Cyril said:

For the duration of the dice rolling, you totally are .

So it may as well be a fun experience. Note that this doesn't mean it has to be complex or detailed or slow or realistic or anything. It just has to be fun to play out. Frigging tiddlywinks makes a better game than most RPG combat!

Combat in an RPG is not a "game" whether you're rolling dice or not. The rules of an RPG (combat rules included) represent nothing more than the "natural laws" of the setting. They define cause and effect. The player decisions - made through factors that are driven by the story - are the catalyst that drives the action and the rules (natural laws) are simply there to express how those decisions in the way that they define cause and effect. So I don't see combat to be an activity unto itself. It is a means to telling a story that - in that particular instance - involves fighting.

I would speculate that one reason you feel that combat should be able to stand unto itself is because you don't haven't experienced an adequate level of story or character development to make it interesting beyond the tactics and rules. But that is very presumptuous of me. Another reason might be that you came into RPGs by way of tactical wargames and simply prefer that mode of play. Which is fine, but I reiterate that you'll continue to be extremely disappointed in most RPGs (particularly narrative ones like this) that are intentionally designed to be very different than tactical war games.

In any case, your theory that you have stated numerous times - that RPG combat systems should be a minigame sustainable unto itself - is simply not the prevailing mode of design in the RPG industry. In fact, this is why D&D 4e failed to meet expectations. It leaned towards a more defined, tactical, minigame style of combat and completely missed the mark. The vast majority of RPGs are designed to be more freeform and narrative.

In short, your somewhat erroneous statement that most RPGs fail to present as pleasing a game as Tiddlywinks (when it comes to combat) is not only acceptable to most traditional roleplayers, but preferred . It also suggests to me that you're missing out on the most rewarding aspects of RPGs.

Combat in an RPG isn't thrilling because of its tactical aspects. It is thrilling because of its emotional context. The story gives combat life and makes it (in my opinion) far more rewarding than wargames.

Don't get me wrong: I enjoy a wargame from time to time. But I sit down and play them with a very different expectation about how they'll play than RPGs. I play wargames because they require less emotional investment. Sure, I wouldn't hate an RPG that featured strong tactical play (GURPS is one of my favorite RPGs) but it certainly isn't required and isn't core to what defines an RPG, as you seem to suggest. The proof to that is fact that RPGs have existed for 3 decades without that sort of hard balance.

GoblynByte said:

Other way around actually. Started played 'Story' RPGs then played some 'German' boardgames and got more in to video games and thought, 'holy **** does RPG combat suck. Why did we waste so much time on this non-game?'

:-)

AluminiumWolf said:

Fair enough. It's obvious that you and I have extremely different views on what RPG combat should be and we've both stated our opinion at length. There isn't much more we can say about it. I would encourage you to go out and design an RPG in the style you prefer. I for one am glad that FFG is not going that route with Star Wars.

I'm glad that roleplaying games are not meant to be combat simulators. Anyone that has had a decently run combat encounter in this new system should be able to vouch for the cinematic feel the rules and dice lend to the mix.

But dude, if you want a scoundrel-y character that can kick some Jedi butt, take a page out of Cad Bane's book! Or any other Jedi-hunter, really. Some bolas, some training in how to overwhelm lightsaber-assisted defenses, proper grappling technique, and disarming all come in handy! And while you're buying bolas, get yourself a jetpack and a pair of crushgaunts

I am really not sure designing intentionally terrible combat rules just so people can be sure they are not accidentally playing a wargame is the optimal way of going about things.

:-)

(Incidentally, I mention video games because on of the principle differences between an RPG and a video game is that in the video game there is no GM to fudge the system, so you have to play by the rules as written. So it quickly becomes apparent if the RAW are actually fun in and of themselves, or if they require active fudging by the GM.

Now, as it happens, I think the rules should work (and be fun) as well as possible without the GM ignoring large sections of them. Don't vastly see why that is controversial to be honest.)

AluminiumWolf said:

Dude, have you bothered to read the combat rules in the book? Or better yet, have you actually tried putting them into action?

Having done both myself, I think the combat system in this game is well suited to the general feel of Star Wars; fast and generally free-form without being a tactical combat simulator that can slow an exciting adventure to a halt as everyone shifts from "story mode" into "combat mode."

Much as I love Saga Edition, combat was it's one major failing, in that it suffered many of the same failings as any other d20 game when it came to combat.

While my indie game exposure is a bit light at the current moment, I think moving away from a wargaming tactical mindset for a Star Wars RPG is a very good thing. Had our Sunday night Skype group tried playing the same adventure in Saga Edition, we likely wouldn't have gotten halfway through the adventure because of how long combat can take, where in EotE we were able to zip through three separate combat encounters fairly easily.

But if you really are dead-set on a tactical wargame simulation, then this probably isn't the RPG for you.

i could see the force and destiny book using the strain resource when force using lightsaber combatants duel.

Looking at things, Jedi vs Jedi should be pretty okay in terms of number of rolls. I posted this in the Mechanics forum:

So, if we were to take 2 generic Jedi.

Brawn 5

Lightsaber 5

Toughened x3

Resilience x2

Intense Focus (+Ability Upgrade)

Touch of Fate (+2 Boost)

Superior Reflexes (+1 Melee Defense)

Force Sense (+3 Ability Upgrades, +3 Difficulty Upgrades)

Armored Clothing (1 Defense/1 Soak)

Lightsaber - 10damage, Crit 1, Defensive 2, Deflection 1, Breach 1, Sunder, Vicious 2.

That results in this:

Soak Value of 8 (ignore because of Breach)

Wound Threshold: 18

Defense: 2

Which Results in this:

Offensive Roll: 7 Proficiency Dice, 2 Boost Dice

Defensive Roll: 1 Difficulty Die, 6 Challenge Dice, 6 Setback Dice

So.. yeah. It is very unlikely that there will be any 1-roll kills. In fact, its much more likely that you'll see a ton of Triumphs and Despairs, Advantage and Threat, resulting in amazingly awesome cinematic narration.

And if there is a hit landed, it won't knock the receiver out. It'll leave them with at least a few wounds left, though they'll have a Crit. Plus they'd each have a once per session re-roll to save them from a particularly bad round.

Donovan Morningfire said:

I would point out that it is other people arguing for a GURPS like system. I think they should replace the combat system with tiddlywinks .

The combat system should be fun to play in an of itself, and should not require too much fudging by the GM to produce results that are acceptable to the game. That is all I am saying.

I am not even saying EotE doesn't do that. I am just saying that those things are what I want in an RPG combat system.

Fundamentally, a lot of people play Memoir 44 for fun, but very few people play Phoenix Command any more.

Inksplat said:

Well, can someone who knows the rules comment on how much that fight comes down to waiting for someone to fail their defence roll, with a lot of wiffing in between? How about a fight with mooks? Is that a low chance of doing a lot of damage as well?

I guess I just think that ideally, attacks should fairly reliably do some damage, not none or lots .

AluminiumWolf said:

That isn't how EotE works. Almost all characters of equal power can only take 2 hits before being KOed. So, if a starting BH takes on a Henchman, either one is going to KO the other one with 2 hits. It comes down to managing the situation so you -don't- get hit.

Inksplat said:

I guess I don't like that that come down to 'Don't roll a 1'.

Also, if attacks and defences don't scale properly, you can end up waiting a lot of time for someone to roll that one. (Called the 'whiff factor' I believe - people don't seem to like it when to many attacks 'whiff' and don't do anything at all).

AluminiumWolf said:

Again, it's really showing that you don't have any clue about the system. It's ridiculously rare for an attack to do nothing. You'd have to roll no Despair, no Triumh, and equal amounts of Advantage and Threat, because all of those symbols would cause something to happen, even if it wasn't damage.

Inksplat said:

Agreed. Just going from the number of dice rolls made in the one game that I've played so far, there were exactly two rolls where all the dice rolled came up as blank. I had one on a Streetwise check trying to see what I knew about a local Mos Eisley crime boss, and literally came up with a blank, while the other was another PC (the Han Solo knock-off) making an attack roll.

Given the boost and setback dice that can be bandied about in combat, the odds of rolling all blanks is highly unlikely, especially as more and more dice are added to the pool. It's far more conducive to making combats a lot more interesting than it looks on paper, and is light years away from the d20 mindset of "don't roll a 1" that can plague higher-level characters when facing lesser threats.

Maybe that snap-shot with your blaster carbine didn't hit that crime boss' personal enforcer, but it put him so off-balance that the ex-solider has an easier time making his own shot wth his own boomstick while also noticing on a security cam that more enemies are coming.
Game Terms : AgilityRanged (heavy) roll, no successes, two Advantages; one spent to give the BH a boost die, the other to notice an important point in the conflict)
Net Result : You failed the roll, but got some information you didn't have before without having to roll for it, and the other well-armed character now has a better shot of hitting and damaging the enforcer

As your vibro-ax cleaves into the stormtrooper in front of you, it gets lodged deep into his midsection, preventing you from using the weapon until you can wrench it free.
Game Terms : Brawn/Melee roll with three successes, three Threat; GM spends the Threat to have you be disarmed.
Net Result : The stormtrooper's dead due to sheer damage, but you're without a weapon until you take a maneuver to either reclaim it or draw a new one.

As the street tough runs towards you with murderous intent, you quickly draw your blaster and expertly put the shot right between the goon's eyes before you dash down an alleyway to avoid being swarmed by the rest of his buddies.
Game Terms : Agility/Ranged (Light) roll with one success, two Advantage, and a Triumph; the Triumph is used to trigger a critical hit, and the two Advantage are spent to take an extra maneuver.
Net Result : One less minion to worry about, and you've got a running head start on getting away from them.

You're frantically trying to fix the ship's hyperdrive as a trio of CloakShape fighters do their best to blow you and your allies out of the sky. Just when you think you're getting someplace, the hydrospanner you were using snaps in half and the shudder of the ship's hull taking a hit scatters the contents of your tool kit, but you did manage to give the pilot a bit more juice to the maneuvering thrusters, at least for a few seconds.
Game Terms : Intellect/Mechanics check, no successes, 1 Advantage, 1 Despair; the GM spends the Despair was used to damage your tool kit, while you spend the Advantage to give the ship's pilot (who is next in line to act) a boost die on their next check.
Net Result : You didn't fix the hyperdrive, your tools are in bad shape, but the pilot's got a better chance at pulling off some needed maneuvers when they make their Agility/Pilot (Space) check.

I'd call those a hell of a lot more interesting than what you'd get with a straight pass/fail system like d20, and even trumps the old Wild Die from D6 Star Wars in terms of what you can accomplish with the various degrees of Threat that will often be generated.

Also, it's important to note that "1 roll of the dice pool" is not = "1 attack." Combat is structured in rounds, but only so that everyone has a chance to do stuff. The combat system is so fluid that PCs can choose every round who goes first. What it leads to is highly cinematic, scene-based fighting that is just plain fun.

Heck, I remember reading a talent (IIRC…I'm away from my book right now) that had an effect that lasted "5 minutes, or 1 combat round."

Combat is made to be a series of quickly resolvable skill checks and abstract time frames, and to act as a fully engaged part of the overall narrative. It does not detract or even distract from the immersive roleplaying experience; rather, it enhances it.

Inksplat said:

This is highly interesting, and goes to show that a lightsaber-wielder is vs another lightsaber-wielder is (apart from the enormous amount of Challenge/Proficiency dice) not that different from two soldiers armed with blaster rifles shooting at each other. In 1-2 hits, tops 3, the battle is decided. If a battle is prolonged, it's not because your "hits" are taking small chunks off of someone's hit points - it is because you're doing other cool things instead (like balancing over a stream of lava, switching off your lightsaber to hide in the shadows or toss debris at your opponent with the Force).

As has been stated several times before: No character in any of the film has ever been seen to come unscathed away from a hit from a lightsaber. The same holds true for a blaster (which in damage-terms is equally dangerous). In fact, I don't believe any of the main characters ever gets hit by blaster fire in the films (though I might be wrong since it's been a while since I watched them). Stormtroopers on the other hand are hit left and right and falls like flies even if they're armored, so simply do the math if one of the main characters (ie the PC equivalents) would've been hit.

If the power of the lightsaber is a problem, well, there's always Missile Tubes and Thermal Detonators or the repeater rifles to combat it. Those threats are far more common than a lightsaber-wielder.

A side comment on the whole combat discussion: I think the most important thing to remember is that in an rpg, the GM doesn't play against the players. A GM that actively tries to kill the players is doing something wrong. A GM who presents the players to dangerous situations, and a way to conquer them with NPCs acting as would be natural to them, is doing something right. It's a collaborative story, after all. If you toss in a lightsaber-wielder, it should be a pretty pivotal encounter in Edge of the Empire. It should be filled with suspense and emotions, but the players shouldn't be filled with terror because they know that their GM will toast them for sure.

The table-top rpg vs computer rpg aspect isn't actually that well suited for comparison from a system point of view, either. The reason being that most (all) computer rpgs are basically action-rpgs where action and combat is, if not the meat of the story, then at least the meat of your gameplay. And that is nice. You don't sit down with your console or computer to watch a movie where you occasionally push a button, you play to get involved in all the scenes and action. Random encounters are common, and regaining health is easy - plus you can reload a save. In table-top rpgs, random encounters quickly gets boring, and a mistake can cost you your character. You want that mistake to count, and you want those encounters to make sense within the broader story. Of course you can get into a random cantina fight (for instance) after you insult a thug, but then that wouldn't really be a random encounter, but rather a natural consequence of your character's action. Those consequences can again lead to more stories, etc. The point is that the approach to computer rpgs and tabletop rpgs is very different, and it should be. In a computer game, you play along the story, against the computer. In table top rpgs, you play with the story and with the GM.

That being said, I wouldn't say no to a lightsaber dropping as random loot, either way.

Northman said:
"If the power of the lightsaber is a problem, well, there's always Missile Tubes and Thermal Detonators or the repeater rifles to combat it. Those threats are far more common than a lightsaber-wielder."

This is an excellent observation with more truth than most people know. In most every system of Star Wars to-date, Jedi have always been VERY VERY hard to kill. And in Star Wars, experienced "Jedi-hunters" do one thing: they cheat. Massive heavy weapons from a distance (or sniping). Explosives. Booby traps.

Want an interesting excercise?

To my memory, there are only three "fights" in the films between a lightsaber-wielding jedi and a major NPC that didn't weild a lightsaber. (In other words, a villian who wasn't a minion/mook destined to die in a single hit from a laser sword.) These three fights were with two distinct villians. And both villains in these fights shared the same last name: Fett.

In RotJ, Luke's kick-arse fight at the the Sarlacc Pit saw him directly against a bevy of mooks and Boba Fett. Watch it. [waiting as you load up the blu-ray…] Now notice that the MOMENT Boba Fett engages Skywalker (a foolish move, frankly), Luke CUTS HIS CARBINE IN HALF, then starts devoting his attention to the mooks as Fett leaves the engagement by flying away. From that point on, everything Boba Fett does is to immobilize that **** lightsaber. (Then Han scores a Triumph, destroy's the Fett-man's jet-pack, and the Sarlacc gets a tasty snack.) The only damage Luke takes is from a lucky shot at distance to his hand, and from the HEAVY BLASTER CANNON mounted nearby on Jabba's sail barge. Luke is so concerned by it, in fact, that he leaps to the barge to deal with it.

The second time we see this kind of fight was the EPIC smackdown between Obi-Wan and the other Fett in Episode II, on the Landing Platform on Kamino. Great scene, that illustrates exactly HOW a trained Jedi-killer should fight a Jedi. Watch it. [waits again for you to switch disks on the blu-ray] Okay. Notice that Everything Jango Fett did was to keep himself OUT of engagement with the guy with the lightsaber. Ranged attack, then back off, ranged attack, then back off. The one time, early in the fight, that Obi-Wan manages to get into engagement with Jango while he still had his saber out and on - the bounty hunter immediately jet-packs himself away to safety (then uses a Missile Tube to deal some damage). Jango's next priority is to divest the Jedi from his lightsaber - which he does. Only when Obi-Wan doesn't have the giant glow-stick of death out, does Jango Fett engage him. But again… the biggest threat to Obi-Wan were the ginormous blaster cannons from Slave 1, being operated by the young Boba. Through the Force, Obi-Wan ends up destroying Jango's jet-pack, and then the two get into a good-old fashioned Brawl. On that note - Fett beats Obi-wan.

The last time we see this kind of fight was the Geonosis Arena Scene from Episode II. Watch it. [waits as you skip to that scene] Jango Fett vs. Mace Windu. This fight… went a bit differently. Mace surprise-engaged Jango (FIRST, mind you…) and Jango's pretty much a hostage until Mace leaves engagement and takes his lightsaber off of him - then gets distracted (Mechanically, this would be boost dice to Jango's next attack). He opens up a FLAME THROWER blast with so much advantage that it knocks Mace down to the arena floor. Then things start to go bad for Daddy Fett. He heads to the arena floor, and keeps his distance (ranged attacks), but doesn't account for the rampaging Reek - which ends up destroying his jet-pack. With no reliable way to leave engagement - Mace quickly engages and makes it impossible for the elder Fett to enjoy wearing headgear ever again.

So what do we learn from this? From how George Lucas envisions fights against Jedi by "non-Jedi" working out?

1. Ranged damage from heavy weapons is what you need.
2. Never engage someone with a lightsaber, unless you have one of your own. EVER.
3. The Fett men have really bad luck with jet-packs, apparently.

Even in the EU, Jedi-killers use these tactics; or attack from extreme range, or through deception and "cheating". Sniping. Bombs. Sneak Attacks.

(It's also impossible to leave this discussion without discussing the death of hundreds of jedi at the hands of their clone battalions after Order 66. You can watch that, too. Plo Koon? Dies in space. Aayla Secura? Dies from an ambush attack. Ki-Adi-Mundi? Actually starts to fight back, but is out of engagement with the troops (having run ahead), and even if he maxed out Sense, he can only give those massive setback dice to ONE attack per turn. The guy had dozens of blasters firing at him - and even if you run his clone squad as one group of minions, then their skill level with 8 to 10 of them stacked up would have overcome all those setback dice easily.)

GM Chris said:

Northman said:

The characters took a couple of lumps in Return of the Jedi, but they were glancing hits at worst. Luke took a stinging bolt on his cybernetic hand while he had his saber held up shouting directions to Leia.

Then later in that film, Leia takes a grazing shot in the arm from a stormtroopers rifle.

But both characters were wounded in the strictest definition of the word. Both of them screamed out in pain, and while neither of them were enough to take them out of the fight, they were enough to rock them back on their heels for a couple of seconds. They both managed to keep fighting, but a few hits like that and they would have been hurting. As it stands some mechanical tweaking for Luke and a bacta patch for Leia was all they needed, and they were lucky.

And yeah… +1 to everything Chris said up there. The man has a gift I tell you.

I think we should be looking to video games for our model because

1: I kinda think people will actually be expecting TTRPGs to work more like video games than other fiction these days anyway. At least, I know I tend to expect my characters to be able to act like the guys in my favourite video games these days.

2: They are games. The high damage/low hit rate model of movies works because people only get hit at dramatically appropriate moments. So to an extent, a 'movie' games system should concentrate on figuring out when the dramatically appropriate moment for someone to get shot is. And not trying to figure a percentage chance of someone being hit under given circumstances, because the chance of someone being shot is 0% unless it would be cool if they are, and 100% if that is what the author wants.

Meanwhile video games have put a lot of work in to producing systems that result in fun interactive and even competitive experiences.

I mean, you do get sim games like the original Rainbow Sixes and Operation: Flashpoint, but for most people they tend to be less fun that gamey games like Call of Duty or Republic Commando or The Force Unleashed.

AluminiumWolf said:

This philosophy is how we ended up with D&D 4e (which was much less popular then 3e). It was designed to operate like a video game (WoW to be exact). Which at the time of release was incredibly popular. The problem is that the same concepts don't always translate well to a media that doesn't have something to run thousands of calculations per second, or manage all of your character advancement options. By the nature of being operated by humans, the pen and paper RPG is a very different beast.

Video games tend to do a few things well. Such as calculating combat, or providing puzzles. Human GMed games often have to shotcut these high-speed calculation/simulation intensive areas in order to keep a game moving. The trade off is a more adaptable enviroment, where characters have a much more compleate freedom of action & choice., simply because a creative human can invent answers to strange actions, where a video game has to be pre-programed with the few most common actions, and prevent all others. I think this system is clearly geared to the latter.

I would argue that people need to get over a knee jerk rejection of things just because they come from video games.

I just don't think there are an enormous number of roleplayers who don't also play video games, so, like, what is the problem?

Plus there are different things you can learn from video games - I am talking about stuff like FPS style regenerating health, the general drive to reduce downtime as much as possible and the near total non existence of permadeath in video games. Obviously anything that relies on doing millions of calculations a second is not going to be a good idea - instead we should be looking at german games for the actual play mechanics.

Ponder, if you will, an RPG combat system based on a german game intended to recreate the experience of playing Call of Duty…

AluminiumWolf said:

So… you want this to be a board game?

GM Chris said:

I think there is a lot we can learn from board games, and card games, and video games, if we are open to it, certainly.

(And wargames for that matter - stuff like Ambush Alley and Two Hour Wargames stuff have a lot to teach RPGs)

And I don't see why it helps for an RPG combat system to be less fun than playing rummy.

Ok, for the record, I am a huge board gamer, and play more then a few videogames. I bring this up to reinforce that I am not against these types of games. However, I respect that they create different experiences. If I desire a personal, zero-down time sense of empowered accomplishment, I play a video game. If I desire concerted strategic thinking over long-term plans within a structured puzzle, I play a board game (like FFG's fantastic Twilight Imperium). At least for me, Role Playing Games stem out of a desire for storytelling and character development combined with a desire to have agency over my (character's) destiny.

I don't disagree that the fundamental concepts about 'the game' as expressed in board games and videogames can be lessons for the development of RPG systems. However, I don't think that recreating the mechanics of a board game or the 'feeling' of Call of Duty is the place or purpose of any RPG, and particularly a Star Wars RPG. The resonance of the original Star Wars came from its ability to tap into the Mythic Story, and that should truly be the focus of any RPG for that world.