PDA

View Full Version : Star Wars



Superglucose
2010-05-30, 11:58 PM
So I'm thinking of learning a Star Wars system and maybe running a game since I love Star Wars so very much and crave Jedi on Jedi action. Can anyone give me their personal opinions on the various Star Wars systems out there? I know there's the 3rd ed d20 version and the d6 version, and I've heard of a 4th ed d20 version.

Which ones do you think are the best/most balanced, and why? Learning a new system is not a problem, I'm pretty bright and I think I can figure it out without too many issues, especially with a book right there. I'm only looking for commentary on the various systems themselves. Thanks!

Binks
2010-05-31, 12:11 AM
Never played the d6 system unfortunately but I've played Revised core (the d&d 3.5 star wars) and Saga Edition (the 4e style). Personally I think Saga edition is far better, but I know there are plenty of people with the opposite opinion.

Pretty much if you're alright with not having skill points, using training, focus, and +1/2 your level to all skills instead Saga is a better choice. The force system* is better, vehicle combat** is actually possible without getting into grappling-level rule debates, the condition track is a reasonable means of simulating exhaustion in combat (if a bit easy to break), and while there are plenty of broken builds and breakable rules they tend to be the type that are visible from orbit and easy for a good GM to derail or refuse.

So personally I'd recommend Saga edition. It's far from perfect but the number of ways to break the game isn't huge, it's pretty fun to build characters in (you basically get a 'new toy' at every level between feats and talents) and it's a lot simpler than RCR in a good way.

* In RCR force powers are cast by spending your vitality, which is basically your hp. In Saga you cast from a 'suite' of force powers, so you could have 2xlightning and move object for instance, in which case you could use lightning twice a battle and move object once (you can refresh your suite mid battle, but unless you build for it it's more practical to just start swinging your lightsaber).

** Vehicle combat in saga is basically normal combat on a bigger scale with multiple turns per vehicle (depending on crew). In RCR it's...complex to say the least, between the stunts, the different rules for space and land vehicles, and the various other things.

EDIT: I've never played 4e (not for lack of trying) but I've heard saga referred to as 'Beta 4E' and 'RCR with 4E rules' on the official forums quite a few times. If it's really not at all similar then I apologize but that's the impression I've been given by people who have played both.

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-31, 01:12 AM
Saga Edition is nothing like D&D 4E!!!


It is, however, a great system and fairly well balanced. Provided that you use the errata.

Dienekes
2010-05-31, 01:24 AM
d6 = Saga (close enough that it depends on personal opinion) >>>> RCR >> d20

Saga is better if you like the d20 system. Very flexible and fun system that allows a great amount of customizability between classes, meaning that there are no penalties to multiclass and the class abilities are of the pick and choose nature. Meaning that five straight Soldiers (the fighter types) can play completely different from each other. The Force system is based off of TOB maneuver style suites, and if you get the Starship supplement (which you should) so is starship combat.
Some things to watch out for= at low levels a Force user who takes the Skill Focus (Use the Force) feat will be overpowered but tend to come back when hitting the middle levels. Watch out for players who focus on taking down the Condition Track, if optimized fully they can be nightmares against boss type opponents.

d6 is from West End Games. This system is remarkably easy to learn and intuitive to homebrew as you go. There are no classes, so the players can take their character through whatever style of gaming they like. However, if used to DnD style rules this can be a breaker since they are very different. I'd almost argue it's more freeform than Saga. The basic principle is that you have 6 Stats (Dex, Know, Mech, Perc, Str, Tech) and in each you have a few skills that you can choose to improve as the game goes on, increasing the amount of d6 you use to determine your effectiveness.
Some things to watch out for= well different skills to focus in have different uses, and while you can make a character that can do anything some things will not be as useful as others (one player tried to use throwing knives only, and while useful in the beginning ran out of steam fast). Also, the game has a unique mix in the characters being too strong and too weak, or more accurately NPCs being too strong or two weak. Stormtroopers, for instance, are push overs as are every other troop type, named characters are insane. To do everything Darth Vader did in the movies would take a reasonable amount of time to get to that level, to actually take on Vader as presented would take many years to grind through. It's really best to slightly buff the troops and ignore the listed named characters completely.

Satyr
2010-05-31, 01:45 AM
The D6 version is just much better than any of the D20 versions. This isn't even a challenge, just a mere fact. Sure, it has its problems - namely that it is out of print for a decade now, which makes it a bit hard to find both books and players and there is absolutely no official material covering the new trilogy or the likes - but from the rules alone, it's just plain better. There are a few hick-ups here and there like the number of dice you roll sometimes (when you use the force), but over all it is a very smooth and intuitive set of rules. Even though it is a much older game, it is also much more modern and has no atavisms and nostalgic relics like levels or classes, for example.

Killer Angel
2010-05-31, 01:49 AM
I've played only the d6 version. Easy to learn and fun to play, so, at least, I can tell that you won't fail if you'll use that system.

averagejoe
2010-05-31, 01:51 AM
I've only ever played the Revised Core rules, and know very little about any other SW rules system. Just so you know that I'm not comparing it to anything when I say the RCR is a pretty terrible system. It works, I guess, but there's so much pointless drek.

LibraryOgre
2010-05-31, 02:33 AM
I ran a d6 (2e Revised and Expanded) for my D&D group last week. It took them a bit to get over the whole "There's no classes" thing, but once I gave them the idea that they needed, essentially, the Serenity crew (a couple bruisers, a mechanic, a pilot, and some specialists), they settled in and played great... and this is with a group that ranged in age from 8-30. We created characters and played an adventure with 6 players in one night.

Siegel
2010-05-31, 02:36 AM
When you want to play SAGA there is a really great podcast out there on the D20 Radio Network

Order 66 : http://feeds.feedburner.com/order66

i highly recomend it (even if you don't play SAGA or even Star Wars)

Dienekes
2010-05-31, 02:47 AM
These conversations seem to tend toward one group getting in early and claiming that their side is superior, of d6 or Saga. This one is looking like d6s (fair really, since last one I read was Saga). Personally, I suggest you look at both systems to see what interests you before making a decision. I've had lots of fun playing both, and would argue that any side claiming complete superiority is in the wrong. If money is tight or for some other reason can only get one, I'd suggest Saga, not because of superiority but because it can actually be found in bookstores or online due to not being out of print for a decade.

Starshade
2010-05-31, 04:22 AM
I dont own SAGA but the 3.5 based one, but i assume from what ive heard, saga is just as ok. Its main advantage is it's only recently discontinued, so it might still be in stores. If I was to try get a new book for my 3.5 based edition, id need to find books out of print for 4-5 years or so, not easy. Same as starting playing 3.5 now. Used book marked.

AstralFire
2010-05-31, 10:25 AM
The D6 version is just much better than any of the D20 versions. This isn't even a challenge, just a mere fact.

Opinion's pretty divided over the community. Saga is really good.

Guide to learning Star Wars Saga for D&D players. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6651498)

Saga does borrow some ideas from 4E, but is mostly a late-3E framework with a bunch of new stuff tossed in.

Homebrew project for Saga (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153791).

Superglucose
2010-05-31, 10:37 AM
Thank you. Depending on book availability I'm probably going to go with Saga.

snoopy13a
2010-05-31, 10:58 AM
The D6 version is just much better than any of the D20 versions. This isn't even a challenge, just a mere fact. Sure, it has its problems - namely that it is out of print for a decade now, which makes it a bit hard to find both books and players and there is absolutely no official material covering the new trilogy or the likes - but from the rules alone, it's just plain better. There are a few hick-ups here and there like the number of dice you roll sometimes (when you use the force), but over all it is a very smooth and intuitive set of rules. Even though it is a much older game, it is also much more modern and has no atavisms and nostalgic relics like levels or classes, for example.

I loved playing the D6 Star Wars game.

However, I think the no level/class system could be jarring to people who were brought up on the D20 system. Additionally, D6 Star Wars was not intended to have balance between characters which seems to be a major concern for some D20 players. For example, two of the D6 Star Wars archtype* characters are a protocol droid and a pre-adolescent who are not meant to be stand toe to toe with the Wookiee and Bounty Hunter archtypes in combat. Instead, the protocol droid obviously brings translation skills to the party while I suppose the kid acts as comic relief :smalltongue:

Plus, the damage system is different from the D20 system which could upset more traditional gamers. Overall, I personally prefer the D6 Star Wars to D20 games but it is very different.

* They don't have classes but they have archtypes so that newer players can generate characters easier. So they have a smuggler archtype (Han Solo type), a gambler archtype (Lando type), young force user (Luke type), along with a pilot archtype, pirate archtype, Ewok archtype, etc. More advanced players have the option of using an archtype or creating a character from scratch.

Binks
2010-05-31, 11:30 AM
Saga does borrow some ideas from 4E, but is mostly a late-3E framework with a bunch of new stuff tossed in.
Wouldn't that be 4E borrows some ideas from Saga, since it came out a year earlier?

Fair warning, the d6 system is a bit harder to learn. I have the core rulebook for it but it's pretty hard to get into if you're used to a d20 system. If you've played d6 before you can probably pick it up relatively fast, otherwise it's far easier to learn (and get your hand on) saga books.

Also fair warning, saga's been discontinued, so every book that will be produced for it has been. No need to bother wondering if you want to play one that's not supported or not because no star wars rpg is currently supported (beyond upcoming errata for the books without errata).

Bharg
2010-05-31, 01:00 PM
The Starwars Saga Edition really feels more like a modified version of 3E rather than 4E. Probably a good thing.
The only thing I am wondering about is if you actually could abuse the threshold and condition track to down your opponents more easily. :smallconfused:

Mando Knight
2010-05-31, 01:08 PM
Wouldn't that be 4E borrows some ideas from Saga, since it came out a year earlier?

Saga tested out some stuff they were planning for 4e. They were in development at about the same time.

However, Saga is mostly a modified d20 Modern/Future, not D&D. It uses the Talent system rather than a strict power/level progression like 4e or oddball "maybe you'll get class features this level, maybe not" progression of 3.5.
The only thing I am wondering about is if you actually could abuse the threshold and condition track to down your opponents more easily. :smallconfused:Yes. Condition Track abuse is the basis behind builds (IIRC) called CTKillers. Uses things like Devastating Attack or Force Powers to lower the Condition Track to the final stage, then easily kill the unconscious foe.

Bharg
2010-05-31, 01:17 PM
[...]
Yes. Condition Track abuse is the basis behind builds (IIRC) called CTKillers. Uses things like Devastating Attack or Force Powers to lower the Condition Track to the final stage, then easily kill the unconscious foe.

Is there a fair way to prevent this without nerfing the poor assassins oo much?
I guess most moves down the ct is not permanent so you can at least spend some swist action to go up again. (3 swift action or only 2 with a feat in one or consecutive rounds)

My level 6 soldier is now armed with a Heavy Blaster and Devastating Attack... To beat a ~15 with 3d10+5 is not that hard I guss...

Binks
2010-05-31, 03:17 PM
Is there a fair way to prevent this without nerfing the poor assassins oo much?
I guess most moves down the ct is not permanent so you can at least spend some swist action to go up again. (3 swift action or only 2 with a feat in one or consecutive rounds)

My level 6 soldier is now armed with a Heavy Blaster and Devastating Attack... To beat a ~15 with 3d10+5 is not that hard I guss...

Simple, if you see someone using Debilitating Shot and both the Bounty Hunter and Gunslinger PrCs in their build as well as wielding a stun blaster tell them no :P. Knocking someone one down the CT with each attack isn't much of a problem, it's the guys who can guarentee (even if they miss) 2 steps down and (if they hit and deal damage) 5 steps down (unconscious) that are the problem.

The only broken CT killer is the Scoundrel/Bounty Hunter/Gunslinger build that can instantly KO an opponent if they hit. Everyone else is just slowly wearing down opponents, which is fine.

(And 15 would mean they had a threshold of 20, which is reasonable for level 6, but you'll see higher when you get to higher levels, not to mention large creatures getting threshold bonuses and the like. A build based around overcoming threshold with damage isn't broken because it's easily blocked, it's the ones that KO irregardless of threshold that are broken).

Bharg
2010-05-31, 03:33 PM
Simple, if you see someone using Debilitating Shot and both the Bounty Hunter and Gunslinger PrCs in their build as well as wielding a stun blaster tell them no :P. Knocking someone one down the CT with each attack isn't much of a problem, it's the guys who can guarentee (even if they miss) 2 steps down and (if they hit and deal damage) 5 steps down (unconscious) that are the problem.

The only broken CT killer is the Scoundrel/Bounty Hunter/Gunslinger build that can instantly KO an opponent if they hit. Everyone else is just slowly wearing down opponents, which is fine.

(And 15 would mean they had a threshold of 20, which is reasonable for level 6, but you'll see higher when you get to higher levels, not to mention large creatures getting threshold bonuses and the like. A build based around overcoming threshold with damage isn't broken because it's easily blocked, it's the ones that KO irregardless of threshold that are broken).

So even greater devastating attack is still balanced. Ooh, that's just fine.
I'm not sure if it's clever to let all those abilities stack though - like in the tainted built you described...

Hm, will the force also get more balanced if we reach a higher character level with the increasing defs? Our jedi (who was KIAed in the last session when picking on the wrong sith apprentice) had a force skill of like.... +16... because of training, focus et cetera...

AstralFire
2010-05-31, 03:34 PM
Jedi are pretty balanced if they're not just shooting Offensive Force Powers all the time (which they shouldn't be, or Dark Side Points.) The link in my sig contains a homebrew project which has, among other things, balances for Force Powers at low levels.

Bharg
2010-05-31, 03:43 PM
My soldier was force gripped a few times now what was quite troublesome...

Is it also legal that a jedi keeps blocking and reflecting blaster fire while he is fighting another force user with his lightsaber? Fighting them is really troublesome if you can only shoot once in a round... and if he has such a freakish skill modifier... and a good ref def...

AstralFire
2010-05-31, 03:46 PM
Yes, it is. Block and Deflect are too strong at low levels and kind of boring as they presently are, if you ask me. Might make them a static bonus that lowers as they take multiple hits.

Brock Samson
2010-05-31, 04:25 PM
While Block and Deflect can be quite powerful at lower levels, the fact that you take a -5 Use the Force check PER attempt means that after deflecting one or two blaster bolts, you'll definitely not be using a Force power on YOUR turn. And if you're just fighting one-on-one with another person, then yeah, you're a Jedi, you should be able to block and deflect when you're much less distracted.

Gamgee
2010-05-31, 04:26 PM
Everything has been covered, so Ill just toss my vote in to Saga if it makes a difference.

Optimator
2010-05-31, 05:55 PM
Saga Edition is probably the best system I've played. It's great.

Jarveiyan
2010-05-31, 06:57 PM
I've only ever played RCR and Saga. I like Saga, however RCR will always get my vote.

Zuki
2010-05-31, 07:44 PM
I've only ever played RCR and Saga. I like Saga, however RCR will always get my vote.

Could you elaborate on why?

The J Pizzel
2010-05-31, 09:01 PM
SAGA is all that is good in table top roleplaying. /opinion

The cross-classing is extremely easy and allows for amazing customization. Every time we've played, we literally built character concepts way before the characters and then easily and effectively made exactly what we wanted. I aboslutely love SAGA.

And personally, I do feel it is alot like 4E. It targets Fort Reflex and Will defenses just like 4E; you train a certain amount of skills and get a static bonus to them; you add 1/2 level to skill checks, attack rolls, and damage; powers are refreshed per encounter (I know this was in ToB); it uses a -2, -5 pattern; death is difficult; etc.

I'm not saying their exactly the same, but personally I feel SAGA is more like 4E than 3.5, although that's just an opinion.

Regardless, I still say it's my favorite system. And I don't mean just my favorite Star Wars system, it's my favorite system of all.

All that being said, I hear WEG d6 game is absouletly amazing but I haven't ever played it.

Platinum_Mongoose
2010-05-31, 09:31 PM
Saga Edition is probably the best system I've played. It's great.

What he said, aside from maybe Savage Worlds. It's more like Pathfinder than 4e. Doesn't have the... well, the horribleness of 4e.

AFS
2010-05-31, 11:58 PM
While Block and Deflect can be quite powerful at lower levels, the fact that you take a -5 Use the Force check PER attempt means that after deflecting one or two blaster bolts, you'll definitely not be using a Force power on YOUR turn. And if you're just fighting one-on-one with another person, then yeah, you're a Jedi, you should be able to block and deflect when you're much less distracted.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.


the dc of the skill check is equal to the result of the attack roll you wish to negate, and you take a cumulative -5 penalty on your use the force check every time you have used block or deflect since the beginning of your last turn.

Your use the force would be reset at the start of your turn.

I do see how it could be read that your utf check would be lower for a reactionary power like negate energy or rebuke, but that REALLY nerfs the power. What good is negate energy / rebuke on your turn going to do for you?

As for my opinion on the systems...I've played all of them and Saga is my favorite to run. The d6 version just seemed to easy to manipulate and it was very unbalanced. Of course I have not played it in over 10 years. There are things I like and dislike about all the systems. Just go saga.

Bharg
2010-06-01, 12:21 AM
What does since your last turn mean?
Some thing like this?
1. Turn
1. Block

2. Block (-5)

2. Turn

3. Block (-10)


4. Block (-15)

3. Turn

5. Block (-10)

...

Seatbelt
2010-06-01, 02:37 AM
If I was DM I'd say for that round. With "round" in this case being the initiative count immediately after yours since it refers to the end of your last turn.

This would mean


turn
-5 on count 1
-10 on count 2
-15 on count 3
turn (still at -15)
Refreshes at start of count 1


Your present turn is still after the "end of your last turn." Once that turn ends it is now "since the end of your last turn" and the count refreshes. That's just how I would do it.

Bharg
2010-06-01, 10:06 AM
So... who is right in the end?

And do you know a way to effectively using grenades against a jedi without having him fling it right back into your face with move light object?

RandomLunatic
2010-06-01, 12:31 PM
He cannot "return to sender" them unless he readies an action to do so. And if he is spending his standard actions to ready, you can whale on him pretty much any way you like, since he is not attacking back.

Binks
2010-06-01, 02:03 PM
And do you know a way to effectively using grenades against a jedi without having him fling it right back into your face with move light object?

They can only throw back at you if they ready an action to do so (even the talent from JATM doesn't let you throw back). If they do that they're not attacking, so if you see them stop attacking just blast them instead and hold off on using the grenade until they attack something.

Retained even though it answers an entirely different question.
Jedi Academy Training Manual Jedi Guardian Talent tree Grenade Defense is by far the best way. It's basically deflect/block for grenades. The only other option is the ready an action to use move light object on the grenade, which does give you more control than grenade defense but costs you your standard action.

The block/deflect controversy is meaningless, it doesn't matter if you keep the penalty on your turn or not because you only have the penalty when using block/deflect. Reread the paragraph, "and you take a cumulative -5 penalty on your Use the Force check...", not all UtF checks, your UtF check for using this talent. So who cares when it goes away by RAW, unless you need to block/deflect on your turn it doesn't matter if the penalty's there.

(whether the penalty is there or not depends on what you think 'last turn' means. If you think it means the last completed turn then you still have the penalty on your turn, otherwise if it's the last started turn it goes away at the start of your turn)

Bharg
2010-06-01, 03:41 PM
They can only throw back at you if they ready an action to do so (even the talent from JATM doesn't let you throw back). If they do that they're not attacking, so if you see them stop attacking just blast them instead and hold off on using the grenade until they attack something.

Retained even though it answers an entirely different question.
Jedi Academy Training Manual Jedi Guardian Talent tree Grenade Defense is by far the best way. It's basically deflect/block for grenades. The only other option is the ready an action to use move light object on the grenade, which does give you more control than grenade defense but costs you your standard action.

The block/deflect controversy is meaningless, it doesn't matter if you keep the penalty on your turn or not because you only have the penalty when using block/deflect. Reread the paragraph, "and you take a cumulative -5 penalty on your Use the Force check...", not all UtF checks, your UtF check for using this talent. So who cares when it goes away by RAW, unless you need to block/deflect on your turn it doesn't matter if the penalty's there.

(whether the penalty is there or not depends on what you think 'last turn' means. If you think it means the last completed turn then you still have the penalty on your turn, otherwise if it's the last started turn it goes away at the start of your turn)

Well, it matters to me when I want to shoot them... with my blaster.

Hm about the grenade thing: What if you are using a thermal detonator? How do you handle the countdown?

AFS
2010-06-01, 04:06 PM
set it to 1 and throw it

Jarveiyan
2010-06-02, 08:10 AM
Could you elaborate on why?

IMHO RCR portrayed correctly how true combat is lethal(it put the fear of death into you). Although you didn't get more skill points to use on force skills, most of them didn't have high dc needed to do just the bare minimum and most of them could be used untrained as long as you had the right force training feat(alter, control, or sense), the VT cost was not so limitting due to how VT came back - 1/lvl/per hour. I never really had a problem with the number of PrC's the game had, but that might be due to the fact I like 3.xDnD. In Saga it's easier to survive even a difficult combat, I do like the consolidated skills better, I'm on the fence about how they redid force points and the addition of destiny and destiny points. Although I have fun playing Saga, RCR will always be my favorite(until such time as I see what I think is a better edition).

Bharg
2010-06-02, 09:00 AM
1 round and explode on contact are two different things :\

@Jarveiyan: Though Saga is still related to D&D I think that combat is way faster and also deadlier because weapon damage is quite high in comparison with other systems.
(Blaster 3d8 + half char level + mod.; Lighstaber 2d8 + half char level + 2x STR + mod. and so on...)

I also like the force and destiny points and the second winds because they prevent you from dying just because of bad luck.

Satyr
2010-06-02, 03:03 PM
Opinion's pretty divided over the community. Saga is really good.

So you are saying, that despite more than ten years after the last official release, a complete new trilogy of Star Wars movies, basically a whole new generation who grew up on these new films, and the fact that the books are not even available as pdfs, roughly half of the people who are interested in a Star Wars RPG prefer the old D6 version to both takes on the setting based on the most common RPG system around?

My point exactly.

BTW, D6 Space and its source books are a bit more generic than the orginal Star Wars game, but its free.

AstralFire
2010-06-02, 03:15 PM
...No, I'm saying that opinion is divided among people who do this sort of thing as either a very serious hobby or a living, neither of us have statistics, and Saga is very good.

I'm saying that a vocal minority (emphasis on minority) of Star Wars gamers I know enjoy d6. Intelligent ones, whose opinions I respect. But I simply said 'divided', because it's a lot more diplomatic, and the personal ratios aren't important when you consider the method of obtaining the data is by nature prone to high biases.

So, if you had a point in there, I didn't see it. Glad ya like d6, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. The two systems have very different emphases.

Satyr
2010-06-02, 03:48 PM
I never said that Saga is a bad game. I haven't played it a lot, but what I have seen, it was one of the most sensible adaptation and adjustment of the D20 mechanisms to a different setting I have seen.
However, I think that the D6 rules are better, because they are a lot simpler, more intuitive and adaptable. The mechanical aspect of the character creation is a matter of minutes, most of the system is pretty much self-explanatory and in many ways it is a more "modern" game design, despite being a lot older, as it does not need to rely on classes or levels to design or develop characters; as such, it offers more freedom to players and gamemaster and as such is more respectful in a way towards them.

AstralFire
2010-06-02, 04:41 PM
It also is far less concerned with action adventuring, which is a difference of focus, one which lies in preference. A level-based system is better than a skill system for that, typically, as it makes it easier for a minimum common level of competency to arise. It also allows for a more complex system of combat, thanks to this narrowing of focus and freedom.

d6 SW is a fundamentally different sort of game. It's not an issue of respect towards the players and GM. :smallconfused:

TheThan
2010-06-02, 05:23 PM
Star wars saga is quite nice. Easy to use, learn and play. there’s not a whole lot of books to collect either so the shear cost of getting them isn’t as hindering as say dnd 3.5.

The system does Jedi quite well, allowing you to play most flavors of Jedi without breaking the system or being underpowered comparative to the rest of the party. That’s the best part, jedi don’t rule the game and there is a reason to play the other classes.

The system is quite smooth to play and doesn’t get bogged down in combat like dnd 3.5. Its far superior to both the D20 and D20 revised (both of which are sitting on my bookshelf right now) editions. I don’t know how it fairs against the D6 version since I’ve never played it.

Gametime
2010-06-02, 06:11 PM
Saga Edition is nothing like D&D 4E!!!


It is, however, a great system and fairly well balanced. Provided that you use the errata.

Nothing except automatically scaling skills with a static bonus for training, Reflex-Will-Fortitude defenses instead of saves, and an approach to prestige classes that is mostly 3.5 but clearly was influenced by what would eventually become the 4e paragon paradigm.

Which isn't to say that Saga = 4e; it's probably more similar to 3.5, if either, though realistically it sits right between them. It's a midway system, and it has a lot of the best of both within it. That's part of why it's so great. Saying it's "like 4e" isn't an insult, you know.


What he said, aside from maybe Savage Worlds. It's more like Pathfinder than 4e. Doesn't have the... well, the horribleness of 4e.

Easy, now. Some of us like 4e. If what you meant was that Saga has a lot of the best parts of 4e (auto-scaling skills, defenses instead of saves, class parity) without the most contentious parts (class homogenization, removal of multiclassing freedom), then I completely agree with you.


I never said that Saga is a bad game. I haven't played it a lot, but what I have seen, it was one of the most sensible adaptation and adjustment of the D20 mechanisms to a different setting I have seen.
However, I think that the D6 rules are better, because they are a lot simpler, more intuitive and adaptable. The mechanical aspect of the character creation is a matter of minutes, most of the system is pretty much self-explanatory and in many ways it is a more "modern" game design, despite being a lot older, as it does not need to rely on classes or levels to design or develop characters; as such, it offers more freedom to players and gamemaster and as such is more respectful in a way towards them.

I think people are more likely to object to your preferences when you state them as uncontestable facts, as in your first post, then when you state them as opinions, as in this post.

Thinking the rules are better is perfectly reasonable. Proclaiming them to be, in a way that brooks no arguments, seems more arrogant.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-02, 06:18 PM
I think people are more likely to object to your preferences when you state them as uncontestable facts, as in your first post, then when you state them as opinions, as in this post.

Thinking the rules are better is perfectly reasonable. Proclaiming them to be, in a way that brooks no arguments, seems more arrogant.

Clearly he must be a Sith, because only the Sith deal in absolutes.:smallcool:

AstralFire
2010-06-02, 06:19 PM
Clearly he must be a Sith, because only the Sith deal in absolutes.:smallcool:

Impressive. Most impressive.

But you are not a jester yet.

Gametime
2010-06-02, 07:56 PM
Clearly he must be a Sith, because...

:smallcool:

only the Sith deal in absolutes.

YEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHH!

Fixed that for you.

Satyr
2010-06-03, 01:58 AM
It also is far less concerned with action adventuring, which is a difference of focus, one which lies in preference.

I really think there is no plot whatsoever that would work with Saga which wouldn't work with D6 or vice versa. If you were right, the more action-focused aspect of Saga would allow for specific plots or scenes which would not work with D6; I honestly can't envision any such occurrence, but perhaps you have a good example at hand.

A class-based system makes the game more shoehorned towards specific roles and more hidebound and thus simpler, as it is more shallow and does not require as much creativity or independent thought. The strength lies there, that also less creative players can easily create characters. That's it. Classes and levels are the RPG equivalent to training wheels, with a nit of nostalgic folklore attached.


A level-based system is better than a skill system for that, typically, as it makes it easier for a minimum common level of competency to arise.

This makes so much sense when comparing the game to D6, where every character has basic knowledge in every single (non advanced) skill whatsoever, with a reasonable chance to succeed in most simple tasks at their worst. Everybody can try to do and to become anything the player wants; sure, the diplomat will not have the same chance to hit in a gunfight as a mercenary, but if you start training what you want to learn, you will become better.


It also allows for a more complex system of combat, thanks to this narrowing of focus and freedom.

Saga doesn't even have something as elemental as hit locations and while the threshold thing is a vast improvement, it still uses the overtly abstract hit point system.
Seriously, the combat system is more complicated, but doesn't offer any more options, as any option is made up as a hard rule. D6 on the other hand has very few hard rules and allows for much more situational soft rule decisions. As such, again, it rewards quick thinking and adaptation to the situation at hand instead of relying on prescriptive normatives. And again passive defense kills the suspense of the combat and lessens its dynamics.
Certainly, the combat rules of D6 are not the system's strong point and have their hick-ups with extreme characters (the "Invulnerable Wookie Syndrome") but again, I can't think of any occurrence which would work in Saga but which were impossible in D6, and again, D6 is the much much simpler system.


d6 SW is a fundamentally different sort of game. It's not an issue of respect towards the players and GM.

And in this difference lies a major philosophical differnce in game design, and is a significant expression of the respect of the game (or the game designers) for the players. It is the difference between "you know best" and "We know best", the difference between treating the players and gamemasters like mature, creative individuals who can think for themselves, or treating them like morons who need to be taken step by step by the hand. Certainly, this is a sliding scale, with more or less varying degrees of assumed autonomy of the players, and one can certainly argue that there might be something as too much freedom when there is no reliable framework of references anymore. However, as a rule thumb, the more a game treats the players as morons, the more it claims that it (or people you have never met before, e.g. the game's authors) knows best you are supposed to have fun using it, and the more condescending mechanisms (classes, levels) it uses, the worse it usually is. And yes, the extremely narrowed creation and development of characters is indeed a condescending measure, as it basically states that the player requires such a rigid corset to develop suitable characters. And thus, it is not a beacon of respect for the abilities and creativity of neither players nor gamemasters.


I think people are more likely to object to your preferences when you state them as uncontestable facts, as in your first post, then when you state them as opinions, as in this post.

Thinking the rules are better is perfectly reasonable. Proclaiming them to be, in a way that brooks no arguments, seems more arrogant.

Usually, yes, of course. In this specific situation however, there is a significant difference in quality between the two games, at least in the attitude towards the players as described above. Yes, Saga might be the more popular game, and it certainly has it stronger aspects (artwork, layout, editing, general product quality of the books...), but when it comes to the very core of the game, D6 offers more freedom and variability, covers any single aspect that might appear in Saga and still uses the more intuitive and simpler rules, so you basically get the same results with less effort.

If the assumption that most people are indeed mature, creative individuals and deserve to be treated as such is indeed arrogant, yes, I am arrogant. But honestly, I don't think that this is a usual definition of the term and how would you then describe the opposite notion?

Bharg
2010-06-03, 06:28 AM
[...]
d6 SW is a fundamentally different sort of game. It's not an issue of respect towards the players and GM. :smallconfused:

I agree with AstralFire.
Satyr, just ask yourself for what reasons - other than to limit the player's freedom - Saga is made up like this. My d6 experieces are very limited , I must admit. I only played it once at a con. You can choose your skills freely, but is there really an alternative in d6 for the big spectrum of different talents and other abilities the variety of classes in Saga offers?
Crossclassing is also very easy in Saga so if you need something you just take a class that has acces to it...

AstralFire
2010-06-03, 09:31 AM
Satyr, your criticism of Saga's implementation of the class system shows to me nothing more precise than that you have not played Saga but dismissed it merely because of its resemblance to 3.5. Saga is the ultimate fulfillment of 3.5's multiclassing promise.

The crux of your argument hinges upon the idea that a class-based system is inherently inferior, and that is something up with which I shall not put. Sorry.

The majority of a good system's restrictions are a respect for the limitations of that system's core mechanic versus the effectiveness of player adjudication. Not a disrespect for anyone. Restriction is not automatically bad, restriction grants focus and detail at the expense of freedom; it is a balance that must be struck, with differing midpoints for everyone. It is not remotely possible, even for the highest of high budget video games in the distant future, to have an engine which encompasses everything equally in a fun manner. It's not a matter of processing power, it's a matter of structure. You can't have the fun of both an FPS and a turn-based grand strategy game at the same time.

Same principle here, different component.

I could turn your entire argument around on its head and say that Saga respects its players and GMs more because it understands that they know there are a wide variety of character options which can be easily constructed from the multiclassing and skill system, that GMs can adjudicate what isn't covered, that a GM understands the rules should and must be bent sometimes, and that someone with the proper imagination can take bits of column A and column B and get Z with little effort.

All of those expectations? Are true. I wouldn't, however, say that this is due to Saga respecting its players more because that's just silly. The entire premise that this has anything to do with respect rather than preferential focus is silly. And I say that as someone who enjoys classless systems; when I went to make my own RPG, the first thing I did was abolish classes. And that was because classes didn't work for what I wanted to express and focus on with that game. They do here.

Platinum_Mongoose
2010-06-03, 09:47 AM
Easy, now. Some of us like 4e. If what you meant was that Saga has a lot of the best parts of 4e (auto-scaling skills, defenses instead of saves, class parity) without the most contentious parts (class homogenization, removal of multiclassing freedom), then I completely agree with you.

I think people are more likely to object to your preferences when you state them as uncontestable facts, as in your first post, then when you state them as opinions, as in this post.

Thinking the rules are better is perfectly reasonable. Proclaiming them to be, in a way that brooks no arguments, seems more arrogant.

I held off on judgement of 4e until I played it, which I finally got a chance to do last weekend, shortly before making my first post in this thread. When the first encounter--a smattering of kobolds vs. us, a merry band of five 7th-level heroes--took an hour an a half, I knew something must be fundamentally wrong with the game mechanics. (Or, possibly, the GM.) But I've never really gone for high-tactical games, which is what 4e is, and a lot of people like that. SAGA is similar, in fact, in its encounter-based tactical combat design. I just think that it succeeds at every point where 4e fails. There is literally no part of SAGA rules I don't find streamlined and user-friendly. When I play SAGA, I have fun. When I played 4e, I didn't.

AstralFire
2010-06-03, 09:49 AM
Early encounters in most systems that aren't extremely light take me hours to go through, actually. I usually have at least one roleplayer completely new to rules based RPing (I like to indoctrinate) and each person who's not extremely familiar with the rules adds time. After a while, we always get it down to something much quicker though.

Binks
2010-06-03, 10:21 AM
A class-based system makes the game more shoehorned towards specific roles and more hidebound and thus simpler, as it is more shallow and does not require as much creativity or independent thought.
Oh? I disagree greatly. Name any role and I'm pretty sure it's representable in Saga's system. I have yet to run into a character concept that I haven't been able to adequately represent in Saga's system, and I've tried a lot.

As for creativity and independent thought my 'wants to be a mercenary' noble, sadistic medical droid, kaleesh shaman and the dozens of unique npcs I've built for various games would like to have a word with you about how creative you can be with constraints.

(Also this (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_07/b3971144.htm))


This makes so much sense when comparing the game to D6, where every character has basic knowledge in every single (non advanced) skill whatsoever, with a reasonable chance to succeed in most simple tasks at their worst.

:smallconfused:? Saga has that too...you get level/2 ranks in every single skill in the game, and can use most applications untrained. If you're making the argument that d6 is better because you can try and do things you're not trained in it makes me wonder if you've even played saga, as that was one of it's main selling points (that a heavy diplomacy jedi like obi wan could fly a starship too without being trained was something they advertised the game with).


And yes, the extremely narrowed creation and development of characters is indeed a condescending measure, as it basically states that the player requires such a rigid corset to develop suitable characters. And thus, it is not a beacon of respect for the abilities and creativity of neither players nor gamemasters.

You say narrowed creation and development, I say simple system that allows the expression of any character type you desire (within some limits that should be present in order to maintain game balance).

Dragosai
2010-06-03, 10:44 AM
Satyr, I have fond memories of the d6 Star Wars RPG but if Saga was around back in the day of d6, we would have played Saga.

You mentioned about action and d6 vs. Saga? The d6 version does not hold even a candle to Saga in these terms. A first level force user in Saga is fun to play, yeah you are 1st level so you are inexperienced in the force but you still can do a few cool tricks and the sky is the limit as you level up.

In d6 a starting force user can maybe use the force to levitate a coin, if they are VERY lucky on dice rolls.