AluminiumWolf said:

Interesting.

I completely agree with Quicksilver.

I would counter (as a huge board game and video game player myself) that I think there is a lot board games and video games can learn from table-top RPGs.

But I'm afraid you might find yourself in the minority, my friend. I for one, don't want to play a board game or a video game when I play an TTRPG. I want to play a TTRPG.

Also - I really don't understand how you can judge this RPG's combat system yet, as you've not played it. At least by your earlier comments in other threads. As one who has played it, I found it wonderful! (But all that aside, based on what you're asking for… I really don't think it's what you're going to be looking for.)

As for suggesting that FFG change it… I think you might be pissing up a rope (as we say in Texas).

The combat system is wonderful and (thankfully, to me) doesn't play like a board game at all. Or a video game. It's narrative. If I want tactical, strategic combat - my battletech is right there… LOL… But what I mean is that by this stage of the game, they're not going to alter the core resolution mechanic in any meaningful way. What you're proposing is a complete system re-write. From the ground up.

That's just not going to happen.

[waves hand] "This isn't the RPG you're looking for…"

GM Chris said:

I entirely agree. I also suggest, if you don't have the rules, and haven't tried them, that you not make suggestions about changing the rules. You have zero experience with them, which doesn't really make you qualified to suggest changes to them. Given that you've pretty much already decided you don't like the game, and wish the game was something entirely different from what it is, and accepting that those changes are not going to happen for this game, I would personally suggest you look for a game that does suit your tastes, make a thread about it on a more suitable forum (such as rpg.net - you'd get plenty of feedback from there, since your issue seems more generic, rather than being fixed on Star Wars), or go about making your own game - I'm sure there are plenty of people here (myself not included, for the reasons stated by Chris and Quicksilver) that would buy such a game.

It's just a waste of your time and ours discussing such things here.

GM Chris said:

I guess I am programmed to read that as 'sucks donkey **** as a game '.

:0)

Trolls are always good for reading entertainment if nothing else .

You've been going pretty strong for a few pages keeping the "slap and return" aspect alive, but that last one tipped your hand. But don't let me stop you, as you were Aluminum Wolf.

I agree that the various types of gaming could benefit from each other, but I do not think they should become each other. Table-top rpgs is perhaps one of the game types that borrows ideas from the broadest aspects of gaming (and other media, like books and films), while at the same time trying to be very distinct from all other types of gaming. It is no easy task, but even though gamers tend to play different types of games doesn't mean the vast majority want all their games to play out the same. Perhaps especially not in the case of table-top rpgs.

While a roleplaying game is similar to a lot of other games, they are very much distinct. Everyone I know describes roleplaying games more as "collaborative storytelling where you basically play the main characters in a book or film", rather than "a tactical game of dice where you control a persona with certain abilities represented by numbers on a sheet". I think that distinction goes to show how roleplaying games are different than other games. Sure, some players find the tactical numbers approach most thrilling, while others wants their character to obtain the UberMacGuffin of Superpower and others yet enjoys a character torn between the search for his long lost sister and the fate of the galaxy. And that is fine. Those three could also easily play in the same group, although I feel player composition falls on the wayside of a system's responsibility. Getting things to work in that apartment is more a GM job. A system who caters to a lot of people or broad playstyles (and I actually do believe this system is capable of supporting a broad audience) helps along the way, of course.

But we keep digressing.

Apart from the philosophies of roleplaying, where are we on the whole lightsaber issue? Is it yay, or is it nay? This thread started out positively towards it and then had some remarks (and things turned into a whole different discussion). I've also noticed that there have been several people across different threads who has commented on the lethality of the lightsaber - everything from its crit rating to its defensive capabilities. The fear seems, for some people, to be that this is the overpowered weapon every character will run around with.

As has been pointed out, though (by myself and others), there are a lot of other tools of destruction that are just as effective. Not to mention the price tag and the general unavailability of a lightsaber. You simply don't buy one. You don't even simply bump into someone owning one, either. People should probably keep that in mind.

I'm wondering: What is the current consensus on the lightsaber?

Northman said:

While that might apply to this game, in a Jedi focused game a lot of people will have one. So the game needs to work when there are a lot of lightsabres around.

Northman said:

Just to be pendantic: Vader gets hit in the upper arm/shoulder with a lightsaber in Empire, and just grunts it off.

Doc, the Weasel said:

This is true (and you're not being pedantic!). However, it honestly looks like Luke pulls his strike a bit on that one. Most attacks with a lightsaber seem followed through in an attempt to cleave the foe in two. In this case, Luke looks like he's just going for a fast strike in an rare opening and barley has time to pull back to defend himself. More like a quick smack than a full attack. Had he followed through (as was the case when he took Vader's hand off) he would have caused more damage.

AluminiumWolf said:

Classy.

And I think "programmed" is the appropriate word. (Though I might also be suffering from the same kind of code bug… but I like it too much to care.)

Doc, the Weasel said:

I'd probably take that as an attack roll with no successes, but with some advantages, so a glancing hit is made, but strikes one of his cybernetics, and so doesn't overly affect him other than a grunt in acknowledgement of the hit.

To that end, we also only have one example of someone surviving a blaster hit. (Not counting Vader's force-hand trick.) So it becomes hard to argue that LIghtsabers are more deadly, just that they are deadly.

Callidon said:

but he really wants a GM to give a player 3 canned verbal responses to an NPC, 2 of which can be selected in an infinite loop until the player selects the last choice that lets the game continue.

Quicksilver said:

I would certainly not argue that blasters are less damaging than a lightsaber. I actually see a lightsaber as (arguably) a sustained blaster "bolt." By its nature, though, a blaster bolt would cause a rather narrow hole that "passes through" the target. While deadly when applied to the right location, it doesn't really compare to a lightsaber that passes lengthwise across the whole body (or limb, or neck, or whatever) and separates entire sections of the body. A blaster bolt would do the same amount of damage if it were left on in a blade-like form.

New Zombie said:

See, it is that kind of kneejerk rejection of anything that might be reminiscent of a video game that is the reason RPG combat is so terrible.

They are not going to take away your story gamer badge just because the combat system is actually fun to use.

AluminiumWolf said:

That is of course an issue to address. But with that reasoning alone, wouldn't weapons like the repeater or disruptors or even the vibro-axe also be potential GM-headaches in this game (despite most being restricted)?

If we use the two example Jedi Inksplat introduced earlier (not counting whether they're representative of the Jedi rules or not, but they paint a fair picture anyway) we have the following dice pool:

7 Proficiency Dice, 2 Boost Dice
1 Difficulty Die, 6 Challenge Dice, 6 Setback Dice

To point it out, you need 1 success to hit, and 1 advantage (or triumph) to trigger a crit with a lightsaber. Successes and failures cancels each other out, and the same is true for threats and advantages. A triumph and despair generates one success and one failure, respectively, which can also be canceled by other successes/failures.

It's getting late, but let's try to look at some numbers (this should be right). In total, there's a .833 chance of successes per Proficiency die and .33 per Boost die. Advantage symbols has a total .667 chance on a Proficiency die, and a .5 chance on a Boost die. (Also check out the Dice Math thread by cetiken if anyone's looking to crunch numbers: www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp ). In addition .083 chance of a Triumph per Proficiency die.

For failure on a difficulty die, there's a total .625 chance, on a Challenge die it's .75, while on a setback die the chance is .33. For threats, the numbers should be .625 (difficulty), .667 (Challenge) and .33 (setback). And finally .083 chance for a despair.

On average we're looking at:

7 Proficiency dice:
5.831 Successes
4.669 Advantages
0.581 Triumphs

2 Boost dice:
0.66 Successes
1 Advantages

Total Offensive:
6.491 Successes
5.669 Advantages
0.581 Triumphs

1 Difficulty die:
0.625 Failures
0.625 Threats

6 Challenge dice:
4.5 Failures
4.002 Threats
0.498 Despairs

6 Setback dice:
2 Failures
2 Threats

Total Defensive:
7.125 Failures
6.627 Threats
0.498 Despairs

This means that on average rolling you get:

~6 Successes that are canceled by ~7 Failures

~5 Advantages that are canceled by ~6 Threats. You are even left with a net of 1 Threat on average, creating further disadvantages for the attacker.

About every second time you roll, you will get a Triumph. This can be used for something incredibly cool, or to trigger that sorely needed critical if you're lucky to net one success (as you're unlikely to have the Advantage you need).

About every second time you roll, you will also likely get a Despair, which will further hamper you in some way. On the upside, you will eventually roll more Triumphs than Despairs.

Once the numbers are crunched, it is pretty clear that a battle between two lightsaber-wielding combatants potentially could take a while as they're striking and parrying etc. At about 1 more of both threat and failure scored per roll, that decisive blow likely won't come straight away, but with the higher possibility to score a Triumph and use it to trigger a good hit when it shows up, it will come.

I'm actually more in favor of the system now than I was before after figuring this. True, there's always the luck element when a player tosses, but that is true for any system. A narrative system is probably quite well suited to handle incredible successes and stupidly inappropriate fumbles (especially since you're not necessarily chopped to death even though you're down and out).

The argument could of course still be made that versus non-lightsaber-wielders or non-lightsaber-wielding player characters, a lightsaber is death incarnated. That would be correct, and not necessarily a bad thing. If a player has gone to lengths to get a lightsaber, he should be rewarded. Besides, the character is not likely to be skilled enough to take full advantage of it. Having a lightsaber would also be a huge crime, and be potential grounds for great stories. And on the other hand, if the players are facing a lightsaber-wielder, a few questions should be asked: Why are they facing this NPC? Are the characters at fault themselves? Is the GM playing a hard game? Is it possible to resolve the situation without a fight? To flee?

A lightsaber cuts through plaststeel about as easily as it does butter. It is dangerous by itself, and lethal in skilled hands. I feel comfortable with the rules reflecting this, and the test numbers above should prove that the system seems to support a higher level of proficiency facing off with those glowsticks of death.

Doc, the Weasel said:

This is true. I said I might've forgotten some examples, though However, if we translate to game terms I believe it is safe to assume Vader has a bucket load of wounds, and it is possible Luke didn't get any advantages to trigger a crit, either. Vader isn't always so fortunate in his close encounters with lightsabers, however…

GoblynByte said:

Like you said before though, trying to use rules like that will just end up with you fudging out hits so they always hit someones limbs rather than cutting their head off, or just ignoring the results if it kills someone at an inappropriate moment. And the rest of the time you are having to pull the punches of the NPCs to keep the PCs alive.

(

Blaster bolts and lightsabers would have different kinds of lethality and capabilities, but still be quite deadly in their own right, that's correct. I realize I spoke too soon with my example, but the main point being that major hits are bad for you no matter what. To the dead guy, it really doesn't matter if he was shot in the heart with a searing bolt of burning Tibanna gas or if his head was chopped off by a highly focused beam attached to a hilt. It might, however, be of some interest to the guy who survived if the "glancing hit to his arm" sliced the arm right off, or simply left a burning mark…

AluminiumWolf said:

You say that as if there's a contradiction there. I have no problem with any of that. You only call out that I mention fudging rules because you feel it "proves" your point that RPG combat systems should not play that way. But you miss the more dominant points of that list which do not involve fudging rules, but rather playing in character which is at the very core of what an RPG should be.

But to pander to your point (because that's the only argument you want to have on these boards), we are all painfully aware that you feel RPGs should play like absolute and fixed video games, but that just isn't what RPGs are. Read any section about GMing in an RPG and they will all state that the GM's first priority is to make sure the players are having fun. That means ditching rules that make it not fun for someone.

That is not, however, even remotely the point I was attempting to make. The rules that exist can be played as written and they produce an effect that is very similar to the movies. Which is that heroes get hit less often but, when they do, the hits are more significant.

+++++That is of course an issue to address. But with that reasoning alone, wouldn't weapons like the repeater or disruptors or even the vibro-axe also be potential GM-headaches in this game (despite most being restricted)?+++++

Well yes, if the game is ever going to work for the kind of high intensity combat where such things are common. (And assuming those things are stupidly leathal to PCs as well). A Clone Wars battlefield with tanks and rocket launchers and every squad having at least one machinegun and whatnot?

+++++This means that on average rolling you get:

~6 Successes that are canceled by ~7 Failures

~5 Advantages that are canceled by ~6 Threats. You are even left with a net of 1 Threat on average, creating further disadvantages for the attacker.+++++

What is the variation like though? How often does the roll generate an instakill? or a whiff?

GoblynByte said:

And then you fudge the hits out to keep the PCs alive, and there is no danger involved in the combat at all.

Or you don't and the PCs die.

Or sometimes you do, and sometimes you don't and there is no consistency, and the players are left trying to figure out how they have to act to make the GM fudge out the hits because they are playing 'appropriately'.

AluminiumWolf said:

Except that in EotE, hitting Wound Threshold simply KOs you. You have to have critical injuries stacked in order to die.

AluminiumWolf said:

AluminiumWolf said:

I have a question, out of curiosity. Would you rather your character died at some random moment due to the system (or GM) being dead set on the rules, or would you rather have the character be a lasting part of the story with a greater impact on his or her bane and destiny? (This is not to say that the character is never at risk of life and limb, be they his or those he's close to).

I can respect both stands. I probably know most people who would prefer to have their character stick around and create a story where they can rather dramatically sacrifice their character at opportune moments, but I also play with those who prefer that each and every encounter is as deadly as possible (some of them gladly risks both themselves and the other characters no matter the reward). Both can lead to good play if it isn't overdone in either direction, if you ask me.

I personally prefer the story approach, but I'm not afraid to have my character at risk - and he should be at risk. But overcoming that risk through interesting twists (from both players and GM) or even just a daring (often stupid) survival plan is so much more rewarding to me than to mechanically succumb to the risks and game mechanics. To make an example: My group was playing Rogue Trader the other day. It was our second session and we were on the hunt of some artifact when we were attacked by orks. At that point, we had no idea of the usefulness or value of this artifact (and the orks being there was rather random), we were simply investigating some leads. To put it simply: My character had no reason to risk life and limb for that thing. Yet he took a few solid hits early in the fight, giving him some hefty critical damage which basically rendered him useful for the majority of the battle. Had he died at that moment, it would've felt like a waste and I would certainly not have enjoyed it. Instead my character was all but knocked, only able to roll into cover.

If the GM had had the mindset of "winning" against the players during that combat, the orks would've tried to shoot me down while I scrambled for cover in order to finish me off (I was able to take pot shots and doing some damage every now and then). But I was for the most time out. The orks (who love to shoot big guns that makes a lot of noise) had shot me down - now they wanted to see if they could be even more noisy and shoot someone else down. The GM was playing the orks as orks should behave.

This ties in with what GoblynByte said earlier: He's playing stormtroopers like stormtroopers, moving in with guns blazing and no apparent tactics except "clear the room". But he's playing more villainous NPCs as cunning or skilled, but with one or two apparent flaws, etc. He's playing a role for every NPC, not a game where the NPCs are pieces to move. Where in a game, it would be the best option to off someone, the role with that choice might not be so inclined for various reasons. If we continue to use the films as our examples, there are many examples of "GM fudging". The battle with Count Dooku in episode II, the whole encounter with the Wampa in Empire, or even Lukes fight with Vader in the same film. I imagine those as typical rpg scenes: One where the villain gloat and is unwilling to finish off the heroes (or hesitates enough for their ally to arrive), or where one player totaly botches a Survival roll, but is rescued because his friends care enough to start a broad rescue or risk their own lives, or where a character engages a clearly superior foe who even defeats him, but has the option of escaping the station and be saved by a connection to an ally through the Force. It's thin, but it's entertaining.

AluminiumWolf said:

Other than your gross misunderstanding of the potential of such gameplay, you're more or less correct. And I've never known a player to complain.

Northman said:

Well, I am trying to say that the rules should try to match what the GM will accept. So if the GM is just going to fudge every lightsaber hit that cuts someones head off in to a hit that chops their hand off at the wrist for Dramatic reasons, the system should not generate hits that chop peoples heads off because you are never going to use that result anyway .

AluminiumWolf said:

Who said that every deadly strike was fudged? I never said that. Nobody else ever said that. You're making assumptions.