So, I actually read his review. I agree there are advice inconsistencies between skills, however I don't agree with it being due to sloppy/ignorant design. The way I've looked at it is "skill relevance" for lack of a better term. Take the Lore skill (no matter which one). Overall, it can be considered a minor skill when compared to Ranged or Brawl, for example, but can be very useful in guiding what a character knows. To let some piece of relevant information "slip" through on a failure, while still feeling the pinch of failure (you don't know the whole bit) is perfectly acceptable. It's not game-breaking. Cutting down hacking time for Computers while doing something else for Survival is acceptable as they have different flavors. If your group lets the 6 successes rolled on a Survival check to find sustenance mean you not only found food for days, but shelter as well, awesome! Rolled another 6 successes, this time with 4 Advantage, to find a safe path to the enemy base? Great! Perhaps travel time is cut down and you end up in an advantageous spot to spy on the enemy. Again, the symbols lend mechanical weight to the moment's narrative, guiding the story, not controlling it.

Rolled really well but can't figure out how your character's actions would apply them to an ally who's nowhere near you? It's narrative in regards to the story, not just the rolling character's personal universe. Let those Advantages push the story forward as a whole, not just in regards to that one action. Or, as has been stated many times, don't use them.

Although there's advice on what to do with the symbols, all they really do is give mechanical guidance to what in most games, ends up being hand-waving.

One example I love is how most games would handle making a melee attack, but wanting to get some mechanical benefit from kicking an opponent as well. In many games that would be two actions with or without penalties, splitting a dice pool, one action with penalties, a power, just not possible, etc. With this system, when you slash at the Stormtrooper and hit with Advantage, you can say that you cut him, then kicked him back/knocked him down/stunned him with the pommel/inflicted a terrible wound/disarmed him/etc. You don't need to reference charts or do fancy math, you just go with the flow and create memorable moments.

Another fantastic, often-overlooked gem are the "modifiers" of Boost and Setback dice. They're a great way to change the difficulty of actions with ease in a story-enhancing way. Add in Talents that remove Setback dice and the system strengthens, especially for characters who have those abilities.

The system works and works well. I've had novice players dive in right away and love it, then go to another system and comment that they miss the FFG system. To me, that shows the system's strength.

This is a VERY good point. Justin has assumed that skill results should be normalized. But is Lore really equal in value to Ranged (Light)? Maybe it SHOULD have easier "win" criteria.

Okay, now I out the tablet down and sleep.

Okay, now I out the tablet down and sleep.

Which shows that you don't really know the system, as it is not a committee at all. Players advocate what their positive results bring to the table within a boundary set by the gm. GM's put forward the negative.

Now some groups enjoy determining fun results and discussing them, but there is no need to do so if you are not interested.

All I hear is "do whatever you feel like maaaaaan, as long as its one of the fixed results in the rules". So why not just roll ******* normal dice if all that's going to happen is a fixed result. All I know is Edge is an overrated pile of crap. I'm out. I've said my piece and anymore would just be negatively affecting me.

Edit

None of your examples are RPG game developers Einstein they're videogame developers. Might want to go back to the drawing board before you start hitting the logical fallacies.

As creator of the Off-hand Comment, I hereby declare that it is not limited to RPGs.

Okay, now I out the tablet down and sleep.

Awwwwwewwwwwe.

Now I can't sleep because I'm giggling.

G'night everyone. Don't argue too hard without me.

Okay, now I out the tablet down and sleep.

Awwwwwewwwwwe.

Now I can't sleep because I'm giggling.

G'night everyone. Don't argue too hard without me.

Snoozy you are. To sleep you must go.

(snip)

As designed, the core mechanic is making you jump through a lot of needlessly inconsistent hoops in order to feed you information that is needlessly complicated. This is sloppy design and it's a major problem.

Evidence of this sloppy design can also be found permeating the entire system . And, again, you can ignore the sloppily inconsistent skill guidelines completely here. Toss that entire chapter out of the book and you'll still find plenty of other mechanics (as the review offers examples of) which are inconsistent for no particularly good reason .

As many people in this thread have said, of course, you can simply choose to not use any of the rules in the rulebook. But, ultimately, that doesn't actually change the rulebook. Which is what I was reviewing.

What examples were those? You seemed to focus specifically on Skills.

You do have a point that the used for extra success or advantage and threat for skills is not applied evenly across skills.

But you're making some very broad generalizations that I'm not seeing much evidence of or examples for.

I'd love to see some more examples and more specifics.

Well, I, for one, cannot wait to drop $60 on his fixes for what we thought was a perfectly cromulent, but is now obviously broken beyond recognition, rules system that we have been enjoying because we've been playing incorrectly by using the rules for almost a full year.

Thank you, Internet reviewer!

I don't know about you guys, but I can feel an abrupt segue into a thematically-linked but otherwise completely unrelated subject change coming on; one in which all participants feel a little nicer about the inconsequentialities we've been getting so uppity about.

Edit: wanted to use a semi-colon instead.

You use the heck out of that semi-colon!

You like that kinda thang, huh?

Edit: now with added Bean meme.

Whoa! That's a lot of awesome in one post, sir!

Wow, lots of angry people in here. It is just a review ...

I don't know about you guys, but I can feel an abrupt segue into a thematically-linked but otherwise completely unrelated subject change coming on; one in which all participants feel a little nicer about the inconsequentialities we've been getting so uppity about.

Edit: wanted to use a semi-colon instead.

You use the heck out of that semi-colon!

You like that kinda thang, huh?

Edit: now with added Bean meme.

Whoa! That's a lot of awesome in one post, sir!

Indeed it is. And I'm sure the man himself, Mr Sean Bean, would endorse the above exchange for a "Height of Cool in an Otherwise Nerdy and Unnecessarily Outraged Internet Discussion" award.

Edit: made the award sound more grandiose.

I will say that I was surprised to find out that Triumph's don't cancel Despair. So you can have a success (or failure) that has BOTH a Triumph and Despair?

Yes, and it's been a hoot every time.

Hi people!

For us, Edge is an "almost perfect", at least for our gaming style. We could score it as a 9 or 9,5, but even with that, we still use some house rules and still see a pair or "problems" with the system.

We used (mainly) "CANON" houserules, but there are two major problems that cannot be "fixed".

Game skill/attribute ranks are too short and this can bring, talking about math %, not so much difference about characters "skill levels" just with % terms. Stats go (generally) from 1 to 6, plus extra dices. The typical stats use to be 4/5 dices against 3/4 or above. In other systems with broad number possibilities this sensation is just "blurred" (I know you want it XD) but in that cases, appear a lot of other flaws.

This brings us to the second "problem": The game seems that isn't focused for extra-epic looooong game plays due to the short range of skills/stats.

Mechanically speaking, game begins to "break up" when the 6th dice uses to appear.

Suggestions are always welcome mates

PS: Please, don't say me: Start a new game XD

PS2: Fallout Shelter is sooo addictive XDD

Where as every dice roll in Edge line of rpgs is practically a committee.

Hmm, I feel I have to utter that most taboo of phrases: "You're doing it wrong."

I will say that I was surprised to find out that Triumph's don't cancel Despair. So you can have a success (or failure) that has BOTH a Triumph and Despair?

Yes, and it's been a hoot every time.

It's another fine Alderaanian morning. Make a vigilance check.

Despair: That's no moon.

Triumph: Heaven is real.

I will say that I was surprised to find out that Triumph's don't cancel Despair. So you can have a success (or failure) that has BOTH a Triumph and Despair?

Yes, and it's been a hoot every time.

It's another fine Alderaanian morning. Make a vigilance check.

Despair: That's no moon.

Triumph: Heaven is real.

I can't just "Like" this! This is too freakin' awesome!

Where as every dice roll in Edge line of rpgs is practically a committee.

Hmm, I feel I have to utter that most taboo of phrases: "You're doing it wrong."

Where as every dice roll in Edge line of rpgs is practically a committee.

Hmm, I feel I have to utter that most taboo of phrases: "You're doing it wrong."

Might I say they are, in fact, doing it right? I've mentioned other times that at my table, every roll draws the group in. Every other game I've played pushes the moment away, toward the individual. This does the opposite. There are cheers and groans, depending on the results, but the group is always involved. They give advice on how to intepret the symbols, share in the benefits and penalties, and make it an even more shared experience. That's a win in my book.

This strikes a chord. Part of the reason I'm feeling a little burnt out with FFGSW (and why I've been harping on about D&D5e) is how much the group relies on me as GM to interpret the pool. My two frequent players are my daughter and brother-in-law, and they don't consistently take the opportunity to add the narration. When my daughter goes for it, it's usually tantamount to "and I win the adventure and every future adventure also and somewhere out there the emperor has a stroke", which we then have to dial back a little. Perhaps I need to push the group GMing aspect a little more.

I read this one line and had to laugh:

" So I talked to people who were playing the game. And what I discovered is that people who were enjoying the system were almost universally not playing it according to the rules ."

Not a single example follows. I don't suppose it occurred to the reviewer to come to this community and see how people play, where the exact opposite happens, where people are regularly encouraged to play it RAW ...no, that would interfere with writing a quick hit piece, and through controversy draw people to his site.

Certainly I think there are flaws in the system: space combat and the Move power are my beefs. But those are pretty minor in the scheme of things. I've been playing RPGs since the original D&D little paperbacks, and explored quite a few different games, and everyone of them has had major issues. In contrast, this game is rock solid. The core is brilliant, and every game I end up thankful because of it. My players love it too...I was originally worried they'd be too fossilized to try this "new fangled" narrative, cooperative, non-tactical game, but they took to it quickly, and were solid with the dice after only 20 minutes. I don't know what's wrong with the reviewer's intended audience, but if my friends can adopt this game, most people should be able to.

Where as every dice roll in Edge line of rpgs is practically a committee.

Hmm, I feel I have to utter that most taboo of phrases: "You're doing it wrong."

Might I say they are, in fact, doing it right? I've mentioned other times that at my table, every roll draws the group in. Every other game I've played pushes the moment away, toward the individual. This does the opposite. There are cheers and groans, depending on the results, but the group is always involved. They give advice on how to intepret the symbols, share in the benefits and penalties, and make it an even more shared experience. That's a win in my book.

Yes, that's a positive spin on my comment I agree, and I always ask for input. I might have something planned for a Triumph in a certain situation, but if the players comes up with something of their own, that's great!

It's the tone of the word "committee" I was responding to...it implies endless debate and a discussion that bogs down the action, whereas in my experience the dialogue with the players is usually one of excitement over the possibilities. So...if one is letting the discussion bog the action down and the excitement is not there, then...one is doing it wrong.

Well, this Alexadrian guy is so full of himself it is pathetic. He is a world renowned author, Thespian, inventor, statesman, diplomat, carsalesmen...you name it.

I checked out his site, and will never go back, he is not worth the agitation, heartache, and annoyance to me. I have better things to do with my time than try to argue with an egomaniac. If he doesn't like it, I'm ok with that. I just wish he would have stated up front that he hates the system because he didn't make it, and his game he made is so much better.

For all the people that hate this system, yet come here to cry about, please just go away. I hate Pathfinder, but I do not feel the need to go on their forums and tell them how much that game sucks. Because you know what, for them, it does not suck. They love it, so why try to dissuade them. Why is it in human nature that when we don't like something we are appalled by those that do? For me, I am happy for the people that love Pathfinder. That game is just not for me. My big gripe about it is the level thing. I hate levels. Some people love them. Great, more power to you. So why do people feel the need to come on here and tells us about these other systems that "are so much better" then the FFG SW games?

For me if my group can't narrate the dice to us for their own rolls, then they can not pass along the mechanical effects of it. Sorry Pac Man, it is not an issue with the system, it is an issue with your players. If they don't want to play this game, then why are they? "I win the game and every game" sounds a little too immature for a player for me. It is great that you want to game with your daughter, but is seems like she could care less. I don't know. But that is not a valid gripe about this system.

For me, I have about three basic House Rules. So I pretty much play this game by the book, and I love it. None of my House Rules really change anything in the game either.

The interwbz: "I can feel the hate flow through you"

Where as every dice roll in Edge line of rpgs is practically a committee.

Hmm, I feel I have to utter that most taboo of phrases: "You're doing it wrong."

Might I say they are, in fact, doing it right? I've mentioned other times that at my table, every roll draws the group in. Every other game I've played pushes the moment away, toward the individual. This does the opposite. There are cheers and groans, depending on the results, but the group is always involved. They give advice on how to intepret the symbols, share in the benefits and penalties, and make it an even more shared experience. That's a win in my book.

This strikes a chord. Part of the reason I'm feeling a little burnt out with FFGSW (and why I've been harping on about D&D5e) is how much the group relies on me as GM to interpret the pool. My two frequent players are my daughter and brother-in-law, and they don't consistently take the opportunity to add the narration. When my daughter goes for it, it's usually tantamount to "and I win the adventure and every future adventure also and somewhere out there the emperor has a stroke", which we then have to dial back a little. Perhaps I need to push the group GMing aspect a little more.

OK, your daughter's response is adorable and awesome, even if not conducive to the longer story.

At the risk of seeming like I'm offering the One True Way (which I am not) I've had the same issue with certain players. They see Triumphs...especially multiple ones...as an "I win!" button. I subtlety dialed it back and it just smoothed out. As far as being burned out from interpreting most of the results, I had the same thing at times. I just started using the symbols to tell the story I liked best. The players felt accomplishment through choices and rolls, enjoyed my vibrant explanation of the moment, and I got to shine as GM. I guess I took a lack of interpretative interaction on their part as my cue to create what I like and they'd hopefully enjoy.

Where as every dice roll in Edge line of rpgs is practically a committee.

Hmm, I feel I have to utter that most taboo of phrases: "You're doing it wrong."

Might I say they are, in fact, doing it right? I've mentioned other times that at my table, every roll draws the group in. Every other game I've played pushes the moment away, toward the individual. This does the opposite. There are cheers and groans, depending on the results, but the group is always involved. They give advice on how to intepret the symbols, share in the benefits and penalties, and make it an even more shared experience. That's a win in my book.

Yes, that's a positive spin on my comment I agree, and I always ask for input. I might have something planned for a Triumph in a certain situation, but if the players comes up with something of their own, that's great!

It's the tone of the word "committee" I was responding to...it implies endless debate and a discussion that bogs down the action, whereas in my experience the dialogue with the players is usually one of excitement over the possibilities. So...if one is letting the discussion bog the action down and the excitement is not there, then...one is doing it wrong.

I understand and agree. It was more a poke at the "committee" comment in what's a group experience. Rather counterintuitive, in some ways. Besides, is it ever good to have what amounts to bickering over dice rolls? That's not an FFGSW thing, that can happen in any group, with any game.

Anyway, it's awesome you experience it the same way.

I read this one line and had to laugh:

" So I talked to people who were playing the game. And what I discovered is that people who were enjoying the system were almost universally not playing it according to the rules ."

Not a single example follows. I don't suppose it occurred to the reviewer to come to this community and see how people play, where the exact opposite happens, where people are regularly encouraged to play it RAW ...no, that would interfere with writing a quick hit piece, and through controversy draw people to his site.

Certainly I think there are flaws in the system: space combat and the Move power are my beefs. But those are pretty minor in the scheme of things. I've been playing RPGs since the original D&D little paperbacks, and explored quite a few different games, and everyone of them has had major issues. In contrast, this game is rock solid. The core is brilliant, and every game I end up thankful because of it. My players love it too...I was originally worried they'd be too fossilized to try this "new fangled" narrative, cooperative, non-tactical game, but they took to it quickly, and were solid with the dice after only 20 minutes. I don't know what's wrong with the reviewer's intended audience, but if my friends can adopt this game, most people should be able to.

Sorry, given what you think "blows", I'm going to have to discount your opinion as complete trash.

Sorry Pac Man, it is not an issue with the system, it is an issue with your players. If they don't want to play this game, then why are they? "I win the game and every game" sounds a little too immature for a player for me. It is great that you want to game with your daughter, but is seems like she could care less. I don't know. But that is not a valid gripe about this system.

1) I never said there was an issue with the system. Nearly all my comments on the system ever have been quite to the contrary.

2) My daughter is 9.

3) I was exaggerating in my example of her suggestion (hence the word "tantamount").

Edit: clarity.

Well, this Alexadrian guy is so full of himself it is pathetic. He is a world renowned author, Thespian, inventor, statesman, diplomat, carsalesmen...you name it.

I checked out his site, and will never go back, he is not worth the agitation, heartache, and annoyance to me. I have better things to do with my time than try to argue with an egomaniac. If he doesn't like it, I'm ok with that. I just wish he would have stated up front that he hates the system because he didn't make it, and his game he made is so much better.

For all the people that hate this system, yet come here to cry about, please just go away. I hate Pathfinder, but I do not feel the need to go on their forums and tell them how much that game sucks. Because you know what, for them, it does not suck. They love it, so why try to dissuade them. Why is it in human nature that when we don't like something we are appalled by those that do? For me, I am happy for the people that love Pathfinder. That game is just not for me. My big gripe about it is the level thing. I hate levels. Some people love them. Great, more power to you. So why do people feel the need to come on here and tells us about these other systems that "are so much better" then the FFG SW games?

For me if my group can't narrate the dice to us for their own rolls, then they can not pass along the mechanical effects of it. Sorry Pac Man, it is not an issue with the system, it is an issue with your players. If they don't want to play this game, then why are they? "I win the game and every game" sounds a little too immature for a player for me. It is great that you want to game with your daughter, but is seems like she could care less. I don't know. But that is not a valid gripe about this system.

For me, I have about three basic House Rules. So I pretty much play this game by the book, and I love it. None of my House Rules really change anything in the game either.

The interwbz: "I can feel the hate flow through you"

I agree that haters gonna hate, and that sucks. You're right not to spew crap about PF on their forums, but sadly, others don't share your view and you can't control that. You can only embrace those who love the game or, at worst, give well-thought, constructive criticism. "FFGSW sux ballz!" isn't worth any of our time.

At the risk of speaking for Pac Man, I don't think he was griping about the system, just that it can lend itself to frustration when you, as GM, are burdened with everything, including interpreting each roll. I've been there, and not just with SW. I call it "baby-birding" and I can't stand it from players who have an ounce of experience. If a player is interactive in other ways but doesn't like/feel comfortable with interpreting the rolls, I'm fine with that. By me doing it they'll either have an example or be entertained.