Jump to content

Lord Dynel

Members
  • Content Count

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lord Dynel

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Winter Haven, Florida, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree - I wish they had published Gamorreans and Ugnauts as well. But I am glad Jawas made it in, though. Tusken Raiders were the head-scratchers for me, too. Overall I am pretty pleased with the book. Still hoping for Gamorreans at some point, but time may be running out for them.
  2. I guess I can see the point of being so upset or distraught that one would decided to sell up and/or give up on the franchise. To me, though, the great thing about role playing games is you can ignore anything that you don't like and play in the Star Wars world how you see it in your mind. But that's me. And I can certainly see the aggravation - they've done some things I'm not overly pleased with, too. I try not to let it run my love for SW.
  3. Yep, some of my more memorable campaigns/arcs were when the big bads weren’t the Empire.
  4. Yeah, I'm not a fan of how Star Wars rpg licenses...heck, most licenesed rpg lines...kind of just "die out" over time. I wasn't big into the WEG line, nor did I have much of an online presence back in the late 90s, so for me, I didn't know for certain the WEG SW line was cancelled until I heard that WotC was going to release a SWRPG line. Of course, not seeing any new products for the WEG line in months, the writing was on the wall. They went from 10+ releases in '96 and '97 to like 3 or 4 in '98, to nothing. D20 tapered down a little more, but SAGA kind of died quickly (meaning multiple releases/year to almost nothing). Even in today's "fast news" era that the Internet provides, companies are pretty hush-hush when it comes to product lines, especially licensed ones. Nevertheless, it certainly does suck to hear nothing, week after week, month after month, about a line such as Star Wars when it has such a devoted following. The not knowing is what aggravates me the most. I know, first world problems... But, if we get 3 releases a year, I guess that's better than nothing! As far as ROS, I preordered from my FLGS. They got me in DoR rather easily, so I wouldn't expect anything less with this release.
  5. I agree PzVIE. I, for one, actually liked the Dawn of Defiance campaign for SWSE. Some might, but I would not be adverse to a cleaned up and officially published version of this.
  6. The first rule of Second Edition is you don't talk about Second Edition.
  7. Era books would certainly be welcome. I know there are pockets in time they are probably restricted to (I wouldn't think they'd be able to do anything past TLJ or even within that era) that still leaves a good bit of time to work with. The separatist should back into DoR really well, I'd think. I wouldn't mind more adventures, but those aren't the best sellers, I'd imagine. Still, it'd be nice to see another one for AoR and FaD, at least. And sector books would be great as well. It's good to hear that they're not done yet. My guess is that FFG is probably gauging the success of Genesys before committing more resources back to Star Wars.
  8. Has there been any talk about future books? I'm, by no means, and analyst of FFG releases but with all the career sourcebooks now out, has there been any indication where the line is headed? I like the region books they've done, and would love to see more of those, but I'm thinking that era books are going to be the main focus. Some faction books would be cool. That said, I'd love to see a book just about Coruscant, one on the Empire/First Order, one on the Rebellion/Resistance, and - of course - one on the Knights of the Old Republic era!
  9. i'm very fond of it as well. It was a nice way to incorporate a background element or complication into a game, and have it actually mean something. Truthfully, any good GM can do that without the mechanics, but I thought it was nice to see actual mechanics for it (and allow for a PC to get a small benefit for their complication as well).
  10. I haven't heard of one, so I thought I'd ask. What I mean by a complication mechanic is something similar to the Obligation/Duty mechanic in Eote and AoR, respectively. I've read a little about the Motivation system, but they don't seem like quite the same thing. One that that I like a lot in EotE was the Obligation aspect, and was hoping for something similar.
  11. (First off, I somehow missed that part of the description!) From what I'm reading, it sounds like archetypes will replace professions...but maybe races (fantasy) and species (futuristic/alien), to? And it almost sounds as if careers/specializations take some of the place of professions. That's...interesting. The "four different archetypes" that can be applied to different genres is interesting, too. I wonder if they'll revolve around the strong/smart/quick/charasmatic ideals?
  12. And if so, should it? Like most of you, I'm super excited about the upcoming Genesys RPG. I love all three flavors the Star Wars RPG, and the Narrative Dice System as well. The system truly brings a new dimension to tabletop roleplaying, one I'm very happy with. Thinking about how character creation is laid out - selecting a Profession, then a Specialization - in Star Wars, I think it's done fantastically well, in the particular realm of Star Wars. But I'm wondering how it could/would be applied to a generic system. How do you think FFG will accompish this?
  13. Yes, that is correct. My mistake, Lathrop, that does refer to hull trauma.
  14. I'm fairly certain that any "misinformation" was most likely caused by the wording of the (most likely, pre-errata'd) text. My first printing book says (p. 233) that a Damage Control check can recover one system strain. Period. But it also says that a Damage Control checks can be made as many times as wanted/needed to reduce system stain to zero (but still only one check per player per turn). But wait! There's more! On the next page, it seems to contradict that when it says that PCs can only attempt one Damage Control check per encounter. Is that one, total? One per character? It seems to imply the latter (since if pluralizes "PCs"), but that's only my opinion. The errata clarified it bit, adding the one SS per success, once per encounter part.
  15. Running around with 1 Soak (naked with Brawn 1?) and facing a weapon that deal 9 damage is a recipe for disaster...at least for the 7 WT 1 Soak guy. Now, if he's facing a holdout blaster, he's got a better chance. Facing a weapon the equivalent of a blaster rifle might be a little rough. A solid hit will probably kill him, absolutely. If your GM wants to say that some Wounds are Strain instead, that's up to him. But getting shot with a laser not wearing any protection should probably mess you up, pretty good. I actually like this system much better than recent SWRPG system, where it takes 40 blaster bolts to down someone.
×
×
  • Create New...