PDA

View Full Version : Star Wars Saga Rpg: Opinions



illathid
2007-04-09, 10:12 PM
So I just read some previews (read them here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview1), here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview2), and here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20070322jc101)) for the new edition of the Star Wars to be released in may. It looks like they are going to do some really interesting things with the D20 system (introducing a damage threshold/condition track system; combining spot, search, listen, and sense motive; getting rid of skill ranks; etc.). I personally think these are a step in the right direction.

Anyways, I thought I would get everybody's opinion about these changes. Do you love it, hate it, or do the changes fill you with apathy?

jjpickar
2007-04-09, 10:16 PM
I absolutely love the fact that they are combining the skills and I couldn't help but notice they've simplified the stat block. That's all good. But I wish they kept the wound points system. I like it better.

Innis Cabal
2007-04-09, 10:17 PM
don't know, and i do not think its going to be a mirror for the 4th ed for D&D either

illathid
2007-04-09, 10:24 PM
don't know, and i do not think its going to be a mirror for the 4th ed for D&D either

Any reason why you believe they won't port these changes over to 4th edition of D&D? I really don't have info to decide either way, so I'm curious why you think they won't do so.

p.s. Your avatar is one of the best I've seen.

Ruik
2007-04-10, 02:39 AM
The new edition would seem to put itself out there as a lot easier to understand and a lot more fluid to work with... I have my reservations about some things, like getting rid of skill points, but overall it seems like it has potential - I'm personally not going to be that sad to see VP/WP go.

What I really want to see is how they deal with the force in this ed. The old system of having to allocate skill points to normal skills and force skills always seemed wack to me. My low level jedi ended up not being skilled enough to do anything worthwhile, and not capable enough with the force to achieve anything there. Combine that with the fact that your destroying your VP's (I think that was it, its been a few years) every time you use a force power and... well yeah... you get the point.

But this new system of having one 'skill' for the force would seem to be an attempt to address my above problem, so I wait in hope :smallbiggrin:

Emperor Demonking
2007-04-10, 02:46 AM
I like the changes, or at least what we've seen of it. Though sense motive in with spot and listen seems weird.

Kiero
2007-04-10, 04:29 AM
Getting rid of Skill ranks was a stroke of genius, as was merging many of them. Dropping the boring "+2 to two Skills" Feats as well.

Not so sure about the hit points, though. Back to the usual escalating with levels problems.

illathid
2007-04-10, 04:44 AM
This is true, however, if you look at the third thing I linked to, mathematically I don't think the VP/WP worked well for Star Wars either. I'm really interested in seeing what how the "Condition Track" mechanics actually work in play.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-10, 06:54 AM
First impressions, much like D&D 3.5 it looks like they're struggling, somewhat blindly, against the restrictions of their own system. They seem to want to have the flexibility and customisability of a classless system, but can't bring themselves to ditch levels and classes.

Similar with the skill system, I haven't seen a (non D20) game published in the last twenty years that had a "listen" skill. They've just about caught up with the idea of having a single skill for Perception at the point when other games are ditching them.

It's kind of sad in some ways. It's like they've got something that's almost a modern RPG trying to claw its way free from thirty years of baggage. The most interesting bits are the changes to the skill system, which was arguably the bit they had most freedom to change, since it wasn't part of the Sacred Legacy of Gygax. Keeping skills binary is a damned good idea.

Oh! And they're bringing back hit points. Which of course do not represent physical damage, but instead represent your ability to avoid physical damage, which is why big heavy weapons do more damage than small light weapons! Because they're harder to dodge!

Closet_Skeleton
2007-04-10, 07:24 AM
Which of course do not represent physical damage, but instead represent your ability to avoid physical damage, which is why big heavy weapons do more damage than small light weapons! Because they're harder to dodge!

Ssshhh there's a hidden point really...

Kiero
2007-04-10, 07:41 AM
Oh! And they're bringing back hit points. Which of course do not represent physical damage, but instead represent your ability to avoid physical damage, which is why big heavy weapons do more damage than small light weapons! Because they're harder to dodge!

And are strangely only recovered through healing...

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-10, 07:51 AM
And are strangely only recovered through healing...

And you can stop yourself losing them if you wear heavy armour.

Which makes you harder to hit.

Because a hit, you understand, is not really a "hit", but a hit that wounds.

The J Pizzel
2007-04-10, 08:22 AM
I played through about 6 sessions with the old version. It was nice and fun, but was definately hard too slow. I've been following the progression of the game on one of the creators websites (it has since been removed) and it looks really good. A few changes are as follows: (i could be little off on some stuff, it's been a while)

Removal of several classes. There are now only 5 classes. Jedi, Soldier, Scoundrel, Noble, Adept

There will now be talent trees. Similar to Diablo (i think)

The force skill have all been rolled into one skill called "use the force"

Obviously, we're going back to the HP system.

There will no longer be variations of Jedi. There is no Jedi Consular or Jedi Gaurdian. You're a Jedi, play him as you wish (that's not to say there might be a PRC down the road however)

LIGHTSABER DAMAGE DOES NOT SCALE WITH JEDI LEVEL. At lease, not the degree it used to.

The game has been set up with a new design for skills - everyone is skilled in everything. Varying degree of skilled, but everything none the less. Here's how I interpretted his (the creator's) posts: Every class will have two numbers represented for his skills. Lets just say it will be your level and half your level (rounded down of course). Along with these two number there will also be a large number of skill that are class skills. Lets say your a level eleven Jedi. Skills that are class skill you automatically get eleven ranks in, plus your ability modifier. All other skill you get 5 ranks in (half your level rounded down), plus your ability modifier. This is to represent how in the movies everyone could do most stuff, just some could do it better than others. Example: Yoda is not a star pilot. He's not a computer programmer. But he could pilot a ship at least from Dagoba to Coruscant without any difficulties. So he should have some sort of bonus to piloting a ship. He could also easily acces the databank at the Jedi Temple or maybe activate a old model holocron, but he's no Mission (the twilek from KOTOR). Bare in mind this is how I percieved this new system. I could be completely wrong on the whole thing.

Space battles have been improved to be virtually the same as land battles.

There might be more but I'm tired of typing.

pizzel

Theodoxus
2007-04-10, 10:00 AM
I'm sorry Innis Cabal, but I do believe this is the way 4.0 will head. Think of it as 3.75. Fewer classes, more variety in class, better representation of ability/skills (heck, if you watch TV, you can learn to have a decent chance to drive a car or shoot a gun without having previous experience with either - how much more so with skills dependant on your survival?)

However, if the Saga edition isn't a commercial success than WotC will have no choice but to take D&D into a different direction, and that could be good - or bad, depending.

Theo

Justin_Bacon
2007-04-10, 12:31 PM
So I just read some previews (read them here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview1), here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview2), and here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20070322jc101)) for the new edition of the Star Wars to be released in may. It looks like they are going to do some really interesting things with the D20 system (introducing a damage threshold/condition track system; combining spot, search, listen, and sense motive; getting rid of skill ranks; etc.). I personally think these are a step in the right direction.

My opinions are varied.

1. The idea of simplifying the 101 different conditions is a good one. However, it sounds as if they may be taking it too far: If the only thing a poison can do, for example, is move you down the condition track, then you've sacrificed the flexibility of the game system to model many different types of poison.

What would be even worse is if they try to unify everything onto the condition track and then end up creating special case rules in order to model different types of effects.

Now, if they use the condition track to unify certain aspects of many different mechanics, while still using clearly defined conditions to model different types of effects, then they'll have a winner.

2. The idea of using the massive damage threshold to indicate serious injury (and modeling that using the condition track) is excellent. This is hopefully a general move towards eliminating all save-or-die effects.

Save-or-die effects have proven to be one of the major limitations of the game system and, IMO, significantly detract from the enjoyability of higher level play (eventually reducing the game to little more than "who rolls a 1 on their saving throw first").

3. Combining skills to give a shorter skill list is something I've been of a mixed mind about for years. There are usually a couple of trouble-spots with these types of proposals: First, the available skill points aren't adjusted to reflect the reduced number of skills. Second, the skill-combiners get over-zealous and eliminate utility.

Combining Spot and Listen into a single Perception skill, for example, makes sense. Similarly, combining Hide and Move Silently into a single Sneak skill makes sense. These two changes eliminate a ton of dice-rolling and also makes sneaking into a straight opposed check. (In the current system, sneaking is almost impossible except against significantly inferior opponents: Not only is your single check frequently being opposed by multiple opponents, but every single opponent gets to make two different checks to detect you with a success on either resulting in your detection.) This change also has the added benefit of unifying a system which is currently sloppy: Smell is handled with a Spot check, for example. Now you can just have a single Perception skill and make notes for creatures with unusual means of perception (blindsight) or limitations in their perception (blind).

But the proposal being described here sounds over-zealous. You could make a case for combining active Search into passive Perception (although I'd argue that you're better off leaving them separate), but throwing Sense Motive in there, too? No. You've lost way too much flexibility in describing characters at that point. The barbarian who has spent his entire lifetime honing his ability to spot elk on the horizon is now suddenly socially astute? The diplomat who has spent his entire life learning how to read the subtlest indications of emotion is now an expert trap-finder?

It would make a lot more sense to fold Sense Motive into Diplomacy.

4. Getting rid of skill ranks doesn't make any sense to me. It's catering to the myopic, IMO, at the expense of flexible character design.

The system already supports the incredibly simple method of: "Select X number of class skills and add Y to your skill checks." Where X = number of skill points you get and Y = maximum ranks in a class skill.

How much simpler can it get than that, exactly?

The advantage the current system has is that, IF YOU WANT TO, you can further customize a character's skill selection.

Getting rid of the +2/+2 feats is all for the best -- those feats were nothing but clutter to begin with.

The idea of letting characters improve their ability to use every skill with class levels is an interesting one (which removes some of the problems with opposed check disparities at higher levels). It's not a choice I would want to see for D&D or most other games, but for a pulp settings like STAR WARS -- where all of the heroes are good at everything -- it works well.


But I wish they kept the wound points system. I like it better.

The VP/WP system was an abomination that should never have been created.

(a) It's not a very effective way of accomplishing what it accomplishes (making combat more lethal), introducing needless bookkeeping.

(b) Why the pulp action of the STAR WARS universe would prompt anyone to say "we need to make this system more lethal!" has always baffled me.

(c) Many people claim that the system is somehow "cinematic", which frequently prompts me to have an Inigo Montoya moment. The system is more lethal! How does "more lethal" equate to "cinematic"?

(This has been your courtesy VP/WP Rant of the day. :smallsmile:)


What I really want to see is how they deal with the force in this ed. The old system of having to allocate skill points to normal skills and force skills always seemed wack to me. My low level jedi ended up not being skilled enough to do anything worthwhile, and not capable enough with the force to achieve anything there. Combine that with the fact that your destroying your VP's (I think that was it, its been a few years) every time you use a force power and... well yeah... you get the point.

Personally, I think they completely inverted the way the Force should have worked mechanically: They made the things which should be feats into skills and they made the things which should have been skills into feats.

Sense, Alter, and Control: Those are the Jedi skills. You make Sense, Alter, and Control checks in order to use the various Force powers that you pick up by spending feats.

And, yeah, the idea that Jedi should only be able to use the Force "for so long" before collapsing from fatigue has... what? Absolutely no basis in the source material whatsoever?

If you want to model Luke's exertions on Dagobah when Yoda is pushing him to accomplish things he's never accomplished before, add an Extra Effort mechanic that lets any character add a bonus die to a single task at the expense of becoming fatigued.


But this new system of having one 'skill' for the force would seem to be an attempt to address my above problem, so I wait in hope :smallbiggrin:

Indeed. Personally, I'd still like to see the distinction between three skills (Alter, Control, Sense) -- which I've always found to give a utility to modeling Jedi who focus their skills and gifts in different directions. But I suppose in a system where they've stripped out ANY ability to model such distinctions except at the grossest possible level it wouldn't make much difference in any case.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-10, 01:01 PM
But the proposal being described here sounds over-zealous. You could make a case for combining active Search into passive Perception (although I'd argue that you're better off leaving them separate), but throwing Sense Motive in there, too? No. You've lost way too much flexibility in describing characters at that point. The barbarian who has spent his entire lifetime honing his ability to spot elk on the horizon is now suddenly socially astute? The diplomat who has spent his entire life learning how to read the subtlest indications of emotion is now an expert trap-finder?

You're always going to get that, though. Why is a barbarian who spent his entire lifetime honing his ability to spot elk on the horizon any good a spotting orcs underground? Why is a diplomat who has spent his entire life learning how to understand the byzantine complexities of high society intrigues equally capable of detecting the motivations of an Ogre chief?


4. Getting rid of skill ranks doesn't make any sense to me. It's catering to the myopic, IMO, at the expense of flexible character design.

If you want flexible character design, don't use a class-based game. It really is that simple.


The idea of letting characters improve their ability to use every skill with class levels is an interesting one (which removes some of the problems with opposed check disparities at higher levels). It's not a choice I would want to see for D&D or most other games, but for a pulp settings like STAR WARS -- where all of the heroes are good at everything -- it works well.

I think it'd work fairly well for D&D too actually. If you think about it, it follows the same logic as BAB or Hit Points. Everybody gets better at fighting as they level up, everybody gets better at surviving ... sorry ... I mean "avoiding" damage as they level up, everybody gets better skills as they level up.

Basically I think it works for any setting that has Levels and all the associated assumptions of general competence they bring.


The VP/WP system was an abomination that should never have been created.

(a) It's not a very effective way of accomplishing what it accomplishes (making combat more lethal), introducing needless bookkeeping.

(b) Why the pulp action of the STAR WARS universe would prompt anyone to say "we need to make this system more lethal!" has always baffled me.

(c) Many people claim that the system is somehow "cinematic", which frequently prompts me to have an Inigo Montoya moment. The system is more lethal! How does "more lethal" equate to "cinematic"?

(This has been your courtesy VP/WP Rant of the day. :smallsmile:)

You're absolutely right. I think the reason people thought it was more "cinematic" is that it did explicitly and overtly what they are now trying to pretend that Hit Points do, if you see what I mean.

"That blaster bolt whizzes past my ear" is cinematic in a way that "that blaster bolt hits me in the chest for 8 Hit points, but I don't care because I have 240" isn't.

Unfortunately it wound up being more lethal. Which undermined the whole point.

Holocron Coder
2007-04-10, 01:13 PM
I do like the modification of the classes into something similar to d20 modern (via the talent trees).

I agree with Justin_Bacon, though, about the Force Skills. I liked the "variant" they introduced back when for having 4 force skills (Alter, Control, Force, Sense), and putting skill ranks into those instead of individual force actions.

As it is, I'm holding back on judgement until the book is out. You never know what they might throw in at the end.

Beleriphon
2007-04-10, 01:14 PM
I do like the modification of the classes into something similar to d20 modern (via the talent trees).

I agree with Justin_Bacon, though, about the Force Skills. I liked the "variant" they introduced back when for having 4 force skills (Alter, Control, Force, Sense), and putting skill ranks into those instead of individual force actions.

As it is, I'm holding back on judgement until the book is out. You never know what they might throw in at the end.

I think they're doing a single Use Force skill and then you pick up feats or other nifty abilities that use Use Force as the trigger.

Justin_Bacon
2007-04-10, 02:32 PM
You're always going to get that, though. Why is a barbarian who spent his entire lifetime honing his ability to spot elk on the horizon any good a spotting orcs underground? Why is a diplomat who has spent his entire life learning how to understand the byzantine complexities of high society intrigues equally capable of detecting the motivations of an Ogre chief?

Sure. It's a question of what types of character you want to be able to distinguish between.

Is there much use in distinguishing between "a guy who's good at spotting things aboveground" and "a guy who's good at spotting things underground"? Maybe. But probably not often enough to justify a whole new skill.

Is there utility in distinguishing between "a guy who's good at spotting threats" and "a guy who's good at reading other people's emotions"? Yeah. Frequently. The effete diplomat who's oblivious to real world dangers and the rough-and-tough guy who's oblivious in social situations are fairly fundamental archetypes.


If you want flexible character design, don't use a class-based game. It really is that simple.

You're claiming that D&D isn't as flexible as D&D is? That's going to be a rather difficult argument for you to make. :smalltongue:

Silliness aside, my point is this: D&D does a pretty solid job of giving you the advantages of a class system (clear archetypes) while still giving you flexibility to customize your character. I'm pretty comfortable with the basic balance it's found, although some tweaking is still possible.

One of the problems I see with the decisions they're making for SAGA is that they seem to be trying to move in two directions at once:

On the one hand they literally want to be able to have two members of the same class that have absolutely nothing in common with each other (this is explicitly listed as a design goal in the previews). This completely obliviates the usefulness of a class system.

But, at the same time, they're making decisions which make the system less flexible in terms of modeling variation between individual characters.

Way to find the worst of both worlds, guys!

The biggest change I would make to the way D&D does things? Create a PC version of the Expert class. This "class" would actually be mechanically identical to "create a character without using classes". It would allow you to have all the strong archetypes of a class system, but for those situations where you want to be able to fully customize a character you could grab the Expert class and work it up.

That's how you get the best of both worlds.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Merlin the Tuna
2007-04-10, 04:12 PM
4. Getting rid of skill ranks doesn't make any sense to me. It's catering to the myopic, IMO, at the expense of flexible character design.

The system already supports the incredibly simple method of: "Select X number of class skills and add Y to your skill checks." Where X = number of skill points you get and Y = maximum ranks in a class skill.

How much simpler can it get than that, exactly?First off, "simple" doesn't necessarily mean "good." Though simplicity and consistency are certainly good design goals to have, they can lead to as many problems as overcomplication does by reducing things to counterintuitive options. That said, clearly it can get simpler by folding skills sensibly and by using general formulas rather than allocating individual skill points.

Moreover, I have to give near complete support to the folding and scaling that SWS is going towards, and look forward to being able to piece together bits of it for use in D&D. As you mentioned, opposed checks are often ridiculous as levels go up, which clearly presents something of a problem - especially because it makes the checks which do scale reasonably (Intimidate, for example) utter slop compared to those that don't (Diplomacy, similarly).

Folding needs to happen as well, since there are skills that either are no-brainers (Open Lock + Disable Device, as in D20 Modern) or pretty close (it's difficult to justify Spot and Search being separate given that we don't have Listen and Hear as separate skills). Further, there are skills that are vastly more useful than others - given the option between putting ranks in Use Rope and Use Magic Device, which one are you going to do? Make Use Rope a function of, say, Sleight of Hand, and the decision isn't quite as obvious, and you also feel like way less of a sucker if you decide to Skill Focus it.

Further, I expect a class to be a package of abilities, but I don't expect that my magical training somehow prevents me from being good at listening. Class skills serve to lock players into archetypes, which is a pretty weak sauce way of playing the game.

I agree that zealously folding skills together but not reducing the number of skill points/trained skills/whatevers is hazardous, but that's a problem of implementations, not of the concepts themselves. Really, the only thing that I'd say I'll miss about skill points are Skill Tricks. It might take some homebrew, but I'll be pleased to figure out a way to merge the concepts.


On the one hand they literally want to be able to have two members of the same class that have absolutely nothing in common with each other (this is explicitly listed as a design goal in the previews). This completely obliviates the usefulness of a class system.

But, at the same time, they're making decisions which make the system less flexible in terms of modeling variation between individual characters.I'd tend to disagree. The Psion can play out extremely differently depending on the decision you make regarding your discipline. The Tome of Battle base classes all end up looking unique by the time you level up a few times. And perhaps most tellingly, the D20 Modern classes can all look very different depending on what abilities you select. They all work wonderfully with the class system.

The loss of skill points does restrict some customization in one area for the purpose of broad practicality (though presumably being able to be "trained" in anything pretty much obviates that problem), but including Talents introduces a new one. They're not necessarily shooting themselves in the foot here.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-10, 04:42 PM
Sure. It's a question of what types of character you want to be able to distinguish between.

Quite so. And that distinction is based almost entirely on the way you're thinking of the characters at the time.


Is there much use in distinguishing between "a guy who's good at spotting things aboveground" and "a guy who's good at spotting things underground"? Maybe. But probably not often enough to justify a whole new skill.

Is there utility in distinguishing between "a guy who's good at spotting threats" and "a guy who's good at reading other people's emotions"? Yeah. Frequently. The effete diplomat who's oblivious to real world dangers and the rough-and-tough guy who's oblivious in social situations are fairly fundamental archetypes.

Only because of the way you phrase it. You could just as easily phrase it as: Is there much use in distinguishing between a guy who's good at spotting things about the environment, and a guy who's good at spotting things about people. Is there utility in distinguishing between a character who knows how to survive in the wilderness and a character who knows the tell-tale signs of traps and mechanisms? Frequently, and the wilderness ranger and the urban dungeoneer are fairly fundamental archetypes.

It's all about the way you look at things.


You're claiming that D&D isn't as flexible as D&D is? That's going to be a rather difficult argument for you to make. :smalltongue:

I'm claiming D&D isn't as flexible as any skills-based system.


Silliness aside, my point is this: D&D does a pretty solid job of giving you the advantages of a class system (clear archetypes) while still giving you flexibility to customize your character. I'm pretty comfortable with the basic balance it's found, although some tweaking is still possible.

Yes, it does. It does this by having a class system.

I think, however, that the key word here is "customise". In D&D you can "customise" your character in the same way you can "customise" your desktop in Windows. Ultimately all you're making are fairly cosmetic changes. Barbarians always rage, fighters are always trained in every single non-exotic weapon that exists, wizards are always Intelligent.

A non-class-based system allows you to actually *create* your character, which is a whole different level of flexibility.


One of the problems I see with the decisions they're making for SAGA is that they seem to be trying to move in two directions at once:

On the one hand they literally want to be able to have two members of the same class that have absolutely nothing in common with each other (this is explicitly listed as a design goal in the previews). This completely obliviates the usefulness of a class system.

This is very true.


But, at the same time, they're making decisions which make the system less flexible in terms of modeling variation between individual characters.

Way to find the worst of both worlds, guys!

I don't think trimming down the skill system actually makes it less flexible. As they point out in the previews, most people take skills which are either maxed out or zero. The additional functionality of being able to be less-than-maximally-good at something is seldom used and seldom useful.


The biggest change I would make to the way D&D does things? Create a PC version of the Expert class. This "class" would actually be mechanically identical to "create a character without using classes". It would allow you to have all the strong archetypes of a class system, but for those situations where you want to be able to fully customize a character you could grab the Expert class and work it up.

That's how you get the best of both worlds.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


What would its Base Attack progression be?

Matthew
2007-04-10, 08:38 PM
I don't know. I am quite happy with Spot, Listen, Sneak, Hide and Search as separate skills. It was really the way Skill Ranks and Points worked and interacted with levels that bothered me.
Hit Points are always a problem. Wound Points and Vitality Points were a good attempt. 'Veto' Points always seemed like a good idea to me, increasing with level, replenished per 'adventure' or somesuch thing and expended to negate harmful events. Almost exactly the same as Vitality Points.

Beleriphon
2007-04-11, 02:17 AM
I think the skill trimming is important for a Star Wars game. I don't think it would necessarily be appropriate for any other type of game for for Star Wars it seems like it would fit very nicely.

Justin_Bacon
2007-04-11, 08:48 AM
First off, "simple" doesn't necessarily mean "good." Though simplicity and consistency are certainly good design goals to have, they can lead to as many problems as overcomplication does by reducing things to counterintuitive options. That said, clearly it can get simpler by folding skills sensibly and by using general formulas rather than allocating individual skill points.

Except that doesn't actually make it any simpler to make a character, it just makes it less flexible.

One system says, "Pick X skills to be trained in and you'll have bonus Y in each of them."

The other system says, "Pick X skills to be trained in and you'll have bonus Y in each of them. OR you could divvy that bonus up between several different skills."

It is equally simple to create a character in both systems. The only difference is that the latter system also gives you a flexible option WHEN YOU WANT IT.


As you mentioned, opposed checks are often ridiculous as levels go up, which clearly presents something of a problem - especially because it makes the checks which do scale reasonably (Intimidate, for example) utter slop compared to those that don't (Diplomacy, similarly).

The problem with Diplomacy is that it isn't an opposed check, when it should be. Folding skills won't solve that problem.


Make Use Rope a function of, say, Sleight of Hand, and the decision isn't quite as obvious, and you also feel like way less of a sucker if you decide to Skill Focus it.

This is a fold which is a bad idea because looking for "tying ropes" under a "sleight of hand" skill makes no intuitive sense whatsoever.


I agree that zealously folding skills together but not reducing the number of skill points/trained skills/whatevers is hazardous, but that's a problem of implementations, not of the concepts themselves.

Like I said in my original message, there are two potential problems with folding skills. That's one of them. The over is doing a poor job of folding them so that utility is reduced, flexibility is removed, and opportunities for unique character design become overly constrained.




On the one hand they literally want to be able to have two members of the same class that have absolutely nothing in common with each other (this is explicitly listed as a design goal in the previews). This completely obliviates the usefulness of a class system.

But, at the same time, they're making decisions which make the system less flexible in terms of modeling variation between individual characters.

I'd tend to disagree. The Psion can play out extremely differently depending on the decision you make regarding your discipline. The Tome of Battle base classes all end up looking unique by the time you level up a few times. And perhaps most tellingly, the D20 Modern classes can all look very different depending on what abilities you select. They all work wonderfully with the class system.

What, exactly, are you disagreeing with?

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Justin_Bacon
2007-04-11, 08:55 AM
Only because of the way you phrase it. You could just as easily phrase it as: Is there much use in distinguishing between a guy who's good at spotting things about the environment, and a guy who's good at spotting things about people.

Yes. Didn't I just get done saying that? I'm not sure what you think changing the verb accomplished.


Is there utility in distinguishing between a character who knows how to survive in the wilderness and a character who knows the tell-tale signs of traps and mechanisms?

Yes. Which is why trying to fold Search and Survival into a single skill wouldn't make any sense to me. (It's also an argument against folding Search into Spot.)


I'm claiming D&D isn't as flexible as any skills-based system.

Ah. I see. I was confused because you were replying to my message and quoting my message, so I naturally assumed you were talking about my message. Apparently you were not.


I don't think trimming down the skill system actually makes it less flexible. As they point out in the previews, most people take skills which are either maxed out or zero. The additional functionality of being able to be less-than-maximally-good at something is seldom used and seldom useful.

If it's seldom used then why is it supposedly complicating high-level character creation? Their argument defeats itself.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-11, 09:28 AM
Yes. Didn't I just get done saying that? I'm not sure what you think changing the verb accomplished.

Because by changing the phrasing you can make different distinctions seem meaningless.


Yes. Which is why trying to fold Search and Survival into a single skill wouldn't make any sense to me. (It's also an argument against folding Search into Spot.)

Or it's an argument in favour of rolling all your attempts to spot elk off Survival, and all your attempts to spot traps off Knowledge: Dungeoneering.

And that's the point, any given skill could be possessed by many different characters, all of whom *should* have completely different skillsets. A rogue's "spot" is all about spotting traps, a barbarian's "spot" is all about spotting elk. You can think of this as the same skill or as different skills.

Diplomacy is similar, does it really make sense for one skill to cover haggling with merchants, negotiating with bandits, whispering in the ear of the king, striking pacts with demons, getting in good with the thieves' guild and indeed any and all forms of social interaction you could possible care to name?

Justin_Bacon
2007-04-13, 01:38 AM
Because by changing the phrasing you can make different distinctions seem meaningless.

Was that the goal? You kinda failed horribly, then.


Or it's an argument in favour of rolling all your attempts to spot elk off Survival, and all your attempts to spot traps off Knowledge: Dungeoneering.I suppose. Personally I find the synergy rules are more than sufficient for handling that. (Although there are certainly plenty of people who limit their use to synergy rules to the hard-coded synergy bonuses and nothing but the hard-coded synergy bonuses, which seems like a bit of a waste.)


Diplomacy is similar, does it really make sense for one skill to cover haggling with merchants, negotiating with bandits, whispering in the ear of the king, striking pacts with demons, getting in good with the thieves' guild and indeed any and all forms of social interaction you could possible care to name?Some people are just good with people. Can you describe to me a common, archetypal character concept where it would be particularly important to denote the distinction between one-type of gifted persuader and another?

And, again, I find this type of subtle gradation -- the difference between someone with street savvy and someone skilled in royal courts -- to be handled admirably through synergy. The royal diplomat may be a little out of his element when it comes to haggling with a common merchant, but it's not like he's going to be completely clueless about how to approach a negotiation.

I'm assuming you've simply conceded the other points under discussion.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-13, 08:37 AM
Some people are just good with people. Can you describe to me a common, archetypal character concept where it would be particularly important to denote the distinction between one-type of gifted persuader and another?

You're starting from a false premise. You're working on the assumption that "gifted persuader" is an archetype. It has become an archetype, because social skills always get lousy treatment in RPGs and one person winds up being the party face, so "the guy who can talk literally anybody into literally anything" has become a mainstay.

Since you ask, though:

The Charming Rogue: Good at seducing people, being glib, fast talking people for just long enough to run away. Not actually particularly good at persuading people do do things in general.

The Evil Counselor: Good at persuading kings to pursue foolish or craven policies. Not so good at persuading their daughters to sleep with him.

The Bluff Commander: Good at keeping the troops in line, good at persuading people to fight battles or join him for an ale. Not remotely good at making the case for increased military spending or the need to do something about the dark lord really right now.

Kiero
2007-04-14, 06:10 AM
There's a third preview (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview3) up on the Force. Any thoughts on the comment I've seen elsewhere that Use the Force should have been based on Wisdom, not Charisma?

All in all, it's looking most promising in cutting out all the wasteful guff that adds nothing. Simpler is better, IMO.

Besides once the thing is out, I'm sure someone will come up with a houserule that removes level-escalation of hit points. I'd rather have some fixed number based on Strength and Constitution (along maybe with Wisdom as willpower/pain resistance). Like how Unisystem does Life Points.

Zincorium
2007-04-14, 06:23 AM
There's a third preview (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview3) up on the Force. Any thoughts on the comment I've seen elsewhere that Use the Force should have been based on Wisdom, not Charisma?

All in all, it's looking most promising in cutting out all the wasteful guff that adds nothing. Simpler is better, IMO.

Besides once the thing is out, I'm sure someone will come up with a houserule that removes level-escalation of hit points. I'd rather have some fixed number based on Strength and Constitution (along maybe with Wisdom as willpower/pain resistance). Like how Unisystem does Life Points.

All I can say is 'reach out with your feelings, Luke' would definitely suggest charisma to me.

And there are a lot of alternatives to hit points, but I think this works okay for what it is. Really, what I've seen a lot in d20 games is misapplication of rules.

Example: armor in d20 modern adds to defense. But kevlar vests reduce the amount of energy and penetration of a bullet after it hits you. Stormtrooper armor in the old d20 star wars grants DR. But what it does, according to the explanations I've read, is deflect non-direct hits from blasters.

The two quite clearly should be opposite, with kevlar granting DR versus ballistic weapons and the storm trooper armor adding to your AC with it's deflecting.

The vitality/wound system would seem to work well in a D&D game based off most fantasy books, where anyone who actually seems to get wounded is mortally so. Whereas hit points and their abstraction would seem to fit SW, with it's habit of beating about and maiming it's protagonists without killing them outright.

Kiero
2007-04-14, 06:36 AM
That's not my issue. Mine is the fact that a 20th level person could have 20 times as many hit points as a 1st level one. Thus what would work for me is a fixed hitpoint allocation that isn't based on level.

Like add Strength and Constitution for your hitpoint total. Or a base number (for starting class?) plus some modifier for Strength and Constitution. Thus hitpoints only change when either of those do. And a super-tough heroic type might have twice as many hitpoints as a normal person, but not tens of times more.

Justin_Bacon
2007-04-16, 03:00 PM
You're starting from a false premise. You're working on the assumption that "gifted persuader" is an archetype. It has become an archetype, because social skills always get lousy treatment in RPGs

Go read a few books, pop a few movies into the DVD player, and maybe even watch a play or two. It's not like THE MUSIC MAN was transcribed from a D&D session and people were never gifted with silver-tongues before Gygax and Arneson first set pen to paper.

Sheesh.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Kiero
2007-04-19, 06:30 PM
And here's the fourth preview (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview4), this time combat.

Ruik
2007-04-19, 10:23 PM
Comparing what I remember of the force in the old edditions, the new rules seem on the face of it to be lightyears ahead... But I have to say i'm unsure about how I feel regarding the 'one attack' per round.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-04-19, 11:06 PM
But I have to say i'm unsure about how I feel regarding the 'one attack' per round.It's different, certainly, but consider that damage scales linearly with level rather than attack, and you realize you're getting about the same output with better mobility (since you don't need to rely on full-attacks to deal respectable damage) and without the effect of "I swing at him four times like a true hero, hitting with the first and missing wildly with the rest." Think of it as a sort of auto-power attack.

I'm liking what I'm seeing out of this system. Shame I'm not much a fan of Star Wars.

Theodoxus
2007-04-19, 11:06 PM
I like the use of DC checks for the mundane uses of the force, and I love the use of maneuver-like abilities - even down to the 'once used, you have to do something to gain it back' attribute - for the more exotic uses. Talent Trees will (I assume/hope) allow Jedi (and other force using traditions) to become unique in their own way. I really hope that there doesn't end up being one Tree that is 'THE WAY TO GO' - has all the best (i.e. most useful) powers. Some give and take is essential to good character development.

This last treatsie has totally piqued my interest in the book...

Theo

Ruik
2007-04-20, 12:10 AM
It's different, certainly, but consider that damage scales linearly with level rather than attack, and you realize you're getting about the same output with better mobility (since you don't need to rely on full-attacks to deal respectable damage) and without the effect of "I swing at him four times like a true hero, hitting with the first and missing wildly with the rest." Think of it as a sort of auto-power attack.That's a fair point I guess. That being said I hate it when you have one attack per round... and miss... and sit there. It doesn't feel very heroic at all.

But I do see your point, and it would also make easing new gamers into the system a lot smoother.

Kiero
2007-04-20, 04:44 AM
Passive saving throws are a very good thing. Less die-rolls.

henebry
2007-04-20, 10:34 AM
You're starting from a false premise. You're working on the assumption that "gifted persuader" is an archetype. It has become an archetype, because social skills always get lousy treatment in RPGs and one person winds up being the party face, so "the guy who can talk literally anybody into literally anything" has become a mainstay.

Since you ask, though:

The Charming Rogue: Good at seducing people, being glib, fast talking people for just long enough to run away. Not actually particularly good at persuading people do do things in general.

The Evil Counselor: Good at persuading kings to pursue foolish or craven policies. Not so good at persuading their daughters to sleep with him.

The Gruff Commander: Good at keeping the troops in line, good at persuading people to fight battles or join him for an ale. Not remotely good at making the case for increased military spending or the need to do something about the dark lord really right now.

I couldn't agree more. The plot of Shakespeare's Coriolanus (as also his Titus Andronicus) turns on the incapacity of the Gruff commander archetype to charm or to counsel effectively in the context of the city/forum.

Makes me wonder what rpgs would be like if D&D had been invented by a troupe of dramatists rather than by a group of wargamers.

Annarrkkii
2007-04-20, 12:23 PM
I <3 Vitality/Wound Point System.

It has it's flaws, sure, but it's so much more cinematic, intense, and realistic than the hitpoint system. It looks especially cool when combined with Tome of Battle.

I will appreciate it if they revise it and improve it some, but I will be angry if the VP/WP system is too greatly changed or, worse, replaced.

White Blade
2007-04-20, 01:20 PM
I <3 Vitality/Wound Point System.

It has it's flaws, sure, but it's so much more cinematic, intense, and realistic than the hitpoint system. It looks especially cool when combined with Tome of Battle.

I will appreciate it if they revise it and improve it some, but I will be angry if the VP/WP system is too greatly changed or, worse, replaced.

Its totally gone. And I disagree, it made combat a fatalistic game of Russian Roulette. How is it Han can run into a fully battery of Stormtroopers and live with that system?

Anyway, now that I've returned from the abyss, I'm getting ready a campagain (Star Wars), and its gonna be me, a somewhat experienced friend, and a whole bunch of n00bs (assuming all goes according to Plan). So I decided to check out the SW site, and much to my joy, their revising the dumb confusing system. I agree with their "presumption" on skills. No point in having ranks, especially not if there aren't any BIG rewards for doing so, which now that everyone can do everything (not something I think would work outside the Star Wars, but in context, an excellent idea.), there aren't.

I'm a bit worried that force users will become too powerful, and too common. But I guess we'll see.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-04-20, 01:23 PM
I will appreciate it if they revise it and improve it some, but I will be angry if the VP/WP system is too greatly changed or, worse, replaced.Already been covered. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20070322jc101) It's been dropped on account of being far too lethal; that doesn't line up well with "cinematic," where heroes are expected to take an appreciable amount of punishment rather than getting gunned down by Stormtrooper #428b.

That having been said, the things in the latest update that Kiero linked to provides some interesting compromises. The condition track seems to model the "1 HP doesn't mean you're whistling Dixie" issue unless you spend some time catching your breath, and the second wind provides a nice bit of heroic oomph without the need for rather ugly mechanics like action points.

Annarrkkii
2007-04-20, 01:30 PM
NOOOO!

Got damn it. Now it's back to the D+D mode. Two jedi battling each other on a catwalk, with each one "just grazing" the other three times every round...

Incidentally, I never used the Critical Hits Bypass VP option. I had a Critical Hit deal 1 WP per damage die of the weapon and double VP damage.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-04-20, 01:46 PM
NOOOO!

Got damn it. Now it's back to the D+D mode. Two jedi battling each other on a catwalk, with each one "just grazing" the other three times every round...

Incidentally, I never used the Critical Hits Bypass VP option. I had a Critical Hit deal 1 WP per damage die of the weapon and double VP damage.Bleh. Not sure that [what I had here initially] was in keeping with the CoC or not. Best to be cautious, I suppose. At any rate, it's not back to D&D mode at all - this is very Star Wars, and it's something I hope becomes very D&D.

Even high level Jedi get only 1 attack per round; damage scales with level rather than granting extra attacks. Those "grazes" are considerably beefier, and combat is more all-or-nothing than the I-swing-at-you-4-times-and-hit-once of D&D. This is entirely in keeping with Star Wars, wherein getting hit by a lightsaber is a Very Bad Thing.

Incidentally, as there's only one attack per round, melee warriors get more actions to play with, so that battle on the catwalk will involve more than 5 foot steps. It's similar to Tome of Battle in this regard - a warrior can have an appreciable affect with a standard action and still have a move action and a swift action for other dickery.

The condition track introduces penalties for heavy damage strikes (like a lightsaber slash from an experienced Jedi/Sith) as well as poison, etc. This means that when you take a big hit, you feel it without it killing you. It provides a reason to take a couple rounds to retreat and catch your breath. Like a cinematic battle.

If the system is at all like it's been described, it's pretty clearly a step up from D&D's HP system, and a tremendous improvement on the VP/Wound system, which explicitly does not do that which it sets out to do.

Ruik
2007-04-20, 07:46 PM
Got damn it. Now it's back to the D+D mode. Two jedi battling each other on a catwalk, with each one "just grazing" the other three times every round...Won't be 3 times a round 'cause you only get one attack per round.

Annarrkkii
2007-04-20, 10:02 PM
Oh. Well. That's cool. I'll just go back to my corner and actually read some of these articles instead of talking through my hat...

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-21, 12:16 PM
Even high level Jedi get only 1 attack per round; damage scales with level rather than granting extra attacks. Those "grazes" are considerably beefier, and combat is more all-or-nothing than the I-swing-at-you-4-times-and-hit-once of D&D. This is entirely in keeping with Star Wars, wherein getting hit by a lightsaber is a Very Bad Thing.


But there's still going to be a huge difference between the films, where one hit from a lightsaber means the fight is over, period, and incidentally somebody probably lost an arm, and the game, where - even with the condition track a hit from a lightsaber won't slow you down that much.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-21, 12:21 PM
Go read a few books, pop a few movies into the DVD player, and maybe even watch a play or two. It's not like THE MUSIC MAN was transcribed from a D&D session and people were never gifted with silver-tongues before Gygax and Arneson first set pen to paper.


A "silver tongue" is the result of a high charisma score.

"Can persuade anybody to do anything" isn't the stock character archetype you make it out to be. If it was, Wormtongue would have just talked Gandalf into leaving Rohan.

Justin_Bacon
2007-04-21, 11:39 PM
"Can persuade anybody to do anything" isn't the stock character archetype you make it out to be. If it was, Wormtongue would have just talked Gandalf into leaving Rohan.

Tell ya what. Why don't you get back to me when you're interested in actually discussing what I actually said and not some bizarro-world strawman that you made up out of thin air a couple posts back?

Thanks.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Ruik
2007-04-22, 12:17 AM
But there's still going to be a huge difference between the films, where one hit from a lightsaber means the fight is over, period, and incidentally somebody probably lost an arm, and the game, where - even with the condition track a hit from a lightsaber won't slow you down that much.I'm not sure there is an answer to that - if they came up with a mechanic to accurately it would nerf the whole game. Besides, don't they say that your not actually getting 'hit' so much, but that your loss of hp represents you dodging the blade? Or something along those lines...

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-22, 05:15 AM
I'm not sure there is an answer to that - if they came up with a mechanic to accurately it would nerf the whole game. Besides, don't they say that your not actually getting 'hit' so much, but that your loss of hp represents you dodging the blade? Or something along those lines...

They say that, but they say that in D&D as well. It makes very little sense.

Why does not-being-hit with a lightsaber cause you to lose more HP than not-being-hit with an ordinary sword? And why are the HP which you lost through not-being-hit restored through a process called "healing"?

They're basically trapped in this horrible bind where they really *want* to emulate the Star Wars movies but, because it's a D20 game they're *really* still emulating D&D.

If you want to model lightsaber duels properly, you can't use a hit-points and vairable weapon damage system.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-04-22, 05:40 AM
They say that, but they say that in D&D as well. It makes very little sense.

Why does not-being-hit with a lightsaber cause you to lose more HP than not-being-hit with an ordinary sword? And why are the HP which you lost through not-being-hit restored through a process called "healing"?

They're basically trapped in this horrible bind where they really *want* to emulate the Star Wars movies but, because it's a D20 game they're *really* still emulating D&D.

If you want to model lightsaber duels properly, you can't use a hit-points and vairable weapon damage system.

Then go play Inquisitor... Brilliant dueling system, terrible for fighting Stormtroopers.

Kiero
2007-04-22, 05:41 AM
They say that, but they say that in D&D as well. It makes very little sense.

Why does not-being-hit with a lightsaber cause you to lose more HP than not-being-hit with an ordinary sword? And why are the HP which you lost through not-being-hit restored through a process called "healing"?

They're basically trapped in this horrible bind where they really *want* to emulate the Star Wars movies but, because it's a D20 game they're *really* still emulating D&D.

If you want to model lightsaber duels properly, you can't use a hit-points and vairable weapon damage system.

Aye, better that misses are misses, and hits are hits.

Attilargh
2007-04-22, 05:50 AM
...Yeah. Especially when a Legendary Hero of the 20th Glorious Level takes a hit from a Rancor that would've killed seventeen ordinary men and doesn't even flinch. "I'm alright, I'm alright!"

How can one be less dead than one's more inexperienced friend if both of them step onto same kinds of mines? To me, it's even sillier than being worse off for not-getting-hit with a lightsaber instead of a knife.

Ædit: Oh, right, sorry. You [Kiero] didn't like scaling hit points either, which kinda makes my point moot.

Kiero
2007-05-04, 06:52 PM
Preview 5: Advanced Combat Training (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview5)

TheThan
2007-05-04, 07:06 PM
I’m waiting to get my hands on it before I make a decision on the thing.

Winged One
2007-05-04, 07:51 PM
Well, I'm actually glad that I procrastinated so much on getting the core books of the old system. It's looking good so far.

Guild_Master
2007-05-04, 08:38 PM
I don't look forward to buying all new books. I guess I will be joining the ranks of WEG Star Wars gamers and 2nd Ed D&Ders that due to economics choose to keep playing the system they invested hundreds of dollars into. :smallfrown:

Kiero
2007-05-05, 05:06 AM
Why do you need to buy more than the corebook? And is something stopping you selling off your old books that you don't use, if cost is a bar?

illathid
2007-05-05, 05:12 AM
They've said it should be fairly easy to convert most of the older stuff to the new edition.

Guild_Master
2007-05-05, 12:46 PM
They've said it should be fairly easy to convert most of the older stuff to the new edition.

I quess, we'll see.

Caelestion
2007-05-05, 02:26 PM
They've said it should be fairly easy to convert most of the older stuff to the new edition.
That's what they always say. They are not likely to say "this will completely invalidate everything we've ever sold you, so buy it anyway".

Catch
2007-05-05, 02:29 PM
That's what they always say. They are not likely to say "this will completely invalidate everything we've ever sold you, so buy it anyway".

"But look at all the new supplements we're coming out with! You can buy them too!"

Caelestion
2007-05-05, 02:39 PM
Heh. "We'll also re-release all the sourcebooks with slight revisions with the rules. We know it's really easy to translate*, but some people will like the conversion."

(* = In other words, "We're the designers and WE have trouble converting.")

Kiero
2007-05-10, 06:25 PM
Preview Part 6 - Droids (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview6)

Kiero
2007-05-18, 04:15 AM
Preview Part 7 - Skirmish at the Sarlacc Pit (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview7)