What makes an RPG good?

[Cluedrew]

1) a good game is one which meets is objectives, or at least some set of objectives.
2) a good game is one which meets the needs of a particular person or group

I'd go with the second. Let's say I try to make a comedic super-heroes game but, because I am much better at detailed world building than comedy it flops, on the comedic front. But people realise it actually does quite good at a more grounded "what-if" super-heroes story. Is that game bad because it failed to achieve its objectives or good because it... I'm just going to say "if fun for a type of game".

I think it is the latter. I'd further argue that objective good/bad of a game system is just an aggregate of the subjective. That is to say how many people like this system and how much? I don't know how to balance more people liking it less vs fewer people liking it more nor how to account for being an established brand or not being widely available, but luckily I'm not in marketing.

---

And to suddenly drop into specifics: You know for all the talk of depth and complexity I think we are focusing a bit too much on the hard mechanical side. I've got to say there are several games that have won me over on the basis of there setting and having rules and content that fit that setting. If I open up a rule-book and I can tell what stories this is meant to tell I am way more interested in that then better system that I have no idea what to do with. (Unless the difference in quality is really extreme.) I just like a system that knows what it wants to be and makes me interested in that.

[kyoryu]

I'd go with the second. Let's say I try to make a comedic super-heroes game but, because I am much better at detailed world building than comedy it flops, on the comedic front. But people realise it actually does quite good at a more grounded "what-if" super-heroes story. Is that game bad because it failed to achieve its objectives or good because it... I'm just going to say "if fun for a type of game".

I think it is the latter. I'd further argue that objective good/bad of a game system is just an aggregate of the subjective. That is to say how many people like this system and how much? I don't know how to balance more people liking it less vs fewer people liking it more nor how to account for being an established brand or not being widely available, but luckily I'm not in marketing.

I think it's both. It's hard for a system to be the second "good" if it's not the first.

They're both "good", just different types of good. Being able to separate "good objectively, or good for some purposes" from "does what I like" is a super useful skill. Lady Gaga is an incredibly talented performer that makes great music.... that I don't want to listen to. I can appreciate her talent and what she's doing, but I'm just not her target audience.

And to suddenly drop into specifics: You know for all the talk of depth and complexity I think we are focusing a bit too much on the hard mechanical side. I've got to say there are several games that have won me over on the basis of there setting and having rules and content that fit that setting. If I open up a rule-book and I can tell what stories this is meant to tell I am way more interested in that then better system that I have no idea what to do with. (Unless the difference in quality is really extreme.) I just like a system that knows what it wants to be and makes me interested in that.

I'd say that is absolutely part of what I, at least, am talking about. And, for sure, some people don't want or care about that either. "Does it do what I want? Does it do what it tries to do?" are pretty all-inclusive, and not limited to specific aspects :)

[Quertus]

I'd go with the second. Let's say I try to make a comedic super-heroes game but, because I am much better at detailed world building than comedy it flops, on the comedic front. But people realise it actually does quite good at a more grounded "what-if" super-heroes story. Is that game bad because it failed to achieve its objectives or good because it... I'm just going to say "if fun for a type of game".

I think it is the latter. I'd further argue that objective good/bad of a game system is just an aggregate of the subjective. That is to say how many people like this system and how much? I don't know how to balance more people liking it less vs fewer people liking it more nor how to account for being an established brand or not being widely available, but luckily I'm not in marketing.

---

And to suddenly drop into specifics: You know for all the talk of depth and complexity I think we are focusing a bit too much on the hard mechanical side. I've got to say there are several games that have won me over on the basis of there setting and having rules and content that fit that setting. If I open up a rule-book and I can tell what stories this is meant to tell I am way more interested in that then better system that I have no idea what to do with. (Unless the difference in quality is really extreme.) I just like a system that knows what it wants to be and makes me interested in that.

Well, I don't know if I can manage a good conversation about it or not, but I'm pretty sure that I strongly disagree with most or all of that.

------

I think that Fatal is the system most likely to get the most people to agree that it is just bad. If I were to print out the rules to Fatal, and then use them to crush a dangerous bug, that doesn't suddenly instill them with the "good" property.

3e is good despite the misinformation from the developers that is balanced. Some are able to enjoy 4e despite the numerous failings surrounding skill challenges (and despite it being mis-marketed as an RPG). So there are numerous things that can serve as *obstacles* to the enjoyment of a system, but which do not necessarily invalidate the system as "good", or being enjoyed.

Now, 3e has a lot of… skill requirements, and minigames, and the general claim is that you can lose the game at character creation. But that's at least equally true in many other tests of skill: you can lose MtG during deck building; you can lose chess during your opening moves; you can lose at professional basketball by being born short. Too competitive? You can lose at running by being born with asthma, you can lose at solitaire by being missing a card; you can lose your dream of being a fighter pilot by being born colorblind.

If 3e is treated as a game of skill, then this is part of the draw of the game. So I divide obstacles into "required" and "needless". Being able to "lose the game during character creation" is arguably required complexity for 3e; the developers claiming that 3e was balanced was a needless obstacle.

All of this is just background for what, from my PoV as a programmer, is my belief that the measure of how "bad" something is is a matter of how much *unnecessary* obstacles / complexity / etc something has.

-----

Setting / rules / story

Having a cool setting, where you could tell / take part in cool stories? That's fine, but… if the rules are *fighting* your ability to do so, IMO that definitely contributes to the "bad" rating.

In fact, any time that there is disconnect between the rules and the fiction, you're looking at a prime source of "bad".

Can you have a good game without a good setting? Well… given that there are numerous good systems with *no* setting, I'll have to say that the answer is a resounding "yes".

The *concept* of WoD Mage really appealed to me. The d10 WoD system? Not so much. The implementation of various storytellers (only 1 way to skin a cat; don't bother getting attached - this won't last more than a few sessions; go McGuffin or go home; the plot is everything; even rotes straight from the book don't work; abusive NPCs; passive aggressive… nah, I can't even begin to diagnose what all was wrong with this one; massive house rules that even Gygax would realize were terrible) has left me wondering whether it's even possible to have a good game of WoD Mage.

Monte Cook's d20 WoD? Every other splat, he limited by "spheres", but Mage? Nope. No such concept, just limited by *mana* - something Mages *didn't* have to worry about.

Which made me begin to wonder whether it's possible to make a good Mage game at all, or whether there's some curse that makes this an impossible task, forcing even otherwise sane individuals to grasp the idiot ball whenever they make the attempt.

Not knowing what to do with a system is certainly an obstacle to enjoying the system - and almost certainly an unnecessary one. But I'd rather have to figure out how to use Slow Motion or Inferno rounds or Assume Supernatural Ability, than to be handed something with obvious purpose that is otherwise fundamentally flawed.

[Cluedrew]

I think it's both. It's hard for a system to be the second "good" if it's not the first.

Definitely, making something great by accident can happen and has happened many times, but compared to trying and getting it right it is pretty rare. Still of a system that met its objectives but isn't fun to play and a system that did not met its objectives but is fun to play I would call the second "better".

Except when talking about design itself. As an example is Apocalypse World I feel is the best designed system I have ever seen. Despite the fact I don't want to play it. Because appreciating good design is different from enjoying the type of game it was aimed at creating.

I'd say that is absolutely part of what I, at least, am talking about. And, for sure, some people don't want or care about that either. "Does it do what I want? Does it do what it tries to do?" are pretty all-inclusive, and not limited to specific aspects :)

I did say "specifics", kind of like the depth/complexity thing. Although "Does it do what I want?" does kind of imply that you already have something in mind and are looking for it. Just checking out systems and letting them pitch themselves to you is a different quality. If you asked my for some campaigns I would be interested in "organised crime in a haunted city" would not have made the list until I read Blades in the Dark.

3e is good despite the misinformation from the developers that is balanced. Some are able to enjoy 4e despite the numerous failings surrounding skill challenges (and despite it being mis-marketed as an RPG).

Please stop. This is the game design equivalent of saying X group of people aren't actually human. And I will explain that in detail if I have to. I can level every complaint (yes, except for the skill challenges) against 4th edition against the other editions. Its as much of a role-playing game as they are. … Which is not to say it is a good role-playing game. Actually it would be another good example of a system that did a lot better at achieving its goals then being fun to play.

And I'm out of time.

[Quertus]

Please stop. This is the game design equivalent of saying X group of people aren't actually human. And I will explain that in detail if I have to. I can level every complaint (yes, except for the skill challenges) against 4th edition against the other editions. Its as much of a role-playing game as they are. … Which is not to say it is a good role-playing game. Actually it would be another good example of a system that did a lot better at achieving its goals then being fun to play.

Although that is a very polite request, I cannot fathom a reason why it should matter. Saying that a 4 of diamonds is not a face card or a MtG card, saying that Pluto is not a planet, saying that 4e is not an RPG? That's purely definitional, and not denying some fundamental rights to a living sentient being, and equating the two seems… wrong somehow, in ways that I don't have words to express.

Of course, you explicitly specified "X group of people aren't actually human", and I certainly *will* make such a contention, as well: aliens, Artificial Intelligences, and deities, for example, all reside within the set "people", but outside the set "humans". /Pedantry

But humans often *do* remove the personhood, in part or in whole, from other humans - often due to age, but for other reasons as well. So even what I *think* you mean isn't exactly cut and dry verboten in even modern thought.

So I'm unable to parse the request as something worthy of such parallels / such concern.

Now, one could argue that my definitions of what makes something an RPG are a bit strict. Maybe, after review, 4e and a lot of so-called "CRPGs" (many of which I also classify as "not RPGs") will get reclassified in my lingo as "dwarf RPGs", in honor of Pluto's reinclusion among the wanderers. Maybe someday it'll be shown that I'm guilty of a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Maybe I'm blind to certain aspects of certain systems, and they fully deserve the title of "RPG", even under my definitions.

But it seems a very strange line to draw, that my caricature of myself is denying basic human rights because it claims that Pluto is not a planet.

[Cluedrew]

Although that is a very polite request, I cannot fathom a reason why it should matter. Saying that a 4 of diamonds is not a face card or a MtG card, saying that Pluto is not a planet, saying that 4e is not an RPG? That's purely definitional, [...]

You know what? I'll pack up my biases as best I can in a box and metaphorically shelve them. Trying to live up to "a good person to disagree with" here.

What is a role-playing game? Working from the general to the specific. Once I would say "A game centered around, about and/or supports role-playing." but there was a major issue with this definition: D&D didn't count. Yes you could probably read those words in a way it would work but that was just a summery of a big thing in my head. But then I realised that was silly, even if I could draw a nice box around that group its not what most people meant. A lot of older role-playing games actually don't have a lot of rules to support role-playing. And of course a lot of rules-lite systems don't have a lot of rules at all. All they really have is the open ended nature of the game (that is, the GM can make stuff up) and this general intention that people would.

So I would argue that it is all you need to count as a role-playing game. Ability and intention.

Also it matter because it sounds terrible but doesn't actually mean anything. What does it matter if a game doesn't quite meet the requirements of being an role-playing game? We can still examine its design, we can still learn from it and if it is close enough you actually have to think about it to figure out if it meets the requirements there is probably a lot of overlap in lessons and people who enjoy both so why not talk about it in an role-playing game forum? Similarly what does it matter if a different race of beings are not human, if they are close enough we have to think about it they are definitely people and deserve the same rights and respect as one, or put shortly: they are a person. But if someone just kept bringing up the fact "you know they are not human right" I would start to wonder. Even if you aren't actually trying to get at some dark insinuation, it feels weird.

[kyoryu]

Additionally, there are many people that do enjoy 4e, do consider it a roleplaying game, and consider it a better game than 3e.

All you do by using language like "it's not a roleplaying game" and stuff that reads like "you can like it despite its obvious flaws, I guess, if you really try hard enough, but I don't know why any rational person would want to" does nothing to aid the conversation, and everything to derail it.

Like, what do you hope to gain with that language?

[Jason]

There is a difference between "that's not a role-playing game" and "that's not a good role-playing game". There's also a difference between "that is a good RPG" and "that is an RPG I would enjoy playing."

4th edition was an RPG. In my opinion it was, as far as the mechanics went, a good RPG. It is not, however an RPG I would choose to play.

Part of my opinion of why I would not want to play it is based in how it too closely resembles a tactical miniatures game or video game, but I accept that it was an RPG. There is a GM and the players take on roles of the heroes on adventures, etc. In short it fits my basic definition of RPGs.

It was a good game in the sense that the mechancics largely worked just fine. It just wasn't what I personally wanted in a D&D game. My group played one session, and then we went back to 3.5 until 5th edition cane out. That was entirely a question of personal taste, like preferring chocolate to strawberry icecream, not a question of bad and good.

[Telok]

Additionally, there are many people that do enjoy 4e, do consider it a roleplaying game, and consider it a better game than 3e.

I've met people who think that Shadowrun is a better RPG than D&Ds 3, 4, and 5, and in the same breath admit that the most recent edition is a dumpster fire. I'd love to play an Amber Diceless campaign, that's pretty much a pure acting & RP game but I've met people who don't think it's a rpg because its diceless*.

Personally I'm happier to play Rifts with a good DM than D&Ds 4 & 5 with an average DM because the mechanics can be house ruled into decency and the system doesn't feel like it's kicking characters in the face for not fitting into one of five trope archetypes. I like that in Fantasy HERO I can build a ninja mathematician with mechanically represented moral failings and not end up with a character thats forced to know "thieves cant", spells, or magic ki powers just to exist, and I think it's a better generic fantasy system than D&D but that opinion can cause flame wars.

So if someone's understanding of "rpg" includes "the game needs to have mechanical interactions or effects involving the character as a person with a personality" that's OK. If their experience with D&D 4e has informed them that the game is a tactical fighting board game with a broken 'skill challenge' mechanic and no options related to role play, that's OK too. In fact it's similar to my experience with the system, that it had as many game structures related to rp as Monopoly does.

I may not agree with a definition of rpgs that excludes D&D 4e. But I can understand it.

*It's (Amber Diceless) also basically a very very niche specialty game with all the usual issues of finding people who have even seen the books, game and novels, and would be willing to play. Fun tho, if you're into the setting and like to rp with friends a lot.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Additionally, there are many people that do enjoy 4e, do consider it a roleplaying game, and consider it a better game than 3e.

All you do by using language like "it's not a roleplaying game" and stuff that reads like "you can like it despite its obvious flaws, I guess, if you really try hard enough, but I don't know why any rational person would want to" does nothing to aid the conversation, and everything to derail it.

Like, what do you hope to gain with that language?

There is a difference between "that's not a role-playing game" and "that's not a good role-playing game". There's also a difference between "that is a good RPG" and "that is an RPG I would enjoy playing."

4th edition was an RPG. In my opinion it was, as far as the mechanics went, a good RPG. It is not, however an RPG I would choose to play.

Part of my opinion of why I would not want to play it is based in how it too closely resembles a tactical miniatures game or video game, but I accept that it was an RPG. There is a GM and the players take on roles of the heroes on adventures, etc. In short it fits my basic definition of RPGs.

It was a good game in the sense that the mechancics largely worked just fine. It just wasn't what I personally wanted in a D&D game. My group played one session, and then we went back to 3.5 until 5th edition cane out. That was entirely a question of personal taste, like preferring chocolate to strawberry icecream, not a question of bad and good.

Exactly my thoughts. There's a lot of conflation going on between

X is good (objective)
X is something I like (subjective)

Those are completely separate issues. There are objectively good games I can't stand. The whole PbtA structure is well designed...for a game I don't ever see myself wanting to play. And there are bad games I happen to like quite a lot. And everything in between.

[Max_Killjoy]

As others have stated in different ways, two important things to making a game good:
1) Does it clearly and honestly state what it wants to do?
2) Does it actually do that, and do it competently?

Question one is about being honest with the customer/gamer, so they can pick a system that suits their needs -- there is no single objective "one best system" for everyone or every setting or every whatever.

Question two is about delivering on that promise. Some games really do set out to do the thing they say they do, but fail along the way.

[kyoryu]

As others have stated in different ways, two important things to making a game good:
1) Does it clearly and honestly state what it wants to do?
2) Does it actually do that, and do it competently?

Question one is about being honest with the customer/gamer, so they can pick a system that suits their needs -- there is no single objective "one best system" for everyone or every setting or every whatever.

Question two is about delivering on that promise. Some games really do set out to do the thing they say they do, but fail along the way.

And part three, the subjective part, is "is the thing it wants to do something I care about?"

[Jason]

As others have stated in different ways, two important things to making a game good:
1) Does it clearly and honestly state what it wants to do?
2) Does it actually do that, and do it competently?

Question one is about being honest with the customer/gamer, so they can pick a system that suits their needs -- there is no single objective "one best system" for everyone or every setting or every whatever.

Question two is about delivering on that promise. Some games really do set out to do the thing they say they do, but fail along the way.

Yeah, that's pretty close to what i said on page 1, though I broke "does it competently" into "understands and emulates its chosen genre", "has no system holes that make the mechanics unworkable" and "is well organized and easy to reference".

For example;
FFG Star Wars fails the "understands and emulates its chosen genre" criteria of competence because the characters in the movies do things that you can't actually do in the game, like Jedi effortlessly deflecting storms of blaster bolts (the WEG and Saga versions do a much better job of emulating what we see on the movie screens).
Legend of the 5 Rings, a game I rather like, had a revised rulebook in its 3rd edition that so badly mangled the description of the Defense skill that it was unusable. My group had to house rule it to what we thought they might have been trying to do, but I'm still not clear if we ever got it right.
GURPS books are pretty close to the top of my scale for well-organized and accessible RPG rules. They each have an index too. Too many RPGs to mention don't have an index or page headings.

[Quertus]

To be a good RPG, I think that something must first be an RPG, and, second, be good. Where "good" is best measured as "not bad". I think it is easiest to define what makes something bad… and what makes something bad for particular purposes / people.

One form of objective "bad" is needless inefficiency. Another is rules that work against the game's goal. A perhaps lesser third is misleading information.

-----

4e Spoiled for length, for anyone who wants to just skip past my conversation with @Cluedrew.

Spoiler

Show

Also it matter because it sounds terrible but doesn't actually mean anything. What does it matter if a game doesn't quite meet the requirements of being an role-playing game? We can still examine its design, we can still learn from it and if it is close enough you actually have to think about it to figure out if it meets the requirements there is probably a lot of overlap in lessons and people who enjoy both so why not talk about it in an role-playing game forum? Similarly what does it matter if a different race of beings are not human, if they are close enough we have to think about it they are definitely people and deserve the same rights and respect as one, or put shortly: they are a person. But if someone just kept bringing up the fact "you know they are not human right" I would start to wonder. Even if you aren't actually trying to get at some dark insinuation, it feels weird.

I mean, I'm all about using examples from outside gaming (as my previous post demonstrates, albeit poorly, and my post history demonstrates in spades), and Angry's "eight types of fun" certainly pulls wisdom from outside of gaming and uses it to evaluate RPGs.

So, while *some* tend to use "but it's not X" dismissively, as though that fact in and of itself should make the subject matter irrelevant to the discussion, even the caricature of myself doesn't go so fast as to do so out of hand.

However, whether or not something is an RPG is kinda important to an RPG forum - there has to be some sense of "chicken / not chicken", something to distinguish RPGs from CCGs or war games for the forum to meaningfully exist.

My personal definition is a bit strict, and doesn't include… a number of things that self-declare as role-playing games. So I'm not even being facetious - I honestly don't consider 4e to be a RPG. Although I freely admit that my diagnosis is based on limited information, and thus may simply reveal my ignorance rather than truly say something meaningful about 4e. (In reality… I'm not aware of a word for what I want to say. Much like "bias" or "subjective", but applied to the questions being asked in the "same game test". 4e fails my test of being an RPG, but that may demonstrate the… bias… of the questions).

Anyway…

A race not being human is irrelevant to their personhood… but may be relevant to our ability to *test* for it. My AI classes were rife with discussions like, "how will we know when we have achieved AI? How can we test for it?"… followed by horrific evaluations of applying those answers back to Humanity (and of AI doing the same, evaluating, "are humans actually sentient, actually people?").

However, a race not being human is *very* relevant to environmental needs, breeding potential… unless you're in D&D, when "ecology" is "yes", and half-breed everything is a thing. But still relevant to whether they need to use UMD to operate items that specify, "human only".

Now, my caricature of myself is *supposed* to feel weird. That's kinda the point. But if this one particular claim, that 4e is not an RPG, tends to make it feel the *wrong* kind of weird? Hmmm… I don't really *understand* it, despite all the virtual ink I've spilled, but perhaps the quantity of virtual ink will allow my senile mind to remember this conversation, and to pick on 4e's numerous *other* failings for a time, in the hopes that, like planets, RPGs will someday be sufficiently defined that we'll all agree on whether 4e is an RPG, a dwarf RPG, or not an RPG at all.

(My money's on my senility mind winning out over people's ability to come to a consensus, but we'll see)

[Cluedrew]

I stand by "a good role-playing game is fun to play". Although I will acknowledge that it can be a tricky thing to measure or act on (which actually makes a lot of the other definitions useful in that way) it still feels like the core issue. And I will again bring up a system that is good for different reasons than it was intended to be as an example of why "meets its objectives" doesn't quite go far enough. Its not very often a system is good by accident, only real-world example I can think of is Vampire: The Masquerade and that is debatable.

Spoiler: To Quertus: Although anyone can join.

Show

My personal definition is a bit strict, and doesn't includeÂ… a number of things that self-declare as role-playing games. So I'm not even being facetious - I honestly don't consider 4e to be a RPG.

Yeah but what is it? Is it the same as your previous answer in the thread on this topic? By the way if we don't knock this out in one or two more posts we should probably start up another one of those.

Back on sub-topic: I believe you can make decisions as a character in 4e. Yes the tactical combat mini-game does discourage that but A) its not the entire game, B) doesn't prevent it and C) no more than any other edition of D&D. OK for C, some people found the at-will/encounter/daily thing a bit harder to think of from an in-character perspective compared to the existing abstract mechanics in other editions (such as HP and spell slots). I didn't so its a subjective thing and so that doesn't feel like it should be making a definition difference.

I'm have very little to say about anything after "Anyways..." because for that to have any meaning you would have to show 4th is not a role-playing game or at least show it exists in a liminal space where there is a serious debate to be had. You have not and until then I will state boldly that 4th edition is both a human and a planet. Metaphors can be fun sometimes.

[kyoryu]

For example;
FFG Star Wars fails the "understands and emulates its chosen genre" criteria of competence because the characters in the movies do things that you can't actually do in the game, like Jedi effortlessly deflecting storms of blaster bolts (the WEG and Saga versions do a much better job of emulating what we see on the movie screens).

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure I totally agree.

The FFG games are set in the times of the Empire, or right after, right? The examples of Jedi we see in those films is at a much lower level than what we see in the prequels. Luke doesn't effortlessly deflect a battalion of laser fire, but Qui-Gon does. So i think the FFG games are more aimed at Luke-like levels of power as we see him grow rather than prequel-level full-on Jedi-Masters-trained-by-the-best-Jedi-Masters-for-years levels.

[Jason]

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure I totally agree.

The FFG games are set in the times of the Empire, or right after, right? The examples of Jedi we see in those films is at a much lower level than what we see in the prequels. Luke doesn't effortlessly deflect a battalion of laser fire, but Qui-Gon does. So i think the FFG games are more aimed at Luke-like levels of power as we see him grow rather than prequel-level full-on Jedi-Masters-trained-by-the-best-Jedi-Masters-for-years levels.

Pretty much every Jedi in the prequel movies is seen deflecting large numbers of blaster bolts, even young Padawans. In other words, it's not a skill that only Jedi Masters have. It is also one of the first skills Obi-wan begins teaching Luke, as soon as he can begin his training on the Falcon, and by RotJ Luke is deflecting a lot of blaster bolts from Jabba's thugs and even successfully deflects bolts from the small blaster cannon mounted on an Imperial speeder bike.

Edit: Rebels gives a good example of an Empire-era Padawan (Ezra) also being taught to deflect blaster bolts with relative ease. And his trainer is not Obi-Wan level.

In the game, however, it is nigh-impossible to fully deflect one blaster bolt from an avereage stormtrooper's rifle, and deflecting bolts from a speeder bike's cannon is even more impossible. Deflect in the game only deflects a few damage points for each level of the talent, there are a limited number of levels of the talent you can buy in each light saber combat talent tree, and fully buying just one tree is expensive enough to last a typical campaign.
Even Yoda and Vader don't have enough levels of Deflect to do what they do on screen. The system simply can't replicate it.

In my book that's a fail, especially since the WEG and various WOTC versions of Star Wars RPGs have reasonable mechanics to let Jedi deflect blaster bolts pretty much like they do on screen.

[kyoryu]

Pretty much every Jedi in the prequel movies is seen deflecting large numbers of blaster bolts, even young Padawans. In other words, it's not a skill that only Jedi Masters have. It is also one of the first skills Obi-wan begins teaching Luke, as soon as he can begin his training on the Falcon, and by RotJ Luke is deflecting a lot of blaster bolts from Jabba's thugs and even successfully deflects bolts from the small blaster cannon mounted on an Imperial speeder bike.

Edit: Rebels gives a good example of an Empire-era Padawan (Ezra) also being taught to deflect blaster bolts with relative ease. And his trainer is not Obi-Wan level.

In the game, however, it is nigh-impossible to fully deflect one blaster bolt from an avereage stormtrooper's rifle, and deflecting bolts from a speeder bike's cannon is even more impossible. Deflect in the game only deflects a few damage points for each level of the talent, there are a limited number of levels of the talent you can buy in each light saber combat talent tree, and fully buying just one tree is expensive enough to last a typical campaign.
Even Yoda and Vader don't have enough levels of Deflect to do what they do on screen. The system simply can't replicate it.

In my book that's a fail, especially since the WEG and various WOTC versions of Star Wars RPGs have reasonable mechanics to let Jedi deflect blaster bolts pretty much like they do on screen.

Well, yes, my point was that FFG seems aimed more at Original Trilogy levels of Jedi-ness, and specifically people figuring it out on their own, rather than prequel levels.

Which doesn't mean it works for you, of course. It just means it's (from what I see) a game that's not doing the things you want, rather than one that's not meeting its targets.

The power of the Force flows through you. All your life you have felt it and used it, perhaps even unconsciously. Now, at last, you have found others like you who can sense and manipulate the Force, others willing to risk their lives for the sake of justice, for the sake of restoring balance to the galaxy. Together, you are searching for the secrets of the outlawed Jedi Order and fighting against whatever evil you encounter. You may choose to lurk in the shadows and defend the downtrodden, or join the Rebellion battle the Empire from the pilot’s seat of a starfighter, or you may slowly succumb to the temptations of the dark side.

That says "force sensitive types feeling their way through learning this stuff", which sounds about like what you've described on the mechanics side of things.

This all kinda fits in with the FFG "grittiness" that seems to pervade the whole series of games.

[Jason]

Well, yes, my point was that FFG seems aimed more at Original Trilogy levels of Jedi-ness, and specifically people figuring it out on their own, rather than prequel levels.

Which doesn't mean it works for you, of course. It just means it's (from what I see) a game that's not doing the things you want, rather than one that's not meeting its targets.

The point of having a licensed RPG is to be able to have adventures that feel like the licensed property.

There are (arguably) good game balance reasons for having deflect work the way they did it, but it's a failure to successfully understand and emulate the genre they were supposedly trying to recreate in the game.

It might have been acceptable to not have Force sensatives able to perform the signature Jedi move (the first move Luke is taught in the first film) in the Edge of the Empire line. In that line Force users were purposefully left as a minor element. But it's inexcusable to have it still be just flat-out impossible to do the signature move in the Jedi-centered Force and Destiny line, with characters that are Jedi.

[Max_Killjoy]

For me, subjectively, FFG's system fails on two points.

1) It's promising and trying to deliver an experience I don't want, a highly narrative one that puts "story" ahead of in-fiction causality, etc.

2) Its mechanics are... I just want to say bad, if I'm being honest. They're trying so hard for a system that does "yes, but" and "no, but" that they made the but bigger than the yes or the no.

[Jason]

For me, subjectively, FFG's system fails on two points.

1) It's promising and trying to deliver an experience I don't want, a highly narrative one that puts "story" ahead of in-fiction causality, etc.

2) Its mechanics are... I just want to say bad, if I'm being honest. They're trying so hard for a system that does "yes, but" and "no, but" that they made the but bigger than the yes or the no.

That's a good way of putting it. I found it surprisingly frustrating at how often the "but" came up. By the end of our campaign it seemed like rolls where we failed whatever we were trying to do but had a Triumph and lots of advantage as a mocking consolation prize were way too common. But it is a subjective "personal taste" issue, as you say.

Jedi being unable to do what they do in the movies is something I would consider closer to an objective problem with the system.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's a good way of putting it. I found it surprisingly frustrating at how often the "but" came up. By the end of our campaign it seemed like rolls where we failed whatever we were trying to do but had a Triumph and lots of advantage as a mocking consolation prize were way too common. But it is a subjective "personal taste" issue, as you say.

Maybe if they'd had some way to cash in Triumph and/or Advantage for basic successes...

[Jason]

Maybe if they'd had some way to cash in Triumph and/or Advantage for basic successes...

If I remember correctly there were a few talents rhat allowed this with some specific skills. No general rule though.

[Friv]

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure I totally agree.

The FFG games are set in the times of the Empire, or right after, right? The examples of Jedi we see in those films is at a much lower level than what we see in the prequels. Luke doesn't effortlessly deflect a battalion of laser fire, but Qui-Gon does. So i think the FFG games are more aimed at Luke-like levels of power as we see him grow rather than prequel-level full-on Jedi-Masters-trained-by-the-best-Jedi-Masters-for-years levels.

It's not just Jedi. I discussed in a thread once that I couldn't build Han Solo using Genesys without about 200 XP (10-15 sessions of play, for those who haven't played the game), and someone tried to defend the system by saying that you shouldn't be able to play someone as cool as Han Solo right away, you've got to build up to that.

The question of whether Obi-Wan should be playable in Edge of the Empire is an interesting one; I would tend to say yes, but I realize it gets a bit messier. Certainly, the specialization in the first book is the one that you would use to build Obi-Wan, you just... couldn't do it very easily.

[Lord Raziere]

It's not just Jedi. I discussed in a thread once that I couldn't build Han Solo using Genesys without about 200 XP (10-15 sessions of play, for those who haven't played the game), and someone tried to defend the system by saying that you shouldn't be able to play someone as cool as Han Solo right away, you've got to build up to that.

The question of whether Obi-Wan should be playable in Edge of the Empire is an interesting one; I would tend to say yes, but I realize it gets a bit messier. Certainly, the specialization in the first book is the one that you would use to build Obi-Wan, you just... couldn't do it very easily.

Meh.

this is why I'm iffy on progression systems for playing concepts like emulating a specific hero you want to play or a unique concept with superpowers. often those concepts work better when fully formed from the start with little growth needed from a mechanical perspective, because often its a fully complete character and any growth you need from it is purely a matter of roleplaying and character development. the progression system will add on things that aren't apart of the plan to so, its basically dross that detracts from what you want to play.

I'd say that progression systems work better when you don't know how your character is going to end up exactly because its all about the journey to whatever they are. its an incomplete character that as it grows and develops can be rounded out and made better with time. progression systems are all about change and sometimes you want a specific character concept that doesn't morph into something else over time. a squire just picking up a sword is more conducive to a progression system than Spiderman or Batman or whatnot.

[Quertus]

@Cluedrew - I have very little to add to our discussion. In the thread you linked, I was attempting to find some outer bounds, some common ground to work from, not explain my personal metrics.

However, it does give me ideas germane to this thread.

Is High-ho-cherry-oh a good board game?

Well, it is a board game. And some have had fun with it. So, by some definitions, yes.

Yet, like chutes and ladders or Candyland, there is no decision making, no way to influence the final outcome.

Does that make it a bad game?

Or… is that really true? Going first is an advantage - now the "pick a game" minigame is a game you can game, choosing the game where you believe you are most likely to be placed earliest in the lineup.

But wait, there's more!

See, one could always cheat! Manipulate the results of the randomizer… or *believe* that one can. Or even cheat the location of the piece.

Does the ability to take your fate into your own hands through skill at cheating change whether they are good games?

-----

The linked thread used the metaphor of coffee. To extend that metaphor slightly, I don't need to have a name for sugar in warm milk to declare that that's not coffee.

I'd say that progression systems work better when you don't know how your character is going to end up exactly because its all about the journey to whatever they are. its an incomplete character that as it grows and develops can be rounded out and made better with time. progression systems are all about change and sometimes you want a specific character concept that doesn't morph into something else over time. a squire just picking up a sword is more conducive to a progression system than Spiderman or Batman or whatnot.

A slight variant of that argument could be used to question the value / implementation of the (highly front loaded) build minigame in 3e.

[Telok]

@CluedrewA slight variant of that argument could be used to question the value / implementation of the (highly front loaded) build minigame in 3e.

Hm. I'm reminded of the early days of 3e, before internet deconstructed and analyzed everything. People played in a manner similar to AD&D at first and the characters were growing organically. Taking skills and feats that seemed appropriate when they leveled up. It all went fine for a while. About 9th or 10th level some issues started to appear, the usual things like flurry of blows turning into flurry of misses, a twf dex fighter starting to suffer as more damage reduction appeared, the sorcerer having more hit points and ac than the monk. But things still worked ok at that point. Whirlwind was a disappointment to the fighter, you needed really lucky dice to get mileage out of circle kick, Haste was still good for the martials, natural spell was from an optinal splatbook, the rogue loved owning stealth and sneak attack was like an almost always on backstab. The cracks in the system were appearing but they could have easily been patched for another 5 or 6 levels with loading up the martials with high end magic items.

Then... I forget which order the splats appeared... but the arcane caster one came out and we sussed out how WotC was handling prestige classes. There were things that would have fit (or fixed) some characters perfectly, except of course nobody would qualify until something like 16th level for classes you were supposed to be picking up at 6th level. Not long after that was when people started seriously analyzing stuff, 3.5 showed up, and the whole "win the build minigame" thing started.

So it's interesting to me that 3e works organically in the 1-9 level range, where it's levels 10+ and prestige classes that the "build minigame" makes a difference. It's obviously not a perfect system, but it works without preplanned builds at the lower half of the level range.

[Cluedrew]

To Quertus: But you still haven't explained what your personal metrics are.

On Character Building: I got two things to say: A) I think there will always be problems translating things across mediums. While that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be trying to solve them I'm usually going to go for the one intended to be played from the start. Like I don't think having that one combat trick and a shiny sword makes you a Jedi. B) Yeah I like off the fly character growth, let the events and characters shape each other and not merely continue in sight of each other.

[Satinavian]

Before i started D&D 3.x i didn't plan out character progression far in advance. There was either no real need to as you could change the focus of character development on the fly or no opportunity to as most important decisions were already made at character creation.

Only the combination of frequent prerequisitives and outright fear taxes combined with a quite rigid class system and then prestige classes lead to the need to plan far ahead. I never had used a system like that before.

And i didn't like that aspect. Sure, 3.x allows you to build a vide variety of characters but forces you to give up natural character evolution through play to actually get the kind of character you want. And you better bring system mastery as well.


Classless point buy is a far superior solution imho. There is some danger of cherry picking the best options but i haven't seen super balanced class systems either so would need some table agreement about powerlevel anyway.

[Jason]

It's not just Jedi. I discussed in a thread once that I couldn't build Han Solo using Genesys without about 200 XP (10-15 sessions of play, for those who haven't played the game), and someone tried to defend the system by saying that you shouldn't be able to play someone as cool as Han Solo right away, you've got to build up to that.

Yes, the power level of starting characters in FFG is pretty low, comparatively. That could be argued as another genre failure.
Again, if you are playing a licensed game, you should be able to play as characters similar to your example.
I've often said "Luke's first adventure started with him on the farm and ended with him blowing up the Death Star" - if the system forces you to spend a dozen sessions building up your character before you can do things like they do in the movies then you are not really doing Star Wars right.