Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 8400977" data-attributes="member: 6779310">My most used generic was Hero System. It's more flexible than Genesys, but also more math... lots more math.I've not used Genesys proper, but the mechanical differences between it and FFG Star Wars are in how talents are acquired; the talents and the skill system are pretty stock from SW. I've done 5 different kinds of campaigns: straight edge ne'er do wells, edge bounty hunters (due to the No Disintegrations playtest), AoR Fighter Squadrong game, AoR+Edge rebes masquerading as merchants, F&D Jedi team for playtest of an adventure... and one campaign that started edge, then they joined the rebellion and one of them became a force user... Oh, and an edge game testing the Smuggler book. When you're ripping off Lando Calrisian while Luke's whinging on about the academy...So, it's already a multi-genre engine before the Generic Core.I've run a lot of WEG d6, but almost all of it in WEG Star Wars. I've done a one-shot of MiB, and wanted to run Herc & Xena... but haven't.I playtested EABA 1E, which is a very similar scaling to WEG d6...  2E is a related but rather different game. 1E plays a lot like WEG d6, but using two-pool point build, One for atts and advantages, one for skills and advantages... dice pools range 1d6 to 10d6 (very like WEG), with starting peaks around 5d, but unlike WEG, just keep best three. It works for fantasy, it worked great for Traveller. But neo-WEG came out with generic d6 cores (Space, Adventure, Fantasy) after the sale, and WEG is just much easier to use. I've helped friends build WEG games...I've run one-shots of Masterbook and Torg; I've never gotten campaign play of them, but did get a few sessions of Shatterzone. I love the cards, I like the log maths... (I've a slipstick nearby, and use if at times)... THey're all the same core mechanics, except that Torg is 1d20 while MB and Shatterzone are 2d10, and 10's (and 20's in Torg) open end.I ran a successful GURPS campaign spanning 5 years... at 3 sessions per year. I've had a bunch of unsatisfying attempts at GURPS campaigns.I've run a single CORPS 2e campaign... The system was fine, at least for gritty fantasy. I wouldn't try to run Star Wars with it. I know people Now, there are a number of universal systems that have no central core...Palladium MegaversalHero System pre-1988BRP until the mid 1990'sRolemaster/Spacemaster (both of which border on being genre engines, and are intercompatible)Until recently, FATE.GDW's House Engine: Twilight 2000 2E & 2.2E, Dark Conspiracy 1E, Cadilacks and Dinosaurs, Traveller: The New Era. Space 1889 is a precursor to it.I've run games of all those... I've run 4 of the 5 editions of T2K (1E, 2.0, 2.2, 4), plus T:TNE and Space 1889, but not C&D.I've run several BRP adapted cores: Elfquest, Runequest III, Pendragon (4e & 5E), one abortive attempt at Worlds Beyond.I've run Palladium Fantasy, TMNT, and Palladium Robotech, played Ninjas & Superspies, Heroes Unlimited, and Palladium Fantasy.I've run both RM and SM, but not together; I've played a conjoined campaign.I've only played fate, not run it... Dresden and SOTC.I've run Fantasy Hero 1E, Danger International, Robot Warriors, Star Hero 1e, and a couple oneshots of Champions 3rd. I prefer the consolidated core mode, but the adapted cores are better adaptations.FFG SW is another "adapted core" game... each of the three does something different, and the three combine seamlessly.In general, I've found I prefer adapted core to universal core and setting books... but not by a whole lot.I've found hero to both reward the time spent fairly well.I've found the FFG SW cores flexible and fun; the genesys core by itself hasn't moved me to run it yet... because it's so perfect for Star Wars.</blockquote>

Verification