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.