Star wars - which version?

[giant.robot]

Star Wars is one of the many settings where it unbalanced when you try to run it like a D&D game. Once you get to the point where Jedi begin to outpace your other characters you need to provide the group with equally divergent challenges. Jedi should be fighting the Sith BBEG while the non-Jedi should be fighting the Sith's equally evil Imperial compatriots. Han Solo shouldn't be fighting Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker shouldn't be the one mowing down Stormtroopers.

In terms of challenge, Stormtroopers are the Kobolds of Star Wars. Once characters get to a certain point they no longer provide an adequate challenge. It's pretty simple to level up NPCs (especially in WEG D6) or just give them a little better armor and weapons. The WotC versions of the game do a much better job providing stats for basic foes and heroes. The D6 core rulebooks doesn't have stats for anything but low level Stormtroopers and Imperial Army troopers. In either case customizing foes is pretty simple since they use all the same mechanics as PCs do.

In terms of splat books Saga Edition has the best coverage. Its books cover all eras from Tales of the Jedi through the Clone Wars, the Rebellion, and on to the Legacy era. While it's out of print lots of FLGSes have the books in stock and Amazon Marketplace and eBay cover what they don't have. No matter which edition you want to play Target has been clearing out their minis at about half price. I think Saga also tends to have the most cinematic feel in that it bes recreates the movies.I do really enjoy the D6 version as that's the system I cut my teeth on. The handfuls of dice can be annoying but there's ways around them.

 

[vagabundo]

Hey, just started running a Star Wars campaign (Dawn of Defiance) myself, firsttimer here. I sourced Saga books from amazon.co.uk and bookdepository.co.uk. I bought the original booj and the Force Unleashed at decent prices.

We are having a blast(hehe) so far. Character creation is straight forward. The rules are nice and streamlined and I'm not using mini's or a grid yet. I have one Ewok Jedi and the force powers are cool. Nice and straight forward. I recommend the system wholeheartedly.

 

[Imperialus]

I'm sorry, none of those names mean ANYTHING to me, and 99% of most roleplayers out there. When I flip open my RPG books to the list of people involved in writing/creating/publishing them, none of those names come up. Why? Probably because the good games don't have those failures involved.

If you have it kicking around, go flip open the cover of your 2nd edition PHB, or DMG. Dave Cook was lead developer. He also wrote "Oriental Adventures" back in 1st ed. The others were writers.

Dave Cook left TSR in the mid 90's to develop computer games.

Steve Winters stuck around Wizards until the end of 3rd and wrote the Monstrous Manual II and Lords of Madness.

So there you go, there are some failures(?) that at least two of them published.

 

[Dave0047]

If you have it kicking around, go flip open the cover of your 2nd edition PHB, or DMG. Dave Cook was lead developer. He also wrote "Oriental Adventures" back in 1st ed. The others were writers.

Dave Cook left TSR in the mid 90's to develop computer games.

Steve Winters stuck around Wizards until the end of 3rd and wrote the Monstrous Manual II and Lords of Madness.

So there you go, there are some failures(?) that at least two of them published.

I love how you ignore all of my valid retorts to your pretty silly rant about how there's no such thing as balance. I made common-sense arguments and simply informed you of fact on others, and your only response is "these guys are cool because they did stuff 10-20 years ago".

No one gives a crap about D&D 1st or 2nd ed anymore because the new systems are SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER. And besides, writing a couple of stat blocks for an already established gaming system (3rd edition) that they DID NOT WRITE is not only stupidly easy, but pretty lame as far as "accomplishments" are concerned.

They are no longer lead designers FOR A REASON, and that is because by eliminating fools like them lead to a more balanced and appropriate (and insanely fun) game system.

Quick note from the admin. I know you apologize in your next post, which is great and appreciated, but that doesn't make this kind of exchange okay. Throttle it down next time, please. PM me if there's any questions. ~ Piratecat

You can keep trying to hold on to your old tattered and crappy game systems all you want, but you and everyone else are being left in the dust while gamers, like me, who understand how devoted and intelligent the new Wizards crew is, enjoy some kick-ass games of 4th Edition and Saga Edition.

 

[Imperialus]

You can keep trying to hold on to your old tattered and crappy game systems all you want, but you and everyone else are being left in the dust while gamers, like me, who understand how devoted and intelligent the new Wizards crew is, enjoy some kick-ass games of 4th Edition and Saga Edition.

Ok... well that was more vitriol than I expected. Perhaps I'll just back away slowly...

 

[Dave0047]

Ok... well that was more vitriol than I expected. Perhaps I'll just back away slowly...

Sorry! In my stupidity, I thought you were Water Bob, hence the "ignoring my arguments" bit.

Foot is thoroughly planted in mouth.

However, my point is somewhat still valid, that the old systems are tremendously inferior to the new stuff. There's a lot more playtesting and balancing involved, as there's probably several hundred times more D&D players now than there were in 1st/2nd ed (which is also obvious).

Just sayin, after actually playing those editions, and playing 3rd, 3.5, 4e, and 4th Essentials, (along with WEG d6 SW, Wizards SW, Revised SW, and Saga Edition SW), they have ironed out the kinks.

 

[Imperialus]

However, my point is somewhat still valid, that the old systems are tremendously inferior to the new stuff. There's a lot more playtesting and balancing involved, as there's probably several hundred times more D&D players now than there were in 1st/2nd ed (which is also obvious).

Apology accepted, no worries. That said, I'm not sure I agree with you, at least with the respect of the balance pertaining to older editions. I might put forward the suggestion that older editions (I'll use 1st as my example) were still balanced... just not balanced in the same way as a 3rd or 4th ed game.

Lets look at the Fighter and Wizard since they are really diametric opposites. IME at low level (say up to 4th) the fighter does do a lot of the heavy lifting. A wizard is extremely limited in what he can do on a given day and needs a lot of support to do it. In my group however it's the Wizard to tends to take over the role of managing the 'supplementary' party members. At first level everyone, even the fighter is pretty squishy so most parties gravitate towards multiple hirelings, or charmed men at arms if the wizard has that spell. This bulks out their battle line and gives the wizard something to do after he's fired off his sleep spell for the day.

In the middling levels (say 5th to 9th) the two classes are pretty well balanced with each other on a 1-1 basis. The wizard starts getting some of his really nice damage spells and the fighter starts to develop a sizable chunk of hitpoints.

After "name level" the roles change. Fighters begin to concern themselves with stronghold management, thieves start running their guilds, priests found churches, and wizards lock themselves in towers and research spells. The wizard might be able to cast cloudkill at 12th level, but the fighter can lead a few thousand followers into battle. In the end, particularly if the campaign has built up to this point from low levels it really does balance out. Both classes still rely on each other... the wizard can't defend his tower all alone and the fighters army is vulnerable to magical attacks, it's just the scale has changed.

That said there are some horrendously imbalanced systems out there. That do have dedicated (albeit small) followings. RIFTS springs to mind as the picture perfect example of this. With a good GM and some sort of a 'table contract' regarding power level then even RIFTS can be a lot of fun despite (and in some ways because of) how imbalanced it is.

That said I'm probably helping veer this topic even further off course. I'd be happy to continue the conversation, we just might want to start another thread about it.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I love how you ignore all of my valid retorts to your pretty silly rant about how there's no such thing as balance. I made common-sense arguments and simply informed you of fact on others, and your only response is "these guys are cool because they did stuff 10-20 years ago".

No one gives a crap about D&D 1st or 2nd ed anymore because the new systems are SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER. And besides, writing a couple of stat blocks for an already established gaming system (3rd edition) that they DID NOT WRITE is not only stupidly easy, but pretty lame as far as "accomplishments" are concerned.

They are no longer lead designers FOR A REASON, and that is because by eliminating fools like them lead to a more balanced and appropriate (and insanely fun) game system.

You can keep trying to hold on to your old tattered and crappy game systems all you want, but you and everyone else are being left in the dust while gamers, like me, who understand how devoted and intelligent the new Wizards crew is, enjoy some kick-ass games of 4th Edition and Saga Edition.

I'm a 4e fan, but it's simply untrue that "no one" likes 1e/2e (and I suppose OD&D) anymore. Plenty of people still play those editions. There are entire communities online devoted to discussing those games. Just because they don't have the numbers of players as, say, 4e (and whether 4e has the numbers as, say, 3e, or even older editions, is debatable) doesn't mean they're not good or that nobody likes them - I like watching boxing, even if MMA has come to eclipse it in popularity. Is boxing somehow inferior to MMA because of that? That would be a silly argument for me to try to make (and I wouldn't try to make it; I think boxing is better ).

As for "balance," I like how 4e balanced the classes and races. That doesn't mean that such balance makes for an inherently better gaming experience. D&D hit the height of its popularity right when it was as unbalanced as it ever would be, and it's arguable that those numbers were recovered with the advent of 3e. At the least, D&D is nowhere near the cultural phenomenon it was back then - I know, because I was playing during that era, and there is nowhere near the excitement now amongst players, non-players, and the media over the game, of any edition, as there was then. Doesn't mean 4e is not a good game, just as "balance" doesn't mean it's a better game somehow.

I mean, sometimes the lack of balance is what makes the game enjoyable, by giving it a flavor of its own - Ars Magica is an example, HackMaster another. A lot of players still like how the wizard/magic-user of older editions became the most powerful class at higher levels (it's not my preference, but I can understand why some like it). Besides, just because something is the flavor du jour doesn't mean everything that came before is somehow deficient.

In the end, it's whether a game is enjoyable to play that makes it "superior," which is a word I would hesitate to use for something as subjective as a game.

And "led" is the past tense of "lead." One of my pet peeves.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

However, my point is somewhat still valid, that the old systems are tremendously inferior to the new stuff. There's a lot more playtesting and balancing involved, as there's probably several hundred times more D&D players now than there were in 1st/2nd ed (which is also obvious).

No way. The number of players in the 1e/2e era outstrips today's numbers. The numbers have been discussed quite a bit, especially in the early 3e era, but it would surprise me if the number of D&D players today even comes close to the number in the '80s.

 

[wingsandsword]

Getting back to the topic. . .

If you use d6 Star Wars (which to be honest, I am tempted to do, because it was a very good system and very flexible), the only downside is having to write up crunch for eras other than the about 13 year period between the creation of the Rebel Alliance and the founding of the Jedi Academy (or any holdovers from other eras you'd like to use, or any races introduced in the prequels or later EU, like Neimodians, Zabrak, Caamasi, Yuuzhan Vong, and Cerean).

Are there good versions of this material already out there? Are there versions that people prefer to others?