I'm not a big fan of duplicate species across the splat books. It bothers me that others couldn't be found to populate the books. I get that the fluff is different but they are mechanically identical and thus aggravates my OCD on pointless repetition.

Huh, that doesn't bother my OCD at all. Brains are weird...

We should not discount anything we haven't playtested ourselves. While an observation may pose a question, too, don't discount how well any certain species or specialization is fun for someone else.

We can criticize FFG over anything we'd like, but we must seek positive change or be cast-off as simple whiners. One way to be more positive is to offer a specific solution. For examples:

Don't Expect Any Change Example: I think Gungans are stupid and ugly. I'd never want to play one.

Observations: If Gungans had higher Intellect, I'd be more inclined to play one. With Binks as an example, wouldn't we expect to see Agility, not Presence, as their highest characteristic?

Playtested Criticism: While I thought Gungans should have higher Agility, don't forget their Athletics skill rank. We have a Gungan Bounty Hunter in our playgroup- he tracks aquatic criminals, and his improved ability to swim would have been too unbalancing for our campaign.

If we may more closely follow these guidelines, we may better influence FFG.

Lots of stuff is illegal in the Empire. You'll probably end up smuggling something at some point, knowingly or not, no matter what you do, when you fly around with a ship in space... In my campaign, the players are technically all smugglers, even if only one of them has the career

True, we have a Sith Holocron and a disruptor rifle on our ship. I'm really considering an investment in a smuggler's hold. You know, just in case.

Here's one thing that I wish there was, and it would really alleviate a lot of irritation in my games: a player's handbook, with an abridged skill list, suggestions for Destiny Points, and the list of incidentals, maneuvers, and actions that players can do. Maybe some of the charts for spending dice results, critical charts, etc. Nothing comprehensive or nitty-gritty, but enough that a new player won't be overwhelmed by the CRB, and the players can have it on hand as a reference if it's ever needed.

If I had the ability to make official looking PDFs, I'd make one myself (not for general distribution, though).

Here's one thing that I wish there was, and it would really alleviate a lot of irritation in my games: a player's handbook, with an abridged skill list, suggestions for Destiny Points, and the list of incidentals, maneuvers, and actions that players can do. Maybe some of the charts for spending dice results, critical charts, etc. Nothing comprehensive or nitty-gritty, but enough that a new player won't be overwhelmed by the CRB, and the players can have it on hand as a reference if it's ever needed.

If I had the ability to make official looking PDFs, I'd make one myself (not for general distribution, though).

GM Hooly has already done a good bit of this. You should check out his stuff.

Yea I agree a phb would be handy. A phb sadly doesn't fit the current formate and would make the product line feel messy, incoherent and all over the place. It would be great as a fanmade supplement though... Or maybe as a free pdf (or one you can buy if they ever get that licence).

I haven't played enough to have much to complain. Smuggler is my favourite career, but I understand the DanteRotterdam's point, name of career is kind of misleading. IMO scoundrel would be better. Hired gun is maybe my least favourite career.

Maybe my biggest problem is that I'd like to have more ready made adventures. But I understand why not (sourcebooks sell more than adventures). Now I have gathered all (free, fan made) I have found from web, and bought what is sold at local gaming store. I just like to have lots of examples and idea sources when I'm creating my own adventures.

I've had the same frustration about the Smuggler name since the game came out. Scoundrel would have been fine, and made a whole lot more sense. It would have been thematic, since Leia called Han a Scoundrel right from the start.

I dislike how the Bodyguard specialization is better passed over when creating a bodyguard. Instructor and Protector are both better choices with Improved Bodyguard, which allows them to directly take a shot for the person they're guarding.

I dislike how the Bodyguard specialization is better passed over when creating a bodyguard. Instructor and Protector are both better choices with Improved Bodyguard, which allows them to directly take a shot for the person they're guarding.

Unfortunately, I think it's simply a case of system evolution, with the older material being less viable than the new shiny. Saw this happen quite a bit with D&D, especially with 4e as the new PHBs rolled out.

Not saying you're wrong, because you're certainly not, but Bodyguard is a case where a total overhaul is needed to make it truly viable, but not something we're likely to see unless a new edition is published.

I dislike how the Bodyguard specialization is better passed over when creating a bodyguard. Instructor and Protector are both better choices with Improved Bodyguard, which allows them to directly take a shot for the person they're guarding.

Unfortunately, I think it's simply a case of system evolution, with the older material being less viable than the new shiny. Saw this happen quite a bit with D&D, especially with 4e as the new PHBs rolled out.

Not saying you're wrong, because you're certainly not, but Bodyguard is a case where a total overhaul is needed to make it truly viable, but not something we're likely to see unless a new edition is published.

That would be the dreaded "Feature Creep". It's VERY hard to avoid in design, as you correct real or perceived errors/flaws in prior concepts. I've looked for a lot of this in Career Specializations and while there are a few minor examples like this, we should generally be happy with what FFG has NOT done -- which is to give in to the creep wholesale. I was especially worried about this with F&D's Jedi vs. Force Sensitives, but my fears have been largely alleviated with how they have played out on the table.

Prior to running this system, I ran Iron Kingdoms for a while; and it had a similar issue with career names. 'Pirate' was really the only career that offered any seamanship skills, while 'Highwayman' was (at least initially) the only really good light cavalry career. And so I impressed upon my players not to get too hung up on the names of things, and to just look at what the career offered.

When I started up FFG Star Wars, I told them the same thing ahead of time. And as I've mentioned elsewhere on this forum, only two of my seven players are playing characters whose career names actually describe their backgrounds. The important thing, at least in my opinion, is to choose a specialization which offers what you want or otherwise fits your character. The name is just a name.

And it doesn't stop at Career / Specialization names. I have a player who is considering 'Scholar' and he asked me if he could replace 'Respected Scholar' with another talent, since there was nothing in his background to suggest that he'd ever been a big name in academia. I told him the same thing: "Ignore the name; just look at what it does . It basically means that you're good at dealing with academic types. That could be because you're a big name or that could just be because you're smart and you're a 'people person' and you know how to talk to those kinds of people. It really doesn't matter. They needed something to call the talent, and that's what they went with. Don't worry about it."

I'll post in a new thread. My post could potentially derail this thread, and I don't want to do that.

I dislike how the Bodyguard specialization is better passed over when creating a bodyguard. Instructor and Protector are both better choices with Improved Bodyguard, which allows them to directly take a shot for the person they're guarding.

Unfortunately, I think it's simply a case of system evolution, with the older material being less viable than the new shiny. Saw this happen quite a bit with D&D, especially with 4e as the new PHBs rolled out.

Not saying you're wrong, because you're certainly not, but Bodyguard is a case where a total overhaul is needed to make it truly viable, but not something we're likely to see unless a new edition is published.

That would be the dreaded "Feature Creep". It's VERY hard to avoid in design, as you correct real or perceived errors/flaws in prior concepts. I've looked for a lot of this in Career Specializations and while there are a few minor examples like this, we should generally be happy with what FFG has NOT done -- which is to give in to the creep wholesale. I was especially worried about this with F&D's Jedi vs. Force Sensitives, but my fears have been largely alleviated with how they have played out on the table.

This is actually why I was only half joking when I suggested a second edition to the game. Feature Creep is unavoidable in a new game system. As the developers and players get more used to the system, new ideas come forward that are better than others, so the early published material gets a bit weaker by comparison.

One of the things an edition is supposed to adjust things like that to balance out the materials published early versus the stuff published late.

So now the game has been out a few years I thought it might be fun to discuss some of the things that we didn't like, but(!) I don't mean system wise and I don't mean "oh, the three lines"-wise but more along the following what in the CRB (EotE) didn't work for you?

From a purely core rulebook layout standpoint, two things -

1) The information is occasionally laid out weird, with bits and pieces spread throughout the book, forcing you to page jump around to look stuff up (and I mean more so than any other gaming book). A minor thing, but it's annoying.

2) Not a huge fan of the font. I'm not as in a bad a shape as my co-gm, who is blind as a bat - but some higher contrast between font and the page would be appreciated by my 47 year old eyes.

As far as the actual game mechanics go, the only issue I have with the engine is the vehicle combat isn't that great. I don't mean chases - those are fine - just the actual dogfighting doesn't work for me. Tracking ranges and bennies are a pain and it just feels clunky. That said, none of the three systems have ever done vehicle combat to my satisfaction. So yeah, I just shrug my shoulders and roll with it.

EDIT - Oh, forgot one other aspect of the game engine I don't like: Morality sucks .

So now the game has been out a few years I thought it might be fun to discuss some of the things that we didn't like, but(!) I don't mean system wise and I don't mean "oh, the three lines"-wise but more along the following what in the CRB (EotE) didn't work for you?

From a purely core rulebook layout standpoint, two things -

1) The information is occasionally laid out weird, with bits and pieces spread throughout the book, forcing you to page jump around to look stuff up (and I mean more so than any other gaming book). A minor thing, but it's annoying.

2) Not a huge fan of the font. I'm not as in a bad a shape as my co-gm, who is blind as a bat - but some higher contrast between font and the page would be appreciated by my 47 year old eyes.

As far as the actual game mechanics go, the only issue I have with the engine is the vehicle combat isn't that great. I don't mean chases - those are fine - just the actual dogfighting doesn't work for me. Tracking ranges and bennies are a pain and it just feels clunky. That said, none of the three systems have ever done vehicle combat to my satisfaction. So yeah, I just shrug my shoulders and roll with it.

EDIT - Oh, forgot one other aspect of the game engine I don't like: Morality sucks .

If you think it bothers your eyes...

Is it possible for a career and specs to be unbalanced in a game that could focus on any type of encounters and challenges? How would a combat heavy dude be overpowered in a game with very few combat encounters for example? The character with the most xp in my game is the absolute worst in combat of the crew, with 1 in brawn, 2 in agility and absolutely no combat skills or combat focused talents. The new player focused her character on combat and is way better in that aspect from the get go...

And isn't it valid in this game only to focus on characteristics and skills and have no talents? And does anyone of us have any idea why the talent trees are made as they are, so different with the lines between the talents?

Sure, some have more preferable talents than others, I agree! But unbalanced in a game where most choices are valid and power level doesn't matter and a new PC and one with over 300 earned xp both have their specialities and works fine in a group together? .... This isn't d&d

I hate the read-aloud text in the adventures for two reasons. 1) I find the color combination really hinders legibility making me squint and causing me to misread too frequently for my happiness. 2) it's written in a style that I find antithetical to the mood I'm trying to convey. Oh and 3) don't put sound effects in the read aloud text!

I hate the read-aloud text in the adventures for two reasons. 1) I find the color combination really hinders legibility making me squint and causing me to misread too frequently for my happiness. 2) it's written in a style that I find antithetical to the mood I'm trying to convey. Oh and 3) don't put sound effects in the read aloud text!

Rule #1 for published scenarios: never run them as-is, they are only idea-mines.

I hate the read-aloud text in the adventures for two reasons. 1) I find the color combination really hinders legibility making me squint and causing me to misread too frequently for my happiness. 2) it's written in a style that I find antithetical to the mood I'm trying to convey. Oh and 3) don't put sound effects in the read aloud text!

Rule #1 for published scenarios: never run them as-is, they are only idea-mines.

Yep - I thought I could relax a bit with the FFG stuff because the quality of the books is so high. But I'm learning that the adventures need some TLC if you want them to go smooth. Unfortunately, I run this system sporadically (when my daughter is home from college) so I'm not getting enough experience to become proficient.

I hate the read-aloud text in the adventures for two reasons. 1) I find the color combination really hinders legibility making me squint and causing me to misread too frequently for my happiness. 2) it's written in a style that I find antithetical to the mood I'm trying to convey. Oh and 3) don't put sound effects in the read aloud text!

Rule #1 for published scenarios: never run them as-is, they are only idea-mines.

I don't necessarily agree with this "rule". Especially new GM's can really benefit from them. And from time to time I myself like running them... Boxed text however go straight out the window.

Rule #1 for published scenarios: never run them as-is, they are only idea-mines.

Word.

And in the case of FFG, they also like to put player-usable crunch into them to make people like me actually buy them.

Rule #1 for published scenarios: never run them as-is, they are only idea-mines.

I don't necessarily agree with this "rule". Especially new GM's can really benefit from them. And from time to time I myself like running them... Boxed text however go straight out the window.

Rule #2 is to ignore Rule #1 if you feel like it.

I agree with the suggestion made earlier that some skills overlap too much. Actually, I'd probably get rid of about half the skills - fold all the combat skills into melee and ranged, half the knowledges, and double up most of the others. It just feels wrong to have a light repeating blaster and a heavy repeating blaster be different skills while piloting everything between a submarine and a supersonic jet is apparently the same thing.

Morality also sucks, but the arguments for that have already been done to death.

1. I dont like Infiltrator. well at least i don't like the name. It sounds like a specialisation thats going to be amazing at sneaking into places to achieve an objective... yet not a single talent for Stealth or Skullduggery.
2. I dont like that most games barely pass 200xp, and if they do it takes a long time to get there. Having more than 1 Spec, a SigAb, or a couple of Force Powers is simply impossible with this setup. I wish Knight level had been 300xp, just to put it more into peoples heads that lots of xp is an ok thing. of course Min/Maxing would be easier, and a GM can do whatever they want at the start of a campaign, but its still a gripe of mine.
3. Space combat, Gunnery is a better skill for dogfighting than Piloting, Chases are best though, although they can encourage "slow and steady" with the difficult terrain rules.
4. Morality is crap. I wish I could find an easier way to use it, but with the general Player mentality that "using ANY dark side pips is heresy" makes the "Sleepwalk to Paragon" a real problem. When to award Conflict is so vague, due to the inherent differences between real world morality and SW morality, you have to be some mega star wars "i have read EVERYTHING" kind of person for it to be easy to explain, and even then the new player hasn't got a chance.
5. Wheres the new FAQ FFG grrrr

But dam do I love those dice, and the entire narrative system.