This is labeled X-wing, but I'm pretty sure it's just as viable (if not moreso) here. I'll post my thoughts after this.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2016/8/29/a-villain-for-all-games/

Ugh. This again. This author's articles really miss the point of the rpgs. Everything he throws out there simply limits the scope and imagination.

One of the things I enjoy most about FFG's rpgs are its lack of miniatures. Coming from a D&D background I can say that the switch between "theater of the mind" roleplaying over to a fight represented by miniatures on a map is often jarring, requiring a bit of time to get back into the roleplaying mindset after each encounter. Even with narrative descriptions during a fight it can often seem like two different games. FFG has developed a great system capable of keeping everything within a narrative and in said "theater of the mind." By never breaking stride, players can more easily stay in character, even during space battles. It's an accomplishment, not something to change. Now I know some people are more visual, but trust me, through my experience having a jarring break in the narrative to incorporate miniatures doesn't help players get through that. In fact, I've had players go the opposite direction and want EVERYTHING to be shown on maps with miniatures, even mundane things like visiting a shop. That really limits options, especially for a group on a budget.

And his descriptions of villains to use in a campaign? We've seen all of those in action already. Flat out introducing any cannon characters is usually a bad idea (I've never met a group of players that won't challenge them, even if the npc is on the side of good and so are the players), but so is modeling them after existing characters. The game allows you to make a corner of Star Wars lore your own, so introducing villains even modeled after existing ones is going to illicit eye rolls from players because it comes off as lazy. Most players want something original with an rpg experience. This is one of those things where every group is different, but the several I've been a part of would laugh a GM off the table if they introduced Soontir Fel into the game. It's not hard to create an ace and establish them as a worthy and challenging villain players will remember. You can even use actual history to do it. A quick search for examples of pilots during both World Wars will provide you with plenty of material to use as examples, giving you something original instead of "well known Star Wars ace that shows I'm a lazy GM."

The only use I can see with this kind of thing is (as someone already posted) is adding a narrative to X-wing, not an unneeded element to the rpg. The cinematic play options X-wing has with the larger ships is excellent, so it would be interesting to see something with more depth. Those are the articles we need, not ones trying to get people who spend enough on the rpg books and accessories to buy into X-wing.

It's a little better than the "Let's combine X-Wing and Age of Rebellion!" article, but not by much. Creating compelling villains can be tough, so any advice is better than none, but still.

This is really more of the "We have no new stuff for you, so here's something to tide you over" filler we've been getting.

You know, I might be a little off base as to the intentions of this article (I'll fully admit my bias against miniatures).

Given that it's tagged to go to the X-wing forum and not here, maybe it's meant to show off the rpg to X-wing players that are bored with how basic that game is. Rather than just abandoning what they have for that game it could be meant to show you don't have to shelve your collection if you tried something else FFG offers

How about examples from all three core rulebook settings?

Say for example the difference in villainy of the Lego Star Wars Freemaker series between the Hutt, his underlings, Naare and that occasional thorn in their sides aboard the Wheel?

Different rebel cells highlighting why Saw is such a big deal and not in a good way!

Not every opponent is an Imperial after all!

Would anyone running their own games like to suggest some villains they created in their own games to compare with those in the article?

Its one thing to use examples from the animated series and the Legends canon, but what does the villain mean to you in your game?

What is most important or most memorable to you?

How about examples from all three core rulebook settings?

Say for example the difference in villainy of the Lego Star Wars Freemaker series between the Hutt, his underlings, Naare and that occasional thorn in their sides aboard the Wheel?

Different rebel cells highlighting why Saw is such a big deal and not in a good way!

Not every opponent is an Imperial after all!

Would anyone running their own games like to suggest some villains they created in their own games to compare with those in the article?

Its one thing to use examples from the animated series and the Legends canon, but what does the villain mean to you in your game?

What is most important or most memorable to you?

It's kind of ironic that he uses Agent Kallus as an example of a villain for an RPG. Rumor has it that, after seeing the trailer for the first half of Rebels season 3, Agent Kallus will defect to the Rebellion and will take the place of Ahsoka as the new Fulcrum.

For Edge I have a system governor trying to get selected as the new Sector Moff but has some skeletons in his closet needing to be buried. He uses law enforcement to coerce the cooperation of random fringe elements to get him selected. After that they will be disposed of.

Personally, I struggle to assimilate FFGs SW RPG and Miniatures-Combat game. I feel like FFG is trying to shoe-horn two products into a cohesive game idea, but never laid a firm foundation. While some system information may seem similar, the scope of the game focuses on two different elements of hobbyist play. Since I like to drink milk, and I like to drink soda, FFG now thinks I'm Laverne De Fazio.

Personally, I struggle to assimilate FFGs SW RPG and Miniatures-Combat game. I feel like FFG is trying to shoe-horn two products into a cohesive game idea, but never laid a firm foundation. While some system information may seem similar, the scope of the game focuses on two different elements of hobbyist play. Since I like to drink milk, and I like to drink soda, FFG now thinks I'm Laverne De Fazio.

Oh right, sales. My bad. Carry on.

You know, I might be a little off base as to the intentions of this article (I'll fully admit my bias against miniatures).

Given that it's tagged to go to the X-wing forum and not here, maybe it's meant to show off the rpg to X-wing players that are bored with how basic that game is. Rather than just abandoning what they have for that game it could be meant to show you don't have to shelve your collection if you tried something else FFG offers

Basic? Pfff, we have a full cooperative campaign

Heroes of the Aturi Cluster. Takes RPG elements and builds around the X-Wing mechanics a whole game.

I think we should find a way to incorporate Super Bombad Racing into our games.

You could have the PCs being chased through a dense forest, and suddenly everyone grows big heads and finds a bunch of mini swoop bikes.

It is a blatent attempt to sell miniatures to rpgers and rpgs to minis.

But hey, I use my x-wing and Armada collections for my group because the Minitures are gorgeous, and nothing scares the frak out of them like plonking a bloody Star Destroyer on the table

of the 2 games I am running, both F&D.

Game 1 has yet to have a villan appear. When he does he will be a Beefy Inquisitor with a Broadsword that has a saber edge. Also they left a mad clone wars darksider in a failing stasis box 2 days travel from a known Alderranian starport, 2 days before the Deathstar shows up.

Game 2 is Chronicles of the gatekeeper (spoilers). The Act 1 boss got away and they drew the interest of a Stormtroopers group with an ISB leautenant they will all Return....

of the 2 games I am running, both F&D.

Game 1 has yet to have a villan appear. When he does he will be a Beefy Inquisitor with a Broadsword that has a saber edge. Also they left a mad clone wars darksider in a failing stasis box 2 days travel from a known Alderranian starport, 2 days before the Deathstar shows up.

Game 2 is Chronicles of the gatekeeper (spoilers). The Act 1 boss got away and they drew the interest of a Stormtroopers group with an ISB leautenant they will all Return....

I will give respect to CotG for its use of possibly-recurring villains.

Ugh, I return to see the same old sorry FFG articles. I love these games and I hate ripping these articles, but they are to the RPG what Hayden Christensen was to acting.

Seriously, enough already with the 'buy moar ship minis' spiel. We know both games are great, but there's absolutely no way to mesh them. Sure, you could base some RPG missions on the results of a ship fight, but you could do that with the card game or anything else. Some of my group collects the minis and they really are beautiful, but sheesh.

And his choice of villains seems pretty lousy too. Some copy/paste imperials with no apparent personality and no motivations beyond 'doing it for the Evulz'. I know some people want their Star Wars without too many complications but surely there are better antagonists than your standard cardboard cut-out totalitarian wannabes.

It's a shame, because there's the potential for a really good article about creating memorable antagonists and involving them in the PCs story. Villains who might have some nuance, or their own motivations that run contrary to the others in their faction and don't exist purely to shoot your dog, drink your beer, slap your kids and sleep with your wife. There are all manner of ways to tie an antagonist into your PCs backstory, to have situations where perhaps they are the lesser evil and you have to work with them to oppose a greater threat.

(Heck, one of the neat things about having the Jedi as our main antagonists is that the PCs are up against people, with their own history, complexities and motivations, not faceless monsters or generic sneering neo-nazis. The PCs might oppose their goals - even violently - but they learn to understand and even respect their antagonists in the process.)

I can honestly think of at least a dozen people on this forum who could write a really good article about making effective RPG antagonists.

They really don't have anything new to tell us, do they? So we get these sorry excuses for articles.

Bah, humbug.

Ugh. This again. This author's articles really miss the point of the rpgs. Everything he throws out there simply limits the scope and imagination.

One of the things I enjoy most about FFG's rpgs are its lack of miniatures. Coming from a D&D background I can say that the switch between "theater of the mind" roleplaying over to a fight represented by miniatures on a map is often jarring, requiring a bit of time to get back into the roleplaying mindset after each encounter. Even with narrative descriptions during a fight it can often seem like two different games. FFG has developed a great system capable of keeping everything within a narrative and in said "theater of the mind." By never breaking stride, players can more easily stay in character, even during space battles. It's an accomplishment, not something to change. Now I know some people are more visual, but trust me, through my experience having a jarring break in the narrative to incorporate miniatures doesn't help players get through that. In fact, I've had players go the opposite direction and want EVERYTHING to be shown on maps with miniatures, even mundane things like visiting a shop. That really limits options, especially for a group on a budget.

And his descriptions of villains to use in a campaign? We've seen all of those in action already. Flat out introducing any cannon characters is usually a bad idea (I've never met a group of players that won't challenge them, even if the npc is on the side of good and so are the players), but so is modeling them after existing characters. The game allows you to make a corner of Star Wars lore your own, so introducing villains even modeled after existing ones is going to illicit eye rolls from players because it comes off as lazy. Most players want something original with an rpg experience. This is one of those things where every group is different, but the several I've been a part of would laugh a GM off the table if they introduced Soontir Fel into the game. It's not hard to create an ace and establish them as a worthy and challenging villain players will remember. You can even use actual history to do it. A quick search for examples of pilots during both World Wars will provide you with plenty of material to use as examples, giving you something original instead of "well known Star Wars ace that shows I'm a lazy GM."

The only use I can see with this kind of thing is (as someone already posted) is adding a narrative to X-wing, not an unneeded element to the rpg. The cinematic play options X-wing has with the larger ships is excellent, so it would be interesting to see something with more depth. Those are the articles we need, not ones trying to get people who spend enough on the rpg books and accessories to buy into X-wing.

Note their adjective of 'usually' before the idea of adding established NPCs as being a bad idea.

Hey look, they did another one.

I'll admit that I didn't actually read this one this time. The previous articles have been "meh" at best, I've fully dismissed the idea as impossible, so I didn't feel the need.

The pictures are nice, though. We may have gotten a spoiler of pictures from the Spy book!

Next time we’ll talk about how well the blend between games worked

Please, for the love of all that's holy, let there NOT be a 'next time'.

Somebody stop him because he's embarrassing himself.

Why not let a 'guest writer' from the forums to write something? I'm sure there are good, informative articles that could be written.