Gotta admit- I have been a critic of this system ever since I first started playing this game back in 2014. In my opinion, it does put a lot of extra work on the GM to try and decipher dice rolls and make them fit within the overall story arch. I have always been more of a fan of a "really great story" over a "cinematic excitement and feel" type of RPG so when reading about this new game mechanic, it seemed to play to what I was looking for in a game mechanic so I went for it.

Do I "hate" the system, no, it just takes some time to get used to and I know I am still a "move and fire" type of gamer- nothing wrong with that, it is what it is.

HOWEVER

I am currently crafting a campaign for my gaming group in the Pathfinder universe and have found that I am incorporating more and more of the narrative game play approach into that game.

Perhaps it is more intuitive to me to try and use it within the system of a d20/d10/d100/d6 mechanic. Who knows. But the last few encounters I have crafted while blending the narrative approach with "hard and fast" rules I am finding that I am getting the story approach to gaming that I was always looking for and that is really really paying top dividends to the immense enjoyment of my players.

Sooooooooo, for all of you gamers like me who have been tossing dice around on the table for several decades, don't be afraid to work this EOE approach. Give it a chance and tweek it how you need it. In the end, I think it adds a really fun and imaginative approach to gaming without getting bogged down in dice rolls and movement minutiae. I run games with 6 and 7 players so this system is also a really excellent alternative to keeping things moving. There were times during some of my DND games at intermediate levels where it was taking upwards of 25-30 minutes for players to take their turns. I truly believe, if done correctly, this system can streamline the game for big groups like mine.

Happy gaming and keep it silly!!

CC

Having listened to a lot of podcasts, and thought about this game, I have found that the Shadowrun campaign I am running has been going down better with a bit more focus on narrative and less on rules.

5 minutes ago, Darzil said:

Having listened to a lot of podcasts, and thought about this game, I have found that the Shadowrun campaign I am running has been going down better with a bit more focus on narrative and less on rules.

To be fair, shadowrun can get really silly with its rules.

4 hours ago, Currahee Chris said:

Perhaps it is more intuitive to me to try and use it within the system of a d20/d10/d100/d6 mechanic.

D20/D6 systems are inherently binary/discrete with their results, which can be MORE difficult for the GM. Oh, look, you failed that little challenge I setup for the party, now how am I going to get to you to point Y from X? Or worse yet: Ooops, I miscalculated your ability to defeat said encounter, or you rolled badly; now you're all dead. Roll credits.

In EotE/AoE/FaD, I can roll with the players and the present situation a lot easier. The party does something strange because reasons, I can summon minions at a whim (with NPC/Minion cards). The party leader decides he wants to actually speak to people instead of shooting first: great, here's a Governor, Crime Boss or Merchant you can negotiate with. In binary systems, your Charisma 19 Paladin can only end debates with his Warhammer.

Overall, the system requires much less overall planning to lead the adventure, and the encounters aren't just mindless creatures hellbent on ripping you to shreds. The Star Wars system allows for both verbal and physical encounters, which is a breath of fresh air.

I would agree that incorporating anything other than beating people over the head in D20ish stuff is challenging. I do find the stuff from Cubicle 7 for LOTR 5E to be very creative though within the D20/5E rule set. It does a better job of blending stat/skill combo in with the magical nature instead of them being more or less divested from one another traditionally.

1 hour ago, masterstrider said:

D20/D6 systems are inherently binary/discrete with their results, which can be MORE difficult for the GM. Oh, look, you failed that little challenge I setup for the party, now how am I going to get to you to point Y from X? Or worse yet: Ooops, I miscalculated your ability to defeat said encounter, or you rolled badly; now you're all dead. Roll credits.

In EotE/AoE/FaD, I can roll with the players and the present situation a lot easier. The party does something strange because reasons, I can summon minions at a whim (with NPC/Minion cards). The party leader decides he wants to actually speak to people instead of shooting first: great, here's a Governor, Crime Boss or Merchant you can negotiate with. In binary systems, your Charisma 19 Paladin can only end debates with his Warhammer.

Overall, the system requires much less overall planning to lead the adventure, and the encounters aren't just mindless creatures hellbent on ripping you to shreds. The Star Wars system allows for both verbal and physical encounters, which is a breath of fresh air.

Sometimes failure isn't the end. Even in what you call binary systems, it's not up to the GM to make the players be successful. The GM just has to set up a challenge, and it's for the players to find a way to overcome it or to fail. Either option usually costs resources and has consequences, and death can be a consequence of either outcome (i.e., everyone can die yet succeed as recently seen in Rogue One, or everyone can survive yet fail). I don't mind narrative elements in a game, but I think that too much effort spent to "maintaining the narrative" can go against the game aspect of RPGs. I simply won't play a game if I know the outcome will be preordained success or failure just because that's what the narrative requires.

You can have social encounters in non-narrative systems too, so the latter two paragraphs of your post don't seem worthy of further discussion.

7 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Sometimes failure isn't the end. Even in what you call binary systems, it's not up to the GM to make the players be successful. The GM just has to set up a challenge, and it's for the players to find a way to overcome it or to fail.

Too true dude. But a trap in a dungeon that needs to be disarmed in order to progress really only has two outcomes - fail or succeed. If the DC is 20 and the players have a 40% chance of passing and they don't, then they're stuffed. If they have a 80% chance of passing, then the trap is too easy and lacks excitement. That's a basic example of binary systems for you. No doubt, a good GM can get creative, but it's considerable more time consuming than the narrative system.

If they don't bypass the trap, then something still happens. Play does not stop. Sure, it might for the characters if there is a TPK, but characters =/= players.

3 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

If they don't bypass the trap, then something still happens.

But it may not be what the GM intended...or it could deviate from their meticulously laid out plan. The basic issue here is the inflexibility of the binary system to be "easily" steered in a favourable direction on the fly or as required. Narrative is pleasant since you can easily "redirect" the story back on course if something craps out.

My objection to it is the idea that it is a positive thing to have a course already set in mind. Narrative play leads strongly towards railroading, something that has been a bane of the RPG for a long time.

11 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

My objection to it is the idea that it is a positive thing to have a course already set in mind.

Have you ever tried to run "free form" D&D? It's not easy and you need a plan. Maybe for L1 characters it's easy, but when people are chaining combos and other crazy stuff available to them at higher levels, the game can get OUT OF CONTROL pretty quickly.

It can get out of control, but only if you cling too tightly to a narrative plan. The trick is to have lots of options ready and to see how the players want to approach them. I'm not saying it isn't demanding to run a game like that, and I find that some narrative elements actually help with doing so, I just don't like the narrative focus on "the story first" when the story has yet to be determined.

2 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

I just don't like the narrative focus on "the story first" when the story has yet to be determined.

Just to preface, I agree with what you said before this point - we're on the same page.

When I'm using the term narrative, I mean mechanically e.g. roll the dice and interpret the results to "steer" the story; not the way a narrative is composed. I thought it was important to clarify!

What you describe is the narrative elements that I love.

What I don't like is that many take "narrative games" a step further and always make that steering corrective towards "one true path" that the story is supposed to follow. I find this part to be a prettified version of rairoading.

1 hour ago, masterstrider said:

Too true dude. But a trap in a dungeon that needs to be disarmed in order to progress really only has two outcomes - fail or succeed. If the DC is 20 and the players have a 40% chance of passing and they don't, then they're stuffed. If they have a 80% chance of passing, then the trap is too easy and lacks excitement. That's a basic example of binary systems for you. No doubt, a good GM can get creative, but it's considerable more time consuming than the narrative system.

Making an adventure where one failed roll derails the adventure is called bad GMing. If there is 40% chance of passing the test, and not passing means they are stuffed means that the players will always blow that roll. Good GMs plan for that

One of the traps is people thinking the gm has to come up with all the results on die rolls. No the whole table should be doing so together.

54 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

What I don't like is that many take "narrative games" a step further and always make that steering corrective towards "one true path" that the story is supposed to follow. I find this part to be a prettified version of rairoading.

You mean like Pre-Gen adventures? LOL

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

One of the traps is people thinking the gm has to come up with all the results on die rolls. No the whole table should be doing so together.

Very, very true. It increases the investment of the players and helps to work against railroading.

Just now, masterstrider said:

You mean like Pre-Gen adventures? LOL

I mine pre-gen adventures for pieces that I can use. Sometimes I end up leaving much of the material on the cutting room floor because of the choices of my players.

If in doubt, get the players to do the work. "Ok, you want to spend two advantages to give player X a boost - how is what you're doing going to accomplish that?" After a while, they'll start providing the description themselves without being asked.

38 minutes ago, Dafydd said:

If in doubt, get the players to do the work. "Ok, you want to spend two advantages to give player X a boost - how is what you're doing going to accomplish that?" After a while, they'll start providing the description themselves without being asked.

Maybe, maybe not. They may just come up with a generally applicable explanation that can be used more often than not, and having them spend time repeating it over and over might become tedious. It can sometimes be better to just let them say "and I give her a Boost" because extra description isn't always a good thing.

15 hours ago, Daeglan said:

One of the traps is people thinking the gm has to come up with all the results on die rolls. No the whole table should be doing so together.

I was all "Wait, other people don't do this?"

I have the standing policy at the table that all rolls - GM and PC - are open to interpretation and "I have a cool idea for that!" from all players. And there are far more of them than I, I would be a fool not to tap that resource.

16 hours ago, masterstrider said:

But it may not be what the GM intended...or it could deviate from their meticulously laid out plan. The basic issue here is the inflexibility of the binary system to be "easily" steered in a favourable direction on the fly or as required. Narrative is pleasant since you can easily "redirect" the story back on course if something craps out.

If the GM has a "plan" that requires the PCs getting past a trap, then it shouldn't rely on a die roll. Doesn't matter what type of system, binary or narrative. So if the PCs have to get past Trap A to get to point B, then success means an easy walk down to point B, while failure means a slippery ride down a chute to something dangerous at point B. Locks that can't be picked can be beaten to death (with consequences...noise, damaged goods, etc).

The "steering" aspect isn't any different. The narrative elements a PC possesses in EotE still should be filtered by the GM. Let's say you knew the PC equipment for the next mission, and it didn't include a rocket launcher, so you scaled accordingly. If the player wants to flip a DP and have a rocket launcher in their back pocket, the correct answer is "No"...never mind all that "Yes but" stuff, you don't have to accept something ridiculous. Now, if the player wants to flip a DP and "find" a rocket launcher among some rubble...that's a stretch, but sure "Yes but" all you want.

"Awesome! I pull it out of the rubble."

"Yeah, the handle breaks off. It's pretty old, and doesn't appear to be working."

"Can I fix it?"

"Roll Mechanics, on a Triumph or 4A it might be serviceable."

...meanwhile as a GM you clone one or two minion groups or a rival and ... planning done.

Anyway...not a fan of "meticulously laid out plan", and I enjoy it when the players come up with something creative.

3 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Maybe, maybe not. They may just come up with a generally applicable explanation that can be used more often than not, and having them spend time repeating it over and over might become tedious. It can sometimes be better to just let them say "and I give her a Boost" because extra description isn't always a good thing.

I can't give 1/2 a Like... I agree I prefer to hear inspired descriptions rather than either a) rote descriptions, or b) bogging the action down while somebody tries to think of something witty.

But I do encourage it when it goes too long without someone offering something narratively interesting.

6 minutes ago, whafrog said:

If the GM has a "plan" that requires the PCs getting past a trap, then it shouldn't rely on a die roll. Doesn't matter what type of system, binary or narrative. So if the PCs have to get past Trap A to get to point B, then success means an easy walk down to point B, while failure means a slippery ride down a chute to something dangerous at point B. Locks that can't be picked can be beaten to death (with consequences...noise, damaged goods, etc).

The "steering" aspect isn't any different. The narrative elements a PC possesses in EotE still should be filtered by the GM. Let's say you knew the PC equipment for the next mission, and it didn't include a rocket launcher, so you scaled accordingly. If the player wants to flip a DP and have a rocket launcher in their back pocket, the correct answer is "No"...never mind all that "Yes but" stuff, you don't have to accept something ridiculous. Now, if the player wants to flip a DP and "find" a rocket launcher among some rubble...that's a stretch, but sure "Yes but" all you want.

"Awesome! I pull it out of the rubble."

"Yeah, the handle breaks off. It's pretty old, and doesn't appear to be working."

"Can I fix it?"

"Roll Mechanics, on a Triumph or 4A it might be serviceable."

...meanwhile as a GM you clone one or two minion groups or a rival and ... planning done.

Anyway...not a fan of "meticulously laid out plan", and I enjoy it when the players come up with something creative.

I agree, how you describe what is to be accomplished sets the parameters of how to judge the results. It's not pass/fail to pick the lock, it's open the locked door, pass means you did so well, fail means you got frustrated and broke it down instead and maybe people heard you, critical fail means they did hear and everyone roll initiative.