That's a two way street eeyore. I don't remember you citing any company memos.

Of course not.

In fact, nobody that posts on these boards will be able to, since FFG actually has a standing policy that unless it's for official-type announcements, none of their staff are permitted to post on these forums. Probably in place to prevent any accidental leaks of internal company info, namely details on upcoming products. I actually overhead this being confirmed by a couple of FFG staffers (neither of whom worked in the RPG department) while at GenCon in the FFG gaming area when someone asked why they never saw anyone at FFG make posts on the forums as opposed to some other RPG company (whose name I didn't catch) where the designers actively interact with the community.

Although, given how negatively I saw several Green Ronin folks (Steve Kenson, Chris Pramas, and Jon Leithuesser) treated over perceived differences (and said posters went way past rude) in the material they've published for both Mutants & Masterminds and the Dragon Age RPG on Green Ronin's own forums, I can't say that FFG having such a policy is a bad idea, particularly if such staff aren't moderators.

Edit: Actually, that might be a fairly recent policy, as I do recall seeing Jay Little under his forum handle of Ynnen post on various occasions prior to his leaving FFG for health reasons. Or at the very least, if FFG staff are allowed to post, it's only to do under a non-FFG handle. So for all we know, Sam Stewart could be posting in non-SWRPG parts of the forum under an entirely different name rather than FFG_Sam_Stewart. But I suspect they're generally busy enough with FFG products as their day job that the last thing they want to do is surf a message board discussing FFG products

Yes... But the context of my statement was that person x was accusing person y of not having facts to back up their statements. My comment was pointing out that the "facts" we're not presented anywhere. Hence asking for facts to back up an opposing agruement, while clearly unable to support your own was not a valid agruement.

I was never suggesting that FFG memos were floating on the ether. In fact, I thought I made an amusing reference to wiki-leaks and was exaggerating the importance of the level to which FFG preys on their consumers. It was never intended to be any kind of indictment on FFG privacy and non-disclosure policies.

Who knows, maybe we'll be lucky and they'll have it by X-Mass...

I can dream, right?

Well, I got the Beta for Edge of the Empire because I was really interested to see what FFG was doing. I got the Beta for Age of Rebellion because it's cheaper than the hardcover, and I didn't PLAN to buy the hardcover. I got the Beta for Force & Destiny because, even though I do plan to get the hardcover, again I wanted to see what they were doing, plus there's character sheets and a different adventure than will be in the Final.

So there ya go. We all have our reasons.

As far as I can tell, everything I wrote is a fact. Why don't you tell me what I wrote that you think is nonfactual, and we can go from there.

I take issue with these bolded parts:

Thing is, this is a different model that kinda needs to be in place due to 1) the nature of the gaming license with LFL which prohibits the production of "digital games" and 2) the expense of said license with LFL.

It's a model born out of necessity, but one that has been proven twice so far to be very efficient and successful.

He's a troll.

Who knows, maybe we'll be lucky and they'll have it by X-Mass...

I can dream, right?

As long as you aren't planning on it being available by X-Mas, sure dream away.

That's a two way street eeyore. I don't remember you citing any company memos.

Of course not.

In fact, nobody that posts on these boards will be able to, since FFG actually has a standing policy that unless it's for official-type announcements, none of their staff are permitted to post on these forums. Probably in place to prevent any accidental leaks of internal company info, namely details on upcoming products. I actually overhead this being confirmed by a couple of FFG staffers (neither of whom worked in the RPG department) while at GenCon in the FFG gaming area when someone asked why they never saw anyone at FFG make posts on the forums as opposed to some other RPG company (whose name I didn't catch) where the designers actively interact with the community.

Although, given how negatively I saw several Green Ronin folks (Steve Kenson, Chris Pramas, and Jon Leithuesser) treated over perceived differences (and said posters went way past rude) in the material they've published for both Mutants & Masterminds and the Dragon Age RPG on Green Ronin's own forums, I can't say that FFG having such a policy is a bad idea, particularly if such staff aren't moderators.

Very informative. Sad example about Green Ronin, but still interesting to know.

Who knows, maybe we'll be lucky and they'll have it by X-Mass...

I can dream, right?

As long as you aren't planning on it being available by X-Mas, sure dream away.

Well, an errata update maybe, which is what I figured he was talking about.

I'm looking for a copy of the beta, but not for good reasons. Based on what I've read, I find the game to be a complete dumpster fire.

Haven't seen anybody say that before, so it seems pretty harsh, especially considering previous games. What are your reasons?

That's a very good question. There are a few reasons why I find myself making this comment.

I want to say that I am a big fan of Edge of the Empire and Age of Rebellion. I really like what FFG has done with the games as a whole, and really enjoy the dice mechanics and approach they've taken with the game line. It's Force & Destiny specifically that I'm less than happy about.

First is the whole Jedi rawr thing. I prefer a Force and the portrayal of the Jedi that is far more subtle that what has been shown in previous Star Wars games, and most notable in the video games. EoE and AoR did this well and I really appreciated that subtly. But F&D just seems far too over the top to me. From what I've read and seen, I've drawn too many parallels to 40k's Deathwatch than I should. I see too many games focusing on these murder gangs of wannabe Jedi, so powerful that they completely eclipse the other two games and their characters. I see too many players hyperfocused on Jedi power fantasies, rather than being interested in exploring the Force and the tenants of the Jedi (or not exploring them, which is equally fine). EoE and AoR was all about reclaiming your destiny and rediscovering the Force, while too many games of F&D may be about the race to get a lightsaber and other Jedi booty. That Knight Play exists is proof of this.

Building on that is the portrayal of Force users. in the media, almost all of the titular characters come to the Force later in life (be they adults, adolescents, or children) and add that aspect of living to themselves. In game terms, EoE and AoR create three-dimensional Force users who are defined by their character, not solely by the Force. A Force user in these games is more than a Force user; they were pilots, soldiers, slicers, smugglers, diplomats, and more. These character are Force users but are also capable of other skills and abilities as well. But in F&D, you are a Force user, right to your very core. You are defined and grown solely by the Force. You are nothing but a Force user, because being anything but a Force user is suddenly a bad thing. You aren't a Force sensitive pilot, but rather a Force user who can pilot. Likewise, you aren't a Force using Diplomat, but a Force user who has some personal skills. While there are differences between the skills and talents available to characters, I find that many are simply going to be one-dimensional Force user number x. This perception, to me, inappropriately weights the importance of the Force while devaluing all other aspects of a character.

Lastly, but still building on these concepts, are the mechanical and game style differences that then arise from F&D versus the rest of the line. Simply put, I no longer see this game as being truly compatible with EoE or AoR. While the rules and mechanics are the same, F&D spits on the Force users portrayed in the rest of the line. Force users there are limited to two largely similar Universal specializations before having to pay more XP for non-career specs, while F&D characters immediately have access to 5 career or Universal specs (8 if you include career supplements). There is an immediate and arbitrary barrier placed on those who wish to take a more subtle concept of the Force, or for those who played through the previous two games. This makes future acquisition of those specs undesirable because a F&D character is just so much better (even if they do take non Force user specs). F&D characters can gain all of the abilities they need (Force or non-Force), while EoE and AoR Force users are by their nature far more limited in their options and their freedom to portray their character. This is why I think that the games are no longer as compatible as they should be.

This is why I'm looking for a copy of the beta. I have an idea that might help with this situation, bring the games closer together again, and prevent players from seeing one play style or mechanic as invalid. Rather than simply pout in the corner, I want to try and be a part of the solution. FFG needs to hear the negative feedback as well as the positive if this game is to be the best that it can be. Simply cheering that we can now finally sort of create Jedi doesn't address that and actually devalues the opinions and playing experience of those who feel the same way. While you can't please everyone, you can work to please as many as possible.

I hope that answers your question.

Heh heh. "Force users are too powerful" "Force-users are too weak" This is so popcorn-chewingly good and frikkin hilarious.

Building on that is the portrayal of Force users. in the media, almost all of the titular characters come to the Force later in life (be they adults, adolescents, or children) and add that aspect of living to themselves. In game terms, EoE and AoR create three-dimensional Force users who are defined by their character, not solely by the Force. A Force user in these games is more than a Force user; they were pilots, soldiers, slicers, smugglers, diplomats, and more. These character are Force users but are also capable of other skills and abilities as well. But in F&D, you are a Force user, right to your very core. You are defined and grown solely by the Force. You are nothing but a Force user, because being anything but a Force user is suddenly a bad thing.

You start off with a reasonable premise, and kind of ruin it with a bald assertion. I think the main thrust of your argument is founded on the mistaken idea that the Force using careers in F&D are somehow more potent than the EotE and AoR careers, and I just don't see that. XP for XP, they are pretty closely balanced. XP spent on Force powers is XP not spent on other Talents and Skills, which means in some ways, Dedication and +FR are further away. The Force careers start with fewer Skills. And the Force powers themselves are very subtle and grow slowly.

Now I can appreciate what you're saying about diversity...that the Force users should have the option of coming from different backgrounds or exploring new non-Force backgrounds...but think: they've already provided everything you need in EotE and AoR. Why repeat? The ground is covered. If they'd put in a new Thief or Mechanic or Trader or Infiltrator spec, they'd get accused of even more duplication than they already are.

I'm viewing F&D as more of a big fat expansion of EotE (AoR holds much less interest for me). It's the book that finally completes your ability to explore any character in the SW universe. It may be that some people will be happy to run F&D-only characters, which I would personally find unfortunate. If somebody wanted to run an Obiwan clone in my world, they'd be encouraged to branch out, at least into Politico or something. But having already explored the mundane side of things, they can hardly do it again in F&D.

I think I see what he (she?) is saying Whafrog though I may have missed the issue... By allowing characters to have whole careers that are force sensitive it creates a character arc where the character is not a hired gun and a force emergent, but instead is a force emergent.

Perhaps, if instead of 6 careers, with 3 specs each, there were 3 careers of non-force sensitive of some type, then 9-10 universal careers that worked more similarly to the emergent and exile that might help the idea that using the force can be attributed to the entire arc of a character's career... That's not coming out right.

In saga terms, it is like playing a game where only the non-jedi careers were a choice. And the force options were limited to the core book. All characters would be able to choose to use the force, but they would also be "something else" so they would never simply default back to force adept, or jedi. Then suddenly out comes a jedi book, that includes not just jedi, but 4 books worth of jedi and force using components all at once. this suddenly opens up space to design characters that are not X + Force user, but instead only force user.

I don't agree that a character is ever really only a force user, but I can see where this could trouble some people, as how many times did I see threads about how "everyone wants to be a jedi" and how that was disruptive because no one wanted to be a scoundrel.

I'm still not explaining it well, I don't think. And I don't really agree with the underlying assumption, but I think that's what he meant in that paragraph.

They have 2 books full of those careers. If you want to go down that arc use those 12 careers. We have 18 different careers to build characters with. we have 3 universal specs and 54 specializations to work with so far.

I am OK with 6 of those careers being force using careers. They are not more powerful than any other career. Those 6 careers star with fewer skills and those careers are very expensive XP wise.

Well, an errata update maybe, which is what I figured he was talking about.

Bet your bottom credit the final errata will be out before they warm up the Life Day Bantha rump roast.

As far as I can tell, everything I wrote is a fact. Why don't you tell me what I wrote that you think is nonfactual, and we can go from there.

Your number points probably are. Or as close to fact as would matter.

I take issue with these bolded parts:

Thing is, this is a different model that kinda needs to be in place due to 1) the nature of the gaming license with LFL which prohibits the production of "digital games" and 2) the expense of said license with LFL.

It's a model born out of necessity, but one that has been proven twice so far to be very efficient and successful.

Unless you've got access to some quotes from FFG? Those are pure conjecture on your part.

1) I'm assuming that the licensing agreement between FFG and LFL is substantial. This is conjecture, but is also based on the common-sense assumption that this market is competetive. FFG was certainly not the only company that wanted this gaming license.

2) The necessity of it comes from the fact that FFG has to pay for licensing (unless you think they don't?), and so cannot afford to put out a free product due to the cost of development in addition to licensing. If they were just dealing with development costs, perhaps they could put out a free Beta product like Wizards did with Next. Or perhaps not.

3) The "proven successful" bit is based on the advancement from Beta to Core Rulebook of EotE and AoR. Both times the process went very well, there was good feedback and the final product was much better than the Beta due to said feedback. I guess one could argue that based on one's perception of the final products, but it isn't conjecture.

What is conjecture is the continued assertion that this Beta process is a crass cash grab. So even if you've got a problem with the assumption that a license deal with LFL is costly, you still have no leg to stand on when declaring otherwise.

It can be a constructive process and a cash grab too.

but then it wouldn't be crass... would it?

Building on that is the portrayal of Force users. in the media, almost all of the titular characters come to the Force later in life (be they adults, adolescents, or children) and add that aspect of living to themselves. In game terms, EoE and AoR create three-dimensional Force users who are defined by their character, not solely by the Force. A Force user in these games is more than a Force user; they were pilots, soldiers, slicers, smugglers, diplomats, and more. These character are Force users but are also capable of other skills and abilities as well. But in F&D, you are a Force user, right to your very core. You are defined and grown solely by the Force. You are nothing but a Force user, because being anything but a Force user is suddenly a bad thing.

You start off with a reasonable premise, and kind of ruin it with a bald assertion. I think the main thrust of your argument is founded on the mistaken idea that the Force using careers in F&D are somehow more potent than the EotE and AoR careers, and I just don't see that. XP for XP, they are pretty closely balanced. XP spent on Force powers is XP not spent on other Talents and Skills, which means in some ways, Dedication and +FR are further away. The Force careers start with fewer Skills. And the Force powers themselves are very subtle and grow slowly.

Now I can appreciate what you're saying about diversity...that the Force users should have the option of coming from different backgrounds or exploring new non-Force backgrounds...but think: they've already provided everything you need in EotE and AoR. Why repeat? The ground is covered. If they'd put in a new Thief or Mechanic or Trader or Infiltrator spec, they'd get accused of even more duplication than they already are.

I'm viewing F&D as more of a big fat expansion of EotE (AoR holds much less interest for me). It's the book that finally completes your ability to explore any character in the SW universe. It may be that some people will be happy to run F&D-only characters, which I would personally find unfortunate. If somebody wanted to run an Obiwan clone in my world, they'd be encouraged to branch out, at least into Politico or something. But having already explored the mundane side of things, they can hardly do it again in F&D.

Make no mistake, I do not think FFG would be so terrible as to make one game's character statistically better than another's without reason. My concern is with the disconnect between the games and the artificial barriers and ceilings that are placed on characters, not some notion that F&D characters are better.

I too would like to see F&D as more of a supplement since I also think a band of Force users is a little ridiculous, but I can't even do that due to the disconnect I mentioned. As written, I just cannot see how Force users from the rest of the line are as viable and have as much advancement potential as F&D characters.

Anyways, that's my answer to your original question as to why I don't like this game. It's my opinion about the game, and I know that it isn't an opinion that is going to be common.

I too would like to see F&D as more of a supplement since I also think a band of Force users is a little ridiculous, but I can't even do that due to the disconnect I mentioned. As written, I just cannot see how Force users from the rest of the line are as viable and have as much advancement potential as F&D characters.

Aside from a few XP from having to take an additional specialization, I fail to see the lack of advancement possibilities as compared to the FS Emergent & FS Exile. Unless you mean that they have no access to anything in F&D at all. Is that where your belief in their ceilings arise?

That would just be plain silly if you want to focus on the Force.

That said, I am not trying to change your opinion simply understand it.

Building on that is the portrayal of Force users. in the media, almost all of the titular characters come to the Force later in life (be they adults, adolescents, or children) and add that aspect of living to themselves. In game terms, EoE and AoR create three-dimensional Force users who are defined by their character, not solely by the Force. A Force user in these games is more than a Force user; they were pilots, soldiers, slicers, smugglers, diplomats, and more. These character are Force users but are also capable of other skills and abilities as well. But in F&D, you are a Force user, right to your very core. You are defined and grown solely by the Force. You are nothing but a Force user, because being anything but a Force user is suddenly a bad thing.

You start off with a reasonable premise, and kind of ruin it with a bald assertion. I think the main thrust of your argument is founded on the mistaken idea that the Force using careers in F&D are somehow more potent than the EotE and AoR careers, and I just don't see that. XP for XP, they are pretty closely balanced. XP spent on Force powers is XP not spent on other Talents and Skills, which means in some ways, Dedication and +FR are further away. The Force careers start with fewer Skills. And the Force powers themselves are very subtle and grow slowly.

Now I can appreciate what you're saying about diversity...that the Force users should have the option of coming from different backgrounds or exploring new non-Force backgrounds...but think: they've already provided everything you need in EotE and AoR. Why repeat? The ground is covered. If they'd put in a new Thief or Mechanic or Trader or Infiltrator spec, they'd get accused of even more duplication than they already are.

I'm viewing F&D as more of a big fat expansion of EotE (AoR holds much less interest for me). It's the book that finally completes your ability to explore any character in the SW universe. It may be that some people will be happy to run F&D-only characters, which I would personally find unfortunate. If somebody wanted to run an Obiwan clone in my world, they'd be encouraged to branch out, at least into Politico or something. But having already explored the mundane side of things, they can hardly do it again in F&D.

Make no mistake, I do not think FFG would be so terrible as to make one game's character statistically better than another's without reason. My concern is with the disconnect between the games and the artificial barriers and ceilings that are placed on characters, not some notion that F&D characters are better.

I too would like to see F&D as more of a supplement since I also think a band of Force users is a little ridiculous, but I can't even do that due to the disconnect I mentioned. As written, I just cannot see how Force users from the rest of the line are as viable and have as much advancement potential as F&D characters.

Anyways, that's my answer to your original question as to why I don't like this game. It's my opinion about the game, and I know that it isn't an opinion that is going to be common.

They have the same advancement potential. They can take any of the specializations from F&D to get the same advancement potential. What artificial barrier or ceiling are you seeing? All the books are fully compatible with each other. You can take any additional specialization you want with few exceptions. Like droids can't take the force using universal specs.

They have the same advancement potential. They can take any of the specializations from F&D to get the same advancement potential. What artificial barrier or ceiling are you seeing? All the books are fully compatible with each other. You can take any additional specialization you want with few exceptions. Like droids can't take the force using universal specs.

Part of the concern has to be the small amount of XP that is saved by being able to choose a FS career rather than as a second specialization.

I don't see the ceiling either. Perhaps Scooter is thinking of the 3 spec limit from the EotE beta?

You don't save XP. You trade career skills and skill specializations for a force sensitive rating.
And there is no 3 spec limit anymore. that was one of the first things to go the way of the dodo in the first or second beta update as I recall.

It can be a constructive process and a cash grab too.

Ryan Dancey does a spit-take everytime someone calls a limited run of instantly obsolete $20 200+ page books a "cash grab."

They have the same advancement potential. They can take any of the specializations from F&D to get the same advancement potential. What artificial barrier or ceiling are you seeing? All the books are fully compatible with each other. You can take any additional specialization you want with few exceptions. Like droids can't take the force using universal specs.

Part of the concern has to be the small amount of XP that is saved by being able to choose a FS career rather than as a second specialization.

I don't see the ceiling either. Perhaps Scooter is thinking of the 3 spec limit from the EotE beta?

That small amount of XP turns into a big deal once you hit four or five specializations. Sure, it's only 10 XP, but that adds up quickly when no other Force users are paying it. That's the ceiling I'm referring to. EoE and AoR characters hit a ceiling on Force Rating at 3, while F&D characters have a much easier time advancing and for a longer period of time. I get non-career advancement, but only when that penalty makes sense (a martial or intellectual character trying to pick up a completely unrelated spec). But here, we have two different systems to represent the same thing. Characters following one system hit a very low ceiling while characters following the other may not hit that ceiling at all. There's little to no reason for that divide.

They have the same advancement potential. They can take any of the specializations from F&D to get the same advancement potential. What artificial barrier or ceiling are you seeing? All the books are fully compatible with each other. You can take any additional specialization you want with few exceptions. Like droids can't take the force using universal specs.

Part of the concern has to be the small amount of XP that is saved by being able to choose a FS career rather than as a second specialization.

I don't see the ceiling either. Perhaps Scooter is thinking of the 3 spec limit from the EotE beta?

That small amount of XP turns into a big deal once you hit four or five specializations. Sure, it's only 10 XP, but that adds up quickly when no other Force users are paying it. That's the ceiling I'm referring to. EoE and AoR characters hit a ceiling on Force Rating at 3, while F&D characters have a much easier time advancing and for a longer period of time. I get non-career advancement, but only when that penalty makes sense (a martial or intellectual character trying to pick up a completely unrelated spec). But here, we have two different systems to represent the same thing. Characters following one system hit a very low ceiling while characters following the other may not hit that ceiling at all. There's little to no reason for that divide.

Ummm they pay for it by having fewer skills. they get a force rating at thee expense of skills. Force using career have 1 less specialty skill and 1 less career skill.

So no they do not get force rating 1 for free.