Advancement has been a problem with the WEG version of Star Wars, especially the (generally superb) first edition. You just got too good rather soon in the campaign. D20 levelling is rather steady, especially when you don't have any noticable power bumps like spell levels or similar abilities. You have to make a compromise between lengthy campaigns and emulating the source. (I, for one, don't have a problem when our heroes have no problems with the elite Stormtroopers, but I wouldn't want Ewoks to best them easily)

And I see quite a lot of character growth in the Star Wars universe. Luke & Leia changed quite a bit, though a lot of that was done between Yavin and Hoth. Han doesn't change that much (ability-wise), but he already had much more experience from the start. Hard to teach an old dog new tricks...

I'm struck by what I perceive as the True20 influence.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old SchoolI'm struck by what I perceive as the True20 influence.

Unearthed Arcana predates True20 by quite a bit. Then again, I see some Mutants & Masterminds influence in UA...

Quote from: NicephorusI'm the opposite.  Levels and classes fit pulp (including Star  Wars) very well to me.  Most of the SW characters have fairly distinct roles, so separate classes is a reasonable way to model this.  Levels are a decent way of modeling mooks - they may seem badass but they're too low level to consistently hurt the major characters.  

The simplified skills, talents, and switch to hp sounds promising.  But both hp and damage conditions sounds unwieldy, why not one or the other?

You don't need levels at all to have mooks.  Feng Shui or James Bond 007 do mooks just fine, for example.  Primarily, levels are just bundling up advancements into discrete "power-ups" rather than awards of XP at the end of each session or adventure.  Though a feature of D20 (and most other levels) is that each power-up has some fixed things -- i.e. some of your XP must always go towards getting tougher, or better at fighting, etc. -- which is fair enough for pulp, where main characters do reasonably in most endeavors.  

As for classes...  Given that the canonical Star Wars universe is a small set of movies, it's hard to generalize about the character niches.  As I see it, there's a high amount of overlap -- nothing like the D&D fighter vs wizard.  For example, Han, Lando, Luke, and Chewbacca are all skilled pilots.  Even Leia does reasonably in the speeder chase on Endor.  Each had differences, but I'm not clear that the roles were that unique.  I note that most of the main characters were all multi-classed in the D20 Star Wars: Leia was Noble/Soldier, Han was Scoundrel/Soldier, R2D2 was Expert/Scout, and Luke was Fringer/Jedi Guardian.

Quote from: jhkimYou don't need levels at all to have mooks.

Of course not.  But it is a reasonable approach.  Assigning a level to NPCs is a quick way to ballpark their power.  Levels also force characters to go up in several aspects, which dampens the ability to min/max (but not totally).

Classes are a taste thing, some people like them, some don't.  They can be nice for quickly making characters to fill out a specific role.  D20 is actually less class centric than AD&D though due to skills and feats which amount to guided or limited pt buy.

Quote from: NicephorusClasses are a taste thing, some people like them, some don't.  They can be nice for quickly making characters to fill out a specific role.  D20 is actually less class centric than AD&D though due to skills and feats which amount to guided or limited pt buy.

Yeah, because strict classes are a big pile of suck. Especially if you want a general purpose type of game system. So to address all the demand for flexibility they went towards a mixed system where classes are more like blocks of skills and abilities that you buy level by level, and each block can be configured within itself.

Of course the way D20 handles Skills encourages min/maxing, but at least they have the rudimentary Level+3 cap to keep it from being totally wide open to min/max.

Quote from: blakkieYeah, because strict classes are a big pile of suck.

That's the problem I have with older versions of D&D and games that try to emuluate them.  I sometimes think "Man, it'd be great to go back to the good old days."  Then I start looking at rules and remember how homogenous non-spellcasters were.

Quote from: NicephorusOf course not.  But it is a reasonable approach.  Assigning a level to NPCs is a quick way to ballpark their power.  Levels also force characters to go up in several aspects, which dampens the ability to min/max (but not totally).

Classes are a taste thing, some people like them, some don't.  They can be nice for quickly making characters to fill out a specific role.  D20 is actually less class centric than AD&D though due to skills and feats which amount to guided or limited pt buy.

For PCs, I don't think it's a big change to have point totals (as in Amber, GURPS, etc.) versus levels either way.  Technically point systems allow for ultra-specialists, but in practice I don't find they're a big problem.  For NPCs, I'm a bit annoyed that, say, the best calligraphist in the world is going to kick butt (even if he takes an NPC class like Expert).  On the other hand, that can be fudged easily as well.  

Classes are more central to the game design, I feel.  However, flexible classes like Rolemaster or D20 aren't particularly speedy at character creation, since you still have to go level-by-level to be fully legal.    D20 classes aren't particularly speedy at character creation.  In general, I think that templates and packages are much more efficient for quick creation.  (cf. Class and Template Mechanics)

Quote from: jhkimFor PCs, I don't think it's a big change to have point totals (as in Amber, GURPS, etc.) versus levels either way.  Technically point systems allow for ultra-specialists, but in practice I don't find they're a big problem.  For NPCs, I'm a bit annoyed that, say, the best calligraphist in the world is going to kick butt (even if he takes an NPC class like Expert).  On the other hand, that can be fudged easily as well.  

Honestly, I find them distasteful in any system, because I'm a concept guy.  I come up with a concept for a character then grab rules to make that happen.  With a class based system you end up cobbling stuff together and either not getting some things you need or having a bunch of abilities that make no sense.

Quote from: MaddmanHonestly, I find them distasteful in any system, because I'm a concept guy.  I come up with a concept for a character then grab rules to make that happen.  With a class based system you end up cobbling stuff together and either not getting some things you need or having a bunch of abilities that make no sense.

Er, yeah.  I was distinguishing levels and classes there.  Classes do make a huge difference, as you note.  Levels by themselves don't.

In the end classes are for the benefit of the group, not the player.

Quote from: SosthenesIn the end classes are for the benefit of the group, not the player.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one?


I haven't liked that philosophy ever since I realized exactly what Spock was trying to say. It's all well and good when I willingly sacrifice myself for the greater good, its another thing entirely when its forced upon me.  

I play in a group, yes; with a group, yes; but not FOR the group.

Quote from: SosthenesIn the end classes are for the benefit of the group, not the player.

Er, could you explain that one?  Classes encourage the PCs towards predefined niches, but whether that's good for the group seems like a matter of taste.

Quote from: jhkimEr, could you explain that one?  Classes encourage the PCs towards predefined niches, but whether that's good for the group seems like a matter of taste.

It's also still a matter of the players choosing the right roles. If you play the archetypical dungeon crawl with 6 rogues, you probably won't get far.

I'm also not saying that without classes every group gets wildly anti-social. It's just that the benefits of classes are more important for the group than the player himself. Then again, most rules would qualify for that rather abstract statement.

D20 classes often aren't very close to the initial model, anyway. With a AD&D1 thief, you could count on him to have the appropriate skilsl for the dungeon crawl ready. Not so with more modern incarnations.

The experience of the players is rather important for this. I think that classes in a game like Star Wars help the group. I don't know how it's been with the D20 edition, but D6 Star Wars was the first role-playing game for quite a lot of people. Classes are one approach for players to quickly find their archetype and get through the rather complex game without too much hassle and grief.

That said, the same could be done by a simpler system with a few cliches or cliche-like skills (Risus or D6 come to mind). As you said, it's a matter of taste in the end.