Once again, I’ll try and respond to everyone:
1) "actual" jedi? What is that? While SE had the Jedi class in its core book, "lightsaber forms" where not present.
Actually they are; lightsaber forms were in the Jedi Knight prestige class talents, in the core SE book.
2) But all you actually need is a heavy battle armour (or laminate) and slap the cortosis quality on it - creativity man. Do you need someone to write up that exact stat?
Not all Mandalorian armor was heavy, and yes, it would be nice to have a small bit of it stat-ed out to avoid arguments with players.
3) Equipment integration is already touched upon in the beta update for droids - slap on a few extra creds and you can have an integrated datapad on your armour - why do you need "rules" for these things?
Perhaps because I have many min/max-ers that will abuse the system if you don’t have rules for it? Perhaps because powerful technology with lots of abilities with no rules or drawbacks can create balance issues.
4) This is more organic, since there's a logic to the talent trees and the order they can be accessed.
In your opnion the trees is logical, but based on the debates on the forums I’ve seen, it is not a consensus by any means. Wouldn’t it be better if you could just “pick” what abilities you wanted, rather than being forced down a tree (like an MMO)? Just saying…
5) I mean, attacking is a skill, not a level-dependent mess that magically increases suddenly…
I would largely agree with you on this point, I’ve never liked the auto-increase to attack bonus, just because you are a more “experienced” PC (i.e. higher level). Now, with that said, if we look at the movies – Pricess Leia and Han Solo seemed quite a bit more combat capable in RotJ outside the Endor shield generator fight than they did on the Death Star in A New Hope. So I can see SE “rationale” if you want to call it that.
4) The game is intended for a setting sure, but it does in no way hinder you or stop you from playing any other time period.
I would very much disagree considering their aren’t any rules for playing types of characters (Sith) / force powers / weapons / gear / vehicles due to the time period you choose to play in. This is a very big issue IMO. I’m sure I could just gloss over it all (like Sith abilities of Don Moch) and just sorta make stuff up, but that seems very lack-luster way of doing it.
5) This only reads as a Saga Edition-fanboy pamphlet.
And your argument is anything but a fanboy nerd-rage white-knuckled defense of EotE and the FFG system? Many of your comments are just plan rude. When did I insult or down talk anyone here? Lighten up buddy…it’s just a game and a conversation.
6) I don't think this is a con, because it reads to me like this "I can't use you my d20!!?!?!?!!?!??!?!" - and not using my d20s makes me happy.
Actually I’m not a fan of d20 for SE, I’d prefer, and have given the players option of 2d10 to my players for a more normalized bell curve.
7) I mean, all (at least 8 of your 11), "cons" are wrong.
Your opinion is noted. “Wrong” implies that this is a truth (or a binary statement) with a conclusive, provable answer, this is not the case here for your 8 of 11 examples. Sorry about the vehicle rules reference, I was misinformed by a college on that one.
8) Frankly, I would consider the lack of Mandalorian jankyness as a pro. And Jedi have not been a default presumption of any Star Wars RPG.
Not sure what movies, books, or TV series you’ve been watching, but I’d disagree. I’d also disagree based on the Saga Edition and for those familiar with the Old Republic time period games.
9) Nothing stopping you from playing a Fringe type campaign in almost any time setting of star wars.
I never said fringe type campaigns can’t be fun, but being forced to ONLY play a fringe campaign with no Jedi / Sith and no real rules for either is, as I stated in my opinion, and oversight for any Star Wars RPG.
Just a guess, but when Disney makes the 7th movie, there will be Jedi in it.
10) You're holding the fact that a game in beta testing has no published modules or campaign settings against it?
There really needs no more to be said after this.
Perhaps you should re-read my statement. I never held anything against it, unless it makes it to a final publishing with NO real Jedi / Sith / Force material (and I don’t count a handful of powers as relevant). Then, as I said, IMO it would be an oversight.
11) Having run both FFG narrative Warhammer and SAGA Star Wars, I think it's difficult to compare them both. They are two completely different styles of RPG systems, narrative vs. crunchy. Your personal style of RPGaming will greatly influence your pros and cons when comparing the systems.
I completely agree with you on that one, and I will admit I prefer a more cruchy defined set of rules. I’ve found narrative rules with slightly variable outcomes with the same dice “result” to end in arguments, so I tend to avoid them.
12) my opinion is very biased against level based systems. I do not like characters to be described as a level 10 anything. I prefer being described as a theiving courier droid with an inescapable fear of jawas.
I agree with you on this, and that’s one thing I don’t like about SE. I don’t like being a level 10 Jedi or anything for that matter. I’d prefer they have set it up where you buy up your base attack bonus, defense scores, skills, and selected whatever feats and talents you wanted.
With that said, I don’t like fixed trees that I saw in EotE however. That, to me, seems very restrictive and unnecessary. I’d have preferred a group of themed abilities to choose from my characters career (be it a solider or scoundrel type).
13) It was more problem solving to get past obstacles then anything else. -- How do I use my character's abilities/items to defeat this new obstacle/monster.
This is a player mentality, the system has some, but very little to do with it. There will always be those who optimize the system.
Heck, there is even a disclaimer in the EotE beta book that says for the GMs to watch for the players moving all the tokens to the light side so the GM can’t flip them to the dark side to help his NPCs out.
It’s literally counting on the players NOT meta-gaming the system cause if they do, it creates issues. Why not have a system that is inherently stable to begin with? (regardless if the PCs try to manipulate it or not)
14) FFG's narrative system includes as much detail as a crunchy system while also encouraging role-playing with some players not even realizing it.
I disagree on it being crunchy, I would agree on it encouraging role-playing. I think this can largely be dependent on the players however. Those that want to roleplay will. Those that don’t, the dice mechanics won’t help you.
15) My cons are more to do with peicemeal nickle and diming.
The full set will be expensive - three core books and a host of other supplements. But hey, most systems are in the end if you get the lot.
But I am not happy about the three set split, and the fact that the first one is the least exciting of the three. Seems like a deliberate ploy to have the fans buy a tide over game until the proper meat - rebels and jedi appears.
Stuff that I feel should in at the start. One main book covering it all in enough detail for starting out, with supplements to expand on Jedi and Starships etc., along with the usual supplements. I don't like needing to buy three books just to cover a starting group that has a Jedi a smuggler and a rebel commando in it. Why is getting the basics in one book too much to ask for?
Thank you, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
16) We are far too often considered dumb stupid fans that can be relied upon to buy whatever they put out without complaining. Even moreso with an IP like Star Wars. Truth is we will buy the supplments and extra whole heartedly - so why not make the rules one book, and focus one the masses of other stuff for it. It's not like you are stuck for supplement ideas with the Star Wars universe.
Once again, you hit the nail right in the head on this one.
17) As I (and others) have already said, the idea of Jedi as a core part of the Star Wars roleplaying experience is only relatively new. Also, they have always been, and always will be, the most complicated to balance and sort out, so just creating "core" rules for them is a bigger job than you seem to think.
Can’t be that hard, I think SE did a pretty good job of it. We already have something to go by, work from there.
18) Also, your insitance that it is "the least exciting" is very subjective. "Fringe" style adventures have long been a staple of Star Wars games, and there is all sorts of opportunity of excitement and drama.
Jedi are the stable of Star Wars, please reference 95% of the books, games, movies and debate it otherwise. They are not centered around non-force sensitive “Fringers” alone. There is always one (or more) Jedi with lightsabers. Excluding that rules content from the core book, if that’s the final publication for EotE is an oversight.
19) This is what I like about the system the most. Even if the rules dont speciically say it, I like letting the player choose what sucesses and advantages mean and the GM choosing the negatives. This gives a push and pull to the narrative that is wonderfull.
I admit I do like that aspect, but it should be less subjective IMO. Otherwise, it’s been my experience that if the GM makes the “negatives” too much for the dice show, or the players try and make the “advantages” too much for the dice show it ends in arguments and slows down play.
It’s a game, and especially in combat, your trying not to loose as a player – tensions rise, and having definitive and clear (sometimes crunchy) rules really helps to avoid that problem before it becomes a problem.
Good conversation all around so far, thanks for all those who’ve chimed in.