usgrandprix said:

The principle problem is that a roleplaying game with dice effectively reduces such things to a cold percentage game.

You say 'I shall fight clever!!!' and then you roll a one and get cut in half on the first turn. This is unlike a video game, where by if you fail to execute your plan and get tagged it was your mistake. Here the dice let you down.

--

Like I say, it doesn't matter how Jedi 'should' work in this game - eventually the system will need to handle the kinds of Jedi Action one can get in the movies and whatnot, and it needs to be considered how it will do this as a fundamental part of its development.

AluminiumWolf said:

This is actually wrong here, though. If a ranged character stays at Long Distance, a melee opponent can't reach you. There are 5 Range bands: Engaged < Close < Medium < Long < Extreme. So, with only getting 2 Maneuvers per turn, most characters just can't go from Long to Engaged before their opponent can move away. So, in this instance, it plays out exactly like it should: Obi-Wan keeps running after Jango, and Jango just keeps backing up and shooting at him.

Yes, they're both taking strain, but then Obi-Wan is also taking actual damage, while Jango is not.

Could Jango roll a bunch of Threats and slip, letting Obi-Wan catch up? Yeah, but the reverse is also true.

It is totally do-able in this system to just not get anywhere close to someone swinging a lightsaber.

It's also worth remembering that this isn't the only system that shows Star Wars to be a truly lethal place: WEG made combat extremely deadly - if you got hit with anything that could smash out that 16 damage excess of your Strength roll, then you're gone. This replicated the universe, and emphasised the point that, whilst combat DOES happen (and should), the best way to fight is the smart way to fight.

I applaud FFG for their work so far, in all aspects of the game that I have currently read. Lightsabers are deadly, and in the right hands will be extremely lethal; this is accurate to the setting, and I thank them for that. 

Very well said.

---

I guess I can only say that after years of playing GURPS and having long and involved conversations about the importance of headshots killing with one hit I discovered I don't actually enjoy that kind of game very much. I wanted exciting gunfights with lots of movement and tactics, and I got being headshotted on round one or being hospitalised for six months after every action scene.

Be careful what you wish for, I guess.

--

On regenerating health…

I think I like regenerating health because it simulates gunfights in movies so well. You shoot for a bit, and then duck behind cover and wait for the red tint to the screen to go away. And it generates firefights that look like they do in films. With regenerating health and a sticky cover system, video games have now got very good at giving you the feeling of being in a film, and I'd like to see that brought in to a TTRPG somehow.

And there is always the version from Brothers in Arms: Hells Highway, in which getting shot at doesn't reduce your health, in increases the 'Danger' you are in of actually being hit, and if you take cover for a bit the 'Danger' drains away. Only when you get too much 'Danger' do you actually get hit and killed. Exactly the same system, different justification that people might find easier to swallow! (or not, given that it is just the same system).

AluminiumWolf said:

I couldn't possibly disagree more. I know of very few non-superhero movies (Star Wars included) where the heroes take multiple square shots to various parts of the body, rest for a few seconds behind a box, and get up and continue fighting like nothing ever happened.

My point is, nothing takes me out of the action and cinematic feel faster than wonky damage systems that produce silly results like people getting hit with no effect. I'm not opposed to people taking hits and surviving. I'm opposed to people taking hits and suffering no ill effects at all.  I'm well aware of the perceived pitfalls of a one-shot-kill system, but I think such perceptions are often based on theoretical calculations of odds rather than actual game play.

GoblynByte said:

While I think anyone asking for a 'realistic' damage system has probably not spent much time playing in games with one. :-)

What do you think of the BiA: Hells Highway system where the red tint to the screen is caused by 'near misses', and only the last bullet that kills you actually connects?

What I noticed right away with this system is that it is Firefly, with aliens.  Everything about Joss Whedon's universe fits perfectly here and has the same feel. From Obligations and Starting Ships to the Careers and Talents.  It is very much Star Wars, but it is where Star Wars IS Firefly.

 Now… give any one of the Crew a Lightsaber, or make them face one and it IS terrifying. I have a feeling that Edge characters will be less POWERFUL than Force characters, but that FFG will balance it out in some way.

This RPG is obviously about actual role-playing and I think that the characters will shine based far more on concept than mechanics.  I like the idea of a Lightsaber being OP. This setting reminds me of an era before the Dark Times… before the Prequels.

Gigerstreak said:

Firefly was pretty much Star Wars anyway, so I suppose that's fair. Hahahah!

Fair enough. I can say, though, that I've played them quite a bit and I find them far less deadly than most people fear. Injuries have an immediate effect, but that effect is surprisingly rarely instant death. See, I'm not so much in favor of one-shot-kill systems as I am against systems wherein characters suffer no ill effect until they are dead.

The biggest gripe I have is how hit point systems are used to protect heroes and keep them alive while being assaulted by the countless, faceless rabble of thugs. I've just never really agreed with defining "playing the hero" by the number of thugs the hero can slaughter without suffering any ill effects.

In fact, I find such "ablative" heroic protection to really take the wind out of the heroic sails. I see "playing the hero" as knowing darn well you might lose the fight, but marching into that danger anyway.

I think that idea has a lot of merit. I've never played that particular game, but creating a visual where bullets never actually strike home while creating increasingly impending danger has the potential of building tension. I can imagine that moment where the heroes are so overwhelmed that they have to announce that retreat. I mean, "near misses" are more or less the traditional definition of hit points anyway, but if you remove the visual impact of strikes - at least in video games - it takes on a valid expression of cutting into their waning luck.

I will say It's a bit too abstract for my taste (I don't prefer realism, but I do prefer a more literal approach), and I don't know that I'd enjoy it as much as the damage system FFG is presenting right now, but I'd play it an RPG that was built on that combat system! 

 So we finally get a game system that handles stuff like in the fiction - like lightsabers - and now that is a problem? 

Well, there are SW games out there that's not quite like the fiction that solves this 

GoblynByte said:

I have found that high lethality systems tend to encourage people to only fight when they have a massive advantage, which tends to turn fights in to one sided beat downs as the players ambush people in order to try to minimise their chance to shoot back.

This is pretty realistic - an Old West shootout was more likely to consist of someone shooting someone else in the back with a shotgun, in a dark alley, while their target was so drunk they could barely stand up than the classic line up in the centre of town and stare each other out before drawing down duel - but it just isn't what I want from a game, which leans to… well, action video games these days, but more bravado and less bushwhacking certainly.

KjetilKverndokken said:

To be fair, they have a valid point. Immediately deadly weapons have the potential to take heroes out of the fight before they ever get started and this can be unfun for some people. We're talking about the difference between what's accurate, and what's enjoyable and that's a careful balance in an RPG.

But in systems where such deadly odds exist, I prefer to manage these odds in the way that I play the heroes and villains. The happy side effect of that is that the action suddenly takes on a much more cinematic feel because everyone is behaving the way they do in the movies.

Here's how I handle it:

• If the weapon is wielded by a large number of scrubs (e.g. Stormtroopers) I play them as Stormtroopers behave in the movies; rushing into the room just blasting everything in sight and using maneuvers that are threatening and scary, but less accuracy. The end result is a heroic chance of survival when the heroes play smart and keep their cool.
• If the weapon is wielded by a single villain that is better than the heroes (e.g. Vader), well, that usually means I'm trying to herd them anyway, so the players would be best to not attack… but I won't attack them ether. This is when they get captured or they are forced to flee. If they decide to attack, well, that's there choice. Such situations have lead to the most daring escapes I've ever experienced in an RPG and the players get true bragging rights for surviving.
• If the weapon is wielded by a more evenly matched villain, I play him/her with an even mixture of skill. They'll leave occasional openings for the heroes to take advantage of, and it will usually be some personality flaw that opens them up for defeat. A flaw that, if the players were paying attention, is pretty obvious and can be drawn out.
• Any hit that is solid usually hits an arm, leg, hand, or foot. The hero will be injured and his abilities impaired, but the drama of the scene is suddenly that much greater and he'll live to tell the story.
• If things get out of hand and a roll results in a death that just isn't fun, I fudge it. The players never know about it. Simple as that.

I've used these methods in some of the deadliest systems known to gamers and, in my opinion and experience, has lead to some of the most rewarding, cinematic, and heroic campaigns I've ever experienced. The players really feel energized about the whole thing. And if they get to toast the loss of an occasional hero at the local cantina… well… that seems to make things more memorable too.

AluminiumWolf said:

I can see that.  I mean, that's not exactly been my own experience. I will say that they tend to find non-combat solutions when the odds are against them. Or they find ways to create distraction that create more even odds. But that sort of strategy plays well with the scenes we see in the movies.