forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

The world definitely needs a better Star Wars RPG. Something as simple and elegant and inspired by the fiction as TOR is. Something that manages to let Jedi be Jedi without making non-Jedi feel like second class citizens.

farinal wrote:Thats sad to hear I thought FFG's Star Wars was more story oriented not ivory tower gaming like 3.5E was.

The game is a bit schizophrenic is that regard:
Some bit are very fast-n-loose story orientated. Space combat for example is pretty fluffy with lots of emphasis GM involvement: "..and then zoom, and pew, pew... and, make a piloting roll, yeah... and then the TIE fighter crashes into an asteroid and... boom!". Without this, it would be a very boring and lifeless exercise in die-rolling.
Personal combat on the other hand is a lot more, umm, "precise"... tons of exception-based talents, weapon abilities, etc. Good fun from a tactical combat perspective but I wouldn't call it narrative.

So yeah, just two examples: the game is very story/narrative driven in some aspects, and very rulesy/crunchy in others.

My players have thoroughly enjoyed our campaign so far... we have played the pretty much all the various SW versions from WEG 1st ed to WotC Saga to the FFG incarnation. This is probably been the most popular.

Oh, one thing (IMHO) FFG did get right is the balance between Force Users and Muggles.

Glorelendil wrote:The world definitely needs a better Star Wars RPG. Something as simple and elegant and inspired by the fiction as TOR is. Something that manages to let Jedi be Jedi without making non-Jedi feel like second class citizens.

Definitely tangential to the main discussion, so apologies, but just taking the films the source material strongly suggests that power and capability-wise non-Jedi characters are second class citizens; it's the stories and character arcs that make them interesting but based on raw mechanics I don't really think they should be balanced at all - at least not across specific elements like skills or attributes; as an overall view then that seems more of an option, but Jedi's do seem to just be better at most things than non-Jedi's.

I think one of the obvious ways of offsetting something like this is how Doctor Who (another great C7 game) handles the disparity between the titular character and his companions. They get access to more Story Points (or whatever they are called) than the Doctor and so get to impact the narrative beyond their raw abilities and more often. If you combined this with a Dark Side mechanic that had real teeth then you could present characters with ranging capabilities but who could still contribute equally.

It does ultimately still boil down to the GM creating adventures that include all the characters and letting them shine in their own individual ways. Lord of the Rings does the same thing - being Frodo's Gardener is just as important as being the Rightful King of the Lands of Men. In game terms, the GM has built a story that involves all the characters in varying degrees and acknowledges the different power levels and abilities involved - that's what makes the story, or in this case, the game interesting. And throwing a few more points of Hope at Sam's player than Aragorn's.

Again, it's back to system being important but a GM and players will always make or break a game, however bad or good the system is.

Glorelendil wrote:Here's the thing, TOR very much encourages a "roll first, then narrate" approach. Which means that you don't say "I climb up on the watch tower to get a better vantage point...does that give me a bonus?" Instead you roll the dice and say, "Great Success!! From my vantage point on the tower I get a clear shot at the orcs, skewering one with my first shot."

This is a little late, but I'd like to elaborate on this. What Glorelendil says here is correct, but it's not the whole story. The One Ring has two kinds of rolls, tasks and tests. Tasks are things the players decide to do; tests are the equivalent of "saving throws."

When a player rolls for a task (ignoring for the moment the use of traits), he specifies his goal, what skill he's using, and how he plans to do it. The Loremaster then sets a difficulty level. If the player succeeds at the task, he describes what happens. If he gets an ordinary success, his description is limited to what he said he was trying to do. If he gets a great or extraordinary success, the player can propose reasons that his attempt exceeded his stated goal and method. If he fails at the task, the Loremaster describes what happens (and it can't be nothing).

In a test, the Loremaster calls for a roll, but he may not tell the players what it's about, so the Loremaster describes any foreknowledge the player-heroes may have as well as any consequences of the roll, good or bad.

So a player can say "I climb up on the watch tower to get a better vantage point...does that give me a bonus?" It'll give him a bonus to the target number he needs to achieve on the roll. It won't give him more of a chance to achieve a great or extraordinary success. Those aren't things that make rolls easier; they're extra things you get for succeeding beyond your expectation.

One might say that The One Ring is a "narrate first, then roll, then narrate" game.

Stormcrow wrote:

Glorelendil wrote:Here's the thing, TOR very much encourages a "roll first, then narrate" approach. Which means that you don't say "I climb up on the watch tower to get a better vantage point...does that give me a bonus?" Instead you roll the dice and say, "Great Success!! From my vantage point on the tower I get a clear shot at the orcs, skewering one with my first shot."

This is a little late, but I'd like to elaborate on this. What Glorelendil says here is correct, but it's not the whole story. The One Ring has two kinds of rolls, tasks and tests. Tasks are things the players decide to do; tests are the equivalent of "saving throws."

When a player rolls for a task (ignoring for the moment the use of traits), he specifies his goal, what skill he's using, and how he plans to do it. The Loremaster then sets a difficulty level. If the player succeeds at the task, he describes what happens. If he gets an ordinary success, his description is limited to what he said he was trying to do. If he gets a great or extraordinary success, the player can propose reasons that his attempt exceeded his stated goal and method. If he fails at the task, the Loremaster describes what happens (and it can't be nothing).

In a test, the Loremaster calls for a roll, but he may not tell the players what it's about, so the Loremaster describes any foreknowledge the player-heroes may have as well as any consequences of the roll, good or bad.

So a player can say "I climb up on the watch tower to get a better vantage point...does that give me a bonus?" It'll give him a bonus to the target number he needs to achieve on the roll. It won't give him more of a chance to achieve a great or extraordinary success. Those aren't things that make rolls easier; they're extra things you get for succeeding beyond your expectation.

One might say that The One Ring is a "narrate first, then roll, then narrate" game.

I agree with all that. I was mostly thinking of the core mechanics of the three main sub-systems: Journeys, Encounters, and Combat. In each case I would shy away from modifying TNs because the hero describes a tactic/strategy. The TNs already assume they are doing their best, and the player is just narrating what that best is. And in each case preliminary rolls and bonus dice (and Hope, for that matter) are there if the player wants to put a little extra oomph into it.

But within the story there are also countless situations that fit Stormcrow's structure: the player has an objective and describes how he/she wants to accomplish it, and by setting the TN the LM is effectively granting bonuses of some sort.

So maybe the distinction you observe between test and task is correct. Effectively no bonuses to tests just because you think of a clever way to do it...that's what Hope, bonus dice, and auto-successes are for. And tasks have the bonuses built in.