Callidon said:

Interesting perspective

Also, what did you mean by Saga being "sideways" compared to d20? I had very little experience with OCR/RCR, and so tend to look at as related to Saga Edition in an anachronistic fashion so I often don't get people's perspectives on those two editions.

awayputurwpn said:

awayputurwpn said:

Oh, god, not sure whether to be upset and insulted, or cry and laugh.

What he means by sideways, I think, is that it was square-shaped, 9 inches by 9. Or that the rules were really the playing ground for 4th ed D&D, but I think he meant the shape.

Edit: Dang, knew I waited too long to reply to that one.

Venthrac said:

I am pretty certain that the force powers listed in the EotE book is no where near what will be in the Force book. The only thing in this book is rules on characters who are force sensitive… which could apply to anyone. There are tons of force sensitives who are not Jedi. The Antarian Rangers were full of force sensitives who were not powerful enough to be Jedi.

Which is where the 40K "trilogy" is starting to break down, and why a lot of people are questioning the need to have made Only War a seperate game. Personally as a 40K lifer, I'm really, really, hoping that Only War is the last one.

The irritating part is that while a significant chunk of the game rules are the same, they tweak tiny little things (or big things like the way Psychic Powers work), which makes compatible easier said than done, and you're still shelling out $60+. What's doubly irritating is that to get a full bestiary or armoury you have to own all the settings - Tyranids and Eldar and several others are spread across all the lines, and tracking down a specfic creature can be a minor miracle sometimes, and quite often the systems (like vehicle combat) that could exist quiet happily across all the settings get two, three sometimes more variations.

Much of the character creation, gear, skills and talents, combat rules, how to play, etc., sections are identical or close enough to probably feel the same if read back to back. For all intents and purposes the Dark Heresy system could have just been a generic RPG system with the other Deathwatch, Rogue Trader systems and and whatnot put out in supplements.

While I think it's important to give FFG the benefit of the doubt, my faith is wobbly, and I'm not sure I believe that the lightsaber and force powers, or vehicle combat, or whatever will be the same by the time 2015 rolls around, and interchangeable is not what everyone thought it was.

People can critiscise those of us who have concerns about how FFG is going to handle the line, and it's their right to do so, but there is building evidence elsewhere that this multiple release/core system has flaws, and there's very little word from FFG about how they are going to fix them.

VagrantWhisper said:

Yep. . That's-a-me! Whassup?

And we have a review slated this for this week. ;-). Hopefully, with a designer on the mic. A

I personally like the idea of 3 core books. For one, from what I hear, they are going to treat the power level of "true" Jedi the way it should be and not nerf their power level just to balance them with other characters. Separating them out into their own full-blown RPG will allow them to do this well without eliminating their ability to be mixed with other characters (as long as the players are mature enough to handle the disparity in power levels).

Secondly, while I enjoy all of the eras (including the dreaded prequels), I think they are very different beasts especially when it comes to their power level, style, and genre treatment. So focusing just on the "classic" era makes total sense. The d20 versions of the setting fell into the trap of trying to make one core set encompass absolutely every aspect of the setting. This lead to nerfed Jedi, patched rules, campaign guides with idiosyncratic options that just confused things.

Focusing on a particular style of Star Wars in a single core rulebook gives them an unequaled amount of detail in getting the mood right. I really like the direction FFG is going. Granted, I've not played 40k and have not purchased any of the books, but I like what I see in EotE and very much appreciate their stated plan for publication. I like that they're treating the Force in an appropriate manner for the time period (weak, but present). The Obligation mechanic is a stroke of genius (makes it easier for me to do stuff I'd do anyway). So many good bits and I'm only through character creation. Simply outstanding.

Tensen01 said:

But Star Wars is not that way. It is something different to everyone and there are a LOT of subgenres within the setting that don't always play well together as an RPG setting. Gritty war movies, nigh super-hero antics of the Jedi, seedy political intrigue… There's a LOT of scope there and d20 always struggled with making everyone happy with one core rulebook.

GoblynByte said:

I disagree. Star Wars are pulp action serial films. Some authors may have written a story in another direction, but that does not change the genre of Star Wars. For instance there were a series of horror novels and noir novels but I would not say Star Wars is either of these.

Also it is like Tenson01 said 40k has subgenres that do not play well together. You would not play a character from core book in another core book.

There are power level issues. Stat power-wise a level 1 Rogue Trader character is effectively a level 4 Dark Heresy Character. A Level 1 Deathwatch Character is effectively a level 4 Rogue Trader character / or Level 8 Dark Heresy character. This is why you don't need all the books because all the players are only going to be say Space Marines or Rogue Traders.

Now you can say well Yoda was powerful and so having a book that makes Jedi superheroes emulates the movies. I would agree, but if the group is not all Jedi this is going to be an issue in a game. Which has always been the trouble with a Star Wars rpg.

About scope, I agree there's a lot to cover. I don't think WEG or Wotc didn't space battles any justice. If there is a lot to cover why waste my time by reprinting the "core rules" in 3 books. Use the space for something new or save me $5 bucks.

Does anyone think that the (for lack of a better term) "power level" of Obi-Wan Kenobi in the PT would have fit in well with the tone of the OT?

Manchu said:

No, I don't think it would have.

I rather suspected you wouldn't think so.

The question was rhetorical, basically just an illustration that even among the movies Star Wars is not totally consistent in tone. This is one of the reasons I'm so happy about the way FFG is handling the license, covering discrete themes in a discrete setting. Star Wars is big enough to be more than any one of its incarnations.

No, we don't. With WH40K is makes a certain amount of sense. With Star Wars, it does not. You're selling the same 300 pages 3 times and getting 100 new pages. From a money grubbing standpoint I guess it makes sense but otherwise…there's no sense to it at all.

Here's a crazy idea.

How about let's wait until they actually publish these upcoming books, and then we can discuss the facts, as opposed to arguing based on assumptions.

See, I told you it was crazy.

Venthrac said:

Assumptions they may be but I'd say they're pretty sound assumptions. Splitting the Star Wars books is a joke.

That 2/3s of each book will be the exact same is really not a valid assumption.

I'm just saying, if people want to crucify FFG and call their products a joke, okay, that's your prerogative, but let's at least give them the chance to actually release those products before tearing them apart, yanno? I mean, maybe it will be more like 1/4th of the books are the same. I've actually been pretty impressed with much new stuff the 40K books manage to fit in, and they're basically all just repinting the ruleset with new options.

Maybe it won't be as bad as you think. Keep an open mind, I say.

But that's just me.

Venthrac said:

This here? Logic. And whilst logic might make my brain weep, I endorse it fully in this case.

TookyG said:

TookyG said:

Obviously it makes sense if people can make sense of it.

Callidon said:

I agree. I saw these books and thought to myself "Why did they do this? It will not sit nice with all the other books.

I think FF may have mistaken the gamers in one "camp" for those in another.

I think they released five separate games (and it's supplements) for Warhammer 40K to an audience - many of whom have been waiting for such a game for upwards of twenty five years - ever since the original 40K rules book came out back in the mid-80's. At that point, we didn't much care WHAT format the games were in because we wanted something. And Dark Heresy began to scratch an itch. Now, many of us didn't feel that itch was fully scratched until Deathwatch appeared, but I guess my point is that we were more than willing to put up with buying a piece of the 40K universe at a time because we had never had it before. Also, I think the 40K setting lends itself better to factional segregation than the Star Wars setting does - particularly in the Rebellion era where all sorts of people have to chuck in together and there is none of the rigid socio-political segregation and borderline mistrust evidenced in the Imperium of Man.

But, having said that, I like the idea that they didn't lump the Jedi and everyone else into the same rulebook - because IMO (and using 40K as a template for the argument) the Jedi are NOT like any other character in Star Wars. Left to their own devices, they will quickly overpower and eclipse Characters without access to the force - much as in 3rd and 3.5 Edition D+D magic wielders left those who couldn't wield magic in the dust because they could pump out a sheer volume of body count by casting spells that no other character class could match swining a melee or ranged weapon.

So, I think the idea of having a Jedi book as a stand alone book - assuming they do it the same way they do Deathwatch compared to Dark Heresy and/or Rogue Trader. If they simply released a core book where the Jedi are on the same power level as all the other playable Characters in the game, then they've wasted a golden opportunity IMO. I think they need to realise and accept that even though a Jedi can ramble around with everyone else on adventures, throwing the same enemies at the Jedi that you toss at Bounty hunters, clone troopers and spoiled planetary nobility is just gonna bore the crap out of the Jedi's player and eventually cause some serious resentments at the table. They must come to see this. If they do, this new game will have actually done something new and not simply published because there simply must be a SW rpg!

Another type of character that I think should be handled separately (so that it can be handled carefully) are droids. So far, IMO, no SW game has ever done justice to the idea of droids as PC's. Partly because it's hard to do right and partly because the writers couldn't let go of some ideas that are fundamental to other player character/playable races but don't apply to robot characters. In doing so, they have vacillated between droids as ambulatory, all powerful skill-banks or droids as 1 dimensional cut-outs with one or two tricks that are fun to play for all of ten minutes.

So, that's what I think.

It is hardly a guarantee, but with the length of the beta, let alone how far out the next couple are. If we the fans make a big enough stink, there is always the chance the later 'games' will be supplements instead of corebooks. As I do agree, I hate having to pay for so much of the same core rules multiple times. I'd rather this one be the 'core rules' and the later ones be supplements with more setting info.

That being said, I can see some cons to that too, from people who only want one of the three books.

Corradus said:

Maybe that will be true in this iteration of the game, but it certainly isn't true in movies or canon. Exceptional people do exceptional thing. Luke doesn't vastly overshadow Han. Jango Fett isn't vastly overshadowed by Obi Wan. In fact, it takes the best Jedi swordsman in the galaxy (with the help of a raging Reek) to give Jango a run for his money. That's hardly 'eclipsed'.

The point is that Jedi only "overpower and eclipse" other main characters in the minds of zealous fans. Exceptional individuals do exceptional things. It's just that there are a lot of non-exceptional normal people around and you can't necessarily tell one from the other before it's too late (is that smuggler at the bar who's giving you a hard time the next Han Solo or is it just Bob The Trader?), wheras Jedi, by definition, are 'exceptional individuals' (which doesn't stop them from being slaughtered en masse , but I digress).

I really dislike the "oh, but jedi done right would be totally more powerful than every other PC type". That simply isn't true. There is no reason Jedi can't be balanced around other PCs (even if it's a theoretical balance, like that of the 3e wizard ).

Slaunyeh said:

With the greatest of respect, I couldn't disagree more. Yeah, you can kill Jedi, but they don't die easy. You need a whole **** army to do it, (as seen in the clone wars) or another force user. The fact is that had Obi-Wan not been overconfident and semi-distracted during his fight with Jango, he would have ended up on the short end of the stick a lot sooner than Geonosis.

See, here's what it boils down to. Full grown Jedi (and BTW, in that respect, comparing Luke to his friends really isn't an accurate depiction since as a Jedi, he really is no great shakes until Episode VI) can do things nobody else can come close to. Almost no one can deflect blaster bolts. Almost no one else can shoot lightning from their fingertips. Almost no one else can jump 100 feet straight up into the air without even bending your legs. You can control people's minds. You can move things with your mind, you can calm animals, you can sense danger and you can even see possible futures. None of Luke's boon companions can do that. Clone Troopers (even ARC troopers) can't do that.

Now, in a game sense, you have to represent all this. That shakes down to numbers and effects. And the simple, undeniable, indisputable fact is that when you pile a Jedi's numbers and effects - even at low levels in one box, and…say…a smuggler's - even a smuggler with a ship's numbers and effects into another box, you need a bigger box for the Jedi - and that box grows exponentially as the Jedi gains experience. This doesn't come from the fevered, hyper-extrapolations of overly enthusiastic fans, it comes directly from canon. It's just that once you glue canon to math, the math won't let you do things like suddenly make Mace Windu lose a fight to two lesser force wielders who should NEVER have been able to beat him just because it furthers a story. Math makes demands and those demands won't be set aside.

While I respect your opinion, I believe it incorrect. I believe the Jedi are to the new Star Wars RPG what the Space Marines were to the 40K game, and should be treated the same way. And just as in 40K, they can interact, with some tweaking of capabilities to account for the deficit in math between them.

Dulahan said:

For The One Ring RPG Cubicle 7 has backed off the multiple core sets route and has decided to go the supplement route. So you never know.