I don't know if it's just coincidence to see this thread popping up now but it's something I've run up against a couple of times recently. I wonder if someone might be able to convey the actual problem to me? I have been confused about this apparent issue about not being able to create a character concept you want to play. To my mind, the only issue is usually one of player expectations.

Here is my line of thinking:

In my experience, with enough XP any character concept would be perfectly viable in this system. Nothing is off limits, though something may cost more than others which seems like a reasonable, even clever, model to me.

If a player or group of players have a desire to play a specific concept with more practical skill and experience, such as a Jedi Knight or even a Master, then it would be appropriate to create a game that begins with a significant starting bonus, allowing the player(s) to produce the character they want to play.

However, if most of the group wants to begin with starting level characters and one player wishes to play a more proficient character, then you might have a mismatch in player expectations. I'd expect this sort of thing to become apparent and discussed at the beginning of a Session 0, during a discussion about just what type of game you all want to play. At that point, it'd be a case of ensuring to align player expectations and set the starting "Level" accordingly.

There's a part of me that is dubious about players wanting to create a character that is all singing all dancing from the off. I have the that central to the Narrative Roleplay experience is the idea of characters going through a transformative journey. If you begin with your ideal badass character then were is there to go? But I still think it is possible to play a game of that nature should anyone wish to.

The only problem I can realy think of is that there is a fairly basic concession to a playing a group game, in that all characters are assumed to be of about the same level of experience. A GM could decide to not do that but I suspect that it's quite an important aspect for everyone's mutual enjoyment.

So, as it stands, I don't think the system is broken. I think this feels like an issue of the player wanting to play a different game or tell a different story. And that's something that should be determined and agreed upon up front.

I mean this as no disrespect to anyone - particularly whafrog, whose input on these forums I always enjoy and usually nod along with.

Hopefully this all makes some kind of sense and I really would appreciate hearing a counterpoint here.

5 hours ago, SanguineAngel said:

I don't know if it's just coincidence to see this thread popping up now but it's something I've run up against a couple of times recently. I wonder if someone might be able to convey the actual problem to me? I have been confused about this apparent issue about not being able to create a character concept you want to play. To my mind, the only issue is usually one of player expectations.

Here is my line of thinking:

In my experience, with enough XP any character concept would be perfectly viable in this system. Nothing is off limits, though something may cost more than others which seems like a reasonable, even clever, model to me.

Allow me to attempt to elaborate on how I am looking at it. First, it's not a matter of XP. Any character concept could be made with an unlimited amount of XP. It's more, for 200 xp I could have the basics of my character to where it's now coming together. I can do the things I want. I'm not great, but good enough and have my desired bases at least touched on with definite room for improvement. VS it takes me 300 to 400 xp to fill in that basic foundation and I had to take several talents that had absolutely nothing to do with the desired direction of my character.

Another way to look at it. Say you have a career plan and pick most appropriate school. You've taken the main courses and started your career but want to continue your education down a certain path to get better. Your school doesn't offer any more of those courses so they tell you that you will have to find a different school to take the courses you want. Only when you go there they tell you that before you can take the courses that you want you have to take several other courses that have absolutely nothing to do with your career path. There's no negotiation, it's just "if you want the 300 level engineering course, you have to take history 102, and underwater tapestry weaving 1 and 2 first. Oh, and you have to join the dance team." The Genesys rules are more like a school that says "if you want the 300 level engineering course, you'll have to take some 100 and 200 level courses first to balance out your load. Go ahead and pick whichever ones you want that you think will be good for you though, we're cool like that."

12 hours ago, RebelDave said:

But there would be people who dont, becuase "why should I spend my money, the GM has it already"

Now, I know thats not true of everyone, and every group. But it certainly would be in my group. Im the ONLY one with ANY SW RPG books, and I know for a fact none of my players will buy any of them, even the one who has said he would run a SW game.

Equally, a compendium book would potentially mean many people would buy ONE book, instead of say... SIX books, becuase they have no interested in the Career specs, and just want the equipment. And that, is not a good business decision. Especially since lists of all that equipment is freely available online. Along with Species, ships, Specs, etc.

Actually, it means they would end up selling 8 books instead of 6. The original 6 to the guy who is going to buy all the books anyway, plus one compendium book to the guy who buys all the books and one compendium book to the guy who is only going to buy one book. Maybe 9 even, if the guy who bought the great big book of guns now decides he may as well get the bounty hunter book since then he will have all his favorite class and all his favorite equipment. No one likes to have to carry around 23 or so books just to have all of one type of thing, be it talent trees guns ships or droids.

Besides, that really wasnt my point tho. If hogging a book is a problem, someone needs to buy another copy.

Tho if someone did "why should I spend my money, the GM has it already" to me, I really would tell them they arent welcome at the table anymore. At the very least if they expect me to spend my money getting the game, then spend my time making a game to entertain them, they can pay me to play.

16 hours ago, korjik said:

The idea is that everyone buys a copy of the book

16 hours ago, RebelDave said:

But there would be people who dont, becuase "why should I spend my money, the GM has it already"

Now, I know thats not true of everyone, and every group. But it certainly would be in my group. Im the ONLY one with ANY SW RPG books, and I know for a fact none of my players will buy any of them, even the one who has said he would run a SW game.

Equally, a compendium book would potentially mean many people would buy ONE book, instead of say... SIX books, becuase they have no interested in the Career specs, and just want the equipment. And that, is not a good business decision. Especially since lists of all that equipment is freely available online. Along with Species, ships, Specs, etc.

Thank you RebelDave, that's exactly my point.

The mixture, that every book keeps on giving is actually a nice thing people. Otherwise we would have to wait even longer on new species, new equipment etc. if they weren't featured in those we have now. The mixture is very welcome for me, and I can agree with the price as well.

I see it with some of my friends who play Shadowrun. They have all those equipment books, books on Metahuman variants, magic etc. that it's always one guy hogging the book unless the GM bought multiple ones and the others who need it waiting on it. This hasn't happened not once in my STAR WARS groups so far, which is a nice thing, because nobody gets impatient.

Hmm...find myself on the fence with this one.

On the one hand, I agree that the trees can be quite restrictive, and there are some that are so weird or underpowered as to be basically unusable (and there are plenty of OP ones as well). On the flip side, I find they provide a structure and a flavour that just wouldn't be possible with entirely freeform talents. Certain unique talents just only make sense in the context of a specific archetype, and those archetypes provide really valuable guidelines to players, especially relative newcomers. It's must easier for me to explain to a new player who their character is by showing them the Scoundrel Tree or the Hotshot Tree than it is to present them with a whole host of talents and say "there, go choose".

Plus (and I haven't played Genesys yet, I'll admit), it seems like there must inevitably be certain talents that nearly everybody ends up taking (and certain talents that everyone avoids, although I guess that's less of an issue). Whereas the talent trees limit this, creating more individual, unique characters. I'm all for breadth, as @whafrogstates, but I wouldn't want to see that at the expense of individuality.

Rather than a reprint of rules, perhaps a more useful thing would be a guide (aimed at GMs but accessible to players) on how to construct effective new talent trees. I think there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of the trees - it's just that some of the trees aren't very good, and need reworking.

4 hours ago, edwardavern said:

Whereas the talent trees limit this, creating more individual, unique characters.

The paradox of templates providing uniqueness...

The naysayers seem to miss (or ignore) that you can still have templates, but instead of fixed grids with fixed paths, a template could provide a guidebook to useful and flavourful selections, in other words:

4 hours ago, edwardavern said:

It's must easier for me to explain to a new player who their character is by showing them the Scoundrel Tree or the Hotshot Tree than it is to present them with a whole host of talents and say "there, go choose".

I agree. All I'm saying is, it shouldn't be a straightjacket.

This is one instance where we could *all* have our cake and eat it too, so I find the objections entirely unimaginative.

23 minutes ago, whafrog said:

ou can still have templates, but instead of fixed grids with fixed paths, a template could provide a guidebook to useful and flavourful selections,

The Iron Kingdoms RPG by Privateer Press does something along these lines. Careers give you a set of talents to chose from, but you don't have to take them in a certain sequence.

21 hours ago, Ahrimon said:

Another way to look at it. Say you have a career plan and pick most appropriate school. You've taken the main courses and started your career but want to continue your education down a certain path to get better. Your school doesn't offer any more of those courses so they tell you that you will have to find a different school to take the courses you want. Only when you go there they tell you that before you can take the courses that you want you have to take several other courses that have absolutely nothing to do with your career path. There's no negotiation, it's just "if you want the 300 level engineering course, you have to take history 102, and underwater tapestry weaving 1 and 2 first. Oh, and you have to join the dance team."

You just described almost every college/university/higher education platform on the planet. You only get the education you want if you flesh it out with a few things the school adds that you may not want, and you still have to pay for it.

6 hours ago, crashnburninc said:

You just described almost every college/university/higher education platform on the planet. You only get the education you want if you flesh it out with a few things the school adds that you may not want, and you still have to pay for it.

Yep, you have to play by their rules right now. But wouldn't it be great if there was another way... ***cough***Genesys***cough***

As an additional point, freeflow flexibility is great if you're an experienced RPer, but the trees provide great structure to players either new to the system, or to RPing in general.

As a personal example, SWRPG is my first tabletop RPG, and I'm slowly (attempting to) convert my wife to the hobby. The trees were definitely easier for me to understand from my previous computer RPG experience, and I'm afraid (but 95% certain) that if I laid out the Genesys talents chapter in front of her (with no RPG experience at all), her eyes would glaze over and her RP career would be over. Whereas, after a 20 second pitch to me, she's happy playing (and advancing through) her Mystic Advisor.

Also, (borrowing from the above metaphor) the Genesys system lets you get "Basketweaving 101, Basketweaving 202" followed by "Barrel-roll (or starfighter piloting 303)". How exactly does that make any more sense than the talent tree system? Not saying it's terrible, but I fail to see how it's better than the current system, unless your concept NEEDS a basketweaving pilot?

If you remove the designated paths, players aren't going to take what they perceive to be "useless" Talents, like removing Setback dice from interactions with universities (I think this was a Scholar talent).

The Talent trees don't exist to punish players, they exist to push GMs to include thematically appropriate encounters in a scenario that give individual players opportunities to shine. Given the number of GMs who rely on combat as a time-filling crutch, I consider this a feature not a bug.

On 5/25/2018 at 1:08 PM, Concise Locket said:

If you remove the designated paths, players aren't going to take what they perceive to be "useless" Talents, like removing Setback dice from interactions with universities (I think this was a Scholar talent).

I don't understand why that is a problem. It seems to me that these talents exist whether or not the GM folds that type of requirement into their campaign. The rules are a toolkit, and I shouldn't have to incorporate aspects of the game that are useless, arbitrary, or simply have no place in my campaign. There are a whole range of Talents that don't fit how I run a campaign...I rarely make money an issue, and I certainly have no use for things like the rarity chart (other than as a simple guide), so "Black Market Contacts" and some of the money Talents are useless to the players. They are designed to enforce a type of bean-counting I consider a detriment to a good story.

A good template with suggestions will both accomplish what you want, and at the same time allow some discretion over whether something fits.

On 5/25/2018 at 1:08 PM, Concise Locket said:

The Talent trees don't exist to punish players, they exist to push GMs to include thematically appropriate encounters in a scenario that give individual players opportunities to shine.

Bull. I do that anyway. I don't need FFG to tell me what I must or must not include in my campaign. If scholastic achievement is part of the plot, or the player wants to make it part of plot, then the Talent will be used.

On 5/25/2018 at 1:08 PM, Concise Locket said:

Given the number of GMs who rely on combat as a time-filling crutch, I consider this a feature not a bug.

That's not your call, that's up to each table to decide. Breadth over depth can certainly be encouraged, but again, a suggestive template would accomplish that just as well.

I continue to find the objections just...weird. You still have your spec trees with their connective lines, you could still use them if you want. But instead you seem to want to preserve the old system because it forces other people to play a certain way.

4 minutes ago, whafrog said:

I don't understand why that is a problem. It seems to me that these talents exist whether or not the GM folds that type of requirement into their campaign. The rules are a toolkit, and I shouldn't have to incorporate aspects of the game that are useless, arbitrary, or simply have no place in my campaign. There are a whole range of Talents that don't fit how I run a campaign...I rarely make money an issue, and I certainly have no use for things like the rarity chart (other than as a simple guide), so "Black Market Contacts" and some of the money Talents are useless to the players. They are designed to enforce a type of bean-counting I consider a detriment to a good story.

A good template with suggestions will both accomplish what you want, and at the same time allow some discretion over whether something fits.

Bull. I do that anyway. I don't need FFG to tell me what I must or must not include in my campaign. If scholastic achievement is part of the plot, or the player wants to make it part of plot, then the Talent will be used.

That's not your call, that's up to each table to decide. Breadth over depth can certainly be encouraged, but again, a suggestive template would accomplish that just as well.

I continue to find the objections just...weird. You still have your spec trees with their connective lines, you could still use them if you want. But instead you seem to want to preserve the old system because it forces other people to play a certain way.

The greatest lies that almost every RPG tries to sell are:

a. You can play any kind of character you want to
b. You can tell any kind of story with this system

To FFG's credit, they've never tried to trick me into believing either of those statements.

Of course the system forces (other) people to play a certain way. That's what it's designed to do. FFG SW isn't GURPS - the original "toolkit system" - and it isn't trying to be. It's a packaged play system with pre-designed modes of storytelling and thematically appropriate careers that cover the traditional gaming triad of combat/knowledge/social mechanics skill tests.

I applaud any system that ties the rules so tightly into the narrative that you can't separate one without harming the other and forces GMs to think creatively about encounters and skill tests. Overly broad rules result in the two greatest sins an RPG can commit: generic game play and dull math games that result in min-max characters.

I've played with the same game group for 10 years and we've played almost every system and setting you can name. We've never re-visited any system other than FFG SW and we're on our third re-visit. We played D20 Saga and hated it but love this system. So, yeah, I think it is my call to make because I like it, it's a smart game design move, it encourages creativity, it keeps players' and GMs' worst instincts in check, and the play style it produces is fun.

On 5/19/2018 at 7:19 PM, oneeyedmatt87 said:

As an additional point, freeflow flexibility is great if you're an experienced RPer, but the trees provide great structure to players either new to the system, or to RPing in general.

As a personal example, SWRPG is my first tabletop RPG, and I'm slowly (attempting to) convert my wife to the hobby. The trees were definitely easier for me to understand from my previous computer RPG experience, and I'm afraid (but 95% certain) that if I laid out the Genesys talents chapter in front of her (with no RPG experience at all), her eyes would glaze over and her RP career would be over. Whereas, after a 20 second pitch to me, she's happy playing (and advancing through) her Mystic Advisor.

I agree with this, and also I have verified this directing one shots sessions to demostrate the game. Trees are a way to quickly enter in the flesh of a character and not to think too much about what to pick and what no.

Also, I agree with that some trees does not fit my vision of the speciality given. After playing a while and knowing better the system and the talents, now I could go to a Genesys customizable style talent picking, but for a new player to the game (from never played to RPGs to an old one) this would be overwhelming.

Now to the topic.

A solution for the present discussion about Genesys free talent pick VS Specific talent trees would be a middle way, like Star Wars Saga Edition did. It had conceptual classes (soldier, explorer, noble, scoundrel...) and generic talent trees only available for those clases, separated by themes (stealth, armor, weapon specialitation, fortune, alert, inspiration, etc etc).

That gave to me the conceptual mindset I needed but also the freedom to choose witch talents fitted better my character without being overwhelmed by the talents. The fact that they were organized by class and theme was very useful. Although I found that a good idea, mechanically the rules were more like a miniature playstyle than a narrative one, thing that I disliked.

You could do the same, take the talents from Genesys and EoE and group them by themes.

It is only an idea that I think it falls in the middle way between "overwhelming" and "straightjacket".

Cheers!

On 5/16/2018 at 12:31 AM, Khazadune said:

Darth Maul is Force Rating 4, Vader 6.

That’s Vader.

Would a 300-400 xp Gambler, Padawan Surviver, Force Exil & Force Emergent not be already at Force Rating 4? ?

On 2/26/2018 at 2:10 AM, whafrog said:

Hi, much as I love this game, I really have grown to detest the careers and specs. They never fit any of my player's concepts, they are so limiting, pointless straightjackets, and often make little sense. After seeing how you fixed this and several other issues in Genesys, can I dare to hope that there will be a version 2.0 of the Star Wars game?

Just as for version 1, I promise to buy every book. My wallet is open, please take my money.

Is that's your issue, why not play straight Star Wars with Genesys? FFGSW RPG should work better with Genesys restrictions anyway. (new characteristic caps)

2 hours ago, Concise Locket said:

I applaud any system that ties the rules so tightly into the narrative that you can't separate one without harming the other and forces GMs to think creatively about encounters and skill tests.

These two things--rules bound to the narrative, and GM creativity--are not connected in any way. That doesn't even make sense.

2 hours ago, Concise Locket said:

I've played with the same game group for 10 years

Is that all? I've played with the same group for almost 40...but I fail to see what relevance that has.

2 hours ago, Concise Locket said:

So, yeah, I think it is my call to make

Oh, if it's good for you, everybody else has to like it? Because "10 years"...etc?

Make special note: I'm not proposing taking anything away that people currently like. But in contrast, the best argument the opposition has put forward is "I like that it forces YOU to do it MY way." I continue to think that is weird.

2 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Is that's your issue, why not play straight Star Wars with Genesys?

Yes, now that a conversion has been done, I likely will. But as noted, I'd pay for a nice bound book. I have time to play, but not develop and play test.

Mr. Frog, I think the reason you're encountering so much resistance is because what you're suggesting is that FFG kill the current system in order to begin anew with Star Wars in Genesys.

Now, while many of your points are very well taken, that there are problems with the original Star Wars NDS system, there are also problems with Genesys. Furthermore, to quote your own post, if FFG were to drop the current system full stop due to your suggestion, you would, in effect, be forcing US to do it YOUR way.

I don't think there's ever going to be a way to explain why we like this system the way it is that makes sense to you. We have different tastes. Which is entirely fine. But requesting that the company that makes both systems kill the system we love in order to do it again in the one you love is, in my opinion, somewhat rude.

And that is what you're suggesting: there is little to no financial incentive for FFG to produce Star Wars NDS and Star War Genesys products side by side. They'll be splitting their player base, turning an already low-profit game into a likely loss.

And just because the career books have come/are coming to a close doesn't mean the system has run its course. To make a semi-topical analogy: It's as if the first Avengers movie had come out, and you'd said, "Okay, they made it to the Avengers! No more need for box office movies anymore, they should re-boot the timeline in a bunch of Marvel TV shows instead! I find the TV-model much better, anyway; you get more time to develop the characters." The Avengers was just Phase 1, and they had a bunch more Phases to go.

...That might have been a bit rough, but hopefully you can see my point. Just because we've reached the end of one part, doesn't mean we've reached the end of the whole.

Which is why I, and many others here I'm sure, keep coming back to the same point: FFG will continue to make new material for Genesys, including a Sci-Fi setting, I'm sure. Feel free to use Genesys how it was meant to be used and take from that and the separate Star Wars books to design your Star Wars Genesys games. I hope you have fun! We'll be here, doing our Star Wars NDS games.

14 hours ago, Absol197 said:

Mr. Frog, I think the reason you're encountering so much resistance is because what you're suggesting is that FFG kill the current system in order to begin anew with Star Wars in Genesys.

Well, I think "kill" is too strong a word. It's not like the current product line won't continue to exist...heck, people still play WEG. So this:

14 hours ago, Absol197 said:

Furthermore, to quote your own post, if FFG were to drop the current system full stop due to your suggestion, you would, in effect, be forcing US to do it YOUR way.

...isn't remotely true. I'm not denying anybody anything they don't already have. And really, if you think about it, there's no reason any future products can't be compatible with both lines, since all that would change is the freedom of player selection.

So while I appreciate your diplomatic approach, I still have to point out the lack of imagination and flexibility of the opposing view. I never imagined there would be so much dogmatic opposition to a change that takes away nothing from the current users.

13 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Well, I think "kill" is too strong a word. It's not like the current product line won't continue to exist...heck, people still play WEG. So this:

...isn't remotely true. I'm not denying anybody anything they don't already have. And really, if you think about it, there's no reason any future products can't be compatible with both lines, since all that would change is the freedom of player selection.

So while I appreciate your diplomatic approach, I still have to point out the lack of imagination and flexibility of the opposing view. I never imagined there would be so much dogmatic opposition to a change that takes away nothing from the current users.

That’s not quite true though. The new/promoted/supported system always takes away players from the old one(s). And for me, players and GMs are the most important resource right after the core book of any RPG. You need that book to even have a game, but you need players in order to be able to actually play it. I’d play L5R 3rd if I had my way - not happening since 4th came out. D&D3 has one group left here (which rarely even plays anymore either), down from about a dozen I knew of - Pathfinder and D&D5 gobbled them up. Splitting up the player base is definitely detrimental to whoever wants to continue playing the older edition. Also, expect books to become (even) harder to find, and more expensive - not a great proposition if you want to try and bring new players in.

Dual-compatible books are a bad idea. We had that for L5R (R&K and D20 in the same books). You just end up paying more for the content you want.

1 hour ago, nameless ronin said:

The new/promoted/supported system always takes away players from the old one(s).

A possibly reasonable point. I don't think that's really the case here though, as the games would only differ wrt trees vs templates, and would be much more closely compatible.

That said, the game doesn't exist in an economic vacuum. FFG has to publish new products or die. More books using the current system could meet a sales slump unless they are more system-agnostic. A revamp has the chance to bring in others already in the Genesys circle while also getting the current users buying into it.

25 minutes ago, whafrog said:

A possibly reasonable point. I don't think that's really the case here though, as the games would only differ wrt trees vs templates, and would be much more closely compatible.

That said, the game doesn't exist in an economic vacuum. FFG has to publish new products or die. More books using the current system could meet a sales slump unless they are more system-agnostic. A revamp has the chance to bring in others already in the Genesys circle while also getting the current users buying into it.

The last books have been doing well. More era books in the vein of DoR show up on most posts in threads about what people want. No offense, but “could meet a sales slump unless more system-agnostic” is purely speculative. And approval would be needed from the House of the Mouse, who tend to keep a close watch on licencees.

19 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

The last books have been doing well. More era books in the vein of DoR show up on most posts in threads about what people want. No offense, but “could meet a sales slump unless more system-agnostic” is purely speculative. And approval would be needed from the House of the Mouse, who tend to keep a close watch on licencees.

It is also the same argument that has been used against era, location and compilation books for a couple years now. If you dont restrict that argument to FFG, then it has been the argument against for a decade.

Plus, I am not all that sure that era books are all that doable, beyond what is actual canon now. Admittedly the canon sources frequently add legends material to canon via name dropping and cameos, but that doesnt really mean that the legends material wont be changed to a large degree when it is made canon. This can lead to problems if a book gets made obsolete when a movie comes out.

56 minutes ago, whafrog said:

A possibly reasonable point. I don't think that's really the case here though, as the games would only differ wrt trees vs templates, and would be much more closely compatible.

That said, the game doesn't exist in an economic vacuum. FFG has to publish new products or die. More books using the current system could meet a sales slump unless they are more system-agnostic. A revamp has the chance to bring in others already in the Genesys circle while also getting the current users buying into it.

I dont know if it is all that reasonable a point. Fracturing the fanbase occurs when the follow-on is obviously worse than the predecessor. It is only a small factor when the newer product is obviously better than the last one.

The only problem with that last statement is that Genesys is different enough that 'better' could be hard to define. Thats why even tho I was enthusiastic for converting Star Wars to Genesys when Genesys first came out I am not so sure now. I would prefer a second edition of the current game more than a conversion to Genesys right now.

Then again, if they went crazy and did both, I would buy both, so I may not be an unbiased observer. The only way they could get me to not buy it is to make it level based.

I feel like with house rules, one could fix some of the problems whafrog is pointing to. For example, one house rule I've considered for high-XP play is something like this:

Whenever you open up a new specialization, the GM allows you to choose one talent from any different spec to gain. You can't choose something that would be OP like Dedication or Force Rating; the details here are up to GM discretion.

This does two things (1) it gets rid of the feeling of XP going "down the drain" when you spend them on opening up a spec, (2) it lets players realize their character concepts more fully while still being guided by the talent trees. To take an example mentioned above, if you want your character to be able to throw lightsabers at long range but not be sneaky, just choose Improved Lightsaber Throw as your free wild-card talent when you open up a spec (assuming you already have Lightsaber Throw).

Alternatively, you could give players the same option when they close out the bottom of a talent tree, instead of or in addition to letting them buy a Signature Ability.

4 hours ago, korjik said:

It is also the same argument that has been used against era, location and compilation books for a couple years now. If you dont restrict that argument to FFG, then it has been the argument against for a decade.

Plus, I am not all that sure that era books are all that doable, beyond what is actual canon now. Admittedly the canon sources frequently add legends material to canon via name dropping and cameos, but that doesnt really mean that the legends material wont be changed to a large degree when it is made canon. This can lead to problems if a book gets made obsolete when a movie comes out.

Plenty of Clone Wars era stuff that’s canon thanks to movies and obviously the animated series, and it’s an era a lot of players are interested in. DoR’s release was very likely timed to coincide with the season finale of SW Rebels, which would indicate the powers that be pay attention to that kind of thing. I absolutely expect an era sourcebook to be released when Ep IX hits theaters too. There are possibilities. Besides, there are still SW novels coming out that will be considered canon (all official stuff published post Sep 2014 is canon), and those need to be checked against future movies as well. Moving a bunch of stuff to Legends doesn’t change that. Also keep in mind the material in all three FFG SW RPG lines is not officially considered canon as is anyway.

Lastly, I wasn’t referring to canon status to begin with. ? What I meant is that Disney keeps a close eye on licence holders not going beyond what their licence allows and on the commercial quality of the licenced products. I have my doubts that the idea of two systems, even if they are closely related, competing against each other - which would effectively be the case - is going to go over well.