ErikB said:

Its quite clear the designers have a theme in mind for the rules at the moment, and I give them props for sticking to their guns and putting out the game they want to give us. They will give everyone what they want, but it will take time.

Maybe there is no Jedi in the book because they want to test it a bit more and perfect it so it doesn't break the game or make anyone who plays a Jedi the powerhouse of the group so all others look like a waste of time to play.

Like I said previously, you want a Jedi, HOUSE RULE it.

The basics are there, you need to connect the dots, and hey, maybe if you do a great job of doing it, share it with others. FFG might even see it and use it to help their direction of where to take the Jedi. If anything else, you've made a playable Jedi for your game, its fun, and it works until the book finally comes out.

I've been jotting down ideas for a Jedi and trying to connect the dots as I read and listen to Order 66, so its only a matter of time before I will have a solid Jedi type for my games for players.

LucianZenlav said:

No, it didn't fly. Two iterations of the game and they couldn't drum up enough business to satisfy their bottom line. Granted theirs is going to be a much higher bottom line than other companies, but they still couldn't meet it with all their resources. And that was using the kitchen sink philosophy. Don't downplay WEG's contribution either. They are very much a big part of why we have much of the EU that we have these days. Now a much smaller company has the rights and have chosen to go, with what amounts to, a back to basics approach. And it seems to be working. Many people are enjoying the game. And many people want more. They've had their appetites whetted and they want more in the way of Jedi, Mandalorian, Imperial, Sith, and on and on. The style of gameplay and mechanics seems a perfect feel for the science fantasy that is Star Wars. That is what will make a game popular and, for FFG, profitable. Because if it isn't profitable, then it will go away. Which I think is something none of us want.

The one book to rule them all philosophy is also not something I agree with. Too often, in my experience , it just amounts to one person buying the game. I find that having player's guides in a system promotes more buying. D&D, Savage Worlds, Warhammer, many games do this. The Marvel game has a core rule book, but is also putting out the core rules in some of the future releases in premier formats. I think the Star Wars universe, at this point, is just to expansive to be done in one book. I think people would complain that there was not enough information on this or that. So rather than be spread too thin, FFG has chosen to focus and I see this as a good thing. Especially with what I have seen so far.

mouthymerc said:

Also, if things are in more then one book, players can have a players book for their reference and the GM can have their books with out players sticking their nose into it during the game to look things up.

Lord Nikon said:

Well, I think at this point it is fair to say that whatever the merits of FFGs approach, it has doomed everyone to two years of arguments about why you can't play a Jedi.

I guess it must be left as an exercise for the reader if that is an acceptable trade off for preventing other people from playing their favourite type of character.

Jegergryte said:

LucianZenlav said:

But where is the line? What is complete to you may not be complete to another. And yet another may find it spread too thin. And some will find it too focused. So how do you please everyone? Quite simply you do not. You put out a game that you hope people will enjoy and play and hopefully make money so you can keep doing it. Casual gamers do not want a $60 book that they will use sparingly. The book is already at that price, adding more to it will only increase the cost. That will only make it less likely to be bought by casual gamers.

They're intentionally not trying to give the whole feel of the Star Wars universe in one book. I don't think that can be achieved in one book. And I think they are putting out a good product. based on this thread alone it is quite apparent that people want more.

ErikB said:

Because its probably not as unpopular as you claim it to be. For all the posts we see regarding "we want jedi," we're not going to see posts saying "we're fine with not having jedi."

Personally, coming from the WH40K line of FFGs RPGs (or well, I got Dark heresy in the Black Industries days, but had to jump ship pretty quick there), I easily see where they're coming from with EotE's theme. Its a conversation I've had with others, and I imagine its a pretty hot button issue for some RPG players.

To explain, at least from the WH40K angle, in those systems there is a very deep seeded notion that the PCs are a member of a particular group. In DH the PCs are in an Inquisitor's acolyte cell (and Ascension, become the Inquisitor themself). In RT, the PCs are the scions of a Rogue Trader dynasty, or close allies. In DW, the PCs are members of a Deathwatch kill-team. In BC, the players are members/leaders of a chaos warband. In OW, the PCs are a squad of soldiers from some particular regiment.

The point of saying all that is that it is quite the norm in FFG's RPG line for the PCs to be automatically a member of some particular group. Its worth noting the differences between WH40K and Star Wars at this point. In 40K, your average person is given a job on a planet, and assumed to work that job until the day they die. In other words, its a relatively opressive system of government. The only people who tend to live interesting lives are those with the ability to freely go from planet to planet (also, single planet play is not necessarily fun). In essence, the different books of the 40k line attempt to touch on these groups of individuals (inquisition, rogue traders, space marines, chaos cultists, soldiers). Ultimately, while there are other neat ideas for groups in the setting (small Eldar War-hosts, human outlaws, etc.) there really isn't enough to warrant its own book. And due to the screwey hand-off from Black Industries, a "general" CRB plus "setting" supplments was not really possible. Its also worth noting that the fluff in all the WH40K books are written around a highly particular region and time period. This at least helps provide more vivid background information.

That said, EotE does not appear to stretch far from this idea. There is a distinct time in the setting that has been chosen, and a fairly particular group type has been selected (non-military, non-jedi, fringe spacers). Now, we can easily say that the system should be built towards groups capable of space travel (its iconinc Star Wars). The decision not to build around a military themed game probably has more to do with not being ready/not wanting to include rules/write ups for how to manage logistics/command units, that sort of thing (keeping the action focused on the small group of PCs). Also, career wise, its a bit restrictive in theme. Merchant, Expolorer, Smuggler are a bit out of place in a military system, whereas Soldier could just be a mix of Hired Gun and something else. With this in mind, given the time period, Jedi would be somewhat innapropriate. Also, as mentioned throughout this thread, the movies indicate that even a padawan is a significantly capable individual, and falls outside the "power level" range FFG apparently wants to begin at with their books. You try telling me that padawan-near-knighthood Obi-Wan in Episode 1 is in any way inferior to naieve farmboy Luke Skywalker during Episode 4. Earlier it was commented that Jedi Knight Obi-Wan had a bit of a match vs. Jango Fett in Episode 2, and that is entirely correct. That argument fails to note that in EotE a character such as Jango Fett could easily have hundreds of XP.

Some may disagree with the selection of a setting, but I can tell you at least from the WH40K side of it, it helps provide direction for the group. It encourages character creation to occur in parrallel with the players, instead of individuals bringing wildly disparate characters from impossibly different walks of life and making silly arguments for why such a thing is possible (so an Imperial Inquisitor, a Jedi Master, a hutt, a stormtrooper, and a rebel sympathizer meet in a cantina… oh but they're all cool with each other because they're nice people. But my inquisitor is still evil and the Jedi Master is still good). Having a setting there provides a stronger backbone, and more consistent writing, especially in terms of ships and gear. While there are some arguments about how certain ship designs are pretty consistent in SW, the premise of having specifically a T-65 X-Wing fighter in the KOTOR era is preposterous. A specific setting allows for a more precise content section of the book. Instead of having to describe in broad terms all the major areas across all the major timeframes of the Star Wars galaxy, it can focus on a particular area and a particular timeframe.

And ultimately, I can definitely say the rules are modular enough that setting wise if a group feels experienced enough to try and break past them, there isn't much thats actually stopping them. "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." In this system, "Jedi," or "Sith", or whatever silly thing LucianZenlav is asking for (don't mean to be rude, but your argument that all things LucasArts = Canon is silly, and marketly untrue. G-Canon is anything appearing in the movies and trumps all else) is simply a career (or maybe more), with a set of career skills. It then breaks down into specializations, each containing their own specialization skills, and a talent tree. The tree most likely will consit of abilities that are already in the book, plus maybe a few more that modify Force die results or tamper with the Force Point system. Ultimately all the classes need is some ability to boost Force Power or whatever the stat is called beyond its current limit of 2. 4 Is an appropriate amount, and anything beyond gets crazy. I can promise the internet will have something (and most likely already has something) that can provide this.

Point is "force users" as a whole really only need the actual careers and possibly a few more force powers to do their thing. There is not some large section of rules actually needed to handle them. Combat is very broad in this game (1 turn has variable length but tends to range from 1 min in length to 4 mins in length). It does not go so granular, so simulationist as to need something akin to the spells chapter of D&D/Pathfinder. There is not some large section of rules on lightsaber forms that is relevent (those most likely are broadend out to an ability that adds a boost die or setback die to particular actions).

In closing the points to remember are:

• Force users are quite capable in the lore, and in the EotE system should represent a large chunk of XP spent (ref. "Episode 1 Obi-Wan could so take on Episode 4 Luke Skywalker").
• The goal is to create a system that caters to all play styles at the end of the day (and failing that, most of them)
• Making a force user the baseline for the system would require a boost in the ability of non force users (as it was in the initial beta test, 25-40XP spent on force powers could of theoretically defeated Darth Vader in the first turn, a feat no non force user could attain with almost any weapon)
• Boosting non force users too high skews gameplay (ref. problems seen at high level play in any system)
• Therefore, it is wise to start low and build up from there, checking to see if the higher stuff breaks anything (oh look, thats what they're doing).

TL;DR; veriosn:

FFG has a history of combining a setting with their RPGs. FFG chose to base EotE in the Imperial Period/Rebellion Era (the most well known/iconic setting. The vast majority of Star Wars fans have at least seen Episodes 4/5/6, and for many, thats all they have seen or are aware of). Jedi are not commonly available at this time, and therefore FFG is being meaningfully sensitive to the lore by not making it readily available. Some may disagree, but there are valid arguments for why its good that a rule system combine itself with a setting.

PS

As a side note, and I totally understand as an RPG player this is not the appropriate way to look at this, but its hilarious to see people who want to play exemplars of patience be so impatient. Effectively, that the people who seem to want to play Jedi so badly come across as the type of person who would let their emotions run wild.

Lord Nikon said:

While I've said that I'm cool with FFG not having official rules for playing "true" Jedi, at the same time I've had no problem doing what you've suggested, and have been working on a Jedi specialization (with a couple other Force-based specs) since September. The material's gone under a lot of revisions, some pretty extensive play-testing, and is out to a very select group of folks for a final pass-through.

Maybe it's because I'm an older gamer that I'm willing to do some of the work myself and not simply wait for the publisher to hand me something. Granted, it's quite likley that what I come up with won't have any similarity to what FFG designs when they get around to writing up the Jedi rules. And you know what? For a couple of years, I'm perfectly cool with that. I came up with plenty of my own material for a number of games that I've run over the years, and this game's no different.

Actually, I'm kinda glad that FFG is sticking to their guns for the EotE corebook and not having an official Jedi specialization. They've got a vision for this game, its fundamental dice mechanics, and its setting, and rather than knuckle under to a small-yet-vocal group, they're sticking to that vision. And for that, I applaud them.

LucianZenlav said:

Becuase your way (shallow core + supplements for depth) is just as much of a "money grab." You buy one core book, that doesn't do anything well, and make people buy a bunch of supplements to get the full experience. This way, you can get the full experience for the part of the setting you want. If you don't want fringers trying to make ends meet on the Outer Rim, and instead want Rebels vs Empire, just buy the one book. If you don't want Jedi, then they don't waste pagecount on them.

The approach favors certain styles of play. It doesn't favor styles of play based on a "kitchen sink" game where everything is included. It may not favor your playstyle, and that's unfortunate.

I also believe that FFG is in the business to make money, but in the end they need to create a good product for people to want to buy it. It's not like they are forcing anyone to buy anything, or are being deceitful over what you will get with your purchase. If the game sucks and is not worth the expense, then don't buy it. To characterize them as masterminds attempting to psychologically adict us and string us along is too melodramatic to be taken seriously.

ErikB said:

Perhaps, but that can easily be turned around to those that cannot, stubbornly, accept and stop moaning about that this game has a design in mind, a design that does not - at the get go - include Jedi. Is it hard to understand? Why? Stop being stubborn and "open your mind" …. "enter a larger world"…

Donovan Morningfire said:

The fact that Jedi are not a predominant factor in this system (which is set during a time when there was only a handful of Jedi at best in the galaxy) was a HUGE selling point for me. I love Jedi just as much as the next guy, I might even still weep during Order 66 of Episode III (a manly weep), but MAN do I love the seedy underbelly that this universe has given us. Dice mechanic (which I really enjoy) takes a backseat to the new stories and drama that this system can tell for me. The force user mechanic in this system is pretty on point for the setting, and like Donovan said, if you don't like it, change it yourself and put it in your game! I think that's awesome, and this system seems to lend itself pretty easily to user customization. Even the developers have said that the actual rules should take a backseat to a good gaming experience. Besides, Saga got the overpowered and crazy fun to play force user down pretty well, and there is a plethora of official content for that system. Maybe stick with that system if you really wanna do a force user heavy campaign.

A wise man once said "Shiny. Let's be bad guys." ….And that's what I aim to do in this system.

Sadly, I think history shows that moaning about things on the internet is the way to get things done.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6187-Why-Boycotts-Fail-Where-Whining-Tantrums-Win

Donovan Morningfire said:

Thank you for aggreeing here, I look forward to seeing your notes as you playtest and produce them, so I can compare with what I am doing. Will give me a good chance to improve and tweak until I enjoy how it works.

This thread is very pointless, it will only further people to ***** and complain, and then others to jump in and counter fight the complaining. Its a giant loop of nothingness…

Lord Nikon said:

Its a giant loop of nothingness…

Which, and make no mistake here, will continue until people can play Jedi.

ErikB said:

Well, in about two years time you will, perhaps there's some more in the book that comes next year … have fun moaning, its fun to pop by from time to time. Heh.

ErikB said:

Sadly true in this day and age.

ErikB said:

ErikB said:

I think this quote really hits what I have been trying to say here.

I would also like to point out a few developers who in some ways may disagree with the “make it yourself and be quite” argument. Monty Cook in his kickstarter videos strongly hinted at the fault of game companies. He suggested that player groups should not have to spend hours making rules up for their game. That is why game developers are being paid and they are getting money from us. Monty Cook may be the first to admit that not everything can be in a book but I also think he would have the forethought to meet a large fan base (people who like Jedi) before 2015.

Matt McFarland, a writer for white wolf (now onyxpath) just wrote on their site about the idea that rules should not really be incredibly vague and that they should be more complete for the players so that the storytellers do not get overworked doing the job of the writers.

I know for a fact that I could spend hours and hours making what little they give us on force powers and lightsabor forms to work. That is not my job however. Yes, I am a very creative person and I am almost always the storyteller. I have spent hours working on different aspects of my story over the years. I am not going to do their job for them on this one.

I get that FFGs is trying to do some type of homage to WEG’s Star Wars however, for those of us who did not like WEGs, I find it really silly.

I would also like to point this out. I am currently in my doctoral program and should be graduating in 2015. In order to graduate I will have to start on my dissertation which should be early next year. This dissertation should be around 200 pages of research. I will have defended my dissertation by the time Jedi get a book. If a paid company takes longer to create a book on Jedi than it takes me to research a topic, write about it and defend it, then in my opinion, they are not an inspiring game creators in my book.

ErikB said:

Lord Nikon said:

Its a giant loop of nothingness…

Which, and make no mistake here, will continue until people can play Jedi.

Well if effort is applied to actually doing something about it, instead of demanding (or crying about it) from FFG, there could be a community built Jedi to test play and use.

Dance Commander said:

I can't help but wonder how many new Star Wars movies will have come out before the Jedi book is supposed to wheeze across the line…

@Dance Commander I think you mean Monte Cook. To your point of who could have predicted people wanted to play Jedi, well obviously FFG since they are making a Jedi book and announced it from the beginning. I think what you really mean is who could have predicted that people want to play Jedi from day 1? I would not be surprised if FFG misjudged the desire to play Jedi right off the bat, or maybe they haven't. Who knows?

But I really like what was said on the Order 66 podcast awhile ago. Basically they explained how the three books mirror the original movies. The first movie starts off in the seedy backwater planet where smugglers and criminals hang out. The second movie is about the might of the empire crushing the rebels, and the third movie is about … well the title says it all "Return of the Jedi." Obviously, all three movies have all three elements in them, but there is a certain appeal to the way FFG has laid the games out.

I think everyone understands that some people are frustrated that they cannot play a full fledged Jedi out of the book. I don't think anyone is saying there should never be Jedi in this system, but I think it is erroneous to say the game is incomplete without them. This is a full game to tell a specific type of story in the Star Wars universe. Star Wars means so many things to so many different people, it is no surprise that for many of us our favorite or most iconic part of Star Wars is not included in Edge of the Empire.

If you polled six people you would probably get six different opinions on how they would like the three books to come out. Personally, I would have preferred Age of Rebellion then Force and Destiny and then Edge of the Empire. But regardless of my preference for the order in which they are released, I like the tight focus on these three discrete elements of Star Wars. I think it will help all three games. I believe we would not have seen the cool obligation mechanic in a buffet-style game. Im also hoping to see similar unique mechanics in the other games. Splitting the games up, has almost certainly made them better. So, I disagree with anyone who says the game is worse because it lacks Jedi, but I understand that many people would like to play a Jedi.

Lord Nikon said:

ErikB said:

Lord Nikon said:

Its a giant loop of nothingness…

Which, and make no mistake here, will continue until people can play Jedi.

Well if effort is applied to actually doing something about it, instead of demanding (or crying about it) from FFG, there could be a community built Jedi to test play and use.

But then you run into a similar problem as was seen in the WH40K lines Inquisitor's Handbook vs. the Blood of Martyrs book. Admitadly, one was not actually written initially by FFG (if I recall Black Industries did the initial work on the IH until they folded, they might of published it too).

Anyway, the point is that these were both books in the same product line (Dark Heresy), and both books contained rules for a class of the same name, "Sister of Battle," a much loved career by many of the community (not quite the same obsession as many have with Jedi, but I attribute that to the size of the Star Wars fandom. Being 10000% larger by population does wonders for exposure). The classes as they were seen across the two books were wildly different, with little concern for similarities (IH started with primitive armor and weapons, the BoM version was given a highly effective suit of power armor and one of the best types of assault rifles in the game, not to mention all the support they needed resource wise). I personally don't want to weigh in on which was better (both have issues - IH made a bit of a conceptual mistake with the fluff by how it branched the career, and it was all sorts of "meh", the BoM version is one of the greatest examples of power creep from books I have ever seen), but the point I'm trying to make is that this has caused some confusion in the system, especially regarding some of the finer points of the rules. For example, in the IH version, there is wording present that makes a Battle Sister lose some of her class abilities if she suffers from too many corruption points. The same wording is not present in the Blood of Martyrs variant. Other rules supplements modify the Battle Sister, but were published before the BoM came out, do they now modify the BoM version as well?

The point I'm trying to raise is that a stopgap solution is not healthy for the system either. House rules have the benefit of easily saying "how things work at this table." Its quite easy to look at a rule book, and to consider ones own house rules, and judge how to go from there. Its much harder if you have two different rulebooks in the same setting, or slightly similar setting. It becomes less clear what should override what, and overall, the quality of the system is degraded.

I think jedi are important enough to the setting to justify waiting with them. There are most likely problems that do need to be sussed out, especially with regards to balance (where does the EotE system break down with high level play, how do PCs scale with XP, where should a Jedi "land" with regards to all this, what are interesting talents a jedi could have access to, writing up whole chapters of fluff to give proper deference to the jedi/sith/other mentalities, more fleshed out suggestions to the GM on how to handle turning to the dark side) to justify putting that book off.

KommissarK said:

Surely if it is important and difficult it is better to start on it as soon as possible.

ErikB said:

And they're doing that by creating two other books in the same system. Problems will arise in EotE and they will be examined and revaluated, and updated in the second book. Problems will arise in that, be examined, evaluated, and then they move forward. Its an iterative process, I don't see how you can claim they're not working on it. They're just taking a longer, careful road to get there.

What we don't want to end up with is a poorly tooled jedi system that fails to prevent non force users from feeling useless at the table, that somehow they failed at character creation because the spotlight is constantly stolen from them.

I am fairly sure that the best way to test a game about playing jedi is to, yknow, make a game about playing jedi…