That was my opinion as well. And I was being completely honest in my question, I have indeed read people complaining about past experiences but never saw that as crapping on a system to be honest. But it could be I misread them of course.

Heck, I play the generally hated 4threally often and love it. If people play bad it is usually not the system that is to blame.

Just read some of happydaze's post if you need an example of that.

I agreed with you.... Until the unwarranted casual attack on HappyDaze.

I agreed with you.... Until the unwarranted casual attack on HappyDaze.

We have a history and it was tongue in cheek.

If you want to see what has people sold, you don't even need to pay a penny. Just head on down to the page for EotE, go to sources, and download Under a Black Sun. Then, look through the web for an EotE dice roller. That way, you can read the rules, see the style, and even try it out if you want to. After that, if you feel compelled, get the Beginner Box, and if that's still good, move into the actual game. If you don't feel compelled to pay extra for dice, just keep the online dice.

Once you've tried it yourself, you'll see what the big deal is.

Beyond that, I agree with everyone else on why to play (the moment I saw a shanty group of smugglers in a speeder while browsing my local bookstore, I was sold, dice or no).

I'm sorry but this thread is talking about the wrong subject.

I'm sorry but this thread is talking about the wrong subject.

"It's A TRAP!"

I would suggest not crapping all over d20 like a lot of EotE players seem to do is probably a good idea.

One person in this thread did that. Don't exagerate so much.

People do it all the time on these boards.

I'm not so sensitive as to be offended by it, but its a bad way to get people to try EotE out.

Also don't oversell it.

Saying something us the best game system ever is setting the players up to be dissapointed.

I have been on these boards for months and not once did I see anyone "crapping all over D20". But hey there is a way to prove me wrong since apparently it happens "all the time" it shouldn't be hard to do so. I'll wait.

I stated it is better than d20, because in my opinion it is. No crapping or whatever since I also play a lot of d20.

Wow, someone's Sarlacc Pit seems a little sore.

I believe there is an over the counter cream for that.

"It's a Star Wars game where you get bonuses for descriptions and awesome ideas, and no more fiddly +1's running around to keep track of!"

I said the equivalent of this phrase to my gaming group. The d20 players are now hooked. Then again, some of them have problems with math from time to time, and when you have an entire sheet dedicated to the various bonuses you have due to feats, equipment and the like, it can get out of hand. . .

I should also note that I ran the Star Wars d20 edition (pre-Saga) for the better part of six years before getting into the d6 version for allowing more "leniency" regarding character types. I liked it for being functional, but to me, it just wasn't my bag.

IMO, there are FAR more fiddly bits (looking at Talents here) than in D6. D6 was pretty straightforward in what you rolled for what and what you needed for success. Edge sometimes has players combing their Talent list to see if something modifies it, and GMs looking to set a Difficulty and then decide if it's Upgraded/Downgraded or Boosted/Setback.

The D6 was "straightforward" for the most part, but it was clunky in a lot of regards. One of the other issues was due to some of my players being bad at math and/or ADD/ADHD (which everyone claims to have nowadays, so I take it with a grain of salt).

I think the D6 version had more skills than was needed, and the progression was a slow crawl. Not to mention that combat was both slow and deadly all at the same time, and the only way to see if a bit of gear was "better" was to determine if it had better damage and/or other bonuses.

I love all the information sources there, but just couldn't really stand the system for long outside of being an open-ended character creation.

The d20 version had a lot of fiddly bits, and it felt as thought there were more feats than planets after a while. My biggest issue with d20 is it becomes a game of "Whatever gives me the most pluses!" Honestly, if you don't crunch your numbers "correctly" at some tables it becomes better to kill off your character and remake them, especially when the GM is using the standard table of difficulties.

So Feats become a necessary evil by needing the "right" bonuses, and not having the "right" one can really mean the difference between arbitrary success and failure.

I guess I don't have as big of an issue with the fiddly bits in EotE because they make sense with regards to the narration. You get five basic difficulties, and the details can grant bonuses (boosts), penalties (setbacks) or make it downright impossible (upgrades). You don't need to "crunch" a set of talent trees to succeed at a basic task like picking a lock, just pick up the skill and if you want to be really good at it, buy a talent or two to really make it easy.

In another example: If it's raining and you're trying to snipe at a target, you add setback dice which could possibly make it harder, but it might not (as the penalty is just a die that could or could not "succeed"). Other editions flatly state "Add X to the difficulty, where X is based on the amount of ambient light and cover provided by the darkness," which can lead to some arguments at the table, such as "But I CAN see him, so he should have any cover at all!" to "I KNOW he's there, so how can I miss?"

In the end, everyone's going to have a preference to what they like and dislike. That's the opinion on three of the (technically) four official approaches to Star Wars RPGs from myself and my gaming table (half of whom have played and read these games while I was GM over the past five years). This isn't set in stone for everyone, of course, just our humble opinions. which I offer to help those make that education decision. Blame the fact I'm a Librarian, if you wish ^^;

"It's a Star Wars game where you get bonuses for descriptions and awesome ideas, and no more fiddly +1's running around to keep track of!"

If I had to make a pitch, and I only had one sentence to do it it, LibrariaNPC probably got it the closest to what I'd like to say. Looking back at the best games I've played in or ran, and what I liked most about them, I'd say EotE's greatest strength lies in its ability to influence the narrative in exciting and creative ways. The games I remember most and enjoyed the most were those with the strongest narratives, so this tendency of the system to pull you back towards said narrative, and influence our descriptions, sometimes vividly, is a huge draw for me.

EoE is fun to play, much less daunting than the d20. FFG play is more fluid and the game is more about story than rules. I play this game, Saga was great to study but I didn't play it much

Best game I have ever played. Any system, and genre, and format. Ever.

Oh, you actually want reasons, hmmm...besides the dice and the setting, I'd say:

"Sandbox-style character creation and advancement allows complexity and nuance without becoming overwhelming, and scales gently in power."

One group I've GM'ed in several systems enjoyed Edge of the Empire so much they've asked to convert their 40K Dark Heresy characters into Edge rules and use those instead.

Please post any rules you have for 40k conversion...

and i have to admit being disappointed that this thread is not a conversion of highlander...

Honestly I enjoy Star Wars D6, D20, Saga, and EOTE (The group I'm part of now has 6 GMs that alternate campaigns, and one prefers D6. one D20, two Saga, and 2 EOTE/AOR right now.) I love Star Wars for the ships and space battles, and fortunately the GMs we have like them enough to throw plenty our way.

D6 and D20 were IMO great for small scale fighter engagements (4 or five fighters a side) though D6 was a nightmare for capital ship fleet battles, D20 had much better solo or small group capital ship fights but Saga was the best for any kind of large scale engagement. I think EOTE/AOR works well for the small fighter engagements and will work well for solo capital ship fights as well but I'm concerned that large fleet or squadron engagements will be a mess. I hope I'm wrong though since unless things change EOTE/AOR is probably going to have my favorite official selection of capital ships from any of the systems. I have a soft spot for what in EOTE and AOR are silhouette 6 warships and while I'm disappointed that Suns of Fortune didn't have any the other books have defintely made up for that gap plus I'm hoping AOR Core will include a few models not seen in the system yet, and if not I'm certain that later EOTE and AOR books will.

One thing to sell you on EotE? It somehow makes plugging in coordinates for a hyperspace jump an exciting and fun experience.

Seriously. Some of the most intense moments in our games are when the PCs are being pursued by the local planetary authority (this happens far more often than you think it would) and the pilot is desperately trying to slip into hyperspace with laser blasts flying all over. In the meantime, the mechanic is putting out fires in the engine room, the mercenary is firing back at TIE fighters, the slicer is trying to get a lock on the enemy ships, and the captain is making LEadership checks to quell everyone's terror at the Star Destroyer that just showed up on their sensors. This game makes every facet of telling a group story interesting, not just the combat. At almost all times, it gives everyone the chance to do something and make the affect the story in a dramatic way. In fact, the combat-only droid in our group is the only one who sometimes never has anything to do!

We started playing this game fresh off the heels of a Pathfinder campaign that we played from level 1 to 12. As others have said, this game's dice results are determined quickly and easily, and always produces something unexpected and exciting. It was such a refreshing experience to go an entire session without so much as killing a single person! And everyone loved it!

As a GM, I am head over heels in love with this system. I could never see myself going happily back to d20. But having said that, I do have two players who are slightly disappointed. The both love the EotE system, but one of them was a huge munchkin in our Pathfinder game who'd already pre-optimized how he would level his Wizard up to at least 25th level, and the other loves to collect dice and now every game she holds up her bag of 100+ number dice and says "well, guess I should stop bringing these..." So some people do miss other systems, and we'll undoubtably go and play d20 again. But for now, I am loving the crap out of this game. The freedom is spellbinding.

Every version of a Star Wars RPG has had both its' faults and its' upsides.

WEG's D6 was rather straight-forward in application of bonuses and how task resolution was done, but it started getting clunky after players were running the same character for several months, if not several years. It's kind of telling when one of the lead designers of that system even said "we only expected folks to play a given character for maybe a dozen adventures, long enough to tell an engaging multi-part story arc, and then retire the character for a new one." And I've noted quite a few times how troublesome Jedi PCs could be if played long enough due to how Force powers worked.

OCR suffered from being more a "D&D in Space!" knock-off than an actual Star Wars RPG, with the sci-fi elements pretty much tacked on to the 3.0 version of the d20 system. It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't exactly inspired either. But for some folks, it forced the PCs to be on roughly the same tier of ability since progression in several areas was far more linear.

RCR was an improvement as it better meshed the sci-fi elements and Star Wars elements into the system. But as has been on of the noted issues with 3.X since it's inception there were still a lot of fiddly bonuses to keep track off, and having to calculate skill ranks (particularly non-class skills) and the way languages were handled were still a turn-off, issues that were also present in the OCR. On the other hand, Jedi generally weren't seen as being nearly as powerful, particularly at lower levels due to how Force effects were broken up into skills & feats as well as Jedi PCs having to burn health in order to activate those powers. Lightsabers didn't start out nasty, but got there by the time the PCs hit the teens in terms of levels due to being able to ignore DR (a big thing in RCR given how armor worked) and the sheer damage rating these things had, surpassing most blasters.

Saga Edition had several much-needed improvements on the d20 system, but it too was not without it's faults. I saw a recent tweet from Rodney Thompson about how he'd love to take what he's learned about game design since working on the Saga Edition core rulebook and apply that knowledge to the system from the start, particularly on making things a lot easier on the GM in terms of adversary prep. On the upside, PCs in general got an increase in power, and the talent/feat system allowed for quite a lot of versatility even within the same class, particularly as the sourcebooks got released providing more and more options for the non-Jedi classes. Skill system was vastly simplified, but had a quirk at lower levels where Skill Focus threw the math out of whack but was almost needed at high levels in order to have a skill be effective against non-mook targets. This sadly carried over to Force usage, leading anyone that was a Force-user (Jedi class or not) to be ridiculously powerful at low levels, since most NPCs had paltry Fortitude and Will Defense scores. Also, the only way to learn more languages was through a feat or raising one's Intelligence modifier, both of which were options that were seen as too costly for too little benefit. And will skills were now more of a binary "trained or not," getting more trained skills was again mildly problematic, though not being trained wasn't too much of a problem for higher-level PCs. Starship combat in Saga Edition was fairly straight-forward, working on much the same basis as character-scale combat, and the condition track system made combat both easier to track and dangerous by doing away with all those various condition types that D&D/3.X had. Combat could drag on, particularly past 6th level as PCs and NPCs had a lot of hit points to chew through (though not anywhere near as bad as some of the D&D 4e combat encounters I've been in, particularly against Solo monsters that were nothing but a huge bag of hit points).

FFG's system is a point-buy system much like WEG's version was, only using the career/specialization system to establish at least some rails to direct how a character grows and evolves within their given career, while also allowing extra specializations to be tacked on to expand their development options. The dice lead to some very interesting and varied results, which can be both good and bad; some folks simply prefer the binary approach of a "pass/fail" method. Another strike for some folks is that it's not a "complete" system as right now we've only got the Han Solo part with the Leia/Rebel component coming out later this year and the Luke/Jedi portion not scheduled for final release until next year. There's also a lot more control put into the hands of the GM in interpreting the rules in a lot of cases, and again that's something not everyone likes, particularly those games that cut their teeth on the 3.X iteration of D&D or similar "hard rules" game systems. And in contrast to the d20 versions, GM prep in FFG's system is a breeze; I was able to put together a starship encounter for a bunch of friends a few nights ago in 30 minutes, and most of that was getting the stat blocks typed up into a single word document for easy reference. Starship combat's a bit trickier, but that could just be a lack of familiarity as I've only run a few starship combat scenes in this system. Combat in general is a lot more dangerous, as a solid hit from a blaster rifle could very easily take out a starting PC who's not spec'd for combat, but it also means that the PCs aren't wasting as much time taking down the bad guys either.

So, as I said up top, each system has their strong points and their weak points. Which one's the best depends very much upon the persons' own point of view.

Donovan Morningfire, I can't like your analysis of each game enough.

I kind of wish they had/will have some way to incorporate the X-Wing Miniatures game into the starship combat rules.

I mean, yes.. I can see how it would get tiresome very quickly.

But I can also see how it would be awesome..

I kind of wish they had/will have some way to incorporate the X-Wing Miniatures game into the starship combat rules.

I mean, yes.. I can see how it would get tiresome very quickly.

But I can also see how it would be awesome..

I think the biggest hurdle to overcome is that they are two diametrically opposed points of view.

X-Wing is very much a tactical combat game, with things being measured precisely and geared towards one-shot encounters.

Their Star Wars RPG has a much fuzzier approach to combat and is geared towards telling an ongoing story with the same group of individuals over the course of multiple adventures.

It's probably not impossible, but simply a question of "is the effort worth the payoff?" For most fans of the RPG system, probably not since one of the selling points is the moving away from a tactical focus that most Big Box Company RPGs have and utilize.

True but I, and I'm guessing TarlSS, actually prefer more of a tactical focus. I enjoy the character systems, and adore the new ships and equipment but I'm hoping Age of Rebellion, being more war focused, will include options to make battles more tactical focused.

True but I, and I'm guessing TarlSS, actually prefer more of a tactical focus. I enjoy the character systems, and adore the new ships and equipment but I'm hoping Age of Rebellion, being more war focused, will include options to make battles more tactical focused.

Well, if the Beta is anything to go by... don't hold your breath. It uses the exact same rule set as EotE, with the only combat additions being a few new starship maneuvers for the bigger ships (going by the Final Week Update at least). There weren't any major new game mechanics in the EotE core rulebook in comparison to the EotE Beta.

Again, it's a matter of effort involved, particularly if one is looking for an official method of integrating the two rule sets. If FFG could be convinced there's a large market for a for-sale supplement, they might consider it. As a free download, not so much given the work involved in getting two very different sets of rules to play nice with one another. From what I've seen, TarlSS is in the minority as most folks prefer the "non-tactical" approach the RPG takes, having grown tired of WotC's "minis are almost mandatory" approach that was in play, particularly in Saga Edition (with ranges being listed in squares instead of meters regarding character scale combat).

That was what made it so great. Instead of having to keep a mental image in your head of the battle, and praying yours and the GM's matched, or constantly asking if target X was in position for you to perform action Y you could look at the map and figure it out for yourself. Having the ranges in squares saved you from having to be able to keep a table of a square or hex equals X meters, or Y Kilometers as well for homeruled map systems..

That was what made it so great. Instead of having to keep a mental image in your head of the battle, and praying yours and the GM's matched, or constantly asking if target X was in position for you to perform action Y you could look at the map and figure it out for yourself. Having the ranges in squares saved you from having to be able to keep a table of a square or hex equals X meters, or Y Kilometers as well for homeruled map systems..

That doesn't work for everyone. I might be a special case and in an obvious minority so I'm not saying everything should be built for me. Not until my official coronation as Empress of Everything, anyway.

I know my GM draws out simple diagrams as maps but we don't use them like the grid maps in other games. We just use them to show relative positions. Everything still follows (I assume) the EotE rules. That does enough for making sure everyone's mental image stays similar. Even if someone (me!) is making a mistake, everyone knows well enough how to explain why it is.

I also think that, in a narrative game, you really shouldn't need to ask the gm if so and so is in a position to let you do such and such. Its a shared narrative. You only need to say something like, "As the goon cones around the corner, I throw a crate from a nearby stack at him."

If the GM has an issue (like you're saying there's a stack of crates in a ball room where a high class party is going on), he can ask you to explain why the crates are there.and force a Force Point flip if you're stretching it too thin.

To be clear, I'm not saying either approach is objectively better than the other.

I also think that, in a narrative game, you really shouldn't need to ask the gm if so and so is in a position to let you do such and such. Its a shared narrative. You only need to say something like, "As the goon cones around the corner, I throw a crate from a nearby stack at him."

If the GM has an issue (like you're saying there's a stack of crates in a ball room where a high class party is going on), he can ask you to explain why the crates are there.and force a Force Point flip if you're stretching it too thin.

Or, rather, the GM can talk it out with the player and suggest that instead of a crate he can use the tall, fanciful crystal centerpiece from a nearby table. Which centerpiece? Why the one you all just invented right there on the spot, of course!

GM: "The high-society party guests gasp as you heft the substantial and certainly expensive multi-faceted carving of an Alderaanian swan and hurl it at the assailant."

PC: "That sounds awesome!" (rolls) "Three success and, ooooh... four threat."

GM: "You strike him soundly and the statue shatters with a loud crash and crystal shards explode and go everywhere. He's all cut up and is out of the fight but because of that threat... Party guests recoil and try to protect themselves from the flying debris, knocking over chairs and tables and more centerpieces. The half of the room where you are at is now difficult terrain."

PC: "I grab a glass filled with blue alcoholic liquid before it gets knocked over in the chaos, chug it, and throw the glass to the ground." (in character) "Ah ha! Now this is finally my kind of party!"

I love maps in tabletop RPGs but sometimes what's in your mind can be so much more liberating and exciting with so much potential for awesomeness than any room that one could draw.

From what I've seen, TarlSS is in the minority as most folks prefer the "non-tactical" approach the RPG takes, having grown tired of WotC's "minis are almost mandatory" approach that was in play, particularly in Saga Edition (with ranges being listed in squares instead of meters regarding character scale combat).

Minority nothing, the Star Wars Miniatures line sold for nearly six years, The X-Wing miniatures game is clearly wildly successful. Almost any Star Wars miniature venture seems to be generally successful.

I'll agree that the idea of a tactically focused combat runs against the premise of a narrative system, I disagree that there's no market, or that the market is not worth pursuing.

I DO agree that people who prefer the narrative approach have a lot to fear from integrating the miniatures + RPG, because frankly it makes a lot of monetary sense and could easy wind up 'pushing out' the people who originally came to EOTE for a narrative system.

For me, I would argue that..hey, the point of EOTE is NOT a narrative based system, or whatever highminded hipster RPG ideals anyone has, it's to sell books and promote Star Wars. I would shell out cash for a X-Wing MIniatures RPG supplement, and I'm sure there's a large market to be gained by promoting a cross over.

whatever highminded hipster RPG ideals anyone has

First of all, it's going to be hard for people to argue the merits of your argument when you've got this lightning rod sitting out there. Moving on...

Minority nothing, the Star Wars Miniatures line sold for nearly six years, The X-Wing miniatures game is clearly wildly successful. Almost any Star Wars miniature venture seems to be generally successful.

I'll agree that the idea of a tactically focused combat runs against the premise of a narrative system, I disagree that there's no market, or that the market is not worth pursuing.

I DO agree that people who prefer the narrative approach have a lot to fear from integrating the miniatures + RPG, because frankly it makes a lot of monetary sense and could easy wind up 'pushing out' the people who originally came to EOTE for a narrative system.

From a "sell lots of stuff and make money" standpoint, because the WotC line of Star Wars minis sold so well, it's actually pretty hard to sell a new line of plastic minis. Paizo and WizKids were able to do it with the Pathfinder minis because the art direction for Pathfinder was so different from D&D that it's possible for gamers to want to buy all the same minis all over again.

But, when it's pretty much established that a stormtrooper is a stormtrooper is a stormtrooper, you don't have that kind of flexibility. I guess a new line of minis could differentiate itself purely on better sculpts and figure quality but that just adds to the cost for an already niche add-on to a niche product in a niche genre of a niche hobby. FFG would mostly be marketing new minis to Star Wars RPG fans who haven't already purchased the old WotC ones and that really seems like a tough sell.

Now, a line of cardboard punch-out pawns with plastic bases might do well in this market (in this economy) and has the benefit of also being cheap to produce and affordable to purchase. But I digress...