Best Starwars Game

[TheFlatline]

Now WEG or Saga don't grant petty +1 bonus?

FFG usually doesn't even do that. It does procs: 40% of the time you get a +1 success or +1 advantage (white & black dice are pretty frequent additions)

And to be fair WEG *only* had stats and force powers and that's it. It didn't have a "talent tree" that was mostly consisting of procs and percentage modifiers for time frames that don't exist and shit like that.

[ghost whistler]

Hello,

I generally like the FFG games, though the quality of writing could be better. I think they try too hard to assume the books are for newcomers, which is perfectly reasonable, but they aren't very good at writing that way.

The dice are fine IMO, but it is weird that the rules allow for opposing checks just not in combat, though i assume this is for simplicity.

Not entirely sure FnD needed to be a separate game in its own right, rather than a sourcebook for the Force. The morality system is a mess, but I see that's already being discussed.

Space combat is a bit wonky. Ships can target shields but if the target's silhouette is low enough the target decides where his ship takes the hit...er?

[Longes]

FnD is not really a separate game. It's stand-alone, but most of the material in the book is just the reprinting of Age of Rebellion, which is mostly a reprinting of Edge of the Empire. The new things in FnD are the morality system and new talent trees.

[ghost whistler]

Not sure what you mean. They share the same system, are compatible, but it is standalone - the book is self contained. Personally I think they could have done things better, but no approach would be perfect and I would rather this than a separate corebook in the manner of the nWoD. That approach is too dry for me.

FnD has more Force powers as well as more starships and gear.

Morality doesn't work. Do nothing and your morality increases every session. Maybe that's weirdly appropriate for a Jedi. Dice rolls do not make one great.

[Longes]

I mean that both AoR and FnD could have been a 50 page expansions for the EotE, if they only published the new stuff.

[TheFlatline]

I mean that both AoR and FnD could have been a 50 page expansions for the EotE, if they only published the new stuff.

Heh. You can say that about Dark Heresy 2nd ed. It really was just a new setting and about 15 pages of tweaks instead of an overhaul to fix the terribad system.

But then again, if you released just a couple new splatbooks for EotE you'd deprive users of paying 120 USD for the privilege of rebuying 90% of the same crap repeatedly.

[Hadanelith]

FFG's policies work fine...if you only want the one game. If you like the setting, however, and want all the games...yeah, they get you coming and going. Worse, each of the games is just slightly different from the others in the series - which means that you have the 3.0/3.5/PF problem of 'the rules you know are for a different version. Have fun getting confused!'. Any attempts to play characters from different games in the same system together (you know, the advantage of using the same system) runs straight into those tiny rule changes, and different assumptions, and all kinds of bullshit. I understand that the Star Wars games are less different than the 40K RPGs, but it still looks like a mess to me. I imagine that there are a LOT of frustrated gamers pirating the other core books after they've bought one of them.

[Username17]

It's the White Wolf plan from the nineties. Werewolf and Vampire were stand alone games and they reprinted all the basic mechanics and shit and made you buy it again. But of course they didn't just reprint ut, they rewrote it. So minor changes and different NPC baselines made the books play poorly together.

It was a hot mess, but the last time a game became number one without being Dungeons & Dragons that is exactly what it did. So I can see someone with a cursory understanding of RPG history deciding that was a not-insane thing to do.

-Username17

[TheFlatline]

It's the White Wolf plan from the nineties. Werewolf and Vampire were stand alone games and they reprinted all the basic mechanics and shit and made you buy it again. But of course they didn't just reprint ut, they rewrote it. So minor changes and different NPC baselines made the books play poorly together.

It was a hot mess, but the last time a game became number one without being Dungeons & Dragons that is exactly what it did. So I can see someone with a cursory understanding of RPG history deciding that was a not-insane thing to do.

-Username17

I'd say at least 1/3 of the book to 1/2 though was original material in the WW days. By the time you finished with setting, the super specific crunch powers, the splat texts, the supernatural organization etc etc... you have a significant page count. Plus, I know people who honestly only owned and played Werewolf or Mage. It wasn't inconceivable. And in the heady days of nWOD's first announcement they promised us one core book and then smaller, *cheaper* splat books for each of the supernaturals.

Of course that went out the window but it was a solid idea.

FFG is almost insulting in how much it honey badgers it's games. I would probably estimate the difference between star wars books is probably in the 15% range from EOTE to the rebellion one to F&D.

The 40k RPGs are acts of cut & paste so bad that in the chaos RPG there's references to space marine chapters and stuff instead of chaos stuff. They didn't even run it through an editor, because the exact same layout and same typos exist in the text.

[ghost whistler]

FFG's policies work fine...if you only want the one game. If you like the setting, however, and want all the games...yeah, they get you coming and going. Worse, each of the games is just slightly different from the others in the series - which means that you have the 3.0/3.5/PF problem of 'the rules you know are for a different version. Have fun getting confused!'. Any attempts to play characters from different games in the same system together (you know, the advantage of using the same system) runs straight into those tiny rule changes, and different assumptions, and all kinds of bullshit. I understand that the Star Wars games are less different than the 40K RPGs, but it still looks like a mess to me. I imagine that there are a LOT of frustrated gamers pirating the other core books after they've bought one of them.

What tiny changes?

The rules are copy/paste across the books (for better or worse!)

[ghost whistler]

It's the White Wolf plan from the nineties. Werewolf and Vampire were stand alone games and they reprinted all the basic mechanics and shit and made you buy it again. But of course they didn't just reprint ut, they rewrote it. So minor changes and different NPC baselines made the books play poorly together.

It was a hot mess, but the last time a game became number one without being Dungeons & Dragons that is exactly what it did. So I can see someone with a cursory understanding of RPG history deciding that was a not-insane thing to do.

-Username17

I'd say at least 1/3 of the book to 1/2 though was original material in the WW days. By the time you finished with setting, the super specific crunch powers, the splat texts, the supernatural organization etc etc... you have a significant page count. Plus, I know people who honestly only owned and played Werewolf or Mage. It wasn't inconceivable. And in the heady days of nWOD's first announcement they promised us one core book and then smaller, *cheaper* splat books for each of the supernaturals.

Of course that went out the window but it was a solid idea.

FFG is almost insulting in how much it honey badgers it's games. I would probably estimate the difference between star wars books is probably in the 15% range from EOTE to the rebellion one to F&D.

The 40k RPGs are acts of cut & paste so bad that in the chaos RPG there's references to space marine chapters and stuff instead of chaos stuff. They didn't even run it through an editor, because the exact same layout and same typos exist in the text.

I like the FFG SW games, they aren't perfect (i'm trying to read the buying/selling rules - which i've read twice before and forgotten - and i still son't get them). But FFG needs to stop this bullshit. They do it with all their games. They are also pretty crap at writing games. Fortunately for them they have the means to put out stuff with the best production values around.

Their LCG's are the same: buy a 'core' set and find you don't get enough content to actually play the game properly, and the distribution within is so lumpy that if you buy multiples you get wastage. On their other hand their boargames are so component heavy that by the time I've set up Eldritch Horror I'm too tired to play!

[TheFlatline]

Yeah the worst was probably Lord of the Rings Co-Op. Gandalf, which was in the starter, was more or less one of the most powerful cards, and I suspect still powerful. But you only got 1 per starter set. And you *could* have up to 4.

At least in the expansions they got their head out of their ass and just gave you 4 dupes of every card to end all debate.

As far as their board games, you haven't seen baroque until you've seen Android.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Yeah the worst was probably Lord of the Rings Co-Op. Gandalf, which was in the starter, was more or less one of the most powerful cards, and I suspect still powerful. But you only got 1 per starter set. And you *could* have up to 4.

I'm not sure what you're smoking, but you got that almost exactly backwards. The deck limit is 3/deck, and there are four Gandalfs in the Core box. He's literally the only card you get a surfeit of.

There are a number of annoyingly desirable cards you only get one of in a core box, so the complaint isn't invalid, you just picked a counter-example as your example.

[PhoneLobster]

I've been collecting the Cthulhu LCG since it came out. I think they've now settled on all types of sets for it always getting 3 of everything, but in the past they started at (I think) 1 of some things, 2 of some other things, then even when they settled to 3 of everything for their smaller packs the deluxe packs were still briefly something stupid like 2 of everything.

And while they changed some (maybe all?) reprints to 3 of everything they never to my knowledge released "completion sets" for collectors that were screwed by the earlier 1s and 2s bullshit. So with the old sets to get 3 of everything you ended up with 6 of some things, and if you get new sets to fill out your old sets you end up with 4s and 5s of everything.

I can think of very few cards in the game I would potentially ever want more than 3 of (for multiple decks simultaneously). So the whole thing is a pretty big annoyance.

As to the content... there is a lot of it now, but an insistence on themeing various (too small) runs of cards to pretty much unique keywords/mechanics and failing to provide adequate expansion/support to those outside of the run (especially combined with the earlier run card number issues) makes entire major game mechanics or deck themes pretty stupid and whole runs of cards pretty much worthless.

Gameplay wise I'd very probably be better off breaking out my old collection from their CCG era than my actual complete collection from their LCG era, and there is no fucking excuse in hell for THAT bullshit.

Oh and PS, what the fuck is with the much better looking card layout/art on the game night kit promo card things no one has?

[TheFlatline]

Yeah the worst was probably Lord of the Rings Co-Op. Gandalf, which was in the starter, was more or less one of the most powerful cards, and I suspect still powerful. But you only got 1 per starter set. And you *could* have up to 4.

I'm not sure what you're smoking, but you got that almost exactly backwards. The deck limit is 3/deck, and there are four Gandalfs in the Core box. He's literally the only card you get a surfeit of.

There are a number of annoyingly desirable cards you only get one of in a core box, so the complaint isn't invalid, you just picked a counter-example as your example.

They must have changed the print run then because I remember people screaming, loudly, on initial release that you needed to buy (you're right it's 3 my apologies) 3 core sets to get all the Gandalfs.

[ghost whistler]

Yeah the worst was probably Lord of the Rings Co-Op. Gandalf, which was in the starter, was more or less one of the most powerful cards, and I suspect still powerful. But you only got 1 per starter set. And you *could* have up to 4.

At least in the expansions they got their head out of their ass and just gave you 4 dupes of every card to end all debate.

As far as their board games, you haven't seen baroque until you've seen Android.

FFG sees fit ti add rules solely to add components. They aren't even bad rules, but just a chore to set up.

But you did get enough Gandalf's in the core box. I however sold my core set on because I stupidly believed that, buying into an LCG, i'd get enough in the box.

Releasing 1 expansion every month, even though they are complete, is not really any less financially rapine than the old models of ccg distribution.

On Google+ the FFG fanboys are getting somewhat butthurt over a review of the star wars games by the Alexandrian (or whatever he calls himself). To be fair, the review is reasonable and pretty accurate.

I can forgive a lot in game design, but when you design rules you then don't explain, ignore or then don't use (such as the Astrogation talent mentioned elswhere). Then you are taking the piss. Unfortunately FFG's game designers are either crap or subject to a crap regime that is not allowing them to do their job. I cannot forgive the shitheap that is Dark Heresy 2.

[ghost whistler]

Gameplay wise I'd very probably be better off breaking out my old collection from their CCG era than my actual complete collection from their LCG era, and there is no fucking excuse in hell for THAT bullshit.

Be thankful you don't play Game of Thrones which, in LCG format, has beeng going for years. The new edition due out imminently I'm told is incompatible with the previous edition.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Can anyone explain why in the fuck FFG uses the system that it does?

I strongly feel that any TTRPG resolution mechanic should either let you do an off-the-cuff calculation of your chances to succeed (e.g. D&D) and/or your average result (e.g. Shadowrun). FFG's Characteristic + Ability dice-switching mechanic isn't too awful since it's just adding the averages of two dicepools, but what's all this nonsense about having Successes, Failures, Trumphs, Despairs, Threats, and Advantages? Goddammit, why is that necessary? I understand wanting to have non-binary results, but sane systems just use a simple threshold of success or failure.

[Mistborn]

I think the goal is just to make the system more opaque so how shitty it is is less obvious. Either that or because they think quantum bears a good idea.

[Longes]

Can anyone explain why in the fuck FFG uses the system that it does?

I strongly feel that any TTRPG resolution mechanic should either let you do an off-the-cuff calculation of your chances to succeed (e.g. D&D) and/or your average result (e.g. Shadowrun). FFG's Characteristic + Ability dice-switching mechanic isn't too awful since it's just adding the averages of two dicepools, but what's all this nonsense about having Successes, Failures, Trumphs, Despairs, Threats, and Advantages? Goddammit, why is that necessary? I understand wanting to have non-binary results, but sane systems just use a simple threshold of success or failure.

People seem to actually like it. "It drives the plot forward in new and unexpected ways", though from my experience all the threats and advantages on succeessful/failed tests usually ammounted to minor penalties/bonuses.
But I think the real answer is "to convince people to buy three 40$ books full of same text and then also buy funky dice.

[fbmf]

Can anyone explain why in the fuck FFG uses the system that it does?

But I think the real answer is "to convince people to buy...funky dice.

This.

If your game is the STAR WARS logo emblazoned on it, the fan boys are going to eat it up. Why not also make them buy your proprietary dice in the bargain?

Game On,
fbmf

[Pixels]

Or spend half an hour writing a roller.

But yeah, the system's odds are very opaque. The main reason I wrote a roller (rather than use existing online resources) was to answer questions like:
- What are the chances of hitting an enemy with a given dice pool?
- What is my expected damage when single-wielding? Dual-wielding?
- How are these numbers affected by adding a blue die? Upgrading a green to a yellow die? Adding 1 damage?
I couldn't answer them easily with pen and paper.

[ghost whistler]

Can anyone explain why in the fuck FFG uses the system that it does?

I strongly feel that any TTRPG resolution mechanic should either let you do an off-the-cuff calculation of your chances to succeed (e.g. D&D) and/or your average result (e.g. Shadowrun). FFG's Characteristic + Ability dice-switching mechanic isn't too awful since it's just adding the averages of two dicepools, but what's all this nonsense about having Successes, Failures, Trumphs, Despairs, Threats, and Advantages? Goddammit, why is that necessary? I understand wanting to have non-binary results, but sane systems just use a simple threshold of success or failure.

It's simple enough, there are just too many results. It didn't need triumphs and despairs. they could have just said you critical on getting X successes or X fails. Triumphs/Despairs are sort of success/advantages but not and they're crits. Or something. That, I can never remember poroperly.

[Chamomile]

Can anyone explain why in the fuck FFG uses the system that it does?

Someone overheard Frank talking about their 40k RPGs and making an off-handed remark about how d100 roll-under is about the worst resolution system you can have. They took it as a challenge.

[sandmann]

Can anyone explain why in the fuck FFG uses the system that it does?
(...) what's all this nonsense about having Successes, Failures, Trumphs, Despairs, Threats, and Advantages? Goddammit, why is that necessary? I understand wanting to have non-binary results, but sane systems just use a simple threshold of success or failure.

It made (more) sense, when the system was part of the Warhammer RPG. All those gamecards, for talents, traits, equipment, they all had ways to use your dice-results. And then they cut those away, and now you need to pull shit out of your ass every tims you make a die roll...