Franigo

Members
  • Content count

    176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I own and have played - well, GM'ed mostly - both. I never understood the flak the early D&D 5e modules got; they are at least pretty decent. But for D&D, even the relatively easy 5th edition, that amount of preparation is simply necessary, because it is much harder to just wing it. But of course the D&D modules will feel much more epic - they are designed to be! They take characters from the very beginnings to an epic finale fighting some of the biggest baddies around. Whereas the SW adventures are just that: adventures. Some bigger, some smaller, but overall only a part of a character's career. It is like comparing an adventure path with a single module, they are simply different in perspective and objective. EotE characters are living, well, on the edge. They are not D&D heroes and so their adventures are of a different kind. But, to be honest, I found the FFG modules best when just mining them for ideas, NPCs, settings and so on, so I can understand some of your misgivings. Still, that is true to some extent for pretty much any published module I have used in the last twenty years.
  2. Yes. And that has been true for pretty much all published adventure modules I have run in the last 20 years, give or take. That is not to say that the writers are not good, just that each and every group has its own ways, and that a written module simply cannot be a fit for all of them. The more railroadey, the less I follow them, usually, as many of my players tend to go off the beaten path anyway. So, use them for ideas, plot points, NPCs, artwork and whatever works for you and your players, but never feel too bound to them. First thing: always try to avoid do or die situations with only one solution. Maybe even try avoiding thinking about solutions in the first place, because players tend to come up with totally unexpected ideas anyway. And before saying "no" to anything, always think if you could say "yes, but ..." instead. I also learned a lot by playing a few sessions of Mouse Guard. Essentially, a failure does not mean running into a dead end or insurmountable obstacle, but just the story taking a new, maybe different path. Of course, that requires some creative thinking by the GM, but that is part of the job, I guess. Always remember that you are telling a cooperative story. And in a (good) story, heroes do fail. Then they get up, dust themselves off and go on saving the Galaxy.
  3. Please stay away from exact measurements and keep it narrative, just like the Star Wars lines.
  4. Ships in atmosphere are naturally much, much slower than in space. So an ISD in orbit could probably match a faster ship that has to content with atmospheric flight, keeping in the way, sending TIEs to intercept if the blockade runner tries to keep low. Of course, one ship simply cannot blockade a planet, even a lowly populated one. An ISD is more or less a show of force. Actions have consequences. How about some retaliatory orbital bombardment? ...
  5. The basics are easily learned, but there is a surprising amount of crunch below that. People compare it to Pathfinder, but with all books and rules, Pathfinder is one of the most expansive rules systems out there, so hardly a yardstick to measure against. For a comparison: we have been playing for about two years, the characters are in the ~500 XP range, and some of the sheets have 10+ pages when printed from OggDude's excellent generator. I find that running it is quite OK, because the rules are smooth and the nature of the dice precludes rolling for every single thing, but the amount of options for players alone mean there is enough crunch. At the beginning, I was quite enamoured with the lightness of the system, but right now I would place it in the upper middle class of crunchiness, and far, far away from light systems. EDIT: Of course, that is always subjective. I have played Rolemaster (2nd, FRP/SS), D&D 3rd and Pathfinder, and have a certain tolerance for systems like that.
  6. Apart from mechanical considerations (Adversary talent, cool special abilities, weapons, terrain and so on), you can also try and approach this from the narrative side. Do not make every fight a straight last-man-standing / to-the-death type of situation. Give your players different objectives and "win conditions" than just "kill everybody". For example: The entire garrison is after them. They can fend off a wave or two, but they will be overrun if they cannot escape. Think fast! The bad guy is getting away. Killing his minions may be fun, but will allow him to escape. How to get past them? The PC might be monsters in combat, but the NPC they are pledged to protect and get from A to B is not. Cover him! The crime lord whose organization they are infiltrating wants to see how capable they are. How to be good enough without giving away too much? And so on.
  7. While I agree that Obligations are mainly a way to connect the characters with the universe and not a means to punish them (the exact opposite, it rewards them with personal stories), I am loath to write their characters' back stories for my players without their consent. As a player, I'd be rather annoyed if the GM decided that my character ran away from a wedding if that is not how I envisioned my character at all. That is a pretty big encroachment on player agency, especially on the one thing they should have a very high degree of control over - their own character. With consent, sure, anything goes, but writing Addiction: Gambling on a sheet does not mean that the GM gets to define other, intimate details of the character without talking to the player first.
  8. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong, of course. Easily demonstrated by the fact that the game designers chose to name the ubiquitous "gain +2 wound threshold"-Talent Toughened. See, the designers themselves think that having a higher wound threshold means a character is tougher, i.e. wounds are obviously a measure of how tough a character is. +2 soak is obviously too strong from a balance perspective. The only way I could see it would be if it also carried a ban on wearing armor that grants soak on top, or at least would not stack with any soak from worn armor.
  9. Well, the group has passed that stage some time ago. They are more like "Return of the Jedi" than "Star Wars", having had a couple of adventures together, sharing risk, loss and rewards. The Non-Force Users also see it as a necessity, because the group feels that there will be a confrontation with some bad people sooner or later - I do not know how they came to that conclusion, maybe the Inquisitor hunting them gave them a hint ... That sounds awesome, great work. I plan on including the players, too, at first those of the Non-Force Users, and as the vision progresses, the others, too. Thanks for pointers! Incidentally, later on there will be giant spiders, too
  10. It is because Star Wars is not about thousands of soldiers doing their job, it is about a few heroes (or even just one) turning the tide of battles. If fighters/bombers were unable to hurt capital ships, why have them at battles at all? Why deploy fighter screens if the enemy fighters are useless? The whole concept of Star Wars space combat is obviously based on WWII naval warfare, especially in the Pacific Theatre, with planes becoming the biggest threat to surface vessels, even powerful battleships, and carrier warfare coming to the fore. It fits the "one pilot striking true" theme of the very first Star Wars movie. The Empire was surprised at Scarif. It is supposed to be pretty much the first large-scale space battle fought by the Rebel Alliance (and they do get their asses handed to them in the end, to be fair). Surprise is a very big factor in warfare, and the rebels used it to their advantage, with the Empire not really knowing their capabilities and not expecting an attack at all. Afterwards, they got better at this whole fighting rebels in fleet actions thing. Why did the rebels not use them at Endor? Their ships were fitted to attack the Death Star, not tangle with the Imperial Fleet. Why would they carry ion weaponry when attacking a battlestation of that size? I mean, if you start to ask questions like that, you also need to ask why the TIE fighter complement of the Death Star is so small. Or why they build kilometre-long capital ships with bridges that have actual windows that one fighter can crash into. There are so many instances like that, because Star Wars film battles are obviously more geared towards cinematic effects than anything else.
  11. I decided to use some ideas from this thread: I brought the players of the Non-Force Users on board. The vision will start without the others knowing and they get ambushed by bad guys - a whole pack of Inquisitors. My aim is to press the Force Sensitives and just kill the rest who know what is supposed to happen and will play along. I hope that freaks them out a bit. Then we will segue more clearly into the vision, with half of the group taking over NPCs that test the others, figures from their past, enemies, allies and the like. EDIT: Forgot to thank you all for your suggestions!
  12. Basically, my players decided that their Force Users should try to get real kyber crystals instead of the synthetic / training crystals they have now. They are going to a forgotten Jedi temple (I am using a modified Dawn Temple). While I could just have crystals being there, I would like to have the characters go on some kind of vision quest. Unfortunately, half of my group are not really into the Force. I thought about doing sessions with single characters, but we play only once or twice a month anyway due to time constraints and I am loath to spend valuable gaming time without the full group. I have two Force Sensitives and two muggles, um, Non-Force Users. I want to create something special for the wannabe Jedi, but I also do not want to have the others twiddling their thumbs. I tend towards having the Force Sensitives black out and experience their quest and trials mentally, while the others have to to protect them, but I wonder if there are more elegant solutions.
  13. I have to admit I never understood why FFG went that route. Star Wars is not at all about modifying blasters; in fact, it is all about characters and pretty much not about their gear. Han Solo is not a cool gunslinger because he wields a tricked-out blaster. My group is not about min-maxing, and when modifying came up I simply told them that I would prefer to keep it simple - 13 pages of character sheet are enough anyway. I guess there will be some signature weapons and the like, but not the strange things this system mechanically allows. That is my advice: if you do not want gear creep, talk to your players in Session Zero. The rules work fine without any of the power creep of splat books.
  14. I am pretty sure that they want to sell toys, so there will probably be new stuff.
  15. There is an astromech on my party's ship that has the designation R4-D4, but likes to be called Radar.