Recent Star Wars Saga chat session with designers

[RodneyThompson]

Rodney! Thanks for dropping by and providing some feedback.

Why soitenly. I'm here every day anyways. Gotta find *something* to fill those dull hours at work.

But when I hear about big changes, I always fear. I think it's inherently difficult to synthesize an "mature" (smooth running, low-problem) RPG system from the ground up... both D&D 3e and SW d20 1st edition saw a lot of errata, enough to warrant revisions with improved mechanics based on years of actual play with the game system. And this despite D&D 3e being extensively playtested. I beleive that whenever you tear a mature gaming system down, as it appears is being done, you are basically creating the opportunity for new problems to creep into the freshly minted, untested rules.

That's true. By the same token, I don't think we should ever be afraid of taking chances on new mechanics, especially if they are well thought-out and developed. Frankly, most of the "big changes" are really just the evolution of existing mechanics. Things like hit points, conditions (you'll find some parallels between things like shaken, nauseated, and all those other D&D conditions in the condition track), talents, Force powers, etc. aren't brand new mechanics, but rather evolved and variant mechanics based on things that already work. One of the thing that I think is in Saga Edition's favor is that it has the benefit of 6-8 years' worth of d20 design and development under its belt. The original Star Wars d20 was out not long after 3.0 was released, and the RCR was just an update of those core mechanics. With Saga Edition, we've had the benefit of looking at the core mechanics of the d20 rules through a lens of 6 years of hard playtesting and many variants (original SW d20, d20 Modern, Spycraft, Mutants and Masterminds) to help us pick and choose things that work. Sure, we've created some new things, but a lot of stuff is spun off or evolved from existing d20 mechanics. The key is getting all these mechanics to synergize, which I think is the larger part of the design process.

I'll refer you to my oft referred-to four conceptual hangups with hit points.

Good stuff, and thanks for the link. I can say with moderate certainty (realizing that changes may yet be made in editing and development) that the current system addresses those four complaints, and addresses them in a way that ensures Star Wars-esque gameplay. Let me just say that those considerations were among the factors we took into account when working with the new hit point (or should I say "damage tracking") system.

Eh, you'll have to wait and see. I know that's tough. Still, hey, it makes me happy that we're thinking along similar lines.

 

[Plane Sailing]

That's true. By the same token, I don't think we should ever be afraid of taking chances on new mechanics, especially if they are well thought-out and developed.

I'm with you here all the way.

In fact I prefer it when someone takes the chance of an entirely new mechanic, because that is were the really interesting advances in rules take place.

As a comparison, I thought that the D&D 3.0->3.5 rules changes were largely unnecessary. Some classes got improved features, a few spells recieved needed changes, a whole truckload of spells recieved unnecessary tweaks, and there were pretty much no new rule concepts. (I'm sure I've read someone saying that 3.5e was more about the money than the fixes anyway).

On the other hand, M&M broke some fantastic new ground with its damage save mechanism, Spycraft 2.0 has some excellent new rules mechanisms and ideas (some of which might turn out too cumbersome for general use, some of which could easily find their way into more generic game systems or other genres), True20 builds on some M&M ideas very nicely and introduces some other new concepts.

In the SW world, the most 'revolutionary' thing about the RCR was bringing AoO back in, which was a retrograde step although I know that many (most?) people really like it.

So I'm hoping to see some really kick-ass new mechanisms for damage, for the force, for skills; mechanisms that I could easily see using in my d20 modern or D&D games in the future.

Cheers

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Still not wild about the idea of making nixing force adepts and making them into "other classes with a dabbling of force feats."

Really? I never liked the Force Adept. Played one myself and watched another player, always felt and played like a slap-dash Jedi class. The d20 system went a long way to bring some balance to the different classes, and d20 Star Wars ignored that almost entirely. Since this is a game I'd like to see all the classes on par with one another in terms of usefulness.

After watching Ep3, I'm a lot less convinced of the godliness people ascribe to the Jedi. Sorry, slightly off-topic, back to your regularly-scheduled SWSE drooling.

 

[Dragonblade]

Hey Moridin! Congrats on the book. I'm really looking forward to the new rules myself.

I've been playing SW since the original game was put out by WEG. I wasn't a big fan of the first incarnation of SW d20, even though I like the d20 system. I thought that the RCR was nice improvement. I must say, I'm really excited about your new rules though. Your chat totally sold me.

And hopefully down the road we'll see a KOTOR and a Legacy sourcebook. In my opinion those two eras are the best SW settings outside of the classic Rebellion era.

 

[Taren Nighteyes]

Star Ships

I read some stuff on the work that went into the Star Ships section of the SWS rules, but was wondering how big an overhaul was made?

I think the rules between versions/sourcebooks/etc tend to contradict or not consider one another. Can we expect to be "happier" with the new rule book and pray for a good followup sourcebook with lots of ships, contruction/modification rules, and whatever else???

Thanks,

Taren Nighteyes

 

[Morgenstern]

I'm still curious about how multiclassing impacts this skill sytem .

 

[Greg K]

Right now the changes sound like a mixed bag.

1) The use of d20M like talent trees is awesome news.

2) The damage track and the change in the force mechanics are definitely wait and see.

3) The skill changes sound like they'll be very disappointing-at least for me. First, the folding of so many skills and the new skill system sound like they'll be something that I'll really dislike. . I can accept the folding of a few skills, but it appears (based upon the chat log) that the designers. imo, went overboard . Second, I will definitely don't like the three level of skills if skills automatically improve with level. Actually, if the removal of skill points means that skills automatically improve with level, that would be enough for me to not buy the game despite how much of an improvement the designers have made in other areas of the game.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

I'm still curious about how multiclassing impacts this skill sytem .

In ways we have considered.

Sadly, I don't think there's much else we can say about it just yet.

I know drips and draps are maddening. Been there myself. But especially as we move forward and work to make sure everything we've done is going to A: Make a good game, B: Work for Star Wars and C: Be something fans of the material who may not be die-hard rpg-ers can get into more easily, we can't go into details because they may change. There's nothing we're so proud of we won't change it if we come up with a better suggestion between now and the 0-hour to have everything done before printing day.

Rodney, Gary, Chris and I have thrashed the new rules out a lot, and we're pretty happy with how it looks. I hope you all will be too. Rest assured, Rodney and I at least will be around when the book is released to answer questions, and I suspect Gary will still be doing the Jedi Counciling thing at Wizards. We'll get any questions you have answered, once we can talk about all this in detail.

 

[Klaus]

Right now the changes sound like a mixed bag.

1) The use of d20M like talent trees is awesome news.

2) The damage track and the change in the force mechanics are definitely wait and see.

3) The skill changes sound like they'll be very disappointing-at least for me. First, the folding of so many skills and the new skill system sound like they'll be something that I'll really dislike. . I can accept the folding of a few skills, but it appears (based upon the chat log) that the designers. imo, went overboard . Second, I will definitely don't like the three level of skills if skills automatically improve with level. Actually, if the removal of skill points means that skills automatically improve with level, that would be enough for me to not buy the game despite how much of an improvement the designers have made in other areas of the game.

See, your #3 point is the exact opposite to me. Removing skill points means removing an extra level of micromanaging that my players (casual novice ones) never got around to (I ended up having to distribute skill points for them). It's far easier just to pick a skill and be done with it (and WotC has been suggesting such for a while, saying it's far more effective to have a few maximized skills than tons of dabbling-level skills).

 

[Greg K]

See, your #3 point is the exact opposite to me. Removing skill points means removing an extra level of micromanaging that my players (casual novice ones) never got around to (I ended up having to distribute skill points for them). It's far easier just to pick a skill and be done with it (and WotC has been suggesting such for a while, saying it's far more effective to have a few maximized skills than tons of dabbling-level skills).

When my friends and I play, we build to the character and not necessarily what is the most effective build. There are times our characters pick up new skills, because it made sense based upon in-game situations. Yet, after initially aquiring the new skill, it may never improve; it *may* improve if the character has adventures that may require more opportunity to use the skill; or it may become something that the character dedicates themselves towards perfecting (assuming there is plenty of opportunity to use the skill). Other times, a skill that has been maxed out for several levels suddenly goes by the wayside, because either a) the characters took the campaign in a direction in which the skill did not get used or b) the character had a reason to focus on other interests. Without skill points, this "organic" growth is not possible as the player cannot control how and when individual skills improve in response to the events of the campaign.