Failed promises

[The_Universe]

I don't like the way AoO changes the feel of Star Wars combat, myself, but the class builds were, in my opinion, superior. I think a version of SW that came out now would be much better, since D20 design has matured quite a bit.

That would be interesting, I admit. I liked attacks of opportunity, since it helped explain the advantage of jedi charging into melee against primarily ranged-oriented stormtroopers, etc. They shoot, you get to cut first. Huzzah.

That being said, if a new edition did come out now, it would have to be almost PERFECT. I've already bought a D20 Star Wars RPG twice. I have a hard time believing that 3 times would be the charm. I'm not even sure I could imagine how to reach the kind of perfection it would have to be...

 

[diaglo]

I just think that 3D combat is hard to do in a game. Making it miniatures dependent makes it essentially 2D, since it's all happening on a tabletop, but it does make things a little easier to manage. Make it abstract enough to include the 3rd dimension, and you run into the problems that the non-revised edition, because it ends up being *too* abstract.

You almost need to have an entirely seperate game if you want to reflect space combat in a way that parallels the film entirely perfectly. I think it's just a problem with space combat, not with any game entirely. I've never played an RPG that did it particularly well. Some are better than others, but, at best, they get to "passable" for me.

My problem with the non-revised core rules is that they seemed really lifeless (the classes seemed boring in a lot of cases), and they failed to fill some of the important archetypes that appear in the films. It wasn't a horrible book, and it *looked* really nice. It just wasn't a particularly thrilling game. Revised still isn't perfect, but it's definitely better.

3D is possible. just go find Star Fleet Battles.

diaglo " who came to OD&D from wargames " Ooi

 

[The_Universe]

3D is possible. just go find Star Fleet Battles.

diaglo " who came to OD&D from wargames " Ooi

Very true - that should have been obvious. But, it fits in with the general point of my comment: in order to get good starship combat, it pretty much has to be a completely different game (which starfleet battles is).

 

[Gomez]

Very true - that should have been obvious. But, it fits in with the general point of my comment: in order to get good starship combat, it pretty much has to be a completely different game (which starfleet battles is).

By a different game do you mean one that uses a totally different means of calculation success or failure? Like not using a 1d20 plus bonuses versus a target DC?

*BTW, I am no longer going to let Eyebeams bother me anymore. I just will not read his posts! *

 

[eyebeams]

Well said.

In an earlier post, I mentioned "canon." I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think that is what you are talking about. There is a GW canon and you anticipated that any product with a GW title would adhere, more or less, to that canon, absent perhaps some reason to deviate from it. When what you purchased deviated from your canon expectations without sufficient explanation or substitution, you were disappointed. Please forgive me if I am misreading you.

If the canon of Setting X says the sky is blue and writer declares the sky orange, without explanation, both the product and writer may be legitimately criticized by fans of Setting X, who expected the sky to be blue (ie the party assenting to the unexplained deviation from canon).

In the specific case of Gamma World, what might be asked is whether a writer should follow fans' notions about what Setting X was regardless of whether those notions match reality. IN GW's case, I don't think they do.

Arguably, the purchaser could have discovered the deviation and not purchased the product but that is not the only legitimate option. Feedback is fundamentally legitimate. And fans follow their favorite setting, through good and bad times. I have heard this referred to as "The BOS Factor." BOS = Buy On Sight. I would argue that it is this very devotion that animates the hobby and that the hobby would be poorer if fewer gamers did not feel so strongly about their favorite settings or products.

I disagree. It's damaging this hobby and has damaged it before. It leads to poor quality, warped consumer feedback (because feedback that bears little relationship to sales is not particuclarly useful -- not all feedback is *equally* legitimate) and, in time, mass rejection by casual hobbyists.

So what to do when you BOS a product and it turns out that it deviates from canon without explaination? You complain! And you don't have to hide your head when you do so! And you do not have to be made to feel silly because you didn't look first, or having looked, still BOSed because you are a fan of the setting.

I completely disagree. And frankly, if someone's feelings get hurt because they failed to exercise the basic discretion required to live well in a consumer society, I have little sympathy. BOS is a pretty enough term, but it's really just a manifestation of pointless consumerism. And it's *bad* for gaming. Publishers like it as a kind of economic junk food, and if you want a better hobby, you have to wean them off it.

I imagine every game publisher would kill to produce nothing but material judged to be BOS products by consumers; TSR used to call them "must haves." It is disingenuous to imagine otherwise as publishers are in the business of selling product and BOS products have a guaranteed sales base.

And look what happened to TSR. TSR produced a bunch of crap as "must haves" and people bought it until the crap factor became so large that they just stopped. Looking outside of gaming, Marvel incraesed the BOS factor/collectibility of its comics until they produced foil-covered crap that was rejected by everyone except for the hard core. Historically, these were major crashes and burns.

As soon as sales are divorced from content, content goes downhill. The guaranteed sales base of people who will buy anything labelled as a must-have is smaller than you might think.

It is *much* better to encourage companies to push the envelope of quality by buying cautiously.

 

[billd91]

That would be interesting, I admit. I liked attacks of opportunity, since it helped explain the advantage of jedi charging into melee against primarily ranged-oriented stormtroopers, etc. They shoot, you get to cut first. Huzzah.

That being said, if a new edition did come out now, it would have to be almost PERFECT. I've already bought a D20 Star Wars RPG twice. I have a hard time believing that 3 times would be the charm. I'm not even sure I could imagine how to reach the kind of perfection it would have to be...

I agree. The appropriate thing to do, if they wanted to incorporate elements of Episode III that weren't known by the game designers as of Episode II, would be to put out a sourcebook to supplement the revised rules. The rules already got a good upgrade from original to revised, I don't think they need another major revision.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I just think that 3D combat is hard to do in a game. Making it miniatures dependent makes it essentially 2D, since it's all happening on a tabletop, but it does make things a little easier to manage. Make it abstract enough to include the 3rd dimension, and you run into the problems that the non-revised edition, because it ends up being *too* abstract.

You almost need to have an entirely seperate game if you want to reflect space combat in a way that parallels the film entirely perfectly. I think it's just a problem with space combat, not with any game entirely. I've never played an RPG that did it particularly well. Some are better than others, but, at best, they get to "passable" for me.

My problem with the non-revised core rules is that they seemed really lifeless (the classes seemed boring in a lot of cases), and they failed to fill some of the important archetypes that appear in the films. It wasn't a horrible book, and it *looked* really nice. It just wasn't a particularly thrilling game. Revised still isn't perfect, but it's definitely better.

I agree. The only system that I've found that does starship combat alright was one of the old Traveller rulesets. (Megatraveller, maybe? I forget now.) I use the D20 system right now, but abstract it down quite a lot. It's all in the descriptions, and I base the DC's on the players' descriptions. It flows ok, but it could be better. I think RPGObjects' new Blood and Space Starship Construction book has a revised starship combat system, but I haven't gotten a chance to read the whole book yet. I know one of the new Dawning Star books is supposed to have a new system as well. If it's as good as the core setting was (both in mechanics and overall writing), it ought to be be pretty good. We'll see when it comes out though.

Revised SWD20 is pretty good, IMO. I like the mechanics for Force Powers. While some characters from the movies are still a little shoehorned in the system, it's does a good job of modelling the fell of the movies. It may be a little lethal at times, but not so much that the players are playing heroically like the characters in the movies.

Kane

 

[GVDammerung]

What I object to is the position that people have no responsibility for their own spending habits -- a position articulated in this very thread. If you buy a piece of garbage on impulse, you do yourself and the hobby a disservice. You own something you don't like; the company notices that you bought it, and that's more important to them than your feelings about it.

Begging your pardon, I'm a Greyhawk fan. If it says "Greyhawk," I'm going to buy it because I'm a Greyhawk fan. I don't feel silly or stupid saying that and I reject any suggestion to the contrary. I'm even going to buy it knowing it is junk, if that is indeed the case. And even in such case, I will feel free to complain that it is junk.

Your position does not take into consideration what being a more than casual "fan" means. A fan follows their setting through good times and bad, like a baseball fan perhaps does as well, still buying tickets when you know you are out of the pennant race or were never in it. :\

Of course, the legitimacy of a particular criticism is another matter. But the right to criticise? I bought that when I paid for the product, just like I get to criticize "those bums" when they make more errors than runs.

There is a more than "dollars and sense" component to being a gamer and a fan of a particular setting that you are ignoring. It is not as cut and dried as you make out.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Thanks, Diaglo. I give these a look see when I get off work tonight.

Kane

 

[The_Universe]

By a different game do you mean one that uses a totally different means of calculation success or failure? Like not using a 1d20 plus bonuses versus a target DC?

*BTW, I am no longer going to let Eyebeams bother me anymore. I just will not read his posts! *

Maybe, but maybe not. In my experience, it's not the dice and calculation thereof that present the issues, but in trying to make starship combat "fit with" or reflect other parts of the game. I'm not saying it *couldn't* work, just that it *hasn't*