StevenO is correct. Yes, I completely skipped OCR and RCR, I read the rules and just had a bad taste in my mouth. The taste I have just from reading reviews of EotE (even the ones which speak positively of it) is worse than what the RCR left me with. I would not have even bothered to switch from WEG d6 if it wasn't for the fact that it came highly recomended from other SW WEG players from my group.
Narrative story coming first is how every RPG should be played, there is no need for special rules to do it.
I've played both systems, and I found myself disliking the EotE system before playing it, but I had a blast when I did. I very narrative and roleplay friendly system. I enjoyed it, I had a blast. So much so I made gaming mats that have normal dice conversions. Laminated and everything if people prefer to mark them up for any reason. Maybe it's just the rush of a new game system (I only played once) and steps away from the broken Saga rules. I'd still prefer a classless based system though.
I will miss Jedi for a while, but once the current Saga campaign comes to a close, I foresee a campaign in the EotE system. As much as I enjoy Saga, I don't like the house ruling, or having to be the one that remembers the house rules. A more narrative system would lend itself well to my group, I bet. If anyone wants the file for the playing mat, let me know, I can post it here (it's really just the chart from the book).
StevenO is correct. Yes, I completely skipped OCR and RCR, I read the rules and just had a bad taste in my mouth. The taste I have just from reading reviews of EotE (even the ones which speak positively of it) is worse than what the RCR left me with. I would not have even bothered to switch from WEG d6 if it wasn't for the fact that it came highly recomended from other SW WEG players from my group.
Narrative story coming first is how every RPG should be played, there is no need for special rules to do it.
Everyone says this, but some games simply result in more roleplaying/narrative engagement than others. Now, I don't actually think EoTE does a great job of this, but other games really do.
My favorite is GURPS. I have not reliably seen characters as detailed in their personalities, motivations, goals, quirks and idiosyncrasies in any other system. It's delightful to see how into their characters people get, even folk who usually sort of hang back and let others lead the table in terms of roleplaying.
The One Ring by Cubible 7 does a really good job of it, too, by awarding skill advancement points when you play to your traits while making skill checks, amongst other things.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
So I went out and found a Beta copy to browse through. Some of it I really like and some of it I am less keen on.
On the base mechanic: they are certainly aiming for a more dynamic system, one more open to creative interpretation. The system basically gives you three types of outcome for each roll. Firstly, a basic Pass/Fail which can and does include some degrees of success or failure. Secondly, whether you gain Advantage or Disadvantage, allowing for optional effects to add onto your actions. And thirdly, a Truimph or Despair, which basically looks like an extreme version of D20s Natural 20s and 1s. It works, yes, but it is definitely cumbersome and will take a good deal practice to use effectively. For most out-of-combat actions, I like it. For combat, it reads as though it will be very clunky. It is definitely not winning me over.
The dice themselves are annoyingly complex. Yes, one could just use normal dice and convert them over, which is what I will do, but it is not going to be easy at first. I do not feel that this was necessary either. I do see what they wanted to happen in play, but I think they over complicated the issue.
Character customization is pretty standard. Much more open than SAGA, where you got to choose one of five classes, then one Feat and one Talent to define most of what you had. EotE has all the basic stuff you'd expect for a starting "class". Class skills and a selection of Talents, but where it really shines in in the experience section. All characters start with an experience pool which they can use to simply purchase whatever they feel they need. You could get a bunch of Talents, focus entirely on your skills, or even just boost your base attributes. You have a ton of early choices which make the game much more open mechanically.
Narritively, it is very focused on one type of campaign. It does not quite have the same openess about class and concept that SAGA players like to imagine SAGA has. EotE has most of what you need for most character concepts, though. Someone talked about making a basic soldier earlier, and I do not really see the trouble. Either Bodyguard or Mercenary Soldier work just fine, if you just ignore the name of the career/specialization. A great example of that is the Colonist "career". The specialties under that are Doctor, Scholar, and Politician. I would actually disagree with stick Luke here because he is not one of those.
On the lack of Force user material, I am still not really sure either way. They compress the Force skills into a couple basic skills (Sense and Move, for instance), and just let you add qualities onto those basic Force skills. I like that. What you can actually do with them is fairly vague. The lack of a Jedi career is not really that notable to me, but I am also one of those who felt like SAGA did not need a Jedi class. To me, good Jedi characters are not just "Jedi". They are a "Jedi Scholar" or "Jedi Warrior" or "Jedi Diplomat". Basically, I prefer having the Force and Jedi-stuff attatched to other mechanics. Although, I will note that the Lightsabers description notes that the game does not have a Use Lightsabers skill and that it should be treated like a custom skill. That really seemed weird to me.
I have not had much time to go through it. I have only read the Basic mechanic section, skimmed character creation, and skimmed through the equipment and starships section, so I do not have it all yet, but it looks like a good game. It needs more starships though. A lot more. And I need to convert the Skyblind to this system.
Just from hearing about the dice and base mechanic, I feel the same way as you on them. If there is a "degree of success" system, I vastly prefer something simple and adaptable like DW's.
Chargen sounds fun but the Doctor brought up some good points about skill paths (or whatever they're called). I think EotE has more character customisation right at the start but Saga has more character customisation over time then EotE.
"It does not quite have the same openess about class and concept that SAGA players like to imagine SAGA has."
Like to imagine? No. More like know from lots of personal experience.
I agree that Jedi shouldn't be just "Jedi" but this is accomplished to my satisfaction by the talent trees (particularly in the Jedi Knight PrC).
And of course, the three core books won't be at the same power level, apperently. So, jedi will just flat out be noticably better than everyone else. Period. Screw that.
I agree completely. Having the designers essentially declare that they designed a power level gap intentionally is enough to keep me away from EotE for good.
Narrative story coming first is how every RPG should be played, there is no need for special rules to do it.
Agreed
I'll throw my "+1" in there although I do like certain elements of narrative RPGs. However, I don't feel that they are necessary to a narrativist approach and Saga has so much else going for it that I see no reason to switch to such a system.
I've played both systems, and I found myself disliking the EotE system before playing it, but I had a blast when I did. I very narrative and roleplay friendly system. I enjoyed it, I had a blast. So much so I made gaming mats that have normal dice conversions. Laminated and everything if people prefer to mark them up for any reason. Maybe it's just the rush of a new game system (I only played once) and steps away from the broken Saga rules. I'd still prefer a classless based system though.
I will miss Jedi for a while, but once the current Saga campaign comes to a close, I foresee a campaign in the EotE system. As much as I enjoy Saga, I don't like the house ruling, or having to be the one that remembers the house rules. A more narrative system would lend itself well to my group, I bet. If anyone wants the file for the playing mat, let me know, I can post it here (it's really just the chart from the book).
Some groups do need mechanics to "enforce" the cooperation of players to a narrative structure that a few prefer, some groups simply like those games better. Either way, sounds like a good match for you guys.
Everyone says this, but some games simply result in more roleplaying/narrative engagement than others. Now, I don't actually think EoTE does a great job of this, but other games really do.
My favorite is GURPS. I have not reliably seen characters as detailed in their personalities, motivations, goals, quirks and idiosyncrasies in any other system. It's delightful to see how into their characters people get, even folk who usually sort of hang back and let others lead the table in terms of roleplaying.
The One Ring by Cubible 7 does a really good job of it, too, by awarding skill advancement points when you play to your traits while making skill checks, amongst other things.
Without getting too much into what turned a thread into a 20 page flame war a while ago on the D&D boards, I'll say that although some ssytems cultivate more narrative engagement the vast majority of such engagement comes from the group itself.
Gurps? Uggh. Ponderous and designed to "break" players who aren't interested in fleshing out and keeping track of every character detail, imo. To each their own, I guess.
We summoned a devil once. All we used was the D&D books, too. It was pretty kwazy.
God of Arrested Development and Intelligence Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Pie-Cooling-On-A-Windowsill of the House of Trolls In the morning HK'll be sober but you'll still be a meatbag. I know I misspell "Danke" in my posts. It's an inside joke. "Ten cents gets you nuts." -George Michael Spoiler:Show
''Being president is like running a cemetery: you've got a lot of people under you and nobody's listening.'' —Bill Clinton
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
You are not a moral man. There are not enough middle fingers in the world for you.
"Heroes"...I wish I had those. I remember in my first-ever campaign one PC went around shootin all the unconscious baddies in the head to gain Dark Side Points...
Whaaaaaat?!??
Wow...way to waste perfectly good potential slaves.
Er...no wait I mean..uh...something not evil!
(Quotes screwed up on the next one, won't give the poster's name. It's in the Best Lines thread on the D&D forum)
First, an experience from a game I played in a few years back. Our DM didn't like 3.5 as a whole but liked parts of it. So he hands us a big ass rules packet for his modified FR campaign, complete with quotes from important NPC's on the front. I can't remember most of the HRs, just that some how gods like Cyric and Bhaal existed at the same time, despite the obvious problems there. In the end the game became a problem more because of the railroading than the HRs, but it ended with this classic line, after our ranger tried to disarm the strange woman following us WITH HIS BOW: DM: You just killed (insert random noble sounding name here) JP: Was she important? Jack: Dude, she's quoted on the front of the rules packet!
"Why in the wide,wide, world of all things irrational would I help you? -Daniel Jackson "Fun will now commence." -Seven of Nine
Cut the last encounter on your way out after dealing with the Darth. He's the BBEG. Treat him as such. Play up that Darth Revan is THAT much of a badarse. When the shuttle landed, I had no less than 13 JEDI MASTERS step off the shuttle. The PCs were slack-jawed. After the meetup with Bastila (as she's carrying Revan's body), only TWO jedi masters remained with her. Let me tell you, the player whining about not getting to fight Revan himself shut up pretty quickly when he saw that.
1. Cleric cast protection from fire on Tank. 2. Tank goes in and get surrounded by enemies. 3. Wizard cast fireball and blows them up. 4. ??? 5. Profit
I go by the saying," If it ain't friendly fire then it's not working."
I can sort of see where you all are coming from with this, but I feel that you might just need to look past the basic "fluff" of the game. Yes, the Career/Speciality is called Hired Gun/Bodyguard, but the mechanical effect of that does not require the character to be either a hired gun or a body guard. Exception the Force-related material, the game says it is made for a fringe-style game, but it could easily be playedin any era or any style. I tend to prefer intrigue-focused games in which PCs interact and are wealth, influencial members of society with a lot of power. Essentially the opposite of a fringe-style game, but reading through the Beta, there is no reason that I cannot easily run such a game. Maybe the main game will be worse in this regard, but I doubt that very much so. I am willing to bet that the main game will even have a "create your own Career" section. Most games like this do.
...and you can only spend XP on stats during chargen.
That I did find weird. What makes it even more bizzar is that there is a Talent, always at the 25 XP price, that gives +1 to any one characteristic (ability scores, for those not in the know), up to a max of 6 in any one characteristic. Using XP at chargen, though, cost the new characteristic multiplied by ten in XP. So to go from 3 to 4, you spend 40 XP. Why would they make it cheaper? I will probably house-rule that out.
Heh, the games not out and I am already making house-rules in my head.
And the ramping cost for new specs doesn't even make sense. If you habitually "dip" into specs, you're just getting a lot of really simple, not terribly powerful talents, and losing the chance to get the really powerful stuff at the bottom of the talent trees. There's no reason to make them cost more and more the more you specs you have.
This does not bother me. One element that game in the make of EotE have that D20 games do not is this concept of infinite growth along a simple, linear curve. In D20, you have an increasing XP cost for each new level, each new level brings you to a new tier of power, and you typically have a max level (one in the game, but also one which exist due to your character's improved abilities causing him to outgrow the mechanics). In games like EotE, you gain XP in a very linear fashion, which you then turn around and spend quickly on a host of options; taking them one at a time. Yes, there is a resource sink involved in picking a new Specialization, but those resources are limitted only by the ammount of time spend playing that character.
Narrative story coming first is how every RPG should be played, there is no need for special rules to do it.
I disagree, on a few points.
Firstly, there is no reason that narrative elements need to come first in any RPG. Many, one might even argue most, groups actually prefer playing RPGs as a board games with weak stories connecting the combat. The mechanics are key, they are critical, as they are what makes the game fun. Sure, we all tease certain groups as being "hack'n'slash", but that really is not an insult. Many players just prefer that style. From a storyteller's perspective, their games look shallow - the characters are inconsistant and bland, the stories are nonsensical, and when they tell about something fun happening in-game you want to roll your eyes at the absurdity of it - but it is what they enjoy. Not to slam it too hard, but D20 tries to appeal to those players. That is a huge portion of the DnD base, and the games are built so those players can have a great time.
Secondly, there is no need for special rules that enforce narrative style, I would say, but a ruleset which encourages it is a good thing. Let me use two of my now-favorite games as examples. In FATE, most of the mechanics of the game involve a push-pull of resources between the GM and the players, each of them creating elements of the story. A player can declare things to be true in the world, even world creation is a cooperative experience. The game is actually more cooperative storytelling. In Apocalypse World, the mechanics are painfully simple and intentionally vague in their effect. You have an action called "Seize by Force" and you have to describe how and what you are seizing. It keeps the focus on the fiction, not on the mechanics. In D20 games, again hard truth here, you can totally play out a combat scenario without role-playing whatsoever. The mechanics operate independantly and though you can tie your role-playing into them, nothing in the game encourages that. In fact, often time the smart "tactical" choice (what the game mechanics encourage) runs contrary to how you feel the story should work. And in D20, when that happens, the rules are almost always given precedence. There was a thread a while back on the Dawn of Defiance boards about a Jedi easily defeating an AT-ST by just using Move Object to throw it into a building, rendering the walker disabled, basically, because there is no way it could effectively move on those legs or turn its head to get a good shot off. The poster was shot down by many (myself included) because he let the fiction determine what happened, not strictly what the rules said. That would not happen in a game focused on narrative and story.
Just from hearing about the dice and base mechanic, I feel the same way as you on them. If there is a "degree of success" system, I vastly prefer something simple and adaptable like DW's.
Let me add a little detail here for people thinking about buying:
When you "assemble a dice poll", which is whenever you roll, you collect a whole bunch of dice. You have positive D8s and D12s which represent your skill and ability when preforming such a task. Sometimes you get to add positive D6s for circumstance bonuses and the like. Then you have a similar group of negitive D8s and D12s to represent the difficulty of the task and D6s to represent circumstance penalties. Simple so far.
But then the whole thing goes left. Instead of numbers, each die has zero, one, or two symbols on them. Positive dice have "Success" and "Advantage" symbols and Negitive dice have "Failure" and "Threat" symbols. Each "Advantage" also counts as a success and each "Threat" also counts as a failure. The D12s also have a "Triumph" or a "Despair" symbol, which also counts as a failure. So, after every roll (which will likely involve half-a-dozen dice, or more), you: -Add up all of your Success points shown on the dice, counting any Advantage or Triumph points -Subtract from that all of your Failure points shown, counting any Threat or Despair points -If that is a positive number, you succeed with varying degrees determined by how many extra points you have -Add up all of your Advantage points -Subtract from that all of your Threat points -If you have a negitive number, then those can be used for a variety of effects (i.e. now you have to choose stuff to happen) and if you have a positive number, those can also be used for effects (more choices after the fact) -Add up all of your Triumph points -Subtract all of your Despair points -If you have a negitive numer, really bad things can happen. If you have a positive number, really good things can happen. Basically, some choices "cost" more than one Advantage or Threat. A Triumph or Despair can buy any effect, regardless of cost.
I think. It looks really slow and cumbersome. Going back to what I said before, does this sound like a role-play-focused game? It claims to be, it even has elements which seem to force it, but this base mechanic is going to heavily distract from the fiction. When assembling dice pools, the focus turns to the mechanics. And then you have to roll, count up all those annoying symbols (while comparing to a chart if you do not feel like spending more on dice, like sane people), and then you have to choose other, mechanical, effects. This sounds slower than D20, and though it might be less "tactical", that does not make it more "role-play" focused.
If there is one strong point against EotE, this is it. The base mechanic is clumsy. There are other ways one could have had the same effect without all this.
Chargen sounds fun but the Doctor brought up some good points about skill paths (or whatever they're called). I think EotE has more character customisation right at the start but Saga has more character customisation over time then EotE.
Nah, EotE allows for much greater choice from the start and keeps it up. There is just no comparing the two. SAGA is still class-based, D20. It forces you down paths and treats choices like rare treats that you toss players here and there. I make the argument this way: when you go from level three to four, how many choices do you really get? You get to choose one of five classes (which is a huge choice) and a Talent or Feat depending on your build. And you get more attack, more HP, higher defenses, better skill modifiers, and so on. When you "level" in EotE and similar games, you have a thousand options in your face and you have to sort them all down. In D20, you basically choose templates for each level (a set of HP, BAB, ect.). In EotE, you choose even little detail you gain.
"It does not quite have the same openess about class and concept that SAGA players like to imagine SAGA has."
Like to imagine? No. More like know from lots of personal experience.
Nope, does not exist. You imagine it and then force that into the system. A level 1 Noble can totally be a Jedi, not because the rules say this or encourage it, but because you are willing to toss aside the fluff and focus on making the character work mechanically without regard to class name or the like. SAGA itself does not enforce or even really encourage this (the Jedi class even says that you gain your first level when you become a padawan). SAGA has rules like "you cannot enter this class unless you are part of X tradition". Applying the same ideas to EotE makes it very open to any type of campaign, but people here do not seem willing to extend the same mindset outside of SAGA.
Without getting too much into what turned a thread into a 20 page flame war a while ago on the D&D boards, I'll say that although some ssytems cultivate more narrative engagement the vast majority of such engagement comes from the group itself.
Agreed. Most of the aspect of a good, story-based role-playing-game come from the group itself. It does not matter what you are playing, if the group is set on hack'n'slash, that it what will result. However, the game system does make a significant difference, especially in encouraging a particular mindset in the players. Yes, a group can play HERO fully intending on a deep-immersion style of role-play (my preference), but they will constantly be yanked away from that to deal with burdensome mechanics. And yes, a group could try to go hack'n'slash in Apocalypse World, but they will be severly let down by the mechanics. The system needs to flow with what the group wants to do, otherwise you end up trying to work around it. No one enjoys working around a system at the table.
"And the TL;DR award goes to Raul Torin!" - CorranHornIsAwesome
It's just a game. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. Don't complain about a game you never played because this is just lame.
I think the only "complaint" I've registered about the EotE is that I haven't seen it. That and the apparent requirement for a different set of dice plus the cost. Of course if I saw it and fell in love then the cost wouldn't be such a big thing.
Gurps? Uggh. Ponderous and designed to "break" players who aren't interested in fleshing out and keeping track of every character detail, imo. To each their own, I guess.
I'd say that if you've played GURPS, it was with the wrong group. You don't have to detail your character. You don't have to use Perks and Quirks at all, and you don't ever have to take advantages and disadvantages that involve personality traits, motivations, etc. IME, people tend to use those things because they're fun, however.
And even if you do, it's still not that much to keep track of. A GURPS character has less to remember than a 3.5 or 4e DnD character, honestly.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
And the ramping cost for new specs doesn't even make sense. If you habitually "dip" into specs, you're just getting a lot of really simple, not terribly powerful talents, and losing the chance to get the really powerful stuff at the bottom of the talent trees. There's no reason to make them cost more and more the more you specs you have.
This does not bother me. One element that game in the make of EotE have that D20 games do not is this concept of infinite growth along a simple, linear curve. In D20, you have an increasing XP cost for each new level, each new level brings you to a new tier of power, and you typically have a max level (one in the game, but also one which exist due to your character's improved abilities causing him to outgrow the mechanics). In games like EotE, you gain XP in a very linear fashion, which you then turn around and spend quickly on a host of options; taking them one at a time. Yes, there is a resource sink involved in picking a new Specialization, but those resources are limitted only by the ammount of time spend playing that character.
I know all about how this type of system works. That doesn't change what I said. There is an extra cost for new specs, and even greater cost for specs that don't come from your career. This means that the system punishes generalization by forcing a slower developement if you don't stay within your starting career and specialization. If "dipping" were powerful enough in the system, this would make some sense, but it isn't. Generally, a character with 5 specializations will be about the same power level (possibly lower) as a character with only 2. So, not only are you giving up access to the more costly talents down the line, which is a fair trade by itself, but you have to pay an extra entry fee in order to make that fair trade.
That's bad design, unless the whole point is to discourage non archetypal characters/broad custimization, in which case the design goals are bad.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
