As some of you are already blessed to hold this tome in your hands, what is your first impression? Some say, there are significant differences to the GenCon demo. For the better, for the worse?

What do you think, is this really a generic rule system with the potential to cover every imaginable setting as FFG boasts?

You might enjoy this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/genesysrpg/comments/7g9cz9/i_have_genesys_ask_me_anything/

Reading that thread Magic stuff concerns me a little. I feel like the GM is going to have to do a lot of work to figure out what different kinds of spell casters can and CANT do.

5 minutes ago, tunewalker said:

Reading that thread Magic stuff concerns me a little. I feel like the GM is going to have to do a lot of work to figure out what different kinds of spell casters can and CANT do.

I havent seent that reedit article due to access restrictions at work however I would not expect Genesys to provide a lot of predefined spells such as in DnD. I expect that there will be basic powers that you add qualities that are then defined as spells (or guns or superpowers). This is the nature of toolkit and truly universal RPGs (Hero, Gurps, etc). So yes, I expect that there will be some work in creating spells from scratch. However, it should be pretty straight forward to model spells based DnD or other systems. This is, of course, assuming that you don't wish to use some kind of "build on the fly" magic system.

I think people are expecting too much specificity from the core book. It's never been presented as the end all to all genre and all situations encountered therein.

I'd expect the sourcebooks to present more specifics and crunch volume both as a matter of clarity, as well as, marketing.

The previews have talked about providing GMs a set of tools for creation of genres they are specifically interested in. As far as having to do work, any GM concerned with having to do alot of work about one genre or another or the mechanics within it, they probably should wait for the appropriate sourcebook.

Magic is typically the most variable part of any system, simply because there isn't a 'real' version of magic to model or simulate. Indeed, how magic works is typically one of the defining features of a fantasy game and so you shouldn't expect two game worlds to work in exactly the same way unless you make them that way.

This is why GURPS has about five different worked examples of magic, for example.

Deciding what the limitations of magic are for a campaign will be a significant part of defining any world, when you factor in possibilities such as psionics or 'sufficiently advanced science' as well as traditional magic. The GM needs to set the bounds if they are creating the world, but if you are translating a work of fiction is might be practicable to co-opt players to do some of the work, too, with the GM just acting as approver.

1 minute ago, 2P51 said:

I think people are expecting too much specificity from the core book. It's never been presented as the end all to all genre and all situations encountered therein.

I'd expect the sourcebooks to present more specifics and crunch volume both as a matter of clarity, as well as, marketing.

The previews have talked about providing GMs a set of tools for creation of genres they are specifically interested in. As far as having to do work, any GM concerned with having to do alot of work about one genre or another or the mechanics within it, they probably should wait for the appropriate sourcebook.

My goal is to do a Starfinder conversion. Based on about 2 hours with the book, I think the Genesys core will give me a solid framework to build upon, coupled with some good advice on how to extend the system. But I will absolutely have a lot of work to do depending upon how closely I want to try to capture the vibe of Starfinder ("now with less math!!!"). I'll start with "assume all the Genesys fantasy AND hard sci-fi AND space opera rules are true" and then start building races, SOME career specific talents (or ones with hefty skill prereqs), and more specific magic rules (Technomancy, Mysticism, Solarian, and even possibly Mechanics if I go with something in the vein of "Mad Science" as Savage Worlds would do it).

My group will just have to take house rules with a grain of salt that if a sourcebook comes out to take things in a different direction, we'll have to weigh options and potentially retrofit as needed. There's really no other way to move forward.

Frankly, I'm excited to get started. My copy of the rules SHOULD be in my hands tomorrow if the FLGS gets their shipment. Genesys is a winner.

24 minutes ago, dbm_ said:

Magic is typically the most variable part of any system, simply because there isn't a 'real' version of magic to model or simulate. Indeed, how magic works is typically one of the defining features of a fantasy game and so you shouldn't expect two game worlds to work in exactly the same way unless you make them that way.

This is why GURPS has about five different worked examples of magic, for example.

Deciding what the limitations of magic are for a campaign will be a significant part of defining any world, when you factor in possibilities such as psionics or 'sufficiently advanced science' as well as traditional magic. The GM needs to set the bounds if they are creating the world, but if you are translating a work of fiction is might be practicable to co-opt players to do some of the work, too, with the GM just acting as approver.

In my homebrew fantasy so far, tying magic to the character's Strain pool is a fantastic tool for managing power creep. My player who rolled my version of an Oracle is constantly hawking and fretting over his Strain so it's perfect.

Can I use the Adversary Decks from the Star Wars books? From the murmurs I hear it seems that there isn't much of a "beastiary" in the book.

Hopefully the splatbooks will have "list-o-BadGuys" in them, better yet if adversary decks were made as well.

I read on a reddit threat, the Heroic abilities are not in the core book,... this really disappoints me.

But for all other issues, I already expected the book to be some kind of "skeleton" game, so I was ready to put work on it.

37 minutes ago, dresdinseven said:

Can I use the Adversary Decks from the Star Wars books? From the murmurs I hear it seems that there isn't much of a "beastiary" in the book.

Hopefully the splatbooks will have "list-o-BadGuys" in them, better yet if adversary decks were made as well.

You sure can.

1 hour ago, dresdinseven said:

Can I use the Adversary Decks from the Star Wars books? From the murmurs I hear it seems that there isn't much of a "beastiary" in the book.

Hopefully the splatbooks will have "list-o-BadGuys" in them, better yet if adversary decks were made as well.

Once you play a bit you won't need the crutch. I just type into my session doc the opponents I intend to use and exactly what I need from them, type out their attack dice pool in symbols, base damage with stat included along with crits and effects, wounds, soak, etc. No need to look things up just type em in as you need them. No looking at anything other than my session sheet with notes.

1 hour ago, dresdinseven said:

Can I use the Adversary Decks from the Star Wars books? From the murmurs I hear it seems that there isn't much of a "beastiary" in the book.

Hopefully the splatbooks will have "list-o-BadGuys" in them, better yet if adversary decks were made as well.

Here is an unofficial star wars creature bestiary that you may find useful. Found it on reddit.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B01fjdCZKfnnTVBteUJITVlnbGc/view

2 hours ago, tunewalker said:

Reading that thread Magic stuff concerns me a little. I feel like the GM is going to have to do a lot of work to figure out what different kinds of spell casters can and CANT do.

I'm glad to hear this. I would not want a set system of say, a basic Mana pool to cast spells that is hard to change without scrapping it and starting out with an entire new system. What if I wanted a spellbook system where wizards have to memorize and cast spells in slots as in old school D&D? What if I wanted a system where natural mages had to draw upon source material in the world and convert it into their spells? I want the magic system to be open ended so it may be more easily adapted to any magical setting.

Edit: I have a very detailed magic system for a home crafted fantasy campaign setting I've been wanting to play in for years. Genesys I'm hoping will allow me to put my thoughts into the narrative system without having to produce a 40 page PDF of my own rules.

2 minutes ago, Sturn said:

I'm glad to hear this. I would not want a set system of say, a basic Mana pool to cast spells that is hard to change without scrapping it and starting out with an entire new system. What if I wanted a spellbook system where wizards have to memorize and cast spells in slots as in old school D&D? What if I wanted a system where natural mages had to draw upon source material in the world and convert it into their spells? I want the magic system to be open ended so it may be more easily adapted to any magical setting.

Same here, I do not seek an already elaborated setting, what I hope for is a solid framework with a versatile toolbox. And what I read from all of you owning the book, this is what I will get.

Just one particular question about magic. Will the toolbox be able to emulate spells like "detect magic", spells that do not have dedicated effects like damage, buffs or debuffs? Divination, teleportation?

What pleases me very much is, that there are guidelines to create talents and such. Can't wait to try Genesys on Mass Effect!

For me, I think it will be perfect (I get mine this weekend). It never claimed to be "everything you need to play in one book" the way Hero 5th or 6th did.

But it gives core rules, a selection of genre rules, a selection of tone rules, and some alternate rules - then the tools to create stuff on your own (to an extent). That's all I wanted. I didn't expect a "full game" that I could play out of the box - I expected a system, who's rules I use to make My game. Once setting books start dropping then you have the stuff to take core rule and setting and run without creation.

But this seems to be exactly what was promised us, and it looks like it will be exactly what I want.

3 minutes ago, Lordmhoram said:

But it gives core rules, a selection of genre rules, a selection of tone rules, and some alternate rules - then the tools to create stuff on your own (to an extent). That's all I wanted. I didn't expect a "full game" that I could play out of the box - I expected a system, who's rules I use to make My game. Once setting books start dropping then you have the stuff to take core rule and setting and run without creation.

But this seems to be exactly what was promised us, and it looks like it will be exactly what I want.

Exactly what I hope for as well. The setting and its special rules will solely made up by me. I'll decide by myself if spells have to be learned, if the usage is limited and other distinctive feature special to the respective setting.

Another question just pops up in my mind. Is modding of gear included in the equipment section?

21 minutes ago, DarthDude said:

Another question just pops up in my mind. Is modding of gear included in the equipment section?

Sounds like the answer is "yes, but" with the buts being "not as fleshed out as I would like" and "not including magical items". ("I" not being me.)

6 minutes ago, CitizenKeen said:

Sounds like the answer is "yes, but" with the buts being "not as fleshed out as I would like" and "not including magical items". ("I" not being me.)

Yeah, I read the reddit post about the books content now. Seems that at least the creation of magic gear is not that elaborated as I would wish but overall the book seems to promise alot.

3 hours ago, 2P51 said:

Once you play a bit you won't need the crutch. I just type into my session doc the opponents I intend to use and exactly what I need from them, type out their attack dice pool in symbols, base damage with stat included along with crits and effects, wounds, soak, etc. No need to look things up just type em in as you need them. No looking at anything other than my session sheet with notes.

Not to hijack this, but.... My google-fu is weak. I admit it. Where did you find the symbols/dice or did you just cut and paste from somewhere? Just curious. Um, asking for a friend. Yeah, that it! Yeah.

Someone did them I think, but honestly they're all emulated in Google Doc, the shapes anyway. Then I just copy and paste what I need from previous entries and adjust the font color as needed. That's just dice silhouettes, the symbols are a font someone did on the Star Wars forum somewhere I think.

It's definitely generic.....

to be clear on my concerns with Magic is I am a very new GM and while I like that its flexible to multiple systems the post seems to suggest that Magic is SUPER free form, as in not even guide lines to help you dependent on the level of magic you want in your game are in the book. That is a heavy concern for me as that means all balancing will be on me and I don't always trust myself even if my players have never had any complaints about the fun of the game. Now it may all be worrying for naught but I would still have liked SOME guidelines for magic whether it be making it easier or making it harder. I will say there was a complaint in the reddit post about not having rules to reduce difficulty of a spell by giving it penalties, but I figure you can always add a "slow firing" or even "Prepare" trait and lower difficulty by 1 and that would just be my ruling on most cases like that. Like if some one wanted to make a super powerful spell and spend like an hour to cast it I would allow him to basically get 5 things added (including range and other attributes) but have "prepare 5" on it to reward players who set up "traps" and the like with their spell casters, but that is of course setting dependent.

What you want in your game would always be up to you regardless of what any book says anyway. Specific setting stuff will come in sourcebooks I'm sure.

I don't know what's being written on reddit but the more you try to do with a single casting the more Difficult it becomes.