20 hours ago, Gallandro said:

Yes, I’ll probably be running it soon for my gaming group. Haven’t played 1st Edition in well over 20 years, and I had forgotten how streamlined the system was before 2nd Edition started introducing more crunch and “optional” rules.

Most of that crunch was introduced in later 1E supplements.

The vehicle combat moved to being more tactical, but was a follow-up on the approach take with Star Warriors, which predates 2E.

Scaling was in the Rules Companion. So also was "one power per pip," and a number of cool additional powers. Trade rules were in GG6, and unchanged for the 2E version. Reaction and full round "reactions" got changed with the Rules Upgrade, then the Rules Companion, then with 2E, then again in 2ER#...

My group has expressed interest in playing as bounty hunters who are also former Republic Clone Troopers. So I'll probably be running it at some point.

On 7/14/2018 at 10:29 PM, BanthaPoodoo72 said:

Yeah, the typos are interesting ...

On page 96 of the 30th Anniversary Sourcebook, it lists lightsaber damage as “50” yet the original Sourcebook had the correct value of “5D.”

Regarding Yoda, “Survival” was also spelled correctly in the original Sourcebook.

Just curious... How bad are the typos? Because I can see that lightsaber damage really throwing GMs (not familiar with WEG SW) for a loop.

I still have original copies of these books. So now I'm wondering if I should just pass on the "collectability" of this set...

I haven't found many typos though I haven't been proofreading the books and looking for problems--certain things just popped out. So far, I've found nothing wrong with the core rulebook, so GMs should know what the proper lightsaber damage is. If you plan to run a D6 adventure or campaign, however, I'd still recommend using the original books, if only because the 30th anniversary edition of these publications are printed on much nicer paper and smoother covers, housed in a nice case. I wouldn't want them to get too much wear and tear.

As for the "collectability" of this set, that's up to you. Personally, I don't think they'll go up much in price. However, these books will always remain near and dear to those of us who, in the late 80s, were scrounging for any scraps of Star Wars content (SW was considered a dead franchise back then). Us fans ended up finding a gold mine through West End Games. These WEG books will always be priceless to me.

Anyone else hoping that FFG will decide to reprint more books in this series? I know I am.

On 7/14/2018 at 9:29 PM, BanthaPoodoo72 said:

Yeah, the typos are interesting ...

On page 96 of the 30th Anniversary Sourcebook, it lists lightsaber damage as “50” yet the original Sourcebook had the correct value of “5D.”

Regarding Yoda, “Survival” was also spelled correctly in the original Sourcebook.

The yoda survival thing is correct they just indented before the "l" in survival making it look like surviva l8D the "l" and "1" in the type face they used look very similar.

I ran and played lots of 2nd ed and 2nd revised back in the day. I bought the anniversary edition just as a collectible/memento, but reading 1st ed has been a revelation - I like this a lot more than 2nd ed! I'm running D&D5 right now but I'm seriously tempted to run this game now.

I am seriously tempted to run this for some friends. I too, was surprised by the differences between 1st edition and the later ones, as I had only played later editions (Trivial anecdote, I had been playing SWD6 for almost 8 years before I ever saw a core rulebook, and it would be close to another 8 years before I managed to secure my own first copy of a core book, Revised and Expanded. To say the least, by the time I finally saw a core rulebook for the first time, we had some pretty extensive houserules going on, lol).

I've always like the simplicity of D6, so 1st edition has really captivated my attention and I want to see how it plays out in person.

Yes, 1E is awesome. I think it is a much better game than the latter versions.

Although I am a fan of the other versions, i do feel that 1E better captures the feel of a Star Wars original trilogy movie.

And, I absolute love the initiative system used in 1E. It takes some getting used to, if you are used to rolling for nish. But, once you get the hang of it, it makes you wonder why you would ever bother doing it the other way.

On 11/17/2018 at 4:29 PM, player3412539 said:

And, I absolute love the initiative system used in 1E. It takes some getting used to, if you are used to rolling for nish. But, once you get the hang of it, it makes you wonder why you would ever bother doing it the other way.

Nope, not for me, not for many of my players over the years... it's got a much higher handling time than a fixed initiative. It's cumbersome if you have players with short attention spans, in exactly the same way rolled-each-round initiative is.

I will admit, 1E's initiative is the most realistic one of the SW games, but it's a bloody bugger for handling time.

5 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

Nope, not for me, not for many of my players over the years... it's got a much higher handling time than a fixed initiative. It's cumbersome if you have players with short attention spans, in exactly the same way rolled-each-round initiative is.

I will admit, 1E's initiative is the most realistic one of the SW games, but it's a bloody bugger for handling time.

How do you figure it's got a higher handling time than fixed initiative? As I said, I think it is cumbersome just because most people are used to rolling initiative, but a good GM should be able to coach those short attention span players. It ain't rocket science.

What is easier?

A. Roll Initiative

B. Roll Han's attack.

C. Roll Stormtrooper's attack.

Or this...

Y. Roll Han's attack.

Z. Roll Stormtrooper's attack. Highest roll wins.

I count an extra roll in the ABC Traditional method. I count one less roll in the YZ 1E Method.

It's obviously easier.

You're looking at a 2 players, an excessively simple situation, and a single round; thus making a reductio ad absurdum.

Most conflicts run 3-5 rounds, and have 3-6 vs 3-10.

1E process is, for each turn

1. Everyone declares all actions (time consuming - linear increase)
2. GM determines number of segments (trivial)
3. in each segment
   1. Everyone rolls
   2. GM compares to find order (time consuming - exponential increase)
   3. GM resolves in descending order

2E process

1. everyone rolls initiative
2. GM establishes sequence for rest of combat (time consuming exponential)
3. Rounds work down the list, in order, each player doing...
   1. declare action
   2. roll action
   3. resolve action

What it loses in faux simplicity it more than makes up for by only having to do the mass comparison once per combat, rather than once per segment.

7 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

You're looking at a 2 players, an excessively simple situation, and a single round; thus making a reductio ad absurdum.

Most conflicts run 3-5 rounds, and have 3-6 vs 3-10.

1E process is, for each turn

1. Everyone declares all actions (time consuming - linear increase)
2. GM determines number of segments (trivial)
3. in each segment
   1. Everyone rolls
   2. GM compares to find order (time consuming - exponential increase)
   3. GM resolves in descending order

2E process

1. everyone rolls initiative
2. GM establishes sequence for rest of combat (time consuming exponential)
3. Rounds work down the list, in order, each player doing...
   1. declare action
   2. roll action
   3. resolve action

What it loses in faux simplicity it more than makes up for by only having to do the mass comparison once per combat, rather than once per segment.

1E, in practice, is much more simple that what you have above.

It's a new round. GM asks players what they want their characters to do. This happens with both methods. And, this is the Declaration in 1E.

Fred will fire at stormtrooper 1, twice. Alice will run to the ship. Joe will fire at stormtrooper 2.

The GM decides that Trooper 1 will fire at Alice. Trooper 2 will fire back at Joe.

Now, that seems like a typical combat round that is fairly complicated (not one character firing at a trooper that is firing back).

The GM, in his head, just needs isolate the combat and take them separately. In this example, there are two "combats".

Combat 1 is Fred firing twice at Trooper 1. Alice runs for the ship. And, Trooper 1 fires at Alice.

Simple. Fred rolls his Blaster skill. Alice rolls her DEX. Trooper 1 rolls his blaster skill. Look at the three rolls, and take the highest--that's what happens first. If able, go on down the line. Easy-peasy.

Combat 2 is a simple Joe fires at Trooper 2, and Trooper 2 fires back. Each roll Blaster skills. Take the highest roll first. Done.

One of the things that's different about 1E core book combat is that any hit will, at minimum, stun the target. A stun means that the target is dropped prone and loses the rest of his actions during the round. When this happens early in the round, this is a built in device that makes even complicated combats extremely simple.

For example, take Combat 1 above: Combat 1 is Fred firing twice at Trooper 1. Alice runs for the ship. And, Trooper 1 fires at Alice.

Let's say that Fred rolls the highest and hits his target. This means, at a minimum, that Trooper 1 will not shoot at Alice, She will make it to the ship. Fred fires. Trooper 1 falls. Alice runs.

Or...let's say that the order is this: Fred goes first, but his shot misses because Trooper 1 Dodges (the Dodge is at -1D because of the consideration of the Trooper 1 rolling for his Blaster already). Then, Alice's roll is next highest, which means that she made it to the ship, and still, Trooper 1 has nothing to fire at.

There are several scenarios, but the point is, 1E has this beautiful way of getting extremely simple as the combats occur.

I think 1E Initiative is marvelous. It just takes a little getting used to because it is not like most RPGs (even 2E SW).

Of course, it might not be your cup of tea. I get that. To each his own. Luckily, there are several official versions of D6 SW. Lots of methods to pick from.

Having played them all, my choice is the 1E core book methods. It's fast, and it really captures the feel of the original trilogy, imo.

I am running it by the rules. It is not fast. It's slow because it's computationally intensive if you're actually doing it by the rules as written .
Which I was looking at when writing the process, to make certain I got it right.

If you think it's not as complicated as I pointed out, then either you don't know the rules, or don't understand the rules, at least not as written.

5 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

I am running it by the rules. It is not fast. It's slow because it's computationally intensive if you're actually doing it by the rules as written .
Which I was looking at when writing the process, to make certain I got it right.

If you think it's not as complicated as I pointed out, then either you don't know the rules, or don't understand the rules, at least not as written.

Well, I don't know what you are doing differently. I run the game, rules as written, too. I've done that for years. The game flies at the speed of the Millennium Falcon at my table. It feels like Star Wars.

I think it is great. Just as written.

It's funny that it is the initiative system that has elicited the most passionate response because it is the 1e system I most want to see played out around the table.

It feels so intuitive and makes sense that a person's skill at a task would be a significant factor in the speed they can perform it . . . and it certainly seems to play out that way at player3412539's table, but AK_Aramis has been quick to point out the potential struggles that can bog the system down; how will the system flow when long strings of conflicts begin to chain together in nonlinear or convoluted ways?

If I am able to run a 1e game, it should work to my advantage that I will most likely have maybe one or two players, so things should remain relatively simple while I am learning and growing accustom to the system. . . unless I use it for running a one shot game (Like Starfell as a new years eve game; I did that using R&E once, lots of fun) , which I think 1e is particularly well suited.

Anyway, I still want to give the initiative system a try because I may have a solid idea how a system plays out after reading, I never truly know how it will play out at my table until it has.

On 7/22/2018 at 4:11 PM, dkeith2011 said:

Anyone else hoping that FFG will decide to reprint more books in this series? I know I am.

I own the entire run, but I sure would like to see it revived. It is one of my all-time favorite RPGs.

I think the next set, if there is a next set, should be the Imperial Sourcebook along with the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook.

That would add a lot of detail, from an rpg perspective, to the game universe.

1 hour ago, Crimson_red said:

It's funny that it is the initiative system that has elicited the most passionate response because it is the 1e system I most want to see played out around the table.

It feels so intuitive and makes sense that a person's skill at a task would be a significant factor in the speed they can perform it . . . and it certainly seems to play out that way at player3412539's table, but AK_Aramis has been quick to point out the potential struggles that can bog the system down; how will the system flow when long strings of conflicts begin to chain together in nonlinear or convoluted ways?

If I am able to run a 1e game, it should work to my advantage that I will most likely have maybe one or two players, so things should remain relatively simple while I am learning and growing accustom to the system. . . unless I use it for running a one shot game (Like Starfell as a new years eve game; I did that using R&E once, lots of fun) , which I think 1e is particularly well suited.

Anyway, I still want to give the initiative system a try because I may have a solid idea how a system plays out after reading, I never truly know how it will play out at my table until it has.

I think that the 1E initiative system takes a little getting used to. It's damned simple, but, frankly, most people just aren't used to running games this way. We're programmed for an initiative roll. It took me a few tries to embrace the system, but once I got the hang of it, I fell in love with it.

I wonder if people who have a problem with the 1E initiative system actually give it a chance. It so simple. They key is to isolate actions. Keep the narrative flowing. Don't have everybody roll their task--put some logic to it. If a character cannot effect another character, then, most of the time, you don't need to consider initiative anyway. Some people miss that in the core rulebook. Initiative is only considered when one character can impact another, as with two characters shooting at each other. It matters who gets off the shot first as the target may not get to shoot back.

If you've got a PC firing at a Stormtrooper, and the trooper is firing back, then both roll their blaster skills. BUT...the dice rolls are considered two ways. First, they are considered to be initiative rolls. Then, they are considered to be skill rolls. In this fashion, the same roll can be considered twice. Some players don't get that at first.

Let's say Han and Greedo are firing at each other. Han's roll is higher, so Han's attack is addressed first. And, that shot kills Greedo (or, at least, renders him unconscious). In this instance, Greedo's roll was only an initiative roll. He never really shot. For color, the GM can say that Greedo shot and missed a split second after Han hit him.

If Greedo's roll is high enough to hit Han...well, that's confusing to players. They don't understand that, at the first pass, the roll is only considered for initiative, and once that is determined, the rolls are considered as blaster skill rolls. In effect, since Han won initiative, Greedo never really fired a shot.

Consider it a short cut to rolling initiative. Players would understand first rolling initiative for Han, then rolling for Greedo. Seeing that Han won, then Han rolls his Blaster Skill. The 1E system makes this easier. Instead of all that, just roll both Blaster Skills. First look at the totals as initiative, then look at the same roll as Blaster attacks.

In Lucas' revised version of the Han and Greedo encounter, the rolls were changed. Greedo actually won initiative (he rolled higher than Han! Not likely, George!). He fired first, but Han Dodged. Greedo's bolt slammed into the wall. Now, Greedo's total was taken first, winning initiative, but the shot missed. So, Han's initiative roll is also his Blaster Attack roll. And, Han didn't miss.

Another thing that I suspect happens is that GMs play with the system and don't run the game as written. When this screws up another part of the game, like initiative, they don't consider that their rule change is what messed things up, not the initiative system as written.

For example, AK_ Aramis, above, has been seen to say that he likes the Haste System. Well, that is an initiative rule that came out of the 1E rule changes in the Rules Companion. It's not a 1E Core initiative rule. And, I think the Haste system really slows down the game. If he's considering that rules as written (which it is, if you use the Rules Companion), then his game is different from mine.

Or, sometimes GM's change an aspect of combat. There are different versions of it in the various SW D6 games rules. In 1E Core, any successful shot will down a target. In later rules, a STR defense roll higher than the attacking roll results in no damage at all--not even a stun.

If you remove this aspect of 1E, it has the effect of screwing with the initiative system. It makes the combat a lot harder and more confusing. The stun rule, as written in 1E core, must be kept if the system is to run fast and well.

One last thing. If you give the 1E initiative system a try and just don't like it, you can easily bring in one of the other combat systems. Bring in an initiative throw, if your and your group are comfortable with that. Use whatever makes your game the most fun.

For 1E, the combat system is tweaked twice: first with the four page Rules Uprade that you can find floating around on the net, and second in the previously mentioned Rules Companion. Then, the combat system is again tweaked for 2E, which uses a PER roll as a dedicated initiative throw.

There are plenty of options. D6 is a great system in that it can be tweaked for all tastes.

On 11/29/2018 at 3:12 AM, player3412539 said:

Well, I don't know what you are doing differently. I run the game, rules as written, too. I've done that for years. The game flies at the speed of the Millennium Falcon at my table. It feels like Star Wars.

I think it is great. Just as written.

Yeah i've been running the game for `15 years maybe more and can say that going by rules as written for initiative is fast as lighting.

@player3412539 I'm using it. I've been using it. I've used it before, back in the late 80's. My complaints about it are based upon years of play of 1E back in the day. And more years of play of 2E (but not 2ERE - I hate the scaling in 2ERE with a passion). A dozen+ sessions of 1E stock this year, as well - 4 at cons, and 8 outside cons. I'm only going afield in incorporating RC partially - the force powers and ship stats, while, for the last 3 sessions, I've used a variant scaling based upon the scaling in the 1E core.

1E is simpler in theory and to teach than the initiative in 2E.
It's more annoying, however, because it's slower to adjudicate with the typical 4-7 players I wind up with at table - 2 of my 3 campaigns are public open games - and all regulars are familiar with several kinds of initiative systems. This isn't their favorite, due to the handling time.

2 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

@player3412539 I'm using it. I've been using it. I've used it before, back in the late 80's. My complaints about it are based upon years of play of 1E back in the day. And more years of play of 2E (but not 2ERE - I hate the scaling in 2ERE with a passion). A dozen+ sessions of 1E stock this year, as well - 4 at cons, and 8 outside cons. I'm only going afield in incorporating RC partially - the force powers and ship stats, while, for the last 3 sessions, I've used a variant scaling based upon the scaling in the 1E core.

1E is simpler in theory and to teach than the initiative in 2E.
It's more annoying, however, because it's slower to adjudicate with the typical 4-7 players I wind up with at table - 2 of my 3 campaigns are public open games - and all regulars are familiar with several kinds of initiative systems. This isn't their favorite, due to the handling time.

We'll have to agree to disagree. It seems clear that one of us is doing something different.

As for 2E R&E, I really like that game. But, I really like all versions of D6 SW. 1E just happens to be my favorite version.