What's Your Favorite System for Star Wars

[Zardnaar]

Speed of resolution is a feature? I guess that's true if the process of resolution itself is less interesting or engaging than the getting the actual results. Maybe that is why I find the narrative dice system (FFG) so much more appealing nowadays that it has greatly diminished my enthusiasm for the old binary resolution and numeric-based systems. With respect.

I can also see how someone who places greater value on the speed of resolution might also find a system like this to be less appealing without understanding how a more collaborative and thoughtful process for discovering a resolution is actually a major feature of the game itself. But that is the key difference between a story or narrative driven game and a skill level or combat driven one. As always, it's a matter of personal choice.

I would try the new one out. The main reasons I haven't.

1. Gimmick dice.
2. Already have two Star Wars RPG.

 

[Gradine]

Thinking of trying to run a short series of one-shots as rules-light as possible. Anyone have any luck with Lasers & Feelings? I know the Sabers & Senate hack exists, but I think even that might be too crunchy for what I'm looking for

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I would try the new one out. The main reasons I haven't.

1. Gimmick dice.
2. Already have two Starv Wars RPG.

Strange to me when I hear gamers drawing a line at dice. It's not a gimmick if they work, but to each their own. Shame I cannot invite you for a demo game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Speed of resolution is a feature? I guess that's true if the process of resolution itself is less interesting or engaging than the getting the actual results. Maybe that is why I find the narrative dice system (FFG) so much more appealing nowadays that it has greatly diminished my enthusiasm for the old binary resolution and numeric-based systems. With respect.

I can also see how someone who places greater value on the speed of resolution might also find a system like this to be less appealing without understanding how a more collaborative and thoughtful process for discovering a resolution is actually a major feature of the game itself. But that is the key difference between a story or narrative driven game and a skill level or combat driven one. As always, it's a matter of personal choice.

Those of us who don’t like the FFG dice system understand its purpose, and why others like it. We just don’t enjoy the gameplay that it creates.

I don’t need the dice to decide what happens in the narrative, beyond success and failure. If there is going to be a drawback or mitigation on a success or failure, that’s a conversation between player and GM, usually a hard choice, or a “you can push trough to success, but there will be a consequence” sort of thing.

Likewise, I don’t want to spend time discussing mechanics during play. That is time spent with my mind on the system rather than on what’s happening in the imagined world.

All that being said I don’t find the difference between dice pools and single die resolution to be noticeable, much less problematic.

 

[longisland]

Speed of resolution is a feature? I guess that's true if the process of resolution itself is less interesting or engaging than the getting the actual results. Maybe that is why I find the narrative dice system (FFG) so much more appealing nowadays that it has greatly diminished my enthusiasm for the old binary resolution and numeric-based systems. With respect.

I can also see how someone who places greater value on the speed of resolution might also find a system like this to be less appealing without understanding how a more collaborative and thoughtful process for discovering a resolution is actually a major feature of the game itself. But that is the key difference between a story or narrative driven game and a skill level or combat driven one. As always, it's a matter of personal choice.

FFG narrative dice system enables 18 different outcomes for one roll of the dice. It seems to me that it turns everything into a melodrama of complications. For when describing what the dice mean is more fun than deciding what you want your character to do.

Personally Critical Success, Success, Failure, Critical Failure strikes me as good enough variation of outcome. With the emphasis being getting on with story progressing the plot. Not simply the plot of doing a single action.

 

[JeffB]

I would try the new one out. The main reasons I haven't.

1. Gimmick dice.
2. Already have two Star Wars RPG.

I said the same thing a few years ago. I even posted a thread here that saw a lot of traffic and necro posts about why I should bother.

Finally buying the game and running it have just about been the most fun RPG experiences I have had in the past 10 years.

 

[Darth Solo]

Late entry: Uncharted Worlds.

It's a PbtA game that covers a wide base of sci-fi gaming. 'The Force' would fall under the 'Magic' rules easily.

 

[Ancalagon]

Thinking of trying to run a short series of one-shots as rules-light as possible. Anyone have any luck with Lasers & Feelings? I know the Sabers & Senate hack exists, but I think even that might be too crunchy for what I'm looking for

A project of mine is to do a Star Wars version of Troika! ... but it won't be ready for some time.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Those of us who don’t like the FFG dice system understand its purpose, and why others like it. We just don’t enjoy the gameplay that it creates.

Granted. The system is not for everyone, nor is it intended to be. I personally enjoy that we have multiple systems available that offer different playing experiences for everyone. Otherwise, what's the point?

Likewise, I don’t want to spend time discussing mechanics during play. That is time spent with my mind on the system rather than on what’s happening in the imagined world.

And this is why I don't believe you do actually understand the purpose of the dice, or why "others" actually like it. We (i.e. my groups that I play with and run in my games) don't discuss the mechanics any more or less than any other system. The difference, however, is that the narrative is introduced before the mechanics are involved, and then the mechanics produces more possibilities and discussions that go back into the ongoing narrative.

FFG narrative dice system enables 18 different outcomes for one roll of the dice. It seems to me that it turns everything into a melodrama of complications. For when describing what the dice mean is more fun than deciding what you want your character to do.

Personally Critical Success, Success, Failure, Critical Failure strikes me as good enough variation of outcome. With the emphasis being getting on with story progressing the plot. Not simply the plot of doing a single action.

You're limiting yourself by keeping the same expectations you have for all the other game systems that do exactly what you described: generate a singular outcome for a singular action. That is neither plot, nor narrative, nor story. It does not convey any greater sense of drama, suspense, action, or humor. It is simply a test of whether your character succeeds at the moment of decision or action based on your choices as a person playing a game.

In the game you describe, your character attempts to appease the Hutt after botching a job for him as a favor to your employer. You roll a Diplomacy check, add whatever modifiers are baked in to your character sheet or at the DM's discretion, and you either do or do not.

In my game, the entertainer offers to perform for the Hutt to celebrate his small victory and his return to status despite losing his new mining facility to a bunch of murder-droids. It is a hard sell, but the character is good at telling people what they want to hear. But Hutt's are notoriously fickle and hard to deceive or persuade, so the difficulty is upgraded. Also, he is not happy that the group did not achieve all of their objectives, so the attempt has setbacks. But the group did bring back the workers and the credits the Hutt asked for in the first place, so boosts are also appropriate. Understanding all that goes into this process is as much a part of the roleplaying as figuring the dice itself. Now here's the kicker:

The result generates not only a success, but a Triumph AND a Despair. We stopped to think about this for a moment, and then it quickly hits me. The Hutt is so taken with both the character's negotiation and offer to perform at the event, the Hutt forgives the group's failures but decides to make the zeltron his own personal entertainer! And that became a whole new session I had to improvise for the group to get their friend back.

If your system of choice works for you, that's great! Have fun with that. But don't assume that is the only way to play, or expect every system should give you the same kind of experience.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Granted. The system is not for everyone, nor is it intended to be. I personally enjoy that we have multiple systems available that offer different playing experiences for everyone. Otherwise, what's the point?


And this is why I don't believe you do actually understand the purpose of the dice, or why "others" actually like it. We (i.e. my groups that I play with and run in my games) don't discuss the mechanics any more or less than any other system. The difference, however, is that the narrative is introduced before the mechanics are involved, and then the mechanics produces more possibilities and discussions that go back into the ongoing narrative.


You're limiting yourself by keeping the same expectations you have for all the other game systems that do exactly what you described: generate a singular outcome for a singular action. That is neither plot, nor narrative, nor story. It does not convey any greater sense of drama, suspense, action, or humor. It is simply a test of whether your character succeeds at the moment of decision or action based on your choices as a person playing a game.

In the game you describe, your character attempts to appease the Hutt after botching a job for him as a favor to your employer. You roll a Diplomacy check, add whatever modifiers are baked in to your character sheet or at the DM's discretion, and you either do or do not.

In my game, the entertainer offers to perform for the Hutt to celebrate his small victory and his return to status despite losing his new mining facility to a bunch of murder-droids. It is a hard sell, but the character is good at telling people what they want to hear. But Hutt's are notoriously fickle and hard to deceive or persuade, so the difficulty is upgraded. Also, he is not happy that the group did not achieve all of their objectives, so the attempt has setbacks. But the group did bring back the workers and the credits the Hutt asked for in the first place, so boosts are also appropriate. Understanding all that goes into this process is as much a part of the roleplaying as figuring the dice itself. Now here's the kicker:

The result generates not only a success, but a Triumph AND a Despair. We stopped to think about this for a moment, and then it quickly hits me. The Hutt is so taken with both the character's negotiation and offer to perform at the event, the Hutt forgives the group's failures but decides to make the zeltron his own personal entertainer! And that became a whole new session I had to improvise for the group to get their friend back.

If your system of choice works for you, that's great! Have fun with that. But don't assume that is the only way to play, or expect every system should give you the same kind of experience.

You just described talking about the mechanics.