Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I just don’t see the point.

Yes, that is indeed the problem.

The d100 system gives you an axis of failure and success based on sheer intentionality. Did my character succeed or fail (and how badly of either) with regard to what s/he intended? A d100 roll can definitely tell me that. The WHFRP 3E system gives me that axis and another one, which involves secondary/unforseen/unintentional success and failure. It also lets me account for my character's own attitude toward the situation with something more interesting than a modifier. A d100 roll can't do either of those things. And in some games, you don't really want to do either of those things. In other games, you do.

It also lets me account for my character's own attitude toward the situation with something more interesting than a modifier

A modifier by any other name is still a modifier.

A traditional modifier is static. A stance die in WHFRP 3E is dynamic.

 Manchu wrote:
A traditional modifier is static. A stance die in WHFRP 3E is dynamic.

I don't think I will agree with your definition of "dynamic" here.

Whatever, I'm not here to squabble over vocabulary. Applying a modifier in a d100 system is not the same thing as rolling a stance die in a dice pool.

It's pretty much the same to me, aside from the busywork aspect of needing more rolls of the dice. It's basically just an overly complicated version of White Wolf's OWoD system.

If you get a better look at this, let us know, Manchu, I'll be interested to see what FFG does with it, and what your impressions are of it.

As interesting as hypotheticals are, I'd rather argue actual facts with regard to the game system itself.

 Manchu wrote:
The d100 system gives you an axis of failure and success based on sheer intentionality. Did my character succeed or fail (and how badly of either) with regard to what s/he intended? A d100 roll can definitely tell me that. The WHFRP 3E system gives me that axis and another one, which involves secondary/unforseen/unintentional success and failure. It also lets me account for my character's own attitude toward the situation with something more interesting than a modifier. A d100 roll can't do either of those things. And in some games, you don't really want to do either of those things. In other games, you do.

Yeah and I've seen games do that without the need for fancy dice. DH might not have that, but I've seen various types of attacks that do different things on successes and failures, with different levels of success/failures as determined by the special rules/attack itself (D&D 4E has a number of these). That's still a d20 based system.

 Melissia wrote:
It's pretty much the same to me

But in fact it is not the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah and I've seen ...

You're still not understanding but to be fair that is probably my fault. It comes down to this: a d100 system tracks nothing but failure and success (including degrees) but the WHFRP 3E system is designed to do other things simultaneously. The goal is to model plot development that hasn't happened yet not just to randomize the determination of success. Because the d100 system and this system have different goals, it does not make sense to characterize one as an overcomplicated version of the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Poison wrote:
If you get a better look at this, let us know, Manchu

I certainly will report here extensively. You can also browse the FFG forums although the EotE section is currently mired in the same kind of "I wanted the game to be X instead of Y" declarations rather than dialogue about the game that is coming out.

Well... yes, it's pretty much like a variation on WW's system. OWoD doesn't actually have traditional "static" modifiers, as you put it, but rather the ones you called "dynamic", IE rolling more or less dice. Every roll is a #d10 in fact, with the # depending on your stats, skills, and any situational/motivational bonuses and/or negatives, and going against a certain difficulty as set by the GM, and not all of the rolls necessarily have to be the same difficulty.

 Melissia wrote:
Well... yes, it's pretty much like a variation on WW's system.

Both mechanics are dice pools. That's about all they have in common. It's like saying that d100 is a variation of d20.

Technically it's a variation of d10 systems, rather than d20, as it uses two d10s per roll (one for tens, one for ones).

 Melissia wrote:
Well... yes, it's pretty much like a variation on WW's system. OWoD doesn't actually have traditional "static" modifiers, as you put it, but rather the ones you called "dynamic", IE rolling more or less dice. Every roll is a #d10 in fact, with the # depending on your stats, skills, and any situational/motivational bonuses and/or negatives, and going against a certain difficulty as set by the GM, and not all of the rolls necessarily have to be the same difficulty.

Also ones where botches which would remove successes, and tens, would mean critical success if botches didn't cancel them out, ones always took away tens first. You where generally looking for at least three successes to be doing anything of worth each time you rolled.

Although unless wounded, 90% of the time you rolls where based on static numbers, a mix of a Attribute stat pool and ability stat pool which equaled the dots you had in said attribute/ability.


Sorry my years of WoD gaming meant I had to toss that in there.

WoD tends to do that to people.

 Melissia wrote:
Technically it's a variation of d10 systems, rather than d20, as it uses two d10s per roll (one for tens, one for ones).

No, they are fundamentally different. Rolling 2d10 results in a completely different game because the resultant probability curve is non-linear. Different systems have different goals and so use different tools.

 Melissia wrote:
WoD tends to do that to people.

Tell me aboput it, I still have major White Wolf issues over nwod, its worst than most of this GW rage you see abouts... people just don't know how they hurt me. *sniff*





Yeah.. almost kept a straight face.


Regarding the game, the focus on the Empire era is the main positive thing for me at the mo. Don't get me wrong, I like the New Republic era, and Clones Wars cartoon, the prequels in general, but the Empire era seems a more interesting place to roleplay in.

It's a wretched hive of scum and villainy! What more could anyone need to tell awesome stories?

A competent GM?


Mind you, I'm also looking forward to this despite what I've said in this thread (I just happen to dislike FFG bashing). I couldn't stand the star wars d20 game.

I'll be interested to see how they handle being a force user in the Empire Era.

 Melissia wrote:
(I just happen to dislike FFG bashing).

Yes, bashing other games (including dice systems!) is generally non-productive. I'm very excited about this game because I think it will be a breath of fresh air into SW -- not because it will be the perfect RPG (there's no such thing), or totally replace Saga Edition, the d20 version, or WEG's d6 version(s) -- much less (somehow?) the FFG 40k line. I have my concerns, too: as I mentioned earlier in the thread, the skill trees could be a little too burdensome for a world defined by freedom and ingenuity. We'll just have to see. But I really am excited about the prospect of building dice pools, which I think will make the experience feel very distinctive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Poison wrote:
I'll be interested to see how they handle being a force user in the Empire Era.

So far, you can be a force sensitive fringer. You can do a few tricks but we're not talking Jedi level stuff according to those who have GenCon copies. Apparently, it's just a matter of taking a "Force Sensitive" skill tree.

It sounds like some people are going to be very happy with it. Not my speed, so much, but I am sure there will be a supplement for an era I do like down the road.

Hope the game system makes you guys happy, though.

It's hard to say whether there will be. With three years of product planned, we're talking only about the Rebellion era. Of course, the fringe in the fringe no matter what era you're in. And how hard is it to use Stormtrooper stats for Sith Troopers or Clone Troopers?

Hm, I think you'd want to buff the stormtroopers stats a bit, as they were apparently inferior to the pre-empire period's clone troopers.

Is that a matter of canon or just the magic of cinema? Stormtroopers were just mooks in the OT. In the Clone Wars cartoon (and to a far lesser extent in the PT), clone troopers are protagonists. Also, the OT featured a farmboy fighting storm troopers. In the PT, clone troopers stood next to Jedi.

IIRC, it's canon-- while some of the stormtrooper regiments were still clone troopers at the time of the empire series, most of them were not any more, and were generally inferior to the clone troopers.

They did a lot of things in order to cut down on costs, such as cheaper armor, cheaper fighters, etc.

I'm not interested in the fringe. I'm interested in KOTOR style high fantasy, and LOTR style destruction of the Lord of the Sith.

My last game in Saga was a KOTOR era lightsabers on lightsabers game with our heroes trying to end the threat of the Emperor and the Sith Empire.

Again, not to say others shouldn't like the fringe, or any game system is inferior based on the subject it chooses to portray, or playing a bunch of piratey fringers is badwrongfun or anything else. Just its not the part of Star Wars that appeals to me.

In fact, I'd rather do a Dark Eldar based pirate game to explore fringers =P

@Melissia: Yeah, reading up on Wookiepedia it seems that Cody thought of recruits as crap compared to Jango Fett clones. If you go with that POV, you could certainly buff the storm trooper stats a bit to "convert" them into clone troopers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Poison wrote:
I'm interested in KOTOR

This is actually near and dear to my heart. The Saga Edition Old Republic sourcebook is one of my most prized possessions! Even more than KotOR, the Tales of the Jedi comics are my favorites. All that being said, I also like the gritty elements of Star Wars. The thing to remember is that this isn't another version of "the SWRPG." This is a game called "Edge of the Empire." In three years time, FFG plans to produce another game called "Force and Destiny" which will be easier to convert to Old Republic era games. But even that game will not be about "being a Jedi" but rather be about "being a Jedi surviving under Palpatine's regime." It's not going to appeal to everyone. But after decade of suffering through the PT and a lot of not-so-hot EU developments, a return to emphasis on the OT is very welcome IMO.

Yeah, to each their own. I'm old now, and my gaming time is limited, you know? When I was younger, I could play lots more things, now I have to pick my spots, and I tend to choose stuff I really enjoy.

Also, it has to appeal to my girl, who has her own tastes. =)

 Melissia wrote:
IIRC, it's canon-- while some of the stormtrooper regiments were still clone troopers at the time of the empire series, most of them were not any more, and were generally inferior to the clone troopers.

They did a lot of things in order to cut down on costs, such as cheaper armor, cheaper fighters, etc.

IIRC the Fett clones had unforeseen flaws and the Kaminons became unco-operative after the clones wars, and as a result were purged and their work load handed over to several other companies who weren't as good but more co-operative, the only original Fett clones were the 501st (AKA Vader's Fist), but there were supposed to be the ones on the death star so go figure.......

Force Unleashed II begins on Kamino, with Vader using their cloning facilities to allegedly (I haven't finished the game yet so no one spoil it for me) recreate his secret apprentice, Starkiller.