The title is a quote from one of my players that just doesn't dig this game. Another player was calculating a dice pool and said it wasn't right so began to recheck. The quoted player's dislike of the system was a bit of a drag, but he's actually a great player. Some games just aren't for everybody.

Yep, not everyone will love (or even like this game). My group is playing it and having fun but probably wouldn't be playing it if I hadn't pushed hard for it. We will go back to 4e D&D eventually but I am okay with that because I do miss the 4e style tactical combat.

I wonder if having a leery player 'spectate' for a session might make the difference. He/she wouldn't need to interpret dice pools, he could just observe the actual players/GM doing it. Then maybe when he starts to see the cool things that can happen, he might want to 'get it'?

I wonder if having a leery player 'spectate' for a session might make the difference. He/she wouldn't need to interpret dice pools, he could just observe the actual players/GM doing it. Then maybe when he starts to see the cool things that can happen, he might want to 'get it'?

I'd say this is probably more helpful, particularly as the player themselves sounds like they're just "going thru the motions" of trying the game but have already decided that they don't like it because of the "special dice."

As I've often said, not every game is going to be a good fit for every gamer out there; it's why we've got such a wide variety of RPGs to pick from, so that we can play something that we like instead of being forced to play something we don't. I'm sure there are folks that enjoy playing Palladium or Rolemaster as written... I think they're masochists at heart, but that's just my take on those two particular RPGs.

Keep in mind that just because he might not enjoy the system doesn't mean he won't have fun in the game as a whole. Just make sure you as a GM really focus on storytelling and roleplaying. I am currently playing in a Pathfinder game though I absolutely loathe the whole d20 system. I still have fun at the game in spite of my unadulterated hate for the system used to play it because the GM has designed his own facinating world and a really interesting story and given us some really cool NPCs to interact with.

Keep in mind that just because he might not enjoy the system doesn't mean he won't have fun in the game as a whole. Just make sure you as a GM really focus on storytelling and roleplaying. I am currently playing in a Pathfinder game though I absolutely loathe the whole d20 system. I still have fun at the game in spite of my unadulterated hate for the system used to play it because the GM has designed his own facinating world and a really interesting story and given us some really cool NPCs to interact with.

It is much easier to play in a system you don't care for then to GM it.

Keep in mind that just because he might not enjoy the system doesn't mean he won't have fun in the game as a whole. Just make sure you as a GM really focus on storytelling and roleplaying. I am currently playing in a Pathfinder game though I absolutely loathe the whole d20 system. I still have fun at the game in spite of my unadulterated hate for the system used to play it because the GM has designed his own facinating world and a really interesting story and given us some really cool NPCs to interact with.

It is much easier to play in a system you don't care for then to GM it.

Edited because I misread the post the first time.

I agree an unhappy player can make running the game difficult. It is just as much up to the player that doesn't care for the game to make it work as it is the GM. It can be difficult if the player (as it sounds the one in the OP does) constantly makes snide remarks or comments about the game. I don't like d20 but I don't bring it up at our games. I know that in the future if I run a system that someone in our party isn't a fan of they will show me the same courtesy.

I'm just getting into it myself, and so far I've been liking the more narrative style of play. Both my 4e and pathfinder campaigns were getting plagued with combat grind. (4e.. waling on a big bag of hit points.. Pathfinder.. starting about level 5.. looking up millions of effects, spells, and feats.) When the battles dragged on the players tended to forget the story.

I'm also liking the fact that I can make up stuff on the fly. In 4e\PF I just couldn't do that. Heck I'd prepare 2 hours in advance for a known battle.

I like the fact that the game isn't combat focused. XP by session means that I really just need to entertain the players.

With the Basic Set the players had fun. It was too railroady, so I started them at side room at the Hutt Palace. A protocol droid walked in and began talking, "Teemo the Hutt has called you here to collect on what you owe him. He intends to turn you over to imperial troops as soon as they land. The bounties on your heads do not specify whether you must be turned over dead or alive... *wall with Gamorean guards behind it slowly rises* As Teemo is a gambler, he will allow you a small head start before sending his guards to subdue you." The players looked at each other, "We run!"

The first adventure I did, I kind of made up on the fly, and the players had a blast. My characters are based on Serenity, so the first adventure was freeing 'the experiment' being held in a maximum security prison called 'the spike'. A Bothan spy kindly gave them just enough information to get in, but they had to get out. They came up with a plan. (Have the slicer cut the power just as they accost the last guards.) Which mostly worked... guns were just about to get drawn when the lights went out... and all the doors opened. The players were wearing Imperial uniforms in a Prison riot.

I'm about the run the adventure in the Core Book only I was going to start it with a bang. I was planning to give the players a routine 'obligation - drop off the goods', only the Big Man has already had the competition eliminated, and instead of payment, the players get a thermal detonator in the face. Yes.. I may cheat on those critical rolls so that nothing more than a cool scar remains, but the players haven't made a lot of use of the ship's infirmary. Why a bang? It generates motivation... the desire to hate the enemy.

I'm just getting into it myself, and so far I've been liking the more narrative style of play. Both my 4e and pathfinder campaigns were getting plagued with combat grind. (4e.. waling on a big bag of hit points.. Pathfinder.. starting about level 5.. looking up millions of effects, spells, and feats.) When the battles dragged on the players tended to forget the story.

I'm also liking the fact that I can make up stuff on the fly. In 4e\PF I just couldn't do that. Heck I'd prepare 2 hours in advance for a known battle.

I also love the narrative style of play. Having the players describe the effects of their advantages narratively really helps everyone get into a storytelling mindset.

I gotally agree with your comments about 4e\PF. Our GM had tried to house rule a few things in PF but found that because the rules are so complicted and interconnected seemingly minor changes affected the CR to player level balance profoundly. We very often have combats that take over an hour for one single fight. Last session it took 2 hours to fight a froghemoth because we had to keep referencing all the special rules for grappling and the grab ability and swallow whole, etc...

Compare that to my EotE session yesterday which was 4 hours long and the PCs completed an entire act of the episode with about a dozen encounters, five of those being firefights. I just really love this game!

Once I started reading up on this system I got pretty excited for it. I think that helped get my players into it. Though, they also like Star Wars so that helped to.

One of the things that really made me want to play this system is the reason your PC is good is because of their stats, not their equipment. Sure they will do better with souped up equipment but they can do well even if they snagged a weapon of a random person.

I also wasn't a big fan of all the number bloat in d20 systems.

I think the big thing with EotE is you have to take a step back and look at it with fresh eyes. Don't look at it with the d20 filter on.

I get two nights a week to play games. I will not touch another d20 system. The narrative dice system has me completely sold. I will no longer have to wait to add something to the story. And the story is what it is all about to me.

I get two nights a week to play games. I will not touch another d20 system. The narrative dice system has me completely sold. I will no longer have to wait to add something to the story. And the story is what it is all about to me.

On the flip side, there are folks that are quite happy with the d20 systems (I know, I've gamed for many years with some of them), be it D&D, Pathfinder, Mutants & Masterminds, or any number of OGL variations. They really enjoy the tactical/wargaming nature of combat, and there are GMs that enjoy the challenge of stating up adversaries to challenge those players on the field of battle. Then again, I'm sure there are people in some parts of the world that honestly enjoy juggling geese.

Personally, about the only d20 game I'll even consider touching at this point would be Saga Edition, as I still hold it's by far the best iteration of the d20 system by a very wide margin.

But as long as a player is willing to give EotE (or even AoR) a fair shake, that's really all you can ask of them. There's a few gamers in my area that tried the game and judge it on its own merits and flaws, and simply felt that it wasn't the game for them.

Personally I'm a very tactical player. But I only get to play 1 day a week and I'm the GM, and with 4e/PF the bulk of my time was getting frittered away with game mechanics. That also means that I have less time to work on story. I also think that younger players these days have a 2 hour movie mentality.

Personally I'm a very tactical player. But I only get to play 1 day a week and I'm the GM, and with 4e/PF the bulk of my time was getting frittered away with game mechanics. That also means that I have less time to work on story. I also think that younger players these days have a 2 hour movie mentality.

Not sure what the 2 hour movie comment means.

On the flip side, there are folks that are quite happy with the d20 systems (I know, I've gamed for many years with some of them), be it D&D, Pathfinder, Mutants & Masterminds, or any number of OGL variations. They really enjoy the tactical/wargaming nature of combat, and there are GMs that enjoy the challenge of stating up adversaries to challenge those players on the field of battle.

Yep, I am one of them. My love of FFG SW has done nothing to diminish my love of 4e D&D. They are very different types of games.

Personally, about the only d20 game I'll even consider touching at this point would be Saga Edition, as I still hold it's by far the best iteration of the d20 system by a very wide margin.

I could never really get into Saga. It never quite felt like SW to me.

Personally I'm a very tactical player. But I only get to play 1 day a week and I'm the GM, and with 4e/PF the bulk of my time was getting frittered away with game mechanics. That also means that I have less time to work on story. I also think that younger players these days have a 2 hour movie mentality.

The comment about wasting time on mechanics with 4e seems very odd to me. Encounters are very easy to put together in 4e and I spend very little time with rules in 4e. Combats do take a while sometimes but I prefer heroic tier where things are much more managable (but I don't like high level play in any addition of D&D).

Not sure what the 2 hour movie comment means.

In 4e's case when planning an encounter a huge amount of effort goes into getting the right balance and encounter difficulty level. It's not something to try on the fly. Typically critters of a different level were almost unusable. Just run a fight of EL+2 with Soldiers and watch the grind set in. (Heaven forbid your players all choose Defender arch types.... You'll struggle with making that challenging and fun.)

My comment on 2 hour movie mentality is pretty self explanatory. Players want a full space opera in 2 hours. Not just a single fight in 3 hours and by the way where are we in the story again?

Personally I'm a very tactical player. But I only get to play 1 day a week and I'm the GM, and with 4e/PF the bulk of my time was getting frittered away with game mechanics. That also means that I have less time to work on story. I also think that younger players these days have a 2 hour movie mentality.

The comment about wasting time on mechanics with 4e seems very odd to me. Encounters are very easy to put together in 4e and I spend very little time with rules in 4e. Combats do take a while sometimes but I prefer heroic tier where things are much more managable (but I don't like high level play in any addition of D&D).

Not sure what the 2 hour movie comment means.

My very limited experience with D&D 4E was that it was slow to run, slow to play, combat centric, and overly complex for what it is. Low-level encounters are easy to put together, but not so easy to run unless one either has a photocopier or the subscription to the online tools (or the pirate PDFs which were leaked printer's proofs).

I'm not sure it's just the kids with the 2 hour mentality, either. I find that D20 anything is just too many actions per kill, and too slow for my preferred play style.

And I always preferred the Arcanum to AD&D - faster and easier.

But I will say - I still like the 6 hour session... but my 14 year old, unlike me at the same age, shuts down after about 4 hours of play. And if a combat lasts more than 30 minutes, she's complaining. (She loves EOTE, Firefly, and Mouse Guard... She'll play T&T.)

Running 4e was never an issue for me. The reason combats were long was simply to execute mechanics. It has nothing to do with looking up rules. This is a well known issue with 4e, just look up combating grind. (For faster fights, halve critter hit points, and add 50% damage.)

In 4e's case when planning an encounter a huge amount of effort goes into getting the right balance and encounter difficulty level. It's not something to try on the fly. Typically critters of a different level were almost unusable. Just run a fight of EL+2 with Soldiers and watch the grind set in. (Heaven forbid your players all choose Defender arch types.... You'll struggle with making that challenging and fun.)

My comment on 2 hour movie mentality is pretty self explanatory. Players want a full space opera in 2 hours. Not just a single fight in 3 hours and by the way where are we in the story again?

Yeah, I am with fjw70;my 4E sessions weren't really any slower than my 3.x sessions but we also prefer the heroic tier. But I don't really want to argue about games, but rather discuss what we enjoy about this one.

The quoted player is a good player. He's played in a Rogue Trader game and was great. He also runs our Warhammer Fantasy (2nd edition) game which we all enjoy. In Edge it's a mix of him not liking the system at all and not being terribly fond of the setting either. Of the seven sessions I've run of Edge, he's been present for two and he just seems to be going through the motions when he's there. That's unfortunate as the other four players of the group greatly prefer this game to Rogue Trader (mechanics and setting). I think he's discouraged that we're doing Edge rather than Dark Heresy 2.0.

The quoted player is a good player. He's played in a Rogue Trader game and was great. He also runs our Warhammer Fantasy (2nd edition) game which we all enjoy. In Edge it's a mix of him not liking the system at all and not being terribly fond of the setting either. Of the seven sessions I've run of Edge, he's been present for two and he just seems to be going through the motions when he's there. That's unfortunate as the other four players of the group greatly prefer this game to Rogue Trader (mechanics and setting). I think he's discouraged that we're doing Edge rather than Dark Heresy 2.0.

If you don't mind my asking, is there anything particular about the setting that he doesn't like, or is it just because the group isn't playing Dark Heresy 2.0?

My re-booted Saturday group was less than thrilled with EotE due to it coming off as "Firefly in Star Wars," in large part due to most of them being WEG veterans where the PCs were by default a part of the Rebel Alliance and thus making active contributions to the Empire's eventual downfall. They liked the dice system well enough, but just not the notion of being "self-serving shady mercenary-type characters," even if the adventures I ran encouraged them to be of the heroic types.

However, upon running a brief one-shot (used the adventure from the back of the WEG 1st edition d6 rulebook) that used Age of Rebellion and had the PCs (built using their choice of EotE or AoR careers, but without any default Obligation) be fresh recruits to the Alliance... and they enjoyed it a lot more, and were fully enmeshed when I ran the adventure from the d6 2e R&E rulebook after a dinner break. I think a part of it was the lack of Obligation, but a large part was their perception that now they were "heroes" in the setting.

It may just be that Star Wars isn't a setting your player is interested in gaming in, particularly if there are other settings or systems that he's more interested in.

He's just much more into WH40K than Star Wars. Apparently, he's only seen the movies once (each) and hasn't ever looked into any of the EU stuff. Its just not his thing.

As for the dice, he loves Warhammer Fantasy 2e (and so do I) and he saw the 3e dice as part of why he never went with that version. The SW dice are an evolution of that, so it might be some of that holding him back too.

Would he be open to a trade off where he runs Dark Heresy every other session and in turn participates in the EotE games the rest of the time?

Would he be open to a trade off where he runs Dark Heresy every other session and in turn participates in the EotE games the rest of the time?

I think he wanted me to run DH2.0 - he wanted to play it. As for running a game, he's currently running WFRP for most of us (one of the SWRP players doesn't play in that game).

Would he be open to a trade off where he runs Dark Heresy every other session and in turn participates in the EotE games the rest of the time?

I think he wanted me to run DH2.0 - he wanted to play it. As for running a game, he's currently running WFRP for most of us (one of the SWRP players doesn't play in that game).

Its starting to sound more like he is just being childish cause he isnt playing the game he wants.