Depending on how the player views Luke, that’s two different core books that’s needed to play both Han and Luke. If said player goes Warrior/Starfighter, it’s also going to cause the GM to do some finagling with the “theme systems” that each core book has. I don’t know many GMs new to a game system who would want to try that, so there’s a turnoff for bringing people into the game.
And that’s the overall point I really wanted to make: of course three systems can handle a good variety of character templates, but with each core book essentially forcing a theme on you which are divided between all individual character arcs from the main characters I can see where new players would not find that appealing. 
 
Don’t get me wrong here. I’ve enjoyed how the games allow you to deeply explore those themes and automatically focus a character party from the word “go,” but I can see where some people won’t like that and want to focus more on the differences. That’s what I think a new core rulebook could establish. You have to look at it from the perspective of a new player.

Basically the advanced players guide for genesys but done for star wars. I have suggested it before. Use it to update vehicle rules. 

This seems like the correct term, but the end result will still be the same.
I had a discussion with one of my players about where else they could go with this game, and we couldn’t really come up with anything. Regardless of how you feel about it, the Disney trilogy did not tread any new ground or introduce anything that a decent GM couldn’t create themselves or reskin something and give it “+1s” for stats.
And the things on the table aren’t any better. The Mandalorian doesn’t do much, and the new shows are based in time periods that are very fleshed out.
So until Disney decides to actually push something cutting edge (which I doubt is any time soon), it really does seem to be complete.
And this isn’t meant to start any “the new stuff is awful” spats. I enjoy watching a good portion of it. It’s just not adding anything that could be made into new rpg sourcebooks.

This seems like the correct term, but the end result will still be the same.
I had a discussion with one of my players about where else they could go with this game, and we couldn’t really come up with anything. Regardless of how you feel about it, the Disney trilogy did not tread any new ground or introduce anything that a decent GM couldn’t create themselves or reskin something and give it “+1s” for stats.
And the things on the table aren’t any better. The Mandalorian doesn’t do much, and the new shows are based in time periods that are very fleshed out.
So until Disney decides to actually push something cutting edge (which I doubt is any time soon), it really does seem to be complete.
And this isn’t meant to start any “the new stuff is awful” spats. I enjoy watching a good portion of it. It’s just not adding anything that could be made into new rpg sourcebooks.

You make a good point. Admittedly I was thinking about “audience reactions” like the fiasco with Battlefield V and the fallout regarding the single player storyline “The Last Tiger.” That line of thinking had me soured into being one-sided in my statement.
 
Just to add something else to the thread I’ve also used the story of the CSS Shenandoah to great success. With the Empire being in control of the holonet and Rebel forces tending to act independently of each other it’s easy to have a frigate still attacking shipping well after the destruction of the Second Death Star and being labeled as pirates. The PCs had to track it down, convince the crew they weren’t going to serve time for piracy, and then defend them in a tribunal from charges of piracy while still making the new Republic government look functional.
Definitely a good session for your trackers and “face” characters.
 

You make a good point. Admittedly I was thinking about “audience reactions” like the fiasco with Battlefield V and the fallout regarding the single player storyline “The Last Tiger.” That line of thinking had me soured into being one-sided in my statement.
 
Just to add something else to the thread I’ve also used the story of the CSS Shenandoah to great success. With the Empire being in control of the holonet and Rebel forces tending to act independently of each other it’s easy to have a frigate still attacking shipping well after the destruction of the Second Death Star and being labeled as pirates. The PCs had to track it down, convince the crew they weren’t going to serve time for piracy, and then defend them in a tribunal from charges of piracy while still making the new Republic government look functional.
Definitely a good session for your trackers and “face” characters.
 

I somewhat agree, but there have been quite a few movies where WW2 era German soldiers have been displayed in a good light. Typically the "good German soldiers" are seen as the exception in these movies, but these lone wolves have been there early on in WW2 movies.
It's a simple matter to portray the "bad Germans" as the SS assaulting the castle and the "good Germans" as the guards fighting alongside their former captives.
ETA: Valkyrie, also a movie based upon a historical event, pulled it off.

It is pretty unbelievable, but it probably hasn’t gotten as much attention because it challenges the way people look at soldiers in German uniform... making them actually seem human.
War is complicated, and some people don’t like that.

It is pretty unbelievable, but it probably hasn’t gotten as much attention because it challenges the way people look at soldiers in German uniform... making them actually seem human.
War is complicated, and some people don’t like that.

Uber Stormtroopers, for sure (but any Imperial terror unit will work).
 
There’s already enough games with zombie fascists out there, no need to work that genre into Star Wars.

Uber Stormtroopers, for sure (but any Imperial terror unit will work).
 
There’s already enough games with zombie fascists out there, no need to work that genre into Star Wars.

Um, googling 5 "touches" deep took me to a porn site...  
You mean 5 Torches Deep...
 

I would never argue against this. Our decision was made after playing through the starter (knowing what you’ve stated) along with the articles for the full game FFG posted as well as no one in the L5R’s forum being able to refute my questioning of the setting being so limiting of character creation (which in hindsight is silly since no one in those forums could possibly know because everyone was just getting to play the newly released game).
Given what I’ve been reading the setting has advanced since its release. I’m going to give it another look-see. 
 
And hey, if we can get a three year campaign going does it really matter if it starts off in a manner that’s “forced” by the setting?

Worth noting that the Beginner Game - just like FFG’s Star Wars Beginner Games - is somewhat limited by design, meant to be played with the included pregen characters, and intentionally railroady and cultivated to give an idea of the flavor of the game. Based on, for example, the Edge of the Empire BG, one might also be equally hard pressed to come up with a means to include Age of Rebellion or Force and Destiny characters into a primarily Edge campaign.
That is, of course, keeping in mind that - like any game - it might still end up not being your cup of tea. Which is fine.

So it was worse before?
 
Look, here’s my experience with L5R rpg (FFG’s version). I saw previews for it here, thought it looked like it could be a good time, so I started a thread in the L5R rpg forum asking “to be sold on this game.” People thought I was trolling there too because I asked about variety in character creation since the setting seemed too restrictive. Once they realized I was serious about the question, they couldn’t refute it.
So not wanting to take anyone else’s word for it, my gaming group got the starter and gave it a go. We enjoyed the concept of honor, but after brainstorming once we finished the starter we came to the conclusion that a longterm campaign just wasn’t really possible due to the setting (I had some ideas, but they were crazy fragile). 
 
It really does seem as though if you want diversity of character types in your party you have to follow the same “there’s a tournament going on” beginning, middle, and end. It’s worse than the D&D party coming together via a bar fight and/or being thrown in jail together.
 
We wanted to like it, but it just required far more effort to make it work due to the setting. My hats off to those who could make it work for their group.
 

I am, but what’s your point here? I’m referencing the FFG rpg (that’s very new) which felt heavily restricted by the setting (again, my opinion) that was originally designed for a card game (only to be later adapted into a d10 rpg I did not play). I don’t get how longevity changes any of that.
 
If anything it has the unfortunate effect of making Kat’s contributions to that world seem to carry less weight since it’s such an already established license. I was at least giving her credit of going through history and adding to it. 
 
Oh wait, is not enjoying every product FFG produces considered trolling now? I was unaware the degree of loyalty that must be shown to post properly in these forums. 

Other folks will have different opinions, but Legend of the 5 Rings rpg was a huge dud for my group and I.
I’ve never seen a rpg so restricted by its setting. You’re either a diverse group that always has to band together because (insert stereotypical event here) happened at a tournament or everyone has the same “class” (which can lead to some wild character personalities, but the PCs have to maintain interest in keeping that). It’s like the game is made for one-offs. 
 
So forgive me if I’m not terribly impressed by someone involved in “creating” the lore for that (creating in quotes here because it’s not really a challenge to write fan fiction within feudal Japan with the plethora of research material available).

I’ll second that there’s a discussion needed with this player to see why they want to play a Hutt. If there’s a deep enough character concept there, I’d allow it. If it’s being done because it’s just a “cool character” idea, or worse: for the lulz, I’d say nay.
As far as getting around the size issues I’d suggest the player just make the Hutt younger, which is also something that could add in more narrative. Kind of a “before they made it as a crime lord typical of their species” deal.

I’ll second that there’s a discussion needed with this player to see why they want to play a Hutt. If there’s a deep enough character concept there, I’d allow it. If it’s being done because it’s just a “cool character” idea, or worse: for the lulz, I’d say nay.
As far as getting around the size issues I’d suggest the player just make the Hutt younger, which is also something that could add in more narrative. Kind of a “before they made it as a crime lord typical of their species” deal.

I’ll second that there’s a discussion needed with this player to see why they want to play a Hutt. If there’s a deep enough character concept there, I’d allow it. If it’s being done because it’s just a “cool character” idea, or worse: for the lulz, I’d say nay.
As far as getting around the size issues I’d suggest the player just make the Hutt younger, which is also something that could add in more narrative. Kind of a “before they made it as a crime lord typical of their species” deal.

I cut my rpg teeth on AD&D back when I was a wee lad. Then picked at some other d20 games over time.
My current group were all rpg newbies when 5e came out and they wanted me to DM for them. It was a great time. I ran several mini campaigns and then one long one that went for about two years. 

During the long campaign we found a lot of holes in the game system, especially when it came to working within the narrative. An example is the players were fighting animated armor in a tower that had broken off of a flying castle and was hurtling end over end to the ground. Needless to say using minis on a map went out the window and trying to work the whole thing within the rule system was going against the fun of the situation. When nearly the only rule you’re using is “the rule of cool” for an entire battle you start to wonder why you’re using the game system at all.
We had a group discussion after that. Most of the players were ecstatic about that combat enough to where we ditched minis and maps more often. It made the fights more dynamic, but they still felt too “pinned up” by the rules themselves. I found I was winging a lot of things far more often rather than doing it by the book, and the results were often applauded and more memorable.
 
When the campaign was finished I could tell the players wanted more, and the jump to FFG’s narrative Star Wars game was an easy leap. I did lose two players in the switch (putting us down to three and then back up to four with a newbie), but I knew that would happen because they were the type of players who were only there to roll dice and move miniatures (they begrudgingly had a good time with the theater of the mind battles).
The stories we’ve formed with the narrative system have changed how these players recall in game events. Gone are the “bullet point” descriptions of the highlights. Instead they’ve been replaced by back and forths that build up the story, similar to how they actually transpired. It’s been impressive to see the change.

Man, I wanted the SAGA edition to be good just because of the amount of materials they were putting out allowed for some serious options for campaigns... but that system... gross

Man, I wanted the SAGA edition to be good just because of the amount of materials they were putting out allowed for some serious options for campaigns... but that system... gross

It’s all subjective.
 
 I just would like FFG to get on the ball 

I cut my rpg teeth on AD&D back when I was a wee lad. Then picked at some other d20 games over time.
My current group were all rpg newbies when 5e came out and they wanted me to DM for them. It was a great time. I ran several mini campaigns and then one long one that went for about two years. 

During the long campaign we found a lot of holes in the game system, especially when it came to working within the narrative. An example is the players were fighting animated armor in a tower that had broken off of a flying castle and was hurtling end over end to the ground. Needless to say using minis on a map went out the window and trying to work the whole thing within the rule system was going against the fun of the situation. When nearly the only rule you’re using is “the rule of cool” for an entire battle you start to wonder why you’re using the game system at all.
We had a group discussion after that. Most of the players were ecstatic about that combat enough to where we ditched minis and maps more often. It made the fights more dynamic, but they still felt too “pinned up” by the rules themselves. I found I was winging a lot of things far more often rather than doing it by the book, and the results were often applauded and more memorable.
 
When the campaign was finished I could tell the players wanted more, and the jump to FFG’s narrative Star Wars game was an easy leap. I did lose two players in the switch (putting us down to three and then back up to four with a newbie), but I knew that would happen because they were the type of players who were only there to roll dice and move miniatures (they begrudgingly had a good time with the theater of the mind battles).
The stories we’ve formed with the narrative system have changed how these players recall in game events. Gone are the “bullet point” descriptions of the highlights. Instead they’ve been replaced by back and forths that build up the story, similar to how they actually transpired. It’s been impressive to see the change.