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

[payn]

That is what I was asking: are they under a single license with Asmodee?

Yes, my friend that works for FFG and now Asmodee said they got a license to cover all the game types. That was some years ago though so I have no idea about development in the last 5-10.

DO we know if there have been any negotiations behind the scenes? Would we know? I would be VERY surprised if neither Free League nor Modiphius wanted the license.

This I have no idea. I wouldnt be surprised at all if Free League and Modiphius couldnt make it work financially, which isnt the same as saying they dont want it.

 

[zarionofarabel]

It's such nonsense. I have never seen a "2d20 hater" be able to actually articulate what they hate about it, unless they are just dead set against metacurrency.

For me it's the meta currency thing, mostly because I don't like how the meta currency is required for the system to function properly. I also totally don't get the GM meta currency use, nor the reason for it's existence. I haven't played the Dune version, but watching an AP of it showed me how intrusive the system is, as more than half of the AP time was the group discussing mechanics and how to implement them rather than things happening within the narrative. Don't get me wrong, I like the game part of TTRPGs, but not if I have to spend most of my time talking mechanics instead of roleplaying my PC. I for one would think it quite tragic if a new Star Wars TTRPG was 2d20.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's such nonsense. I have never seen a "2d20 hater" be able to actually articulate what they hate about it, unless they are just dead set against metacurrency.

I mean, you can a big steaming dump on people's tastes because they aren't the same as yours, but that does absolutely nothing but harden people's dislike, and make people think fans of that system are mean jerks. I'm sure I've been guilty of this at times. It can be cathartic. But it's not effective or helpful for anyone but you.

Most people, very much including nerds and grogs, aren't good at articulating what they dislike about any system. That's not just true in RPGs, it's true in videogames and boardgames as well. In fact, it's such an issue that videogame designers that there's a whole complex discussion around how people "displace" more generalized dislike on to specific mechanics and factors, and designers find that, even when you resolve the specific stuff, in some cases (not all, some), people are still just as annoyed by the game, because it turns out there was something more complex frustrating or annoying them, they'd just focused on this one factor.

I'm better than most at identifying and articulating rules issues, but even I can't actually say precisely what I dislike about 2d20, just that the three times I've played it recently (Achtung! Cthulhu), I didn't like it, it didn't feel good, it didn't produce compelling results. I wished we were using another system. The same was true for everyone in the group except the DM and one player who just doesn't care about systems at all. I'm sure in other groups it might be the reverse. I wouldn't call myself a hater, but it's definitely an anti-selling point is an RPG uses it. The meta-currency factor I think is part of it, but it can't be all of it because the same group has played and liked games with meta-currency. I think overall the feeling was that wasn't enough juice for the squeeze, but yeah that's imprecise as you say.

Either way, clearly 2d20 does, as you seemingly acknowledge have "haters" and hyper-fans, which I think is kind of unusual in a TTRPG rules-set that is used across multiple RPGs. Plus it's not super-accessible - or at least Achtung! Cthulhu sure as heck isn't.

I'm definitely not a fan of the 5E rules-set these days, I think we all know that. Nor a hater. But I would definitely pick 5E as a starting point over something like 2d20 or SWADE if I wanted to make an SW RPG that went really big and which was about, y'know ALL Star Wars, or modern Star Wars specifically. One which might equally be played by someone aged 50 or 30 or 12. One which could be Rebels or Andor or the OT or the ST or the PT. Though as noted I'd pick "specifically designed for SW" over any pre-existing system.

If I was going for a more nostalgia-trip/coffee-table book appeal, like focusing on the OT maybe, and wanted some people expert in making that kind of game and marketing it to middle-aged gamers then I might not only go 2d20, I'd get Modiphus specifically to do it. And it would sell - in the short term anyway.

 

[MGibster]

As a setting? No. As an RPG? No. It's a collector's item. The same is true for most RPGs licenced for "non-current" IPs, especially 1980s ultra-nostalgia stuff which is laser-targeted at 50ish (or older) men with a lot of disposable income.

How dare you! Just wait until I...hold on....my wife just told me everything you wrote was true. Okay. Carry on. But I've got my eye on you.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How dare you! Just wait until I...hold on....my wife just told me everything you wrote was true. Okay. Carry on. But I've got my eye on you.

I mean, at least some of these books are heavy and sturdy enough for you to suitably chastise me for my opinions with them!

 

[SpiralBound]

I think one of the biggest hurdles for any game designer wanting to make the next NEW system for a Star Wars TTRPG, (beyond all the people chastising them for not using their preferred existing system), is that there isn't a single "Star Wars". First off, there are literally real world generational eras of Star Wars content, each with their own style and emphasis. Secondly, even within a specific era (either RW or setting based) there are different styles of campaign to be played through depending on the mix of characters.

In my experience, once a Jedi or even a strong Force User is added to the game the whole campaign quickly revolves around their actions and goals. This can be mitigated with effort, but for the most part you're only successful by imposing your external will on the setting. Being a Force user in Star Wars is a big deal and it makes sense it can overshadow everything else when it flexes it's muscles. The setting doesn't have much resistance to the Force forcing it's way wherever it wants to go. It's aptly named.

By contrast, a Star Wars game where the Force doesn't come up becomes an equally fun, but very different game. Players are digging into their gear more, they're playing off the risks vs benefits in a manner reminiscent of a Shadowrun game, but without the nihilistic doom.

Then there is the opportunity for getting mixed up in interplanetary intrigue, playing characters and organizations off on one another, making deals, escaping pursuit, getting into spaceship dogfights, blaster pistol shootouts, etc. Real reckless abandon meets James Bond stuff sometimes.

Some Star Wars campaigns can balance Force vs other play styles, but usually by swinging back and forth between two different play styles with the Jedi deliberately not grabbing the spotlight when it's not about them, even this starts to fall apart as characters gain power and notoriety as the Force user just gets involved in such large scale events that it's hard to keep them not front and center.

So... which Star Wars fan of play style are you designing for? What system, existing or new, will equally cater to such divergent design goals. It's no wonder that strong adherents of one or the other preexisting Star Wars games often vehemently shoot down the suitability of the others.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think one of the biggest hurdles for any game designer wanting to make the next NEW system for a Star Wars TTRPG, (beyond all the people chastising them for not using their preferred existing system), is that there isn't a single "Star Wars". First off, there are literally real world generational eras of Star Wars content, each with their own style and emphasis. Secondly, even within a specific era (either RW or setting based) there are different styles of campaign to be played through depending on the mix of characters.

In my experience, once a Jedi or even a strong Force User is added to the game the whole campaign quickly revolves around their actions and goals. This can be mitigated with effort, but for the most part you're only successful by imposing your external will on the setting. Being a Force user in Star Wars is a big deal and it makes sense it can overshadow everything else when it flexes it's muscles. The setting doesn't have much resistance to the Force forcing it's way wherever it wants to go. It's aptly named.

By contrast, a Star Wars game where the Force doesn't come up becomes an equally fun, but very different game. Players are digging into their gear more, they're playing off the risks vs benefits in a manner reminiscent of a Shadowrun game, but without the nihilistic doom.

Then there is the opportunity for getting mixed up in interplanetary intrigue, playing characters and organizations off on one another, making deals, escaping pursuit, getting into spaceship dogfights, blaster pistol shootouts, etc. Real reckless abandon meets James Bond stuff sometimes.

Some Star Wars campaigns can balance Force vs other play styles, but usually by swinging back and forth between two different play styles with the Jedi deliberately not grabbing the spotlight when it's not about them, even this starts to fall apart as characters gain power and notoriety as the Force user just gets involved in such large scale events that it's hard to keep them not front and center.

So... which Star Wars fan of play style are you designing for? What system, existing or new, will equally cater to such divergent design goals. It's no wonder that strong adherents of one or the other preexisting Star Wars games often vehemently shoot down the suitability of the others.

FFG Star Wars was specifically designed to cover all aspects of the franchise, and I think it pretty much handles it fine. Also, a good 5e derivative with appropriate subsystems can IMO do the same.

 

[Argyle King]

FFG Star Wars was specifically designed to cover all aspects of the franchise, and I think it pretty much handles it fine. Also, a good 5e derivative with appropriate subsystems can IMO do the same.

I would prefer that the FFG version be renewed, updated, and supported.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would prefer that the FFG version be renewed, updated, and supported.

I'd certainly like to more done with the line than just reprints. But it's certainly playable as is.

Also curious as to what "updated" means to you.

 

[Argyle King]

I'd certainly like to more done with the line than just reprints. But it's certainly playable as is.

Also curious as to what "updated" means to you.

While all three branches of the take are compatible, there are small discrepancies between the various books. Touching up a few of those and further accentuating the compatibility would be nice.

I haven't looked at the Asmodee reprints yet, so it could be that they've already done that.

Aside from that, release some newer material. There were a few things released for the most recent trilogy, but it was overall somewhat sparse. A few more adventures would be nice.

I do see that Asmodee has started to reprint some of the books that had been out of stock (such as the Gadgets and Gear book that consolidated lists of items from the the product lines). I didn't know that until looking it up before this reply.

Maybe try advertising the game a little better. I recently visited the Star Wars area of Disney. There were a lot of people there from a wide variety of ages, backgrounds, and identities. If I were to guess, the vast majority of them likely have no idea that a Star Wars ttrpg (or "board game" to some of them) exists.