usgrandprix said:

Completely agree. As an aside, you say here that there were few published adventures for Saga, but I was only aware of Dawn of Defiance. What other ones are there? I'd be keen to check them out.

To answer the OPs question, WEGs system was a fairly simulationist style (don't hold me to that it's been a few years). Saga was a strongly Gamist style of game. FFG's vision is narative. Play the game that suits your group. I like narrative gaming so am justifiably excited.

For A brief summery of GNS theory check Wikipedia: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory

Im getting the beta to give it a look through.

I did not like the WEG d6 version (even was friends with one of the game designers personally on Facebook and she even admited the game broke down at higher levels and became bucket o dice.

I enjoyed the OCR d20 and really loved and still do love RCR d20 in my opinion the best system yet.

I tried SAGA and hated it.

The only thing I can kind of KIND OF see what the OP is saying about the cost is lets say got all the SAGA rulebooks at full price and paid $400 you got 12-14 books. Just to get 3 core rule books you will be spending $180 almost half for a quarter of the amount of books. $180 is a lot of money for the core rulebook set for any game. Then lets add on the cost of the dice (assume $14) your up to almost $200. Now thats half the cost of the entire SAGA system for a quarter of the books.

In this economy that is a lot to spend for just 3 books.

There's also that maybe for some people there still isn't a version of the game they feel fits their style best. Clone Wars style stuff and era and TOR fan? Hate d20? WEG doesn't really do much for you either.

Some of us were hoping this would be a game out the door to cover Star Wars as it is now. And in 3 years, it may well be. But there is a definite disappointment we have to wait 3 years to get the game we were hoping for. And still no option to be able to play the style of Star Wars game we wanted. However, there is always hope, even if it is unlikely, that if enough people make a big enough stink, then maybe something Jedi supporting will land sooner. It is still early in the process after all!

I have all the SW RPGs. When WOTC made OCR, everyone complained something was missing and it wasn't WEG's D6. If there is anything missing, the community will create custom rules or classes until an official one comes about. WOTC RCR came out with more stuff and fixed things and then later SAGA. FFG's version will have its issues, but the community will fill the gaps until the next book. I have all the old books as reference now, or I can go play them. I don't regret buying any of them. I did the same with The Lord of the Rings. I have a ton of MERP books of both versions and I use them as reference in all my other LOTR gaming from miniatures or the new The One Ring RPG.

After reading the original post, I guess I shouldn't buy the book, but I love the SW Universe. I will support the FFG,my LGS, and whoever else to make this a successful product and a license. I'd rather have 10 years of products than have none at all. I already bought the book.

Armenius Orson Carrick said:

There are adventures in Scum & Villainy, Galaxy of Intrigue, and Galaxy at War. None are that great.

"Iridonian Darkness" is a decent KOTOR adventure that was a download on the Wizards site.

Wizards brought "The Betrayal of Darth Revan" to a con. It's a fun KOTOR adventure you can run for a good one shot.

That's about it.

Gamgee said:

Ok, I loved SAGA, but I think you're missing a few things….

1) everyone who has played this game has said it feels more like Star Wars then any other game that they have played, including SAGA.

2) SAGA is a better game if you're looking to munchkin your player characters. They are not balanced at all, a 1st level jedi is the party, the others just hold the torches for them. (no way around that), either you're a jedi, or you're a sub-par character. The content is broken up into 3 books for this very reason.

3) To expect anything made today, to be cheaper then something made 5 years ago, is unfair and insane. What did Pazio's main book cost? 80? 2nd edition D&D cost less then 3.5, etc… we are in a economic downturn (to put it mildly), printing costs more, shipping costs more, people still demand a salary for writing the stuff, the licensing of copy rights costs, etc….

4) this game is WAYYYYY easier to play, and play fast and loose then SAGA or any d20 game can ever be. It isn't bogged down in rules, it isn't bogged down in select from the 30 talents each level, that you can use, it is streamlined and easier to both GM and play.

5) It feels like star wars.

What is the problem with setting up the system to allow players to start with characters that have the most role-playing potential? The obligations are a GMs dream come true, the game doesn't feel mechanical

Of course if you're the type that will only play a 20th level wizard in a 1st level campaign (munchkin), then stay away from this game and stick to SAGA, cause you're not going to get that here.

$hamrock

Something I'd like to say about why there weren't more adventures in past editions (particularly Saga) - treat my initial statement as a slab of stone on a sculptors' table and then please be patient as I refine the block:

Modules don't sell.

That is to say, they either don't sell at all, or when they do sell, not enough revenue is made from them to justify their expense. Wizards has created adventures/modules for free in the past, but that's even harder on their bottom line. There is a reason few game companies will publish modules. People generally speaking don't buy them in anywhere near the same numbers that sourcebooks are bought. This often applies BTW to setting books.

The reasons for this are manifold, and they begin with the simple dynamics of how a game group works. A player's Guide/Core Rulebook is something that can and often must be purchased by every member of the game group - player and Game Official. Modules (and to a lesser extent campaign settings) are not such creatures. Indeed, it is often counter productive for anyone other than the game official to pick these things up. Now, things are changing, but the classic game group dynamic is still very much one game official, many more players. And that very structure works to limit sales.

Another reason is that a fair number of game officials don't want to be handed a story-script, rather they want to be handed the tools to make their own story-script. There are a lot of reasons for this too, but I'm sure you can think of them as easily as I can bore the hell out of you by listing them here.

Now, FFG has come out with some "modules" for Warhammer 40K, it's true, they also have an entire campaign setting in the backs of most of their core books for that line, but gone are the days when TSR would publish ten times as many adventures and campaign settings as core mechanic books. In the end my friends, we shall have to patch out that deficit with out imaginations. A task I am confident we, all of us, are well suited to.

I gamed for many years…playing D&D and running World of Darkness.

Then D&D 4th ed. was released which killed the D&D group I played in and then New World of Darkness came out which killed the game I ran.

I haven't played since…that was several years ago now.

…

Star Wars D20/Saga never appealed, D20 works well for hack slash but fails to spark our interest in Star Wars.

This I have been waiting for.

Already I have piqued the interest of one of my mates into giving it a shot…

After many years in the wilderness, I am finally returning to the table.

I have missed it.

The beta has some issues/kinks that need ironing out, but so far from what I have had a chance to look at, it fits my view of a fun Star Wars RPG, something that fits how I run games.

If it is a simple matter of cost…then yes, a discontinued game line with limited number of books to call on may well be the way to go.

But I care for a game that inspires me and the promise of new material to sink my teeth into? Delightful.

If tWotC books does this for you, more power to your selection.

Corradus said:

How do you reconcile this statement with the wild success shown by Paizo's Adventure Path (AP) line? Paizo has said regularly the the consistently high sales of their AP allows them keep the lights on and experiment with other books in the line - many of which exist to serve the APs directly.

I think if its true that modules don't sell, than campaigns that span the entire life of a character and take years to play through definitely do. Especially if written well.

cetiken said:

It has been stated many times by many designers in past years that modules don't sell well, but I think the more accurate statement is that they don't sell as well as core rulebooks or sourcebooks. With modules (and GM screens, for that matter) you tend to only have the GM buying the book for a group of 5 to 8 people. By comparison, you might sell 4 or more core rulebooks or character option books to that same group.

Now, having said that, it is very possible that Paizo has bucked that trend. But the paradigm of modules selling poorly (or, at least, less successfully than more universally useful books) has indeed been the tradition.

Reeding this only came to my mind the debates for what D&D edition is better.

GoblynByte said:

The FFG adventure/module books for the 40k RPG also do very well, from what I've heard - I think the trend has turned, that there are actually a significant number of people who do like buying pre-made campaigns and adventures for their group now, as that has been my experience over the last 3-4 years.

MILLANDSON said:

That's very interesting. I wonder why that is.

GoblynByte said:

Don't look too far into it… they only work for a few systems. If they were all uber, you know dam well that WotC would be flooding the market with them, right now.

For the examples given, Pazio does adventure paths…. They are more complete, then modules, and with a few books they outlining an entire campaign, from 1st level to 20th level (and beyond). They are not broken out dungeon and dragon modules where every aspect of what the DM says, every minute detail is broken out.

The Warhammer stuff, that is mostly because a large percentage of the players of that system, came over from the minis game. The GMs don't know how to run a campaign in an RPG, so having the published deals helps them out, alot.

The one thing modules do have going for them, currently, is that everyone is in a rush, everywhere. A lot of GMs don't want to prepare home adventures any longer, they are too time consuming, in this MMO immediate gratification culture. (not pointing fingers, I'm a member of it as well, just calling it what it is).

$hamrock said:

I for one have always had a difficult time getting prepped with published modules. For the most part, its because (prior to d20 which required more pre-planning than d6) I would often just show up to the table with a couple of NPCs written down and a basic plot line in my head. No real notes, no real maps. I'd just wing it. So prep-time was very low for me. Reading a module (and sticking to it) was a pretty daunting task for me. I actually respect the skill of someone who can run a module 'cause… well… I can't do it very well.

More complicated than Saga? Are you kidding???

daddystabz said:

Um… I don't exactly follow. In context of what I was talking about, both D6 and EotE are less complicated than Saga.

$hamrock said:

Source, please.

I know that the 3-4 people I've had GM for me from my group of friends have never played the tabletop game, they just liked the setting and novels, and each of them has been RPing for about 10 years or so (longer than I have). Just because people like using ideas from campaign books, or like to run pre-genned campaigns on occasion, doesn't mean they're bad or new GMs who 'don't know how to run a campaign in an RPG'.

Making stuff up to justify how the sales have worked, and in the process insulting most 40k RPG GMs isn't cool.

MILLANDSON said:

What are you talking about? I insulted no one. I never said anyone was stupid, or anything else. Being new to an RPG game, in general, and running it for a group, without having played a RPG game… it's logic to say the task is daunting… it's logical to say that having a published adventure (one where you don't have to worry about balancing the bad guys, or anything else) makes that process alot easier. If anything, I would say that would be the smart way to go for a new DM/GM.

As for sources… I've been playing/demoing the 40K RPGs since the launch of DH, so what? five years now. In San Antonio/Austin TX, and multiple conventions, including the big ones, more the half of the people I have demo'd for, played with, or talked to about the game have come from the minis game, and either had no, or very little experience with an RPG before that. (I am not saying all of them, nor am I saying everyone who plays/played that game), I have never touched the minis, personally, but I play/run the RPGs. All I am saying is: that there is a significant portion of the demographic that said statement applies to, if my experiences (and my mates experiences, are any indication).

You have to admit, just like star wars, 40K is a niche market, and one that wont appeal to a portion of RPGers because it isn't sword and board, white wolf or Shadowrun. That is not saying that ALL RPG players are that way, just a portion. RPGs being a niche market unto themselves, means it is a niche of a niche.

Remember there are alot of RPGers, that are still pissed off at Games workshop for what they did to D&D, mutant chronicles, and many other games over the years, that they refuse to touch anything that has their stamp on it, so they are not going to touch 40K RPGs no matter who is making them. Taking that into account along with the costs of the books, the content, and the genre, one would be hard pressed to say that over half the books they sell go to RPG players that just randomly picked it up for something "new".

Again, I fail to see where/how anyone was insulted. When I first started DMing AD&D I used published adventures for the very same reason… I didn't know how to run a campaign, or was intimidated by the task, at that time. Now, I use them because they are easier then having to design one, of course I'm more comfortable winging it when that needs to be done, as well.

I think part of the upswing in popularity of published adventures is that, generally speaking, there's now a very broad market segment of gamers who simply don't have the time to commit to creating adventures and campaigns like they did back in college.

Things like work, non-gaming hobbies, and family (especially if you're a single parent with a small child) can eat up a lot of your free time. So the idea that you can pick up a pre-written module and use that for your next game session has a lot of appeal to it.

Case in point, one of my friends is running a One Ring campaign for us, played once a month. Between his day job and several volunteer community efforts that he's part of, he simply doesn't have the time or energy to devote to coming up with a full-fledged campaign, but he really wants to run this game and we want to play. So for him, Cubicle 7 creating Tales from the Wilderland (which is pretty much an entire campaign) was a gift straight from Eru.

Even the Dawn of Defiance campaign has generally been seen as a great boon for GMs both experienced and novice, as it gives them a ready-made campaign that can take a group of heroes from 1st level to 20th level. Whether certain elements of DoD are good or bad is a matter of opinion; some modules are much better written and executed than others (Echoes of the Jedi being my absolute least liked of the series).

That Pathfinder is finding a lot of success with their Adventure Path series and that Pinnacle is getting good feedback on their Plot Point campaign structure does demonstrate that the old truism of "modules don't sell" isn't as true as it used to be. Or maybe these days it's more of a case of "unconnected standalone modules don't sell."