| Star Wars Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook, Saga Edition | |
| author | Christopher Perkins, Owen K.C. Stephens, Rodney Thompson |
| pages | 286 |
| publisher | Wizards of the Coast |
| rating | 9/10 |
| reviewer | Zonk |
| ISBN | 0786943564 |
| summary | The newest edition of the Star Wars tabletop roleplaying game. |
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Star warsiness? (Score:3, Funny)
Does a +10 charisma for small children give you an extra six trillion credits?
Can we actually slay George Lucas?
Re:Star warsiness? (Score:5, Funny)
Not sure for others, but my +10 charisma for small children got me 10 years AND I have to register as a sex offender where ever I go.
Parent
Re:Star warsiness? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Rules size (Score:5, Informative)
I should hope not. The massive and unwieldy size of the 9x11 rule books stems from the inexpensive printing of such sizes. By printing on such large paper (usually in mono-color black and white) they can reduce the cost of both printing and binding. Just run the paper through the printer, staple, and fold.
Printing in smaller sizes is bound to be a sign of quality rather than the lack thereof. Especially if grayscale, color, or (*gasp*) glossy paper are used.
Now if someone could just rewrite the Starfire rules in a format that makes sense to those new to the game... *grumble* *grumble* (Yes, I spent some God-aweful amount of time trying to decode rules that were listed completely out of order, spread across two volume for no real reason other than to confuse you.)
Re: (Score:2)
That would require the SDS to become organized and such. And update their ordering and web site. Since the Starfire community is rather small, I just don't see that happening any time soon, unfortuna
Re: (Score:2)
And yet if SDS doesn't get their act together, the Starfire community will only get smaller. It's a wonderful catch-22.
Not that I'm holding out any sort of hope that SDS will listen to the fans and redouble their efforts with proper investments and expansion of the Starfire universe. If they were smart, they'd be using the latest Starfire book from White to pro
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wizards of the Coast doesn't print many gaming rulebooks that aren't
'Petite' coffee table book? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't "coffee table books" the really big ones? How is more petite more like a ctb?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah.
"More petite" isn't. Square is, because lots of ctb's are, unlike most gaming rulebooks, square.
(Then again, 9x9 compared to 9x11 is, to me, more "short and squat" than "petite".)
Can't Win, eh? Eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Today they whine about this - Hey!
*slap*
D&D - Star Wars - this is what this site was built for!
Enjoy!
Capisce?
I predict good things! (Score:5, Funny)
You could always do a sort-of LARP-ish thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead go back and watch again. Both the opening scene and the sandcrawler scene. Blast open the ship door way and begin blasting rebel fleet troopers,
You're kidding me, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a requirement before? The amount of fun you could have in a game was determined by how high a certain attribute was, as opposed to the interaction you had between the players and the GM? I guess if you measure success by "I can do more damage in less time than you, therefore my character is cooler and I win the game" it's a requirement...
The endless hunting for a +1 to hit here or a +2 to hit there will not longer be required.
See above. It doesn't matter if you can get a +1 for a flank attack or +2 because you're within 10' of the target. The dice really, honestly, seriously don't matter that much. Why undergo "endless hunting" to get a bonus to a roll? Just roll the die, see what happens, and take it from there. The GM's not out to get you, and if he is, he's a bad GM.
Thus, a skill roll looks like this: d20 + half your character's level + relevant ability score (strength for climbing, etc.) + 5 if you are trained. That's it.
"That's it," spoken like it's really simple. Simple in comparison to cross-referencing the results of four die rolls on six tables, sure, but that's still needlessly complex.
This is one thing that has always bemused me- how some people are so focused on the mechanics and gaming the system that they miss the fact that they're playing a game with friends. You're telling a story together, you're solving puzzles together, you're (get this) role-playing together. Yes, of course, there's no one way to play a RPG, who am I to tell people how to have fun in a game, but it seems all too often people misspell the first word in the abbreviation: it's role, not roll. Kudos to WOTC for making this "fun without fuss," at least.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what he's saying is that there's no longer a feeling that you have to play a certain type of character to feel "useful" in the party. If you're okay playing
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say that's a problem between you and your DM. Every class is good at something, and if it's not in your campaign, blame the DM, not the system.
Sure, if
Rules Matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Rules matter.
The rules tell you what the game is really about instead of what it claims to be about. A game might promise "exciting pulp action," but if the conflict system is highly lethal you're not going to see lots of exciting pulp moments in actual play. The heroes will either die quickly and pointlessly, or they'll become cautious. The very tone of the game is set by the rules.
The rules impact a player's success at fulfilling their vision for their character. To take Star Wars for example, say I want to be a great pilot. However, the rules set has enough complexity and tradeoffs that I accidentally build a decidedly sub-optimal pilot. As a result, another character, for whom "be a cool pilot" wasn't their goal but who is better at working the system, is the best pilot on the team and regularly outdoes you. That's no fun. Or maybe your vision is a dangerous Jedi, but poor choices in character generation mean a lone storm trooper is a major threat and a pair is insurmountable. Not terribly fun. Ultimately, having to resign yourself to being the hanger-on to the team because of lack of rules master isn't fun. A player should play a bumbler because they want to, not because they are forced to.
Now, a GM can fudge or outright ignore the dice to lead to more desirable results, but then why are you rolling? Your success and failure ends up having little to do with your preparation and design and is in the hands of the GM fiat. The resulting success is hollow.
A GM can modify the rules to try and improve things, but then you're playing a new game. If the rules need to be modified to make it better, surely the publisher should try to improve their source material so their customers don't need to do so. At the very least it will same countless GMs from wasting their time fiddling with the rules.
This is why the Star Wars overhaul is important. If it works, there should be fewer cases of PCs failing to meet expectations. The new tone of the rules says, "You're really cool all the time." The old set of rules said a bunch of things, including "You can be exceptionally cool in some ways if you've mastered the rules, but if you haven't you have a real chance of being just mediocre," and "You can be really cool in a few areas, but totally useless in others, or you can be unexceptional in a bunch of ways." Neither one of those seems to reinforce the pulp space-opera feel of Star Wars. The new rules help balance the playing field. A group of players, some of whom are love studying and using rules, and some who don't, have a more even chance of satisfying their visions for their characters.
Ultimately the focus on "role" play instead of "roll" play is the entire point of these changes. The resulting system, if the changes work, will encourage role-playing. If it works, it's a huge win for everyone.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Social RP in d20? The system is quite explicitly designed around tac
West End Games Got It Right (Score:5, Informative)
It was easy as a Game Master to assign difficulty numbers to actions and have the characters roll against them. The die rolling was fun (everyone loves lots of dice) and the wild die added an element of excitement to the roll. I once had a player roll the wild die 4 times! Everyone around the table was going crazy, especially since that roll saved their butts.
Advancement was easy and made sense, the skills system worked well, and the source material was amazing. The source material was so good that Lucasfilm considered it an authoritative source for Timothy Zahn when he was writing Thrawn Trilogy.
I have tried playing the Star Wars d20 system and I have come to the conclusion that there is no point in playing anything but the West End Games d6 version. They got it right the first time and there is really no reason to switch to the flavor of the week.
10000d6 (Score:2)
I'm a little fuzzy on the reviewer's concern for balancing the Jedi class--as though they should be balanced with everyone else in combat. Jedi are badass in the previous d20 editions--but they pay for it in their skills, feats, and behavioral limitations. It doesn't make sense in terms of the game universe for them to be on
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Note on the article: the "traits" system reminiscent of WoW's talent trees was included in d20 Modern. It might have been included before that, too - but comparing it to something internally consistent (like a RPG) might have been a better analogy than stretching for WoW (though the WoW reference will undoubtedly reac
Re: (Score:2)
A fatigue system makes no sense for Jedi. (Score:5, Interesting)
Since when do Jedi get tired from using the Force? That never happens in the movies, even when it looks like they're straining themselves doing something hard. The limits on Jedi powers seem to be more that of mental stumbling blocks than a reserve of stamina. Frankly, the idea of Jedi having limits on how often they can use their powers is quite contrary to the style and feel of Star Wars where Luke casually tosses mind-control around, and Qui-Gon throws droids around like he's playing a game of kick-the-can.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter where the balance is, it's simply a matter of the fact that Jedi don't get fatigued from using the Force in the movies. Yoda doesn't get tired after lifting an X-Wing or bouncing about like a weasel on methamphetamine. Qui-Gon shows no fatigue from throwing about droids or running all over the place. The Emperor shows no sign over ever running out of lightning bolts to toss at Luke.
Must be said (Score:3, Funny)
West End Games..... (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_role-playi
Better Game, or Better Saga? (Score:2)
I also preferred the d6 version of Star Wars. The rules were superior and the sourcebooks were amazing.
However, I have begun to wonder if the different system is the whole story. When I played a failed Jedi under the West End rules, he had a lightsaber and some mishmash Jedi powers but he was well-balanced for play. His advancement had to do with overcoming alcoholism and finding an alien master of the force. He was not the leader of the party, but when sober he was formidable in combat... however fla
D&D v4.0 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They consider this the 'dumbed-down' rules, essentially.
And yes, these are freely available for download. You can play with everything but the actual critters for totally free.
Re:D&D v4.0 (Score:4, Informative)
From Wikipedia's entry [wikipedia.org]:
The formula to convert THAC0/AC to 3rd Edition "Attack Bonus" (and vice versa) is:
* BAB = 20 - THAC0
* THAC0 = 20 - BAB
* 3rd Edition Armor Class = 20 - 2nd Edition Armor Class
* 2nd Edition Armor Class = 20 - 3rd Edition Armor Class
In older versions of D&D, your armor's AC value is a set number; for the case of leather armor, it's AC is 7.
If your THAC0 is 17 and you roll a 14, did you hit or not? Well, you subtract your opponent's AC from your THAC0 to see what number you need to hit; in this case, 17 - 7 = 10, so you hit with a 14.
The THAC0 system is counter-intuitive; better armor has a lower score, and will run into negative. So a person with an AC of -5 is actually harder to hit than a nearly-naked person with an AC of 10. And, with those higher -- er, I mean lower -- AC values, you end up subtracting a negative from your THAC0.
In 3rd edition, it's the same range of scores and modifiers, only it's all done via addition instead of subtraction.
Your base AC is 10; studded leather armor gives you a +3 to AC, so your AC is 13. (Note that with the older THAC0/AC scheme, your AC would be 7; in 3rd edition, we're effectively adding the armor value to the base 10 instead of subtracting it, but it's the same delta from the "unarmored" AC.)
To hit your opponent, take your attack modifier (a 3rd-level fighter has a base attack bonus of +3, we'll ignore modifiers for high Strength and the like for this example) and add it to your die roll. So if you roll a 14, add the +3 for your attack modifier, you get a 17, which beats your opponent's AC of 13 by 4 points. Which, if you'll note, is the same delta as in the THAC0 example.
The advantage is that it's more intuitive. Instead of my THAC0 of 10 being so much better than your THAC0 of 17 and my kickass armor giving me an AC of 2 versus the poor unarmored mage's 10, I have a +10 to hit as opposed to your +3 to hit and my armor class is 18 versus that same mage's 10.
Jay (=
Parent
I think it's getting oversimplified (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not like you had to do much re: crew stats before. You'd declare your action, make any relevant check, and move on.
Is the next edition of the rules just going to make it a free-form RPG?
Vitality and wound points (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need, we already have the Amber Diceless RPG, and you can use that "system" (such as it is) for the development of any type of game.
Highly structured gaming systems are best left to computers; if I want my fate to be ruled by mechanisms and random numbers, then I can sit down at my PC. Humans can tell stories, and should.
Uncanny! (Score:3, Insightful)
This vaguely excites me, if only because they've stripped the numbers down again and apparently made an effort at developing a game that's fun, instead of an exercise in spreadsheet manipulation. Unfortunately, I don't think it's likely to last, because mudflation, feature creep and rule proliferation is pretty much necessary to sell additional sourcebooks. Nobody wants to buy the Complete Book of Twi'leks unless it comes with rules (and illustrations) for Doing That Thing That You Do With Your Lekku.
Re: (Score:2)
You can play games without books. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Story.
Don't get me wrong. I understand some people need structure in their gaming experiences, and sometimes GMs need structure to control the players. But you don't need to spend 30-50 bucks on a main book and a hundred dollars on More Books just to play Star Wars. When you were a kid, you probably did it with sticks and no dice at all.
Imagine watching d20 Star Wars on the big screen. Before Luke and Leia go for that famous swing, there'd be 10 minutes of measuring the distance of the swing, checking the working load on the cable, verifying the sturdiness of the pipes the grapple attached too, checking Luke's strength vs Leia's weight, and rolling constantly for the Stormtroopers trying to open the door.
At that point, I've stopped eating popcorn.
Write your own system. Throw out the charts. Tell stories. It's more fun, more memorable, and a heck of a lot cheaper.
If you like spending money, then take that 150 bucks and buy 10 indie games you've never heard of, and spend some time reading their systems and learning how to take a few rules a long way. Check out octaNe or Dust Devils or Shambles or any of a hundred others.
Money, and time, well spent.
Careful about promoting story or dismissing rules (Score:3)
I agree with you that rules shouldn't be the focus of play. The indie games are worth checking out. But I have significant doubts about the indie game crowd's focus on "story". Story is a rather high-level concept, something you don't necessarily see unless you step back from the experience of playing. The most satisfying moments I have experienced and witnessed in RPGs have been more immediate: the excitement of diving out the window just as the bomb goes off, the players huddled around the candle fla
A good GM is never bound by the ruleset. (Score:2)
Karma Restored (Score:2, Funny)
Screw the RPG (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember the 1st edition (Score:3, Interesting)
My favorite feature of the games though was that it distilled Star Wars down to its crucial elements for GMs to follow:
1. The characters are as unimpressed with their own gadgets as you would be with a remote. A ship's capatain should never shake his fist at a target on a giant view screen and yell to his crew "Fire the proton torpedoes!".
2. Technology just works. Don't worry about silly rationalizations like you see in Star Trek (sorry fans). But, know the limits of the technology.
3. The world is black and white. Some people just haven't picked sides yet. Very Romantic (not the soap opera definition).
4. The banter between characters is so colloquial. No technobabble.
My one disappointment with the new SW movies was that they'd forgotten these elements.
Re:How do I mod this ad down? (Score:5, Informative)
Last I remember, all /. book reviews had links to Barnes & Noble or some other such big-box book store. There's always a top level post in the comments that goes something like this "Why is there always a B&N link to the book? You can find it for $X.XX cheaper at Amazon [link to Amazon page]"
So, it's nice to see the Amazon link right in the article. Though, it's up to the critic to make it good or bad, 'reviews' are always a form of advertisement. It's usually common practice to give away samples as 'media kits' to get reviews in newspapers and magazines.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Parent
Re:G.U.R.P.S. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)