YIDM said:

I haven't heard that SE balanced it well. I have heard they constructed a good system, but that generally you should just have an all Jedi party, or a no Jedi party, as it still didn't solve the balancing issues of Jedi, even if it was better than the earlier d20 attempts (WEG didn't even try to balance it mechanically. You start off awful, unable to do anything with the force, and by the end you are just walking all over everybody who doesn't use the force. Instead you are meant to use story factors to try and balance it).

borithan said:

Sure, the idea of fully trained, full powered Jedi Knights wasn't readily supported, but low-end Jedi were part of all WEG editions (3 of them, really, 4 if you count 1st+Rules Companion).

Oh, I know all editions of the RPG have included force users in the core books. However, it is only really with the d20 thing that Jedi seemed to become so key to the whole experience (with them being between 1 and 3 of the core classes in the d20 books depending on edition), leaving any Star Wars game "incomplete" if it doesn't include them.

WEG had rules for force abilities, yes, but there was never any implication that the game would be incomplete without a force user being present (or a Jedi in particular). As you say, there were 3 options for force users in the first edition (though I thought it was failed Jedi, young Jedi and alien force student. I thought Quixotic Jedi was added for revised and expanded?), which carried into 2nd edition. 2nd edition in particular didn't present force rules that could fully support a force focussed campaign (as the number of powers were limited and a starting character could have most of them. LIttle room for growth and expansion there). Those three options were just a small number in the large selection of different character types, so you could have a very large party, each choosing different pre-made templates (ie without even thinking about making their own, which was totally viable) and still get nowhere near having to pick a force user. None of the published adventures I have come across presume that there will be a force user present, and all the stuff about them mention how rare force sensivitity is, and how bloody dangerous it is to be an obvious force user.

This compares against d20, where the character options were very limited, and so if you had more than 4 players you were very likely to get a force user. This led to the myth that a standard Star Wars adventuring party has a Noble, Scoundrel, Fringer, Jedi and Soldier. Why? Because those were the 5 classes available to you (ok, there was scout, and the split versions of the Jedi in the earlier versions, but the point mainly stands). And if people point to the original film: 1) that is a very special group of characters in the universe and 2) where is the soldier? Also, the implications of being a force user are not really dealt with. It is just a class feature, rather than something that is probably going to define the life of your character.

 The Soldier keeps getting killed - Biggs, Dak, the 4 no-name rebel soldiers on Endor.

And the only times I've not had a jedi in a WEG party was when I forbade it. It's been "Key to the Experience" for almost every group.

Heck, the guys I put it before last night all sighed deeply when told, "No jedi."

borithan said:

R&E was after 2nd edition from the WEG line as it was actually Star Wars D6 2nd Edition Revised & Expanded.

Oh, I know. The bit in brackets is a seperate clause. I was talking about 1st edition's selection of Young Jedi, Failed Jedi and Alien Force Student continuing into 2nd edition. Quixotic Jedi I was only aware of becoming available in the Revised and Expanded book.

So… I’ve been reading this thread for some time, and silently nodding and deciding if I should post in it.  First off – I’m going to shamelessly toot my own horn – I’ve probably run more Saga Edition games than many people you’ll meet.  One could call me “experienced” with the system.    I have even been called (by others) an advocate of the system, even.  I still firmly believe that Saga Edition is the best d20 system ever created.  I say this, YIDM, so you’ll understand where I’m coming from. 

I want to start by saying that I don’t think anyone should be dog-piling YIDM.  I can see that he’s laying his heart out there about concerns that are bugging him, and he’s done so in an honest, non-inflammatory, and open manner.  Kudos to him for that.  He’s also kept his responses in this resulting debate open and level-headed.  Kudos again.  It’s also clear to me that YIDM’s goal wasn’t to say “EotE sux and Saga rawks and this is why”; I think his goal was to say, “I’m not sure about switching to the new system YET… and these are my concerns…”

I for one, sir, respect your concerns and your opinions on this matter.  But I’d also like to address them in a like-minded manner.

I’m not going to do a “bulleted list” and address each of your concerns one by one – because I feel that many of them can be summed up into several main concerns/issues that seem to be at the core of your unease.  Forgive me for this over-simplification, but I think we can take your 11 Cons and sum them into three over-arching concerns.  Namely:
1) A limited era.  (This encompases both the “stuck in an era” concerns, the “no full-fledged Jedi in EotE” concerns, and the “no full-fledged Mando” concerns.)
2) Not enough material/distribution of material.  (This includes your concerns about pre-made NPCs, stat blocks, weapons, droids, pre-made modules, etc.  As well as worries about the publishing schedule.)
3) New/different dice mechanics/dice and rules.

(Hey, look… I DID end up making a bulleted list, dammit!  LOL… oh well…)

Let’s start with the limited era concern.  Frankly, YIDM, this is going to be a “make-or-break” for many, many players.  And there’s squat-all we can do about it.  Regardless of the reason, FFG has indeed made the decision to release books in line with what we see in Episodes IV, V, and VI.  In that order.  [shrug]  Now, this doesn’t mean there’s going to be “one book a year”.    FFG has already said there will be multiple supplements for each “core” book.  No doubt, those supplements will contain scores of NPCs, vehicles, and cool stat blocks for consumption.  But the fact that those rules are designed for “The Dark Times” era and nothing else is a major turnoff for a lot of folks.  It means the only major Mando in action is Boba Fett.  It means that we can count the number of Jedi AND Sith active in galaxy on one hand.  Personally, I know players who’ve already said “I’ll wait” to FFGs system because of this fact.  They want to play KotOR or Legacy or Clone Wars or whatever.

Now, good points have been made about being able to use the EotE rules to play in those eras, and I agree with that.  Will it require a little work on the GMs part?  Yes.  Will it be more difficult than if FFG just released rules that encompass all that now?  Yes.  But it’s the decision they’ve made.  And (having run a LOT of Saga), I see an unexpected benefit to this that many long-running Saga GMs might agree with me on.  The best way I can relate this is through example:

I ran a Saga game once where my 2nd level Jedi player in the New Republic era knew Shatterpoint, Cloak, and Sever Force.  There is no WAY a young Jedi in that era could (or should) know any of those powers.  But the rules let him, independent of any era constraints.  Can the GM step in and say “these powers are not available in this era, or at this stage of your career”?  Absolutely.  But at that point, you’re still doing the same amount of work as a GM; and you’re pissing off a player by removing options, instead of making a player happy by creating more options.

Despite that, though – this one point of era specificity is (mark my words) going to be the SINGLE biggest gripe about this system when it’s released, by those who’ve not taken part in the beta.  For others, it won’t be an issue at all.  Your mileage may vary.  There’s nothing more to be said for this, except the following:  You can make it work if you want it to.  And if this is the ONLY reason you’re not going to play, it’s not good enough of a reason.  But let’s talk about other potential reasons…

In terms of there being a dearth of material – yeah.  Dude, it’s a new system.  And (this is to all of you who responded to him), YIDM’s point is a very good one.  Looking at it from a perspective of “do I switch now?”, then this is a huge reason not to.  AS A NEW SYSTEM, it obviously doesn’t have the wealth of existing material that Saga does.  Not yet.  So for a player looking to switch, this can be a valid concern.  I think that was YIDM’s point. 

My response to that, YIDM, is this:  one of the things that’s pleasantly shocked me about running EotE is that I don’t need copious stat blocks or supplement material.  Truly, I don’t.  No GM does.  (I was honestly not prepared for this…)  The beta book gives you the tenets of rules for literally “eyeballing” any threat the PCs come across.  I know it sounds cheesy or inaccurate – but it isn’t.  It really isn’t.  And it works wonderfully.  I ran a session last weekend with NO NPC STAT BLOCKS.  None.  When they fought a foe, I quickly jotted down what the opposition dice would be for this level of threat, any defense they might have, and what their attack pool would be.  Add in damage for their weapon and the soak/wound threshold – and… you’re done.  I was eyeballing threats in less than 10 seconds.  So consider that… if you would.    Any Saga GM knows the utter horror of spending nine hours prepping for a game for your level 14 party.  That… won't happen here.  [shrug]

Now, there’s been a lot of other griping about the release schedule of books and “FFG making the moneyz” and all that.  I’ll say this, and then leave it alone:  I hope to GOD that FFG finds a way to milk every blasted dollar out of this system.  It’s not “evil” or “foul”.  It’s capitalism.  And the inability to make money off of an RPG puts the RPG out of business or damn near.  (*cough*TSR*cough*WEG*cough*)  If we want there to continue to be a Star Wars RPG, we need to understand the business model that actually makes money-making off of an RPG viable.  And (as WotC taught us), this means tons of books and accessories.  In the digital age – this is the price we pay for having a living, breathing RPG.  [shrug]

Lastly, I want to talk about the “newfangled dice” and new rules.  This is going to be the toughest pill for many gamers to swallow.  For one concrete reason:  Wizards of the Coast trained us.  They trained an entire generation of gamers WELL.  I actually applaud them for this (it’s masterful).  We’re at a point where many gamers “expect” certain ingrained things out of an RPG – or it’s not a viable experience.  AND WE DON'T REALIZE THIS.  WotC set that expectation in a very calculated and subtle way.

Needing minis and a map.  Having levels.  Earning XP based off the difficulty of the foes you’ll fight (and a few bones for “roleplaying”).  It got to the point that any RPG that didn’t follow these precepts was considered an “indie RPG” – a fringe thing that drunk D&D players did when they didn’t have a full group.  Yes – I said it.  WotC is the reason Indie RPGs exist.  [nods vehemently]  But as time went on… a substantial population of gamers got bored with the same-old shtick.  Indie RPGs began to become the “neo-hipster” movement of gaming, complete with tiny fedora and scraggly goatee (I wear both, by the way).    [sratches back of neck nervously]  Indie RPGs began wining ENnie awards and garnering industry recognition.  They began to appear for massively successful IPs (Dresden Files, anyone?).  But still not “mainstream”.

EotE is an Indie RPG, man.  It plays like it.  It feels like it.  It’s written like one.  BUT, it’s an Indie RPG that has the financial backing of one of the few 800lb gorillas in the room – with all the resources that FFG can throw at it.  A big-box company… is making an Indie RPG.

EotE doesn’t have levels.  You don’t earn XP per foe, but just “per session”, regardless of combat, social, or other encounters.  [shrug]  No minis are needed.  No maps are required.  It uses an “unusual dice mechanic” with (dum dum… DUM!!!) custom dice that give good RP groups further tools to RP even better.  (I've seen that in play, man, and it's pretty sweet.)  It focuses on the narrative over the tactical.  It intentionally makes it difficult to “judge the odds of the outcome” or metagame or make an “uberpwnzage brok3n” character.  But most substantially – it breaks the WotC mold by putting radically different responsibilities on the GM, and on the players.  What you “think” a GM is… is very different in this game.  Same for a player.

Having really GM'd a good amount of EotE at this point – I can solidly say that comparing Saga to EotE based on the rules and mechanics, is like comparing a double-bacon cheeseburger to kung-pow chicken.  It’s easy to debate the merits of one cheeseburger over another.  But EotE is on another menu altogether. 

And that’s the tough part.  MAYBE… you and your group are tired of eating cheeseburgers.  Maybe you’re gonna order some chinese takeout for the night.  Or maybe you and your group don’t like chinese food at all.  (A big RPG developer has been convincing you for the last 15 years that MSG is bad for your health, after all.)  [shrug]  Or maybe you'll try it, and think it's a new, fresh meal.  Maybe you’ll discover that you love it.

But you still have to try it.

It’s different, man.  And I’ll say this.  You are NOT going to “get it” the first time you play.  Neither will your group.  If you’re coming off of a Saga Edition addiction, its apples & oranges (or rather, cheeseburger & kung-pow chicken).  It’ll take a couple sessions – or the services of a skilled GM already “trained” in the system – to “get it”.  Most gamers coming off of Saga will have to “re-learn” how to play in an RPG.  And that prospect is terrifying for a lot of gamers.  But my own beta adventure has taught me how rewarding it can be.    It may not be for you.  Or your group.  Worse yet, it might be just the thing for some of you, but not for others.  But I’ve yet to introduce this system to a player who didn’t enjoy it by the end of the session.  One of my regulars comes to my house straight from a weekly Pathfinder game, and has to physically jog his head about to “reset” for this kind of experience.  And he enjoys them BOTH.

I’ve been playing and GMing Saga Edition religiously since it was released.  I’ve been podcasting about it for just shy of five years.  It’s the best cheeseburger I’ve ever had.  And I know my cheeseburgers.

But I was surprised… by how “ready” I was… for some kung-pow chicken.
 

GM Chris said:

Yep - agree 100%, about all points. EotE is vastly different from other mainstream RPGs, but it's a hell of a lot of fun. The era thing and lask of support isn't something that is going to change anytime soon though, which is probably the biggest downside at the moment.

aramis said:

Agree.  Add me to the naysayers that SWRPG lacked Jedi during OT-era from the beginning or proliferation during this time is some new phenomenon.  Back in the day, WEG got its share of criticism from the movie purists -- remember the canon wars were furious at the dawn of the 90's with the EU back in full swing.  Beyond the templates, rules, and narrative that Jedi exist beyond Luke, Obi-Wan, and Yoda -- we had all sorts of hidden Jedi crawling out of WEG's woodwork.

Most fit the "Jedi in hiding" theme such as Corwin Shelvay, Adalric Brandl, Halagad Ventor.  It also had the random Jedi without much context like Ana Tathis from R+E chapter narrators (and even her Jedi Master Lady Caryn).  And, we even had the oddities like Halbret (slumbering ancient Jedi from Endgame).

This was also all playing out against the backdrop of the vastly expanding EU --- especially with Dark Empire series I & II.  Along with the Skywalker Jedi dynasty begun in DE which added Leia and Anakin-fetus, and yet another "hiding Jedi" Vima-da-boda, we got a ton more in the sequel.  A good example of the budding "offspring of hiding Jedi," Kam Solusar.  Then there's Empatajayos-Humpty-dumpty Brand, an entire planet-full of Force-using Jedi tribesmen as exemplified by Jem and Rayf.  It had its own oddities like Master Ood, tree Jedi who had been asleep for the last 4,000 years.

Then the Jedi Academy Trilogy, which added a bunch more untrained "savant" Force-users, but even Jedi like Tion.

The OT-era Jedi door wasn't opened -- it was blown off the hinges.

And then, we can actually go even further back to Marvel's monthly near the end during the mid-80s, which had Rebels whining to Luke why he's not training Jedi already.

Really, by the mid-90s EU, there were enough Jedi running amok to go storm Coruscant's Imperial Center and have a pretty good chance of being successful.  And a plurality of them, if not majority, were added by WEG.

GM Chris said:

What is it with you and kung-pow chicken? 

Cyril said:

Running gag is still running

First off, let me say GM Chris, that is one of the most well thought out, respectful, analytical, helpful and insightful, and all around best posts I’ve seen in 15+ years of posting on forums (seriously). I didn’t think intelligent people like you existed out here in cyberspace. What in the heck are you doing here?
I will indeed try the “kung-pow” chicken of EotE at some point in the future. It’s worth a try based on what I’ve seen, but I still have my reservations. Perhaps its due to WotC mental conditioning or just what I’m used to in terms of RPGs and systems.
I think you hit the nail in the head that the system itself (and dice) is very different which is what’s causing a lot of the issues / reservations I’m experiencing.

I’m what they call a “Game-ist” and a “Simulationist”; Game-ists view RPGs like a game, Simulationist want to immerse themselves in a setting and experience it. I’m a bit of both, I want the games rules to allow me to simulate what I’ve seen in movies…and I look to the systems mechanics to allow me that experience.
“Narrative-ist” is the other side of the coin; they look to tell an interesting story in setting, and the rules are very secondary. Narrativeist more easily go outside the rules to create the mood and the story they desire however it suits them, with less regard to the rules.
I can tell that’s the major difference between EotE and SAGA ed. EotE is more narrative-ist mindset. Just “make it up” on the fly and throw some difficulty dice in to give the players what the GM feels is an appropriate (representative) challenge to what the players are attempting. It’s whatever “feels right” to the GM at the time and situation (which each GM may rule differently). SAGA ed. is very spelled out and specific rules for most everything, modifiers, etc. Neither way is right or wrong, it’s just two very different ways to Roleplay and tells the same exact story.
My difficulty comes into what types of players I’ve had in the past. Invariably more rules minded players will feel “cheated” if the GM in a narrative-ist style game makes arbitrary mechanics decisions with no hard black/white rules to back it up. In my experience, it’s often created arguments, game disruptions, and caused campaigns to crash or lose interest when it comes up too often. So as a safety net, I tend to lean toward more Game-ist and Simulationist style RPG systems. It saves me the hassle of having to argue it out with a player, I can just point to a page in a book and a rule and say “sorry” and we can all move on and enjoy the game. The rules minded player will get over it with less fuss / hard feelings.
That’s my take on it anyhow. This is all very dependent on your player base to which system will work best.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Now with that said, I must respectfully and strongly disagree with Jegergryte and The Blasted Samphlange
I’m not buying the “hand waiving” (and “beard”) of several of your examples that the EotE system can do what you claim. Not all GMs (or players) would agree to your “story justification” or “interpretation” of what you say the system does in terms of reproducing the Jedi movie examples I put forth. If you go strictly by RAW (Rules as Written) it can’t do MUCH of what you just claimed. And I’m will to bet we can get the game designers to disagree with at least one of your various examples, if not more, on what you just it could do / could be "interpreted" to do.

 
There was a joke in d20, that the “dead” condition was never spelled out enough, so you could do whatever you want when you are “dead” (at zero hp). The “dead” condition never said you couldn’t move, fight, cast spells, etc. or anything to that effect (of course we all know it was implied, hence the joke). As an exaggeration, I think some of what you said EotE could do is like that – a stretch and a rather extreme extrapolation of the EotE rules to try and prove a point.

Some of your examples are akin to saying, “since the mechanics are so grey / undefined, you just make it up and it’s justified…so yes the system can do it”. That’s really not accurate and I can comfortably say that some, if not all of what you claim will be proven false as official publications are released on these Force / Jedi related things.  That arbitarary free-form mentality, IMO is a cheap / lazy, scape-goat way to handle something important (like Force powers/abilities, seeing the future, etc., Dun Moch, lightsaber fighting stuff, etc.) that could easily be more defined in the base book (and is very likely to cause a lot of arguments in play, especially when your players want to do the same thing).
This has broad scope implications… Once you, as the GM, set a precedent for a mechanic in a narrativeist style game (be it Force related stuff, or extracting information from an interrogated NPC, or gathering information, etc.) and a player comes along and wants to do the same thing as you did (to get an edge on a situation), but now you (as the GM) realize it could unbalance the game or give too much advantage and you try to change the outcome, or forget how you applied a dice result the first time, it’s likely going to piss the player off (the rules aren’t being consistently applied to both PCs and NPCS, the GM is picking and choosing when to give bonuses / penalties / outcomes). Having some clear cut rules on some of these important abilities things avoids all that mess.

As an example: You give one Force sensitive player the vision to see the future for plot of the story (and he gets a significant hint to put the players on the right path for your story). You do this more than once, and you’ve set the precedent that he has this ability, and all that goes along with it. Now, down the road he’s more experienced with the Force and actively tries to see the future to help unravel a mystery or predict the future outcome of an event. You know that it would give away too much so you either don’t let him see the future, or make it so cryptic as to be useless. The player can get the feeling of inconsistency. He was less experienced and his power worked better than he is later down the road being more experienced. It can be viewed as being very arbitrary, and if I were the player, I would feel a little cheated. The players abilities work when the GM wants them to, not when the player wants them too. At a certain point, the GM is just telling the story / outcomes of dice rolls and the players are along for the ride. It’s a slippery slope to how much narrative-ist story telling vs. how much “game” and letting the dice decide makes for the best roleplaying experience.

My hope is that EotE final publication defines out some of these things, like Force abilities/powers, and what maximum level of “complications” / hardship their penalty dice mechanic can do so as to avoid problems with inconsistency. Some people may feel this is too stringent and prefer the free-form / open style, but that is where my opinion is (and that’s my, as well as those like me's viewpoint, nothing more nothing less). EotE is set up as a different “flavor” of gaming and I get that (kung-pow chicken if you will). I am interested or I wouldn’t be here, but I do see several of my “Cons” that I hope the final EotE fills up to make it more palatable to people like me, and those I’ve gamed with. I’m a big fan of the Star Wars stuff and want it to succeed.

YIDM
 

GM Chris said:

Hmm… I have to say I haven't had this experience at all, but then I barely played d20. The first RPG I ever played was Star Wars WEG. Over 15 or more years of on and off gaming after that there was a heavily adapted version of Dragonquest, the Buffy RPG, Last Unicorn's Star Trek system, 40k RPG, and then most recently the bad experience that was the Shadowrun system. Aside from the 40k rpg, none of them have levels, and I wouldn't even call 40k's ranks "levels" as such (to me a level based game is where at distinct points you suddenly get a whole set of fixed, or a limited choice of, improvements to your character. While 40k RPG is class based, the ranks only prevent you getting abilities that are too powerful for the kind of person you are meant to be at that stage, letting you freely choose within those limitations).

I don't think FFG's new system is actually that unusual, aside from those who have largely played d20 and litte else (especially now it has dispensed with WFRP's action cards). I don't even think it is that "indie". "Indie" games to me very much suggest very (and I mean very) abstract and light mechanics, which sometimes even sweep away with randomness entirely and turn the game wholly into a cooperative storytelling experience. As much is this system is abstract, it doesn't rival with most true indie RPGs.  You still roll to shoot someone, rather than recount how your characters previous horrific experience on the Tollana front has prepared him for this experience, so he shoots the guy squarely in the chest (as one Indie game I know does it). The only really unusual things the system about it are it's custom dice, and even then custom dice are not unique, and the multiple axes of success (success vs failures, and boons vs banes… or whatever they are called in the Star Wars one).

The only games that truly follow the standard RPG model as you describe it (aside from d20) are computer RPGs, and it makes a lot of sense in that case. A computer has to have discrete, easily managable ways of tracking character progression (asking a computer to judge how well you roleplayed is a futile activity), and dropping bags of xp out of dead adversaries is an easy way to do that (and completing pre-generated, trackable objectives).

YDIM: I'm wondering specifically what of my answers that took RAW into account (not my thoughts on how RAW didn't support, but how to wing it, the other ones), what about these answers could not be done? I mean, the Force Spirit thing is plot device more than anything, unless you have a player that wants to play one - which I would find pointless and disallow in my games anyway. Farseeing is missing, I agreed on that - its a lack that should be solved somehow. As a plot device, it is as you say, problematic - unless you only link it to certain things, like obligation, motivations and the plot. Its not something the player can control (it didn't seem like Anakin could) and only happens when the GM uses it. In that way its a lot more limited and players cannot activate it. They might be disappointed about that, but hey, if you wing-it, you do it with limitations and control - easier to reproduce and not let players or NPCs unbalance the game. Basically stay on top of things, and know what you're doing.

About the "wing it" solutions: the system opens and support such creativity, at least in my experience - until they decide that Dun Möch has to have its own mechanics (which they might want to do in the future) I see no trouble by using coerce and some bonus from being dark and evil. Of course, this becomes problematic once the group wants to play dark siders. Although I do not think that having rules and options for playing dark siders in the core book is necessary or important (there are also slightly differing rules on stuff between npcs and pcs - as it should be in a heroic game).

Lightsaber fighting is like other melee fighting - it always has been, except that in D6 you had some power that could boost it, and I guess the same goes for the various d20 incarnations, the duels were still basically simple melee fights, with good narration hopefully. I do not think this is necessary to reproduce the three duels we see in the original trilogy. The system is open enough and the rounds long and cinematic, that this could work perfectly with the system as is - with the addition of the UCT-skill, which is mentioned in the book. One problem is the defensive and deflection removal from the lightsaber - whatever were they thinking?

Additionally "strictly RAW" in this game (and most others), from my experience and reading of it, is an oxymoron. This system is not strict (and/or disabling - and few games are really), rather its enabling and open (which most games are, with a select few exceptions). The rules are - I suppose - intentionally open and generative, not strict. I am, I guess, from a school of thought that today is linked to the "indie games", but I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as an "indie game" - its a pointless term applied to what deviates from the main stream of WotC and a few other established games, that creates stratification of status and value, which is inherently a social gesture of oppression and distantiation - a rpg is a rpg, "indie" is as mentioned above, a term introduced post-WotC takeover of the young impressionable minds. Having played Rolemaster and HARP (amongst many others), and these games are rules-(and the former roll)-heavy, they still open for and have a central philosophy in the introductions that emphasise the fact the rules are Guidelines. I have always taken this to heart and used only what seemed appropriate for creating good stories and fun evenings (and for 20 years it has been so, or else they wouldn't come back or ask me to GM). With d20 this started to change, and it all turned into monopoly - sort of So the RPG has its roots in strategic board games and the like, but that middle period where it was about imagination, creativity and suspension of disbelief (three hardly important facets anymore it seems) is superior to its roots and the direction WotC took it with d20 3rd ed (and beyond). At least in my, very objective, opinion

I mean, at first the colours and production of 3rd ed. pulled you in, and then those glossy pictures convinced you it was a good game and this was how it should be… I felt it too… I even gave into it for a while, until I realised it was a pile of refuse - games are about fun, not rules. Its a collaborative effort - and I guess I'm a dickhead GM in some peoples' opinion due to my de-contextualisation of my own gaming situation by applying it to the general gaming situation - but if players don't consider each other as equal participants and the GM as the story-teller, the world, arbitrator, God, acute psychiatrist and encyclopedia around the table (to some degree or another, there is a power-asymmetry here, even in EotE), well, then the shared imaginary space within which the world and game actually takes place, evaporates. This is my experience at least. I'm not blessed with great players, but I am blessed with a strong voice and evil stare (not really, they laugh when I try to look evil - I do drug induced torture victim pretty well though), if players moan and bicker - well off with their heads. The game is a social gathering, its not an ego-stroking situation. Granted most of these players started with something else than WotC's pseudo-rpgs (I'm not really under the opinion that they are pseudo-rpgs but sometimes its nice to be blunt and silly), which might explain why they appreciate these ideals of mine. The few who didn't appreciate this, well, I don't invite them to play - because they play the rules, rather than the game. They have strong egos and little social interest - except to shine and "be the best".

So, in conclusion, I understand that we are, more or less, on the opposite end of a scale. Not the ones you're referring to, because simply I find such typification so too reminiscent of simplified systems theory of people like Parsons and Merton (although I do appreciate their meaning and intention - the gaming typifications that is). Its useful, but only to an extent. Because I am a system-buff, I love various systems, to learn systems, test them, but to the end of finding something that is flexible and imaginative and non-restricting for the social, imaginary, creative and narrative experience that I seek in a roleplaying game. I used d20 for years, played OCR, RCR and a bit of SE - but at that point I got tired of squares, slots, and lack of flexibility and customisability that I had become used to through playing HARP.

@YIDM

Thank you for the kind words, sir, but they are uneccesary.    I believe in the words of Ghandi, that you should be the change you want to see in the world.  Or… in this case… the interwebs.  Civil forum discussion (as you have had in all your posts, btw) does exist, but isn't easy.  It requires people to think carefully before they speak (or type) and not respond to a harsh reaction that may have been hastily typed with harshness yourself.  That ain't easy.  We've fostered a pretty amazingly respectful and insightful forum community over at d20Radio, and we even have FFG SW boards over there, where you'll see a lot of familiar faces and forum names.  And we don't put up with bull$#!&   I encourage you to check it out, if you're so inclined.  http://www.d20radio.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=148&sid=15dbeb28078ac0057ac928e224c12896

As to your points, sir - the 'ole "narrativist vs. gamist" argument has been a staple around these boards over here for some time.  I'd like to say that I don't think FFGs system is a narrative system.  (You'd need to play some Fiasco or Dinosaurs…in Spaaace!! for that.)  I think it's a gamist system, in that you have to roll things under a set of rules to accomplish what you need to, and your character stats and enemy stats determine those rolls and success/failure.  But FFGs system clearly has a narrative bent to it. 

The problem you describe is a common one, sir.  We were all "trained by WotC".  The GM.  The players.  But what I've found (I can only speak to my own experiences) is that the rules debates and consternation you've described are artifacts of a super-heavy gamist system (like most d20 systems produced by WotC).  When you move away from that… even slightly… then those concerns tend to evaporate.  It may not seem that way while talking about it like this… but I assure it does in practice.  But as I intimated in my first post, it WILL take you and your players a session or two to get away from that.  The unconscious mindset will be to perform those kinds of rules analyses and debates when you play.  [shrug]

And you have to get buy-in from your entire group before playing, and set expectations as a GM.  This is my boilerplate everytime I game with a new player or set of players: 

"We're not here to play a board game or do some wargaming.  If you wanna do that, that's cool.  I can whip out Descent or Power Grid or Twilight Imperium; or maybe some (half-painted) warhammer 30K or warmachine figs.  We're here to collaboratively tell a badass story in a galaxy far, far away.  That's my goal, as a GM.  Rules exist to support a fun game, and if the rules go against the fun, the rules take a back seat.  So all I ask is that you trust me.  I'm not gonna screw you over, and I'll do my best to ensure that any decisions I make are FUN.  So if I make a call - just go with it.  I promise I'm not gonna make things un-fun for you.  But I need your help, too; I need you as players to be as fearsomely badass and creative as possible.  I WANT you to jump this train off the rails and get creative and fun.  I want us to create an amazing story."

Then… you have to LIVE this attitude when you GM.  If a player questions your call - you smile and stare him in the eye and say, "I'm gonna run it this way for right now."  If you're really concerned about the call, then the two of you can look it up during a break or after the game.  Maybe he's right, and you say, "You're right.  I'm gonna run it the this way (or the other way) from now on.  Thanks for letting it slide during the game, I think it would've slowed things down."  Or - more likely - he'll have had so much fun that he's forgotten all about it.

It's really hard, man, if you're ingrained in a group that isn't used to it.  Many GMs tacitly encourage it.  But if YOU BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE in your party… they'll usually follow.  You are the GM, after all.    And after a few sessions, your party might just silently discover how worthless it is debate over what "dead" means in the game.  LOL…

(This may not happen, YIDM.  Some players live for the "mini-wargame".  But many have never experienced the alternative.)

@borithan

I don't think you're in the category of YIDM or his players.  You never got "trained by WotC".    They freaking RULED THE WORLD of RPGs from the year 2000-2010.  It was D&D or NOTHING.  The figures of play are staggering.  The best way I can relate it to you is through the eyes of a GenCon attendee.  At the height of 3rd Edition D&D (and 4th) the WotC play areas DWARFED any other games.  It was kind of sad, actually.  HUNDREDS of tables all playing D&D at one time, 8 games a day, for 4 days.  They couldn't find enough judges (DM's) to satisfy the demand.  It sounds like you're old-enough school that you never got indoctrinated.

You made a facinating comment, "I don't think FFG's new system is actually that unusual, aside from those who have largely played d20 and litte else…

You realize that's about 75% of the gaming population?     You're clearly not a part of the 75%, nor are the gamers you game with.  (And good on ya for that!!!) 

But considering what I've just related, realize that after the death of TSR (and the practical death of WEG), and the decline of White Wolf, anything not WotC was pretty much "indie".  What you describe as "Indie", borithan, is pretty hardcore indie stuff.  But the FATE system and Savage Worlds (to name a couple) are pretty rules-heavy systems (with abstract elements to them).  But they're "indie" in terms of their player-base (in comparison to WotC) and the size of the production house.  Three to four guys working on a game (half of which are freelancers) does not a big-box game make.  ;-)  And the amount of MONEY WotC could throw at marketing, living campaigns, and distribution was astronomical - compared to other production houses.

So that's kinda my defenition of "Indie".  Independent.  (e.g., not answering to a board of directors and shareholders).  [shrug]  And as the 2000's progressed, that group kinda took on it's own flavor and garnered its own culture and contant themese in gaming - most of which revolved around casting aside the precepts set forth (of all kinds) in the world of the d20 system.  (Which has GOT to be ironic, since it's the way all games were prior to WotC.)

Anyhow.  That's where I'm coming from.

Frankly I find this crap FASCINATING.  The evolution of gaming culture.

You guys wanna help me write a book?