With the announcement of the AOR and grock'ing that it's a stand alone game, I knew it was but it didn't sink in until I saw the picture, I'd like to see a supplement version of both AOR and FAD. Basically versions that skip the basic rules and just have the updated rules setting etc.

Most of the first 200pgs of EotE are core rules and really don't need to be repeated if you already have it. Since the AOR beta is 244pgs chances are less than a 100 is new content and it would be easier to carry... uh lug around.

Then when FAD comes out offer a compiled version with all the rules and such integrated into a single tomb (though this might be a bit more work than just pairing down).

That is all.

Why incur the expense (and possible user confusion) laying out and printing two different versions of the same book. They haven't done it with WH40K and those books still sell and are used.

I would have preferred a nWoD approach where the core rules are in one book and then each flavor of the game gets its own book that doesn't have the core rules.

Why incur the expense (and possible user confusion) laying out and printing two different versions of the same book. They haven't done it with WH40K and those books still sell and are used.

Wow, never thought of that... gee I'm an idiot. /snark

I guess maybe I was just saying I'd like to see one because it would be great for the me the consumer to not have to carry around extra pages of stuff I already have.

Also I'd not be so quick to throw up the 40K's rules as a stellar example of a good way to do things, it's not. In fact it's a pretty cr*ppy way considering that the rules aren't particularly compatible with each other. EotE, AOR, and FAD are supposed to be 100% compatible with only additions and expansions to some rules and more fluff.

But since you're making the "bottom Line" argument, think of the money they would save if they didn't basically re-art, re-layout, and re-print 150 full color pages.

I guess maybe I was just saying I'd like to see one because it would be great for the me the consumer to not have to carry around extra pages of stuff I already have.

Sure, but it's great for FFG, the producer, to sell you those pages of stuff you already have multiple times. They can write an extra hundred or so pages of background and repackage it with 250 pages of rules they've already paid for and sell us another $60 hardcover every year. So far there are three games announced, but if they are bold enough to sell a beta version of AoR with less than 2 months of feedback, I have little doubt that once this cycle of three "separate" games is over they'll come up with a few more "new" games to keep one coming each year.

I guess maybe I was just saying I'd like to see one because it would be great for the me the consumer to not have to carry around extra pages of stuff I already have.

Sure, but it's great for FFG, the producer, to sell you those pages of stuff you already have multiple times. They can write an extra hundred or so pages of background and repackage it with 250 pages of rules they've already paid for and sell us another $60 hardcover every year. So far there are three games announced, but if they are bold enough to sell a beta version of AoR with less than 2 months of feedback, I have little doubt that once this cycle of three "separate" games is over they'll come up with a few more "new" games to keep one coming each year.

I understand where you're coming from but a major part of the overhead of a book like this is the printing costs and shipping weight per unit, and almost half the weight and pages of the EotE book is not cheap. So yes they are ahead on not paying for already written rules but they loose some of that on the new art and the re-laying out of a lot of those pages. I don't know what the margins are but it can't that much and even if it was I'm not making an argument that they should do this, I just was saying that it'd be great if they didn't redo the core rules each time.

I'd like to see a smaller player's reference for RPG systems in general, so that each player can buy a copy at less expense than the entire book which has GM only stuff in it as well.

Players at my table would pay £10-£15 for a "lite" copy with just the players essentials in it, but probably won't shell out £30 for the fat core rulebook.

I agree that it would be nice to be able to buy a slightly smaller/cheaper suppliment edition, but the other people responding have a point too.

Having 2 books to publish, stock, ship, etc is much less of a logistical nightmare than dealing with 4.

It's very difficult for them to guess what the demand for such products would be. Chances are you'd end up with too many of one, and not enough of the other, and then everyone loses. Consumers don't have enough of the product they want. Vendors don't order enough of the correct stock. FFG underestimates demand for 1 item or another and no one can get what they want. Then people with access to certain stock buy it up and resell it for more on Ebay. This has been an ongoing nightmare for them with the X-Wing game.

Then, as another person pointed out. There will be the confusion over what is needed. Someone will buy the suppliment AOR thinking they have the full game then find out they need to buy one of the cores.

FFGs financial interests are also better served by selling you the same material anyways.

All in all, there are a bunch of reasons to NOT provide supplimental versions, and only 1 to provide them (us being slightly happier by saving a couple bucks). So while it would be nice, I can completely understand why it's likely not going to happen.

I honestly don't mind in this case. With three cores, a group has three points of access to material. No need for everyone to purchase each book. A group could realistically survive with just 1 of each.

Wild idea, if you really want a smaller/cheaper version, you could just invest in the Beta. Less art, soft cover. It's cheaper, smaller, and lighter.

After official release I bet it wouldn't be too hard to find out what changes if any were made and update your version.

Yeah, a "pocket guide" with just the player-only material would be nice, but as others have said, I don't think it's likely, at least not until after Force & Destiny has been published.

I know Pinnacle has done the "Explorer's Edition" of their books, with the main rules being one book and then the setting books being separate books. But with so much of the Star Wars setting being tied into the main rules, I don't think this sort of arrangement would be as easy for FFG to pull off as it has been for Pinnacle, especially as Pinnacle mostly operates settings that they own (such as Deadlands) or let third party publishers make use of the Savage Worlds rules.

Thinking about it a bit, I may just treat the AoR Beta as the "supplemental" version of the rules. I'm almost certainly going to buy it. It's going to contain the new Talent Trees and presumably most of the equipment and ships and such, but at half the price of the eventual full release. With less than two months accepting feedback, I doubt we'll see huge changes between this and the final version and the background fluff is probably largely available on Wookieepedia anyhow. So I may not be rushing right out to purchase full release, at least not until I hear what it has over the Beta.

Remember though, the full book of AoR will also act as an additional rules-checking resource for your players, so you, as GM, can have one copy, and the players can use the other.

For good or ill, this particular model of game design requires them to reprint chunks of the core rules and concepts over all the core books. They're making three very different games with largely the same rule set, even though they're all in the SW universe and even though there's a lot of crossover. With the three core books, players and GMs have a ton of choices as to what sort of campaign they want to play/run.

I think a nWOD approach might have made more sense (one base rulebook for everything and then separate sub-core books for variations on that theme), but then again, I don't work for FFG.

For good or ill, this particular model of game design requires them to reprint chunks of the core rules and concepts over all the core books. They're making three very different games with largely the same rule set, even though they're all in the SW universe and even though there's a lot of crossover. With the three core books, players and GMs have a ton of choices as to what sort of campaign they want to play/run.

I think a nWOD approach might have made more sense (one base rulebook for everything and then separate sub-core books for variations on that theme), but then again, I don't work for FFG.

I don't disagree, except that from my understanding these settings aren't going to be very different and the rules will stay the same. Rather they are adding more content and more rules to cover things not currently needed (though I'm of the opinion that the Core Rules should cover everything and it's a little annoying that they don't, especially when there are already rules in EotE that refer to things that aren't covered)

IIRC some companies have had some issues with confused customers when they have different versions of the same materials. Do I want D&D or AD&D or the Basic Set?

One benefit of the rules reprint, you'll get all the errata automatically. Instead of having to remember that say the definition of cover on page 213 is wrong, you can just use the rules out of the most recent book. It's a small plus, but it is a plus.

For good or ill, this particular model of game design requires them to reprint chunks of the core rules and concepts over all the core books. They're making three very different games with largely the same rule set, even though they're all in the SW universe and even though there's a lot of crossover. With the three core books, players and GMs have a ton of choices as to what sort of campaign they want to play/run.

I think a nWOD approach might have made more sense (one base rulebook for everything and then separate sub-core books for variations on that theme), but then again, I don't work for FFG.

I don't disagree, except that from my understanding these settings aren't going to be very different and the rules will stay the same. Rather they are adding more content and more rules to cover things not currently needed (though I'm of the opinion that the Core Rules should cover everything and it's a little annoying that they don't, especially when there are already rules in EotE that refer to things that aren't covered)

but the core rules in EotE don't cover everything. They don't cover fleet combat, mass combat, the Force. And it helps to keep the rules together with the new material to keep the organization. If rules started to get scattered across multiple books, then you have the whole issue of D&D and their Splat series.

And for those that brought up Savage Worlds/Pinnacle. That system has the advantage of A) Being in print for going on 15 years (longer if you treat Deadlands Classic as a version of Savage Worlds). B) They also, consciously, built the system without a setting in mind (once they divorced it from Deadlands) and then helped put out settings for it (settings from Triple Ace Games and a few others were actually printed by Pinnacle). And even with the Core rules being in one book, every setting book adds or changes the rules to make them work with the given setting. Sundered Skies changed rules about vehicle combat, magic, and added rules for things like Glowmadness and races. Same with Hellfrost, Deadlands, Weird Wars, Necropolis 2350, Low-life, 50 Fathoms, etc...

Pinnacle releases the core book cheap ($10 for the Explorers Editions), but make up for it in settings, accessories and the fact they keep updating the rules (there have been at least 6 different printings of the rules if you count the books that came with erratas which changed some mechanics).

Remember though, the full book of AoR will also act as an additional rules-checking resource for your players, so you, as GM, can have one copy, and the players can use the other.

There is something to that, but I wonder if the inevitable differences in page numbering between the two books will cause as enough confusion to offset having a second book to reference.

Remember though, the full book of AoR will also act as an additional rules-checking resource for your players, so you, as GM, can have one copy, and the players can use the other.

Good point.

I have no problem buying another core book, even if it has the same mechanical information. My only worry is that the rule mechanics will be tweaked and changed, so we will have to go through the rule book with a fine tooth comb to determine the differences between EotE and AoR, then have to remember the new rule over the old rule.

One minor upside of duplicating all basic rules in the second and third book is that errata from previous books is going to be included. You can then use the last book for basic rules and all books as source books of sorts.

In the past, companies that haven't strictly kept crunch and fluff separated bookwise have run into the problem that they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If they reprint the core rules for every section/strata of the game they get criticized for reprinting the core rules. If they don't, they get criticized for "forcing people to buy Book A, in order to use Book B". The suggestion that this could be solved by printing a core and supplemental version of every section/strata book, while it would solve that particular problem, would also give rise to a slew of other problems whose aggregate removes any advantage one might gain in making two different versions.

The only way to have completely avoided this problem is to do what the nWOD did. Sell one book that was nothing but core mechanics, no setting whatsoever - and then make all the supplements. A train that for EotE has already left the station.

But now you have the mental hurdle of "having to buy two books to play one game".

In this case, the vagaries of human psychology are a royal pain in the ass and they bite you no matter where you turn. By way of marketing philosophy I think it's also important to note that Gamers are not of a single piece, and often the most vocal and most critical are not representative of what ALL gamers will do.

I make this point because I think certain things in this business have been accepted as axiomatic when I am not convinced that they are. For instance, the whole idea that "gamers are put off by a game that has too many supplements because they believe they're 'required' to buy them all, and as such a game is better off rebooting itself every few years to give the appearance of accessibility" is one such assertion I think is accepted as gospel because it works well for the industry, but I am not so sure a close examination of what gamers do as opposed to what they complain about wouldn't bring up an entirely different story. After all, for all that they may have griped and moaned about 2nd Ed D+D's sprawling splatscape - they still bought the books and played the game - and there were plenty of new players in the game's decade or so long run.

Just a thought.

One minor upside of duplicating all basic rules in the second and third book is that errata from previous books is going to be included. You can then use the last book for basic rules and all books as source books of sorts.

Well, yes and no. These are all separate games, so a change to a rule in a later-released game does not necessarly change how that rule works in the already-released game.

One minor upside of duplicating all basic rules in the second and third book is that errata from previous books is going to be included. You can then use the last book for basic rules and all books as source books of sorts.

Well, yes and no. These are all separate games, so a change to a rule in a later-released game does not necessarly change how that rule works in the already-released game.

I was actually referring to the very basic rules which will not change, at least according to FFG's plan to keep the three books compatible. And based on that promise for compatibility I also don't think already established rules will be changed in the upcoming books (apart from errata), because that would break compatibility.

New content is another matter entirely, of course, such as Duty looking like AoR's version of Obligation. I don't see why one character using Duty would not work with another character using Obligation. But one character being able to stack pieces of armor while another one couldn't, for instance, doesn't seem at all likely to me.

One minor upside of duplicating all basic rules in the second and third book is that errata from previous books is going to be included. You can then use the last book for basic rules and all books as source books of sorts.

Well, yes and no. These are all separate games, so a change to a rule in a later-released game does not necessarly change how that rule works in the already-released game.

Except that they are all meant to be 100% compatible - as in, in a starting game, you have a character from AoR and EotE together, using the same rules. If they change a rule, that is no longer the case.

FFG have already said they are going to use the same rules for each book, so changing a rule would seemingly be out of the question.

This has the potential for eight! Core books for the three games. Three stand alone game rule books, three setting books. A players rule book, and a combined sum total rulebook with everything.

Plus three betas, three beginner games, sourcebooks, supplements and adventures. And action figures, soap, trading cards, comic books, novelizations, movies, TV shows, maybe even a holiday special if we are very lucky...