A boost die to attack rolls, a setback die to defense or deflect, or as mouthymerc pointed out superior quality for its builder.

Except that's the sort of thing that should be provided by Talents, reflecting the person's level of skill with the weapon instead of whatever funky gem the person managed to shoehorn in.

And Superior quality with it's free Advantage is rather dangerous given that lightsabers have a Crit Rating of 1, which makes the Jedi more likely to inflict a critical injury, particularly with the Breach quality ensuring that damage gets through.

If anything, the Superior quality should be held in reserve as something gained by a high-level talent, particularly as the lightsaber is already deadly enough without it. And remember that one of FFG's stated design goals was to have Force & Destiny PCs be playable right alongside EotE and AoR PCs, so providing too many bonuses for lightsaber modification is going to skew things, especially if the suspected Jedi career allows the option of beginning the game with a lightsaber.

A boost die to attack rolls, a setback die to defense or deflect, or as mouthymerc pointed out superior quality for its builder.

Superior quality to something that destroys other weapons from brand new into 2 pieces with 4 advantages and you don't think Superior is OP? Aside from the fact, is there a baseline mass production light saber? I mean they're all hand made. A boost on attack rolls for a character that is pretty much built around lightsaber skill? I don't think the no HPs was an oversight on the part of the devs and I think Jedi will get plenty of love in their talent trees, I really wouldn't worry about mods. Anything cosmetic can easily be handled narratively.

I'd swear some of you guys make a list of things players would enjoy and go through it finding excuses to cross them off lest the game not end up totally joyless.

I am not totally familiar with entire EU so I can't speak to all of it. My impression of lightsabers is that they tend to be all much the same with some slight variables. I like the ideas of water-proofing, practice saber (lightsaber on stun setting only), and so on. I think though that a majority of skill comes from the user so I am not fond of vast amounts of modifications. Stuff that is a little more than fluff is fine, but I don't need the +5 lightsaber of pure death in my game. I'd rather the character be known for that, not the weapon.

From everything I've seen in the EU, there's no big deal made about what crystal a lightsaber uses. At all. In fact, in one novel, Luke even informs a group of students that a Jedi's choice of what crystal to use is a purely personal one, and that just about anything could be used, provided it's of sufficiently high quality (Tenel Ka learned this one the hard way when the shoddy crystals she used in her first lightsaber caused it to fail and then explode, destroying her severed arm).

As noted earlier, the whole idea of crystals providing any sort of special perk is strictly a video game element, with the video game in question being based upon the d20 system, itself notorious for requiring "special gear" in order to stay competitive as the character progressed in levels.

Is there anyone here old enough that they don't play video games?

Regardless of the form there is going to have to be some level of personalization for the weapon. Everything else in the game can be modified so I doubt that the lightsaber will be any different.

For my money, I think that saber "customization" will come from Force Powers. Basic power gives proficiency, and roll the Force Dice with your attack roll, LS pips can be used for Adv. Further delving into it gives "spend LS pips for [weapon trait X]" with further purchases of the same upgrade increasing said trati, and "commit a Force Die for +1 [Lightsaber skill's base Characteristic]" or 'commit a FD for [passive properties like deflect]."

Talents could also work, so certain Force-user traditions would be more inclined towards certain traits for their combat style.

Just my 2¢.

-EF

I'd swear some of you guys make a list of things players would enjoy and go through it finding excuses to cross them off lest the game not end up totally joyless.

Why do you care? It's not like you actually play this game in the first place.

But on the off chance this is actually a serious question and not another one of your attempts to troll the thread, I'll answer it.

Quite frankly, video games and table-top RPGs have two fundamentally different design goals.

Table-top RPGs are intended as a group activity, with the intent that everyone at the table has fun. Thus, a lot of video game elements don't translate well into that medium, much the same way as elements of a book don't always translate well to a film. With many RPG-based video games, there's the built-in expectation of "cool loot" that offers new bonuses or unlocks new abilities. Thus, why KOTOR introduced lightsaber crystals (and the sequel various customizable parts), so that the protagonist would have a means to upgrade their primary weapon throughout the game. It's also why there's no real penalty to going dark side in that game or using dark side Force powers, since all that matters is the person playing the game has fun.

In contrast, video games are intended to pander to a much broader market, and to provide a satisfying experience for a single player, with their in-game avatar becoming increasingly (and sometimes ridiculously) powerful as the game progresses. Starkiller from Force Unleashed is a prime example of this, as even starting out he's a ludicrously powerful Force-user, and would make just about any other character look useless. The person playing Starkiller might have a blast, but the rest of the players would wind up feeling like they were playing second-fiddle.

You probably missed it, but I remarked that the guys who designed this system, folks that are paid professionals with years of experience at this, are concerned with every player at the table having a fun and satisfying experience. And that means not allowing Jedi PCs to be demi-gods right out the gate, so that the inevitable mixed-party groups combining characters from EotE and AoR won't have those PCs feeling like they're just the supporting cast to the Force-users.

For my money, I think that saber "customization" will come from Force Powers. Basic power gives proficiency, and roll the Force Dice with your attack roll, LS pips can be used for Adv. Further delving into it gives "spend LS pips for [weapon trait X]" with further purchases of the same upgrade increasing said trati, and "commit a Force Die for +1 [Lightsaber skill's base Characteristic]" or 'commit a FD for [passive properties like deflect]."

Talents could also work, so certain Force-user traditions would be more inclined towards certain traits for their combat style.

Just my 2¢.

-EF

Eh, I don't think so.

We've already got the Sense (defense and offensive Control Upgrades) and Enhance (add an extra die to Brawn or Agility checks) powers for boosting a Jedi's combat prowess, plus the fact of them actually having access to the Lightsaber skill. Adding a third power to do the same thing sounds like overkill.

I'm thinking Talents will be how various Force traditions (including the Jedi) really distinguish themselves from one another. For those Force traditions with a particular focus, such as Jedi and lightsabers, Zeison Sha and discblades, or Matukai and wan-shen, special talents that apply to that particular weapon would be a way to signify that the PC is really skilled with that weapon in a way that outsiders can't really match.

I'm with Donovan; lightsabers don't need special mod mechanics to stay special. Uniqueness doesn't always need to have stats to back it up.

If your game is bland because everyone's lightsaber has the same stats and the characters feel too similar, then the lightsabers aren't the problem.

Table-top RPGs are intended as a group activity

It is getting fairly hard to find video games without some form of connected play as well.

Indeed, whereas much of the old media like books and movies focus on a lone hero, modern interactive entertainment often focuses on small teams of individuals, making them better inspiration for role playing games.

Table-top RPGs are intended as a group activity

It is getting fairly hard to find video games without some form of connected play as well.

Indeed, where much old media like books and movies focus on a lone hero, modern interactive entertainment often focuses on small teams of individuals, making them much better inspiration for role playing games.

Then you're not looking very hard. There are plenty of video games being released that have multi-player as an option, but are primarily intended to be single player games. Even MMOs can be played as a single player game, though the higher end content in many cases requires a group effort to overcome.

If your game is bland because everyone's lightsaber has the same stats and the characters feel too similar, then the lightsabers aren't the problem.

Very true.

I ran a D6 all-Jedi game years ago, set during the Tales of the Old Republic/KOTOR era (was a few decades after the Exar Kun uprising), and there were no special rules for lightsabers. And yet everyone's Jedi was quite different, even though we had two lightsaber experts in the party. So "special snowflake" lighstabers aren't required if you've got a group of players with enough imagination. If anything, including "special snowflake" lightsabers might actually hamper the individuality of characters in an all-Jedi group, as the players will gravitate towards certain types of crystals, particularly if they are of a similar theme.

If your game is bland because everyone's lightsaber has the same stats and the characters feel too similar, then the lightsabers aren't the problem.

Yes. Jedi should be interesting characters THAT use the Force and lightsabers, not BECAUSE they use the Force and lightsabers.

Something else on the subject of lightsabers: the Forsaken Jedi in the EotE Adversary list has a saber with the Defensive 1 and Deflection 2 characteristics, which the normal profile for the saber doesn't have, presumably because the Forsaken is more able to use it with the Force. Do you think basic sabers in F&D will have these qualities?

Yes. Jedi should be interesting characters THAT use the Force and lightsabers, not BECAUSE they use the Force and lightsabers.

Like I say, I think they should make a game Jedi fanboys will love, not one that people who find Jedi fanboys really annoying won't hate as much as they would if they made a game Jedi fanboys would love.

Something else on the subject of lightsabers: the Forsaken Jedi in the EotE Adversary list has a saber with the Defensive 1 and Deflection 2 characteristics, which the normal profile for the saber doesn't have, presumably because the Forsaken is more able to use it with the Force. Do you think basic sabers in F&D will have these qualities?

Lightsabers had those qualities way back in the EotE beta but they were dropped when it was very apparent that those qualities made lightsabers entirely too uber. They are only in the NPC stats because they need to account for abilities that haven't been covered yet. Lightsabers will, in all likelihood, appear as they are now.

So Erik, you want them to do the very thing that you predicted they would do? Make a game that isn't compatible? Even though from the beginning they've stated that they want to make three sides of the same game that can be played separately or together? So they should scrap their plans of making a compitable game in order satisfy your needs for a simplistic, juvenile, power-gamer fantasy? Yeah I don't see that happening.

I think people will find that the characters from different games do not play well with each other. An EotE character will be as out of place in a F&D game as an Acolyte is in a Deathwatch adventure or a Space Marine is in Dark Heresy adventure.

Hell, EotE characters won't want to go on insanely dangerous missions for little reward like the sample adventure in the AoR core book, and AoR characters dedicated to bringing down the Empire won't want to waste their time bumbling about in a freighter looking for the next caper.

And neither will have much to offer in whatever F&D adventures look like.

*Sigh* Why oh why did I click on his hidden message. . . .? Ah well, I'm a glutton for punishment.

Wow, what an amazingly small and limited table you game at. I have had characters from all over the map in one group and have never had problems with smuggling gigs, world saving non-paying gigs, empire smashing gigs and all points in between. That's the beauty of Star Wars - its near infinite flexibility

The problem is not in the game engine. The problem is you need better players.

Linking the games isn't necessarily just about the style of play but making the mechanics compatable, at the moment you can use all the rules from each game as a cohesive system. And I would expect this to be the case with the 3rd book. The theme of any campaign is always up to the GM and his players and if a group of smuggler characters somehow gets roped into joining the alliance and one of them turns out to be force sensitive then why wouldn't they go on risky missions together for little reward.

Check out the Dark Times comic for how this can work really well.

It's interesting that one of my players really likes Jedi, so we finally tried out an all Jedi group in RCR D20 that was working really well. Players got to try out some cool powers, I kept the stories interesting and everyone had fun.

When saga came along we rebuilt the characters to the right level! I think it was level 7, and as the game had some uber powers my Jedi fanboy player should have loved it as he was tossing stormtroopers about and controlling minds all over the place within a short amount of time. Strangely he hated it, encounters were over too quickly with little challenge and his beloved character no longer felt fun, so we made a decision to go back to RCR with new characters. (As an aside, to finish the game I blew up all of the Jedi characters, it was very dramatic!)

So I am hoping that the powers are not too over the top and there is lots of room to challenge the PCs. We have to remember that Vader, Palpatine, Yoda and Starkiller are exceptionally gifted, so PCs should not easily be able to reach this level power. Jedi need to be fun to play but are definatly not asgardians.

Bwahahahaha, Erik! Typing from the floor here.

Luckily for just about everyone playing that those involved with designing the game want those different archetypes to be able to play separately and together. Yeah I could never picture all those characters playing the game together. Nothing comes to mind at all.

Shrug. Wait till they have adventures out for the other two games. I suspect they will be remarkably different in feel.

Shrug. Wait till they have adventures out for the other two games. I suspect they will be remarkably different in feel.

I believe that you're correct, and I hope that they do have different feels. Since they went through with the idea of separate but compatible game lines, I hope that they cover considerably different themes even though the mechanics are compatible. .That means that I do believe that most EE characters and FD characters, while mechanically compatible, will be unlikely to find the adventures for the other game lines very appropriate for them. Sure, your Jedi might call upon a smuggler to get him to the site of his mission, but that smuggler is likely to feel like a fish out of water (even though he's mechanically able to contribute). Likewise, if there's a mission that the smuggler and his crew are interested in on the way back, that Jedi might find little in it for him (even though, again, he's mechanically able to participate).

This thread's got some interesting insight on what could be done.