TheRPGSite

I like the game mechanics, even with the funky dice. My issue is that the rules are basically "collectible".

Want ships? Buy Age of Rebellion.

Want wookies? Buy Edge of Empire.

Want jedi? Sorry, they don't exist in this game..., but you can be force-sensitive if you buy Force and Destiny!   (And seriously, who the fuck thought leaving jedi out of a Star Wars game was a good idea? All of the movies are ABOUT jedi.)

I don't mind much when a game splite its content between books like that.  If I like a game, I will buy several books in its line anyway.

Perhaps because we did not lay enough to become accustomed, but I found the dice to be the most useless and overly engineered mechanic of any game I've ever run.  It was very taxing to run a game with pointless complications/boons constantly delaying the pace and flow of the game.  The complications/boons take too much creative energy and end up making the game feel overly random.

I'm with the OP. I was never a fan of multi-books games in the first place.

Also, I find FFG Star Wars way of implementing fail forward too much on the complicated side. I wouldn't matter playing it, but I could see some problems to GM it.

I can see the dice becoming too complicated at times, but I think it was a neat idea. It would probably be easier to go the old "roll d6s and add them", but sadly, FFG did not revive that game.

Yeah, I agree it's neat. Perhaps in play with a proficient GM it flows nicely ? I would be definitely open to try it.

Quote from: danbuter;875155I like the game mechanics, even with the funky dice. My issue is that the rules are basically "collectible".

Want ships? Buy Age of Rebellion.

Want wookies? Buy Edge of Empire.

Want jedi? Sorry, they don't exist in this game..., but you can be force-sensitive if you buy Force and Destiny!   (And seriously, who the fuck thought leaving jedi out of a Star Wars game was a good idea? All of the movies are ABOUT jedi.)

All three books have quite a few ships and force sensitive PCs. Force and Destiny can do Jedi, just add 150-300XP, but the default is the Jedi as presented in the OT.

My main beef with the three books is that there is too much overlapping material repeated to cater for those that don't want to buy multiple corebooks. FFG should have backed it's approach and made the best of it rather than compromise. I would have remove force sensitive PCs from EotE and AoR, item customisation from AoR and FaD, removed all repeated races, and added a mass combat system to AoR. That would cut about 50 pages from each book too.

Quote from: danbuter;875155Want ships? Buy Age of Rebellion.
Want wookies? Buy Edge of Empire.
Want jedi? Sorry, they don't exist in this game...,

WTF???

Ouch. More reasons to stick with WEG's D6 Star Wars.

Quote from: danbuter;875155Want jedi? Sorry, they don't exist in this game..., but you can be force-sensitive if you buy Force and Destiny!   (And seriously, who the fuck thought leaving jedi out of a Star Wars game was a good idea? All of the movies are ABOUT jedi.)

Force and Destiny is really a game for an all Jedi party (there are 18 different flavors of Jedi in there). They didn't put any effort into trying to merge it into the other lines. For example, since you can't ever change your Career, any character created in EotE or AoR who later becomes a Jedi won't have access to any of the Force and Destiny Signature Abilities. F&D created character are simply better.

When talking about this issue on the FFG forums, the general consensus is that Jedi and non-Jedi shouldn't mix in the same campaign. Which, as you say, is pretty weird for a SW game.

As someone who's been playing this game line since the first beta came out, I gotta say...  What?

Did you actually play any of these?

Quote from: hedgehobbit;875188When talking about this issue on the FFG forums, the general consensus is that Jedi and non-Jedi shouldn't mix in the same campaign. Which, as you say, is pretty weird for a SW game.

The underlying design assumption of FFG's Star Wars games is that the Star Wars universe is one in which smugglers, nobles, and Jedi all adventure separately.

Ignore all the sloppy design that turns a few good ideas into a towering edifice of over-complicated, contradictory nonsense. All you really need to ask yourself is whether you want a game where the designers have such a fundamental misunderstanding of how Star Wars stories work?

It's as baffling to me as when Bill Slavicsek insisted that nobody should be allowed to play droids.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;875279The underlying design assumption of FFG's Star Wars games is that the Star Wars universe is one in which smugglers, nobles, and Jedi all adventure separately.

Ignore all the sloppy design that turns a few good ideas into a towering edifice of over-complicated, contradictory nonsense. All you really need to ask yourself is whether you want a game where the designers have such a fundamental misunderstanding of how Star Wars stories work?

It's as baffling to me as when Bill Slavicsek insisted that nobody should be allowed to play droids.

As opposed to your fundamental misunderstanding of how great FFG Star Wars is? ;) And seriously? The game lines aren't supposed to work together? The game I've been running for months would love to disagree.

To those who say you can't play Jedi: You're wrong.

Also, I seem to remember the 2d20 System being shit on a bit here...the one Jay Little created? That powers the game you develop, correct? Do you dislike that, too?

The new SWRPG rocks. It may not rock for everyone, but it rocks nonetheless. So, opinions and assholes. However, many criticisms are disingenuous.

As someone who has played with a mixed crew of characters (We had a Togruta Jedi Counselar, Shien Expert who dipped into other Lightsaber users paths, a Bounty Hunter Assassin droid -Me, I love HK-51-, a Human Rebel Pilot and a Twi'lek Smuggler Scoundrel) at about 150 XP, which according to the rules of F&D makes the Force User into a full on Jedi Knight, and we all played together really well, I gotta say:  You guys are too hung up on wanting to hate this game.

It may not be for everyone, that's fine, but not being 'compatible'?  That I personally disagree with.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;875282To those who say you can't play Jedi: You're wrong.

Nobody is saying that you can't play a Jedi, just that being a Jedi is locked behind a $60 paywall. It's not haters who split all this up. FFG treats each game as a separate line. For example, there isn't an adventure written for mixed parties, they're either all smugglers, all rebels, or all Jedi.

A case can be made for the first two games. EotE is about characters working with the underworld (willingly or not) and AoR is about Rebellion troops fighting the Empire. These setups are sufficiently different that you might be able to justify them as two games. But that's not the case for F&D. It's a game about Jedi doing Jedi stuff. So Jedi fighting the Empire or Jedi working with the underworld are left out. For no reason really. I would have taken all of four pages to include a generic "Jedi" spec in EotE/AoR. You could still have a full blown Jedi game even with that.

Instead, FFG forces people to buy a $60 game just to include one Jedi-type character in your game. And it doesn't even do a good job of that as the Specs in F&D are all designed for starting character and not as add-ons to the previous Force Exile and Force Emergent specs.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875285As someone who has played with a mixed crew of characters (We had a Togruta Jedi Counselar, Shien Expert who dipped into other Lightsaber users paths, a Bounty Hunter Assassin droid -Me, I love HK-51-, a Human Rebel Pilot and a Twi'lek Smuggler Scoundrel) at about 150 XP, which according to the rules of F&D makes the Force User into a full on Jedi Knight, and we all played together really well, I gotta say:  You guys are too hung up on wanting to hate this game.

You're post does a great job illustrating my point. Jedi work best if they start as full Jedi not if they use the force user rules from EotE and AoR. Many GMs wouldn't want to start PCs off as Jedi but, rather, have them grow into it as Luke and Rey do.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;875345You're post does a great job illustrating my point. Jedi work best if they start as full Jedi not if they use the force user rules from EotE and AoR. Many GMs wouldn't want to start PCs off as Jedi but, rather, have them grow into it as Luke and Rey do.

My bad, we all started at 0 XP and went to 150, we're up to 165 as of yesterday.  My Droid, the Togruta, the Pilot and Smuggler, we all started fresh.  (HK-51 was literally 1 minute old when the game started, and was imprinted on the Twi'lek girl.  It's been...  A fun ride.  Haven't called anyone a 'meatbag' yet, but I'm still playing the gun happy psycho.  "Query:  This one is still moving, Master, would you like me to put a few more shots into it, to make sure it's truly dead?")

Quote from: hedgehobbit;875345Nobody is saying that you can't play a Jedi, just that being a Jedi is locked behind a $60 paywall. It's not haters who split all this up. FFG treats each game as a separate line. For example, there isn't an adventure written for mixed parties, they're either all smugglers, all rebels, or all Jedi.

Really? You can't... you know, just start with the Force and Destiny book? These books are *massive*... calling it a paywall is, pretty hyperbolic considering right now - you simply choose what the focus of your game is going to start as and go with that book. The reason the lines are split up are pretty obvious - there's a TON of content in those books and characters of those respective lines tend to be focused on doing things that those kinds of characters do.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;875345A case can be made for the first two games. EotE is about characters working with the underworld (willingly or not) and AoR is about Rebellion troops fighting the Empire. These setups are sufficiently different that you might be able to justify them as two games. But that's not the case for F&D. It's a game about Jedi doing Jedi stuff. So Jedi fighting the Empire or Jedi working with the underworld are left out. For no reason really. I would have taken all of four pages to include a generic "Jedi" spec in EotE/AoR. You could still have a full blown Jedi game even with that.

You know you can do that with those books? They have force-rules in EotE and AoR. Are they full-blown X-wing tossing Jedi? No... but then that's not the point of those books, right? Right.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;875345Instead, FFG forces people to buy a $60 game just to include one Jedi-type character in your game. And it doesn't even do a good job of that as the Specs in F&D are all designed for starting character and not as add-ons to the previous Force Exile and Force Emergent specs.

FFG, to my knowledge isn't *forcing* anyone to do anything. As I said before - you can play a force-using character in BOTH games outside of Force and Destiny. Saying it's locked behind a "paywall" is like making a claim *any content they can't fit into a book you bought for apparently the wrong reason is locked behind a paywall*, seems rather dissonant. You want to play fullblown Jedi? Go buy the Force book. What's the problem? You don't need any of the other books to play it. Oh wait... you want it all in one book? Well tell that to every other RPG company that produces... you know... content?

So do you just want to play your RPG out of one book and that it? No other books covering content they can't fit into it? If so I think you're being unreasonable.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;875345You're post does a great job illustrating my point. Jedi work best if they start as full Jedi not if they use the force user rules from EotE and AoR. Many GMs wouldn't want to start PCs off as Jedi but, rather, have them grow into it as Luke and Rey do.

Except that Force and Destiny Jedi aren't radically more powerful than EotE/AoR Force-users. And don't get me started on the lightsabers. EotE/AoR characters can get ungodly powerful lightsabers right out of the box (if the GM allows it).

Having said all that. These books all work perfectly fine together. I have zero-idea where anyone got the idea they don't. And their business model, like it or not (I don't like it much either*) but it seems to be what most of the big RPG games are doing now.

* I don't like the model, but damn me if FFG's generally standards of quality are not pretty rock-solid. As a guy that generally detests adventures, they make some really good ones that are sandboxable. So as long as it works and has value, I'll support it. I *hate* haveing to look up rules all over the place. That's the worst part.

Everyone has certain dealbreakers when it comes to RPGs.

Narrative Rules vs. Traditional Rules
Rules Heavy vs. Rules Light
One Book with supplements vs. Multiple Core Rulebooks
Funky Dice vs. Classic Dice
Books vs. Books plus cards/paraphernalia
Class-based vs. Skill-based
Levels vs. No Levels

FFG Star Wars I think just has more deal-breakers than most RPGs.  They start with the Multiple Core Rulebooks approach like the 40k RPG, but add-in Funky Dice, Class-based, and Narrative Rules while being fairly Rules Heavy.  Just more reasons for people to not like the game compared to other mass-market games.

I find that the Basic boxed sets are detailed enough for most of my needs. By buying all three of those I get a lot of goodies without having to deal with the depth of some of the character trees and so on.

I also bought the hardback books but may never play using them. Too many options, which is probably good for some players but just drives me nuts as a GM because it allows too much of the min/max effect as players work the system.

The dice are a bit strange but oddly fun to use, at least in a short campaign. In a long-term game they may start to get annoying, but so far my players like them.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;875282Also, I seem to remember the 2d20 System being shit on a bit here...the one Jay Little created? That powers the game you develop, correct? Do you dislike that, too?

Absolutely. Like you, I'm a complete idiot and if anybody ever releases something that I don't like I immediately must forswear and despise everything else they have ever made. (/s)

Quote from: CRKrueger;875379Everyone has certain dealbreakers when it comes to RPGs.

I get all that. I just find that as all these years have rolled by under my table, my ability to make a game work the way I do things (which I would say I run a "in-depth Sandbox-style, world-in-motion" etc. kinda thing) the system matters less and less.

I *dislike* 4e for instance. Mainly because the mechanics are limp to me. I don't find it fun to express D&D this way. But could I make it work? Sure.

What I find a bit odd about the line of reasoning with the "paywall" - is that by a LARGE, HUGELY VAST margin - the majority of the content that exists in the Star Wars Expanded Universe comes from the West End game>Comics>Novels>Videogames>Movies in that general order. Everything from the infrastructure of Empire, the timeline, the makeup of the Jedi/Sith blah blah blah. Any attempt to organize an RPG around Star Wars at this point *has* to break that massive amount of content up. It's impossible to do it justice otherwise (see the Kara-Tur thread). It seems silly to me to expect that.

There is an interesting thing that might deserve it's own thread - the connection between Intellectual Property/Genre/System AS an RPG. FFG would never have gotten me to even look at this system without the Star Wars license. I was happy as a clam using my West End books (still am). But to me, it's an endorsement to the miracle of their design that I took a big swig of their Kool-Aid, and used their system *my way* (I don't play modern-era SW) and sure as shit... it worked great. And I have my "dealbreakers" too... and yet. I can't find a whole lot I dislike about the game. There's nitpicks sure. But they're mostly due to things they didn't account for that are easily handled with leveraging the mechanics as necessary.

Quote from: CRKrueger;875379FFG Star Wars I think just has more deal-breakers than most RPGs.  They start with the Multiple Core Rulebooks approach like the 40k RPG, but add-in Funky Dice, Class-based, and Narrative Rules while being fairly Rules Heavy.  Just more reasons for people to not like the game compared to other mass-market games.

If it's not your cuppa, nothing I can say will change that for anyone. I'm against most of these things in general - yet... I really like and respect the design and production quality of this game.

Also, the term 'paywall' has been abused to the point of meaninglessness now.

Quote from: danbuter;875155I like the game mechanics, even with the funky dice. My issue is that the rules are basically "collectible".

Want ships? Buy Age of Rebellion.

Want wookies? Buy Edge of Empire.

Want jedi? Sorry, they don't exist in this game..., but you can be force-sensitive if you buy Force and Destiny!   (And seriously, who the fuck thought leaving jedi out of a Star Wars game was a good idea? All of the movies are ABOUT jedi.)

The funky dice and utilizing symbols are a part of the same same 'walled garden' strategy that both cuts out third parties but leaves you strongly motivated to complete your purchase with additional accessories from a single, compatible source - like Scientology or buying Apple consumer products.

Years from now when the interest is gone, the dice are no longer sold, and the app is no longer cared for the flaw of custom dice will be revealed.  Mainly you can't play the game without modifying good number dice.

Quote from: Snowman0147;875424Years from now when the interest is gone, the dice are no longer sold, and the app is no longer cared for the flaw of custom dice will be revealed.  Mainly you can't play the game without modifying good number dice.

Yeah.  After all, it's not like they got you covered by giving you examples of how to use basic dice in place of the custom dice.

Oh wait, they do.

Quote from: tenbones;875410FFG would never have gotten me to even look at this system without the Star Wars license.

No one bought any other game of Jay Little's either that didn't come with a decades-old IP attached.  Which is why when MWP and Modiphius peddle their narrative systems, they do it through any IP they can manage to buy.

Quote from: Snowman0147;875424Years from now when the interest is gone, the dice are no longer sold, and the app is no longer cared for the flaw of custom dice will be revealed.  Mainly you can't play the game without modifying good number dice.

Brutally onerous. But there is an official sticker sheet for the dice you can print out and sticker normal or blank dice.

Theres probably a conversion table or two by now as well.

Quote from: Omega;875446Brutally onerous. But there is an official sticker sheet for the dice you can print out and sticker normal or blank dice.

Theres probably a conversion table or two by now as well.

Actually, the conversion table has been there since the beta.  I know, cuz I own two of their beta books, as well as their full releases.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875198As someone who's been playing this game line since the first beta came out, I gotta say...  What?

Did you actually play any of these?

Not sure who you directed that at, but yes, I played the starter set.  The adventure was a bland railroad, but that did not matter.  We were playing it to try out the rules and went into it expecting a starter adventure to be non-interesting.  

Gave it two solid sessions to complete the adventure.  Every other version of Star Wars has hooked in that amount of time.  Probably too set in my ways to grok the funky dice and random boons/setbacks.  

Gave it to an old buddy.  Have not talked to him since, but hopefully he liked it well enough.

Quote from: Omega;875446Brutally onerous. But there is an official sticker sheet for the dice you can print out and sticker normal or blank dice.

Theres probably a conversion table or two by now as well.

There is a conversion table.

It's in the core books.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875440Yeah.  After all, it's not like they got you covered by giving you examples of how to use basic dice in place of the custom dice.

Oh wait, they do.

Point is if they built the game to last they wouldn't need to do that.  Instead they are giving you a lazy patch by giving you one of two things.  A table that translate number dice which slows down the game more.  The other option is to stick on those symbols on to dice.  Not a pretty option that will worn out the stickers and leave you dice sticky.

Just be honest the only reason your playing this shit game is because it has the Star Wars label on it.  This game won't survive within five years is my guess.

Generally speaking, the idea that no game should be allowed to do something if it requires you to own funky, unusual dice for it is completely ridiculous in an industry that got its start with D&D.

Quote from: Snowman0147;875424Years from now when the interest is gone, the dice are no longer sold, and the app is no longer cared for the flaw of custom dice will be revealed.  Mainly you can't play the game without modifying good number dice.

Wait, what am I going to do when they stop selling the dice... oh no, when they stop selling them are all the sets I already own going to turn to dust. What, no, oh I guess you should stop making ridiculous arguments that don't hold water.

Quote from: Snowman0147;875458...This game won't survive within five years is my guess.

Being as the games been around since 2012 you only need wait about a year to see if you're right.

Quote from: VictorC;875468Being as the games been around since 2012 you only need wait about a year to see if you're right.

Alright I give you that.  Doesn't change the fact that if it was not for the Star Wars label the game wouldn't sell at all.  Before anyone ask yes I did played the game and I know how the dice works.  I still find it to be shit and frankly your better off with the d6 Star Wars.  Hell your better off with the Saga Edition if you ever manage to get that book.

I love D6 and the d20 versions as much as the next fan, but they are not perfect by any means. If you find enjoyment out of the FFG version, that's great. There can never be too few Star Wars games.

I've played quite a bit of 'Edge of the Empire' and it's alright. It's pretty much the perfect opposite of what I'd like (funky dice, multiple books, heavy crunch, etc.) but I've had fun. Would I prefer to be playing the WEG d6 version? Sure. Does EOTE prevent me from having fun? No.

That said, licensed systems don't seem to default to providing the kind of experience described in the films, which is odd to me. The films all focus on some of the most talented Jedi ever (many even start as powerful Jedi), who are also amazing star pilots, teamed up with veteran pilots and crack shots. That's not a valid description of our group of misfits :D

Quote from: Justin Alexander;875462Generally speaking, the idea that no game should be allowed to do something if it requires you to own funky, unusual dice for it is completely ridiculous in an industry that got its start with D&D.

Thing is though polyhedrals are relatively easy to come by. They were around before D&D.

Custom dice arent so much a problem if they came with the game or were produced in quantity. Since this is FFG we are talking about. That is not a problem really.

Rarity of the "whatever" is the real problem. Expansion books with low print runs can end up bitchingly hard to get as time goes on. Case in point is Dragon Storm which I designed some cards for way back while partnered with BDP. The later race packs are nigh impossible to get now as they saw very limited print runs. I have yet to see the last setting book up on e-bay yet. Anyone wanting the complete game is pretty much screwed.

Apps and other gadgets though can become increasingly, to impossible, to acquire as time goes on. Companies stop supporting the game and remove the page with the app. The widget needed to play breaks down and replacements are long out of stock. Theres a couple of examples now in the board gaming. But so far havent heard of it for an RPG. Yet.

That is exactly my point Omega.  To this day people still play black box D&D with no issues.  Can you say the same for FFG Star Wars forty years down the road?  The other Star Wars won't have this issue.

Quote from: Snowman0147;875485That is exactly my point Omega.  To this day people still play black box D&D with no issues.  Can you say the same for FFG Star Wars forty years down the road?  The other Star Wars won't have this issue.

Those dice are all over the place. While not as frequent as say FUDGE type dice. FFG is known for mass producing stuff. So say 10 years from now you'll still be finding their oddball dice secondhand. How pricy depends on how much was produced. You can still get Dragon Dice relatively cheap even now if you look around since TSR went overboard producing it.

Personally I am not overly fond of them. Its just a little too gimmiky and a little clunky initially. Its a real pain to anyone who has trouble with symbols. We ran into this with some players who had a hard time grasping the symbols on Race for the Galaxy, or the symbol heavy Monsterpocalypse board games.

Which brings up a question. Are there any  other RPGs with symbol heavy elements? FFGs Star Wars is the only one I can think of. IE: More than 3 symbols. There are plenty of board/dice games now. But RPGs?

Quote from: Snowman0147;875485That is exactly my point Omega.  To this day people still play black box D&D with no issues.  Can you say the same for FFG Star Wars forty years down the road?  The other Star Wars won't have this issue.

Dude, 40 years from now, a 3d printer that can churn out any die (or mini probably) will cost $100 bucks.

I ran all three starter sets at Orca Con a few weeks ago. We all had a blast. Everyone picked it up quickly, some within a couple rolls, and a few after a few encounters (one player took nearly all the encounters...). One kid said that was his favorite Star Wars experience (he played d20 IIRC).

I like the various outcomes, and what you can spend advantage and threat on. It really felt like a Star Wars movie. The final battle in the Jedi adventure was so epic! One of my favorite con games. The dice results help push you to be creative and stay engaged.

I think it strikes a nice balance. Not TOO heavy, but many options in there for players who enjoy that. Lots of re-play-ability IMHO. The dice are fun. I was worried as well, but after reading a couple times and mulling it over I decided to give it a real kick-in-the-tires. I was pleasantly surprised.

I wouldn't fret too much about availability. FFG had the license renewed, which includes episode VII, and they are producing a steady stream of books. I imagine the advent of the latest movies and merchandising should keep a Star Wars RPG (especially one with these gorgeous production values) in the standing for some time.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;875397Absolutely. Like you, I'm a complete idiot and if anybody ever releases something that I don't like I immediately must forswear and despise everything else they have ever made. (/s)

Wow, mature, aren't you? I never called you an idiot. I just think your opinion of the system is disingenuous. But it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. People can hate any game they want and others can love the same games. The only thing that really bothers me is when people rant about things that are patently untrue.

Quote from: tenbones;875410What I find a bit odd about the line of reasoning with the "paywall" - is that by a LARGE, HUGELY VAST margin - the majority of the content that exists in the Star Wars Expanded Universe comes from the West End game>Comics>Novels>Videogames>Movies in that general order. Everything from the infrastructure of Empire, the timeline, the makeup of the Jedi/Sith blah blah blah. Any attempt to organize an RPG around Star Wars at this point *has* to break that massive amount of content up. It's impossible to do it justice otherwise (see the Kara-Tur thread).

To me this is really the core of the issue. Deciding what value Star Wars setting information in an RPG book is worth when Wookipedia exists. Especially when most of the WEG generated information has been removed from the official canon of the galaxy.

For example, a time line of the Rebellion is going to be constantly changed due to SW Rebels and then again, possibly significantly, when Rogue Squadron comes out.

I'd much rather the core rule book contain more game-able material (such as the previously mentioned Jedi rules) than out of date setting info.

Quote from: CRKrueger;875441No one bought any other game of Jay Little's either that didn't come with a decades-old IP attached.  Which is why when MWP and Modiphius peddle their narrative systems, they do it through any IP they can manage to buy.

Yeah. But then the rubber-hitting-the-road becomes - was it a successful? Was it "good" (in terms of your subjective experience in using it.) For me, it was. And I've said it many times - I'm as shocked as anyone else.

But that's marketing for ya.

Quote from: Snowman0147;875458Point is if they built the game to last they wouldn't need to do that.  Instead they are giving you a lazy patch by giving you one of two things.  A table that translate number dice which slows down the game more.  The other option is to stick on those symbols on to dice.  Not a pretty option that will worn out the stickers and leave you dice sticky.

Just be honest the only reason your playing this shit game is because it has the Star Wars label on it.  This game won't survive within five years is my guess.

What is the litmus test for survival? Do you mean life-in-print? I personally wouldn't use that criteria as my main one, I have a lot of games not in print I use all the time. Heck, I still use the Westend d6 books.

So given that, having funky dice laying around that I'll only use with FFG's Star Wars isn't that big of a deal since I have a bunch of d30's and Fudge Dice I've never used or whatever, but the game itself has legs. Between the three game-lines in FFG Star Wars, I have enough to run Star Wars to my heart's content. They could kill all the lines now and let the license drop, the holes left remaining would be minor. Certainly nothing I couldn't fill in myself or with community support material and/or D6 references.

But you are right the only reason I'm playing this game is the Star Wars license, heh. But it's been worth the ride for me.

Considering that I haven't yet played or run SWSE - and I own *all* the books + an extra core book.... Yeah. I just said no to FFG's system on that principle.

However - if other people are having fun with it, that is totally fine with me. :P

For the curious this is the layout of the FFG SW dice. Its also a sticker sheet. Not sure of its the official one?

(http://i1093.photobucket.com/albums/i421/thexder42x/SWDicestickers_zps4ce56750.jpg)

These dice are not used with X-Wing or with Imperial Assault.

Quote from: Snowman0147;875485That is exactly my point Omega.  To this day people still play black box D&D with no issues.  Can you say the same for FFG Star Wars forty years down the road?  The other Star Wars won't have this issue.

IME if an RPGer has kept or is willing to source books that are 30+ years OOP, they won't have an issue using and/or modding polyhedral dice to play it (or programming their own dice app if we are talking 40 years from now).

As for black box D&D, its only 25 years old, so it fails by your own test. TBH putting the bar for success for any RPG at "as successful as D&D" just shows that you know how weak your argument is.

Quote from: Omega;875578For the curious this is the layout of the FFG SW dice. Its also a sticker sheet.

Pretty. But confusing. Like those European ideographs they put on automobile controls instead of using words in English* like "Heat" "Cool" "Defrost" or "Fan."



* As god intended. :p

Quote from: Omega;875578For the curious this is the layout of the FFG SW dice. Its also a sticker sheet. Not sure of its the official one?

(http://i1093.photobucket.com/albums/i421/thexder42x/SWDicestickers_zps4ce56750.jpg)

These dice are not used with X-Wing or with Imperial Assault.

It's official, and it's only confusing if you don't have any of the core books.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875593It's official, and it's only confusing if you don't have any of the core books.

It can be confusing even if you've got the books. The funky dice are the single reason my group stayed away from the games because several people weren't sure about them and one guy came right out and said he didn't want to come home after working all day and put that much effort into deciphering his dice rolls.

We're all different. Some people get the symbols without issue, but for others they are an absolute turn-off. It's much how some people love FATE but others just never grok Aspects.

I just bought 6 sets (one set in each beginner box, + 3 retail sets). That way, there should be enough on both sides of the screen! :-)

Also, I thought the dice were going to be complicated. Until I played it with newbs. Now I know, it's intuitive and fast. Fun results.

The dice complexity is overrated. I was skeptical of the dice at first like many gamers, but I read through the Edge of the Empire beginner set and I figured it in about five minutes. I'm thinking of actually running an Episode VII game online with the rules but maybe starting the party off with more experience.

According to those criteria I suppose fudge and fate are doomed....

Guess no one told Fate.

Quote from: Endless Flight;875603The dice complexity is overrated. I was skeptical of the dice at first like many gamers, but I read through the Edge of the Empire beginner set and I figured it in about five minutes.

And I actually ran that beginner game to try the system out. Like I said, for some people the dice are no problem, but for others they are a significant deterrent. That's why I'd recommend anyone looking to get into FFG's SW games try one of the beginner games first to see how their group likes it. If all goes well, they can start splurging on books plus they got a set out of the dice out of it. And if people don't care for the game, then at least it wasn't much of an investment.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875593It's official, and it's only confusing if you don't have any of the core books.

To you or me. And I dont even need the books.

But design-wise I think some of the symbols are a little too similar. Too many vaugly circular shapes. Yeah I know some are from the source. But still. Design 101: Every additional hurdle to learning a game is a potential player lost. Note that FFG thought to add the conversion tables. Good planning on their part.

I've played White Wolf Games, the concept (to me, and maybe me only) was very similar, so after a game or two, I grasped the dice decently enough.

I'm in the "HATED the dice" but "had fun playing it nonetheless" crowd.

Oddly the person at the table who was best at reading the dice hated them too.

But I enjoyed making and playing my Droid and once the GM stopped making us interpret every die roll and went to the standard values for the fiddly die results (sorry I forget exactly what those were) the dice weren't quite as annoying, just still a pointless complexity IMHO.

Quote from: Bren;875589Pretty. But confusing. Like those European ideographs they put on automobile controls instead of using words in English* like "Heat" "Cool" "Defrost" or "Fan."



* As god intended. :p

6 symbols is confusing?

Quote from: Sommerjon;8756256 symbols is confusing?

At best, unnecessary. I already possess dice with pips and numbers that I am very familiar with using and I am perfectly fluent in the Roman alphabet if for some reason numbers don't suffice. I don't need the gimmick of dice with tiny pictures. If I want to puzzle over pictures I can dig out one of my sets of Rory's Story Cubes. When I use those I'm trying to generate new ideas so speed of comprehension isn't really the point. When I roll dice in an RPG I want the mechanics to be easily comprehensible so they get out of the way of the play. Pictures don't do that for me.

I gave the example of the the icons on automotive controls. Exit signage and that on men's and women's rest rooms is another example. The icons are these sorts of things.

Spoiler

(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/settings-icon-set-control-icons-vector-illustration-simplus-series-31848455.jpg)

I hate them. I miss the controls that said "Defrost" or signs that said "EXIT" or "MEN", but I suspect (or at least I hope) my opinion is a minority one since those sorts of icons have become the standard.

So, in essence, Bren, what you're saying is you hate change.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;875526I just think your opinion of the system is disingenuous.

Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think I'm lying about what my opinion of the system is?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875630So, in essence, Bren, what you're saying is you hate change.

No. Im pretty sure he is saying that he grocks the mechanic. But he just doesnt want to deal with the extra layer of mechanic.

Simmilar came up way back with TORG. The cards added an extra layer to the role playing that some didnt like. They grasped the mechanic easily enough. They just didnt LIKE the mechanic. Or saw it as a mechanic for something that didnt need one. Same as how some look at the Inspiration mechanic in 5e D&D.

Now add in the extra little twist that its represented with some icons.

For some its simple. Others struggle with it.

Quote from: Omega;875668No. Im pretty sure he is saying that he grocks the mechanic. But he just doesnt want to deal with the extra layer of mechanic.

He just stated that it's something new he doesn't want to learn.  That's pretty self-explanatory.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875670He just stated that it's something new he doesn't want to learn.  That's pretty self-explanatory.

I read it more as not wanting to learn a needless veneer of complexity the icons add. If they had been pips or numbers or more easily parsed icons he wouldnt have likely baulked.

But he can explain for himself. Maybee we are both guessing wrong.

Then again there are players who hate reading roll tables and would have baulked there too. As usual. There is no winning.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875630So, in essence, Bren, what you're saying is you hate change.

No.

If that was what I was saying I'd have said that.

I like numbers and letters. Icons don't do much for me and are sometimes actively annoying or confusing as I have to associate a word with a picture rather than working directly with the word. Sorry if that wasn't completely clear.

It's definitely not a new vs. old thing. It is based on how I process information. As another example, I far prefer digital clocks to analog clocks. Reading the hands on the clock is cumbersome for me compared with reading off the number. I grew up in a world where all the clocks were analog, but once digital watches and clocks became available I readily adopted them.

EDIT:

Quote from: Omega;875673I read it more as not wanting to learn a needless veneer of complexity the icons add. If they had been pips or numbers or more easily parsed icons he wouldnt have likely baulked.

But he can explain for himself. Maybee we are both guessing wrong.

You got it Omega.

Quote from: Brander;875614But I enjoyed making and playing my Droid and once the GM stopped making us interpret every die roll and went to the standard values for the fiddly die results (sorry I forget exactly what those were) the dice weren't quite as annoying, just still a pointless complexity IMHO.

And this is exactly what I tell people that hem-and-haw about "trying to interpret" the dice. There are default values that you can go with if the GM/players can't think on their feet quickly. And they work nicely.

I've heard that the FFG Star Wars dice are more colour-blind friendly than the WFRP 3e ones, so that's good. Red and green d8s? oops...

(...yeah I know that the symbols are what are important, but still...)

Quote from: Necrozius;875731I've heard that the FFG Star Wars dice are more colour-blind friendly than the WFRP 3e ones, so that's good. Red and green d8s? oops...

(...yeah I know that the symbols are what are important, but still...)

For the RPG the Red one is a d12 and the Green one is a d8. So even if colour blind it wouldn't matter as long as you can tell the red, white and yellow d12s apart. And the icons are different on each. Same for the Purple and Green d8s.

(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic1509241_md.jpg)

Quote from: tenbones;875690And this is exactly what I tell people that hem-and-haw about "trying to interpret" the dice. There are default values that you can go with if the GM/players can't think on their feet quickly. And they work nicely.

As I am a person who did not like interpreting the dice, if the game is played more like a traditional rpg for success/failure then what is the benefit of using FFG's version instead of one of the multitude of Star Wars rpgs sitting in my basement where the success/failure is already straightforward?  

Granting that I am only famiar with the starter set and the full game may have some more spiffiness, but it seemed to me the entire point of using FFG was for folks who like the dice interpretation method and if used as traditional success/failure would be overly engineered.

Quote from: Snowman0147;875470Alright I give you that.  Doesn't change the fact that if it was not for the Star Wars label the game wouldn't sell at all.  Before anyone ask yes I did played the game and I know how the dice works.  I still find it to be shit and frankly your better off with the d6 Star Wars.  Hell your better off with the Saga Edition if you ever manage to get that book.

Cool, so the fact that I've already converted the system to Cyberpunk and Wild West must also have something to do with Star Wars? Cool thanks for letting me know it all had something to do with IP.

P.S. I have never liked the WEG version. However, unlike you I'm not saying because I don't like it there's no value to it.

For my part, while I understood the dice, I didn't like them very much. I didn't hate them, but I didn't really think that they were worth the trouble.

To clarify, and I haven't thought very much about this, the special dice didn't seem to go very far towards producing unexpected or interesting outcomes (in the sense that they didn't create outcomes that were unavailable by using ordinary dice). That is, the dice didn't seem to make either the game or the narrative noticeably more interesting, although they did make it a bit slower.

That could just have been a failure on the part of our table, I guess.

Quote from: Bren;875688I like numbers and letters. Icons don't do much for me and are sometimes actively annoying or confusing as I have to associate a word with a picture rather than working directly with the word. Sorry if that wasn't completely clear.

I think that's a very common and reasonable response.

Introducing an 'icon level' translation layer adds no value to the game, but only additional, unnecessary complexity. That unnecessary complexity provides specific benefit to FFG, but not the user, which makes it even more onerous.

We have a lot of different choices for delivery systems for Star Wars content, so it makes sense to stick with those rather than whatever FFG has to offer.

Quote from: Lynn;876081I think that's a very common and reasonable response.

To be fair, I am not the customer FFG is looking for.

I like the WEG game (with a the single caveat that lightsaber vs. lightsaber combat doesn't work well; the quest for a better system for duels is what originally led me to Honor+Intrigue). And I have a bunch of the old WEG adventures that I've never even run (typically I make up my own stuff). So I easily have enough material to run D6 Star Wars for the rest of my natural life. And the tone of the new movie is much more like the WEG adventures and than it is like the prequels. So setting something in that time period would be easy and require little to no conversion.  

So the bar for me adopting a different system is already pretty high. Custom dice makes it that much harder for a new system to get over the bar.

Clearly there is a market for dice mechanics that simplify arithmetic. (I never said there wasn't. I only said that I wasn't looking for simplified arithmetic.) WEG did it themselves in the Xena/Hercules games that replaced summation of dice with counting successes and special D6 dice with symbols for success, nothing, and failure. I didn't like success counting and I hated needing custom dice or a look up. But then I never found adding up D6s to be a burden (pair or group dice to sum to 10, count the 10s, count the leftovers, easy peasy).

One of my pet peeves of WEG's system was anything with with a high physical stat was literally immune to blaster fire.  Wookkies, Trandoshans, Gamorreans...

Don't get me wrong, I loved the system to bits, but serious parts of it were kinda borked.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;876103One of my pet peeves of WEG's system was anything with with a high physical stat was literally immune to blaster fire.  Wookkies, Trandoshans, Gamorreans...

Don't get me wrong, I loved the system to bits, but serious parts of it were kinda borked.

So you are saying that lizard people, carpet people, and pig people cant dodge or shrug off stuff?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;876103One of my pet peeves of WEG's system was anything with with a high physical stat was literally immune to blaster fire.  Wookkies, Trandoshans, Gamorreans...

Don't get me wrong, I loved the system to bits, but serious parts of it were kinda borked.

Hard to damage, yes. Which can be a problem. Especially if the GM never penalizes the PC by requiring them to roll something from their 2D stats. But I have not seen "literally immune." And I've run PCs (and NPCs) of those and similarly strong species. Typically a PC would have about STR 5D which is far from immune. A standard blaster rifle or heavy blaster pistol does 5D damage.* So odds are about 50/50 to get a stun result or better with a single hit. Five stun hits and the big guys go down even if they aren't wounded. And its not unreasonable to roll enough damage to wound a character with a single shot, especially if several shots hit.

And then there is "Concentrate your fire on the Wookie!" Combined actions add to damage.  In addition, I allow called shots to do extra damage (if the to-hit roll is successful). Shooting the Wookie in the face, open mouth, or eye should hurt a lot more than just blasting him in the side. Called shots  makes point blank shots more dangerous since the to hit difficulty is very easy at point blank range so you can afford the to hit penalty to aim for the face.


* If the PC is boosted to STR 6D it does become significantly harder to damage them. But in that case, those extra 3D have to come off the other stats so the PC is going to be at 2D for half their attributes.

Now if the group runs 6D STR Wookies in custom made Mandolorean Powered Armor the sure damaging that PC will be very difficult without a laser cannon or a thermal detonator. But as problems go, that one should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Quote from: Lynn;876081Introducing an 'icon level' translation layer adds no value to the game, but only additional, unnecessary complexity. That unnecessary complexity provides specific benefit to FFG, but not the user, which makes it even more onerous.

Not so for everyone. I know some people who are averse to numbers and math and find the use of symbols to be much easier.

Of course, the much larger middle ground are people who can handle either numbers or icons without a strong adverse reaction.

Quote from: Omega;876123So you are saying that lizard people, carpet people, and pig people cant dodge or shrug off stuff?

Actually, no.  They didn't dodge, they simply didn't take any damage.  At all.  Couldn't harm them.

Quote from: Bren;876126Hard to damage, yes. Which can be a problem. Especially if the GM never penalizes the PC by requiring them to roll something from their 2D stats. But I have not seen "literally immune." And I've run PCs (and NPCs) of those and similarly strong species. Typically a PC would have about STR 5D which is far from immune. A standard blaster rifle or heavy blaster pistol does 5D damage.* So odds are about 50/50 to get a stun result or better with a single hit. Five stun hits and the big guys go down even if they aren't wounded. And its not unreasonable to roll enough damage to wound a character with a single shot, especially if several shots hit.

And then there is "Concentrate your fire on the Wookie!" Combined actions add to damage.  In addition, I allow called shots to do extra damage (if the to-hit roll is successful). Shooting the Wookie in the face, open mouth, or eye should hurt a lot more than just blasting him in the side. Called shots  makes point blank shots more dangerous since the to hit difficulty is very easy at point blank range so you can afford the to hit penalty to aim for the face.


* If the PC is boosted to STR 6D it does become significantly harder to damage them. But in that case, those extra 3D have to come off the other stats so the PC is going to be at 2D for half their attributes.

Now if the group runs 6D STR Wookies in custom made Mandolorean Powered Armor the sure damaging that PC will be very difficult without a laser cannon or a thermal detonator. But as problems go, that one should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Actually, each shot counted as a separate attack, which meant that most of the time, concentrating fire didn't have a different effect.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;876133Actually, each shot counted as a separate attack, which meant that most of the time, concentrating fire didn't have a different effect.

Then you are doing concentration of fire wrong. That isn't how combined action works in the rules.

In Second Edition: A squad of six Stormtroopers requires a moderate command roll to command. Assuming a 4D command (not unreasonable for a commander) we would expect the commander to succeed in commanding 6 troopers (expected roll 14). The bonus for coordinating 6 people is +3D (from table on page 69). From page 70 of the 2E rules:

QuoteIf the task has two rolls, such as hitting in combat and then rolling damaging, apply the bonus to both rolls.

5D+3D is 8D damage. What kind of PCs can shrug off 8D of damage round after round?

In Revised and Expanded, the rules changed (mostly in the PCs favor). Now the 4D commander can only command 4 troopers, but the difficulty is at most Easy (page 82) the bonus is +1D for every 3 characters combining (page 83). So that would be a bonus of +1D+1. The bonus must be split between to hit and damage. Makes sense against big hairy targets to put the bonus solely to damage.

Now the PC has to shrug off 5D+1D+1=6D+1 damage. Min: 7 pts, Avg: 22 pts, Max: 37 pts. What kind of STR do these PCs have that they never roll lower than the expected value of 22 points, much less the 30 or more points that show up on a good damage roll?

Quote from: Bren;876139Then you are doing concentration of fire wrong. That isn't how combined action works in the rules.

In Second Edition: A squad of six Stormtroopers requires a moderate command roll to command. Assuming a 4D command (not unreasonable for a commander) we would expect the commander to succeed in commanding 6 troopers (expected roll 14). The bonus for coordinating 6 people is +3D (from table on page 69). From page 70 of the 2E rules:

5D+3D is 8D damage. What kind of PCs can shrug off 8D of damage round after round?

The players?  No, but most of the NPC enemies that were Gammoreans did.  Regularly.  With average rolls.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;876159The players?  No, but most of the NPC enemies that were Gammoreans did.  Regularly.  With average rolls.

How?

Seriously. How? Gamorreans have a Max STR=5D. Average roll on 5D=17.5, let's call it 18.

So for the examples given,

• WEG 2.0 average damage on 8D is 28. Difference is 10 points = Gamorrean is INCAPACITATED.

• WEG 2.RE average damage on 6D+1 is 22 points. Difference is 4 points = Gamorrean is WOUNDED.

Again, I have to ask what rules were you using?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;876133Actually, no.  They didn't dodge, they simply didn't take any damage.  At all.  Couldn't harm them.

So they toughened themselves up to the point that blaster fire just left singe marks. That kinda follows through in some of the peripheral source material where really tough creatures and beings could take a blaster and keep on going.

I mean if a gammoran can survive being eaten by the Ranchor... :jaw-dropping:

Quote from: Omega;876173I mean if a gammoran can survive being eaten by the Ranchor... :jaw-dropping:

Wait what?  How is that possible?

Quote from: Snowman0147;876179Wait what?  How is that possible?

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jubnuk (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jubnuk)

To be fair, the source was "Jabba's Palace Pop-Up Book," a kid's book which most fans didn't even count as canon before Disney came along and nuked everything.

Quote from: Skywalker;876127Not so for everyone. I know some people who are averse to numbers and math and find the use of symbols to be much easier.

Of course, the much larger middle ground are people who can handle either numbers or icons without a strong adverse reaction.

If you can point us all towards some documentation that provides evidence of some real value to using the symbol system then I am sure everyone here would welcome it. It is contrary to my understanding of educational psychology.

How often have you encountered rpgs that use math beyond basic addition - the sort of thing you learned in elementary school?

There are theories of learning styles that claim people learn better one way or another; hence you get 'visual' learners, tactile learners and the like. Its so common that people shy away from one methodology or another because they self categorize. It is easy to pitch then, a 'visual' method to people who self-identify that way, as many do.

The fastest way to learn something is to build on preexisting skills.

Basic addition is a preexisting skill.

Learning and associating symbols like these don't leverage any preexisting skill. These symbols have no value outside of the game itself.

Quote from: Lynn;876183If you can point us all towards some documentation that provides evidence of some real value to using the symbol system then I am sure everyone here would welcome it. It is contrary to my understanding of educational psychology.

Can't speak for the FFG Star Wars dice. However, the dice used in the WEG Xena/Hercules games made the numbers added smaller since it counted successes rather than pips. So most dice had a value of 0 or 1.

QuoteLearning and associating symbols like these don't leverage any preexisting skill. These symbols have no value outside of the game itself.

I'm no proponent of funny dice. I think they are a gimmick designed to increase switching costs for proprietary game lines and to force/strongly-incent people who want to play the game to buy the game version of chachkies or pet rocks.  But for the sake of discussion, humans are pattern recognizing animals. We innately look for and recognize patterns. Funny dice build on that innate human ability. Can we agree on that?

As to whether it is easier for some people to use funny dice rather than learning to add faster and more accurately. I have no data. I doubt anyone else has any reliable data.

However, it seems possible that some people would be better at image recognition. After all, some people really, really suck at arithmetic. And for the innumerate or math phobic, doing math is stressful. Maybe for those folks, learning funny symbols is less stressful than practicing their addition.

And probably some people think that using funny dice with no numbers is hip or with it or something.

Quote from: Bren;876184And probably some people think that using funny dice with no numbers is hip or with it or something.

Like Fudge dice.

Quote from: Bren;876184Can't speak for the FFG Star Wars dice. However, the dice used in the WEG Xena/Hercules games made the numbers added smaller since it counted successes rather than pips. So most dice had a value of 0 or 1.

I ran my share of WEG SW over the years and it didn't take much for people to get it.

Quote from: Bren;876184I'm no proponent of funny dice. I think they are a gimmick designed to increase switching costs for proprietary game lines and to force/strongly-incent people who want to play the game to buy the game version of chachkies or pet rocks.  But for the sake of discussion, humans are pattern recognizing animals. We innately look for and recognize patterns. Funny dice build on that innate human ability. Can we agree on that?

What pattern though?

Does one symbol suggest the next symbol?

Does one symbol suggest a logic that can be applied to the study, understanding or benefit of the symbols?

The symbols themselves can suggest a certain meaning (and in combination with color), but I am not seeing a progressive pattern in this case.

Quote from: Bren;876184As to whether it is easier for some people to use funny dice rather than learning to add faster and more accurately. I have no data. I doubt anyone else has any reliable data.

I doubt anyone has made a study with this in particular. However psychologists that specialize in learning have made plenty of studies into how people learn and build one skill on top of the next.

A lot of kids do poorly in math because either they didn't master the basics before pushing on (very, very common in the US), or they see little real world value to themselves - and that contributes to a dislike / avoidance of math.

Quote from: Bren;876184However, it seems possible that some people would be better at image recognition. After all, some people really, really suck at arithmetic. And for the innumerate or math phobic, doing math is stressful. Maybe for those folks, learning funny symbols is less stressful than practicing their addition.

There have been a number of RPGs that throw more math at you than simple addition and subtraction, and I can see how that can cause some people to shy away.

I am not against alternative methods to generating outcomes (cards, weird dice, coins, etc); what I am against is learning a methodology that isn't one of these:

- dirt simple
- adds to the atmospheric quality or fun of the game
- teaches me something useful outside of the game

All I detect is marketing spoor.

Quote from: Lynn;876183If you can point us all towards some documentation that provides evidence of some real value to using the symbol system then I am sure everyone here would welcome it. It is contrary to my understanding of educational psychology.

No more than you can in refuting it. My comment was based on my own experience in that I encountered a number of players who stated a preference for the use of symbols over math.

As said, the vast most people don't have an issue either way given the simplicity of both TBH

Quote from: Lynn;876183How often have you encountered rpgs that use math beyond basic addition - the sort of thing you learned in elementary school?

Not many. However, it's not a matter of absolutes. For example, the quantity of basic math (such as the often 6+ (that can be easily as high as 14 or more in starship combat) numbers to be added for each and every attack and again for each and every defence in WEG) can prove more difficult than learning to interpret the meaning of 7 symbols for some people.

Quote from: danbuter;875155I like the game mechanics, even with the funky dice. My issue is that the rules are basically "collectible".

Want ships? Buy Age of Rebellion.

Want wookies? Buy Edge of Empire.

Want jedi? Sorry, they don't exist in this game..., but you can be force-sensitive if you buy Force and Destiny!   (And seriously, who the fuck thought leaving jedi out of a Star Wars game was a good idea? All of the movies are ABOUT jedi.)

I wonder if more people would be buying an FFG D6 Star Wars game instead of what FFG did release? I'm guessing Star Wars fans are buying the FFG game anyway. Game mechanics may not matter that much to them.

Quote from: Lynn;876183If you can point us all towards some documentation that provides evidence of some real value to using the symbol system then I am sure everyone here would welcome it. It is contrary to my understanding of educational psychology.

How often have you encountered rpgs that use math beyond basic addition - the sort of thing you learned in elementary school?

There are theories of learning styles that claim people learn better one way or another; hence you get 'visual' learners, tactile learners and the like.

The fastest way to learn something is to build on preexisting skills.
Basic addition is a preexisting skill.

Learning and associating symbols like these don't leverage any preexisting skill. These symbols have no value outside of the game itself.

1: In board games it has been tried a few times to try and make non-language dependant rules. Another is when a symbol system is perceived to alleviate the need for reference tables. Also a thing in board gaming where there are stringent anti-table factions. The other use is when the symbol is interpetive. Its meaning is up to the viewer. Story cubes comes to mind there.

2: Very rare. Other Suns and Universe are the only two I can think of right off the bat.

3: Thats a fact not a theory. Some people are just wired to better grasp A than B. The vast majority though are pretty open ended. The thing is though that like alot of things. The initial encounter and presentation can and will shape perceptions and acceptances or resistances. New Math, or the newer Common Core for example. And if this is any indicator then here we have a simmilar problem as the symbols. Common Core adds an extra layer of complexity as did New Math way back.

(http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/14142835727258.jpg)

Id like to hope that that is not what it looks like.

4: True. But most people can grasp and associate symbols. And the more the symbols are used. The easier it gets. Usually. But the barrier as pointed out before is that some can and will baulk at having to learn the symbols. Sometimes just on the principle of it. Which is a perfectly valid reason.

5: I agree. But there are far more complex games out there using symbols. LOTS of symbols! Dragon Dice is probably the poster child for that. Each new faction has its own symbol set. They are though somewhat consistent from faction to faction though. IE: daggers for one unit and claws for another both represent melee hits.

In the end it is much the same as resistance to learning a new RPG system. Especially a new edition with a new system. This was exactly the feedback TSR got with 2e. Some adapted. Some didnt for the simple reason that they didnt want to re-buy the books for what they perceived. Such is.

X: In the end its FFG and they have to have some gimmick eventually or they go mad. :D

Plain old +/- math is hard to forget. Symbols on dice need a look at the rules a few times to remind what each one means. Times that by the number of players at a table.

Common Core was invented by someone that hates the age-old base 10 numbering system.

Quote from: Omega;876259(http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/14142835727258.jpg)

WTF?

Counting on fingers would be far faster and more transparent than this odd bit of arithmetical legerdemain.

Quote from: Bren;876263WTF?

Counting on fingers would be far faster and more transparent than this odd bit of arithmetical legerdemain.

For us it was "New Math" back in the late 60s early 70s.

Looked something like this.

Spoiler

(http://phrdconnections.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/6/5/21654862/5484982_orig.png)

or this I think. Its been a long long time.

Spoiler

(http://storage.devondispatch.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297545224491_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x&stmp=1396623286914)

Quote from: Skywalker;876230No more than you can in refuting it. My comment was based on my own experience in that I encountered a number of players who stated a preference for the use of symbols over math.

Sure. I don't need to refute an unproven claim, just like I don't need to prove that faeries don't exist. But I did want to give you the opportunity to show that there is some statement of proof by someone, especially FFG, for  their methodology to have any intrinsic benefit.

Your anecdotal experience is what it is, but there's no support for it meaning anything other than that. It could be an exclamation of learning preference in general, rpgs only, or this game compared to some other Star Wars game variant.

Quote from: Lynn;876280Sure. I don't need to refute an unproven claim, just like I don't need to prove that faeries don't exist. But I did want to give you the opportunity to show that there is some statement of proof by someone, especially FFG, for  their methodology to have any intrinsic benefit.

Most claims made on forums can only be supported by anecdotal evidence, such as those you have made to the opposite. I am comfortable with that. To insist such evidence only shows to me that you are aware that your own absolute statements are equally weak.

Quote from: Lynn;876280Sure. I don't need to refute an unproven claim, just like I don't need to prove that faeries don't exist.

I never claimed my statement was anything other than based on my own anecdotal evidence. In contrast, you seem to be the one who is trying to refer to authority, though noticeable only in a vague way, to support your absolute claims on the matter. What evidence have you provided?

Quote from: Lynn;876183If you can point us all towards some documentation that provides evidence of some real value to using the symbol system then I am sure everyone here would welcome it. It is contrary to my understanding of educational psychology.

How often have you encountered rpgs that use math beyond basic addition - the sort of thing you learned in elementary school?

I've seen players who can easily count up a certain number of d6 quickly and roll them, but then take a really painfully long time to add them up (maybe with an additional fixed bonus to add to the total). And this is even with four to six d6. So counting up symbols may be a lot faster than basic addition, which is apparently not much of a preexisting skill for some people.

I've seen enough percentile based rolls where the chance of success is equal to some attribute times a multiplier, and where the chance of a critical or fumble is some set fraction of the chance of success or failure. Most complicated computations are achieved via lookup in a table, or are precomputed and written on the character sheet.

Quote from: Omega;876268For us it was "New Math" back in the late 60s early 70s.

While cumbersome that is less opaque than the other version.

I'm still very glad I didn't have to learn or teach either of those methods. I'd much prefer using the Field Axioms to prove the basic arithmetical operations. More fun and much less tedious.

Quote from: Skywalker;876284I never claimed my statement was anything other than based on my own anecdotal evidence. In contrast, you seem to be the one who is trying to refer to authority, though noticeable only in a vague way, to support your absolute claims on the matter. What evidence have you provided?

Evidence of what - that the dice gimmick is a user-valueless marketing strategy, or that its easier to learn something based on preexisting knowledge schema rather than substituting a collection of nonsensical symbols?

Quote from: rawma;876300I've seen players who can easily count up a certain number of d6 quickly and roll them, but then take a really painfully long time to add them up (maybe with an additional fixed bonus to add to the total). And this is even with four to six d6. So counting up symbols may be a lot faster than basic addition, which is apparently not much of a preexisting skill for some people.

Just by itself, counting the number of symbols is basic addition.

Quote from: rawma;876300I've seen enough percentile based rolls where the chance of success is equal to some attribute times a multiplier, and where the chance of a critical or fumble is some set fraction of the chance of success or failure. Most complicated computations are achieved via lookup in a table, or are precomputed and written on the character sheet.

Yes, Ive played those types too.

I don't suggest all math based resolutions trump all other methods either, or that a game system has to be as dirt simple as possible for it to be good. This system seems to require you to learn an arbitrary symbolic system but doesn't grant any obvious benefit in experience or ease-of-use to the user - or at least nobody has explained exactly what that is.

Id really like to see a short explanation from FFG explaining exactly why this is a great match for players who want to play a Star Wars game. All that I see is a marketing gimmick so far.

Quote from: CRKrueger;875379Everyone has certain dealbreakers when it comes to RPGs.

Narrative Rules vs. Traditional Rules
Rules Heavy vs. Rules Light
One Book with supplements vs. Multiple Core Rulebooks
Funky Dice vs. Classic Dice
Books vs. Books plus cards/paraphernalia
Class-based vs. Skill-based
Levels vs. No Levels

FFG Star Wars I think just has more deal-breakers than most RPGs.  They start with the Multiple Core Rulebooks approach like the 40k RPG, but add-in Funky Dice, Class-based, and Narrative Rules while being fairly Rules Heavy.  Just more reasons for people to not like the game compared to other mass-market games.

My deal breaker is the funny dice. I understand they are fine, but I don't like them. Reason being (and it's totally just me) is I can't "read" those symbols when reading the rules....they are just annoying. Which is frustrating, because if it weren't for those dice I'd totally be playing the hell out of FFG's Star Wars right now. It seems like a fine system.

I don't know, I think I have some sort of "symbol" dyslexia. It manifests with Runequest 6, too....I hate the weird curlique font it uses where the t blends with other letters in a loop.  Not half as bad as those SW dice symbols, though.


(And nope I do not play those Dicemaster games, for this reason, either; less because they are incomprehensible--they aren't, it's really simple--but more because it is annoying and feels trivial)

EDIT: Read some of the last posts. I wonder if people who have problems with simple math find symbols easier to grasp (or harder)? Players I've known who have issues adding 2 dice usually don't fare better with symbols. I've noticed that symbols work better in very simple mechanical systems....thus why it's fairly common to see symbols in board games and card games, but as soon as the mechanical complexity starts to escalate it seems that the symbols of necessity tend to go away.

Either way my own issue doesn't relate to math vs. symbols...it has to do with language vs. symbols. I'm not prone to enjoying a game that suggests I need to say "You rolled 3 evil empires and your opponent rolled 4 rebel skywalkers so he wins." I don't even know how to linguistically interpret these symbols, let alone convert them in to something comprehensible in the narrative.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;876250I wonder if more people would be buying an FFG D6 Star Wars game instead of what FFG did release? I'm guessing Star Wars fans are buying the FFG game anyway. Game mechanics may not matter that much to them.

I would buy the hell out of a modern update of the D6 system for Star Wars.

Quote from: camazotz;876504EDIT: Read some of the last posts. I wonder if people who have problems with simple math find symbols easier to grasp (or harder)? Players I've known who have issues adding 2 dice usually don't fare better with symbols. I've noticed that symbols work better in very simple mechanical systems....thus why it's fairly common to see symbols in board games and card games, but as soon as the mechanical complexity starts to escalate it seems that the symbols of necessity tend to go away.

Either way my own issue doesn't relate to math vs. symbols...it has to do with language vs. symbols. I'm not prone to enjoying a game that suggests I need to say "You rolled 3 evil empires and your opponent rolled 4 rebel skywalkers so he wins." I don't even know how to linguistically interpret these symbols, let alone convert them in to something comprehensible in the narrative.

As I've noted in a few threads. I have a really hard time with math things. I have an easy time with symbol things. But I there are times when a dice, or any other, gimmick just does not work for me on one level or another.

The benefit of symbols can be that they are not language specific. Which means one less level of translation needed when the symbol represents something other than numbers. But that doesnt quite work in RPGs which are usually heavily language specific till someone translates it.

And in the end you still need to learn and get used to what the symbols mean. And at the end of the day the dice are just fancy ways of doing + vs -. Get more + than -.

(https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/StarWarsRPG/edge-of-the-empire/beginner-game/preview-2/symbols-and-dice.png)

And the types of + and - effect the outcome. And so on.

Quote from: Omega;876520As I've noted in a few threads. I have a really hard time with math things. I have an easy time with symbol things. But I there are times when a dice, or any other, gimmick just does not work for me on one level or another.

The benefit of symbols can be that they are not language specific. Which means one less level of translation needed when the symbol represents something other than numbers. But that doesnt quite work in RPGs which are usually heavily language specific till someone translates it.

And in the end you still need to learn and get used to what the symbols mean. And at the end of the day the dice are just fancy ways of doing + vs -. Get more + than -.

(https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/StarWarsRPG/edge-of-the-empire/beginner-game/preview-2/symbols-and-dice.png)

And the types of + and - effect the outcome. And so on.

It's like Fudge dice, mixed in with the WEG 'wild die'.

Quote from: Omega;876520(https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/StarWarsRPG/edge-of-the-empire/beginner-game/preview-2/symbols-and-dice.png)

Thanks that was helpful. So let's see if I got this.

So match up a * with a funny triangle. Throw those pairs away. Count the sword thingy as a * (but remember you can trade the sword in for a prize in the bottom of the cracker jack box) and count the hollow triangle and circle thingy as a funny triangle thingy (but remember you can trade it in for a worm in somebody's apple). Pair up the sword and hollow thingies like you did with the * and funny triangle thingies and throw any pairs away.

If you have any *s left over you succeed. (Remember swords count as *s.)  If instead you have some funny triangles left over you failed. (Remember that hollow triangle and circle thingies count as triangle thingies.) Decide whether to trade in swords or hollow triangle circle thingies for prizes or worms respectively.

Now see if you have any laurel wreaths and pair them up with any hexagon thingies. Throw those pairs away. If you have any laurel wreaths left you get a present (like at Christmas) even if you failed (apparently Star Wars Santa does not keep a list of bad little boys and girls). If instead you have any hexagon thingies you get threatened by the Star Wars version of the Grinch even if you succeeded. The Grinch hates all boys and girls good or bad.

So instead of doing simple arithmetic we play a matching game and see what's left. OK.

Quote from: Bren;876535Now see if you have any laurel wreaths and pair them up with any hexagon thingies. Throw those pairs away. If you have any laurel wreaths left you get a present (like at Christmas) even if you failed (apparently Star Wars Santa does not keep a list of bad little boys and girls). If instead you have any hexagon thingies you get threatened by the Star Wars version of the Grinch even if you succeeded. The Grinch hates all boys and girls good or bad.

So instead of doing simple arithmetic we play a matching game and see what's left. OK.

But but but? The STORY???

Quote from: Lynn;876496Just by itself, counting the number of symbols is basic addition.

The point of my example was that these players could quickly count the number of dice to roll but took a very very long time to add up the resulting numbers.

So, for them, counting and basic addition were qualitatively different.

QuoteI don't suggest all math based resolutions trump all other methods either, or that a game system has to be as dirt simple as possible for it to be good. This system seems to require you to learn an arbitrary symbolic system but doesn't grant any obvious benefit in experience or ease-of-use to the user - or at least nobody has explained exactly what that is.

Id really like to see a short explanation from FFG explaining exactly why this is a great match for players who want to play a Star Wars game. All that I see is a marketing gimmick so far.

Every dice mechanic is a gimmick. Some are actually beneficial, I think. I don't know if this is such; the number of players I've met who would benefit from only having to count and not to add is really really small.

Quote from: Lynn;876493Evidence of what - that the dice gimmick is a user-valueless marketing strategy, or that its easier to learn something based on preexisting knowledge schema rather than substituting a collection of nonsensical symbols?

Start with the use of symbols is without value.

Quote from: Lynn;876496Just by itself, counting the number of symbols is basic addition.

Certainly. As someone already mentioned, the symbols are pretty much the same as + and - results on FATE dice. Adding together up to five +/-1s is simpler than the equivalent amount of d6s for some people.  

The use of symbols also allows such results to be matched visually. Symbols also allow for the three axes of results. If you tried to do this with just numbers, you need to use colours to distinguish those numbers or isolate the axes on different dice. These both have issues that symbols don't.

Quote from: rawma;876545The point of my example was that these players could quickly count the number of dice to roll but took a very very long time to add up the resulting numbers.

So, for them, counting and basic addition were qualitatively different.

There's certainly every type of player out there, but are people who are especially that way their target customer?

Quote from: rawma;876545Every dice mechanic is a gimmick. Some are actually beneficial, I think. I don't know if this is such; the number of players I've met who would benefit from only having to count and not to add is really really small.

Not every dice mechanic is a marketing gimmick.

If someone comes up with a unique mechanic that presents its own special learning curve, it should have a benefit in itself. It could be evocative of the genre, or be easy to learn or something else. That is, if it is an effective marketing gimmick to the benefit the customer.

But I don't think its the only problem with the game either, from a user perspective -

- Much like camazotz' experience, I also found just reading the book with the symbols to be very unpleasant

- I don't like how the key character types are spread out over separate games (as compared with the single WEG book that delivered everything)

When I first looked at the game, the impression I got was that FFG wants to sell us a bunch of interconnected, shared system games and game accessories and milk the hell out of the attraction of the Star Wars license.

Quote from: Skywalker;876555Start with the use of symbols is without value.

I didn't say symbols are always without value, but that in this case they don't appear to add value.

Related to your other question, you can certainly use symbols for a +/- value state, and that is also basic addition.

You can also use symbols or colors to evoke the atmosphere of the genre presented in a game, but what about these symbols particularly does that?

Quote from: Lynn;876560You can also use symbols or colors to evoke the atmosphere of the genre presented in a game, but what about these symbols particularly does that?

A number of the symbols are associated with Star Wars, like the iconic lightsaber for critical success, Jedi Order symbol for advantage and Empire symbol for threat. The common hit and miss symbols are chosen for ease of visual recognition and relationship.

I think different symbols are visually easier than different coloured numbers or symbols, especially when the size of a die face. Plus colours are an issue for those with colour blindness.

Quote from: Lynn;876496This system seems to require you to learn an arbitrary symbolic system but doesn't grant any obvious benefit in experience or ease-of-use to the user - or at least nobody has explained exactly what that is.

The dice generate successes and failures that cancel each other out and report a binary result (success or failure). That's easy enough to model with normal dice and plenty of games do.

The additional symbols color the success or failure as being either neutral, advantaged, or threatened. I've seen similar information fed back from systems using traditional dice (the 2d20 system we use for the Infinity RPG does it), so this isn't impossible either.

But the dice ALSO have the possibility of giving you a third axis of information -- Triumph and Despair. The values on this third axis also aren't mutually exclusive, so you could generate a result like, "Failure, but with a silver lining (Advantage) which turns out to have a horrible consequence (Despair)."

I don't know of any other game that does that. And I can't think of a way to do it with normal dice which wouldn't be considerably more complicated than building the skill dice pools for FFG's system and then counting the symbols.

Quote from: Bren;876535So instead of doing simple arithmetic we play a matching game and see what's left. OK.

Where the system falls apart (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/37670/roleplaying-games/review-star-wars-force-and-destiny) is that it uses three inconsistent matching/cancellation rules for each set of symbols and then renders the whole thing into nonsense by filling the book with a mountain of rules and guidelines which are inconsistent in their use of the core mechanic.

The core concept of reporting three axes of information isn't horrible, though, despite the specific execution. And most of the people who are reporting success with the system (a) house rule out the inconsistent matching/cancellation rules and (b) ignore most of the badly designed rules built on top of it while focusing on the useful improv tool the core mechanic provides.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;876579The dice generate successes and failures that cancel each other out and report a binary result (success or failure). That's easy enough to model with normal dice and plenty of games do.

The additional symbols color the success or failure as being either neutral, advantaged, or threatened. I've seen similar information fed back from systems using traditional dice (the 2d20 system we use for the Infinity RPG does it), so this isn't impossible either.

But the dice ALSO have the possibility of giving you a third axis of information -- Triumph and Despair. The values on this third axis also aren't mutually exclusive, so you could generate a result like, "Failure, but with a silver lining (Advantage) which turns out to have a horrible consequence (Despair)."

I don't know of any other game that does that. And I can't think of a way to do it with normal dice which wouldn't be considerably more complicated than building the skill dice pools for FFG's system and then counting the symbols.



Where the system falls apart (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/37670/roleplaying-games/review-star-wars-force-and-destiny) is that it uses three inconsistent matching/cancellation rules for each set of symbols and then renders the whole thing into nonsense by filling the book with a mountain of rules and guidelines which are inconsistent in their use of the core mechanic.

The core concept of reporting three axes of information isn't horrible, though, despite the specific execution. And most of the people who are reporting success with the system (a) house rule out the inconsistent matching/cancellation rules and (b) ignore most of the badly designed rules built on top of it while focusing on the useful improv tool the core mechanic provides.

Linking your own blog as proof?  Cute.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;876579And I can't think of a way to do it with normal dice which wouldn't be considerably more complicated than building the skill dice pools for FFG's system and then counting the symbols.

One could use table lookup. It's pretty simple. Whether table look up or funny symbols is preferred is predominantly a subjective issue.

This whole thread serves as a great example of YMMV. :-)

I personally believe it's a fantastic time to be a tabletop RPG gamer. Look at the high volume of high-quality books/supplements streaming out of the cottages. Combine that with the depth of the existing games out there and you would be hard pressed to not find something that fits your tastes.

Good times.

Quote from: trechriron;876630This whole thread serves as a great example of YMMV. :-)

I personally believe it's a fantastic time to be a tabletop RPG gamer. Look at the high volume of high-quality books/supplements streaming out of the cottages. Combine that with the depth of the existing games out there and you would be hard pressed to not find something that fits your tastes.

Good times.

1: That and "Your Ability May Vary". The harder a time a player has with symbols. The more a barrier it becomes and some alternative is needed like the conversion charts.

2: Perhaps too much volume. Its now too easy for good games to get lost in the vast sea of games.

3: Is there a symbol for that? :D

Quote from: Justin Alexander;876579But the dice ALSO have the possibility of giving you a third axis of information -- Triumph and Despair. The values on this third axis also aren't mutually exclusive, so you could generate a result like, "Failure, but with a silver lining (Advantage) which turns out to have a horrible consequence (Despair)."

Are those results that are specified someplace in what they mean or does the GM or player need to think something up on the spot? Er, wait...

Okay, read the article on your blog - a really clear explanation, thanks! The game seems worse than I originally thought!

Quote from: Lynn;876667Are those results that are specified someplace in what they mean or does the GM or player need to think something up on the spot? Er, wait...

Okay, read the article on your blog. Its worse than I thought!

It's really not.  At all.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;876669It's really not.  At all.

Counterpoint? Blog link?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;876579And most of the people who are reporting success with the system (a) house rule out the inconsistent matching/cancellation rules and (b) ignore most of the badly designed rules built on top of it while focusing on the useful improv tool the core mechanic provides.

This was my experience with WFRPG 3e.  I didn't bother looking at the rule book half the time and just ran improv based on the dice.  FFG went way too far defining many actions while not going far enough with others.  "Here's all these reductions in time for plotting a nav route but we're never going to tell you how long it takes to actually plot one let alone actually flying to an egress point."

Quote from: Skywalker;876566A number of the symbols are associated with Star Wars, like the iconic lightsaber for critical success, Jedi Order symbol for advantage and Empire symbol for threat. The common hit and miss symbols are chosen for ease of visual recognition and relationship.

Thanks for pointing that out. I see where they are from - both are there. I wonder how many fans recognize them as they are both rather abstract in the  original. The lightsaber one reminds me more of Star Trek TOS.

Quote from: Lynn;876670Counterpoint? Blog link?

Counterpoint?  I've taught this system to experienced gamers and total noobs and have yet to have someone who didn't quickly and easily pick up how the dice worked.  And due to the way the rolls turn out, my entire table enjoys looking things over and they all seem to have quite a bit of fun with it.

Blog? No.  My personal experience is enough for me, but I will call out someone who peddles BS.

Quote from: trechriron;876630This whole thread serves as a great example of YMMV. :-)

I personally believe it's a fantastic time to be a tabletop RPG gamer. Look at the high volume of high-quality books/supplements streaming out of the cottages. Combine that with the depth of the existing games out there and you would be hard pressed to not find something that fits your tastes.

Good times.

I dunno man, I'm seeing a lot of 'This game sucks!  And you're dumb for liking it because X.'

Quote from: Christopher Brady;876681I dunno man, I'm seeing a lot of 'This game sucks!  And you're dumb for liking it because X.'

Disdain, like beauty, appears to be in the eye of the beholder.

I'm in the, "I already have WEG and I don't need a new rule set or funky gimmick dice to play Star Wars" category. If you like either, give FFG your money and have fun.

Quote from: trechriron;876630This whole thread serves as a great example of YMMV. :-).

Pretty much this my current Star Wars GM has been a hardcore SWD6 GM for decades but he loves the FFG version as well and has been running it for us whenever the we can get together.

His blogs about it: http://www.hishgraphics.com/blog/pivot/archive.php?c=Modesty%20Blazing

Quote from: Lynn;876557Not every dice mechanic is a marketing gimmick.

Has it been established that this one is?

Quote from: rawma;876698Has it been established that this one is?

Only by it's detractors.

Quote from: Bren;876688Disdain, like beauty, appears to be in the eye of the beholder.

I'm in the, "I already have WEG and I don't need a new rule set or funky gimmick dice to play Star Wars" category. If you like either, give FFG your money and have fun.

If I had my old WEG stuff (I almost had the entire line at one point, and even had the full run those little books), I'd still be playing 1e.  But as I don't, the FFG stuff works for what it wants.

I personally have no issue with funky dice.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;876604Linking your own blog as proof?  Cute.

Could you quote me claiming it was "proof"?

I don't remember doing that. It doesn't seem to be something that exists in my original post. Maybe it appears in some sort of invisible pixels that only you can see?

Quote from: Bren;876605One could use table lookup. It's pretty simple. Whether table look up or funny symbols is preferred is predominantly a subjective issue.

Because of how the FFG dice pools are built, the level of a character's skill and the positive factors in their favor for a particular skill check result in both increasing the odds of a favorable outcome AND decrease the chances of certain types of bad outcomes. Similarly, the degree of difficulty and factors to their disadvantage both reduce the chance of a positive outcome and also increase the chance of certain bad outcomes.

I think that any system of chart look-up which similarly allowed for those things to have a meaningful, multi-axis impact on the outcome would necessarily be more complicated than just counting symbols on the dice.

Quote from: Lynn;876667Are those results that are specified someplace in what they mean or does the GM or player need to think something up on the spot? Er, wait...

The system seems to work best if they're treated as improv seeds by the GM and players. The actual game, however, is chock-a-block with specific rules that try to nail down specific interpretations.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;876705I think that any system of chart look-up which similarly allowed for those things to have a meaningful, multi-axis impact on the outcome would necessarily be more complicated than just counting symbols on the dice.

The complexity you mention is a subjective opinion. I can easily program a lookup table and that's no more complicated that creating an algorithm for symbol cancellation and counting. So in the sense of automating the dice process the methods seem equally complicated (or equally easy).

In saying that a table is more complicated your are assuming that the three axis multi-dice cancellation and counting that FFG requires delivers a meaningful result compared to some simpler system (whether table lookup or otherwise.)

Whether the outcome is meaningfully different compared to simple dice counting with a wild die, rolling several colored dice, or other choices still remains to be shown.

Certainly games like Runequest that uses simple die rolls for attacks and parries to generate results on more than one axis similar to FFG. For each combatant's attack there are five possible results: Critical Hit, Special Hit, Normal Hit, Missed Hit, and Fumbled Hit. Similarly for each parry: Critical Parry, Special Parry, Normal Parry, Failed Parry, and Fumbled Parry.  What Runequest includes, which FFG does not, is a table for Critical Hits and Critical Parries in combat to mechanize the process of adding unusual outcomes.

The FFG system mechanizes the most boring and easily improvised part of the process i.e. deciding where you are on the three axes of Success/Failure, Advantage/Threat, and Triumph/Despair.* The more difficult part of the GM's job is figuring out what those results mean. And funny dice don't do anything to help answer the sometimes difficult question of adjudicating the result.

And if the result of say a Success+Triumph+Threat is easy or obvious to adjudicate I have to question whether a reasonably proficient GM really needs a three axis dice mechanic to include things such as superior successes or complications to a success.


* Yes I am aware that the rules don't seem to clearly state that Triumph and Despair cancel. But the rules say that Success and Failure cancel and that Triumph counts as Success and Despair Counts as Failure so I'm just going to go with cancelling. Both for consistency and because the difference between Triumph+Threat and Triumph+Despair or Failure+Advantage and Failure+Triumph seem pretty vague and arbitrary if not just plain stupid.

Quote from: VictorC;875466Wait, what am I going to do when they stop selling the dice... oh no, when they stop selling them are all the sets I already own going to turn to dust. What, no, oh I guess you should stop making ridiculous arguments that don't hold water.

No, the problem is for new players or new groups once the game becomes unsupported. FFG games have a limited lifespan. They're either supported for very short time, if unsuccessful, and if successful then FFG remakes the game (new edition) by deliberately changing the symbols on the dice. Because progress.
And now see what that did to systems like Warhammer 3rd, Battlelore, Descent, etc. Amazon says a custom dice set for WH 3rd costs a new player over 30 dollars. That's the situation obsolete FFG custom dice systems face, and while it's not a problem for well equipped groups, you don't have the opportunity for perpetual growth of playerbase (or friendliness towards lapsed players wanting a painless, relative low cost re-entry) that AD&D has.

Quote from: rawma;876698Has it been established that this one is?

Quote from: Warboss Squee;876699Only by it's detractors.

Marketing ploy? No.

Its FFG. In the boardgaming biz they are notorious for adding needless glitz to games they acquire or for breaking games up into expansions.

They love their gimmicks.

Marketing ploy is how they parcelled out the rules into the expansion books. As of last count they had 6 expansion books out at around 30$ each. Each adding a few new races, class options, equipment, or ships. Most of it you do not need and the core game is perfectly fine to run far with.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;876705I think that any system of chart look-up which similarly allowed for those things to have a meaningful, multi-axis impact on the outcome would necessarily be more complicated than just counting symbols on the dice.

Not really. You would not even need a chart. Normal polyhedrals of different colours and knowing what  each X/Y/Z range means.

The tradeoff being youd have to learn what the results mean. Which may or may not be much different from learning what the symbols mean. But without the extra hurdle of learning what the symbols mean.

As noted before TORG did something simmilar. Except with cards. Some people liked it. Some didnt. Same with FFGs Star Wars. The system works. Just not for everyone.

Quote from: Bren;876727* Yes I am aware that the rules don't seem to clearly state that Triumph and Despair cancel. But the rules say that Success and Failure cancel and that Triumph counts as Success and Despair Counts as Failure so I'm just going to go with cancelling. Both for consistency and because the difference between Triumph+Threat and Triumph+Despair or Failure+Advantage and Failure+Triumph seem pretty vague and arbitrary if not just plain stupid.

The success part of a Triumph can be cancelled but not the Advantage part. It's needlessly confusing as they could just have put a Success symbol on the face with a Triumph and they wouldn't have needed all those special rules.

As you said, a Triumph is exactly the same as several Advantage except for the following:

-A Triumph can't be cancelled
-A Triumph can't be split apart to do multiple things
-A Triumph can be used to do anything (such as activate weapon abilities) that can be done with Advantage regardless of cost.
-Some Talents specifically require Triumphs [I see this as a flaw in the game BTW].  

So, it really isn't a three axis resolution system.

Quote from: Omega;876739Marketing ploy is how they parcelled out the rules into the expansion books. As of last count they had 6 expansion books out at around 30$ each. Each adding a few new races, class options, equipment, or ships. Most of it you do not need and the core game is perfectly fine to run far with.

So kinda like D&D then.

Quote from: rawma;876698Has it been established that this one is?

Creating a required add-on product that amounts to 20% of a total start up cost of using it (approximately based on USSRP) is a marketing gimmick.

Quote from: Bren;876727The complexity you mention is a subjective opinion. I can easily program a lookup table and that's no more complicated that creating an algorithm for symbol cancellation and counting. So in the sense of automating the dice process the methods seem equally complicated (or equally easy)

Sure, but you've also added a new 'add-on' to the game - a device to run the program that negates the need of the paper table. If we require its availability as a part of playing a game, then that would change everything.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;876773So kinda like D&D then.

Not quite till 3e.

BX and to a degree BECMI were meant to ease the player into ever more complex ideas. They are starters after all.

AD&D had stuff come out as it accumulated in the magazines. It wasnt created at the same time as the core 3 books then parcelled out. Or were world books like OA and DL.

2e Seems much the same pattern. Core books then write new stuff expanding on it rather them pre-planning the whole deal. Or sidelining out of the core books stuff that was perceived as not fitting or unpopular. Like Psionics.

3 and 4e though is anyones guess what went on there before or after the cores came out. But they cranked out quite a volume of stuff. And from what I 've read here and elsewhere seems they did withhold some things for expansions.

5e is back to putting out stuff as its written and is once more self contained. So far its the least supported of any edition short of B. for some that is a good sign. For others its not.

FFG on the other hand tends to have things plotted out and done first. Then section up rules into parts and dole those out.  They obviously dont do this with every game. But they do it enough that some are wary.

I would though lay good odds that by now they are down to writing new stuff as they go.

Quote from: Lynn;876781Creating a required add-on product that amounts to 20% of a total start up cost of using it (approximately based on USSRP) is a marketing gimmick.

The boxed starter set comes with dice. But this was my argument too about the FFG dice. That is another 14$ added onto the cost if you go with the core book. Or 14 per player.

Some will argue that normal polyhedral sets of 4/6/6/6/8/10/10/12/20 or 4/6/8/10/10/12/20 can cost 12$ or more too. But standard polyhedrals can be used for many different games. FFG dice cant even be used with Imperial Assault it seems.

That may actually be a good thing for years later. Since the dice cant be used for other RPGs. They will end up selling possibly cheap since FFG is mass producing them it seems.

Quote from: Omega;876800The boxed starter set comes with dice. But this was my argument too about the FFG dice. That is another 14$ added onto the cost if you go with the core book. Or 14 per player.

It should be noted that a single set of these dice frequently aren't sufficient for building a dice pool for beginning characters. You need at least two sets, and even then you're still likely to occasionally need to kludge the pool.

Quote from: Omega;876752Not really. You would not even need a chart. Normal polyhedrals of different colours and knowing what  each X/Y/Z range means. The tradeoff being youd have to learn what the results mean.

So your argument is that it won't be a chart look-up because you can memorize the chart? Please. That's pure sophistry.

And if you actually believe that to be true, then the FFG Star Wars mechanic already satisfies your requirement: Just memorize the chart they include for using normal polyhedrals.

Quote from: Bren;876727The complexity you mention is a subjective opinion. I can easily program a lookup table and that's no more complicated that creating an algorithm for symbol cancellation and counting. So in the sense of automating the dice process the methods seem equally complicated (or equally easy).

Unless you're suggesting that the computer itself is playing the game, all you've done there is introduce a third variant: Symbols, chart look-up, or push a button on an app. And I would tend to agree that pushing a button on an app in this situation would be easier than either alternative.

Quote from: Bren;876727In saying that a table is more complicated your are assuming that the three axis multi-dice cancellation and counting that FFG requires delivers a meaningful result compared to some simpler system (whether table lookup or otherwise.)

The entire topic of conversation was about whether or not a system using normal dice could deliver the same three axes of information that the FFG system does without being more complicated to use than counting symbols.

In the context of that discussion, arguing that you don't really need three axes of information is meaningless. It's like arguing that you can drive from Manhattan to Los Angeles on a single tank of gas because you don't really need to drive to Los Angeles and you should be happy just popping over to Queens.

QuoteCritical Hit, Special Hit, Normal Hit, Missed Hit, and Fumbled Hit.

It's been awhile since I played Runequest, but I don't recall RQ generating results like Critical Hit + Missed Hit + Fumbled Hit all on the same die roll. So it's unclear to me how you're claiming that this mechanic is delivering three axes of information.

QuoteWhat Runequest includes, which FFG does not, is a table for Critical Hits and Critical Parries in combat to mechanize the process of adding unusual outcomes.

Actually, the Star Wars games do, in fact, have such tables. (Although it's not really relevant to a discussion of the information provided by the core mechanic.)

Quote* Yes I am aware that the rules don't seem to clearly state that Triumph and Despair cancel. But the rules say that Success and Failure cancel and that Triumph counts as Success and Despair Counts as Failure so I'm just going to go with cancelling.

I agree that if we're talking about some completely different mechanic than the one found in the FFG Star Wars games, that such a mechanic could be trivially replicated with normal dice.

I'm just not entirely clear what you think that has to do with the topic at hand.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;876771The success part of a Triumph can be cancelled but not the Advantage part. It's needlessly confusing as they could just have put a Success symbol on the face with a Triumph and they wouldn't have needed all those special rules.

Agreed. That would be a good way to have simplified some of the unnecessary complexity out of the mechanic.

Quote-Some Talents specifically require Triumphs [I see this as a flaw in the game BTW].  

So, it really isn't a three axis resolution system.

I agree that it's a flaw (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/37690/roleplaying-games/ffg-star-wars-the-big-house-rule), but you can't just argue that the third axis doesn't exist because you don't like it.

Upon reflection, though, it would actually be more accurate to describe it as a four-axis system:

Axis 1: Success or failure?
Axis 2: Advantage, threat, or neither?
Axis 3: Triumph or no Triumph?
Axis 4: Despair or no Despair?

There's some slight muddling since Triumph/Despair can be used to replicate some of the effects of Advantage/Threat. But since (a) the reverse isn't true and (b) you can get Triumph and Threat at the same time (whereas you can't get Advantage and Threat at the same time), it's clear that you're dealing with separate axes of information. And you can, in fact, generate results that have information in all four axes: Success + Advantage + Triumph + Despair.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;876815It should be noted that a single set of these dice frequently aren't sufficient for building a dice pool for beginning characters. You need at least two sets, and even then you're still likely to occasionally need to kludge the pool.

So kinda like the 5e starter? ;)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;876815So your argument is that it won't be a chart look-up because you can memorize the chart? Please. That's pure sophistry.

And if you actually believe that to be true, then the FFG Star Wars mechanic already satisfies your requirement: Just memorize the chart they include for using normal polyhedrals.

No. My argument is that all you need to do is know the ranges. Much like how in 5e you just need to know what consitutes a hit or a miss. Once you know the ranges it eventually becomes second nature if you play enough. Same with the symbols really. For most players after a while gets easy to tell at a glance.

Good example is various thread over on BGG about the symbols used for Race for the Galaxy. Most state that after a few plays, sometimes more than a few, the symbols clicked. Others though struggle long and hard to grasp it.

Do the dice work for you?
Yes? Great! Game on!
No? Not great. Either find an alternative like the chart, or find a different game. No different from any other RPG with a system you dont like some element of.

Here's my entry into the possible standard dice replacement. Not fully thought out on odds, just a spitball/idea.

Need: 15d6; 3 dice of one color (the Chance Roll). 6 positive dice of a different color (preferably light). 6 negative dice of yet another color (preferably dark). (yes, 3 different colors of D6's)

Determine base difficulty. This sets the number of positive or negative dice initially added to the pool. (from adding 1 - 3 negative or positive dice)

• Add a positive die to the "pool" for any bonus.
• Add a negative die to the "pool" for any penalties.

Roll all dice together in a pool.

Chance Roll:
Set aside chance roll and note result (add 3d6 together).

Attribute Bonus and Skill Ranks add/subtract from "chance" roll. These are the only numbers that impact the actual result of the chance roll.

First, cancel each positive die with a negative die. You will be left with either one or more of one die type. If one or more positive dice are left over, add the result to the chance roll. If one or more negative dice are left over, subtract the result from the chance roll.

TN is always 13 (at or above).

• The higher you roll over 13, the better the success.
• The lower you roll below 13, the worse the failure.

Advantage or Threat:

• Rolling doubles on chance roll that matches a negative die = Threat for each negative die that matches.
• Rolling doubles on chance roll that matches a positive die = Advantage for each positive die that matches.

Threat cancels out Advantage (or vice versa) so you end up with only Threat or Advantage. These impact the situation separately from the success/failure of the chance roll. Spend A/T on bonus/penalty dice going forward or buy "special effects".

Despair and/or Triumph:

• Rolling triples on chance roll that matches a negative die = Despair
• Rolling triples on chance roll that matches a positive die = Triumph

These impact the situation separately from the success/failure of the chance roll. Despair and Triumph do not cancel each other out. The results should be determined by current circumstances or spent on "special events". You can have both Triumph and Despair in the same roll.

Quote from: Omega;876820So kinda like the 5e starter? ;)

I don't actually own that. I'm guessing that they forgot that their mechanics frequently require rolling 2d20 now?

Quote from: Omega;876821No. My argument is that all you need to do is know the ranges. Much like how in 5e you just need to know what consitutes a hit or a miss. Once you know the ranges it eventually becomes second nature if you play enough.

Possibly I'm just not understanding the system you're proposing. Could you be more specific?

Quote from: trechriron;876824Here's my entry into the possible standard dice replacement. Not fully thought out on odds, just a spitball/idea.

I'm not too concerned about matching probability.

Your system doesn't quite work because you can't roll distinct doubles and triples on 3d6 at the same time (so, for example, you can generate either Advantage or Triumph, but you can't generate both at the same time). But I can see several ways you could modify it to remove that problem and give you three axes.

Quote from: Omega;876800The boxed starter set comes with dice. But this was my argument too about the FFG dice. That is another 14$ added onto the cost if you go with the core book. Or 14 per player.

Some will argue that normal polyhedral sets of 4/6/6/6/8/10/10/12/20 or 4/6/8/10/10/12/20 can cost 12$ or more too. But standard polyhedrals can be used for many different games. FFG dice cant even be used with Imperial Assault it seems.

Right, and you don't have to buy them from FFG (though I don't think Ive spent $12 on a dice set, with the nice Chessex ones at $6 on Amazon).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;876815Unless you're suggesting that the computer itself is playing the game, all you've done there is introduce a third variant: Symbols, chart look-up, or push a button on an app. And I would tend to agree that pushing a button on an app in this situation would be easier than either alternative.

I was suggesting the level of complexity was not significantly greater for a table than dice. And using a dice app is certainly not out of the question nor unheard of.

QuoteThe entire topic of conversation was about whether or not a system using normal dice could deliver the same three axes of information that the FFG system does without being more complicated to use than counting symbols.

But is that really the case that this is the entire topic of conversation in this thread? Have we all agreed that the FFG system delivers something useful with its different types of information and the only question of interest is how to implement a system that delivers the exact same information as does the FFG system?

Well let's see what you said elsewhere.

QuoteIn my review of Star Wars: Force and Destiny, I explained how the game's core mechanic uses three inconsistent pairs of symbols in order to generate a huge mess of meaningless results that even the game's designers can't figure out how to interpret or use consistently.

So how can you claim here that we ought to replicate exactly the results of FFG as written or restrict the discussion to the system as written when you have already concluded that the results are meaningless. We could adopt any one of a host of dice systems already in existence that deliver meaningful results and any of those systems would be superior to a system that generates mess.

Your analogy about driving on tanks of gas misses that point. A better analogy would specify that the car, like the FFG system, was undrivable. At which point how much gas it would use if it were drivable is hardly the point. Because it isn't drivable. So you aren't going to Los Angeles or Queens until you get a car that is drivable. Before you worry about gas mileage, or driving destination, you should worry about having a car you can actually drive.

QuoteIt's been awhile since I played Runequest, but I don't recall RQ generating results like Critical Hit + Missed Hit + Fumbled Hit all on the same die roll. So it's unclear to me how you're claiming that this mechanic is delivering three axes of information.

Apparently it has been while since you played Runequest. I already covered this in the post you quoted, but to refresh your memory, both combatants make separate rolls to hit, and to parry. That is a total of four dice being rolled. Not one dice roll. (Technically it would usually require rolling eight dice since most people use 2 dice for each D100 roll.)

On each of those four rolls we may have any of five results: Critical Success, Special Success, Success, Failure, and Fumble.  So a critical hit with an attack, a missed hit for a parry, a fumbled hit for the opponent's parry, and a normal hit for the opponent's attack is just one of many possible results. This gives a total of 20 possible results.

In passing I note that your analysis of the FFG system listed a total of only 18 possible results. If we eliminated the redundant or nonsensical results we'd have even fewer.  Perhaps as few as the five results you proposed in your follow up article.

As a parenthetical note, I guess I also need to remind you that in Runequest a missed hit and a fumbled hit is redundant as a result since a fumble subsumes that a miss has occurred similar to the way that in FFG a Despair includes a Failure but without including the "meaningless results" that FFG generates.

QuoteActually, the Star Wars games do, in fact, have such tables. (Although it's not really relevant to a discussion of the information provided by the core mechanic.)

Than why bring it up since according to you we are supposedly discussing the core mechanic?

QuoteI agree that if we're talking about some completely different mechanic than the one found in the FFG Star Wars games, that such a mechanic could be trivially replicated with normal dice.

Since the mechanic in FFG does, by your own analysis, generate "a huge mess of meaningless results" maybe we should be discussing a completely different mechanic. Certainly before you claim that the results can't be duplicated more simply you should first lay out what the results are that the system does generate. But since you say those results are meaningless that's kind of difficult to do isn't it?

QuoteI'm just not entirely clear what you think that has to do with the topic at hand.

I'm unclear why your are posting anything here at all. You've said the FFG system delivers "a huge mess of meaningless results" yet you seem unwilling to consider here any alternative that doesn't give identical (hence also meaningless) results as does the FFG system.

Quote from: Bren;876850I'm unclear why your are posting anything here at all. You've said the FFG system delivers "a huge mess of meaningless results" yet you seem unwilling to consider here any alternative that doesn't give identical (hence also meaningless) results as does the FFG system.

First, I never said anything about "identical results". The word I used was "similar", and I've reiterated that several times.

Second, I've been perfectly clear about what the meaningless results are that I'm talking about. If we go back to my original post on this topic of discussion, in fact, we can see that I wrote in direct response to you: "Where the system falls apart is that it uses three inconsistent matching/cancellation rules for each set of symbols and then renders the whole thing into nonsense by filling the book with a mountain of rules and guidelines which are inconsistent in their use of the core mechanic. The core concept of reporting three axes of information isn't horrible, though, despite the specific execution. And most of the people who are reporting success with the system (a) house rule out the inconsistent matching/cancellation rules and (b) ignore most of the badly designed rules built on top of it while focusing on the useful improv tool the core mechanic provides." (emphasis added)

Attempting to quote me out of context in order to deliberately distort what I'm saying is, of course, completely dishonest.

Furthermore, let's be clear here: I am not attempting to defend the FFG Star Wars system here. I've been perfectly clear about my poor opinion of the game in both my posts in this thread and in the blog posts I've linked to.

What we are discussing here is whether or not the special dice are delivering a meaningful advantage over the use of traditional dice. My contention is they specifically deliver the following information:

- Success/failure.
- Advantage/threat.
- Triumph or no Triumph.
- Despair or no Despair.

Including quantitative measurements of all four categories (except failures; although the dice can deliver that information, the system ignores it). In addition, the probability of results in each of these categories is independently varied based on skill, difficulty, and circumstantial modifiers.

I then made two statements:

(1) I don't know of any other game that does this.

(2) I could not think of any way to do it with normal dice that wouldn't be considerably more complicated than than the FFG Star Wars core mechanic.

I continue to stand by my first statement. It's certainly possible that there's a game out there delivering information like this, but no one's proffered an example of it yet. (Your blather that opposed rolls with margins of success are doing the same thing is just that: Blather.)

For the latter, as I've already noted, Trentin has demonstrated a pretty good example of how it could be done with normal dice.

Quote from: Lynn;876838Right, and you don't have to buy them from FFG (though I don't think Ive spent $12 on a dice set, with the nice Chessex ones at $6 on Amazon).

They sell the dice in packs. Seen them on racks near the games themselves at the local game store.

They also sell a dice roller app.

On the free side seems theres at least two rollers out now online.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;876874What we are discussing here is whether or not the special dice are delivering a meaningful advantage over the use of traditional dice. My contention is they specifically deliver the following information:

- Success/failure.
- Advantage/threat.
- Triumph or no Triumph.
- Despair or no Despair.

Including quantitative measurements of all four categories (except failures; although the dice can deliver that information, the system ignores it). In addition, the probability of results in each of these categories is independently varied based on skill, difficulty, and circumstantial modifiers.

I then made two statements:

(1) I don't know of any other game that does this.

(2) I could not think of any way to do it with normal dice that wouldn't be considerably more complicated than than the FFG Star Wars core mechanic.

I continue to stand by my first statement. It's certainly possible that there's a game out there delivering information like this, but no one's proffered an example of it yet. (Your blather that opposed rolls with margins of success are doing the same thing is just that: Blather.)

FU and Emergent do simmilar with a single (or more) 6-sider, and double 6-siders respectively (or a 12-sider). Whereas EotE takes up to eight dice to tell the same story? (Fun fact: There is a FU Star Wars.)

The FFG system is more complex.

But. And this is the YMMV part.

It gets the job done. It may not do it well. But it works just fine once you get the hang of it. Id say its no more, or less clunky than Mythic's system with all the bells and whistles in place.

Quote from: Bren;876535Thanks that was helpful. So let's see if I got this.

So match up a * with a funny triangle. Throw those pairs away. Count the sword thingy as a * (but remember you can trade the sword in for a prize in the bottom of the cracker jack box) and count the hollow triangle and circle thingy as a funny triangle thingy (but remember you can trade it in for a worm in somebody's apple). Pair up the sword and hollow thingies like you did with the * and funny triangle thingies and throw any pairs away.

If you have any *s left over you succeed. (Remember swords count as *s.)  If instead you have some funny triangles left over you failed. (Remember that hollow triangle and circle thingies count as triangle thingies.) Decide whether to trade in swords or hollow triangle circle thingies for prizes or worms respectively.

Now see if you have any laurel wreaths and pair them up with any hexagon thingies. Throw those pairs away. If you have any laurel wreaths left you get a present (like at Christmas) even if you failed (apparently Star Wars Santa does not keep a list of bad little boys and girls). If instead you have any hexagon thingies you get threatened by the Star Wars version of the Grinch even if you succeeded. The Grinch hates all boys and girls good or bad.

So instead of doing simple arithmetic we play a matching game and see what's left. OK.

How can anyone look at that and not think this is a horribly and needlessly convoluted mess even without considering the use of symbols instead of numbers and without considering the actual interpretation of roll results.

To understand the dice system in WFRP3 and FFGSW you have to realize the intent.  The idea is that it's not enough for players to derive "drama" and "story" from their character's actions, successes and failures.  The mechanics must do this.  So every mechanical result is always a success or failure, small or large, plus a "narrative kicker" with mechanical weight.  Succeeding or failing at an IC task is not interesting to this school of thought, there must be some form of additional OOC boost to always push drama and story.

This line of reasoning to me is anathema to roleplaying, but there's no doubt that the dice system does what it set out to do.  If you're looking at it as a means of only task resolution, you're looking at it wrong.

The only real flaw I find with either dice system is that coming up with narration for every single "kicker" can be exhausting and simply using the bonus/malus method gets a little much after a while (or as one player put it, "Can't you ever just succeed or fail without some weird hanging modifier?").

Well in WFRP 3 you could skip all the narration and just use the dice symbols as-is. By that I mean only worrying about whether or not you succeeded in your action and, if you had any symbols left over that you could use to trigger any of the effects listed on your action card. (example, spend two "boons" to do an extra maneuver)

I mean, SURE you could look at which dice gave you a success in the end and narrate it: was that last success symbol from one of your fortune Dice (granted by the cleric's buff)? Or was it from your raw attribute dice? Or your skill dice? Conversely, did you fail because of the enemy's ability, or just bad luck (from the Black misfortune dice)?

But you didn't have to. It was fun to think about, for flavor, at times. But in the heat of the moment, when you wanted to maintain momentum, you could just skip that and focus on the dice roll results.

I think WFRP3 did a better job of tying those "hanging modifiers" to additional special effects than SW did, which lets the narrative focus drift into the background.  Unfortunately, the rest of WFRP3 was top to bottom a narrative shitshow of the first order, using a decades old IP born from wargames and traditional RPGs, and so sank into obscurity. :D

Quote from: Justin Alexander;876874What we are discussing here is whether or not the special dice are delivering a meaningful advantage over the use of traditional dice.

You have pointedly avoided discussing this. Instead you have assumed that there is an advantage.

The main question in the thread is: Should one use the FFG system?  (Specifically dice sets with six symbols of Success, Failure, Advantage, Threat, Triumph, and Despair.

This can be broken down into several questions.

   1. Does the FFG system provide any significant, meaningful advantage when compared to other well understood and commonly used systems?

2. If an advantage exists, is the advantage provided worth the cost in time, money, and effort in play required to obtain the advantage?

3. If an advantage exists, is there some easier system that provides similar advantages?

4. Alternatively does a system that provides fewer or different results then those six: Success/Failure, Advantage/Threat, Triumph, and Despair provide similar advantages to the FFG system at a lower total cost of time, effort, and money?

You have assumed the answer to 1 is yes and have chosen to focus on (and mostly blather about) 3. But you haven't specified what the advantage consists of (other than listing half a dozen nouns).

How does providing all six of the listed nouns deliver a meaningful advantage over providing some other set of information. Especially a set of information from a system that does not have the systemic ambiguities and contradictions that FFG comes with.

A few examples to ponder.

• What are the advantages to obtaining a result like Success+Threat+Despair (other than different words being used)?
• How is Success+Threat+Despair meaningfully different than Success+Threat or than Success+Despair or than Failure+Advantage+Triumph?
• How do these differences provide an advantage in play over an outcome with different or fewer nouns?
• For example, how is Success+Triumph and Success+Advantage meaningfully different from a system that already provides thee levels of Success such as Success/Special Success/Critical Success?

Quote from: CRKrueger;876906This line of reasoning to me is anathema to roleplaying, but there's no doubt that the dice system does what it set out to do.  If you're looking at it as a means of only task resolution, you're looking at it wrong.

Good point. I tend to prefer task resolution since it answers the question I'm most interested in during play. That is, what happened? I tried to hit him, dodge that, persuade her, fix this, outrace that. What happened when I tried to do that?

Telling me that I outraced that, but there is a Threat+Despair+Triumph just leaves me thinking WTF? Now I have to make up some looming threat, some element of despair, and some Triumph. How tiring for every roll.

QuoteThe only real flaw I find with either dice system is that coming up with narration for every single "kicker" can be exhausting and simply using the bonus/malus method gets a little much after a while (or as one player put it, "Can't you ever just succeed or fail without some weird hanging modifier?").

And that complaint argues against there being a significant advantage for providing multiple choices from a list of nouns. But as I've said before, I'm really not the customer FFG is looking for.

Quote from: Necrozius;876909Well in WFRP 3 you could skip all the narration and just use the dice symbols as-is. By that I mean only worrying about whether or not you succeeded in your action and, if you had any symbols left over that you could use to trigger any of the effects listed on your action card. (example, spend two "boons" to do an extra maneuver)

One thing I've noticed on the FFG boards is that the developers and book authors say that they often ignore all the advantage/threat stuff in rolls and only look at the success status. Just to keep the game moving. As the GM has full authority to spend all Threat and Despair, it's within his power (as if that matters) to just ignore those at any time. The Advantage, especially in combat, are most often used to trigger specific things from a chart.

The idea that these values represent some sort of Narrative currency isn't all that present in the actual written rules. For example, in the EotE book, when it talks about Triumphs it says, "Many weapons and talents have side effects that can be triggered using a Triumph result. Otherwise, the scenario or GM may have other options for using Triumph." So the GM, really has not just final say but initial say in what he thinks would be possible with that symbol.

Still, the dice mechanics from Imperial Assault do much of what the RPG does but in a much simpler manner.

Quote from: Lynn;876781Creating a required add-on product that amounts to 20% of a total start up cost of using it (approximately based on USSRP) is a marketing gimmick.

It doesn't seem to be required; alternatives, some fairly cheap, are available. Compare with OD&D; the three booklet set was $10 back when and a set of polyhedral dice easily more than $2 (as I recall) and not many good alternatives then; was that a marketing gimmick?

Quote from: Lynn;876781Creating a required add-on product that amounts to 20% of a total start up cost of using it (approximately based on USSRP) is a marketing gimmick.

Well thank god DnD is fully playable with just the players guide.  Totally don't need a monster manuel or DMG.

Quote from: Bren;876928You have pointedly avoided discussing this. Instead you have assumed that there is an advantage.

Bren, you keep wanting to have a discussion with some imaginary version of Justin Alexander that you've created in your head.

The discussion that the actual Justin Alexander is having here is entirely about Lynn's query about whether or not the specialized dice by FFG have an advantage in terms of ease-of-use compared to using standard dice.

Period. That's it. As I've stated multiple times, the total extent of my claim was that I feel the specialized dice do, in fact, make it easier to generate the four-axis results of the FFG system (including factors of variability) than a system using normal dice would.

I, honestly, don't give a shit if you like the four-axis results or not. A lot of people do, so your repeated claims that nobody could ever want them are kind of silly. Personally, I don't (as I've also stated multiple times now), so the fact that you keep trying to paint me as somehow championing the system is ludicrously stupid on your part.

Quote from: Omega;876882FU and Emergent do simmilar with a single (or more) 6-sider, and double 6-siders respectively (or a 12-sider).

That sounds unlikely, but I'm interested in how these games are producing four-axis results on a single six-sider. I've asked you for an explanation of these mechanics you keep claiming exist before and you've refused to provide them. Will you provide one this time?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;877203The discussion that the actual Justin Alexander is having here is entirely about Lynn's query about whether or not the specialized dice by FFG have an advantage in terms of ease-of-use compared to using standard dice.

If you want to maintain a laser-like focus exclusive of any other issues or topics in a discussion occurring in a public forum you shouldn't  repeatedly claim that the "entire topic of conversation" is only whatever splinter of a multi-page thread that happens to interest you. In this thread you decided to reply to my posts. Now it shouldn't surprise you to learn that my posts are made about what attracts my interest. This is a forum discussion, it isn't your personal blog. You don't get to limit the topic of discussion to only what interests Jason.

As far as the 3 or 4 axes of information FFG provides, the FFG system isn't doing anything substantially different than what was already done by symbol dice such as Rory's Story Cubes. Roll some dice, look at the symbols on the dice, try to tell a story based on the symbols. FFG chose to limit the number of symbols to 6 instead of the 54 symbols in the basic Story Cube set. The mechanical cancellation of successes and failures is an add-on to what the Story Cubes do, but hardly an innovative one.

Quote from: Bren;876932Telling me that I outraced that, but there is a Threat+Despair+Triumph just leaves me thinking WTF? Now I have to make up some looming threat, some element of despair, and some Triumph. How tiring for every roll.

Part of me likes this, but only if wasn't so common. I love Crits and Fumbles, but if those each have a 5% chance to show, then 9 out of 10 rolls happen without these special events. For me that works.

What's the math on these special modifiers in Star Wars?

AKA, how many times in 10 rolls will you encounter Threat / Despair / Triumph occurring?

Quote from: Warboss Squee;877179Well thank god DnD is fully playable with just the players guide.  Totally don't need a monster manuel or DMG.

The players dont need either. The DM technically doesnt need the PHB. And lets not forget that you only need one copy of those three books and the dice for everyone to play.

5e example. I am the only group member with the books. Oh noes! No one else can play! yeah riiight. (and 5e is structured such that you can actually play with just the PHB. Limited. But playable.)

FFG SW is all in one book for the most part. I dont know how essential the stuff in the expansions is. I assume not very?

Quote from: Omega;877321The players dont need either. The DM technically doesnt need the PHB. And lets not forget that you only need one copy of those three books and the dice for everyone to play.

5e example. I am the only group member with the books. Oh noes! No one else can play! yeah riiight. (and 5e is structured such that you can actually play with just the PHB. Limited. But playable.)

FFG SW is all in one book for the most part. I dont know how essential the stuff in the expansions is. I assume not very?

You need one core book. Anything and everything else is just a bonus.

You need one set of dice.

They buy in is comparable to just about any other game. Even including the dice, since yes we all bought our own at some point and probably a lot of them.

Quote from: Omega;877321FFG SW is all in one book for the most part. I dont know how essential the stuff in the expansions is. I assume not very?

It depends on theme, actually.

Edge of The Empire focuses on outcasts, criminals and other unwanted types, so all the gear, the ships, the antagonists (which is in the core book) you need are dedicated to those types of characters.  Continuing with EoE, you'll find villains like Hutts, other Bounty Hunters, Crime Lords.  Very few will be force sensitive, much less Jedi/Sith.  The gear will be blasters and durasteel armour, customizable starships and speeders.

In Force and Destiny, you'll find all the Force doods and doodettes you'd need to fight, not to mention that the focus of the gear is mostly what a Jedi/Sith will be interested in, melee weapons, cloth robes, Holocrons, with a light touch of vehicles.

In Age of Rebellion (which I don't own, but should pick up at some point) it's all military focused, with I'm assuming things you'd find in the hands of Rebels and Imperials, walkers, starfighters, military grade uniforms and weapons.  The villains are likely going to be fanatical and maybe not-so-fanatic Imps.

So, just to throw a bunch of shit on the fire, because the thought just occurred to me:

Should FFG have used the Warhammer 40k rpg system for Star Wars?

Heh, which one?
Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Deathwatch, Black Crusade, Only War and Dark Heresy II might be similar systems, but they have enough differences to be only loosely compatible with a metric fuckton of tweaking.

Quote from: David Johansen;877334So, just to throw a bunch of shit on the fire, because the thought just occurred to me:

Should FFG have used the Warhammer 40k rpg system for Star Wars?

I would say no. The various incarnations of that system worked great back in WFRP when there were no blasters, automatic fire, etc. Dealing with the transition to 40k technology caused a lot of headaches in that system, the same sort of headaches you'd have to deal with in Star Wars. And those are much grittier games as well. The system just wouldn't feel right without the critical wound location tables, and those really wouldn't suit a Star Wars game. Apart from maybe lightsaber dismemberment...

Quote from: Spinachcat;877313Part of me likes this, but only if wasn't so common. I love Crits and Fumbles, but if those each have a 5% chance to show, then 9 out of 10 rolls happen without these special events. For me that works.

Honor+Intrigue uses 12 and 2 for critical Which is just over 5% per roll of one or the other occurring.

QuoteWhat's the math on these special modifiers in Star Wars?

Don't know. Since you have Triumph, Despair, Advantage, and Threat I'm guessing at least one of the four shows up more than 10% of the time. But it doesn't look like there is a simple, single answer as there are different die types and (I think) a variable number of dice that may be rolled.

Does anybody know the probabilities? (It's probably simplest to calculate the odds of getting nothing except success or failure and subtract that from 100% to get the odds of something special showing up on any give roll.)

Quote from: Spinachcat;877313Part of me likes this, but only if wasn't so common. I love Crits and Fumbles, but if those each have a 5% chance to show, then 9 out of 10 rolls happen without these special events. For me that works.

What's the math on these special modifiers in Star Wars?

AKA, how many times in 10 rolls will you encounter Threat / Despair / Triumph occurring?

Theres an 8.3% chance of getting a Despair and a 50% chance of a Threat and 50% chance of getting a Failure on the red die. The Yellow die are much the same. 8.3 for a Triumph, 50 for Advantage and 58 for a Success. So weighted slightly in the players favour. The 8-siders are weighted slightly against the player from the looks of it.

I could ask on BGG and see what the professional number crunchers come up with if someone has not allready.

It sounds like one rolls 1 red die and 1 yellow die each time you roll. Is that right?

• Assuming it is there is an 11/12 chance of not getting a Despair and an 11/12 chance of not getting a Triumph. So to not get either is 84% = (11/12) * (11/12).

So a 16% chance every time the dice are rolled of getting Triumph, Despair, or Triumph+Despair.

Quote from: Bren;877432It sounds like one rolls 1 red die and 1 yellow die each time you roll. Is that right?

• Assuming it is there is an 11/12 chance of not getting a Despair and an 11/12 chance of not getting a Triumph. So to not get either is 84% = (11/12) * (11/12).

So a 16% chance every time the dice are rolled of getting Triumph, Despair, or Triumph+Despair.

No. Difficulty dice are 1-5 purple. Red dice come from upgrades.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;877179Well thank god DnD is fully playable with just the players guide.  Totally don't need a monster manuel or DMG.

It is fully playable. If you want to run the game, the other books are helpful though.

Quote from: rawma;877156It doesn't seem to be required; alternatives, some fairly cheap, are available. Compare with OD&D; the three booklet set was $10 back when and a set of polyhedral dice easily more than $2 (as I recall) and not many good alternatives then; was that a marketing gimmick?

Did the OD&D box come with dice? I know my 'blue box' came with dice (not those awful chits, later).

Its hard to say if was a marketing gimmick or not. If TSR were the only source of those dice, then yes, though apparently they were around (http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-gaming-got-its-dice.html). You could also get some dice through educational stores (http://savevsdragon.blogspot.com/2011/11/brief-history-of-polyhedral-dice.html).

But despite your pointing out indirectly that the dice would have been a 20% increase, the distribution game chances once your per unit price hits certain levels, and also industry specific variables as well in how they treat really cheap stuff (magazines vs candy bars vs long shelf life stuff, etc).

Quote from: Lynn;877446It is fully playable. If you want to run the game, the other books are helpful though.

Hey. Turns out supplements can add to a gaming experience. Whodathunk?

To be fair, FFG has done a superb job of avoiding power creep. Which is something I never thought I'd say. About anything.

Quote from: Lynn;877446It is fully playable. If you want to run the game, the other books are helpful though.

Now, you're just being disingenuous.  I've run D&D in it's various forms for a measly 31 years, and I can tell you, if you want magical items and other rewards for your players, and some monsters that aren't other classes and races in the PHB, the other two books are more than helpful, they're mandatory.

So you're shelling out $120-160 in one go, assuming you actually have dice, which depending on the style can run you up anywhere from $5-14 more.

The real 'barrier' to FFG's SW games is the funky symbols, not the price.

Quote from: Lynn;877448Did the OD&D box come with dice? I know my 'blue box' came with dice (not those awful chits, later).

I recall that it came with one set of dice with 1 for each Platonic Solid (D4, D6, D8, D12, D20). They were pretty crappy dice as the plastic wasn't hard enough to stand up to repeated use. The corners rounded off with use so that the D20s became sort of spherical.

OD&D hasn't been sold for decades.  Why does it even matter?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877955OD&D hasn't been sold for decades.  Why does it even matter?

It hasnt? What was that special deluxe boxed set then a few years back?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877955OD&D hasn't been sold for decades.  Why does it even matter?

These are games. None of it really matters.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877955OD&D hasn't been sold for decades.  Why does it even matter?

Because people love their strawmen.

Quote from: danbuter;877997Because people love their strawmen.

It's not really a strawman but it doesn't actually apply. OD&D did not come with dice. Only the basic boxed sets did starting with Holmes.

However, the AD&D analogy doesn't hold either. While AD&D, and all version since, have required three books, each of those books contained different material. Whereas the FFG SW books contain a large amounts of text cut-and-pasted from one book to the next.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877452Now, you're just being disingenuous.  I've run D&D in it's various forms for a measly 31 years, and I can tell you, if you want magical items and other rewards for your players, and some monsters that aren't other classes and races in the PHB, the other two books are more than helpful, they're mandatory.

They are mandatory if you are the DM but not as a player.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877452So you're shelling out $120-160 in one go, assuming you actually have dice, which depending on the style can run you up anywhere from $5-14 more.

That's not the price of entry. FFG has at least Edge of the Empire well below $50 on Amazon (with USSRP of $59.95) if you bypass the starter game. A GM may want to spend $120+ at a time, but its not a player requirement.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877452The real 'barrier' to FFG's SW games is the funky symbols, not the price.

My reply was about how the dice are a marketing gimmick to both maximize profits and lock in players to their system. I also (assume) the symbols are copyrighted, so not so easy for third parties to poach within the walled garden if you cannot display a matching symbol.

I have a lot of interest in clever marketing. How do you make something more desirable for the consumer and yet more profitable for the company? Can you do it first, or better, keep your competitors from doing it?

This is clever marketing, but its ugly - its like DRM for old world IP - a dongle for your brain. They've packaged it in a pretty way, so it has a high value appearance to match expensive IP they've licensed.  

To me - the symbols on the dice aren't as bad as reading the symbols in the books. When I read a sentence containing a symbol, my reading 'flow' gets interrupted when I hit that symbol. It is worse than the weird fonts / text colors in some of the NWoD books.

Quote from: Lynn;878036My reply was about how the dice are a marketing gimmick to both maximize profits and lock in players to their system. I also (assume) the symbols are copyrighted, so not so easy for third parties to poach within the walled garden if you cannot display a matching symbol.

Gimmick. Yes. Marketing/Monetizing. No. FFG is infatuated with gimmicks for gimmicks sake. There are few games they have acquired, designed, or "borrowed" that they havent glitzed to the gills one way or another.

According to at least one of the designers they are aware that it actually costs them. As do some of their actual marketing tactics. But apparently they make it back eventually with customer loyalty. How? Have no clue.

As for the symbols. Some are Star Wars specific and so owned by Disney now. They are different from the icon game dice that came with the Star Wars figures from Hasbro. All of those were original and not from SW. And those were a gimmick too rather than marketing/monetizing.

Quote from: Omega;878053Gimmick. Yes. Marketing/Monetizing. No. FFG is infatuated with gimmicks for gimmicks sake. There are few games they have acquired, designed, or "borrowed" that they havent glitzed to the gills one way or another.

At $15 a set, they should be pulling in a reasonable profit. But to do that, they need to be ordering huge batches and have them in stock. Id also make sure its an easy 'add on' item that pops up when you order one of the games on the online store.

Quote from: Omega;878053According to at least one of the designers they are aware that it actually costs them. As do some of their actual marketing tactics. But apparently they make it back eventually with customer loyalty. How? Have no clue.

Loyal customers who are properly incentivized buy more stuff.

Quote from: Omega;878053As for the symbols. Some are Star Wars specific and so owned by Disney now. They are different from the icon game dice that came with the Star Wars figures from Hasbro. All of those were original and not from SW. And those were a gimmick too rather than marketing/monetizing.

You seem to define a 'gimmick' as something separate from marketing. It is all marketing - just varying in effectiveness.

Quote from: Lynn;878073You seem to define a 'gimmick' as something separate from marketing. It is all marketing - just varying in effectiveness.

Marketing is when the gimmic is played up. If you hardly even know the gimmic is there then it isnt marketing. Oddly FFG hasnt played up the funky dice. Either that or I missed it. Which is very likely. But the ads I saw for it didnt play up the dice.

Quote from: Omega;878083Marketing is when the gimmic is played up. If you hardly even know the gimmic is there then it isnt marketing. Oddly FFG hasnt played up the funky dice. Either that or I missed it. Which is very likely. But the ads I saw for it didnt play up the dice.

No, but whenever there's a D&D ad, they play up the dice.  So is WoTC using dice as a marketing gimmick, then?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;878215No, but whenever there's a D&D ad, they play up the dice.  So is WoTC using dice as a marketing gimmick, then?

Are they playing up the dice? "LOOK! Poleheeeeeedralssssss!" or just showing the dice in use? "I hit the ogre!"

Quote from: Omega;878278Are they playing up the dice? "LOOK! Poleheeeeeedralssssss!" or just showing the dice in use? "I hit the ogre!"

No.  But they show the image of the dice with the books nearby.  FFG's Star Wars do not, typically.





For the record, I find this stupid.  I get not liking the dice because of the funny symbols on them.  I get that the system is not for everyone, but claiming that they are a marketing ploy, which again, we have someone trying to convince us that FFG's version of the game is wrong, and we're bad players for liking it (not in so many direct words, the constant attacking of FFG as a company for using these dice.  Hell, FATE is the same way, with it's own funky dice system.)

It's getting old.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;878305No.  But they show the image of the dice with the books nearby.  FFG's Star Wars do not, typically.

For the record, I find this stupid.  I get not liking the dice because of the funny symbols on them.  I get that the system is not for everyone, but claiming that they are a marketing ploy, which again, we have someone trying to convince us that FFG's version of the game is wrong, and we're bad players for liking it (not in so many direct words, the constant attacking of FFG as a company for using these dice.  Hell, FATE is the same way, with it's own funky dice system.)

It's getting old.

1: Then no its not a marketing ploy for either.

2: Same. I might have a small axe to grind with FFG for past underhanded antics. But I do not see so far anything they've done with the RPG as overly greedy. In fact from all accounts here and elsewhere FFG has been rather mild with the gimmicks and especially monetizing the game compared to many of their other endeavors.

3: Verily.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;878305For the record, I find this stupid.  I get not liking the dice because of the funny symbols on them.  I get that the system is not for everyone, but claiming that they are a marketing ploy, which again, we have someone trying to convince us that FFG's version of the game is wrong, and we're bad players for liking it (not in so many direct words, the constant attacking of FFG as a company for using these dice.  Hell, FATE is the same way, with it's own funky dice system.)

The dice do seem like a marketing ploy to me. But that doesn't mean you or anyone else is a bad person for liking the game. My cable package is a marketing ploy. So's yours for that matter. So what? I pay for my cable plan to get the features I want. I also get some other shit I don't want, but it's all part of the bundle. Companies come up with their marketing ploys (or plans to be less pejorative) to try to maximize revenue. Good plans work. Bad ones don't. Time may tell which FFG's funny symbol dice is. Though the lack of transparency on industry sales, costs, and profits makes it unlikely that we'll ever really know how well funny symbol dice worked as part of FFG's marketing plan.

All a funky dice marketing ploy does (assuming it actually works) is to

• Extract some extra cash from people who buy or use the system because they also have to buy sets of dice.
• Give people who like unique widgets or toys something to play with. (Which is something a lot of other games have traditionally done.)
• Adds a tiny increase in the switching cost of going to a new system because these dice are useless for other games.

And you are right. FATE dice have similar effects.

Polyhedral dice also have similar effects. Based on what I know of the early days at TSR, I seriously doubt polyhedral dice were part of any conscious marketing plan. But I think the uniqueness of the dice were a draw for the game in the early days. (I distinctly remember the dice as a cool, nerdy aspect of the game.) Those funny polyhedral dice were something games before D&D didn't have. And yes there may have been some other game that used polyhedral dice before D&D. But nothing with the market penetration of TSR D&D used polyhedral dice so the unique widget aspect still applies.

QuoteIt's getting old.

With no snark, maybe take a break from the thread? If our bitching about a game you like is bugging you that much just ignore us for a while.

Quote from: Bren;878329With no snark, maybe take a break from the thread? If our bitching about a game you like is bugging you that much just ignore us for a while.

Oh, I'm done.  There's nothing more for me to say here, without repeating myself.  And I do that enough already.

I'm hoping to make this my last post on this topic.  Peace out and Happy Gaming.

I wonder if anyone, anywhere, ever on the intarwebz will leave a thread without declaring that they're leaving thus getting the last word in.

Quote from: CRKrueger;878342I wonder if anyone, anywhere, ever on the intarwebz will leave a thread without declaring that they're leaving thus getting the last word in.

But if they do, how will you know?

(http://1.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/50/27/0d41808f60af8871fa122b3b0f37ab1b.gif)

Quote from: Omega;878083Marketing is when the gimmic is played up. If you hardly even know the gimmic is there then it isnt marketing. Oddly FFG hasnt played up the funky dice. Either that or I missed it. Which is very likely. But the ads I saw for it didnt play up the dice.

You and Christopher seem to have your own ideas about what marketing is and isn't. Let us know how it goes when you market your own or others products.

Quote from: Lynn;878440You and Christopher seem to have your own ideas about what marketing is and isn't. Let us know how it goes when you market your own or others products.

Are you sure you're not confusing marketing with revenue generation?

Marketing implies some sort of communication which they certainly do not do on any of the preview articles, release articles, or any communication they present on their own website.  They don't seem to think of it as a selling point for the game at all.

They are however making it such that you really do need to buy the dice used to play the game from them.  That activity directly generates revenue for them.

Quote from: KingCheops;878445Marketing implies some sort of communication which they certainly do not do on any of the preview articles, release articles, or any communication they present on their own website.  They don't seem to think of it as a selling point for the game at all.

Marketing is quite broad in what it encompasses, and you have specializations within it, and areas of overlap with other parts of a business (sales and development). You are talking about "marcom" if you've heard the term, as in Marketing Communication.

You can have a bunch of people wearing different hats in a company, and they all interact with one another, effectively or ineffectively.

I understand the point you are making - they do not incorporate the 'dice engine' into their communications much. They focus on a polished presentation of Star Wars as a game, and maybe the appearance of the dice, but not the engine itself. That's a good idea. But that is just a part of it.

Quote from: Lynn;878440You and Christopher seem to have your own ideas about what marketing is and isn't. Let us know how it goes when you market your own or others products.

Funny. I've done marketing and sold product. Try again please.

You obviously have a bigger axe to grind with FFG than I do and are hellbent on fabricating any reason against the game. Which undermines the valid points you had before you went winging off merrily into marketing wacky land.

Chris is winging off in the opposite direction singing "tra-la-la no one could possibly have trouble with icons! Its not an extra layer! tra-la-la" Which undermines the valid points he has.

Quote from: Omega;878483You obviously have a bigger axe to grind with FFG than I do and are hellbent on fabricating any reason against the game. Which undermines the valid points you had before you went winging off merrily into marketing wacky land.

I must be a raging crazy liar because I don't agree with you, right?

I kept on this thread for two reasons. A lot of the discussion about various dice strategies suddenly got quite thought provoking and useful. Also, I keep getting replies about marketing that either cast aspersions like yours just did, or that present a contrary view than my experience in marketing.

I guess I am guilty of being enough of an egoist to not just ignore it - but no doubt its because of whiteness / white privilege, the true source of all evil. That and mayonnaise.

Quote from: Lynn;878459Marketing is quite broad in what it encompasses, and you have specializations within it, and areas of overlap with other parts of a business (sales and development). You are talking about "marcom" if you've heard the term, as in Marketing Communication.

You can have a bunch of people wearing different hats in a company, and they all interact with one another, effectively or ineffectively.

I understand the point you are making - they do not incorporate the 'dice engine' into their communications much. They focus on a polished presentation of Star Wars as a game, and maybe the appearance of the dice, but not the engine itself. That's a good idea. But that is just a part of it.

Curriculum must have really changed since I was in school.  Although it wouldn't be a big surprise to see marketing departments take this approach since in my experience they are a bunch of self-important pricks.

You also seem to be confusing marketing with organizational questions.  Wearing different hats has shit fuck all to do with marketing.  Or are you trying to claim that the guys who arrange flow rates on automated factory systems are all part of marketing?  Or that the writers of RPG at FFG are part of the marketing department?  They'd get feedback from marketing unless it is a shitty company but neither of those is a marketing function.

Quote from: KingCheops;878635Curriculum must have really changed since I was in school.  

I stopped reading his arguments after the tenth strawman was set up ad nausium.

Quote from: CRKrueger;878342I wonder if anyone, anywhere, ever on the intarwebz will leave a thread without declaring that they're leaving thus getting the last word in.

I know I said I would make my previous post my last, but I want address this.

I mention my departure from threads because I want to let people know that I will (try to) not to get involved in this thread and will likely not be avidly reading it.  So anyone wishing to rebut or otherwise engage my opinion will likely not get any sort of response from me.

I don't want people wasting their time.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877955OD&D hasn't been sold for decades.  Why does it even matter?

It's actually being sold right now (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/28306/ODD-Dungeons--Dragons-Original-Edition-0e?src=hottest_filtered&it=1&filters=0_0_44827_0_0).

Quote from: RPGPundit;879181It's actually being sold right now (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/28306/ODD-Dungeons--Dragons-Original-Edition-0e?src=hottest_filtered&it=1&filters=0_0_44827_0_0).

That's the Box set with the dice and everything?  Cool!

Quote from: CRKrueger;878342I wonder if anyone, anywhere, ever on the intarwebz will leave a thread without declaring that they're leaving thus getting the last word in.

I do all the time.  Lots of times I will start to reply, then figure my point isn't worth making and delete it.  Or also, message boards are not that big a part of my life to look at everyday.  Plenty of times I have no idea if anyone ever responded to something I said because I don't log in for days and it gets buried.  People could be calling me a sphincter all the time and I would not know.

Quote from: Old One Eye;879214I do all the time.  Lots of times I will start to reply, then figure my point isn't worth making and delete it.  Or also, message boards are not that big a part of my life to look at everyday.  Plenty of times I have no idea if anyone ever responded to something I said because I don't log in for days and it gets buried.

Yeah, me too.  I was just joking.  

Quote from: Old One Eye;879214People could be calling me a sphincter all the time and I would not know.

Good thing, because we all do that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;879216Yeah, me too.  I was just joking.  

Good thing, because we all do that.

No we don't all do that. I, for one, have never called Old One Eye a sphincter. ;)

Quote from: Bren;879231No we don't all do that. I, for one, have never called Old One Eye a sphincter. ;)

Oh sure, not publicly.  I won't air any PMs. :D

Quote from: Bren;879231No we don't all do that. I, for one, have never called Old One Eye a sphincter. ;)

You should; I am definitely an ass!  :p

Quote from: Christopher Brady;879199That's the Box set with the dice and everything?  Cool!

No, but that was very recently out too (https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/original-dungeons-dragons-rpg).