Star Wars Saga.5 Edition

pawsplay · Jul 3, 2008

With this Jedi Counseling article:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20080625jc112

we have moved into the realm of Saga.5 Edition. Some of the most controversial basic feats have been rewritten. Whirlwind Attack has been rewritten with previous errata, and Block and Deflect both have significant errata as well. At this point, running a game with the latest errata, which is a pretty good idea, involves several pages of changes.

Meanwhile, Starships of the Galaxy has changed the starship battles game (in a good way) by adding an expanded system, while Threats of the Galaxy went wild weasel and parcelled out Jedi lightsaber form feats to Sith, which previously the designers had adamantly maintained were Jedi-specific abilities based on those forms.

Somehow, Saga already lacks the shiny newness.

The Highway Man · Jul 3, 2008

I just think all this nitpicking about rules is pointless. WotC giving in to that sort of thing just makes games more and more focused on mechanics. It's more "Dungeons: The Dragoning" or "Saga: The Star Warsing" than anything about actual role-playing.

Back in the day (I'm talking about the 80's), we didn't have any such issue and no official rewriting of rule. A problem came up in actual play? Our group would rewrite the rule to act as a compromise for everybody around the table. Someone would whine about it? They could just walk to the door and not come back.

That's still how I do it. I have total respect for Sarli as an author, but I don't need no "Jedi Counseling" as such, thank you very much.

mhacdebhandia · Jul 3, 2008

The Highway Man said:
I just think all this nitpicking about rules is pointless. WotC giving in to that sort of thing just makes games more and more focused on mechanics. It's more "Dungeons: The Dragoning" or "Saga: The Star Warsing" than anything about actual role-playing.

Why on Earth would you make a back-handed slap at the World of Darkness in this connection? Those games are famous for having more focus on story and less on mechanics compared to the (then) mainstream.

The Highway Man · Jul 3, 2008

mhacdebhandia said:
Why on Earth would you make a back-handed slap at the World of Darkness in this connection? Those games are famous for having more focus on story and less on mechanics compared to the (then) mainstream.

It wasn't. I was thinking of "Magic: The Gathering", not WOD games.

That said, WOD games' claim of focussing more on story is well, ludicrous. There is a tad less mechanics, that's true. If you're not too focussed on the rules to begin with. The verbiage is well, extremely good in some instances, extremely misguided in others (particularly when it comes to defining what role-playing is and isn't, IMO).

Note: I own and play all old and new WOD games, before you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about. I'm not belonging to a "pro" or "anti" camp on this matter. I'm independent in my thinking here.

Nifft · Jul 3, 2008

The Highway Man said:
I just think all this nitpicking about rules is pointless. WotC giving in to that sort of thing just makes games more and more focused on mechanics.

WotC focuses on mechanics because that's what they sell you.

You're supposed to make the story yourself.

Seriously, you won't find a story in any game's core rule book. (Metaplot? Perhaps. But you're not running a metaplot, you're running a game.)

Cheers, -- N

The Highway Man · Jul 3, 2008

WotC focuses on mechanics because that's what they sell you.

Not really.

First, they're selling me a support and guidelines to play a role-playing game. Not "rules". It does include rules, but the product certainly isn't limited to them.

Second, WotC chooses to answer all the rules whining to come up with errata and other "official fixes" that are supposed to make the game run smoothly for everyone. Fact is? It doesn't, because the practice of rules is relative to the people involved in the game, or rather, the application of rules is relative to the particular group's need in terms of representation of a shared fantasy.

Ergo, the only viable solution to a rules' issue at the game table is a compromise between all the people at the game table, an effort led by the DM by virtue of being the referee at said table.

"Official rulings" only spawn one thing: more rules minutia. More nitpicking. More tinkering for loopholes and whatnot. Basically, the whining creates artificial loopholes that are then "fixed" by a new edition. That's convenient in business terms. It is ridiculous as it pertains to role-playing itself.

PS: As for not finding any "story" in a core rulebook well, there shouldn't be any single "story" implied by any role-playing sourcebook to begin with. That includes modules. The term as it applies to RPG is just misused and misinterpreted, leading all too often to DM-controlled games, railroading and so on.