Quote from: Bren;856938Dress it up however you want, some people just prefer a game where Han Solo and a Rancor don't have the same hit points, wound levels, or whatever one calls them.

Lucas is working on that in the latest re-edition. The Rancor shot first.

Quote from: Omega;856943Lucas is working on that in the latest re-edition. The Rancor shot first.

Son of a bitch.

Quote from: Skarg;856801Do any Star Wars games have combat systems that _don't_ require players to expect to get shot several times and shrug it off with hit points (which would be more like D&D than Star Wars)? That is, that has some element of say, tactics, that allows you to roleplay blaster combat where you can play in a way that there's some way to avoid getting shot, not just avoid getting killed by being able to survive blaster hits and heal them real quick?

"Losing HP" doesn't necessary equal "physical contact was made" in any version of D&D to date.

It CAN mean that, but it doesn't necessarily mean it.

"You lose ten HPs as you dodge the blaster bolt by little more than a Wookiee nut-sac hair" is HPs working as they always have.

FFG is a complicated boardgame that doesn't include the board.

Hmm, since I always want a map, I wonder what I'd have to engineer myself to add maps to FFG.

Thanks for the info, folks. I'm suddenly interested in checking out D6 and FFG, in ways I've never been before.

Edit: Below is just me explaining myself. I don't want to threadcrap, and I get that many/most people are content with hitpoint abstraction (and no maps), and I'm not trying to talk anyone out of that. If someone does want to get into such a discussion, we can start a new thread.

As for "near misses are used hitpoints", ok I've heard that before, but it doesn't work for me or my players. We're too logical and literal, and want to play with a different kind of cause and effect, more like reality. For just one example, if dodging uses HP, then Han's player can know he almost surely won't get killed in any small enough battle where he starts with full HP. And, even though he's not been hit but is "really worn out from dodging", if the player knows he's low on HP, he knows he _is_ suddenly vulnerable to getting nailed if he runs into a few more guys.

After all, this makes for an entirely different game situation and decisions when doing something like rescuing someone from Death Star detention. If I've got (no map and) a pile of hitpoints, we can just walk in with Chewie in chains and say we have a clever plan and start rolling dice and expect not to die, and expect to also be a bit closer to eventual death due to zero HP.

   But if we're playing a game with a map and single blaster hits generally waste someone, then we as players are responsible for looking at the map, seeing what guards are standing where and what their equipment and readiness is like, and then choosing where to stand so that we can be pretending to shoot at Chewie but hitting particular guards and cameras while Chewie takes out people within reach, and we need to face so we can keep as many of them in view, and shoot the least confused guards before any of them can get a weapon ready, use any terrain, etc. That is _we_ as players actually have a solid share of tactical responsibility for actually overcoming the fictional situation, in a way that makes sense, or else we're really screwed. We actually might get something wrong and get one or more of us blasted, at which point those people are dead or seriously messed up in a way that affects their combat ability in ways other than "another hit and they're probably dead". But if we pull it off, we might be a little more tired and lower on ammo, and we're screwed because the guards are after us, but we haven't used up any mystical "don't get killed" points. Real luck does run out, but one never knows when or how.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;856962FFG is a complicated boardgame that doesn't include the board.

Care to elaborate?

I'm a pretty demanding GM when it comes to my sniff-test on roleplaying. I detested D&D4e as being exactly what you assert FFG's SW to be even if I'm being a dash hyperbolic. I liken 4e as Talisman on steroids. The reality is I *could* make it work... but I'd never like it due to its constraints.

What about EotE is boardgamey? Maybe we have some very different definitions?

It's a simple stat+skill roll against a difficulty of 1-5 (represented as dice). It's got a robust combat system that does a good job of handling melee and ranged combat. Tons of gear. Tons of fluff material. I don't think I've used a battle-map *once*. Lemme take that back - I think I did use a battlemat once, but it certainly wasn't mandatory.

I'm as old-school as anyone on this forum, and aside from the janky custom dice, I've found the game runs pretty rock solid.* Once you get around that "issue" (and if you haven't noticed yet, I too thought it was an issue, now I don't) then it's pretty smooth sailing.

* I recognize a lot of people here don't like meta-rules like Force points to let people change the scenario, and shit like that. You don't *have* to be that  overt with it. Like anything else it's a mechanic that you as a GM have a say in. It's pretty minuscule.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;856932I'm about ready to get off my ass and get a new group together, and was noodling around the idea of a Star Wars campaign, (that or 5th ed) and I'm finding that the FFG system gets a huge range of reactions from "Yuck!" to "Super neato!" which makes my decision to get into the game or not all the harder.

Yeah Rat, that's been my impression too. I honestly do not understand the "Yuck" factor to people's reaction. I approached it as about as biased against it as anyone else... But aside from few meta-mechanics, it runs really well. Of course your point-of-entry into the game costs $$$... so I can understand that hesitation.

That said - I own all three lines and every book for it. I haven't felt I've been underserved by ANY of them. Even the books I expected to not like - like the Explorer's splat. It was damn good. Perhaps that's the SINGLE benefit of spreading around gear/rules among their books. Still makes me grumble...

Quote from: Skarg;856801Do any Star Wars games have combat systems that _don't_ require players to expect to get shot several times and shrug it off with hit points (which would be more like D&D than Star Wars)? That is, that has some element of say, tactics, that allows you to roleplay blaster combat where you can play in a way that there's some way to avoid getting shot, not just avoid getting killed by being able to survive blaster hits and heal them real quick?

To answer this directly: d6 and FFG's easily do this.

The only assumption I make here is this: If I'm a PC in either game, I'm going to make sure my gear is top-knotch. In d6 you can do more than enough to customize your blasters to one/two-shot someone. In FFG - it's even scarier. FFG has a *lot* of customization to gear and it's classes can allow you to be very offensive/defensive as you see fit, but it will cost you in other areas. Since FFG and d6 are skill-based games, if your game goes the distance you can make some really powerhouse characters and still be hurt by standard weaponry.

FFG does a better job with letting you feel heroic since they have Mook rules. Your characters can mow down Mooks with cautious abandon, though a group of Mooks can still pose dangers. Then they have two tiers above your standard Mooks to customize your encounters with so a GM can always get the right tempo out of their fights - social or otherwise. The social rules utilizing the Strain-mechanic (essentially it's non-health HP signifying stress) is, imo, one of the most powerful mechanics in the game to keep PC's on their toes.

I've only played d20's Star Wars and later Saga and felt the latter was a better system than the former. If you've already cut your teeth or have extensive knowledge of D&D 3e/Pathfinder then Saga is just a simple step into Star Wars version of that game.

Plus KotoR is based, loosely, from d20 so I take a lot of inspiration from that game as well.

Going to agree with tenbones. FFG Star Wars is a lot of fun to play, and easy to run. I'm going to assume the people decrying its complexity have never actually played it. It's a dice pool game with 3 pairs of canceling symbols. It's definitely not rocket surgery.

I've not got a lot of experience with the supplements, but the core books are sufficient for your needs with a bit of creativity.

Quote from: Skarg;856801Do any Star Wars games have combat systems that _don't_ require players to expect to get shot several times and shrug it off with hit points (which would be more like D&D than Star Wars)? That is, that has some element of say, tactics, that allows you to roleplay blaster combat where you can play in a way that there's some way to avoid getting shot, not just avoid getting killed by being able to survive blaster hits and heal them real quick?

After all, number of times characters got shot:
Han Solo: zero
Luke: shot in the cyber-hand once?
Leia: twice (one by a stun, once in the shoulder, taking both her and Han out of action)
Chewie: zero
C3P0: once - taken out, needed to be rebuilt
R2D2: 3 times, always taken out with one shot.
Vader: took zero effective hits, only "hit" when parrying Han at dinner
Obi-Wan: zero
Greedo: once, killed
Lando: zero
Qui-gon: zero
Mace Windu: zero
Yoda: zero
...

WEG can do that, and certainly encourages tactical thinking, since you cannot take 20 hits and rely on armor and healing. Leia's shoulder hit counts as a stunning wound in that system, and her getting hit caused her and Han to get surrounded by storm troopers (but she was still able to fight).

The problem I have with "1-hit-down" systems, is that they are often way too lethal. Yes, few of the protagonists in the SW movies are hit much, but that's because the nature of movies is that the heroes are considered to be making their dodge rolls at all times except when the plot requires (and you note how well it works for the stormtroopers/red-shirt rebels). How do you emulate that for your PCs, while still

I am all for gaming systems that encourage smart PCs, but I don't know all that many that do it well. Some, like Traveller, do play this up (unless you are in battledress), but then PCs almost never engage in firefights with trained soldiers). GURPS 3e was pretty good with the lethality, but I never saw many combat heavy sci-fi games get off the ground.

I think the best lethal + tactics sci fi game I know is 3:16 (there you have 4 hits until dead, but it's still a low number, and consistent throughout the game), but that one is so simple that there's not a lot of room to use good tactics either (above "My squad leader character spends his action to give his troops a +2 to being hit").

Quote from: Willie the Duck;857020"My squad leader character spends his action to give his troops a +2 to being hit"

I'd replace that guy.

Quote from: tenbones;856987The social rules utilizing the Strain-mechanic (essentially it's non-health HP signifying stress) is, imo, one of the most powerful mechanics in the game to keep PC's on their toes.

You mean I can shoot Han Solo in the Princess Leia? (meaning is there a way to turn physical damage into strain)

Quote from: Bren;857023I'd replace that guy.

It's a roll low mechanic game.

Quote from: Skarg;856984Hmm, since I always want a map, I wonder what I'd have to engineer myself to add maps to FFG.

Check out FFGs attendant board game. Star Wars: Imperial Assault. It plays alot like Descent and uses modular boards. The minis and boards work great with the RPG.

One of the other problems with FFGs SW:RPG is the cost. There have been a few tallies on the final cost of the RPG and depending on how completist you are or if you just want the stuff with mechanics and class/setting info. The game can get pretty expensive. Add in the cards and all that and it gets a bit more expensive.