The system will also lend itself toward players and GM's taking a deeper interest in the particulars of a combat situation.  Standing in the middle of a room next to enemies unloading a repeating blaster on full auto and hoping that the game mechanics see you through isn't really what this system is about.  Trying to choke every possible advantage/boost for yourself whilst dishing out as much disadvantage/drawback to your oponents is the name of the game.  Fights can drag on for a while, but only if both sides are, to quote Blane from Predator "dug in like an Alabama tick."

If a player finds themselves up against a well trained lightsaber wielder?  They hopefully have one of their own, ample training, and the high ground.  Or they can just test their luck and see how that holds out.  Or they can try talking it out.  Or they can run.  Once it comes down to lightsabers, both combatants need to be at peace (or really mad and dark sidey) with the potential to get waxed on a wink of the dice.

I am hoping the shear lethality of lightsabers will make them a memorable occurance in the game.  Sure characters weilding light sabers are going to be deadly, but since EotE assumes that lightsabers and the requisite training is hard to come by (not to mention a giant red flag in Imperial Space), they had better not roll a dispair symbol.

We have to assume that once rules for jedi knight careers hit the shelves, that there will be a whole host of force powers that make lightsabers both more deadly, and more epic to fight each other with.  Until then, house-rule it or treat a lightsaber like the dangerous death machine that it is.

Besides, from what I've read over in the Force feedback thread, any cool lightsaber wielding individual is likely only seconds away from having an airspeeder force tossed and hit them in the chin to render their posturing and catch phrases obsolete.

Damocles346 said:

I suspect that once you try it you will see the downsides. :0)

DnD/Saga style inflatable hit points can be seen as representing this kind of fight. Attacks are not doing damage, but wearing down an opponent until the final strike that takes them out of the game.

And this has its advantages. It is more predictable - if rather than a 1/10 chance of killing someone outright, you take 10% of their hit points off, you can guarantee the fight will last ten rounds, where as with 1/10 chance of an instakill, they may be ganked on the first round, or you can keep missing the roll for ages.

Perhaps more important, you can see how they are going. If your hit points are depleting faster than your opponents, you can see you will lose and do something about it by running away or whatever. But if after an instakill round you are both still alive, well, it is exactly the same as it was before the round so you have no better idea of who is likely to win eventually.

Plus it really sucks to have a much loved character cut in half because you rolled a one on the first dice of a combat.

Now, I guess resources like fate points or whatever you can use to get you out of an instakill can mitigate this, but at that point the fate points ARE your hit points - the fight is over when you run out of fate points, same as if you run out of HP.

Or, in short, I frigging hate GURPS these days after years of trying to use it for entirely the wrong sort of games. Like, for instance, Star Wars. :-)

--

Personally I am still waiting for TTRPGs to catch up with the current thinking in video games and have 'health' regenerate if you hide behind cover for a few seconds.

Callidon said:

Well, after waiting YEARS for Space Marines to turn up in 40krpg and then having it not really work because the base system was never designed to handle them, I would suggest it might be better to assume nothing and request that these issues are addressed as soon as possible.

 Agreed. 

Lightsabers kill easily.

They chop off limbs without effort.

Jedi are able to parry their attacks frequently.

"Normal" characters can not.

These qualities reflect exactly what we see in the movies.

My OPINION is the physics of the RPG should reflect the physics we see in the movies whether they are "balanced" or not. GMs who do not like this can easily (and SHOULD) keep lightsabers out of the hands of players.

AluminiumWolf said:

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

AluminiumWolf said:

I've run Star Wars several times using GURPS and it always plays well with the style of the movies.

GoblynByte said:

Maybe in the next Space Marine "roleplaying" game. ;)

Slaunyeh said:

Simmer down, guys. Ain't nothing wrong in that opinion.

Actually, AluminumWolf, I have seen systems that do something similar to the regen thing. Both 4th and 5th ed D&D have methods of taking a breather, and even SW Saga had a similar second wind that all heroic characters get. They have limits on them (Saga 1/day regain 1/4 HP, 4th ed same amount but a TON of times per day, and 5th allows you to… well, it's a bit more involved, and has options).

If one thinks of "health" in an RPG to model more than physical wounds, such as a combatants will to live, then taking a moment behind cover to collect your courage can make sense when you're healing up a bit, and I think having a bit of a limit to it makes sense (at least game-balance wise), and crit effects probably wouldn't heal right up per se.

Hey, I haven't pitched in this conversation yet, have I? Damn, dudes, them lightsabers seem pretty deadly. I might throw in some extra purples to use them, or have the players find an OLD lightsaber, the kind with a belt battery from 4,000 years prior, and have it fizzle or something similar. Make 'em use those destiny points to have it charged for a scene, or even just a swing. I'll see in a few days, I'm sure.

 I have nothing against the idea of a lightsaber being deadly.  I think that's kind of how it should be; many posters above have pointed out the lethality we've seen in established media that lightsabers have.  Usually, it's one strike and you're dead.  Fighting a Jedi or a Sith /should/ be A Thing.  When that mysterious stranger shows up and pulls out a lightsaber, your players *should* sit up and go 'Oh, damn!'

My only concern is that when the third book comes out, it'll pretty much invalidate player choice.  This is the real issue with the Wizard vs. Fighter thing that's so hotly contested about D&D.  Why would you play a character that is made pretty much pointless by someone else's choice?  If your Jedi can kill things way easier than your Bounty Hunter, and then if he can also use Force powers to solve any other problems that exist better than people who have to specialize and give up everything else just to be good at their one thing, then… what's the point of playing anything but a Jedi?

I'm not saying it will happen like that, just that it's a concern.  It's also a hard thing to balance with what I said in the first paragraph.  Jedi and Sith should be lethal, but balanced in such a way that it doesn't make playing anything but a Jedi seem ridiculous.

But it is a role playing game. If you're playing a Jedi to be good at killing things you are not playing a Jedi or Star Wars for that matter and the other players probably think you should be doing something else, whether they tell you or not. Why design an RPG that goes against it's own setting just because of power gamers?

The system and GM should have strong consequences if you are a Jedi and you are trying to be a bounty hunter or killing indescriminatly. The Jedi should not train you in lightsaber skills and Jedi powers anymore and your skills should weaken or go away. You could lose your character to the dark side. If you use a saber or Jedi powers in the Dark Times you will be hunted down. The GM should demand that you follow the strict Jedi code which takes a lot of venues off the plate where the bounty hunter shines. If you are not a Jedi and you want Force training you need to find someone to train you. And when doe this not get messy?

Game wise I'll bet it will cost Jedi a lot to be good at anything but being a Jedi. Then it's up to the GM to allow players with other skills to be effective. A lot of the times this is starship conflicts. Saber or mind trick do you no good when you are in a dogfight. You'll wish you had piloting and ranged skills then.

Jango v Obi Wan is the model here. Obi Wan never hit Jango. Had he, game over. Jango used the environment, ranged attacks, rocket, disarm, bind, etc. for the stalemate. To me that shows just how tough Jango is. But then we saw what happened to him when he did get hit by a lightsaber.

I agree that the lethality poses problems. I just think the GM can work with that situation or type of player. 

usgrandprix said:

[My first post, other than an inquiry about my order on the "ETM" thread:]

AMEN!

usgrandprix said:

[/slow clap]

I agree, dude.

But it ain't a perfect RPG world - and not every player (or GM) is as enlightened as yourself.  12 year-olds will get their hands on this game and play it.  Or powergamers who really want to "kill things lots for teh ubersmak".  But despite that… it's about fun at the table.  And a lot of that comes from players' roles and repesentations within the party.

My number one fear - since before the beta was announced - was that the "new" system wouldn't be able to balance jedi and other characters.  But then I thought about that.  Should they be balanced?  In Star Wars, Jedi are feared/respected because they are "better" than other characters.

But what does that mean for an RPG?  Does it mean that I, as a player who made a Sullustan scoundrel, should just be "okay" with the fact that Jim, who made a Jedi, is just "better than me"?  Each player has the right to be the hero in their own story.  But how can that happen at the table, when one character type will consistently and frequently outclass the other players?

4th Edition D&D tried to ensure this never happened with "super-balance" between classes.  What resulted was a homogenous/silly class separation that turned everyone into a spell-caster (mechanically speaking).  Even 4e lovers eventually tired of the system.  Saga Edition tried to do it by nerfing lightsabers, making it impossible for a straight-classed Jedi to do anything with an engine or computer, and relying (nicely, IMO) on a codified roleplaying mechanic (Dark Side Points, which would eventually lead to character death) to control over-use of the Force.

So far… I'm having a hard time seeing how a Jedi character will be able to do anything but outshine another party member.  Based, of course, off the scant info we have in the beta.  But here's what we know:

- Force Use (dedicated builds, especially) can DESTROY things.

- Lightsabers will kill any group of minions outright with a single advantage on a hit (as a crit instantly destroys minions).

- Even non-minion NPCs will be unlikely to stand up to more than one or two hits from a lightsaber.

Now, some of you may be saying, "That's as it should be, GMC."  Okay.  Then you are okay with one or two PCs in the party outshining the others? 

Or does this mean that it's really not viable to have a Jedi in a party of non-jedi?  Perhaps that's the reason we're seeing three standalone books? 

GM Chris said:

My experience with the 40K line of RPGs tells me this is EXACTLY the reason we're seeing three standalone books.  Much as a Space Marine is supposed to be downright better than an acolyte, so should a Jedi be better than a starting smuggler.

Each of the books will be different in tone, but also in power level.  Now, should a group be comfortable mixing and matching characters from the different rule books, they can do so.

If they are not comfortable doing so, they can all stick to whichever book appeals to them.  I'm certain that someone dead set on a Han Solo-type character using the Force and Destiny book will have some option for doing so in which his natural talent and luck allow him to stand on equal footing, even if its just via a glut of extra starting XP.

Matching a starting xp jedi to a starting xp scoundrel is going to be lopsided by design.  A starting Rogue Trader character is a good deal better than a starting Dark Heresy acolyte.   Boost the XP, level the playing field and move on.  Will it be a perfect surgical balance?  Probably not.  For the d20 crowd just look at it like a level adjustment for draping class levels on a more powerful <something>.

If players want to abuse the game, there are going to be ways to do it.  Whether they purchased Dedication over and over to get all their stats to 6, or pump the gee-wiz out of their force move in order to crush the unbelievers with flying land speeders.

I don't disagree that parts of the system need to be seriously looked at from a "are you really sure you want to do this guys?" angle. 

But a narrative system is a big shift from the past three iterations of star wars d20.  There is not going to be a rule forbidding every kind of munchkin power game nonsense, or a bright set of landing lights to educate newcomers on do it right because the rules say to do it right.  People that rely on "well the rules don't forbid it so it is legal and therefore intended" are either going to love the abuse they can conduct with this system or they will hate it because there is no mechanical blast shield to hide behind.  Some GMs that have never had problems at their table before will have a terrible experience because they will inevitably use the much more open GM fiat capability in EotE to steamroll their players with one-way "storytelling."  Others will feel lost and adrift because there "isn't a page for that."  I hope that a majority of game groups will just talk it out like human beings and enjoy the shared narrative control, and avoid doing stuff that doesn't mechanically make sense or serve the type of game they are running.  Like characters banding together to spend 10,000 credits more effectively (and with a lesesr rarity and sacred cow setting drapery) to obtain a case full of thermal detonators.  No need for jedi there…just a whole lot of structural damage and dead bad-guys…and sad GM's shaking their fist at the heavens yelling "why George…why do tactical nukes fit into pockets?!?!!"

All that being said, yeah there are some real eyebrow raisers in the Beta.  I enjoy game systems that leave a lot of room to roam for the GM and players, but the rules that do exist need to be clear, well intentioned, and well thought out.  Otherwise we'll end up with the 40k line's issue of a slightly improved and modified system for each core game release that will invalidate the current promises of a "seamless" game system.