I do love how everyone jumped from AT-STs to Starships, as if that somehow voided my point.

To whit: No Star Wars game has ever made it possible for a character to simply own an AT-ST at character creation, much less made it easy.  IF a GM wishes to GIVE an AT-ST to one player... for for that matter an X-Wing Fighter, and also happens to be spectacularly open minded about how and when it can be used, then it could be potentially unbalancing.  This, however, requires going above and beyond in the pursuit of bad GMing.  

For that matter, I'm comfortable saying that most Star Wars games make the handing out of Star Ships entirely a GM matter, and the default assumption is that whatever star ship there is carries the whole party.  MOST Sci-Fi games these days go a step further and ensure that in 'ship fights' that most, if not all, players can contribute somehow. Star Wars has the classic trope of manning the turrets going in its favor in this regard.

Contrast Cthulutech: The decision to have, or not have, an Engle or a Tager is on the Player and it takes an experienced, competent GM with a firm hand on the tiller to prevent wildly unbalanced parties. Sure, we can all smugly assume we would never let our games go so crazy, but what about that new RPGer who heard about some game where he could 'punch cthulu in the face!', and decided to rope his friends into playing? They'll wind up with a Tager, two Engles and a guy in a trench coat who knows kung fu... and they may never game again.  

Quote from: SkywalkerThe Engel trait you cite is for the Engel Synthesis Interface. It doesn't guarantee that you have ready access to an Engel in every session as they are significant military resources, even if you are synthesised with it. The drawback is designed to, and does, redress the imbalance between mecha pilots and Engel pilots, but it doesn't allow Engel pilots to somehow avoid the same restrictions that mecha pilots inherently have.

Read the last line of the trait again. Okay, the next to last line (since the actual last line simply directs one to the list of engles...).  Here, I'll cite it for you:

Quote from: Cthulutech page 100On the other hand, he does now have one specific Engel that now obeys him absolutely.

Hmm... that pretty strongly implies he has the engel himself, doesn't it?  It also suggests to me that 'The Military' can't simply send the Engel out with another pilot willy-nilly, rather like Evangelion I'd say.  For good or ill, they are stuck with the pilot who has bonded to that particular Engel, unless they want to try and crate up an alien bio-cyborg for cold storage until that pilot dies while playing Sam Spade.

I'll also note that its a disadvantage, meaning it actually gives the player a point back for slowly going crazy. Slowly enough that if the GM simply doesn't let the players access their Engels then a certain subset of players would simply take it anyway for the 'free' point.  You trade one disfunctional play problem for another.

Quote from: trechriron;807505Why in the fuck would you play a game like that? Why would you run it? Because the book said you could?

Because it takes an actively knowledgeable and experienced GM to prevent it from occurring naturally, since the tools to play 'a game like that' are given to the Players up front, rather than to the GM to parcel out depending on the game he wants to run?

Which is, after all, the nature of the complaint in the first place. No one I know of has objected to Mecha Rules in D20 Future, for example. Why? Because they are in a chapter devoted to Mecha-style play, seperate from the rest and implicitly optional.

Quote from: Spike;807844I do love how everyone jumped from AT-STs to Starships, as if that somehow voided my point.

To whit: No Star Wars game has ever made it possible for a character to simply own an AT-ST at character creation, much less made it easy.

If your point was only about AT-ST well OK. The only characters in Star Wars who use AT-STs are Imperial scout walker pilots. And Star Wars is almost never a game about walker pilots. That makes your point trivially true but irrelevant as a useful analogy to Cthulhu Tech where the it seems a large segment of the game can be about mecha pilots. In Star Wars the piece of heavy equipment that players are likely to see is a starfighter or light freighter. Which is why I mentioned those examples.

Quote from: Spike;807844For that matter, I'm comfortable saying that most Star Wars games make the handing out of Star Ships entirely a GM matter...

While you are comfortable saying that, you are also wrong.

If fact multiple templates for starting PCs in WEG Star Wars include space ships as part of the character's starting equipment. In the 2nd edition rules there are 16 total starting templates. Four templates start the game with a starship: the Brash Pilot who gets an X-wing, the Cynical Scout who gets a Scout Ship, the Smuggler who gets a YT-1300 freighter, and the Sullustan Trader who gets a light freighter. The decision to play one of those templates is up to the player in, I think, the exact same way as a decision in Cthulhutech.

QuoteContrast Cthulutech: The decision to have, or not have, an Engle or a Tager is on the Player …

Except it’s not a contrast.

Bren has covered the similarities between Cthulhutech and Star Wars RPGs handily.

Quote from: Spike;807844Contrast Cthulutech: The decision to have, or not have, an Engle or a Tager is on the Player and it takes an experienced, competent GM with a firm hand on the tiller to prevent wildly unbalanced parties. Sure, we can all smugly assume we would never let our games go so crazy, but what about that new RPGer who heard about some game where he could 'punch cthulu in the face!', and decided to rope his friends into playing? They'll wind up with a Tager, two Engles and a guy in a trench coat who knows kung fu... and they may never game again.  

No one is disputing that Tagers are a compatibility issue. And we all seem to agree now that Powered Armour is not an issue either.

For Engels, having EIS to an Engel (which the player does choose) does not mean they necessarily have ready access to it. Engels are highly regulated, experimental war machines. There is pages of setting on how the NEG control how and when they are deployed. If the other PCs are all OIS agents in an arcology, the player would have to be a dick to expect to piloting an Engel other than on rare occasions.

This is also why the EIS trait is designed a drawback, not an asset (which is in contrast to the Tager asset). The EIS drawback is intended to grant the GM the ability to fuck with the PC due to the EIS generating greater insanity. I have had an Engel Pilot in a mixed PC game and the EIS has lots of interesting roleplaying possibilities outside of piloting an Engel.

As a drawback, it is not intended to grant the PC any greater access to the Engel they are bonded with than a PC with mecha pilot skill has to a mecha. So on those occassions that the PC does get to pilot an Engel, it will be at times when the other PCs are able to be equipped with similar mecha and military hardware.

So I don't see a substantive compatibility issue unless a player tries to suggest that the EIS drawback allows them the benefit of choosing when to pilot their Engel and they beleive they can do so frequently. IMO this a simple player issue that would be resolved by the kind of group discussion that others have mentioned above; the kind of discussion that is integral to any RPG with access to military hardware, such as Star Wars. This may not be readily apparent or easy for inexperienced GMs with problem players. But that is true of all RPGs, and not something unique to Cthulhutech.

Finally, it is not even a compatibility issue with other mecha. Engels are only marginally better than mecha mechanically, and the drawback along with Engel issue more than balance out the discrepancy (unlike the Tager asset).

Quote from: Bren;807864In Star Wars the piece of heavy equipment that players are likely to see is a starfighter or light freighter. Which is why I mentioned those examples.

Except a light freighter is more a 'group asset'. If you think that's wrong, I will be more than happy to elaborate why one players personal possession can and should be considered thusly, but I'm going to assume you aren't that pedantic or stupid.

QuoteWhile you are comfortable saying that, you are also wrong.

If fact multiple templates for starting PCs in WEG Star Wars include space ships as part of the character's starting equipment. In the 2nd edition rules there are 16 total starting templates. Four templates start the game with a starship: the Brash Pilot who gets an X-wing, the Cynical Scout who gets a Scout Ship, the Smuggler who gets a YT-1300 freighter, and the Sullustan Trader who gets a light freighter. The decision to play one of those templates is up to the player in, I think, the exact same way as a decision in Cthulhutech.

Except it's not a contrast.

Very well. I am wrong.  And here I thought I might get tripped up by not double checking that abortion of a game Edge of Empire, when it was my WEG Starwars I should have been looking at.

Still, I will note that three of the four ships provided are clearly 'group asset' class ships.  I will also note that an x-Wing isn't dynamically changing the battlefield when the pilot pulls it out of his ass in mid-gunfight and begins straffing cantina thugs, unlike the tager.

Of course, it seems everyone is willing to concede that the Tager is inappropriate for any game not focused on tagers, which sort of makes me wonder why we're all trying so hard to shave around the margins when it comes to Engel pilots and the like. Not that I mind, I enjoy a good argument.

Quote from: Spike;808077I will also note that an x-Wing isn't dynamically changing the battlefield when the pilot pulls it out of his ass in mid-gunfight and begins straffing cantina thugs, unlike the tager.

Your tager example is irrelevant to comparisons to an AT-ST which, like an X-Wing (and apparently unlike tagers), does not fit in a catina.

I really think you would have been better off never to have resorted to using analogies to Star Wars war machines as your analogy either does not fit Cthulhutech or it actually contradicts your point about Cthulhutech.

Is an analogy even necessary? Is anyone actually arguing that unrestrained, widely varying power levels can never cause problems in a game? Because I haven't seen that.

Quote from: Spike;808077Of course, it seems everyone is willing to concede that the Tager is inappropriate for any game not focused on tagers, which sort of makes me wonder why we're all trying so hard to shave around the margins when it comes to Engel pilots and the like. Not that I mind, I enjoy a good argument.

In a game where mecha (and other powerful options) are available to PCs, Engels don't pose an additional issue. As Bren says, RPGs with varying power levels (such as via military equipment) are always tricky. We all agreed with that. But this is not unique to Cthulhutech nor do Engels present an additional issue to Cthulhutech (the Engel drawback more than compensates for the marginal improvement of Engels over mecha IMO). So, I think the point being made is more that people don't see Engels as any more of an issue than the baseline that is common in similar RPGs.

Tagers are different and no one has disagreed with the issue there. They provide a power boost that is inherent in the PC and readily available that is not balanced by the asset it requires. It's like having a World of Darkness game where PCs can buy the vampire template for a few bonus points at character creation. It's a bigger deal than that.

Quote from: Bren;808078Your tager example is irrelevant to comparisons to an AT-ST which, like an X-Wing (and apparently unlike tagers), does not fit in a catina.

I really think you would have been better off never to have resorted to using analogies to Star Wars war machines as your analogy either does not fit Cthulhutech or it actually contradicts your point about Cthulhutech.

Is an analogy even necessary? Is anyone actually arguing that unrestrained, widely varying power levels can never cause problems in a game? Because I haven't seen that.

Actually... I'm pretty sure I didn't bring up the Star Wars mecha analogy in the first place.  I mean, I've already admitted to being wrong once in this thread, and I need two more for the hat trick, but the number of times I think of AT-STs in the ordinary gaming day is pretty close to mathamatically zero (instead of metaphorically zero, which is, in any case accurate enough).

Likewise, the number of times I have thought of Cthulutech... or any Mythos game, and thought 'Hm... how is this like Star Wars', is also pretty much nil.  I'd be more inclined to discuss how Rifts handles mecha and Power Armor, vis a vis Cthulutech, than Star Wars walkers/CT.


In general this has been a rather sad excuse for an argument. Lots of venom, though light on invective, but I'm relatively sure no one has any idea exactly what we are all going on about. I know I, for one, have already commented that I'm unclear why everyone agrees on a(the?) big point (Tagers), yet continues to go on as if we are debating something...

Quote from: Spike;808219Actually... I'm pretty sure I didn't bring up the Star Wars mecha analogy in the first place.

You're right. My bad. Skywalker brought it up as an example of another game system that managed different scales in play.