Who Should Make The Next Star Wars TTRPG, And What Should It Look Like?

[Reynard]

Given that we already have Star Borg, Rebel Scum, Scum & Villainy, Notorious and countless others, do we need another new system? Just take the Star Wars official stuff and put it on RPGs that the hard work has already been done for.

"Need" is a notoriously questionable word in these discussions. We did not "need" a revised 5E, but we got one and some people at least are glad for it. Star Wars has been a mainstay of the licensed TTRPG market for 40 years. We need a new Star Wars as much or as little as we needed the first one.

And everyone talking sales is just making up numbers in their head that fits their opinion. No one here knows. The fact that they keep making them -- WotC made 3 editions alone -- strongly suggests it is a viable property.

 

[Parmandur]

Since Asmodee already has the license for many other Star Wars games, since it is easier for Disney to deal with fewer sources, and since RPG's don't generate enough money for Disney to worry about the likely answer is that it will stay with Asmodee. Therefore it should look just like their current and good, but barely supported, Star Wars RPG but be slightly updated and supported.

That answer is true, but boring for a fun thread.

 

[nyvinter]

Something else that's boring for a fun thread is that getting new books for the current rpg approved by Disney might also be an uphill struggle right now. IIRC Mandalorian books where given a no because "it the storyline wasn't finished" so that would not get an okay until after the movie at the earliest. Later efter they want to add more.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Something else that's boring for a fun thread is that getting new books for the current rpg approved by Disney might also be an uphill struggle right now. IIRC Mandalorian books where given a no because "it the storyline wasn't finished" so that would not get an okay until after the movie at the earliest. Later efter they want to add more.

Did someone say that? I don't recall hearing that anywhere.

 

[TwoSix]

I will say this though, the RPG won't feel like Star Wars to me if you can't have Obi Wan Kenobi, Han Solo, and Cassian Andor believably in the same universe. In fact, there is to me a clear progression that a PC will have in such a game system were Cassian Andor is aspirational, and the Han Solo becomes aspirational, and then Obi Wan Kenobi (or maybe Cal Kestis) becomes aspirational. That's the "zero to hero" sort of arc that I would expect of the system.

To me, that's a perfect example of why you need different games. If I'm running a gritty street-level game like Andor, and we meet a Sith Lord or a Jedi Master, I don't want the system telling the players "Don't worry, in a couple levels you'll be able to go toe-to-toe with this guy." That encounter should telegraph to the players "This threat is out of your league, you need to find a way to work around it."

Not every character arc is intended to be zero-to-hero; even having the capability embedded in the system to support that enforces the player's perception that that sort of growth should be expected.

Sometimes your character arc ends when you blow up Star Destroyers with the Force, other character arcs end when you hold hands on a beach as the planet explodes after a successful mission. But saying "This game will only go to level 4 and end" doesn't feel to me like a satisfying way to do that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To me, that's a perfect example of why you need different games. If I'm running a gritty street-level game like Andor, and we meet a Sith Lord or a Jedi Master, I don't want the system telling the players "Don't worry, in a couple levels you'll be able to go toe-to-toe with this guy." That encounter should telegraph to the players "This threat is out of your league, you need to find a way to work around it."

Not every character arc is intended to be zero-to-hero; even having the capability embedded in the system to support that enforces the player's perception that that sort of growth should be expected.

Sometimes your character arc ends when you blow up Star Destroyers with the Force, other character arcs end when you hold hands on a beach as the planet explodes after a successful mission. But saying "This game will only go to level 4 and end" doesn't feel to me like a satisfying way to do that.

If you insist on having a specific arc at all (I wouldn't), seems like ending it before you level past it is a fine way to go.

 

[TwoSix]

If you insist on having a specific arc at all (I wouldn't), seems like ending it before you level past it is a fine way to go.

I don't feel it is. I'd rather do a Blades-like system than a system with the progression chopped down.

 

[Reynard]

If you insist on having a specific arc at all (I wouldn't), seems like ending it before you level past it is a fine way to go.

I don't feel it is. I'd rather do a Blades-like system than a system with the progression chopped down.

I feel like a game like Star Wars (and this goes for other genres too, supers in particular and certain flavors of not-D&D fantasy) works well within power tiers. PCs in a campaign stay in whatever tier they started and can advance in competence and experience, but not in actual power level. If you want Old Republic super-Jedi, play tier 4. If you want Andor, play tier 1. Etc.

 

[TwoSix]

I feel like a game like Star Wars (and this goes for other genres too, supers in particular and certain flavors of not-D&D fantasy) works well within power tiers. PCs in a campaign stay in whatever tier they started and can advance in competence and experience, but not in actual power level. If you want Old Republic super-Jedi, play tier 4. If you want Andor, play tier 1. Etc.

Sure. I just want the system to set the expectation that "this is the end of the road for power gains", not that "you could have gotten even stronger, but you just didn't."

It's like in D&D, I want gods to be something that transcends normal power progression. Gods aren't just level 40 monsters you can eventually level up to fight. I want the system to establish that the endgame for character progression is something credible within the fiction. It's not credible in the fiction that Cassian Andor could take on Darth Vader, so I don't want the system to have a baked-in way (by leveling) that Andor could take on Vader.

 

[Reynard]

Sure. I just want the system to set the expectation that "this is the end of the road for power gains", not that "you could have gotten even stronger, but you just didn't."

It's like in D&D, I want gods to be something that transcends normal power progression. Gods aren't just level 40 monsters you can eventually level up to fight. I want the system to establish that the endgame for character progression is something credible within the fiction. It's not credible in the fiction that Cassian Andor could take on Darth Vader, so I don't want the system to have a baked-in way (by leveling) that Andor could take on Vader.

Yeah, the way I imagine Tiers is that they not only make the numbers bigger (a multiplier or something) they also unlock things that are just impossible in lower tiers. And (unless you want to, of course; I'm not a cop) your campaigns does not cross Tier boundaries.