The Rancor Pit :: View topic - WEG Star Wars 3rd Edition?

Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Usergroups :: Register :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in

WEG Star Wars 3rd Edition?

The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Star Wars Games -> WEG Star Wars 3rd Edition?

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

KageRyu
Commodore

Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 1391
Location: Lost in the cracks

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:22 am Post subject:

pulphummock wrote:

Hi KageRyu! Thanks for your input. (And sorry to hear that you are in pain. I hope you are well.)

Thank you, and sorry if the mannerisms of my post seem confrontational - that is not my intent.

Quote:

Things can always change. I mean, they brought Palpatine back! Laughing

To me this is not a good thing. I am not one who likes change just for the sake of change either. Nor change "just to shake things up". The whole Palpatine issue is a topic for it's own thread in actuality...but it is a dangerous topic too.

Quote:

So, I have included all of these items on my list because either someone eminent (like Whill, who shared his own list with me) mentioned them or because I've seen them mentioned repeatedly in the forums and elsewhere outside of the forums.

Let me ask you the question this way: even if you disagree with many of the items on the list, do you think that a fictional WEG, in an alternate universe, would consider modifying/patching some (or all) of these rules for the simple fact that these rules are readily complained about or argued over by long-time players? (Even if you don't think a particular rule is a problem?) And if your answer is "yes," then what rules in the current R&E/REUP game would likely be getting a hard look at them?

This is not a question that I could answer with a simple yes or no. A well qualified maybe, with explanation. While I agree there are aspects of D6 that could use revising or improving, or alternative rules, I do not feel they are needed for the same reasons. The idea of Vehicle damage and construction is one (and I was at one point working on an exhaustive system but the difficulty is also keeping it compatible with existing material so as to allow it's use or not). When it comes to Vehicles in games, I like crunchy construction rules and limits, which is counter to what D6 had... My favorite vehicle/mechanical game was Mekton II (very crunchy build rules) with Silhouette (Heavy Gear, Jovian Chronicles, Gear Krieg) coming in second (a little too crunchy and math heavy with logarithms and cubed roots). I will admit no game system is perfect.
That being said, in regards to some rules being most complained about, it has often been my experience this is due to a number of factors that are often not the fault of the rule itself. Many times, I feel, it is due to not knowing the rule exists, not understanding the rule as written, or simply someone not liking it as it doesn't fit their style of play. I do not feel in these situations that a rule needs addressed as a whole in an official capacity. I will admit the force rules are broken in many ways. They seem more broken to me in 2nd and later than first - and I still use first edition rules for the most part as it better reflects what is seen onscreen in the original trilogy to me. Even as broken as the force rules are, I feel the Metaphysics and Magic rules in the D6 3 book core set are even worse - and this was WEG officially addressing the concept in a non-IP specific way and making it worse and not better.

RE Dodge
I believe in WEG version of DC Heroes every character had a Defense Bonus (I forget the actual phrase) that was added to the difficulty to hit that character free of using dodge. It was figured from a characters attributes (I forget the exact formula but let's say something like +1 for each 1D in DEX attribute). I had used this in some of my house D6 rules, and very much wanted to incorporate it into the D6 variant I was planning to publish under license (before D6 went OGL) but this was not part of the core D6 as it was defined in the license or the OGL and I never got a response to my inquiries regarding using it. I feel it was a good idea.

garhkal wrote:

Also Mooks generally only have a handful of CP if any at all, and NO FP..

Also an excellent point.
There was a D6 licensed game called something like Psibertroopers that made use of chess piece enemies and explained it. I forget who the publisher was, but it turns up now and then on Noblenight games, and may be available in PDF at Drivethru RPG.

garhkal wrote:

Over on the Holonet a long time ago, someone did suggest that "when using medpacks', it doesn't actually HEAL the wound, it just let's you act as if you were NOT wounded for a certain time (say 1-2 hrs), so you would STILL need med bays or bacta tanks..

I believe the one medpack per day may have officially been first edition, as that was how I recall them being. I like the idea of aleviating the effects of the wound but still having the wound in place as that seems more in tune with a med pack as opposed to proper medical care.

Quote:

Plus the whole "at this D value you are the best in the system, at that value you are the best in the sector and so on". BUT i do agree in some way, that once you get at the 10d or higher level, it should be MUCH harder to improve than just the CP cost alone..

IIR officially under RAW any skill improvement is supposed to involve training time and credits, but I have always forgone this for skills used during an adventure. Additionally, at 10D increasing by 1 pip is 10cp, that's pretty steep, and can be the majority or all of the CP earned in a standard session unless the gm is handing out lots of CP. Additionally RAW restricts improvement of skills to 1 pip per skill in between adventures. I have felt these were restrictive enough with CP also being needed to boost defense rolls and skill rolls and modify gear and ships. I have only ever had 1 player reach even the 10D skill range, though groups kept breaking up and campaigns ending early.
_________________
"There's a set way to gain new Force Points and it represents a very nice system, where you're rewarded for heroism, not for being a poor conductor to electricity." ~Jachra

KageRyu
Commodore

Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 1391
Location: Lost in the cracks

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:39 am Post subject:

Whill wrote:

KageRyu wrote:

Quote:

No damage accumulation rules for protection, armor, and non-vehicular weapons.

Rules for damaging armor and protection are in the Combat and Injuries chapter of 2R&E chapter starting on page 94. Rules for damaging weapons are also there (page 95)

garhkal wrote:

There ARE damage rules for armor and such.

There are no damage accumulation rules for those things in RAW. Accumulation rules are statements that describe what happens when something that is already damaged is damaged again, such as "Lightly damaged armor/suits that are lightly damaged again becomes heavily damaged." RAW gives us damage accumulation rules for characters, vehicles, and starships. That's it. For protection, armor, weapons, and objects, we only know what happens the first time they are damaged from an undamaged state.

I disagree when it comes to armor - as the damage progression listed when applied logically leads to accumulated damage. 1D armor that has already lost 1 pip from a wound effect that stops gets another wound effect has now lost 2 pips...a third wound effect would negate it completely.
While you are correct about no clear accumulative effect is stated for weapon and scenery damage - given the levels match exactly to damage levels of characters and vehicles I always felt it was clearly intended to follow the same progression. True, they did not spell this out, but I feel this was nothing more than an oversight and perhaps they felt that rehashing the damage progression multiple times was unnecessary. Given one of the other issues wanting addressed is repetitive damage levels, it makes me wonder if instead the damage levels should be streamlined, explained once for characters and once for inanimate and then just referenced with a line such as "Uses the same damage escalation as for...". I still stand by damage accumulation existing when these sections are taken in the context of the rules (there is a clear pattern in D6).
_________________
"There's a set way to gain new Force Points and it represents a very nice system, where you're rewarded for heroism, not for being a poor conductor to electricity." ~Jachra

Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)

Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10434
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:21 am Post subject:

garhkal wrote:

And i've known some adults, who had issues with the PIP dice, but not with the numbered die.. While i knew folks, who regardless, could count up 8+ dice, faster than some folks could add up 4 die.

I think I remember you mentioning this before. I personally have an aversion to dice with numerals, so I prefer dice with pips. If I ever had a player that found it was easier to add up a roll with numerals instead of pips, I would certainly support that.

garhkal wrote:

pulphummock wrote:

Healing rules are wonky (medpacs are too unrestricted and make bacta tanks near obsolete), plus there are no surgery rules so all (A) medicine does is work bacta tanks.

I forget where i saw the HR, but one i liked, was that you can't use more than ONE medpack on someone in the same 'calender day' in game. Another was if you rolled 5 or LESS on the first aid roll, you 'over drove the body' so can't use another med pack for 24 hrs..
...

KageRyu wrote:

As I recall under RAW med pacs were not unrestricted, and each successive use in one day increased the difficulty. not to mention you will run out of medpacs as they get used up. After that it was up to natural healing and recovery rolls, or a bacta tank, making them far from obsolete. Advanced rules for healing and trauma would be nice though - especially for, say, resuscitation from death resulting from drowning, choking, or failing a mortal wound check...perhaps someone had been working on such rules at one time, maybe they will turn up here.

KageRyu wrote:

2eR&E p.98 says, "Multiple medpacs can used on a character in a single day, but increase the first aid difficulty one level for each additional use." So a mortally wounded character can be healed to incapacitated with a Difficult roll. Then another medpac can immediately be used to heal the character to wounded twice with a difficulty of Moderate+one level = Difficult. Then another medpac can immediately be used to heal the character to wounded with a difficulty of Easy+two levels = Difficult. Then another medpac can immediately be used to heal the character completely with a difficulty of Easy+three levels = Very Difficult.

This means that a character with four medpacs and the medicine skill could roll 7D or more to fully heal a mortally wounded character with only three Difficult rolls and one Very Difficult roll, which is possible for the highly skilled. Bacta tanks take a long time, but medpacs are fast. In a SWU that works by RAW, there wouldn't be any point to medical-skilled characters operating bacta tanks to heal injured characters because medical characters could just stack their medicine skill onto their first aid rolls and completely heal someone in a few rounds.

Bacta tanks are film canon, so RAW medpacs are too unrestricted for me. So my solution was to add a one sentence restriction. I still have the increasing difficulty per day, but add this:

Quote:

After a medpac has been used successfully, another medpac cannot be used on that character until there is another change in wound status from damage.

If a character gets a new injury after a single medpac had been used on previous injuries, then another medpac can be used (if it is the same day then at an increased difficulty). If they aren't injured again, then they have gotten all the benefits they can get from first aid and have to seek medical attention for further healing or heal naturally.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage

Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)

Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10434
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:41 am Post subject:

pakman wrote:

Ganging up / flanking situation modifiers.

This triggered a memory from when I was new player to d20...

Quote:

DM: Since you moved to that square on your turn, the monster gets a free attack of opportunity on you.
Whill, playing a fighter: A what?
DM: It's in the rules.
Whill: I didn't know that or I wouldn't have moved there.
DM: Sorry. <rolls a die>
Whill: Well, wouldn't my character know about that?
DM: <rolls another die> You lose 4 hit points.

<shudders>
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage

Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)

Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10434
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:33 am Post subject:

KageRyu wrote:

Whill wrote:

KageRyu wrote:

Quote:

No damage accumulation rules for protection, armor, and non-vehicular weapons.

Rules for damaging armor and protection are in the Combat and Injuries chapter of 2R&E chapter starting on page 94. Rules for damaging weapons are also there (page 95)

garhkal wrote:

There ARE damage rules for armor and such.

I disagree when it comes to armor - as the damage progression listed when applied logically leads to accumulated damage. 1D armor that has already lost 1 pip from a wound effect that stops gets another wound effect has now lost 2 pips...a third wound effect would negate it completely.

While you are correct about no clear accumulative effect is stated for weapon and scenery damage - given the levels match exactly to damage levels of characters and vehicles I always felt it was clearly intended to follow the same progression. True, they did not spell this out, but I feel this was nothing more than an oversight and perhaps they felt that rehashing the damage progression multiple times was unnecessary. Given one of the other issues wanting addressed is repetitive damage levels, it makes me wonder if instead the damage levels should be streamlined, explained once for characters and once for inanimate and then just referenced with a line such as "Uses the same damage escalation as for...". I still stand by damage accumulation existing when these sections are taken in the context of the rules (there is a clear pattern in D6).

You seem to be getting overly defensive about protecting RAW's vagueness. There is no harm is recognizing the need for the rules to be more explicit in places and adding a few sentences so you don't need to use context to determine it. Sometimes house rules are just tweaks or clarifications. Having them doesn't mean the RAW system is deeply flawed or anything

However, in this case RAW doesn't work like you say for characters or vehicles (or starships). Armor is unique in that it doesn't resist damage on its own. Each damage level on the chart is explicitly per injury suffered by the wearer (not the wearer's accumulated wound status). Since armor has no damage accumulation rules, three subsequent wounds would incapacitate the character but the armor would be at -3 pips to its protection. While armor rules have no accumulation statements, the system is technically complete as-is.

As far as the other technologies go, there is no logical progression from vehicle and starship damage systems that would apply. R&E p.112 says, "Vehicles can be lightly damaged any number of times. Each time a vehicle is damaged, roll 1D to see which system is damaged..." There is a similar statement about starships on p.128. Do you have protection, non-vehicular weapons, objects, and droids suffer unlimited number of light damages? And even if you did, you couldn't just apply the context of vehicles and starships unless you had chart to roll 1D for possible light damage results for the other technologies. Vehicles and starships each have their own charts–they are not the same. Each technology would needs its own chart, because the results applicable to vehicles and starships would not apply to the other technologies. And character damage doesn't give clear context for armor either because it has wounded twice and mortally wounded.

I feel vehicles and starships have unlimited light damages because each one is a complex system of multiple technologies. I don't feel these other technologies should have unlimited light damages, so I wrote sentences for how the damage levels accumulate.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage

fogger1138
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Posts: 104
Location: Maine

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:40 pm Post subject:

KageRyu wrote:

If you are referring to attributes, there are already species maximum die caps, if you are referring to skills, well that is counter intuitive to the cinematic and larger than life scale the Star Wars RPG represents.

To be fair, though, the species maximums for Attributes are only for starting characters, according to RAW. You can advance a character past them, although it's not easy.

pakman
Commander

Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 441

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:02 pm Post subject:

garhkal wrote:

Pakman wrote:

Difference between being "stunned" and hit by "stun" weapons.

I forgot who suggested it, but change the wording to "when you receive a damage result of 1 to 4 over soak, you get 'fatigued' for this round and the next. IF suffering a # of fatigue results equal to your stamina rating, you are knocked out. While fatigued, you are penalized -1d PER fatigue point."

Yes, in my house rules, I call it "shaken". I changed the charts to say that.

garhkal wrote:

Pakman wrote:

Characters hindering opponents, social or physically

In what manner for the 'hindering'/?

More fluffy version from my "Core Rules Basics".

Hindering your Foes
Characters have more ways of affecting their adversaries than just combat. From kicking sand in the face, knocking crates in the way, or even a scathing insult or intimidating taunt.

A Hinder action is where a character is attempting to negatively affect their foe, either mentally, physically or otherwise. These are often simple opposed checks, which often have a higher chance of success than a combat-based attack.

Based on the player’s idea, the GM assigns a Skill or Attribute check based on the action, and the Attribute or Skill the target resists with; success can render a foe Distracted or Vulnerable.

Additional Details on using Skills or specific modifiers for various situations are covered in the chapter Attributes and Skills

Full Draft Text from my "The Rules" in my GM section of my house rules document

Hinder Actions

Characters have more ways of affecting their adversaries than just combat. From kicking sand in the face, knocking crates in the way, or even a scathing insult or intimidating taunt.
Quite literally the opposite of an Assist action.
Hinder options include wide ranging concepts from making things physically difficult (knocking boxes in their path, throwing sand in the face, marbles on the floor, etc.) to social or psychological affects (taunting them, embarrassing comments, some sort of castigating insult, etc.).

When attempting a Hinder action the player describes the action and works with the GM to determine the most appropriate skill to use.
Hinder actions are resisted instinctively and do not require a Reaction, and are usually either treated as a Saving Throw vs. a specific Attribute or Skill.
These are often easier than combat attacks, as those usually go up against a dedicated defensive Skill, such as Dodge or Parry, and are typically defended as Saves, and not Resistance rolls, as damage from an attack would be.

If successful, the target is Distracted, which normally lasts until the end of the next round. At a higher measure of success, the instigator of the Hinder, can either upgrade it to a Vulnerable, or extend the effect another round.

Finally, in the Social Confrontation phase when transitioning from scenes to rounds – it is possible for characters to attempt a group hinder – where multiple foes on the opposing side are affected. The GM will determine if each target resists individually, or a group roll etc.

If successful, and combat begins, the affected individuals are either Distracted, or vulnerable, based upon the roll (the gm may decide that vulnerable may not be applicable for all social engagements prior to combat).

Definitions from my Keyword section of my rules;
To define some of the terms used in this post;

Hinder: An action using an opposed check to negatively affect an opponent, either mentally, physically or otherwise. Success can render a foe Distracted or Vulnerable
Distracted: A condition where the character is at -1D to all Attribute and Skill rolls until the end of their next turn.
Measure of Success (MoS): when an action succeeds, the difference between the result and the difficulty is called MoS. Often used to add additional benefits to an action.
Resistance Roll: Avoiding or resisting harmful effects- not modified by multi-action penalties or Conditions.
Saving Throw: Usually when trying to avoid a harmful effect not modified by muti-action penalties, but affected by Condition modifiers.
Skill Check: Using a skill to complete an action; modified by both Multi-action penalties, and Condition modifiers.
Vulnerable: A condition where Actions and Attacks against the target are made at +1D until the end of their next turn

(Hinder is my version of a Test from Savage Worlds - a really good game that I don't like as much as D6, but is very d6 compatible - has a lot of really good ideas in it however).
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon....

garhkal
Sovereign Protector

Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14212
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: WEG Star Wars 3rd Edition?

Whill wrote:

I remind my players that it is always better to not get hit in the first place then to try to survive blaster bolt hits. I give my players an extra 1D for skill dice allocation and only a strong recommendation that they put at least 1D into the dodge skill. Virtually all PCs in my game (except for some that started with a DEX 4D or higher) have started with 1D in the dodge skill. Furthermore, I require all skill dice allocations to be explainable by the PCs background if not obvious by template type, but the first 1D put in the dodge skill is the exception – It can just be thought of as luck (so players aren't "taxed" to explain it). 2D in dodge, then yeah, there has to be a reason in the background for that.

As my signature used to say "Can't hit what you can't see, and you can't dodge it if you don't know it's coming!"..

Whill wrote:

I've also come at this concern from another angle, by making the dodge skill even more valuable in my game than in RAW. For all modes of movement in the game, such as spaceships, vehicles, characters swimming; they all use the same skill for both the movement roll and "dodge" rolls in RAW – except for ground movement by characters on their feet. That is the single case where they split dodging and movement into two separate skills: dodge and running. That makes no sense to me. So I have merged dodge and running into a combo-skill called agility, which also includes catching things and general feats of balance on a surface in the presence of gravity. (Also, the agility skill may also be used to avoid brawling and melee attack types at half the agility roll). Agility is the single most important skill in my game, so I just haven't had the experience of players feeling they are "taxed" by putting a 1D there, to not die.

I think Weg did that, because there was NO sense to splitting the ship 'dodge' and ship 'move' into two separate skills, unlike there was in running vs dodge for characters. Just because you're good at moving, doesn't mean you're going to be good at dodging, Just like if you're good at dodging, doesn't mean you're going to be good at athletic like moving!.
But with the sheer # of ship related skills already there, they felt just combining both move and vehicle/ship dodge into one skill, was better.

Whill wrote:

The problem I see with your idea of making dodge equal to whatever the character's highest DEX skill is that I don't see someone's skill with shooting energy weapons, throwing grenades, or picking pockets determining their ability to dodge range attacks.

Exactly. Just because you are good at tossing a grenade, shooting, or brawling, doesn't mean you are going to be good at AVOIDING incoming damage...

pulphummock wrote:

Hmmm. Maybe 2-3 different skills related to noticing/perception and reactions/speed/reflexes could be substituted for a broader "Dodge" defense, to at least permit character build variety (as long as the substituted skills make sense, of course).

Such as??

Whill wrote:

Mooks tend to have lower skills than PCs, but the ability to resist damage is an attribute, not a skill. Goons can be strong. I removed 'wounded twice' and 'mortally wounded' from the mook damage rules. In my game, If a mook who is wounded is wounded again, they go straight to incapacitated. If a mook is mortally wounded, they are instead just killed. Mooks don't need wounded twice or mortally wounded. I've handled it this way since the late 80s (yes I had wounded twice as a house rule back in 1e, but I only applied it to PCs and important NPCs).

That is an easy rule to get behind.

Kage Ryu wrote:

Sounds like we got a plan then.

whill wrote:

After a medpac has been used successfully, another medpac cannot be used on that character until there is another change in wound status from damage.

That is an easy change..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

DougRed4
Rear Admiral

Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2286
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2023 7:20 pm Post subject:

Not got a chance to read through all of this lengthy (and interesting) thread, but one question I do have so far: I'm not familiar with what ADSA means? I'm pretty sure my Google Fu is not up to the challenge, as I'm feeling it's unlikely that the American Dairy Science Association or the American Dental Society of Anesthesiology is what is being referenced. _________________ Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green

Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)

Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10434
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2023 7:34 pm Post subject:

DougRed4 wrote:

I'm not familiar with what ADSA means?

I'm pretty sure my Google Fu is not up to the challenge, as I'm feeling it's unlikely that the American Dairy Science Association or the American Dental Society of Anesthesiology is what is being referenced. Laughing

ADSA = Advantages, Disadvantages, and Special Abilities

I find a lot of Rancor Pit results on google but this acronym is fairly recent so it may not have hit the algorithm yet. I believe it was just last year that we codified it and put it on the Acronyms, Initialisms and Abbreviations page:

https://rancorpit.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3808
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage

DougRed4
Rear Admiral

Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2286
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2023 5:12 pm Post subject:

Whill wrote:

DougRed4 wrote:

Thank you, sir. I considered searching the REUP to find it.

I completely forgot about the list on this site.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green

davidagnome
Cadet
Cadet

Joined: 07 Oct 2023
Posts: 4

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2023 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: WEG Star Wars 3rd Edition?

pulphummock wrote:

My first post is a hypothetical question: assuming an alternate universe where West End Games still had the license to make the Star Wars RPG, what would a true 3rd edition of the game look like? What changes would you recommend to the 2nd edition Revised & Expanded in order to bring it up to speed to match modern game design principles and truly make it a "new edition"?

Rumor has it there's a condensed or split version coming.

I think a straightforward digest would work great. Segment the books into clear purpose and let the layout and formatting best serving its content.

There's a ton of bloat trying to make a casserole where everyone suggests an ingredient. Someone really wants anchovies. Someone wants blue cheese. That's a challenge to introduce to new people (500 pages?).

Would be cool if someone like Free League picked up the license.

pakman
Commander

Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 441

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2023 4:42 pm Post subject: Re: WEG Star Wars 3rd Edition?

davidagnome wrote:

Rumor has it there's a condensed or split version coming.

I think that is on the new REUP thread - not sure if we need a split or not - and it all depends on WHAT exactly is split.

davidagnome wrote:

There's a ton of bloat trying to make a casserole where everyone suggests an ingredient. Someone really wants anchovies. Someone wants blue cheese. That's a challenge to introduce to new people (500 pages?).

I agree - I am in the middle of a MASSIVE house rules overhaul - and am just now calling it a new edition (long story short - my house rules document was getting too big - and I did not want my players to have to flip back and forth). My goal is 250 pages or less. My current draft is 217 pages, with 70% of the content done - and 110 pages complete. So....we will see.

davidagnome wrote:

Would be cool if someone like Free League picked up the license.

I am taking a slightly different take ...but...some of the overall goals feel very similar to what you mention.

Pak's New Edition...
Core rules with everything needed to run a game - 250 pages.
A few details...

I won't be listing out hundreds of ships, equipment etc.
Gear: I will be listing basic types - "blaster pistol", "Carbine" etc.
Then have rules for the game to make variants. Gear, weapons, ships etc have "keywords" which support variants.

If a player wants a cool looking blaster - they have it - if they want different stats - they buy a variant (or tinker one...).

Ships - I won't have every ship - just some classes - interceptor, Fighter, Bomber, Light Freighter, Scout Vessel etc.
Then with rule variants - and core classical examples.
A wing, Tie Fighter, Xwing etc.
(example - Xwing is a Fighter with a "Heavy", "missiles" & Hyperdrive drive upgrades. A tie is a Fighter with a "Light", "no Shields", "no droid/copilot" The "light reduces hull, but increases dodge, etc. Heavy adds a D to hull, but reduces manuverablity - unless you add "drive upgrade" etc.

Fluff and lore and planets and species.
Again, a few species - with common rules on baselines.
A list of "based on lore - can adjust stats - but must always balance out for PC species" and a list of special abilities (aquatic) and balancing drawbacks etc. Don't need 100 species with all their lore - players can look that up, and ask the GM - "how would I build an Defel or whatever".

Planets - Will have list of planet types and characteristics - trade, atmosphere, suggested law levels, etc. And maybe a list of a couple - but again, tons of other resources out there.

Time Periods and ERAs - will have list on playing in different ears - but there is more for campaign planning and story factors. With some key campaign notes for each eara. But no, don't need 20 pages on the history of the jedi or the rebellion - tons of other sources for that.

GM Section - there will be a GM section, tied to the ERA (see above), adventures (see below), how to balance encounters etc. It will also cover a "session zero" but one that is focused more to Star Wars questions and topics to decide BEFORE starting the campaign etc. - and introduce the topic for external resources for more game agnostic topics.

Adventure game - I really thought a lot about this one, but don't have an intro adventure for various reasons. There WILL be a "suggested adventures" section - and guidelines for converting other systems (from d20, FFG, even DND).

Anyway - getting off track here - but I do agree on the "don't want a huge book" and this is my approach - a lot of it is cutting fluff (my pages on force traditions and jedi is like 3 pages total). This was not ment to be a description of my edition (except where I thought relevant to your points)

My players have been playtesting it for a while - and so far, so good....(with some minor tweaks - but they are waiting for me to finish advanced skills and spaceship combat..... sigh).

A lot of my content, I have bounced off various folks here (not just house rules - bet even book organization and content) and other social mediums for well over a year. VERY SOON (tm) I am going to open it up more for wider input, playtesting etc.

Seeing our post on another thread about graphic design - I am sure I will be reaching out for input or help!!!
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon....

Display posts from previous:

	The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Star Wars Games	All times are GMT - 4 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum