Franigo

Members
  • Content count

    180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Franigo

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

531 profile views
  1. It is not "read it how you will". I will directly quote the paragraph: "The combination of dice types and symbols are all resources the players can use to help tell the story and add depth to the scene." See how they do not enforce anything, but even in your own example it is "can use". Really, construing that into a system enforcing roleplaying takes some giant leap - which the actual rules do not follow, of course. Nothing enforces roleplaying. In fact, the rulebook is full of simple mechanic and static effects for pretty much every roll for those so inclined. And I know that the system does not enforce roleplaying, because two players in the one campaign I get to play in, could not roleplay their way out of a wet paper bag, and nothing in the system forces them in any way. EDIT: But yeah, this is not about the beta, just about some misconceptions on your part. Your overall point, that roleplaying is possible with pretty much any system, stands, though.
  2. Cool, then you can obviously provide a quote from one of the designers staring that the system enforces roleplaying, right? And I do not care what other people on the internet are wrong about. Are you really basing your example on others being wrong? You do realize that this is a really bad foundation for your argument, right?
  3. Since the rules do not enforce roleplaying, I do not see how that example is relevant in any way, since ignoring something that is not there is not really noteworthy, is it?
  4. Roleplaying is system-agnostic, of course, but your example is off: FFG's Star Wars does not enforce roleplaying; there are some mechanics, like Obligations, that encourage it, but that is rather tame compared to other modern games. The dice do not direct roleplaying in any way, they merely add a secondary axis apart from success/fail. They do not enforce any kind of role-playing on the PCs in any way. I do not know where you got the impression that they do, there is nothing like the Strife mechanic in Star Wars. But reading the beta and being a GM and player for Star Wars, I see some similarities. The rules seem to be about the narrative, but there is a giant tail of mechanics - and some quite clunky at that. Even when using the excellent character editor for Star Wars, maintaining characters is a PITA, and after two years of playing, some sheets have more pages than our old "Rolemaster 2nd Edition with every skill"-sheet, which is quite a feat. The beta rules look like a lot of bookkeeping is involved, lots of system mastery needed, which is rather off-putting for me.
  5. 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.
  6. Failure when you must succeed

    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.
  7. Metric system... please consider

    Please stay away from exact measurements and keep it narrative, just like the Star Wars lines.
  8. Do you allow lightsaber combat skill?

    I gave my PCs a (damaged) holocron early on. Then they found ancient lightsaber hilts, which I allowed to be used with synthetic crystals as training lightsabers (no breach). So they could use lightsaber specific combat rules, but only getting more powerful in a slower way. Now they are on a quest to find proper crystals, which will be basic lightsaber stuff. Lots of potential to upgrade still...
  9. 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? ...
  10. How Heavy are the Rules?

    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.
  11. Edge of the Empire Combat Encounter Difficulty Level

    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.
  12. Addiction obligation

    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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. Ion Torpedos and Ion Bombs: What is your take on them?

    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.