Ever play the 2.2 version?

Fire off a M249 SAW and grab 10d20. You only hit on like a 1-4 (with a good skill level), but any bullets that miss the primary target then roll against the next target in the line of fire, then the next, then again against the next, etc. until all of the bullets either hit something/someone or there are no targets left in the path of fire. A character could get off three of these attacks per turn, so the dice rolling was obscene.

We once had a character fire of a M19 AGL (automatic grenade launcher) and he grabbed his 5d20. In addition to the above he had to calculate scatter from one round to the next and then calculate blast effects and fragmentation hits to all targets in the blast radius. It took an hour to calculate the effects of that one action, and he still had the ability to fire off a second such attack in his turn. The joke in the group became that, if the players wanted to take a food break, have Mark fire off the M19.

I think it was 10d6 not d20 or am I screwing up my versions? I thought the damage was always d6's but the skill roll later used a d20? I had all versions but I don't think I actually ran a campaign with 2.2. I hated all of the fists of dice also, so I had a simple house rule starting with version 1. A weapon with a damage of 10 would normally roll 10d6, for example. I instead had the player roll a single d6 and multiply by 10 for damage. While it made the curve flat, it still had the same damage range.

Mk or "Mark" 19, not M19. I've fired those in real life and it was the most awesome gun experience ever. You push the butterfly trigger down for a 6 round burst. You see little black tennis balls fling through the air. A couple seconds later, grenades are exploding all over down range. Very cool. Except for the time an idiot fired a round into the dirt in the dark about 20 meters in front of my Hummer while I was up in the turret playing assistant gunner. Stuff dinged off my kevlar and I thought I got a piece of shrapnel in my cheek until I pulled it out and it was just a pebble.

Sorry nostalgic moment.

All of those d20s were for the roll to hit (rolled per round fired!). Damage and hit locations were yet more rolls. IIRC, Version 2.0 used d10s instead of d20s but was otherwise the same.

It's a fallacy that the mechanics of a game don't encourage or discourage role-playing. Yes, you can role-play with any game, even Monopoly or Chess, but that doesn't mean they encourage it.

Something like 4E definitely wants you to spent most of your time fighting, it's all about the 'Encounters' (i.e. fights). The character sheet is mostly just combat stats, and the PHB looks like a strategy guide for an MMO with its endless lists of powers and loot (the very concept of magic items in the player's book speaks volumes).

For me, one of the most telling things about a game is the pre-generated adventures. That tells you a LOT about how the designers see you playing the game. And while you can ignore that, at that point you are fighting the system. 4E scenarios are just one combat after another, with a 'skill combat' after every dozen or so fights. And maybe a cutscene to move the action along.

Something like One Ring has a very different playstyle; combat is deadly and actively discouraged, and most of the time you are on the road and looking for a safe place to rest. 13 Age ties the characters in to the Iconics and the plot. Shadowrun can be played as a shoot-only game, but the scenarios involve detective work, choices and interaction too.

None of this is saying that one style of play is 'superior' to another, but the idea that all RPGs offer the same experience is factually incorrect. Players wanting a lot of combat are going to be unhappy with One Ring, as are people who want 4E to have lots of plot-driven stories and narrative choices. (Early D&D was actually quite interesting, as it didn't really encourage or discourage role-playing, and pre-made scenarios were actually very diverse, with things like 'Caves of Chaos' and 'Arena of Thyatis' at the different extremes).

EoE clearly aims to be a narrative game, emulating the cinematic, fast-moving action and heroics of the space opera genre, with an added dash of Indiana Jones style Pulp. It doesn't get bogged down in rules like 3rd Edition D&D or Rolemaster. The scenarios assume a wide range of skills beyond combat, such as infiltration, diplomacy, space combat, chases, information gathering. Characters are awarded extra XP for playing to their Motivations, and have Obligations that tie them to the ongoing story. The connections to the wider world are right there in the game. Little checks and balances like cost, restricted items and rarity are all deliberately put into the rules.

So while you can do the MMO thing and obsess about 'builds', and some options clearly are mechanically stronger than others, that's not the way the designers imagined the game being played. There are no 'levels' and no 'progression curve' to keep up with, no minis or grid combat. It doesn't assume that you have a certain type of weapon with a certain bonus at your level.

You can try playing it like 4E, with one mathematically-balanced fight scene after another, endlessly grinding, but that's not what FFG intended. Just like you can ignore the rules and roleplay in 4E if you want, but that's not what the developers intended either.

.....much more well written version of what I was trying to say.

It's > ...(everything else mentioned)...< intended either.

This. I mean - everything of your posting, not only these three words - but everything inbetween as well. That's absolutely what I was trying to say.

And for the record, I'm not trying to be superior, either. RPGs offer different play styles, and some people are going to be bored by things like One Ring or Call of Cthluhu, or find Mouse Guard or Maid too bizarre for their tastes.

I personally enjoy EoE because it really does capture the feel of those movies, focusing on narrative rather than stats or powers. There are plenty of games already that offer an MMO style or let you play over-the-top anime heroes.

So after all I actually agree with you insofer, that the narrative way is just one way of playing a game; but I also say it is the one way being heavily supported and encouraged by the game. And this is something a gamer should realize sooner than later.

Perhaps using an opposite example could shed more light. Perhaps not the best since all will not know the system, but in my teenage years I played lots of Twilight 2000 and loved it. It was a post-WW3 survival game with characters playing ex-soldiers. It was very, very mechanical going out of its way to simulate combat and survival in minute detail. That was what the game was all about with hit location charts, varying penetration values at different ranges, varying armor values for different faces of vehicles all researched versus realworld values. Although you could play Twilight 2000 while telling players to describe what they do narratively, roleplay as much as they can, that was not at all what the system was intended for. It was all about realistically simulating being caught in a post-WW3 setting. It wasn't about the narrative at all. Any GM or players trying to shoe horn a narrative style into that system would probably soon be without a play group.

The opposite may also hold true. Thus, those of us giving caution.

Man I loved twilight 2000.

Ever play the 2.2 version?

Fire off a M249 SAW and grab 10d20. You only hit on like a 1-4 (with a good skill level), but any bullets that miss the primary target then roll against the next target in the line of fire, then the next, then again against the next, etc. until all of the bullets either hit something/someone or there are no targets left in the path of fire. A character could get off three of these attacks per turn, so the dice rolling was obscene.

We once had a character fire of a M19 AGL (automatic grenade launcher) and he grabbed his 5d20. In addition to the above he had to calculate scatter from one round to the next and then calculate blast effects and fragmentation hits to all targets in the blast radius. It took an hour to calculate the effects of that one action, and he still had the ability to fire off a second such attack in his turn. The joke in the group became that, if the players wanted to take a food break, have Mark fire off the M19.

Yeah it's been a long time since I played, like 30 years, but I remember we had a LAV-25 and some HMMWV's with .50 cals. Lots of rounds down range, just ridiculous.

All this talk of Twilight 2000 reminds me of The Guardians series of books by Richard Austin back in the 80s. More specifically the main characters traveled in a LAV-25, if I remember correctly.

Wow. Great topic here and lots of goodies in this thread that I would like to contribute to.

Since you said you aren't that familiar with this system, I would like to add a couple of thoughts (more game mechanics oriented) toward your character creation. I've heard it said by the developers, on this and other forums, that investing in your attributes (Brawn, Agility, Intelligence, etc) at character creation is helpful because the only way your attributes will increase during gameplay is getting a talent on the bottom row of your talent tree that will allow an increase to one attribute. Another nugget I've heard is Force Sensitive is expensive, relatively speaking, to get and you'll need to think about what you'll be trading away for it. You can either invest at character creation on it instead of increasing your attributes or invest in it later in your character's career as you gather XP from adventuring.

These couple of pieces helped me when I started playing this system, so I hope they help you as well.

Now, as a GM, I have appreciated my players writing up a backstory for their characters with some little tid-bits on who they might have known, enemies they might have made, and what motivates them to go adventuring. It helps me as a GM create a storyline or a one-shot adventure centered wholly on that character. It's always nice to be the center of an adventure once in awhile and as a GM I try to spread that around my group.

I like your doctor concept, pretty **** creepy ... especially if he was an older, weaker, yet highly intelligent person (Brawn 2, Agility 2, Intelligence 4). "That old guy did WHAT to those traders? Him? He doesn't look like he can hurt a Corellian wine-bee, let alone leave 5 guys with 4 kidneys between them." *shudder*

Anyways, just my 2 credits worth. Welcome to the system and enjoy!

Z

All this talk of Twilight 2000 reminds me of The Guardians series of books by Richard Austin back in the 80s. More specifically the main characters traveled in a LAV-25, if I remember correctly.

Wow I never saw this, I might have to check it out.