Jump to content


Multiple Games, Same Universe

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 MechaBri.Zilla



  • Members
  • 310 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:21 AM

 From what I'm hearing this will eventually be 3-4 separate games, is that correct?  I know that their 40k line has several core books, how does that work out?  It sounds like the core rules are always the same, but that there are some slight adjustments to each game for the specific flavor of that group.

Do you end up feeling like you are buying the same game over and over, or is there enough unique about each game that it's worth buying the same rule sets over and over.

I want to like EoE.  I love FFG's products, though I've never played one of their RPG's.  EoE would be the first one I've had a particular interest in and though I trust that their quality will be top notch with well thought out rules, I'm not sure I buy into the idea of multiple core books for the same setting.

#2 aramis



  • Members
  • 996 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:06 PM

 The 40K ones are just different enough to not interface seamlessly. The characters are cross-usable, but you need both books to cope with a party crossing the lines, and given the different power levels, they are notably different capability levels.

Further, each one has changed a few core rules subtly from the prior ones.

#3 Kallabecca



  • Members
  • 981 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:03 PM

The books actually mention how much XP a base character of another game is worth in the one you're reading. Like Rogue Traders are the equivalent to 5000 XP characters from Dark Heresy and DeathWatch characters are something like 14,000 XP more than Dark Heresy characters. So you can actually use that to adjust players who want to play something from one of the other books.

Not sure if FFG will do something like that with this game since it is entirely different set of mechanics.

#4 borithan



  • Members
  • 1,287 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:18 AM

The suggested xp equivalencies don't really mean anything. A 4000 xp Dark Heresy Character would wipe the floor with a starting Rogue Trader character, even though they are theoretically equivalent (ok, the RT may be slightly better off in areas outside the DH character's expertiese, due to the higher starting stats, and there is of course the fact that the RT character has a ship to back him up).

The systems were originally conceived of as being totally compatible, just dealing with different subject matter and power levels. However, there are rules changes that make the systems incompatible with each other (and Deathwatch is just on its own little rediculous power curve, due to taking the subject matter that was most going to strain the system, Space Marines, and then buffing them even more). Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy remain pretty much directly portable for everything except psychic powers (where RT introduced a new mechanic, which has continued on in the later games, but tweaked), and the irritating lack of Throne costs on RT gear (money isn't tracked in RT, but it is in DH, so you need to work something out if you port from RT to DH. The other way is totally straight forward). Deathwatch… uses largely the same mechanics, but everything is out of whack with the other game systems in terms of damage scale, weapon functions etc, that it is totally incompatible with the earlier games. Black Crusade introduced some fairly major changes to the game mechanics, making it incompatible for direct porting (some things still work). Only War will use the new Black Crusade mechanics, so may be compatible with Black Crusade, but based on previous efforts? Not convinced.

However, this is FFG's baby from the get go (unlike 40k RPG which was started with Black Industries, and FFG made clear they didn't like some aspects of the rules very early on), so they will want it to work well, and it is a much bigger franchise (Star Wars) so they will want to make as saleable a product as possible. I am pretty sure they are going to do their damndest to make sure the product is good, and compatible with each other.

#5 Donovan Morningfire

Donovan Morningfire

    Looking for a saint? Look elsewhere.

  • Members
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:41 AM

I imagine that FFG is going to be keeping "mixed groups" in mind when it comes to the other two corebooks.  In fact, I believe someone posted here a comment by FFG rep at GenCon that you'd be able to have Jedi characters in a group of other character types, just that the starting Jedi would be a bit more powerful than other starting characters.

I'm thinking it'd be more akin to White Wolf's New World of Darkness, where every supernatural type uses the same core system, but has separate "corebooks" for their type with the expectation that these various supernaturals (vampires, werewolves, changelings, mages, etc) are going to have to interact on some level or another.

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

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

#6 MechaBri.Zilla



  • Members
  • 310 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 02:18 AM

Donovan Morningfire said:

I'm thinking it'd be more akin to White Wolf's New World of Darkness, where every supernatural type uses the same core system, but has separate "corebooks" for their type with the expectation that these various supernaturals (vampires, werewolves, changelings, mages, etc) are going to have to interact on some level or another.


I would definitely be ok with this.  I don't need it to be perfectly balanced, I just don't want to have to tell my friend who desperately wants to be a Jedi, that he can't run with the other players who all want to be smugglers.  It wouldn't make sense for this setting anyway.  I mean, there shouldn't be enough Jedi, or even force sensitives in the universe to have it be likely that a whole group of them would be rolling together.  Not that it can't happen, it's your story right?  But it should be extremely rare.

The other thing I'm concerned about though is cost.  If the rules are compatible, I'd rather have one core rule book, with various supplements.  The WW model is a good one.  The core book describes the world and provides all basic rules, while the various other books provide additional rules (still compatible) as needed but are 75-90% world fluff. 

#7 jordiver2



  • Members
  • 117 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:31 PM

 All of the 40k books have their own setting, which is another thing to keep in mind. I think that was one of the best things in those books.

The flipside of that was that each corebook also introduced the players to the 40k universe as well, and similar NPCs in the back, and the same "this is an RPG" intro, and a ton of the same skills, and talents, plus an adventure (which isn't exactly up everybody's alley).

…so even if the core rules have a few differences (auto-fire changed a bit over the books), there was a lot of similarities. And then someone (who actually reads from front to back and compares like some sort of lawyer) would finally notice that some of the talents that the players remember from the first book are different in the second of third book, and nothing in the book points that out (each game line was written as an independent stand-alone game), and just hunting for these alterations can be emotionally taxing for those who enjoy these games.

Those are alterations that I think the Beta was meant to address, and I hope it works out that way. We will have to wait and see if Dodge works the same in EotE as it does in AoR and F&D (or whatever their names were, can't recall right now).

I think there will be Technician equivalents, and Gun for Hire, and at least something similar to Smuggler and perhaps the others. I kind of expect to see the order of some talents rearranged at least a bit. Like perhaps the Age of Rebellion version of Outlaw Tech will get Jury Rigged sooner, or more of them.

But I suspect there will be an addition to the rules set for each new game line: some military aspect for AoR, adherence to the Jedi principles for the Force & Destiny game, or whatever for the next line (assumption. It could end with only 3 lines, but…). These extra rules COULD be ported to other games, but from what I've seen with the 40k games, they seem thematically appropriate to each game line/setting, so I personally wouldn't want to mix too many ingredients into the Alderaan stew, so to speak.

With that line of thought, Dark Heresy didn't have any "extra" rules, it was the baseline, like EotE. Rogue Trader gave access to legions of shipmen, an endless line of credit/cash, and a ship as impressive as they come. I figure AoR will change the tone and perspective of the game enough that something like controlling a Rebel base would be the standard (in place of a ship and Obligation?) and I think F&D will make the Jedi Principles and the line between the Light and Dark a focus of the game.

So, TL;DR -- I love the settings they write, and hope that they will make the core rules separate. My wallet would appreciate that a lot.

© 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