Star Wars Saga, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[ValhallaGH]

I am really bothered by the inconsistencies in the skill section. To take a (not random) example, the Treat Injury skill a numerous uses that appear to be trained only but are not noted as such, while having several uses that include rules for using them untrained but are still Trained Only.

What makes it even worse is that, being a print product, I'll have to pay full price again to get those updated in the book.

Also, I really wish they'd hurry up and post a printable character sheet to the web site. Photo copying is a pain in the rear.

 

[Rykion]

Also, I really wish they'd hurry up and post a printable character sheet to the web site. Photo copying is a pain in the rear.

It's been there for a few days now. The link is from Saga Edition corebook page, not the downloads page. Here is a direct link.
http://www.wizards.com/starwars/downloads/SW_charsheet.pdf

 

[Psion]

In my personal experience, people who have trouble with 1-2-1-2-1-2 are often very, very bothered by how it breaks their train of thought, and slows an encounter. People who aren't bothered by it always seem able to introduce it even if a rulebook doesn't include it.

Also, I have, literally, seen someone get up and walk away from an effort to teach him roleplaying because the 1-2-1-2 rule was the straw that broke the camel's back. Star Wars has a lot of potential as a gateway. I'd like that gateway to be as inviting as possible.

Might I suggest "put it in a sidebar" is a way to keep everyone happy?

Of course, I'll be happy anyways as I'll use the rule whether or it appears in the book. But it makes it that much less likely that I'll participate in a by-the-book game such as a convention game.

 

[CaptainChaos]

The Good - Excellent art (even though some is recycled from prior products)...

I flipped through the book last night and it looked like all the art was recycled. I like the cover treatment though.

As for the 1-2-1 issue, I understand simplifying it, but if you are going to go that route, why not just make it really simple and go with 1-1-1 for any direction?

 

[Frostmarrow]

In my group we've always counted all movement 1-1-1-1. Orthgonal or diagonal makes no difference to us. Is this a big mistake? We've never had any arguments about it.

As for the 1-2-1 issue, I understand simplifying it, but if you are going to go that route, why not just make it really simple and go with 1-1-1 for any direction?

Yeah! What he said.

 

[GSHamster]

In my group we've always counted all movement 1-1-1-1. Orthgonal or diagonal makes no difference to us. Is this a big mistake? We've never had any arguments about it.

It's not a big mistake, but one advantage to 2-2-2 is that the exact path doesn't matter (assuming no movement impairing effects). As long as you know the start square and the end square, all fastest paths to the end square have the same length.

Under 1-1-1 or 1-2-1 the path taken does matter. Under 1-1-1 you can go a lot further if you travel on a diagonal. 1-2-1 approximates the real distance better, but at the cost of tracking how many diagonals you've taken in your path.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

It's not a big mistake, but one advantage to 2-2-2 is that the exact path doesn't matter (assuming no movement impairing effects). As long as you know the start square and the end square, all fastest paths to the end square have the same length.

Under 1-1-1 or 1-2-1 the path taken does matter. Under 1-1-1 you can go a lot further if you travel on a diagonal. 1-2-1 approximates the real distance better, but at the cost of tracking how many diagonals you've taken in your path.

QFT.

Honestly, I'm not quite sure why, in a square-grid system, we have diagonal movement and targeting AT ALL.

 

[Asmor]

QFT.

Honestly, I'm not quite sure why, in a square-grid system, we have diagonal movement and targeting AT ALL.

Just an attempt to make things more "realistic," I suppose.

Allowing free movement along diagonals increases the character's effective speed along diagonals.

Not allowing movement along diagonals at all (or going with the 2-2-2 method) decreases the character's effective speed along diagonals.

The real problem here is not the system of counting used, it's the whole idea of using squares for your map. They just don't approximate anything except orthogonal direction well. You could either go with hexes, which are much closer but have their own peculiarities, not to mention are a pain to map with when doing square rooms, or you can bust out a ruler and do it freeform, which is just a big PITA.

After thinking about it for a while, I think I like the 2-2-2/eliminating diagonals idea. It's not perfect, but then this is supposed to be a game and not a simulation.

 

[Asmor]

It's actually the Manhattan distance. Mathematics FTW!

Also, Rystil Arden does this better than me.

Thanks for that link, terribly interesting!

 

[Karl Green]

I guess part of my problem now is having seen the $40 cover price. It took considerable time to get most of the books of the previous edition because I though they were overpriced. I don't remember the WEG version being that much more expensive than other RPGs.

I ordered mine from Amazon last Friday and got it on Wednesday with free shipping for $26.37.... I am totally happy with it