Jump to content



Photo

EotE vs. SAGA ed. (pros and cons)


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 YIDM

YIDM

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 03:00 AM

 

I'm a GM, and have played both Star Wars d6, some d20, and SAGA ed. Star wars (with SAGA being the favorite and best model for Star Wars style action up until recently).  I was trying to figure out if I should make the switch between SAGA edition Star Wars to Edge of the Empire Star Wars so I made a Pro / Con list (feel free to comment or add to it). Some of my players seem very interested in EotE, but I'm not seeing excatly why -- here's what I've come up with:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pros and Cons
FFG Star Wars vs. SAGA ed. Star Wars

Pro’s FOR FFG Star Wars
1) Pro – The “New” Hotness (everyone likes something new and fresh; it’s not out of print like SAGA edition, and it’s got a good fan base / forum website online)
2) Pro – Less crunchy mechanics (easier for the GM to add miscellaneous modifiers / judgment calls and give players the benefit of the doubt on dice rolls for roleplaying, situation, etc.)
3) Pro – doesn’t use a d20 (more bell curved dice mechanic), nor is it a d20 “type” system
4) Pro – structured advancement trees and talents prevent unbalanced combinations / optimizations

Unknowns (?) for FFG Star Wars
1) May or may not be more balanced than SAGA for Jedi vs. non-Jedi? (don’t know till the book comes out in 2015)
2) Will system be simpler or more complex once supplements are published? (how much power creep, errata, FAQ clarifications, etc. will be forthcoming)
3) Cost, how much will all the products cost to collect? Will it require mini’s and maps to play?

Cons AGAINST FFG Star Wars
1) Con – can’t play an actual Jedi…in Star Wars! (no rules for Jedi or Sith or lightsaber forms, etc.)
2) Con – can’t play an actual Mandalorian with Beskar’gam armor / tech…in Star Wars! (no Mandalorian steel rules, no rules for integrated equipment/weapons, no customizable equipment, etc.)
3) Con – rigid character advancement trees and talents (like an MMO); can’t organically choose character advancement without abandoning trees (difficult in integrating future product paths and trees to current characters, hard for players to “get what they want” without jumping around between trees / paths)
4) Con – can’t play in other time periods (if you don’t like the Dark Times, currently your stuck)
5) Con – majority of iconic NPCs, races, starships, weapons, gear, and tech not written yet (very limited selection of the SW universe)
6) Con – limited pre-made NPCs, droids, beasts, “templates” (Sith abominations, swarms, squads, etc.), and pre-made creature stat blocks (less material, less stat blocks = harder for the GM to run on the fly)
7) Con – no pre-made modules or adventure paths (harder for the GM to run the game)
8) Con – no pre-made social encounter “templates” or how much XP social encounters should be worth (SAGA Skill Challenges, hazards, battle stations CLs, etc. help define this and help the GM)
9) Con – slow publishing schedule (1-2 main books/year; will take FFG years to catch up to SAGA at the current rate; 2015 for Jedi book [3 years])
10) Con – uses funky non-standard dice mechanics (harder for players and GMs to guess odds of success / outcomes; difficult for the players and could be difficult for the GM to create challenging encounters)
11) Con – have to learn two entirely different systems for PC combat vs. starship combat (SAGA is the same; full-round action for  multiple attacks, standard action to attack, move action to move, swift actions to aim, 3 swift to recover up condition track, etc.)

Conclusion
FFG Star Wars will be an interesting thing to “try” but it won’t be a true replacement for SAGA ed. Star Wars for quite some time. And even when one does go to play it, the types of stories and characters to be played are severely limited (i.e. only in the Dark Times, no Jedi, at most a single Force sensitive, no true outlaw techs/ancient technology, limited race choices, no true Mandalorians or customized armor/weapons, etc.). Eventually we’ll see if the FFG version is superior or inferior to SAGA ed. as FFG publishes material and if it sticks around and doesn’t go the way of 4E D&D. Right now, it’s too early to tell one way or another, but, IMO it doesn’t seem a good replacement for SAGA edition in any but the most limited settings / stories (yet).

Others thoughts? What am I missing?

YIDM
 

 


 


  • willmanx likes this

#2 DailyRich

DailyRich

    Member

  • Members
  • 443 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:29 AM

You're holding the fact that a game in beta testing has no published modules or campaign settings against it?



#3 Donovan Morningfire

Donovan Morningfire

    Looking for a saint? Look elsewhere.

  • Members
  • 4,535 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:53 AM

I dont' know about "what's missing?" but it sounds like you're more upset that EotE isn't taking the "kitchen sink" approach that Saga Edition did, particularly after reviewing some of your 'cons' against the system.

As with a lot of things in this hobby of ours, it's heavily subjective, such as the dice, something that I had an issue with at first but came ot accept and enjoy a heck of a lot more than just rolling a d20, as instead of a binary "pass/fail" result the EotE offers varying degrees of "success" by way of the Advantage and Threat mechanic (how well that works is also subject to personal opinion).

As for the lack of full-fledged Jedi material, there is some stuff, such as lightsabers and Force powers derived mostly from the movies, so it's not like Jedi are impossible, they're just not the focus of this game.  Regarding the Sith, for the most part that's NPC stuff as Star Wars RPGs have always been centered on the PCs being heroes, and the Sith are hardly heroic, and NPCs in EotE most certainly do not follow the same build rules as the PCs, so a Sith bad guy would simply be a case of assigning numbers, appropriate talents, and Force powers as desired.

Saga didn't have much in the way of Mando stuff either when it launched, with Mando-based feats and talents not coming out until KOTOR (a year after the corebook was released) and Scum & Villainy (for actual Beskar'gam) a few months after that.

As for character design… I'm not seeing how this is really any more restrictive than the d20 versions.  The option is still present in EotE to "multiclass" if one so chooses, and early Saga Edition classes had their own limitations in what talents and class feats you could take, to say nothing of being very heavily restricted in what skills you could take as trained.  While EotE doesn't have "character level feats", it is much less restrictive than Saga Edition when it comes to getting training in "non-class" skills.  It's not as free-form as WEG was, but that was often a complain leveled at the various d20 systems by nature of them being a purely class-based system, where EotE seems to be a hybrid of class-based and point-based; you choose certain menu items from your "career," but which ones you pick and the order you progess is (with a couple exceptions, notably Trader and Slicer) entirely up to the player.  And unilke Saga Edition, you don't have a finite number of feats/talents, so if you miss something early on in your EotE character's adventuring career, you can easily go back and grab it.

And as DailyRich noted, this isn't the fully-finalized version of the game, more like an advanced test phase of the game.  Once it hits full production, I'm sure there will be more material to come, and not just the 3 corebooks that FFG has announced.


Dono's Gaming & Etc Blog - http://jedimorningfire.blogspot.com/

"You worry about those drink vouchers, I'll worry about that bar tab!"


#4 Sirkamina

Sirkamina

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 05:39 AM

 

 

YIDM said:

Cons AGAINST FFG Star Wars
1) Con – can’t play an actual Jedi…in Star Wars! (no rules for Jedi or Sith or lightsaber forms, etc.)
2) Con – can’t play an actual Mandalorian with Beskar’gam armor / tech…in Star Wars! (no Mandalorian steel rules, no rules for integrated equipment/weapons, no customizable equipment, etc.)

3) Con – rigid character advancement trees and talents (like an MMO); can’t organically choose character advancement without abandoning trees (difficult in integrating future product paths and trees to current characters, hard for players to “get what they want” without jumping around between trees / paths)
4) Con – can’t play in other time periods (if you don’t like the Dark Times, currently your stuck)
5) Con – majority of iconic NPCs, races, starships, weapons, gear, and tech not written yet (very limited selection of the SW universe)
6) Con – limited pre-made NPCs, droids, beasts, “templates” (Sith abominations, swarms, squads, etc.), and pre-made creature stat blocks (less material, less stat blocks = harder for the GM to run on the fly)
7) Con – no pre-made modules or adventure paths (harder for the GM to run the game)
8) Con – no pre-made social encounter “templates” or how much XP social encounters should be worth (SAGA Skill Challenges, hazards, battle stations CLs, etc. help define this and help the GM)

9) Con – slow publishing schedule (1-2 main books/year; will take FFG years to catch up to SAGA at the current rate; 2015 for Jedi book [3 years])
10) Con – uses funky non-standard dice mechanics (harder for players and GMs to guess odds of success / outcomes; difficult for the players and could be difficult for the GM to create challenging encounters)
11) Con – have to learn two entirely different systems for PC combat vs. starship combat (SAGA is the same; full-round action for  multiple attacks, standard action to attack, move action to move, swift actions to aim, 3 swift to recover up condition track, etc.)   

 

 

7 of your 11 Cons are null because this game is in beta. You are comparing it to a product at the end of its life cycle with years of material.

I imagine star wars saga edition was very similar in its restrictings in the beta. Think of playing saga edition with ONLY the core rule book.

 

 

:::warning::: 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.

Here is my addition

-Pro: entirely different game and setting.

-Pro: characters are more mortal allowing for a more realistic feel.

-Pro: a star wars game where jedi are not the central focus

-Pro: The non level based system allows for more customization of a character than any level based system can. (you dont have to be level 11 to get a specific feat)

-Pro: The vagueness of some things such as ranges and the lack of a need for a drawn out playfield allow for a focus on roleplaying, not Starwars:tactical mini edition

-Pro: the obligation mechanic means that a character has to start with some depth and backstory (+1 for roleplaying)

-Pro: The dice mechanic allows for impossible odds. (there is a chance that that impossible role (5 dice difficulty) will yeild no failures, whereas a 31 DC is impossible if your modifier is +10)

-Pro: the advantage and disadvantages built into the dice roll add opportunities for creative role playing at every step.

-Pro: Playing rocket tag with destiny dice allows players to trade sucess for future repercussions, a very cool mechanic. 

 

-Con: The proprietary dice mean an additional purchase is required to play the game. (or really annoying conversion charts)

-Con: The future of the game is unknown due to a different system and publisher and unkown popularity upon release.

-Con: The dice system is foreign and unfamiliar

-Con:  We now have no use for our dry erase gaming mats. (now long forgotten in the closet)

 

-Just my two cents.

 

 

 

 



#5 Gamerunner

Gamerunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 57 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 09:57 AM

Here is my 2 creds…

Vs Cons…

1. You can play self trained jedi on the run. (as befits the era)

2. It top of the line, expensive armor. I gave one of my PCs a single piece of mando armor, it was well faught for. (DMs have final say on capabilities until something Official is produced.)

3. No abandoning trees necessiary anymore, and if you want to be good at everything (branchng out) it will take time and effort, but it is possible.

4. Any time period is possible. Just because it says Stormtrooper over the stat blok doesn't mean it can't be used for a galactic aliance trooper, battle droid, or anything else. Any GM worth his salt can change the back drop the rules are used in.

5. I'll partially agree with you on this one. I miss the "iconic"  X-wing  stats, but these forums and the great people here have done wonders providing other Species and gear options.

6. NPC stats and variant options are always useful so I can't fault this other than I've not needed agreat deal other than what has been provided.

7.One module in the Beta book, and one more with the Beginers box…  Before the game is released. Much better than most RPGs nowdays.

8. Some examples of other skill use/Adv/Threat etc.. use would be good, but the xp given is for showing up, particitating and playing true to character, not killing X foes. It works great as is.

9. Their goal is not to "Catch up with Saga."

10. Its not that difficult to learn a new way of thinking.

11. Its not diffrent, you make skill checks and things happen, hopefully in your favor, whether you are in a starship or not.

Its a new game not a variation of saga. Open your mind to the great ROLE playing possibilities, its a fantastic game, 9 out of 10 gammers can't be wrong. ; )



#6 YIDM

YIDM

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:50 AM

 

I’ll try and respond the various posts so far –

“You're holding the fact that a game in beta testing has no published modules or campaign settings against it?”
“7 of your 11 Cons are null because this game is in beta. You are comparing it to a product at the end of its life cycle with years of material.”

First, I in no way am holding anything against it as its still in beta, but I can’t see replacing SAGA for some time (a year or more) until quite a bit more is published. If I were to do EotE, my stories, villains, monsters, types of challenges would be severely limited unless I’m inclined to take a lot of time stat-ing things out and make up a bunch of stuff up.

“I don’t' know about "what's missing?" but it sounds like you're more upset that EotE isn't taking the "kitchen sink" approach that Saga Edition did, particularly after reviewing some of your 'cons' against the system.”
I don’t view it as the kitchen sink per say, but I do view not having full-fledged jedi / sith / force adept rules in the core book as serious ‘something is missing or lacking’. This is Star Wars after all…

“As for character design… I'm not seeing how this is really any more restrictive than the d20 versions.”
“-Pro: The non level based system allows for more customization of a character than any level based system can. (you don’t have to be level 11 to get a specific feat)”

I respectfully disagree. I see EotE as more restrictive based on set (fixed) trees. I can’t just pick and choose which abilities I want, and if a given ability isn’t on my tree I’ve got to either start over, or go cross-tree and through a gauntlet of prereq abilities to get what I want. Most feats and talents in SAGA had NO prereqs, and many had only one prereq or requirement so acquiring ‘what you want’ in terms of abilities was considerably easier. When you level up, just pick up the desired feat or talent, bingo – done.

“-Pro: characters are more mortal allowing for a more realistic feel.”
I found after several campaigns, SAGA to be fairly realistic and PCs quite mortal. Please feel free to elaborate.

“-Pro: a star wars game where jedi are not the central focus”
I get that, but there should at least be the OPTION of having a Jedi (or at the very least stats / powers for a Sith) in star wars, in the core rule book. Anything less is an oversight IMO.

“-Pro: The vagueness of some things such as ranges and the lack of a need for a drawn out playfield allow for a focus on roleplaying, not Starwars: tactical mini edition”
“-Pro: the advantage and disadvantages built into the dice roll add opportunities for creative role playing at every step.”

Yet, we have the game X-wing game that will require both mini’s and a map to play. This will be the FFG starfighter combat in the RPG; an essential part of the Star Wars feel and universe. So no, we don’t get away from mini’s and maps…The “vagueness of some things” as you say will no doubt create arguments at the game table. Some players will respectfully abide by the GMs rulings, but “vague rules” have been very very bad in my opinion as 20+ years of being a GM. 


“-Pro: The dice mechanic allows for impossible odds. (there is a chance that that impossible role (5 dice difficulty) will yield no failures, whereas a 31 DC is impossible if your modifier is +10)"
I see this as a perfect mechanic to be exploited. Intelligent PCs will soon realize, anything is possible if they ‘stack the deck’ in their favor by aiding each other with any miscellaneous modifier. Then we’ll have starting PCs hacking the holonet, and doing things the game was not prepared for. It will only get worse as they get more powerful and have more ways to “bump up” their companions dice rolls. Very bad IMO. There’s a reason some things should be “impossible” at a given power level, and that’s why. 

“4. Any time period is possible. Just because it says Stormtrooper over the stat blok doesn't mean it can't be used for a galactic aliance trooper, battle droid, or anything else. Any GM worth his salt can change the back drop the rules are used in.”
I’ll have to disagree there. You can’t just file off the serial numbers for some races and droids. They have “cannon” abilities that need to have a game mechanic effect. Zeltrons have pheromones, independent droids like IG-88 have abilities that normal droids don’t, what should the Force Storm power do, Feeorin are unusually tough, Kel Dor can survive in space for short periods, etc. etc.
Coming up with all that information “on the fly” to play in a different time period would give me a headache and I’m pretty good with rules. So I’ll have to disagree.

“It’s a new game not a variation of saga. Open your mind to the great ROLE playing possibilities, its a fantastic game, 9 out of 10 gammers can't be wrong.”
Which is why I’m giving it a hard look. I love Star Wars and hope the system does well so it continues. I can’t see switching over to it anytime soon however due to my a fore mentioned reservations. I’d be inclined to try it for a change of pace (perhaps a one-shot, or a quick 3-4 week mini-campaign). IMO, until more is published the core book material is too limited to work with for a long standing campaign.

Just my two cents.

YIDM
 



#7 Donovan Morningfire

Donovan Morningfire

    Looking for a saint? Look elsewhere.

  • Members
  • 4,535 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 02:06 PM

So where exactly did anyone say that you had to abandon Saga Edition?

Much as I like this system, I'm still playing in a Saga Edition campaign, and won't say no to other opportunities to play Saga Edition.

Heck, one of the bigger proponents of FFG's new system, GM Chris of the Order 66 podcast, is still a big fan of Saga Edition and will be running it for some time to come, as quite frankly there are things that Saga Edition does a lot better than EotE, such as delve-style adventures such as the Black Nova Gambit that he and two other GMs have run at GenCon and ReaperCon to overwhelming success.

Truthfully, your posts really do read more like you're pissed off about Saga Edition being cast aside in favor of "new hawtness" than an honest critique/comparison of the two systems.  That may not be your intent, but that's how the posts read.

Then again, these are two very different systems with very different approaches to presenting "the" Star Wars RPG experience.  It's akin to complaining that you can't get a glass of orange juice while shopping at an apple orchard.  They're both related (Star Wars RPGs and types of fruit that can be served as a beverage), but ultimately different.

In regards to how "limited" the Force, given how much of an overhaul what little was presented needed (honestly, if you have the EotE Beta book, read the Force Powers as written there and compare them to what's in the Weekly Update).  While it very well was a design choice to not have Force-users be the big focus of this RPG, the simple fact that the Force powers needed a drastic overhaul is a clear indicator that the game rules simply aren't ready for big league Force-users.  Since this is a Beta test, I think the game and the player base will be much better served by FFG holding off on broader rules for Force-users until this particular RPG's ruleset is fully armed and operational.  Given the community discussion in the past about wanting a bit more Jedi material, I'd be surprised if FFG doesn't include limited amounts of Jedi stuff prior to the Force & Destiny book, either in the EotE corebook (such as a Minor/Trainee Jedi specialization) or in post-corebook supplements.

You may not have full-blown Jedi Masters, but between the Force-Sensitive Exile specialization, the existence of lightsabers as a weapon, and the fundamental Force powers (danger sense, emotion sense/minor telepathy, mind trickery, and telekinesis), a player can do a pretty good job of recreating a minor/self-taught Jedi with what's provided.  Drop the lightsaber, and you've got all the makings of a Force Adept, something you claimed couldn't be done.

 


Dono's Gaming & Etc Blog - http://jedimorningfire.blogspot.com/

"You worry about those drink vouchers, I'll worry about that bar tab!"


#8 Cyril

Cyril

    Member

  • Members
  • 172 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:51 PM

YIDM said:

“-Pro: The vagueness of some things such as ranges and the lack of a need for a drawn out playfield allow for a focus on roleplaying, not Starwars: tactical mini edition”
“-Pro: the advantage and disadvantages built into the dice roll add opportunities for creative role playing at every step.”

Yet, we have the game X-wing game that will require both mini’s and a map to play. This will be the FFG starfighter combat in the RPG; an essential part of the Star Wars feel and universe. So no, we don’t get away from mini’s and maps…The “vagueness of some things” as you say will no doubt create arguments at the game table. Some players will respectfully abide by the GMs rulings, but “vague rules” have been very very bad in my opinion as 20+ years of being a GM. 

Uhh… I'm a little confused here. Are you suggesting the X-Wing miniatures game uses the same rules as starship combat in Edge of the Empire? Because it is a completely different game, and is in no way linked to the roleplaying game. 

It also doesn't require anything beyond the miniatures to play it. No maps. You simply set up on a 2 foot by 2 foot flat area and start flying. 



#9 I. J. Thompson

I. J. Thompson

    Member

  • Members
  • 997 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:06 PM

Sirkamina said:

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.



#10 Jegergryte

Jegergryte

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,835 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:22 AM

YIDM said:

Cons AGAINST FFG Star Wars

 

1) Con – can’t play an actual Jedi…in Star Wars! (no rules for Jedi or Sith or lightsaber forms, etc.)
2) Con – can’t play an actual Mandalorian with Beskar’gam armor / tech…in Star Wars! (no Mandalorian steel rules, no rules for integrated equipment/weapons, no customizable equipment, etc.)
3) Con – rigid character advancement trees and talents (like an MMO); can’t organically choose character advancement without abandoning trees (difficult in integrating future product paths and trees to current characters, hard for players to “get what they want” without jumping around between trees / paths)
4) Con – can’t play in other time periods (if you don’t like the Dark Times, currently your stuck)
5) Con – majority of iconic NPCs, races, starships, weapons, gear, and tech not written yet (very limited selection of the SW universe)
6) Con – limited pre-made NPCs, droids, beasts, “templates” (Sith abominations, swarms, squads, etc.), and pre-made creature stat blocks (less material, less stat blocks = harder for the GM to run on the fly)
7) Con – no pre-made modules or adventure paths (harder for the GM to run the game)
8) Con – no pre-made social encounter “templates” or how much XP social encounters should be worth (SAGA Skill Challenges, hazards, battle stations CLs, etc. help define this and help the GM)
9) Con – slow publishing schedule (1-2 main books/year; will take FFG years to catch up to SAGA at the current rate; 2015 for Jedi book [3 years])
10) Con – uses funky non-standard dice mechanics (harder for players and GMs to guess odds of success / outcomes; difficult for the players and could be difficult for the GM to create challenging encounters)
11) Con – have to learn two entirely different systems for PC combat vs. starship combat (SAGA is the same; full-round action for  multiple attacks, standard action to attack, move action to move, swift actions to aim, 3 swift to recover up condition track, etc.)

Conclusion
FFG Star Wars will be an interesting thing to “try” but it won’t be a true replacement for SAGA ed. Star Wars for quite some time. And even when one does go to play it, the types of stories and characters to be played are severely limited (i.e. only in the Dark Times, no Jedi, at most a single Force sensitive, no true outlaw techs/ancient technology, limited race choices, no true Mandalorians or customized armor/weapons, etc.). Eventually we’ll see if the FFG version is superior or inferior to SAGA ed. as FFG publishes material and if it sticks around and doesn’t go the way of 4E D&D. Right now, it’s too early to tell one way or another, but, IMO it doesn’t seem a good replacement for SAGA edition in any but the most limited settings / stories (yet).

Others thoughts? What am I missing?

YIDM

 

1) "actual" jedi? What is that? While SE had the Jedi class in its core book, "lightsaber forms" where not present. This cannot be considered a fair or relevant "con" at all. This book has no "Jedi" spec, but the force material present should be enough for any Jedi, unless you have to have specific powers for the specific animations and ideas - even if they are basically the same power.

2) You can play a Mandalorian (its merely a roleplaying element and character plot) - although Beskar'gam only exists in my up-coming unofficial supplement. 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? About customising weapons - sure you can, look in the equipment and gear chapter. About the other equipment - what sort of modification do you want? How granular do you need the system to be? 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? - on that note I can once again brag about my unofficial supplement - the current edition might have some tentative rules on that sort of stuff, if that's that one I uploaded last. If not, its coming - and it simple. And yet again, this is but a BETA - its not a finished game. So once again the "con" is both unfair and irrelevant, why don't you see what the system lets you do instead of how another dictates your every desire?

3) Well, this is true if you compare these talents to SE's feats. But talents in SE was similarly restricted, but of course a level-up meant you pick a new class straight away and yada-yada-yada. While I to some extent see your point - I do NOT see this as "rigid" or in any way less "organic" than SE ever managed. This is more organic, since there's a logic to the talent trees and the order they can be accessed. Furthermore, as some others has pointed out, the skill system here is a lot more organic and skills are the base of actions, of any roll - I mean, attacking is a skill, not a level-dependent mess that magically increases suddenly… I mean, in that respect this game is a lot less MMO-like than SE is/was, because you yourself decides what and how, when and where, whereas SE decided for you when you got better at attacking, most talents replaces stats for combat, or in some way related to the square based encounter-porridge… nah. This "con" is suffering from a lack of vision of the game.

4) What are you talking about? This is not a computer game with pre-programmed processes and stories that restricts you from jumping over the edge, time-travel or mess up Darth Vader as a child. 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 - that is only your own doing, and I can only speculate why you can't play any other time period with this book.

5) uhm… how can you list this as a "con" for a beta-document meant for play-testing - this is just shameful, inconsiderate and plain irrelevant since we don't know how the final product will be.

6) This only reads as a Saga Edition-fanboy pamphlet. And same as above really, yet squads and swarms are in the game - minion groups, dude read the book and rules if you want to criticise, this is just dumb.

7) Look in the back of the book - and speaking about comparison, SE core book had no premades either, this is even dumber than the one above.

8) "Social encounters" - I mean, you are using SE-jaragon and understanding for a different roleplaying game, no wonder you don't understand or appreciate the game, you've put your feet in concrete and cannot move away from board-game MMO Saga Edition. XP is not for encounters, but for session and good roleplaying. There is no need for what you're talking about here, its already there to the extent that one has the skills, CLs is a thing of the past, its… I mean, the "con" is based on a different idea about roleplaying game, the "con" becomes irrelevant because it doesn't seem to open for or take into account that games can be different at such core levels that the philosophy behind a game might ignore and think pointless those things you seem to think is essential and missing. This is not a "con" per se, its an unwillingness to learn a new game and see things outside the box.

9) Well, we know little of this - but from what we know it seems a bit slow yes. We can only hope, and I expect, that there will be a bit more titles of the next few years than only three.

10) Well, learning, teaching, you know curiosity? the feeling of mastering something new? 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. The d20 and Dnd ruined roleplaying to me. Thank god for HARP and RM during the reign of WotC-terror.

11) uhm. No? No. No! That is not true, its a plain lie, or just a fair misunderstanding. If you've actually looked in the vehicle chapter you would have noticed that they are the same, except you've got some more and different choices vehicle combat.

I mean, your whole list stinks of bias towards SE and fear of change and new things, a fear of learning. Which I guess is fair and an honest thing to admit in this way, but its also disheartening. I mean, all (at least 8 of your 11), "cons" are wrong, irrelevant or unfair or hardly thought through "cons" of the game.


Make sure your brain is engaged, before putting your mouth into gear.

"What about the future...? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable."

GMLovlie's/Jegergryte's Cubicle direct link to supplements here.


#11 borithan

borithan

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,279 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:02 AM

YIDM said:

Unknowns (?) for FFG Star Wars
1) May or may not be more balanced than SAGA for Jedi vs. non-Jedi? (don’t know till the book comes out in 2015)
2) Will system be simpler or more complex once supplements are published? (how much power creep, errata, FAQ clarifications, etc. will be forthcoming)
3) Cost, how much will all the products cost to collect? Will it require mini’s and maps to play?

Cons AGAINST FFG Star Wars
1) Con – can’t play an actual Jedi…in Star Wars! (no rules for Jedi or Sith or lightsaber forms, etc.)
2) Con – can’t play an actual Mandalorian with Beskar’gam armor / tech…in Star Wars! (no Mandalorian steel rules, no rules for integrated equipment/weapons, no customizable equipment, etc.)
3) Con – rigid character advancement trees and talents (like an MMO); can’t organically choose character advancement without abandoning trees (difficult in integrating future product paths and trees to current characters, hard for players to “get what they want” without jumping around between trees / paths)
4) Con – can’t play in other time periods (if you don’t like the Dark Times, currently your stuck)
5) Con – majority of iconic NPCs, races, starships, weapons, gear, and tech not written yet (very limited selection of the SW universe)
6) Con – limited pre-made NPCs, droids, beasts, “templates” (Sith abominations, swarms, squads, etc.), and pre-made creature stat blocks (less material, less stat blocks = harder for the GM to run on the fly)
7) Con – no pre-made modules or adventure paths (harder for the GM to run the game)
8) Con – no pre-made social encounter “templates” or how much XP social encounters should be worth (SAGA Skill Challenges, hazards, battle stations CLs, etc. help define this and help the GM)
11) Con – have to learn two entirely different systems for PC combat vs. starship combat (SAGA is the same; full-round action for  multiple attacks, standard action to attack, move action to move, swift actions to aim, 3 swift to recover up condition track, etc.)

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. It has only been that way since the release of the prequel trilogy.  Star Wars d6 was entirely playable without Jedi, and didn't make any presupmtion that there would be any (and made a big deal that playing a Force User was a big deal, with all sorts of limitations).

Can't play other time periods? Why not? How different is a blaster from the Clone Wars from one from the New Republic era. Nothing stopping you from playing a Fringe type campaign in almost any time setting of star wars.

If I remember correctly you don't need to worry about the xp of "social encounters" vs combat. Xp is not knocked out of opponents as it is in d&d, so you don't need to be told what to grant based on social encounters in order to balance it out.  In fact, if it is anything like WFRP 3rd (which the mechanics are) you just get a flat reward every adventure. Now, with the more detailed xp system there is more option for varying it, but I think it is more based on "how successful" they were, or how well they roleplayed, rather than how many level 2 gundark skirmishers they beat up.

Space combat and PC combat is based on similar mechanics… doesn't seem to be that much difference. I think there are a couple of different maneuvers and the like, but the mechanics are identical.

As far as miniatures: They will not be necessary. FFG seems to have an actual dislike of mapping fights out (for example), so they would never make miniatures necessary. Space combat in particularly seems like it would be hard to actually "map" out, other than just judging range bands. And if you have been playing saga, that is built presuming mapping and miniatures, so you should have plenty of miniatures to work with already.

"Yet, we have the game X-wing game that will require both mini’s and a map to play. This will be the FFG starfighter combat in the RPG; an essential part of the Star Wars feel and universe. So no, we don’t get away from mini’s and maps…The “vagueness of some things” as you say will no doubt create arguments at the game table. Some players will respectfully abide by the GMs rulings, but “vague rules” have been very very bad in my opinion as 20+ years of being a GM. "

- Erm… X-Wing is an entirely different game. The mechanics are nothing like space ship combat in the RPG. Yes, I am sure FFG would be delighted if you bought the models and used them, but the game has no rules connection, and the models are entirely unnecessary for the roleplaying game. Also, the rules are very abstract, so while they are vague about the specifics of what is happening, what matters for the rules as actually quite solid. "He has just used the "Gain the Advantage" maneuver, so he gets some bonus" however, it can be described in any way you like, whether an Immelman loop to get behind a persuing ship, or by suddenly slowing down to have one ship shoot past another, or whatever. There would be very few ways to allow the vagueness to be taken advantage of.

 

 



#12 Chris Brady

Chris Brady

    Member

  • Members
  • 22 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:47 PM

DailyRich said:

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.



#13 Sturn

Sturn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,259 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 03:32 AM

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 was into crunchy systems like Traveller, 2300AD, SAGA, etc until I tried the narrative edition of Warhammer. It won me over. Anyone who is a Star Wars fan should at least give this new system a try. It may completely change what an RPG session is to you.



#14 Jegergryte

Jegergryte

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,835 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 04:13 AM

Sturn said:

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 was into crunchy systems like Traveller, 2300AD, SAGA, etc until I tried the narrative edition of Warhammer. It won me over. Anyone who is a Star Wars fan should at least give this new system a try. It may completely change what an RPG session is to you.

+1/Like/[heart]/


Make sure your brain is engaged, before putting your mouth into gear.

"What about the future...? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable."

GMLovlie's/Jegergryte's Cubicle direct link to supplements here.


#15 Sirkamina

Sirkamina

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:59 AM

I. J. Thompson said:

Sirkamina said:

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.

 

 

Thank you.



#16 Sturn

Sturn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,259 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:12 AM

Jegergryte said:

 

Sturn said:

 

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 was into crunchy systems like Traveller, 2300AD, SAGA, etc until I tried the narrative edition of Warhammer. It won me over. Anyone who is a Star Wars fan should at least give this new system a try. It may completely change what an RPG session is to you.

 

 

+1/Like/[heart]/

 

 

Thank you! I had to hurry and cut my post short, but I also wanted to say…..

I've been a "RPG" DM/GM/Referee since the early 1980's. It is only since I discovered FFG's narrative system that I've been truly role-playing. Most of my play style has been crunchy simulations. This is fun and I've been doing it for decades, but I can't say there was much true role-playing being encouraged in my groups other then character background development. This had the effect of many campaigns being combat oriented as players game the system, move minis on maps, and try out their new gun/sword/talent. True role-playing was at a minimum even though my groups claimed to be playing an, "RPG".  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. Fun yes, but adding a role-playing narrative to that mix is much more fun. FFG's narrative system includes as much detail as a crunchy system while also encouraging role-playing with some players not even realizing it.

Seeing a very crunchy player roll Warhammer's dice, look at the results, and come up with his own narrative of what his success/failure meant was an epiphany for me after 3 decades of, "role-playing". 



#17 Stuntie

Stuntie

    Member

  • Members
  • 85 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:30 AM

Most will come - e.g. other eras, fuller jedi rules (i.e. above the jedi wannabe beta allows), extra gear and ships etc.

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?

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.



#18 borithan

borithan

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,279 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:49 PM

Stuntie said:

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?

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.

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. I have to say a group of a Jedi Smuggler and Rebel Commando seems to be very odd… why are they all together? A rebel Commando belongs in a rebel cell, not a random smuggler's ship. A Jedi consorting with a smuggler sounds like all sorts of bad news, unless it is from complete necessity.

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. The one that actually strikes me as the most tricky is the JEdi one… how do you deal with that? Are they presuming a part made up entirely of Jedi? And why has this Jedi cell, with a big target over their heads, not been extreminated by the Empire?



#19 Sirkamina

Sirkamina

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 02:25 AM

Sturn said:

Seeing a very crunchy player roll Warhammer's dice, look at the results, and come up with his own narrative of what his success/failure meant was an epiphany for me after 3 decades of, "role-playing". 

 

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.



#20 YIDM

YIDM

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:36 AM

 

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. 
Thank you.

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.

YIDM
 






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS