I had not been using the updated rule to grip so thanks. You are also correct on regaining force powers after 1 minute but trance is used to heal damage (very powerful compared to other PC characters).
Maybe my experieince with gaming is limited compared to some. I do find the space combat to be lacking and i would have liked to have seen something on jedi artifacts/sith artifacts placed in the books. It is part of the universe (tv series, comics books). Wouldnt have takend much work to add in something like Banes lightsaber +1 damage etc. They also should have created a website or revised core book that would have been more helful to the GM instead of the GM having to have mutiple books for rules clarifications.
How are people handling space combat? how have you roleplayed 1 ship or mutiple PC ships attacking an enemy/avoiding a star destroyer etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't hate it or love it in terms of a rpg. Imo one of the big reasons why for the dislike is that in the D6 version of the game Jedi in the hands of a compatant player can rule the game. Boast your force skill high enough and you can outclass everyone at the table. The designers of the D6 version never really addressed that flaw imo. The fixes they suggest all seem like they are written to screw over the force using player as opposed to addressing the problem. Such gems as "don't use the force everything" and other similar pearls of wisdom. At high skill levels rolling a lot of D6 becomes annoying. D6 is not a bad game by any means. I just found the d@o version better in most respects.
in sorry, but I just plain disagree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had not been using the updated rule to grip so thanks. You are also correct on regaining force powers after 1 minute but trance is used to heal damage (very powerful compared to other PC characters).
The important thing to remember about Force Trance is that it takes hours to get any kind of use out of it. It needs at least one hour to be of any effect, and during that time, a lot can happen.
Star Wars is (and should be) a very dynamic, fast-paced game. Spending an hour down-time while the adventure is going on is not a good way for the player characters to be spending their time. And a Jedi, who is the epitome of "Let's go stop the bad guys," most of all, should be urging the group on.
Take an example from Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan during the prequels, for instance. They'll happily take some time to plan out the assault on the capital at Theed, but even Gui-Gon, who is the "Hey, man, let's think this through" Jedi to Obi-Wan's "Hey, look, more targets!" doesn't pause to reconsider his plan until absolutely forced to by Darth Maul. Jedi go with their feelings, but control their reactions to those feelings. They commit to a course of action and follow it through. This is their strength and their weakness - they are solid and firm, which gives them strength but also makes them prone to toppling from their own weight (Whereas the Sith are mercurial and highly adaptable, giving them flexibility, but also putting them at the whims of their own emotions, causing their ultimate downfall).
It's one thing for your Jedi characters to say "Hey, we've got a couple of hours on these Speeder bikes before we get to Mos Espa, I'm going to use Force Trance while Geebo drives, so I'm fresh when we face Darth Noctus, okay?"
It's entirely another for your Jedi to say "Well, we knocked those Black Sun jerks around a bit, and I've got some cuts and bruises to take care of, you guys don't mind if I meditate for four hours, do you? I mean, they might get away, but we can always catch up, right?"
In one hour of your Jedi using Force Trance to recover hit points, the following can happen:
- Those Droids they're looking for can get on an escape pod and rocket off to Watto-only-knows-where.
- Jabba The Hutt can toss their kidnapped victim into the Sarlacc Pit.
- A thousand screaming Ewoks can die a thousand flaming deaths at the hands of a TIE-Bomber run.
- Solo and the Wookie can be put on a Bounty Hunter's ship and taken away at light speed.
- The Death Star can come into range of the rebel base.
If I could be so bold as to offer you a solution to these problems in my game, I'd like to suggest you create a "Beat Chart" before each game.
It doesn't have to be precise-to-the-minute, but you might want to consider making a chart of things that will happen in your game, no matter what. For instance:
Day 1: The Pirates steal the location of an old Czerka Corp droid cache.
Day 2: The Pirates get there.
Day 2, Hour 4: The Pirates open the cache.
(A few other events)
Day 5, Hour 10: The Pirates assault the Galactic Bank on Deb-Kata with their Droid Army.
Day 5, Hour 12: The Pirates steal all the money.
So through all of this, the Pirates are doing what the Pirates are going to do. If the PC's dilly-dally around taking an hour or more between each encounter, the Pirates are going to steal all the money. If the PC's get where they need to get "in time" (this is flexible, mind you - travel takes time, and it isn't an exact science in Star Wars... ships tend to "Get there when they get there," as it were) then reward them. Give them a chance to make some hotshot piloting rolls or spend a Destiny Point on "Finding a way to boost the engines, so we beat them to Deb-Kata" for instance.
This sort of thing rewards them for helping drive the story, and challenges them to stop holding up the adventure to be fresh as daisies on the next encounter.
Maybe my experieince with gaming is limited compared to some. I do find the space combat to be lacking and i would have liked to have seen something on jedi artifacts/sith artifacts placed in the books. It is part of the universe (tv series, comics books). Wouldnt have takend much work to add in something like Banes lightsaber +1 damage etc. They also should have created a website or revised core book that would have been more helful to the GM instead of the GM having to have mutiple books for rules clarifications.
There are rules for changing around the crystals in lightsabers, in the KOTOR handbook. I'm pretty sure they're in some form on the web, if you can't find the book. They're fairly balanced and rather fun, especially when the bad-guy Force users have them, as well.
How are people handling space combat? how have you roleplayed 1 ship or mutiple PC ships attacking an enemy/avoiding a star destroyer etc.
For the most part - and I'm speaking solely from the perspective of the movies, here - ships in Star Wars are window-dressing. The only real ships you have to worry about are the "Hero Ships," which are pretty much characters in and of themselves. The Millenium Falcon counts as one of these, while Slave 1 may (or may not) counts as another.
The general gist of this is that if the ship is Window Dressing, it can be destroyed at any time, for any reason. Its only use is as a harasser or minor threat - it's a TIE Fighter that can herd the Millenium Falcon into a specific corridor, and maybe enough of them can knock out a few systems here and there, but it will never - EVER - be a sufficient threat to blow the Falcon up... even of the people on the Falcon don't know that. The words "Enough shots like that one, kid, and we're going to be sucking vacuum" need to be said by the NPC pilot at least once, to drive home the idea that the ship is in danger.
Hero Ships in Star Wars are never in any real danger, despite the perception of danger. The Hero ship can take out the Death Star, after all. A Star Destroyer can blow up thousands of Rebel starfighters, but it will never hit the Falcon with anything more serious than a glancing blow. R2-D2 can be struck a dome-wrecking shot by a TIE-fighter, but Luke's X-Wing always comes through unharmed.
The problem is that modeling this in a game ruleset is problematic, because it essentially comes down to "Handwaving" the entirety of space combats down to "Okay, so, Chewie, you roll to pilot. Han and Luke, you roll a few times to see if you shoot down any TIE's. Leia, you use your Noble's class abilities to boost Chewbacca's Piloting roll. Okay, let's see those numbers!"
When I'm running space combats, I generally stick to a couple of attack rolls, a few hits on the ship, and a whole lot of descriptive, chase-scene style narration - if the pilot makes a really bad roll, I have the Enemy Gunships close in until they're dangerously close to the Hero Ship. If the pilot makes a really great roll, he does some miraculous corkscrew maneuver that results in enemy fighters crashing into one another, or the gunships scraping along one another's bows, etc. Every time miniatures and square-grids enter into it, it just stops being fun for the players and becomes a game of chess in the middle of the adventure.
These suggestions and discussions may not help you, but I hope they do.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I design space combat games for a living. Very very good ones.
Science Fiction RPGs that pull out a battlemap for space combat have failed.
The guy who plays the chess match with the game master leaves everyone else bored...because they know that if he loses the game, the campaign ends, and if he wins the game the plot progresses, so the GM will be pulling their punches.
Space combat (and fantasy) games need a way to resolve large scale combats (like space combats and land battles) that reflect the choices of the character to shape the larger conflict. This resolution method need not be tactical combat.
I had not been using the updated rule to grip so thanks. You are also correct on regaining force powers after 1 minute but trance is used to heal damage (very powerful compared to other PC characters).The important thing to remember about Force Trance is that it takes hours to get any kind of use out of it. It needs at least one hour to be of any effect, and during that time, a lot can happen.
Star Wars is (and should be) a very dynamic, fast-paced game. Spending an hour down-time while the adventure is going on is not a good way for the player characters to be spending their time. And a Jedi, who is the epitome of "Let's go stop the bad guys," most of all, should be urging the group on.
Take an example from Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan during the prequels, for instance. They'll happily take some time to plan out the assault on the capital at Theed, but even Gui-Gon, who is the "Hey, man, let's think this through" Jedi to Obi-Wan's "Hey, look, more targets!" doesn't pause to reconsider his plan until absolutely forced to by Darth Maul. Jedi go with their feelings, but control their reactions to those feelings. They commit to a course of action and follow it through. This is their strength and their weakness - they are solid and firm, which gives them strength but also makes them prone to toppling from their own weight (Whereas the Sith are mercurial and highly adaptable, giving them flexibility, but also putting them at the whims of their own emotions, causing their ultimate downfall).
It's one thing for your Jedi characters to say "Hey, we've got a couple of hours on these Speeder bikes before we get to Mos Espa, I'm going to use Force Trance while Geebo drives, so I'm fresh when we face Darth Noctus, okay?"
It's entirely another for your Jedi to say "Well, we knocked those Black Sun jerks around a bit, and I've got some cuts and bruises to take care of, you guys don't mind if I meditate for four hours, do you? I mean, they might get away, but we can always catch...
This was how I played d6 Star Wars back in high school.
Since we're jumping on the dead thread: I actually quite like Saga. I ran a very successful two-player, all-Jedi game in the Legacy era. It was just about the most fun I've had GMing a game...and if you made it into a film I think it'd be a pretty good movie.
M
I'm with Mearrin on this one: I thought Saga Edition was a pretty good progression for the system. I saw it as a (somewhat) simplified version of d20 Modern (generally streamlining the rules and play) while maintaining a level of complexity above what I saw as 4e point-and-click style of play. About the only thing I was disappointed by was a general lack of pregenerated "monsters" to send against my PCs. It wasn't a big issue to make enemies from scratch, but sometimes an encounter happened on the fly and I just needed a few NPC/beasts to send out.
Treasure isnt the focus but the lack of it in my opinion is a negative compared to other RPGS. Almost every rpg ever made one of the more satisying endings to the dungeon or whatver was the magic item/coins to buy stuff or even make stuff better than what already existed. If it wasnt a magic item it was a safe full of cash (gangbusters or wild west games) or ways to improve your weapons etc. Gave the 10th level guy something to boast about.
This was another thing I struggled with for a while. Stefan mentioned something along the lines of a good deed being its own reward. When I couldn't think of some reward (because credits were largely pointless after level 4 except to buy ships), I handed out an artifact that gave the owner Skill Training/Focus and a bit of back story.
You want to do something with the Star Wars RPG you spent your hard money on? - don't play it as a Starwars game. Create some other scifi setting - yank the Jedi (or bastardize them into something else - like a bastard version of Dune's Navigators - restrict powers to story based powers where Third Stage Navigator Han-Fei can sense a Capital-ship in Hyperspace and merge jump pathways so you can board the Capital-ship mid-jump when they think they are alone).
I never could get a good feel for a Dune-type game. The closest I got was trying to get my players to leave a no-ship and start a colony on a world. The game never got more than a few sessions, but I was hoping it would end up taking them on crusades for a Mahdi.
Were there any other major errate done to force powers. How about force slam or move object? These are force abilities used against droids and dramatically change an encounter.
What should the scoundrel/soldier/noble be doig to optimize their experience. I havent been holding their hands and i want them to have a bigger impact. Ive added lots of mechanics/lore mini quests to let them shine but combat seems to be a problem? Thanks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Were there any other major errate done to force powers. How about force slam or move object? These are force abilities used against droids and dramatically change an encounter.
What should the scoundrel/soldier/noble be doig to optimize their experience. I havent been holding their hands and i want them to have a bigger impact. Ive added lots of mechanics/lore mini quests to let them shine but combat seems to be a problem? Thanks
I think there were some errata, but the site I used to get all my updates from (www.saga-edition.com) is no longer running, apparently. I bet if you snoop around on the WotC site, or even send their customer service an e-mail, they would probably be able to send you to some place with all the updates/errata/character sheets.
Soldier and Jedi always stood out in combat in my games, but a noble helps get things done all around. The wealthy talent helped my group put a down payment on a Falcon style transport ship at around level 3 or 4, and getting licenses for weapons was much simpler with black market connections.
For a scoundrel, you could have him work in conjunction with the noble in the black market. Perhaps they need to infiltrate (use computer), maybe the scoundrel is involved in a high stakes gambling game and the noble is eye-candy while the soldier is muscle. This is the nice thing about nobles and scoundrels: as long as it doesn't involve them shooting a blaster, they tend to make things happen favorably.
Soldiers are good at killing things, and depending on the talent choices, they can be good at keeping things alive long enough for the scoundrel or noble to "suggest" they help.
Were there any other major errate done to force powers. How about force slam or move object? These are force abilities used against droids and dramatically change an encounter.
What should the scoundrel/soldier/noble be doig to optimize their experience. I havent been holding their hands and i want them to have a bigger impact. Ive added lots of mechanics/lore mini quests to let them shine but combat seems to be a problem? Thanks
A quick search turned up this link:
Which has PDF's of all the various errata's.
Fig's advice on using Nobles and Scoundrels is pretty spot on, really.
I design space combat games for a living. Very very good ones.
Science Fiction RPGs that pull out a battlemap for space combat have failed.
The guy who plays the chess match with the game master leaves everyone else bored...because they know that if he loses the game, the campaign ends, and if he wins the game the plot progresses, so the GM will be pulling their punches.
Space combat (and fantasy) games need a way to resolve large scale combats (like space combats and land battles) that reflect the choices of the character to shape the larger conflict. This resolution method need not be tactical combat.
(emphasis mine, put there because AAG hits it on the head here)
This especially ties to my point about ships in Star Wars being Window/Set Dressing. They're not there to be the focus of the game or the story, they're there to help move it along. We only really have tactical ship combat in games like Star Wars because of completion-ism. If someone were to put a Star Wars game system together and say "Okay, so, here's a way to handle space battles that doesn't involve miniatures and tactical movement," there would be a revolt from the tactics-must-happen crowd and we all know it.
This doesn't change the fact that if you watch the movies, ships in Star Wars are vehicles for escapes, dramatic chases, and plot advancement - they are not devices with which to engage in drawn-out combats. Ships help drive the story and are story elements themselves, rather than being any kind of important tactical vehicle. Characters use them to go places, and to blow up Death Star power cores, but from a purely cinematic/thematic standpoint, they're not any kind of tactical-map-necessary item.
I'm a long-term veteran of Star Wars RPGs.
- I played the d6 version for many years. The system had many holes (character creation and advancement being one area where it was lacking). But the supplements and adventures were great.
- I also played a GURPS version for a while. It's OK, but GURPS.
- The Original d20 version was cool because it was compatible with D&D and you can get more people to play it. Plus I could easily use the Monster Manual for "aliens". But the system was little better than a home brew re-skinning of D&D.
- The Revised d20 version was better. It had problems with consistency and huge balance issues. Jedi in particular were problematic. They were way overpowered in personal combat but sadly lacking in everything else. There were inconsistencies in the rules everywhere. While it felt like its own system, it still had annoying quirks from pre-3.5 D&D. Also, some of the mechanics got way too complicated.
- The Saga d20 system fixed many of the balance issues with the Jedi but they were still overpowered. They removed so much of the flavor away from the classes that they were identical except for talent trees and feats. Also, the condition track mechanic had loopholes that min/maxers liked to abuse. The mechanics were much easier and streamlined, but in some cases TOO simplistic. The designers had annoying tendency to cover deficiencies in the system with fluffy "roleplaying" explanations. Another problem was that it was difficult to make characters like R2-D2 or C-3PO--major characters who were mostly non-combatant.
- I have not played the Fantasy Flight Games RPG and will probably wait until it is out Beta.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This especially ties to my point about ships in Star Wars being Window/Set Dressing. They're not there to be the focus of the game or the story, they're there to help move it along. We only really have tactical ship combat in games like Star Wars because of completion-ism. If someone were to put a Star Wars game system together and say "Okay, so, here's a way to handle space battles that doesn't involve miniatures and tactical movement," there would be a revolt from the tactics-must-happen crowd and we all know it.
This doesn't change the fact that if you watch the movies, ships in Star Wars are vehicles for escapes, dramatic chases, and plot advancement - they are not devices with which to engage in drawn-out combats. Ships help drive the story and are story elements themselves, rather than being any kind of important tactical vehicle. Characters use them to go places, and to blow up Death Star power cores, but from a purely cinematic/thematic standpoint, they're not any kind of tactical-map-necessary item.
The implementation of ship battles isn't all that well done. I personally ran my ship-to-ship battles something like the battles in Skies of Arcadia for Dreamcast and later for Gamecube.
Basically, I got rid of the battle mat and told everyone to pick a place to help on the ship: pilot, gunners, engineer, whatever else might be needed. At that point, run skill/aid another checks each round. Gunners take aim, pilots fly, engineers choose which other person they are going to aid. The PCs take their turn together, then the opponents take a turn. Everyone is doing something marginally related to his or her class strengths and ideally there is a team aspect to it: they have to coordinate maneuvers before rolls, then regroup after the opponents take a turn.
I'll be honest, I'm fairly new to roleplaying, I've only been playing for less than 5 yrs now. But every group I join and play with has had an amazing distaste for the new Star Wars d20 game. Is it something that I'm missing for are they just upset because they feel Wizards nerfed the Jedi classes that much? I'll be honest, I never got a chance to play in a d6 game of Star Wars, so am I missing something from not having played that? Let me know please!
I ran the West End Games D6 system. It was fast to set-up and play, and it had a real, heroic fell to it.
The D20 system is more mechanics heavy and has more of a plodding feeling to it.
The main objection that I heard to the D6 system was "you'll outgrow it in a year if you play a regular campaign." In other words, it is hard to keep it challenging for players with obscene pluses to die rolls.
While my fantasy campaigns have gone on for years, e.g., Bold Beginnings Campaign Site, we never played Star Wars for more than a few months.
Does that help?
In service,
Ok i used the updated grip rule as stated but the funny thing is it only matters to high powered sith and transports. For everyone else the fortitude defense=damage thresehold
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SKIES OF ARCADIA FOR LIFE!!!
This especially ties to my point about ships in Star Wars being Window/Set Dressing. They're not there to be the focus of the game or the story, they're there to help move it along. We only really have tactical ship combat in games like Star Wars because of completion-ism. If someone were to put a Star Wars game system together and say "Okay, so, here's a way to handle space battles that doesn't involve miniatures and tactical movement," there would be a revolt from the tactics-must-happen crowd and we all know it.
This doesn't change the fact that if you watch the movies, ships in Star Wars are vehicles for escapes, dramatic chases, and plot advancement - they are not devices with which to engage in drawn-out combats. Ships help drive the story and are story elements themselves, rather than being any kind of important tactical vehicle. Characters use them to go places, and to blow up Death Star power cores, but from a purely cinematic/thematic standpoint, they're not any kind of tactical-map-necessary item.
The implementation of ship battles isn't all that well done. I personally ran my ship-to-ship battles something like the battles in Skies of Arcadia for Dreamcast and later for Gamecube.
Basically, I got rid of the battle mat and told everyone to pick a place to help on the ship: pilot, gunners, engineer, whatever else might be needed. At that point, run skill/aid another checks each round. Gunners take aim, pilots fly, engineers choose which other person they are going to aid. The PCs take their turn together, then the opponents take a turn. Everyone is doing something marginally related to his or her class strengths and ideally there is a team aspect to it: they have to coordinate maneuvers before rolls, then regroup after the opponents take a turn.
I design space combat games for a living. Very very good ones.
Science Fiction RPGs that pull out a battlemap for space combat have failed.
The guy who plays the chess match with the game master leaves everyone else bored...because they know that if he loses the game, the campaign ends, and if he wins the game the plot progresses, so the GM will be pulling their punches.
Space combat (and fantasy) games need a way to resolve large scale combats (like space combats and land battles) that reflect the choices of the character to shape the larger conflict. This resolution method need not be tactical combat.
(emphasis mine, put there because AAG hits it on the head here)
This especially ties to my point about ships in Star Wars being Window/Set Dressing. They're not there to be the focus of the game or the story, they're there to help move it along. We only really have tactical ship combat in games like Star Wars because of completion-ism. If someone were to put a Star Wars game system together and say "Okay, so, here's a way to handle space battles that doesn't involve miniatures and tactical movement," there would be a revolt from the tactics-must-happen crowd and we all know it.
This doesn't change the fact that if you watch the movies, ships in Star Wars are vehicles for escapes, dramatic chases, and plot advancement - they are not devices with which to engage in drawn-out combats. Ships help drive the story and are story elements themselves, rather than being any kind of important tactical vehicle. Characters use them to go places, and to blow up Death Star power cores, but from a purely cinematic/thematic standpoint, they're not any kind of tactical-map-necessary item.
I disagree and agree with you.
I agree with your analysis of starship combat, but I disagree with you on it being different from person to person combat in the movies. Everything you say about starship combat can be applied equally to lightsaber or blaster combat. Obi-wan and Vader's fight was all about advancing the plot. Han fighting the storm troopers was all about a chase scene.
I think starship combat fails on a battle map because of the lack of motion and reduction to two dimensions. Taking it off the battlemap let's us use our imaginations which can simulate both motion and three dimensions much more freely.
I've been playing in a homebrew scifi system recently and we use a similar system for space combat. The pilot makes a maneuvering check to get better positioning, the gunner shoots, the engineer boosts a system, the medic keeps people running (the ship doesn't take damage, damage is applied to the crew and ship systems, which makes related checks harder).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree and agree with you.I agree with your analysis of starship combat, but I disagree with you on it being different from person to person combat in the movies. Everything you say about starship combat can be applied equally to lightsaber or blaster combat. Obi-wan and Vader's fight was all about advancing the plot. Han fighting the storm troopers was all about a chase scene.
I think starship combat fails on a battle map because of the lack of motion and reduction to two dimensions. Taking it off the battlemap let's us use our imaginations which can simulate both motion and three dimensions much more freely.
I've been playing in a homebrew scifi system recently and we use a similar system for space combat. The pilot makes a maneuvering check to get better positioning, the gunner shoots, the engineer boosts a system, the medic keeps people running (the ship doesn't take damage, damage is applied to the crew and ship systems, which makes related checks harder).
Your arguments about combat/set-dressing are persuasive - and I'd go so far as to say that anything not directly involving Luke, Han, or Leia in the movies could fall under this umbrella. Obi-Wan falls to Vader specifically to advance Luke's plot. Han's charge of the Stormtroopers is clearly "Han's Player" doing something the GM didn't expect. Etc etc. However, Luke's battle with Vader, Han's attack on the shield generator on Endor, and the like are all directly tied into their personal story lines - and thus wouldn't fall under that umbrella.
Back on the idea of ship-to-ship combat in Star Wars, we're all missing a very obvious point:
Starship combat in Star Wars is more akin to World War 2 aerial dogfights than it is actual hard-science-fiction space combat. This is evidenced in how the folks at Lucasfilm put the fight sequences together, along with how they treat the anti-fighter gun behavior from the capital ships. Fighter-to-Fighter combat is portrayed as "turn and burn" style dogfighting, with a lot of glancing shots and near-misses. Capital ships, on the other hand, fire their guns at the fighters in the same way WW2 surface cruisers shot down incoming planes: They "dial in" their ranges and shoot at the fighters, hoping to catch them in the explosions. So basically, what you're doing in space combat in Star Wars is dodging a whole LOT of explosions and fire-corridors, while trying to get close enough to the big bad gunship to do some serious damage.
This thread inspired me to watch the movies again, just so I could speak on it with some certainty. Because I love you guys, and I love the films, so it was a natural go-to. :)
Ok i used the updated grip rule as stated but the funny thing is it only matters to high powered sith and transports. For everyone else the fortitude defense=damage thresehold
I ask again what sorts of numbers your players are running around with, and why on earth they'd be using Force Grip and Slam against transports when running away or dropping the ceiling on them would suffice. Not even Obi-Wan at the height of the Clone Wars was dumb enough to go head-on with AT-TE's and the like...
I kind of liked the Saga System. I have played d6 a few times, not all that impressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your arguments about combat/set-dressing are persuasive - and I'd go so far as to say that anything not directly involving Luke, Han, or Leia in the movies could fall under this umbrella. Obi-Wan falls to Vader specifically to advance Luke's plot. Han's charge of the Stormtroopers is clearly "Han's Player" doing something the GM didn't expect. Etc etc. However, Luke's battle with Vader, Han's attack on the shield generator on Endor, and the like are all directly tied into their personal story lines - and thus wouldn't fall under that umbrella.
My point was that tactical simulations rarely capture the essence of good movie action scenes, not just the starship combat, but all the one on one stuff too. If you watch the Luke-Vader fight in Empire, you can tell that Vader is pretty much toying with Luke, he's holding back because his goal isn't to kill him, it's to break him down and recruit him.
Now imagine trying to act that same scene out using D&D.
Don't get me wrong, I love my tactical games. I'll wax poetically for hours on the flaws of a game like d6 or d20, but pull out a battlemap and I'll immediately start looking for my flanking bonus.
I've had a few discussions on the topic, including with some ENnie winning game designers. Table top combat and movie combat have different flows to them. The pacing, decision points, the emotional responses to those points, how mechanics can interrupt or redirect mental energies, etc.
I haven't played saga edition, but I've always heard it was good, this thread has reinforced my desire to try it out sometime. I was always more of a d6 fan, it worked for our group because the different mechanics helped signal that it was a different game from D&D.
this. I am gonna play x wing vs tie fighter when I get home,now.
I disagree and agree with you.I agree with your analysis of starship combat, but I disagree with you on it being different from person to person combat in the movies. Everything you say about starship combat can be applied equally to lightsaber or blaster combat. Obi-wan and Vader's fight was all about advancing the plot. Han fighting the storm troopers was all about a chase scene.
I think starship combat fails on a battle map because of the lack of motion and reduction to two dimensions. Taking it off the battlemap let's us use our imaginations which can simulate both motion and three dimensions much more freely.
I've been playing in a homebrew scifi system recently and we use a similar system for space combat. The pilot makes a maneuvering check to get better positioning, the gunner shoots, the engineer boosts a system, the medic keeps people running (the ship doesn't take damage, damage is applied to the crew and ship systems, which makes related checks harder).
Your arguments about combat/set-dressing are persuasive - and I'd go so far as to say that anything not directly involving Luke, Han, or Leia in the movies could fall under this umbrella. Obi-Wan falls to Vader specifically to advance Luke's plot. Han's charge of the Stormtroopers is clearly "Han's Player" doing something the GM didn't expect. Etc etc. However, Luke's battle with Vader, Han's attack on the shield generator on Endor, and the like are all directly tied into their personal story lines - and thus wouldn't fall under that umbrella.
Back on the idea of ship-to-ship combat in Star Wars, we're all missing a very obvious point:
Starship combat in Star Wars is more akin to World War 2 aerial dogfights than it is actual hard-science-fiction space combat. This is evidenced in how the folks at Lucasfilm put the fight sequences together, along with how they treat the anti-fighter gun behavior from the capital ships. Fighter-to-Fighter combat is portrayed as "turn and burn" style dogfighting, with a...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I make my living designing and selling space combat tactical games. One of them has "choose your level of physics" allowing you to pit NuBSG against Classic Star Wars if you want, where Newtonian rules prevail for one, and swoopy combat prevails for the other.
You need a way to resolve space combat scenes in an RPG where you can up the stakes, keep the tension going and have player decisions impact the outcome.
You do not need a tactical space combat subsystem to resolve that sort of scene.
I picked up the X-wing game and some extra ships with the idea that I'd eventually use the minis with the RPG. The game itself is actually pretty fun...though I wouldn't use that system with the RPG. I prefer a narrative style for SW space battles.
M
I like the Alternity system a lot. I don't understand how it's substantially different from D20/Saga or why you label those as fantasy? Not trying to argue...just trying to understand what you mean.
M
Color me curious, as well. Calling Star Wars "science fiction" only really applies in the loosest sense of the term. It's Flash-Gordon style "Space Opera" - complete with a total lack of real-world physics, funky aliens with weird powers, snarky robots, and damsels in distress. It's more akin to a Kurosawa film than it is to 2001.
(Which ties back nicely to AdAstra's comment about space combat differing based on the genre, actually.)
But Star Wars has always been about mystical forces interacting with technological innovations, so like Mearrin69, I'm rather curious about what you mean.
|
I ran my group through a few SAGA sessions last year. Most had fun but at least half the group felt seriously overshadowed by the Jedi amongst them. I'm sure it didnt help that we started at level 10, so the players were pretty beefy to start with. I'm hoping that new system from Fantasy Flight works better for us if we try again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can think of several times in the movies where Jedi had to flee from overwhelming firepower, and it seemed more balanced back in the day with the WEG version. Though I may be remembering it differently..
One big +1. Jedi are not that hard to kill,but they are difficult to fight. The solution is, in my experience to not fight them, and just killtthem. Thermal detonators, poison gas, waves of expendable droids with bombs attached... Not that hard to kill at all.
|
I can think of several times in the movies where Jedi had to flee from overwhelming firepower, and it seemed more balanced back in the day with the WEG version. Though I may be remembering it differently..One big +1. Jedi are not that hard to kill,but they are difficult to fight. The solution is, in my experience to not fight them, and just killtthem. Thermal detonators, poison gas, waves of expendable droids with bombs attached... Not that hard to kill at all.
True. I think we were discussing PC 'class' balance. Killing a Jedi is doable for sure but would you need those same tricks to kill another class? In the movies the Jedi were the elite, in a RPG that rates them equal to another 'class' is stepping outside the mythos of Star Wars. Not saying balance isn't a good thing in an RPG just in this case it lessens the concept of the Jedi. I am not sure which non-force using character could have taken down an AT-AT...
(No starships allowed)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can think of several times in the movies where Jedi had to flee from overwhelming firepower, and it seemed more balanced back in the day with the WEG version. Though I may be remembering it differently..One big +1. Jedi are not that hard to kill,but they are difficult to fight. The solution is, in my experience to not fight them, and just killtthem. Thermal detonators, poison gas, waves of expendable droids with bombs attached... Not that hard to kill at all.True. I think we were discussing PC 'class' balance. Killing a Jedi is doable for sure but would you need those same tricks to kill another class? In the movies the Jedi were the elite, in a RPG that rates them equal to another 'class' is stepping outside the mythos of Star Wars. Not saying balance isn't a good thing in an RPG just in this case it lessens the concept of the Jedi. I am not sure which non-force using character could have taken down an AT-AT...
(No starships allowed)
One thing I remember reading was using slug-thrower rifles against Jedi. They couldn't be deflected with a lightsaber, and (for flavor purposes) they looked pretty awesome if you wanted to introduce a bit of a Firefly/Western feel to the game.
One thing I remember reading was using slug-thrower rifles against Jedi. They couldn't be deflected with a lightsaber, and (for flavor purposes) they looked pretty awesome if you wanted to introduce a bit of a Firefly/Western feel to the game.I can think of several times in the movies where Jedi had to flee from overwhelming firepower, and it seemed more balanced back in the day with the WEG version. Though I may be remembering it differently..One big +1. Jedi are not that hard to kill,but they are difficult to fight. The solution is, in my experience to not fight them, and just killtthem. Thermal detonators, poison gas, waves of expendable droids with bombs attached... Not that hard to kill at all.True. I think we were discussing PC 'class' balance. Killing a Jedi is doable for sure but would you need those same tricks to kill another class? In the movies the Jedi were the elite, in a RPG that rates them equal to another 'class' is stepping outside the mythos of Star Wars. Not saying balance isn't a good thing in an RPG just in this case it lessens the concept of the Jedi. I am not sure which non-force using character could have taken down an AT-AT...
(No starships allowed)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You people and your talk of "class balance" this and "slugthrowers" that and "how do we kill Superma... I mean, how do we kill The Jedi" kerfluffle are forgetting something:
It's a game.
It's supposed to be fun.
It's not an exercise in "which class is broken" and "which edition was best" (although I'll grant you that the OP on the thread way back when had a valid question about why people didn't like D20 Star Wars).
If you don't want the Jedi to "overpower" everything, don't let your players have them. Set your game during the Dark Times, where Darth Vader and The Emperor are the only force users operating openly. Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi are the only remaining Jedi in the Galaxy, and they are in deep hiding.
If a player says "Oh, but in this far-distant corner of the galaxy, according to this book, there were all these Force Users and..." raise up one hand and say "That's nice, but I'm using only the movies as canon, and in the movies (bad as some of them were), only Yoda and Obi-Wan escaped Order 66. You'll just have to get by without a Jedi. But hey, on the plus side, none of your opponents will be Force users unless you really mess things up."
They will complain. They will rail. They will rant!
But you will have your Jedi-Free game. If that's what you really want.
Me, personally, I've never run into any of the issues that any of you cite with the D20/Saga versions of Star Wars. Hey, maybe I've just been lucky! (it's certainly possible!) And while I cut my teeth on WEG/D6 Star Wars, I remember (fondly!) just how ludicrous characters with sufficient dice pools could get, Jedi or not. All the systems have had their quirks and benefits. The question for my money has never been "is this broken?" but rather "are we going to have fun playing this?"
It's worked for me so far. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jem,
I agree: it isn't about one awesome class and how to neuter it, rather a few people getting together to play a game. I generally had good experiences with a few Jedi in the group when I played, and the game I GM'd, I more or less removed Jedi from the universe.
Frankly, I use it as a system with (what I would consider) decent resolution mechanics. From there, it's just me telling my players what they see when they walk around.
You people and your talk of "class balance" this and "slugthrowers" that and "how do we kill Superma... I mean, how do we kill The Jedi" kerfluffle are forgetting something:
It's a game.
It's supposed to be fun.
It's not an exercise in "which class is broken" and "which edition was best" (although I'll grant you that the OP on the thread way back when had a valid question about why people didn't like D20 Star Wars).
If you don't want the Jedi to "overpower" everything, don't let your players have them. Set your game during the Dark Times, where Darth Vader and The Emperor are the only force users operating openly. Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi are the only remaining Jedi in the Galaxy, and they are in deep hiding.
To me, part of the appeal of Star Wars is the jedi. So if you aren't including the jedi in some aspect, why are you bothering to use Star Wars? Especially if you're sticking purely with movie cannon.
Once you take out the jedi, it actually is a little dull, there's nothing that special or interesting. None of the planets we saw were particularly cool, and no, Hoth doesn't count.
From a game design perspective, Jedi need to be toned down. Is that canon? Not exactly, but we're not writing a movie, we're playing a game. Games that are heavily unbalanced can quickly become boring for players who are on the lower side of the scale.
When you say "Hey, lets play Star Wars" at least one player is immediately going to think "ooh, I hope I can play a Jedi". To immediately shut that down is both lazy and boring because you don't want to balance the game. If you're going to leave out the most iconic element of a setting, you don't actually need that setting.
I do agree, I have had fun with Star Wars games that either excluded Jedi or kept them very limited. But from a overall standpoint, they need to be included in a system and need to be roughly balanced with other character options.
|
|
If you don't want the Jedi to "overpower" everything, don't let your players have them. Set your game during the Dark Times, where Darth Vader and The Emperor are the only force users operating openly. Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi are the only remaining Jedi in the Galaxy, and they are in deep hiding.
I'm just started running a Saga game last weekend that is set during the main part of the inquisition between clone wars and new hope. Jedi aren't totally wiped out yet, but they are being actively hunted.
One of the first scenes saw the players on a station seeing a woman getting attacked by some imperial thugs. Looking around at just how many witnesses were around, the Jedi in the group realized that he'd better not draw attention to himself so he ran over and clocked one of the agents in the mouth with a pair of combat cloves.
Different era's of play do a great job of controlling power, when jedi are in hiding trying to keep their force powers subtle or hidden are important. In legacy era Yuuzhan Vong suddenly flip the strength of force users on their heads. In earlier times jedi are more powerful, but its also a time when people are more aware of their capabilities and that power and because of troubles with the sith you tend to see a lot more governance over how the powers are used to make sure you don't run the risk of 'falling' and the politics of being a jedi mean you are much more likely to be given direction from hire ups.
The further back you go the easier it is for jedi to stand out more often from the rest of the party(though it also becomes more likely to have more of the party be jedi), however if you look to the setting beyond the stats there is a lot of balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've only run Star Wars D20 five times, but I've LOVED every session. Wanted to play in a session for AGES...but never got the chance. A buddy on the islands may change that soon!
|
I can think of several times in the movies where Jedi had to flee from overwhelming firepower, and it seemed more balanced back in the day with the WEG version. Though I may be remembering it differently..One big +1. Jedi are not that hard to kill,but they are difficult to fight. The solution is, in my experience to not fight them, and just killtthem. Thermal detonators, poison gas, waves of expendable droids with bombs attached... Not that hard to kill at all.
Or a few lobotomized clones.
Jedi are overrated.
Considering that the original movie plot was lifted practically whole from Kurosawa's "Hidden Fortress." ..... :)Color me curious, as well. Calling Star Wars "science fiction" only really applies in the loosest sense of the term. It's Flash-Gordon style "Space Opera" - complete with a total lack of real-world physics, funky aliens with weird powers, snarky robots, and damsels in distress. It's more akin to a Kurosawa film than it is to 2001.
twas. Unlike a certain other director I could name, Lucas had the decency to admit it and even had a recent episode of the clone wars be a direct homage in celebration of the anniversary of the original work.
I want to play in Nicolas' game.
M
I have been organizing my book collection and I found my star wars d20 CRB. After a search on wizard’s site I found that it and D20 Modern where stop being produced. What went wrong? The game or the company preference?
I have been organizing my book collection and I found my star wars d20 CRB. After a search on wizard’s site I found that it and D20 Modern where stop being produced. What went wrong? The game or the company preference?
The Star Wars license lapsed and Fantasy Flight Games picked it up. Here is the website for the new game. Apparently, it's very much a Warhammer fantasy style game.
As for d20 Modern, I don't really know what happened, though I suppose there wasn't much need for more books. There was the core, d20 Past, d20 Future, Urban Arcana and an equipment book. What more would have been needed other than some adventures? Also, the d20 Modern game is not an OGL "game." However, there is a Kickstarter for a Pathhfinder inspired modern/urban arcana game.
We had a blast playing the Living Force stuff..but...when you've got an online option with pretty content...
I don't do electronic gaming anymore, but I think a lot of us get caught up in playing games that DON'T have an online companion. I think there's a suspension of disbelief/fantasy that occurs when there's a computerized version.
It's like having too perfect of a set-up on your game table. You no longer create the imagination, you just stare at it, like some kind of player who can't think beyond the list of skills trained or untrained on his character sheet.
Anyways, it may be a nostalgia factor as well. Those of you raised on the d6 game may prefer it that way. I felt that d20 chtulhu was unfairly treated this way as well by those of us who were nostalgic for a /game system./ Not memories of great games. Not the fellowship and times that we shared or the memories made..but for a game system.
jh
www.hafnerchiropractic.com