Warning: this is a bit of a rant.

I've been on these forums a couple of years now, and I've played plenty of SWRPG as both GM and player. Most people who have spoken to me will know that I'm pretty positive most of the time, so this is somewhat out of character, but I really I find that I'm getting frustrated with this system.

The core mechanic is fine. More than that, actually - it's awesome . It's the reason I've played this system as much as I have. And it is particularly good in combat, where the use of Advantage and Threat can have very clear effects that are, even across multiple splat books, pretty well balanced. 1 Advantage ≈ 1 Strain ≈ 1 Boost die (unspecified). 2 Advantage ≈ 1 manoeuver ≈ 1 Boost die (specified), and so on. Combat is actually really solid, for all that it's abstract. The Slicing Encounter rules from Special Modifications are also actually really good, and there's a few other examples.

But beyond that, the actual application of the rules is either extremely vague (healing, squads/squadrons, what counts as an encounter, etc.) or downright confusing (defence being probably the most-discussed example on these forums). Some of the other subsystems seem great, but are often remarkably sparse: I know, for example, there are plenty of people here who like the Chase rules, but seriously? There's a chase scene in every single Star Wars movie, and just one page of rules for running chases compared to a whole chapter on combat?

And the relative value of Advantage/Threat/Triumph/Despair is mind-bogglingly inconsistent - a Triumph can upgrade your next check (providing a fairly meagre 4-5% increase in Success odds, although admittedly that doesn't account for the increased chance of Advantage/Triumph), or, according to the rules, provide an NPC who is predisposed to help the PCs (Charm, Negotiation), or inflict strain equal to the damage of the attack (Boarding Actions, Forged in Battle ). Things are even more lopsided with Despair, which can range from "upgraded enemy check" (a single turn effect) to "minor damage to a weapon" (adding a setback for at least the entire encounter) or "out of ammo" (kind of pointless since every PC now just carries extra reloads) to "suffer critical injury" or even "you are now lost in space".

Don't get me started on the fact that, mathematically speaking, a Boost die is generally better than an upgrade. That's just poor design.

Not too long ago, I came across a review of this system over on the Alexandrian website. It was not complementary, and the author pointed out that everyone he's ever met who has told him they like this system has admitted they have severely modified the system. I left a comment disagreeing with his analysis, but recently I introduced a new player to my game and, in explaining the rules, I realised how many house-rules I actually run in order to make the game flow, and how many hundreds of hours I have put into reinventing parts of the game.

Why this is, I don't know. I feel like maybe FFG were so focused on being "narrative" and trying to prevent too much number-crunching at the table (which are good goals) that they kind of forgot to a) balance a lot of the game and b) be specific about the rest of it.

Of course, maybe this is just me. Maybe nobody else has found this, and I'm just being pedantic and rules-lawyery and whatever. But it is really starting to bug me, and that annoys me because I want to keep playing my games, I do enjoy it when it does work, and I love the heart of the mechanics.

Not entirely sure what I'm hoping to gain by posting this here...just seemed like something I wanted to share. Anyway, thanks for reading if you've read this far.

(NB: I'm sure there are plenty of people who are going to throw words like "narrative" at me and tell me that the mechanics don't matter, or something. I'd just like to pre-emptively disagree. I run extremely narrative games, with a great deal of input from my players. If the mechanics didn't matter, I'd just sit with them and make up Star Wars stories - the mechanics are what turn it into a game.)

TL;DR - Love lots about this system: core mechanic, obligation, combat, character creation, Force powers, and many other things are great. But I am becoming really frustrated with the extent to which I have to house-rule in order to make the game work.

42 minutes ago, edwardavern said:

And the relative value of Advantage/Threat/Triumph/Despair is mind-bogglingly inconsistent - a Triumph can upgrade your next check (providing a fairly meagre 4-5% increase in Success odds, although admittedly that doesn't account for the increased chance of Advantage/Triumph), or, according to the rules, provide an NPC who is predisposed to help the PCs (Charm, Negotiation), or inflict strain equal to the damage of the attack (Boarding Actions, Forged in Battle ). Things are even more lopsided with Despair, which can range from "upgraded enemy check" (a single turn effect) to "minor damage to a weapon" (adding a setback for at least the entire encounter) or "out of ammo" (kind of pointless since every PC now just carries extra reloads) to "suffer critical injury" or even "you are now lost in space".

Assuming you're right that they're lopsided, can you explain why the value of these should be consistent across different situations, instead of being dependent on the circumstances?

To me, when I'm fighting off a knife-wielding attacker in a dark alley, "despair" means something very different then when I'm trying to flirt with the cute person next in line at the supermarket. Why should it be different in the game?

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

Assuming you're right that they're lopsided, can you explain why the value of these should be consistent across different situations, instead of being dependent on the circumstances?

To me, when I'm fighting off a knife-wielding attacker in a dark alley, "despair" means something very different then when I'm trying to flirt with the cute person next in line at the supermarket. Why should it be different in the game?

This is an excellent point.

Two things:

FFG SW RPG is not a very narrative system.
It a very narrative RPG with an garbage mechanics, which are everything but narrative, deal with far too many tables, suggestions, bad rules and mechanics, and number crunching, while actually and that is the fun part, being bad about the number crunching and that pointing to their default excuse of being a narrative system. Or in other words, the system is a scam with a star wars licence and a great basic dice idea. Having a two dimensional roll where both axis are related to each other is a great idea. That is honestly great. Basically everything else is build around the idea to sell you more books. FFG is acting like the classic american conmen, trying to sell you stuff, which you don't need and which actually make everything more complicated and less-enjoyable.

As you said, they leave out so much stuff, deliver a few tables and vague descriptions afterwards, bundle it with some weak descriptions of gear in a dirt cheap and lousy layout, all while making us beg for more. Meanwhile RPGs like Agone with much better layouts, artworks and design make their publishers go bankrupt because their sales tactics are not on pair. Still, we want to play star wars and that table with the newest weapons, some half-ass fortification rules which no-one ever needs as this can indeed be dealt creatively with a single mechanics or survival roll is already sold out again … mainly because it included two new specs, some weapon and armor tables and a reprint of a third spec. ;-)

*sight* rant end

Now after I have this out of my system.

In all seriousness. Just play the game based on the core books and don't bother with the tons of bad mechanics. The game plays indeed best when played as narrative game, it plays best when you let handle some common sense and creativity how advantages and threats affect the game word. All those useless tables with lines over lines over lines how to spend your advantages, triumphs and despair are just suggestions. In the end its up to the group and the GM to make the best out of the game. And SWRPG is certainly one of those games, one of those cases when less is more. Going more with the game flow and less dogmatic about those tables and suggestions which aim mainly at RPG beginners is imho the golden path to go with the system. Alas it makes everything, but the core books mostly a waste of money.

2 hours ago, edwardavern said:

TL;DR - Love lots about this system: core mechanic, obligation, combat, character creation, Force powers, and many other things are great. But I am becoming really frustrated with the extent to which I have to house-rule in order to make the game work.

I Am stiol pretty new to the system but would love to see what adjustments that you haver made for the game

This system is in its very essence more of a set of guidelines. Even the way the book is worded on a lot of matters; it is vague and at some points, it suggests rather than rules, but that it because of how open the system is. Many other systems have closed off strict rulesets (Pathfinder, D&D, etc.) where the game play is very different. You can't do cool thing X until you have Feat Y. That kind of play is very limited. Personally, I like the way the FFG systems leave things vague and open to interpretation. For me, the game is more about rulings than rules. It is more about coming up with a fun and cool thing to happen for your story in that moment, rather than being about referring to specific official rulings on every possible scenario. This system doesn't hold your hand as a GM or as a player; it expects you to have an imagination and to want to tell a story. Knowledge of the book is useful, but when it comes down to it, it is all about GM/player interpretation. (Although, I guess that is your issue ).

Before roleplaying game rulesets became more about accounting for every possible scenario, back in the 0Ed D&D days, the books were incredibly vague. The systems were much more light weight (THAC0 charts aside ) and relied more upon GM rulings and player imagination over book reference and feats and talents. With systems like that you find yourself home ruling something every session as players (and the GM) come up with inventive ways to solve problems. For me, the FFG system is more like that. The non-binary dice allow you to come up with so many different things. It doesn't always have to be add a Boost die to the next roll or suffer strain. The dice result can influence how that NPC perceives the PC in a social check (Success and threats might mean the NPC is convinced but now he thinks that PC is a tw*t and will be belligerent and awkward with him in future).

I suppose it just depends on what you want in your game; specific defined parameters where consistent rules allow you to plan to deal with different scenarios, or a system where player narrative is more important. As for me, I like coming up with home rulings. I like the books; I like the amount of flavour they contain and I like the vague wording (but that is probably because I also like making rulings over following rules ). Sure the system has its issues but if you can name a perfect RPG system that doesn't need any kind of homeruling or rely on player interpretation to some extent then I will eat my stormtrooper helmet.

Playing an old school 0ed D&D clone campaign really changed my outlook on this kind of thing. It is worth looking at the way a few of those systems do things as they are very much about suggestion and guideline over strict rule sets. It is also possible to get free PDF copies of some of the best ones like Swords & Wizardry, and Fantasy Basic. It is worth having a read of this too.

24 minutes ago, McHydesinyourpants said:

This system is in its very essence more of a set of guidelines.

This is what I keep coming back to. In fact the devs more or less say it in interviews. My table's been playing this system for years now and we haven't had any dire problems or ongoing frustrations. We've tried a few modifications but they end up just making things more complicated and slowing down the action, so we go back to RAW.

Of course I encourage everyone to take their games and make them their own, but I wanted to point out that there are those of us that have been at this a good long while and we don't find the same issues with the rules.

I think most or all systems seem creaky when played long enough. And house rules are pretty common in most systems (I also ready that Alexandrian review and I think he had a flawed understanding of the system because things he was claiming as "house rules" were actually part of the system - though this is due to the vague nature of the rules in some spots, particularly skills).

I wished the Skills section covered the fairly common scenario of Failure With Advantage. This is why I actually like all the tables - it's a source of ideas. The tables also convey some sense of the balance they have in mind in interpreting the dice pool.

If you love the core mechanics then the system is still viable for your table. But what to do about the stuff that bothers you?

Boost die being a "better" addition to a dice pool than an upgrade was a conscious design decision - the thinking was that the addition of Boost (or Setback) would primarily be in the hands of the GM with some rare Talents adding Boost. Agree with it or not, it was intentional. If you want to counteract that then be more generous when handing out Boost for players which add narrative flair or interesting ideas to the story. It can also be a bit anti-intuitive to new players - the game seems to favor upgrading as the premier way of getting better when it's not as big an effect as one might expect. If you've already got an experienced group then this is probably already a known factor (if not consciously then at least it's become more intuitive).

I think the vagueness or shallowness of the subsystems - like Chases - are due to the designers wanting them to play quickly, mesh with the core mechanic seamlessly and be easy to apply to specific situations. In fact most (all?) subsystems are really just guidelines on how to construct dice pools to resolve certain situations - bringing things back to the core mechanic. This is a rules heavy system already for a "narrative" game.

What house rules have you developed that fix problems you see in the system?

As a designer once told me, "Man, tabletop is made for house rules."

I agree that FFG's system shows contradictory design in the focus on highly specific and naturally inconsistent outcomes, instead of general, scaleable principles that would better guide intepretation and improvisation. Also, while the presentation is beautiful, it's organized like a 19th-century textbook, full of prose when what we need are concise explanations and easily indexed information.

Returning to the first point, though, we can enjoy the books for what they are, and then modify to suit our table.

2 hours ago, McHydesinyourpants said:

For me, the game is more about rulings than rules...

It is worth having a read of this too.

Thanks for the link; I'll take a look.

So, I don't have a problem with making rulings - I understand that the rules cannot cover everything and sometimes things are just going to come up that you have to deal with on the fly. But things that come up regularly require (and this is, I admit, just my personal opinion) consistency: players should be able to anticipate the way the game will flow. This means that "rulings" become "rules". Again, this isn't really a problem, except for the sheer amount of them I seem to have accumulated.

42 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Boost die being a "better" addition to a dice pool than an upgrade was a conscious design decision - the thinking was that the addition of Boost (or Setback) would primarily be in the hands of the GM with some rare Talents adding Boost. Agree with it or not, it was intentional. If you want to counteract that then be more generous when handing out Boost for players which add narrative flair or interesting ideas to the story

...

What house rules have you developed that fix problems you see in the system?

Was it really intentional? That seems bizarre...if Boost dice are supposed to be better than upgrades, why does 1 Advantage add a Boost die but 3 Advantage upgrade something? (I know, upgrading also gives you the chance of Triumph and the possibility of more Advantage, but then we just circle back round.

As to your other question, house rules include fleshed out systems for healing, buying and selling gear, vehicle repair, chases, squads and squadrons, and I'm currently working knowledge checks.

3 minutes ago, wilsch said:

As a designer once told me, "Man, tabletop is made for house rules."

I agree that FFG's system shows contradictory design in the focus on highly specific and naturally inconsistent outcomes, instead of general, scaleable principles that would better guide intepretation and improvisation. Also, while the presentation is beautiful, it's organized like a 19th-century textbook, full of prose when what we need are concise explanations and easily indexed information.

Returning to the first point, though, we can enjoy the books for what they are, and then modify to suit our table.

3

I agree with you on the books - this is why there are so many "rules cheat sheets" available on this forum.

1 hour ago, themensch said:

This is what I keep coming back to. In fact the devs more or less say it in interviews. My table's been playing this system for years now and we haven't had any dire problems or ongoing frustrations. We've tried a few modifications but they end up just making things more complicated and slowing down the action, so we go back to RAW.

Of course I encourage everyone to take their games and make them their own, but I wanted to point out that there are those of us that have been at this a good long while and we don't find the same issues with the rules.

Fair enough. And like I said, I've played a lot of this system and am eager to keep playing it. But, for me, it feels like the good system is buried beneath oodles of stuff that is quite poorly thought out.

The thread really shows different strokes and all - I'm pretty happy with the rules as written, aside from the vehicle combat - which to be fair, has sucked in EVERY version of Star Wars to date. Otherwise, I cant think of any major changes we've made to the rules.

I've viewed every system I've ever played/run as ala carte personally.

My power gamer/game breaker at the table who is very reasonable, an ironically named Max, has always remarked whenever I mention issues some folks have with some particular aspect of the system "that's what GMs are for".

1 hour ago, Desslok said:

The thread really shows different strokes and all - I'm pretty happy with the rules as written, aside from the vehicle combat - which to be fair, has sucked in EVERY version of Star Wars to date. Otherwise, I cant think of any major changes we've made to the rules.

Ironically I love the vehicle combat, the writing is terrible, but with the developer clarifications on how things are supposed to work, it comes along rather nice, even when it is suffering from a lot of complexity in the rules.

@edwardavern to add to the idea that house-rules are quite a common occurrence with this system in particular, take a look at the dev answered questions. Some of them don't make any sense when compared to the rules as written.

I asked if it were possible to somehow use stuff like jetpacks in the vacuum of space if I had them vacuum sealed like with the armor attachment. They said yes, which goes against the RAW about them only working in atmosphere and they didn't really give any way of how it would work, discounting my idea about using the vacuum sealed attachment.

So basically they could work in space, by some unknown means and I believe they also said you would use piloting space with them in that case, even though the difference between the two piloting methods in the RAW is supposed to be dependent on the type of vehicle you are using (space for spaceships, planetary for anything that doesn't operate in space). I'm fairly certain some dev responses such as that are more just "giving the player what they asked for" than actually considering the rules they've written out.

Then you have stuff like how the books say that Kyuzo can leap, just like a fully upgraded Force Leap, to any location in medium range but the devs say you can't leap into or out of engaged range. So in this case, according to the devs, the RAW is wrong.

There's no sort of consistency to their responses, which is why I just do my own thing and only concern myself with their responses if it makes any sort of logical sense.

The RAW is ok for the most part, though I've found a few things be pretty poorly done in comparison with the majority. Stuff like the chase rules adding in an arbitrary dice roll every round to determine how well you catch up/flee even though under the normal rules everyone can move just as far and fast in a normal combat, the inconsistencies with cybernetics entries talking about "legs, arms" when it really means "leg, arm" and then the fact that "eyes" is actually plural. "called shot" aiming being pointed out in the normal combat rules but not being pointed out in the vehicle combat rules, stun damage being as weak as it is, etc...

1 hour ago, edwardavern said:

Fair enough. And like I said, I've played a lot of this system and am eager to keep playing it. But, for me, it feels like the good system is buried beneath oodles of stuff that is quite poorly thought out.

That's the joy of a tabletop RPG - take what works for your table and chuck the rest. I just wanted to voice for future readers that the game is perfectly fun and playable as it is and a new person doesn't need to chase down house rules to have fun.

At my table we've encountered all the oft-maligned bits that come up frequently in these forums and across the net as deficiencies in the game and nothing came to a grinding halt or stopped the fun. We've made some situational changes if it made logical sense, but none of these changes were more than a momentary diversion from RAW - but I'd be hard pressed to find any RPG where that wasn't the norm.

23 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

@edwardavern asked if it were possible to somehow use stuff like jetpacks in the vacuum of space if I had them vacuum sealed like with the armor attachment. They said yes, which goes against the RAW about them only working in atmosphere and they didn't really give any way of how it would work, discounting my idea about using the vacuum sealed attachment.

Since a jetpack is typically strapped on (over the armor), the armor being vacuum-sealed wouldn't affect its performance, and given that a jetpack is just a high-powered maneuvering thruster I'd expect it to work better in space since you don't have to overcome planetary gravity or atmospheric resistance to get around. Maintaining your orientation under thrust might be more of a challenge since you won't have the stabilizing effect of the atmosphere and gravity, but that's probably why they suggested using the Piloting/Space skill.

I've seen every version of Star Wars RPG there is...except SAGA and generally speaking Is till prefer D6 for its ease of use, fast character generation and the metric ton of material that was put out for it (and in some cases of fan-made material, still is!). I play FFG as that is what my local groups are playing. If I RUN it again, it'll be D6.

As it stands the biggest complaint I hear at the tables is how often skill & trait level and don't really seem to matter, adding more dice just adds more randomness and can turn a perfectly competent character into the most green of noobs and can consistently be that way. There are plenty of other ways to manufacture drama without constantly gimping a character. I also hate that the dice sets cost $15 and down the line you need to buy 3=4 Sets if you want to be abel to roll all of the Physical dice...thus I sue an online die-roller...8)

That being said, my favorite rule ever was written in the front of the D*D 2nd Ed GM's Guide; "All Rules are optional, some are more optional than others." ...8)

I like the Talent tree System and may look into finding a way to adapt that to the D6 system to add some depth and options to that system.

40 minutes ago, Garran said:

Since a jetpack is typically strapped on (over the armor), the armor being vacuum-sealed wouldn't affect its performance, and given that a jetpack is just a high-powered maneuvering thruster I'd expect it to work better in space since you don't have to overcome planetary gravity or atmospheric resistance to get around. Maintaining your orientation under thrust might be more of a challenge since you won't have the stabilizing effect of the atmosphere and gravity, but that's probably why they suggested using the Piloting/Space skill.

Your explanation seems sound but we have no idea why the devs said they can work in a vacuum, which goes against the rules they wrote that state they can only operate in atmosphere. We have no idea how they work in a vacuum either according to the devs, only that they can work by some undisclosed means and in vacuum they are used with a skill that is not the one specifically mentioned in their item descriptions. It's the total opposite of how they are supposed to be used in the game and they are just like "yep it works."

That's my point though, their responses are inconsistent with the rules they wrote & are often too vague of an answer to really seem based on logic or congruent with the rest of the written rules. It's as if they are just saying yes/no based on the rule of cool and not at all considering what they've already established in the books I paid money for that are supposed to be the game rules, the last time I checked.

15 minutes ago, GandofGand said:

As it stands the biggest complaint I hear at the tables is how often skill & trait level and don't really seem to matter, adding more dice just adds more randomness and can turn a perfectly competent character into the most green of noobs and can consistently be that way.

This is horse sh*t. More positive dice equal greater chance of more positive results.

14 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

This is horse sh*t. More positive dice equal greater chance of more positive results.

I agree.

What seems more likely is that some players don't like a system where there's a mere chance of failure in "standard" checks in an area of expertise. In d20 systems you can get to the point where standard or even "hard" rolls are automatically successful and some players don't like giving up that "character expertise".

19 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

This is horse sh*t. More positive dice equal greater chance of more positive results.

True, but the times where my Ace Pilot with two fists full of positive dice failing in extremely noob-like ways, while certainly entertaining, did tend to dampen the spirits. Of course it was the luck of the dice, but man what bad luck I had in so many rolls. So, I'm kinda feeling what GandofGand alluded to.

Correct, and its not actually me, but we have had players quit our Living Campaign because of the frustrations. I can roll with it to a degree but I can see their complaint to.

51 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I agree.

What seems more likely is that some players don't like a system where there's a mere chance of failure in "standard" checks in an area of expertise. In d20 systems you can get to the point where standard or even "hard" rolls are automatically successful and some players don't like giving up that "character expertise".

I guess what might be the perceived lack here is a baseline for what a character of certain skill levels could accomplish without rolling. It follows, logically, that as a character gains skills certain actions would therefore become easier and would be good hand-wave candidates. Whereas a task's difficulty might remain static for all players that attempt it, the threshold for when a GM might just rule the task is done is an intriguing thought experiment. At some point skill and training should overcome the odd bad roll, or in my Ace Pilot's case, every roll. It's certainly an immersion-breaking fiasco to constantly fail on things that should require a roll and every result turns up bad, session after session.

If the chance of failure isn't there ..... why roll the dice? Ok you are an Ace pilot, does the GM agree you are a Ace pilot and there is 0 chance of failure? Just don't roll, narrate the action.

But if there is a chance of failure, accept that failure will happen with a predictable regularity. The dice, as random as they are, do give predictable results when properly modeled out.

Test it with a Monte Carlo Simulation and see the regularity of the dice odds. Just remember it is a simulation not an exact modeling, but it will give a general idea with a degree of consistency.

5 minutes ago, Wisconsen said:

If the chance of failure isn't there ..... why roll the dice? Ok you are an Ace pilot, does the GM agree you are a Ace pilot and there is 0 chance of failure? Just don't roll, narrate the action.

But if there is a chance of failure, accept that failure will happen with a predictable regularity. The dice, as random as they are, do give predictable results when properly modeled out.

Test it with a Monte Carlo Simulation and see the regularity of the dice odds. Just remember it is a simulation not an exact modeling, but it will give a general idea with a degree of consistency.

And therein lies the quandary. I of course agree that if the results are a foregone conclusion, there's no need to touch the dice. I also am pretty adept at understanding the entropy around dice pools - my observation is that there's not really a defined baseline wherein an expert eschews rolls a neophyte would have to make. Of course no roleplaying game is every going to perfectly model reality or even fiction in this setting. I don't spend a lot of time fretting over it, it was just laughable that "Oh, the Ace Pilot crashes AGAIN, that's the third time this session and the 10th time in this campaign. Are you sure you're an ace?" It's at this point when one thinks doing the float test on the dice is in order to find manufacturing defects, because the universe can't truly be that cruel, can it?