PDA

View Full Version : Deciding Star Wars RPG



Ragnell-Master
2016-01-06, 09:17 PM
I'm considering on purchasing one of the Star Wars rpg's and need help deciding on which to go for. Can someone give me information on some of these like Edge of the Empire, WotC's version, and possibly others? Like the benefits for having a certain one and their drawbacks, for example. Any help is appreciated.

Dienekes
2016-01-07, 02:21 AM
d6: Really good original trilogy feel. Some design that is rather outdated such as overlap in skills. Force powers and lightsabers are overpowered, though some consider that a feature not a bug. However, immortal wookiees most definitely is a bug. You get a high enough toughness (or whatever the equivalent is called, it's been awhile since I've played) and you are pretty much immune to damage.

Star Wars RPG and Revised Edition: Crap

Star Wars Saga Edition: Arguably the best d20 system to come out of WotC. Classes are present but dipping is encouraged. Everyone is largely streamlined so that everyone can contribute fairly equally every level be they Jedi or Scoundrels, though the math gets a bit wonky at the very low and very high levels (Force powers are ridiculous level 1-3, but by level 17-20 everyone's resistances are high enough that the effectiveness drops off). Fun, high powered, but could use a once or twice over to smooth out some of the details, like CT Killers that can one-shot Darth Vader and abusing Reflex Defense to become unhittable.

Edge of the Empire: I have not played, but I've heard nothing but good things about playing the system. That said, the companies marketing and selling practices I find disagreeable so I have refused to buy the books.

Mutazoia
2016-01-07, 03:21 AM
Another of these thread's eh?

Well, as always, I'll recommend the D6 version. Despite what some people think, lightsabers and force powers are not as OP as they seem, considering the game assumes you're playing in the OT universe (since the game was made long before the prequels). This means that getting your force skills high enough to be on par with Luke in Empire, is going to be a very rough road (skill point expense wise).

Blasterproof wookies are only blaster proof against standard blaster pistols. (you resist damage with your str. score, standard blaster pistols do 4d6 wookies roll 5d6.) That advantage drops quickly with heavy pistols, rifles, carbines and heavyer weapons (ie a riot gun does 8d stun damage), and that's before you factor in any damage boosting modifications you can do to the weapons.

All in all, it is a fast paced, easy to learn, easy to run game that mimics the flair of the movies extremely well. There are far less loop holes and grey areas that you'll find in Saga edition, and more source material available than the other editions combined.

Malifice
2016-01-07, 04:38 AM
To emulate the movies best?

Saga edition, hands down.

hifidelity2
2016-01-07, 06:05 AM
I have only ever played the D6 - but it is fun, quick and keeps the feel of the movies

Kaiu Keiichi
2016-01-07, 10:12 AM
I currently run Force and Destiny, and it's amazing. Once you get past the custom dice thing, the core mechanic is really simple. My group runs it. I run two live games - Age of Rebellion set on Nar Shadaa and a Force and Destiny game set on Tython.

A relatively painless way of trying the game is to pick up one of the boxed starter sets and play the sample adventure. You get a set of dice as part of the box. It runs $30. The core books are gorgeous and are great Star Wars collectibles in and of themselves. They're a deep investment but are very complete, and represent as much of an investment as Pathfinder or D&D 5E. Everything you need for a campaign is in one of the core books.

I can answer any questions about the line you might have since I am actively running it right now.

Anonymouswizard
2016-01-07, 10:37 AM
It depends on what you want. I've only played Edge of the Empire, and I'm not fond of it. Damage is too low for me, and there's little I've been able to spend advantage on outside of combat (just let the player spend successes on bonus effects!). I have no problems with the narrative nature, and enjoyed it enough that I'd play it if my group was playing it, but have enough of a dislike that I'd suggest just not buying the books.

I've also read the d6 version (well, d6 Space, which is basically the same thing), and just prefer it. Not owning a physical book means I'll never run it, but the system just seems to be better to me, as well as placing everybody in the same book. I'd recommend getting the free! pdf of the system, because it's good and costs a few seconds (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/20447/D6-Space?term=d6+sp&it=1).

Mutazoia
2016-01-07, 11:14 AM
It depends on what you want. I've only played Edge of the Empire, and I'm not fond of it. Damage is too low for me, and there's little I've been able to spend advantage on outside of combat (just let the player spend successes on bonus effects!). I have no problems with the narrative nature, and enjoyed it enough that I'd play it if my group was playing it, but have enough of a dislike that I'd suggest just not buying the books.

I've also read the d6 version (well, d6 Space, which is basically the same thing), and just prefer it. Not owning a physical book means I'll never run it, but the system just seems to be better to me, as well as placing everybody in the same book. I'd recommend getting the free! pdf of the system, because it's good and costs a few seconds (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/20447/D6-Space?term=d6+sp&it=1).

most of the SWD6 books are archived and available at D6holocron.com

neonchameleon
2016-01-07, 12:07 PM
To emulate the movies best?

Saga edition, hands down.

Only if by "Hands down" you want either (a) the Prequels or (b) mean that the Jedi are cutting hands off with lightsabers again.

Saga Edition is the Jedi Edition or the Prequel Edition where Force powers rule all.

d6 edition is the Commando Edition (where at one point they call the Lightsaber the Universal Cutting Tool). Despite predating the EU it's also the EU edition in that a lot of the EU is based heavily on the d6 edition.

FFG/Silly Dice (Edge of Empire and co.) is relatively force-light, and Edge of Empire in specific has no rules for Jedi with more power than Obi Wan actually shows in the original film. They get stronger because each of the core books matches one of the main trilogy, and Luke's much stronger in RotJ than in ANH.

The FFG mechanics are richer than in WEG/d6 - whether you think that's a good thing or not is up to you.

Dienekes
2016-01-07, 03:28 PM
Huh? In Saga Edition the best builds are usually considered Scoundrel/Assassin CT Killers, unhittable Scouts, and Soldiers that abuse the armor and area attack feats and talents, or shield droids. There is an immortal Force-user build, but it runs on Force Points which means it can only pull off it's trick a few times per level.

Frankly, after level 5ish Jedi don't really rule anything except melee combat and even then because of how the withdrawal rules were changed it's not exactly hard to put them in a position where they can never get a full-attack off.

Of course, Skill Focus: Use the Force before level 3 is broken. No argument there, it just does not remain as powerful mid-levels.

halcyonforever
2016-01-07, 04:05 PM
Call me an outlier but I always enjoyed the D20 revised. I also picked up a couple of the supplement books that I liked (Hero's guide). Random race favorite was droid though.

The J Pizzel
2016-01-07, 04:20 PM
This really hard to answer simply because, in my opinion, they're all really good (except d20!)

SAGA is without a doubt my favorite, but it does require some very minor tweaking to get right (Skill Focus: Use the Force and super low levels is just stupid). But for everything else, amazingly fast combat flow, quick easy to use force powers, fantastic and powerful options for non-force users, super customization for your different types of players, easy rules, etc. It's just great.
Quick nifty example of cool options for non-force users. In one past game, we had a player play an Utapaun Noble with the Wealth Talent. Another player played his parental droid bodyguard named ADM. With the Wealth Talent he was constantly pimping the other player out. Crap he had: missile launcher on one shoulder, heavy repeating blaster on the other, spring loaded compartment that shot the jedi's lightsabers to them, jet pack, signal scramblers, etc.

WEG is just great. Still considered one of the best systems out there. For a reason.

We literally made our new FFG characters last night. It plays very different mechanically and the dice are very weird and take a few sessions to get used to, but so far I really like it. So far my favorite thing about it is that I don't really care if I pass or fail a check, I care more about what happens with the advantage and triumph.
Example of what I mean. I threw a grenade last night. Totally missed, but I got 2 advantage and a triumph. A triumph is considered an "encounter altering event," and remember the players gets to come up with the them. So I had my grenade go wide, but land near a wall of the adjacent building and it blew up the wall and hand the building collapsed on the 3 storm troopers.

Not much, but that's what I got.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-07, 04:32 PM
Call me an outlier but I always enjoyed the D20 revised. I also picked up a couple of the supplement books that I liked (Hero's guide). Random race favorite was droid though.

Yeah - I kinda liked it, though we never did a full-fledged campaign. There were some issues with the jedi classes being far more powerful - but not any worse than full casters in D&D/Pathfinder.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-07, 04:33 PM
This really hard to answer simply because, in my opinion, they're all really good (except d20!)

SAGA is without a doubt my favorite,

SAGA is a d20 system too.

obryn
2016-01-07, 04:48 PM
I'll copy the link to the fan-made Star Wars d6 RE-UP (http://waveyourgeekflag.blogspot.com/2015/04/star-wars-d6-reup-re-updated.html) version.

To answer the question ... I really like a lot about the d6 version, but it's pretty oldschool in a lot of ways, including an all-too-detailed skill list.

The FFG version seems okay, but at the same time it seriously seems like it should be much lighter and looser than it is; I've been put off by the sheer volume of rules in the corebooks for what presents itself as a highly-narrative system.

I had a lot of fun with Saga Edition for a while, but then grew to hate it and still feel largely negatively towards it. It's only light compared to 3.x; it's still very crunchy and character generation/advancement involves all too many free-form pick-lists. It gets worse as you add more supplements.

So if the d6 and FFG versions doesn't float your boat, I'd recommend a relatively lightweight, generic, cinematic system like Savage Worlds. You're signing up for some work because there's no official resources, but googling it is helpful, and I think the mechanics are a good fit for the genre. (Use chase rules for lightsaber duels. No, really!)

Jayngfet
2016-01-07, 05:08 PM
The thing about Saga is that as the edition developed they pretty much dropped the standard d20 idea of starting at low levels and going high. By the third or fourth sourcebook its assumed you start at level four or five at minimum since otherwise you get curbstomped pretty fast the moment even a couple of mid's range mooks show up. Since generic smugglers and no name darksider are about level six of seven each.

Even a random imperial officer or stormtrooper squad leader is at that threshold where in other D20 games NPCs are considered to be superhuman.

So if the PC's start at say, level five, they're still just in the lower to mid range. But defences and skills scale to make Jedi less OP.

RickAllison
2016-01-07, 05:19 PM
I've only tried the FFG books, and I really enjoy them. Each of the three core books focuses on one aspect of the universe (crime in EotE, war in AoR, and the Force in F&D) and so it is good to figure out what your prospective party is most interested in. Jedi are relatively weak (i.e. still balanced with normal characters) in the system due to how sparse Force Rating upgrades are, but it really captures the feel of the Jedi being a dying group.

There is a discussion specifically on the FFG system here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372156-Edge-of-the-Empire-General-Discussion-Thread. If you have any questions on the flexibility of the system or how various things are handled in it, I would be happy to oblige. I do recommend either using an online dice roller for the system, as the dice are rather expensive to have to buy for one game, or print out a quick reference sheet like this one:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aUup92JzGZU/Ub4VoNaDauI/AAAAAAAAAZw/Jh4Ff5TD9tA/s1600/Standard+Dice+Conversion+Chart.jpg

That way, you can use your favorite dice with this setting. Note that this is actually included in the books in the first chapter, but it is handy to just have the sheet in front of you. Similarly, it is handy to print out reference sheets for the players (and the GM) that list some of the possible outcomes of Advantage and Threat.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-07, 05:20 PM
The thing about Saga is that as the edition developed they pretty much dropped the standard d20 idea of starting at low levels and going high. By the third or fourth sourcebook its assumed you start at level four or five at minimum since otherwise you get curbstomped pretty fast the moment even a couple of mid's range mooks show up. Since generic smugglers and no name darksider are about level six of seven each.

Even a random imperial officer or stormtrooper squad leader is at that threshold where in other D20 games NPCs are considered to be superhuman.

So if the PC's start at say, level five, they're still just in the lower to mid range. But defences and skills scale to make Jedi less OP.

I think that has more to do with the type of enemies you are going to fight in Star Wars than it does any intentional design choice. There is no plethora of monsters to throw at the group once they get too tough for normal foes to be a threat. (Though the end result is pretty much the same.)

If I remember correctly (though it may have been from revised d20 - I played both) jedi classed characters were still padawans until AT LEAST level 7 - giving levels some context in the world.

Edit: grammar

Itsjustsoup.com
2016-01-08, 02:03 AM
West End Games d6 1996 2nd Edition, 196? Pages is like 8 bucks on amazon.

Its pretty thick. Hardcover too.

You don't like it, Go out on the street late at night and bonk somebody in the noggin with it.

Get your 8 bucks back.

neonchameleon
2016-01-08, 12:34 PM
I do recommend either using an online dice roller for the system, as the dice are rather expensive to have to buy for one game, or print out a quick reference sheet like this one:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aUup92JzGZU/Ub4VoNaDauI/AAAAAAAAAZw/Jh4Ff5TD9tA/s1600/Standard+Dice+Conversion+Chart.jpg

I really really would recommend going for either the actual dice or an online dice roller/dice roller app. When you can see the symbols in front of you you can either cancel them manually or just in your head. The translation time needed to use the chart slows things down and knocks people out of the moment.

Anxe
2016-01-08, 01:24 PM
I've only played Star Wars RPG and Star Wars Revised RPG. No one is saying much about them.

There is a reason for that... The other ones have to be better. THEY JUST HAVE TO BE.

Phew, got that out of my system.

I tried using Star Wars RPG to emulate the Old Republic, but it didn't really work. Jedi are just better than the other classes and Dark Side is generally just better than Light Side. The system design seems like it would work a lot better for Empire or New Republic play where Jedi are rare. With the Empire rules, you can't start as a Jedi. You start as a "Force Sensitive." You have to find a master and get trained like Luke did. The classes would be much more balanced with that system, but since it requires so many restraints and restrictions its probably a better idea to just use a different system.

arclance
2016-01-08, 01:25 PM
I have played both the FFG and Saga Edition.
Both are good and other people have gone into that already.

The thing I would add about the FFG Star Wars is that while the character scale combat works fairly well the vehicle scale combat uses different rules that don't work as well.
To me it looks like they spent less time on the vehicle rules and not only the combat ones.
The one that came up the most often for me is vehicle encumbrance because they don't really define what that number means in terms of what the ship can carry.
If you figure out the encumbrance value of the crew and passengers of most ships they would put it over the ships encumbrance limit.
The books don't tell you if encumbrance is total (including crew and passengers) or after crew and passengers (cargo only).

AMFV
2016-01-08, 02:28 PM
On an unrelated note, but somewhat related (since it's FFG). I am very seriously considering running a Stormtroopers game using modifications from the rules for Only War. Since that simulates the whole, doomed troopers fighting for an evil Empire pretty well, and it's an area where there's a lot of room for exploration, in the post Clone War Empire. I think that there's definitely many options that could be managed by converting other systems.

So don't look at only Star Wars licensed systems (and I realize that's a big monkey wrench), look at what kind of story you want to tell... then find the system that can tell it best. And convert if needed. There's a lot to be said for that approach, although some systems would require so much conversion as to be largely unusable. But there's certainly some interesting options there.

I mean if you want a story that matches up to the Original Trilogy, or the Pre-equals, there are many examples listed already, but there are certainly options to expand on those options if you want a different kind of story. I mean you could use Call of Cthulu (for people examining ancient Dark Side horrors, in TOR, they even have a lot of madness like that, so it's semi-canonical), you could use all sorts of systems to produce some interesting games (not that the licensed ones aren't awesome)

Goober4473
2016-01-08, 03:17 PM
I took a look at the new FFG system. It looks neat, but I ultimately decided it was too complex and would get in the way.

Instead, I put together some simple stuff to do Star Wars in Fate: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1lU_iH5bi9we6IFn_OvLzctMO8ZMsLWXIp_pMBBdJ8

AMFV
2016-01-08, 03:44 PM
I took a look at the new FFG system. It looks neat, but I ultimately decided it was too complex and would get in the way.

Instead, I put together some simple stuff to do Star Wars in Fate: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1lU_iH5bi9we6IFn_OvLzctMO8ZMsLWXIp_pMBBdJ8

How'd that go? How would you compare that to standard roleplaying in FATE? Or other settings that you used for that system? What kind of Star Wars feel did the game have? What kind of story were you going for?

CharonsHelper
2016-01-08, 06:43 PM
the vehicle scale combat uses different rules that don't work as well.
To me it looks like they spent less time on the vehicle rules and not only the combat ones.

To be fair - I don't think that I've ever seen a crunchy RPG system which did vehicles well. Generally the rules are every bit as complicated as the normal ones, don't mesh well, and (as you implied) don't seem to have been play-tested and streamlined very much.

Needless to say, the complexity alone makes it not worth it for the occasional chase scene etc. to me. I have enough rules to keep in my head already. Frankly - I think that even a crunchy RPG would be better off keeping vehicle/ship rules simplistic so that they're interesting but also don't take too much focus away from the normal action and can be used at the same time without bogging down the game.

AMFV
2016-01-08, 06:48 PM
To be fair - I don't think that I've ever seen a crunchy RPG system which did vehicles well. Generally the rules are every bit as complicated as the normal ones, don't mesh well, and (as you implied) don't seem to have been play-tested and streamlined very much.

Needless to say, the complexity alone makes it not worth it for the occasional chase scene etc. to me. I have enough rules to keep in my head already. Frankly - I think that even a crunchy RPG would be better off keeping vehicle/ship rules simplistic so that they're interesting but also don't take too much focus away from the normal action and can be used at the same time without bogging down the game.

I raise you Battletech. Although that's not really designed for chase scenes. Generally the RPGs that do vehicles well are those that were designed around the concept, or where it was anticipated from the start. In Star Wars, excluding the prequels there are no vehicle scenes at all. Including the prequels, there's one chase scene, and a race. Admittedly space combat is something they should cover (I can't speak to this as I haven't read the system), but it makes sense that vehicle rules would be an after-thought.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-08, 07:45 PM
I raise you Battletech. Although that's not really designed for chase scenes. Generally the RPGs that do vehicles well are those that were designed around the concept, or where it was anticipated from the start. In Star Wars, excluding the prequels there are no vehicle scenes at all. Including the prequels, there's one chase scene, and a race. Admittedly space combat is something they should cover (I can't speak to this as I haven't read the system), but it makes sense that vehicle rules would be an after-thought.

Is Battletech really an RPG? I thought that it was more of a wargame. There are plenty of wargames that do vehicles pretty well. I think it's the whole character stats combined with vehicle that can make it trickier for an RPG.

Or - does Battletech have an RPG side? (Like Warhammer & 40k have RPG versions.) Does the whole thing assume that virtually all combat is done while in a mech? (That would make it much easier to do well, as it wouldn't be competing with an entirely different combat system/stat pool within the same game.)

And I meant to be including ship & flyer combat as well as car/tank etc. when I mentioned vehicle combat.

RickAllison
2016-01-08, 08:12 PM
I raise you Battletech. Although that's not really designed for chase scenes. Generally the RPGs that do vehicles well are those that were designed around the concept, or where it was anticipated from the start. In Star Wars, excluding the prequels there are no vehicle scenes at all. Including the prequels, there's one chase scene, and a race. Admittedly space combat is something they should cover (I can't speak to this as I haven't read the system), but it makes sense that vehicle rules would be an after-thought.

Actually, there were several. In ANH, there was the asteroid field (a chase scene involving TIE fighters and the MF) and the Death Star trench run (chase scene with Luke/Rebels and Vader/Empire with turrets and the MF interceding). ESB had the fight on and over Hoth (odd case with snowspeeders v. AT-ATs with a distraction battle going on above the planet to allow for evacuation), but not really anything else. RotJ had the second Death Star battle that combined capital ship tactics, dogfights, and then a sort-of chase scene in the DS.

In the prequels, they had lots of vehicle battles. PM had podrace (chase) and a dogfight (Anakin and the Naboonian fighters). AotC had chasing Zam Wessel (chase), the short-lived asteroid field with Fett and Kenobi (dogfight-ambush), and the massive set-piece battle at the end (... It's a lot of things). RotS had the opening (dogfight and capital ship combat) and the chase between Kenobi and Grievous. So they really don't have an excuse (and that's coming from someone who loves the system)...

Goober4473
2016-01-08, 10:02 PM
How'd that go? How would you compare that to standard roleplaying in FATE? Or other settings that you used for that system? What kind of Star Wars feel did the game have? What kind of story were you going for?

I haven't played it yet. :smallsmile:

AMFV
2016-01-08, 10:31 PM
Actually, there were several. In ANH, there was the asteroid field (a chase scene involving TIE fighters and the MF) and the Death Star trench run (chase scene with Luke/Rebels and Vader/Empire with turrets and the MF interceding). ESB had the fight on and over Hoth (odd case with snowspeeders v. AT-ATs with a distraction battle going on above the planet to allow for evacuation), but not really anything else. RotJ had the second Death Star battle that combined capital ship tactics, dogfights, and then a sort-of chase scene in the DS.

In the prequels, they had lots of vehicle battles. PM had podrace (chase) and a dogfight (Anakin and the Naboonian fighters). AotC had chasing Zam Wessel (chase), the short-lived asteroid field with Fett and Kenobi (dogfight-ambush), and the massive set-piece battle at the end (... It's a lot of things). RotS had the opening (dogfight and capital ship combat) and the chase between Kenobi and Grievous. So they really don't have an excuse (and that's coming from someone who loves the system)...

True, but I explicitly separated vehicles from starships (unless of course the rules are the same, in which case your point stands). I've not read the system, and due to some of FFG's practices with marketing, I'm not particularly keen to at this point, but that's neither here nor there. I wouldn't call starship battles vehicle sequences, and were I designing a game I would probably not use the same rules for them.

Mutazoia
2016-01-08, 10:54 PM
Is Battletech really an RPG? I thought that it was more of a wargame. There are plenty of wargames that do vehicles pretty well. I think it's the whole character stats combined with vehicle that can make it trickier for an RPG.

Or - does Battletech have an RPG side? (Like Warhammer & 40k have RPG versions.) Does the whole thing assume that virtually all combat is done while in a mech? (That would make it much easier to do well, as it wouldn't be competing with an entirely different combat system/stat pool within the same game.)

And I meant to be including ship & flyer combat as well as car/tank etc. when I mentioned vehicle combat.

Battletech has and RPG side....it's called "Mechwarrior"

I always felt that the D6 version of Star Wars did vehicles pretty well, and ship/star fighter combat very well (even before they expanded ship combat with "Star Warriors").


I wouldn't call starship battles vehicle sequences, and were I designing a game I would probably not use the same rules for them.

Why not? The only real difference between a car and a plane, is that the car can't fly. They both use acceleration/deceleration to govern speed, they both use maneuverability to turn/dodge. They both have a hull to contain vital internal parts and withstand damage.

AMFV
2016-01-08, 11:02 PM
Battletech has and RPG side....it's called "Mechwarrior"

I always felt that the D6 version of Star Wars did vehicles pretty well, and ship/star fighter combat very well (even before they expanded ship combat with "Star Warriors").



Why not? The only real difference between a car and a plane, is that the car can't fly. They both use acceleration/deceleration to govern speed, they both use maneuverability to turn/dodge. They both have a hull to contain vital internal parts and withstand damage.

If you're only looking to simulate reality, they are relatively similar. Although that's only operation, how they're used is substantially different. And their roles in a typical narrative are significantly different as well. Which is why I would represent them differently in a game system. Although that might not necessarily be the case. The more complex your ruleset is the greater difference.

RickAllison
2016-01-08, 11:02 PM
True, but I explicitly separated vehicles from starships (unless of course the rules are the same, in which case your point stands). I've not read the system, and due to some of FFG's practices with marketing, I'm not particularly keen to at this point, but that's neither here nor there. I wouldn't call starship battles vehicle sequences, and were I designing a game I would probably not use the same rules for them.

They do use the same system, and you are pretty much spot-on with how lopsided it makes everything. The rules were designed for the starship combat and makes sense for that, but it is really weird on the ground. I have no idea how I'd recreate the battle of Hoth, as with the rules, the AT-AT would be still be able to out-run ground personnel (about 3X faster), and it just ends up kind of strange.

Rakaydos
2016-01-09, 01:17 AM
They do use the same system, and you are pretty much spot-on with how lopsided it makes everything. The rules were designed for the starship combat and makes sense for that, but it is really weird on the ground. I have no idea how I'd recreate the battle of Hoth, as with the rules, the AT-AT would be still be able to out-run ground personnel (about 3X faster), and it just ends up kind of strange.

The vehical/starship rules are a common sore point for the FFG system. The good news is that it's common enough that people share their houserules for fixing it.

My favored approach is to make all the smaller vehicals (from speeders up to Falcon sized) into an intermediate scale, that keeps all the dogfighting mechanics but isnt quite so overpowering between scales. Larger ships that are too big to dogfight getto keep their "big ship scale" rules.

RickAllison
2016-01-09, 02:14 AM
The vehical/starship rules are a common sore point for the FFG system. The good news is that it's common enough that people share their houserules for fixing it.

My favored approach is to make all the smaller vehicals (from speeders up to Falcon sized) into an intermediate scale, that keeps all the dogfighting mechanics but isnt quite so overpowering between scales. Larger ships that are too big to dogfight getto keep their "big ship scale" rules.

My campaign is actually trying that rule on for size in the coming weeks. Makes a lot of sense, as otherwise a fleet of 200 X-Wings could take out Star Destroyers through sheer volume of fire. Still doesn't solve ground-based combat totally, but does let it be more than "The TIE fighter fires at you. He rolled one success, you are unconscious, roll for critical."

Satinavian
2016-01-09, 03:06 AM
Is Battletech really an RPG? I thought that it was more of a wargame. There are plenty of wargames that do vehicles pretty well. I think it's the whole character stats combined with vehicle that can make it trickier for an RPG.

Or - does Battletech have an RPG side? (Like Warhammer & 40k have RPG versions.) Does the whole thing assume that virtually all combat is done while in a mech? (That would make it much easier to do well, as it wouldn't be competing with an entirely different combat system/stat pool within the same game.)

And I meant to be including ship & flyer combat as well as car/tank etc. when I mentioned vehicle combat.
Battletech has. It was made later and still assumes to use the wargame rules for mech combat. There are several wildly different editions but the latest does cover a lot of other things outside mechs and could reasonably be used for different campaigns.
As the wargame does in fact do plains and spaceships and has with Battlespace one of the more convincing spacebattle rulesets and the RPG does cover the corresponding skills even for those it is a good example of a game that does all of those things (RPG, vehicles, planes, space) reasonably well and quite detailed.

Unfortunenately the RPG is not the best one mechanics-wise and using wargame rules for some of the battles might be detailed but is certainly not fast paced. And it shows that the wargame was there earlier and the RPG had to be attached without being able to change wargame-mechanics to much. I would not bother adapting it to anything other than the battletech universe, it is just not good enough to justify the work.

Still had a lot of fun with it.



For some reason i really don't like Star Wars d6. I wildly prefer Saga and even the other D20 variants. I actually like how they redefined, what a certain level actually means. It's a reasonably thing to do to fit a 20-level range to the range of power you want to model. Never tried FFG, but i'm not really a fan of narrative games anyway.






Why not? The only real difference between a car and a plane, is that the car can't fly. They both use acceleration/deceleration to govern speed, they both use maneuverability to turn/dodge. They both have a hull to contain vital internal parts and withstand damage. Because of the physics. For planes, i would want altitude, and quite high minimum velocity. For space battles i would want momentum and movement without acceleration and acceleration in directions different to movement and turning only as a kind of spinning, maybe even angular momentum where vehicles don't stop spinning until they take action and i want orbits and different methods of movement for different occations and i want to have the sense of vast dimensions of space.

The only way to get cars, spaceships and planes done with the same rules either results in incredibly bad movement physics that destroys my suspension of disbelieve or is so abstract that all those details don't matter anyway.

Anonymouswizard
2016-01-09, 04:08 AM
Space combat is incredibly annoying. First you need to work out what each movement unit X is worth. Now divide c by X to get the absolute top speed. Now decide the acceleration and top speed of various STL engines. Now decide if there are multiple turning systems, and how small a turn is possible (for example, 1/3π radians on a hex grid). Now decide if you want to use realistic momentum (hint: the answer is yes, or we wouldn't be building a Space combat system), and work out a way to note it down. Then you can stat yourself some spaceships and weapons, and work out how many can fit in a space on the map. Then decide how orbiting planets and the like work.

Changing all that to atmospheric vehicles wouldn't be worthwhile, I suggest using a system more suited to their working.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-09, 09:55 AM
One thing about space combat that I've never even seen attempted in an RPG or wargame is the idea of 3D movement.

I understand WHY. It'd be freakishly complicated. But I do think that they should come up with decent fluff reasons to keep all of the ships pretty much on the same plane. (Perhaps a reason that all ships have to remain approx. within the plane of solar systems.

Rakaydos
2016-01-09, 11:33 AM
One thing about space combat that I've never even seen attempted in an RPG or wargame is the idea of 3D movement.

I understand WHY. It'd be freakishly complicated. But I do think that they should come up with decent fluff reasons to keep all of the ships pretty much on the same plane. (Perhaps a reason that all ships have to remain approx. within the plane of solar systems.

Saganami Island Tactical Tactical Simulator, based on another game called Attack Vector: Tactical + the Honorverse novels by David Weber.
3D newtonian acceleration in a tabletop wargame. mechanically it's farely easy with all the play aids, but tactically it breaks brains.

Rakaydos
2016-01-09, 11:35 AM
Space combat is incredibly annoying. First you need to work out what each movement unit X is worth. Now divide c by X to get the absolute top speed. Now decide the acceleration and top speed of various STL engines. Now decide if there are multiple turning systems, and how small a turn is possible (for example, 1/3π radians on a hex grid). Now decide if you want to use realistic momentum (hint: the answer is yes, or we wouldn't be building a Space combat system), and work out a way to note it down. Then you can stat yourself some spaceships and weapons, and work out how many can fit in a space on the map. Then decide how orbiting planets and the like work.

Changing all that to atmospheric vehicles wouldn't be worthwhile, I suggest using a system more suited to their working.

None of that applies to star wars, because there's pretty clearly Air in Space there, certianly during the trench run and the asteroid chase sequence.

arclance
2016-01-09, 01:50 PM
Never tried FFG, but i'm not really a fan of narrative games anyway.
The FFG Star Wars is not too strongly tied to the narrative mechanics you can run it without them.
The dice pool system they use does make the outcome less two sided than other games like SAGA edition since depending on your roll you can have things happen in addition to just succeeding.

Are you comparing it to something like FATE?
From what I hear about the FATE system it is much more strongly a narrative game than the FFG Star Wars is.
I have not personally played FATE since not enough of the people I play with (me included) liked what we heard about narrative elements of the system.


The vehical/starship rules are a common sore point for the FFG system. The good news is that it's common enough that people share their houserules for fixing it.
My GM was running vehicle/starship combat mostly as written except that crew could repair a ship more than once per combat within certain limits.
He had to just handwave vehicle encumbrance since it did not make any sense to any of us.
He changed to the night shift where he works so the game is not going anymore.