So, I bought the Starter Kit a few months back and played through it once with some friends. We are all Table Top veterans. We mostly play D&D 3.5 with a few Pathfinder supplements here and there.

About a year ago, I started a campaign with the Saga Edition ruleset since I really wanted to DM. But I wasn't very interested in a D&D setting. I love Star Wars, and just wanted something different. We never finished the game since, essentially, as the DM I simply did not have faith in the ruleset. There were just too many holes in it.

So when I heard about this game, I got super excited because it "appeared" to be amazing. The Starter Kit was cool, but there were just too many uncertainties for me to invest fully into the system.

That being said, I have some general questions:

1. I really have no idea what all kind of classes there are in the system. While I'm sure whatever classes there are, they are interesting, I am more interested in knowing if there are any blatant balance issues. A common issue with all D&D related systems is the glaring problems with class balance. Basically, every system has a few Alpha Classes that make any other option pointless in comparison. How good is this game about Class Balancing?

2. I make my own mythos in games. My group and I hardly ever run previously made modules and pre-built adventures. One of the best things about being a DM is to craft your own story. For the original campaign I created, I created my own era and history leading up to it. How well does the EotE system scale to allow the DM to do this?

3. Along that same vein, I understand that Jedi from a Clone Wars perspective do not really have system support with this rule book. I understand that there will be more added later in 2015 that will address Force related things in more detail. I'm okay with this. I read somewhere, however, that the EotE system does allow a player to create a player that is more like Luke from ESB than Anakin from RotS. That's okay to me too, as I actually like that. I enjoy how the original trilogy painted the idea of a Jedi moreso than the prequels did. My question is, for the inventive sort who appreciates homebrewing while still retaining system balance, is there at least enough information to create some jury-rigged house-ruling Jedi stuff that can work until the official information is available?

4. I love maps. Maps and minis are just cool. I understand that the movement and tactical portions of the game are much more abstract, and it was even evident in the Starter Kit. While movement is something I understand can easily be made more concrete, I am worked about the mechanics of gun-fire. This is something the Starter Kit did not fully address. Does the system account for things such as Cover? Actually, the whole Defense system did not make sense to me. It appeared that the difficulty was always 2 Purple die. Is this matter covered in more detail? And more importantly, is it a system that makes relative sense from a tactical perspective?

5. Is there any sort of thing like Prestige Classes or Multi-Classing or are those sorts of things more or less unnecessary for this system?

6. How well does the game actually balance out Class options for combat and out-of-combat dynamics? One of my biggest pet-peaves with D&D is how half the classes are functionally useless in combat, yet overcompensate by a large margin with social skills, and visa versa. What you're left with is you're either good in combat and nothing else, or you are good in everything but combat. Basically, I want to make sure that no matter what class you play, you can have just as much fun in all situations as any other class.

7. With my Starter Kit experience, we were learning a new system. So... things went pretty slowly, especially in combat. One thing I hate about D&D is how combat can seemingly take hours. And if you are playing a class that doesn't do much in combat... this can be extremely boring. At any rate, my question is... how well does the pace of the game keep from getting static? Assuming my group and I learn the rules well enough - will the game move along at a good pace without being bogged down by a million rules on how to calculate a bunch of fluff stuff?

8. Another issue I have had in other system is that the Leveling experience was a little bit distorted. In D&D, you start out really, really crappy, and eventually become ridiculously powerful. In Saga, you basically start out as a power house, and as you level up, the game sort of gives you this steady increase of diminishing returns. So... the game actually gets harder. Does EotE have a steady level up system?

9. Most importantly, do the rules in the game make sense? I've read through Saga Edition a million times and every time and every time I do, I can't help but perceive quite a bit of it as an immediate candidate for a retro-fit house-rule. Basically, a lot of stuff in that system (and D&D for that matter) don't make sense for practical reasons. I'm a reasonable guy and I expect reasonable rules. How well does this game relate to that?

10. Lastly, about how long of a life-time can I expect a character to have? For instance, D&D has 20 levels (minus epic.) To me and the way my group plays, those 20 levels give us quite a bit of mileage. How does the character lifespan in EotE relate? For instance, is Max expected level for a EotE character career equal to say 10 D&D levels, 20, 30? I guess I'm trying to determine how long a campaign could run from a single group of characters. I'm used to campaigns that could take up to a year from lvls 1-10 or 12, and then another year to finish out to 20. Is this conceivable for EotE characters?

Sorry this is so long, but these are important to me as a player and as a DM. Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions!

1. I really have no idea what all kind of classes there are in the system. While I'm sure whatever classes there are, they are interesting, I am more interested in knowing if there are any blatant balance issues. A common issue with all D&D related systems is the glaring problems with class balance. Basically, every system has a few Alpha Classes that make any other option pointless in comparison. How good is this game about Class Balancing?

I haven't read through the entirety of the book yet, but I wanted to address this question on more general terms.

Discard the idea of "class balance". There is no such thing in this game. Not only are there no true classes (it's a bit more loose with the concept than what you might be used to), but there is nothing in particular to balance against. This isn't a combat game. It's not a tactical game. It's not a game about number crunching. It's a narrative RPG. All characters can contribute equally to the narrative in different ways, but they can't compete with each other if set up against one specific standard.

If you're going to be running a combat-heavy game, certain character types will dominate. In that case you should recommend that your players don't pick the weaker options. Though the game does kind of support this kind of thing (it even mentions it in the first chapter), I would argue that it's not at all what EotE is built for. As mentioned this is a narrative game where the focus is on everyone being able to do cool stuff. This doesn't mean everyone will be awesome all the time, unlike a game like D&D where everyone is roughly equal in combat. It just means that everyone has some way to be in the spotlight consistently.

It's like in the Rogue Trader campaign I'm running. There's one character who is a glorified bodyguard, and he completely owns everyone else in combat. The others tend to be his support, hiding behind cover while he does his stuff. This is fine, and the players love it because that's the character's shtick, his way of being in the spotlight. Other players dominate in other arenas. The seneschal takes the spotlight during trade and negotiations, the pilot takes the spotlight when ships or vehicles are involved, and the navigator takes the spotlight when the mystical comes into play. When one of them is in focus, the others simply can't compete, and that's how it's meant to be.

So no, don't expect there to be much class balance in this game. It's going to be decent enough that most groups won't notice anything, but if you've got a bunch of players that tend to min-max and who expect combat to take precedence over everything else, there's bound to be issues.

1. I really have no idea what all kind of classes there are in the system. While I'm sure whatever classes there are, they are interesting, I am more interested in knowing if there are any blatant balance issues. A common issue with all D&D related systems is the glaring problems with class balance. Basically, every system has a few Alpha Classes that make any other option pointless in comparison. How good is this game about Class Balancing?

I haven't read through the entirety of the book yet, but I wanted to address this question on more general terms.

Discard the idea of "class balance". There is no such thing in this game. Not only are there no true classes (it's a bit more loose with the concept than what you might be used to), but there is nothing in particular to balance against. This isn't a combat game. It's not a tactical game. It's not a game about number crunching. It's a narrative RPG. All characters can contribute equally to the narrative in different ways, but they can't compete with each other if set up against one specific standard.

If you're going to be running a combat-heavy game, certain character types will dominate. In that case you should recommend that your players don't pick the weaker options. Though the game does kind of support this kind of thing (it even mentions it in the first chapter), I would argue that it's not at all what EotE is built for. As mentioned this is a narrative game where the focus is on everyone being able to do cool stuff. This doesn't mean everyone will be awesome all the time, unlike a game like D&D where everyone is roughly equal in combat. It just means that everyone has some way to be in the spotlight consistently.

It's like in the Rogue Trader campaign I'm running. There's one character who is a glorified bodyguard, and he completely owns everyone else in combat. The others tend to be his support, hiding behind cover while he does his stuff. This is fine, and the players love it because that's the character's shtick, his way of being in the spotlight. Other players dominate in other arenas. The seneschal takes the spotlight during trade and negotiations, the pilot takes the spotlight when ships or vehicles are involved, and the navigator takes the spotlight when the mystical comes into play. When one of them is in focus, the others simply can't compete, and that's how it's meant to be.

So no, don't expect there to be much class balance in this game. It's going to be decent enough that most groups won't notice anything, but if you've got a bunch of players that tend to min-max and who expect combat to take precedence over everything else, there's bound to be issues.

As far as EotE being a narrative RPG, I understand that. However, the narrative only functions in two ways: in combat and out of combat. All I am really asking is whether or not each class has mechanics built into them that allow them to participate in both in some capacity.

Basically, I want to avoid the situation where:

1. the character playing the heavy gunman who lives to fight won't be bored because he has nothing to do during the 5 hours we spend with story/social/non-combative stuff

2. the noble-type character who lives to be social and steals money everywhere he can isn't noticed when he contributes whatever it is he does in combat because what he does is as relevant as not being there at all.

Also, consider this in D&D:

1. Fighters get a crap ton of combat options, and zero social options.

2. A Rogue gets a crap ton of social options, and standard amount of combat options, but those combat options are pretty nice.

3. A Druid gets a moderate amount of social options, a standard amount of combat options, and a crap ton of magic options that allows the character to eventually reshape reality as well as completely replace all of their combat and social options simultaneously if they so choose.

This is the sort of class balance issues I am talking about. It's very clear here in what order these classes are useful for playing. I'm okay with diversity - but I'm not okay with one class having the ability to completely replace another class by virtue of poor design balance. It simply isn't necessary for this sort of oversight.

As far as leveling up is concerned, I feel like this system makes it so you can level up your players as fast or slow as you want.

There are no "levels", first of all. The only thing that happens is that players get XP, then they spend XP on skills and talents (the price goes up the higher they go).

And you don't give XP per enemy type or per encounter. In fact, I guess you can give XP out whenever seems logical. Not after a single fight, but maybe after a "scene", or "session", or after some major plot point. Like, if the characters have to fight through town, hack into a computer, steal a part, then steal a ship and escape the planet...maybe you don't give XP out until they're safely off the planet and they have time to really rest.

The amount of XP you give can be whatever you want. You'd probably have to take a look at the Talent trees, do some calculations, and figure out how many sessions it would take to max out a career tree, then divy up XP into discreet amounts per session or something...especially if you're creating your own campaigns.

Every system of rules has holes and places where things may not make sense. Every writer, GM, and player has a slightly different idea of where the slider between fun & realism should be. This is a good cinematic system that flows well. If you want more realism, you will need to find a more detailed system. They are older, but they are out there.

Of course that seems to be at odds with your desire to streamline combat. The more cinematic the system, the easier combat seems to be. One of the quickest systems of combat is FATE. One of the longest is Rolemaster. This system seems to be in the middle.

If you are looking for something infinitely customizable for a game, may I suggest you take a peek at the end of this post. I know, blatant plug, but its a great system.

All in all, I am not unhappy I spent $60 at a local game store (If you don't support them, they fade away and its harder to find the next crop of gamers) for my Core Rules. It is a gorgeous book with a fine and balanced cinematic system with a few really nifty ideas.

As far as combat and non-combat options for each career, each character has access to every option available. Some options will just be more expensive than others and every career has non-combat options in that career

As far as leveling up is concerned, I feel like this system makes it so you can level up your players as fast or slow as you want.

There are no "levels", first of all. The only thing that happens is that players get XP, then they spend XP on skills and talents (the price goes up the higher they go).

And you don't give XP per enemy type or per encounter. In fact, I guess you can give XP out whenever seems logical. Not after a single fight, but maybe after a "scene", or "session", or after some major plot point. Like, if the characters have to fight through town, hack into a computer, steal a part, then steal a ship and escape the planet...maybe you don't give XP out until they're safely off the planet and they have time to really rest.

The amount of XP you give can be whatever you want. You'd probably have to take a look at the Talent trees, do some calculations, and figure out how many sessions it would take to max out a career tree, then divy up XP into discreet amounts per session or something...especially if you're creating your own campaigns.

I think this is going to work well with how we typically play. We usually get 1,000 XP at the end of the session, plus bonuses if we do cool or memorable stuff. Tallying up XP per enemy or whatever just ends up being more trouble than it's worth.

I guess the way you put it and thinking about it, one campaign could last a while. Thanks for the feedback.

As far as combat and non-combat options for each career, each character has access to every option available. Some options will just be more expensive than others and every career has non-combat options in that career

Sweet! This is exactly what I wanted to know. Thanks!

Every system of rules has holes and places where things may not make sense. Every writer, GM, and player has a slightly different idea of where the slider between fun & realism should be. This is a good cinematic system that flows well. If you want more realism, you will need to find a more detailed system. They are older, but they are out there.

Of course that seems to be at odds with your desire to streamline combat. The more cinematic the system, the easier combat seems to be. One of the quickest systems of combat is FATE. One of the longest is Rolemaster. This system seems to be in the middle.

If you are looking for something infinitely customizable for a game, may I suggest you take a peek at the end of this post. I know, blatant plug, but its a great system.

All in all, I am not unhappy I spent $60 at a local game store (If you don't support them, they fade away and its harder to find the next crop of gamers) for my Core Rules. It is a gorgeous book with a fine and balanced cinematic system with a few really nifty ideas.

I like systems that find a balance in both. I like streamlined realism. I don't want a simulation... just an emulation (if that makes sense.)

For combat, I enjoy the tactical movement parts (simply because it reminds me of chess), but I don't want to spend 20 minutes figuring out if I hit, how many times I hit, how much damage each hit does, where it was that I hit, if they're immune to fire, and if they are only resistant, by how much, and on and on. That sort of detail isn't interesting.

Basically, I want some amount of realism in placement and movement... and then the rest of the stuff to go by relatively quickly. Given how the dice work in this game, I anticipate a lot of busy work will be cut out which will provide me with what I am looking for. I guess I just wanted to know if the game still moved along at a well pace even in the late game.

So, I bought the Starter Kit a few months back and played through it once with some friends. We are all Table Top veterans. We mostly play D&D 3.5 with a few Pathfinder supplements here and there.

About a year ago, I started a campaign with the Saga Edition ruleset since I really wanted to DM. But I wasn't very interested in a D&D setting. I love Star Wars, and just wanted something different. We never finished the game since, essentially, as the DM I simply did not have faith in the ruleset. There were just too many holes in it.

So when I heard about this game, I got super excited because it "appeared" to be amazing. The Starter Kit was cool, but there were just too many uncertainties for me to invest fully into the system.

That being said, I have some general questions:

1. I really have no idea what all kind of classes there are in the system. While I'm sure whatever classes there are, they are interesting, I am more interested in knowing if there are any blatant balance issues. A common issue with all D&D related systems is the glaring problems with class balance. Basically, every system has a few Alpha Classes that make any other option pointless in comparison. How good is this game about Class Balancing?

2. I make my own mythos in games. My group and I hardly ever run previously made modules and pre-built adventures. One of the best things about being a DM is to craft your own story. For the original campaign I created, I created my own era and history leading up to it. How well does the EotE system scale to allow the DM to do this?

3. Along that same vein, I understand that Jedi from a Clone Wars perspective do not really have system support with this rule book. I understand that there will be more added later in 2015 that will address Force related things in more detail. I'm okay with this. I read somewhere, however, that the EotE system does allow a player to create a player that is more like Luke from ESB than Anakin from RotS. That's okay to me too, as I actually like that. I enjoy how the original trilogy painted the idea of a Jedi moreso than the prequels did. My question is, for the inventive sort who appreciates homebrewing while still retaining system balance, is there at least enough information to create some jury-rigged house-ruling Jedi stuff that can work until the official information is available?

4. I love maps. Maps and minis are just cool. I understand that the movement and tactical portions of the game are much more abstract, and it was even evident in the Starter Kit. While movement is something I understand can easily be made more concrete, I am worked about the mechanics of gun-fire. This is something the Starter Kit did not fully address. Does the system account for things such as Cover? Actually, the whole Defense system did not make sense to me. It appeared that the difficulty was always 2 Purple die. Is this matter covered in more detail? And more importantly, is it a system that makes relative sense from a tactical perspective?

5. Is there any sort of thing like Prestige Classes or Multi-Classing or are those sorts of things more or less unnecessary for this system?

6. How well does the game actually balance out Class options for combat and out-of-combat dynamics? One of my biggest pet-peaves with D&D is how half the classes are functionally useless in combat, yet overcompensate by a large margin with social skills, and visa versa. What you're left with is you're either good in combat and nothing else, or you are good in everything but combat. Basically, I want to make sure that no matter what class you play, you can have just as much fun in all situations as any other class.

7. With my Starter Kit experience, we were learning a new system. So... things went pretty slowly, especially in combat. One thing I hate about D&D is how combat can seemingly take hours. And if you are playing a class that doesn't do much in combat... this can be extremely boring. At any rate, my question is... how well does the pace of the game keep from getting static? Assuming my group and I learn the rules well enough - will the game move along at a good pace without being bogged down by a million rules on how to calculate a bunch of fluff stuff?

8. Another issue I have had in other system is that the Leveling experience was a little bit distorted. In D&D, you start out really, really crappy, and eventually become ridiculously powerful. In Saga, you basically start out as a power house, and as you level up, the game sort of gives you this steady increase of diminishing returns. So... the game actually gets harder. Does EotE have a steady level up system?

9. Most importantly, do the rules in the game make sense? I've read through Saga Edition a million times and every time and every time I do, I can't help but perceive quite a bit of it as an immediate candidate for a retro-fit house-rule. Basically, a lot of stuff in that system (and D&D for that matter) don't make sense for practical reasons. I'm a reasonable guy and I expect reasonable rules. How well does this game relate to that?

10. Lastly, about how long of a life-time can I expect a character to have? For instance, D&D has 20 levels (minus epic.) To me and the way my group plays, those 20 levels give us quite a bit of mileage. How does the character lifespan in EotE relate? For instance, is Max expected level for a EotE character career equal to say 10 D&D levels, 20, 30? I guess I'm trying to determine how long a campaign could run from a single group of characters. I'm used to campaigns that could take up to a year from lvls 1-10 or 12, and then another year to finish out to 20. Is this conceivable for EotE characters?

Sorry this is so long, but these are important to me as a player and as a DM. Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions!

In response to your questions specifically:

Edited for space

Thanks so much! I think I'm going to get this game, now!

Thanks so much! I think I'm going to get this game, now!

You chose...wisely.

Thanks so much! I think I'm going to get this game, now!

You chose...wisely.

You are my hero.

10) Hypothetically, it could be infinite, although just off hand, I'd say that once players start to have all their main talents and some from other specs, the game will likely get a bit more stale then when everything was still challenging unless you ramp the difficulty pretty high. I'd say it would probably take around a year of weekly sessions for the game to get kinda boring (assuming you are giving out the recommended 10xp/session with an occaisonal bonus here or there) if you dont reset, but of course I'm just ball-parking a number.

I think someone ballparked the figure on RPGG to be like 900XP to max out your character? I'm not sure if that assumed more than one specialization. At 10-20XP per session, that's a **** good shelf life. Especially with career books coming out (Explorer soonish, extending the talent trees.

Thanks so much! I think I'm going to get this game, now!

You chose...wisely.

I'm giggling as I type this.

Thanks so much! I think I'm going to get this game, now!

You chose...wisely.

ROFL - Thanks!