstacles to be ignored, and range from level 2 to 4.

So that adds up to about 30 types of Talents, with each skill having 7 possible talents (except Thievery, which looks to be from an older copy of the beta). So, I'd recommend consolidating this list a bit as well establishing firm cost rankings for talent types. Also, it looks like some of these talents have been balanced for skills that recover health, so I'll keep that in mind.

Level 1 Talents:
--Reroll 1d20. (OR, make this reroll all failed rolls/reroll per number of talents for the combat skills)

Level 2 Talents:
--Reduce difficulty per rank of talent on specific use of skill
--Gain 1d20 on a specific use of skill
--Substitute for a specific use of another skill
--DSP add 2d20 to a specific use of skill
--Increase the benefit from spending momentum (+1 Damage, Recover 1 extra wound/mental health)
--Gain 2 momentum per success on specific use of a skill
--Add 1 per rank to the difficulty of resisting a specific use of this skill
--Ignore difficulty effects of a penalty (wrong equipment, bad weather, etc.)

Level 3 Talents:
--Any of the above talents but for any uses of 1 skill rather than specific ones
--Gain powerful new uses of skill (allow it to substitute for other characters, special uses of equipment, powerful effects such as using insight to detect supernatural powers, ignoring difficult terrain with athletics, becoming immune to a status effect with willpower or resistance)

Leve
--Almostsupernatural abilities or uses of skills (e.g. ignoring cover with heavy weapons, being able to flip across an entire zone, being immune to mental illness, etc.)

This narrows down the number of talent categories to about 25, but also provides a much more solid and balanced framework. There is still room for lots of variation among talent trees, as well as for some cooler abilities at higher levels. Honestly, I should probably run the math on whether its better to reroll a d20 or add another d20 and some of the other benefits, but I'm a bit tired. :) Still, I wanted to get this bit of feedback for talents off my chest. I think it's important to have a firm framework behind them to work with in terms of balance, so I hope this suggestion helps.
[Last edited Jul 22, 2014 06:03:23]
avatar
JakeBernstein said Jul 22, 2014 05:39:20
I also own and have read far more games than I've played, as I think most GMs do. I have two main gripes with really crunchy games. The first is that they're often very poorly balanced and belie a lot of fundamental misunderstandings of physics, fighting, socializing, and so on that the designers have. The second gripe is that running these games is a nightmare to me, as I am a stickler for rules and am just not capable or remembering all of the little details. I've much preferred to lighter games, and also play in them.


There is no small amount of amusing irony here, of course--you are providing feedback to balance the game while, as you say, being a stickler for the rules. I agree with your first point, that many "very crunchy" games can be poorly balanced or contain misunderstandings. That said, you get what you pay for in a certain sense. Mongoose Traveller tried to be very crunchy, but ended up being poorly edited and with a host of issues that underscore the fact that the "designers" don't really understand the math they are using to design their game. You can get around that by finding the crunchy games with long histories and significant playtesting. Nonetheless, even with those games, you will find much disagreement about what constitutes balance.

As for your second point, yes, I understand that--I simply do my best and wing it (no matter the crunch) when that seems appropriate, but retain the right to drill down to the nitty gritty rules for whatever when those are needed. Anything to avoid just making an arbitrary call, which I simply hate doing--I want to GM, not just dictate events to my players. That's why I prefer robust, crunchy physics engines for my RPGs--the less I have to just rule by GM fiat, the better. So ultimately, that's what concerns me about games like this, BUT I submit that MC3 has quite a bit more crunch that many other contemporaries and I look forward to trying out the rules with my group (who has expressed interest to varying degrees).

Anyway, it's quite clear to me that you enjoy giving feedback and analyzing these types of games, so by all means, please continue--I'm confident that you are helping to make this the best "light" system it can be and that will be important if my group is to enjoy using it!
-Apoc527
avatar
JakeBernstein said Jul 22, 2014 05:44:07
I understand that it can be fun to be given a crap character and try to make him work. That's not really the normal game experience for a lot of people, and it's not fun for a lot of people compared to having a competent character.


We aren't really in disagreement here, but I think that if you ensure total balance for every PC generated in this system, that you lose some of the charm of a lifepath generation system. The granddaddy of them all, of course, is Classic Traveller, and that game used a fundamentally different set of assumptions of chargen compared to D&D. MC is much more closely related to Traveller than D&D despite using D&D's 6 attributes.

The only time it's fun playing a crap character is when everyone does so--otherwise, yes, I agree, you don't want that. What you also don't want though is a bunch of PCs who are basically the same--there must be enough choice and randomness to ensure that you are getting legitimately interesting narrative possibilities out of the chargen system. The original game did this, but it also tended to produce PCs who all looked very very similar--super high physical stats and combat skills, with the occasional person dedicated to "talky stuff."

I'm curious to see how MC3 shakes out in this regard, but I simply need to create more PCs before I know for sure either way.

-Apoc527
avatar
Nicholas Simpson said Jul 22, 2014 06:11:49
@Jake
I'm not sure what the irony is? I'm a stickler for rules so I like to make sure that rules of the game work well for me. If I have to make things up, I prefer they be things the rules already expect me to make up. Given the randomness of character generation, I, not sure how this will end up with "samey" characters. I haven't checked to see if certain characteristics are coming up more frequently, though. Still, other than having more events to go through, I'm not sure how much more detailed the original system was than this one. This system has something like 9 different things to roll for that provide background. Does it not feel like enough?
avatar
rickardwaern said Jul 22, 2014 10:32:28
Lifepath generation is a bit different, as it's purpose is both to act as a bit of a minigame itself and to produce randomized stories for characters. The randomization adds to the minigame aspect and also allows players to do a creative exercise by making up a story around their result. However, that randomization is not in itself an effective balance for different options, due to the fact that these created characters do not exist in a vacuum and instead work alongside other characters and in a story that may have to be heavily adapted just to involve them properly.


I think that the lifepath generation generally strikes a good compromise between randomization and control for the players. You can automatically get some things, but then have to accept random influence in others. This means that a characters core concept is not in danger from random elements, but that you can't decide everything. In essence, you can be a Bauhaus noble, or a character with long legs and chemical resilience, but not both without chance on your side.

In an expanded character creation I would envision event tables for extra iterations that do not add or detract much from the characters power, but rather effect the minigame in character generation.

I am on board with the suggestion that mandatory rolls should give good and bad simultaneously.
avatar
Sebastian Fredenberg said Jul 22, 2014 11:24:14
One of the really great things in the old versions was lifepath generation. I like that this version has kept that but I would not mind if there where more options. Some that change stats, for the better or worse, or give skills & talents would be nice. But the more narrative results that are there now are great as well.
Rolling on these tables are fun, and give diversity and a good background to the characters. One suggestion from me is to roll twice (or more) on the tables are made after each career. One that is more narrative and to give plot hooks, and something that slighty changes character skills/talent/starting equipment and so on. Just to flesh out even more information for the character at start, and as rolling on tables are really fun :)
That would require more options on those tables as well, just so two characters don't get to similar.

With that said, I like random tables and rolling dice during character generation but when actually playing the game I think less is more. So crunch is not for me, for the same reasons as Nicholas. I feel that too much crunch and rules just takes time...and it can become the worst from the two worlds of rpg and boardgame.
The old version was a good example of that - the combat rules where not really good or balanced, but the lore and background was what made me love the game and world despite of the flaws. :)
This topic has been locked by a moderator, you can no longer reply.