[RPG]: Sci-Fi Week: Star Wars The Roleplaying Game - Saga Edition, reviewed by Andrew Montgomery (4/4)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13130.phtml

Andrew Montgomery's Summary:

For Wizards of the Coast's Star Wars RPG, the third time is the charm. The new Saga edition is a tremendous improvement over its two d20 predecessors.

Go to the full review for more information.

[buzz]

General comment:

I'd suggest one avoid sweeping comments about game design in general ("D&D is far more complicated than most RPGs"), and Star Wars fans in general ("They didn't like d20 Star Wars"), and stick to reviewing the product at hand.

I'd also maybe refrain from basing one of your signature criticisms on the use of minis in the game when the RPG you seem to be using as a metric, Savage Worlds, is an RPG specifically designed to use minis. (And that does not represent the kind of design used in most of the hobby's most popular RPGs.)

I make these comments because, despite your actual review being pretty good, you spend about half the review talking about other things that I, at least, disagree with vehemently. This, in turn, really sours me on your review.

[Particle_Man]

Dark Side notice: You flip to the dark side when you have dark side points that equal (not exceed) your wisdom score. You can't get more dark side points than your wisdom score. Also, your character becomes an NPC.

[Spectral Knight]

Originally Posted by buzz

I'd suggest one avoid sweeping comments about game design in general ("D&D is far more complicated than most RPGs"), and Star Wars fans in general ("They didn't like d20 Star Wars"), and stick to reviewing the product at hand.

I'd have to agree with the reviewer here, as quite a few fans of the Star Wars serial (and many fans of the original RPG) disliked the game, enough that many fan conversions to other game systems cropped up, including Savage Worlds. I personally don't play any of said fan conversions (I have the original Star Wars RPG for SW gaming goodness, with time-honored adjustments), but when one sees such sites popping up all over the place, an observant fellow like myself starts thinking that they may have a valid reason to complain. That, and the fact that D&D is a complicated, nitpicky system, seemingly for no reason other than to be a complicated, nitpicky system. Which is no criticism of complicated, nitpicky systems, if that's what you enjoy playing, but I don't. Apparently, neither did quite a few Star Wars fans.

And frankly, I played both of the first two editions of SWd20. Death Stars & Droids, anyone? If you like your space opera burdened with heavy wargaming trappings to little useful purpose, this is your game. At least the second edition fixed that godawful starship combat system!

Then again, many might have left the SWd20 bandwagon once WotC started using the RPG license as just another collectible game cash cow. This is the first new Star Wars roleplaying book in over two years. And from my own playtests, I have to say that it is the only one of the three that manages a respectable Star Wars feel. Nice work, guys! My days of thinking your work is overcomplicated and unimaginative are definitely coming to a middle.

Originally Posted by buzz

I'd also maybe refrain from basing one of your signature criticisms on the use of minis in the game when the RPG you seem to be using as a metric, Savage Worlds, is an RPG specifically designed to use minis. (And that does not represent the kind of design used in most of the hobby's most popular RPGs.)

Valid point, but Savage Worlds was created from a wargame (sound familiar?), and for what it is works quite well for roleplaying. D&D shares similar origins, though TSR's idea of making a minis game fit for roleplaying was to complicate it terribly with details. WotC simplified the basic system and modified a resolution system borrowed from several other published games (frankly, that they accomplished that and unified it with the rest of the game was quite a feat of gamecraft, even if the resolution mechanic wasn't entirely original), but did little else to ease the complication. Savage Worlds, on the other hand, started with a simple system and added only enough to make characters distinct. I don't play Savage Worlds regularly (three convention games is about it), but I have to say I like that approach more. The fact that you're paying $60 less for a basic system that handles combat and everything else quickly and easily doesn't hurt, either.

[buzz]

Originally Posted by Spectral Knight

I'd have to agree with the reviewer here, as...

We could easily derail the thread arguing about the points you're making, but my main thrust is that this stuff is fine for the forums, but it's out of place in a review. Honestly, I was so put off by the review by the time it actually started talking about the product, that it took effort to even keep skimming.

I don't want to hear about why the reviewer thinks minis are evil with some RPGs and not with others, how WotC is an Evil Corporate Machine, what they know about other people's tastes, or why D&D sucks. I just want to know about the product, whether the reviewer actually played it, and what their assessment is. I don't enjoy reviews that serve mainly as a platform for general commentary on the hobby.

[Zinoviev Letter]

Originally Posted by buzz

General comment:

I'd suggest one avoid sweeping comments about game design in general ("D&D is far more complicated than most RPGs"), and Star Wars fans in general ("They didn't like d20 Star Wars"), and stick to reviewing the product at hand.

I don't see much validity in this for a couple of reasons:

1) The reviewer was comparing this version of Star Wars to previous Star Wars RPGs. One of the key things differentiating the SAGA edition from previous D20 efforts is precisely that it is relatively stripped down. That's one of its main selling points and it would be a pretty odd if someone wrote a review that didn't cover it.

2) This is a wider point, but I really can't understand why something which seems to me to be a statement of fact - that D&D is more complicated than most other modern RPGs - should be seen as at all controversial. D&D is more complicated in its rule structure than most of the second tier games in terms of player base (D&D of course occupies the player base top tier all by itself). Look at Call of Cthulhu or WFRP or even the Storyteller games by comparison. And that's without going near really simple systems.

Saying D&D is terrible because it is complicated is an expression of opinion and one which I would expect to be controversial. Saying that it is more complicated than most other modern games is a statement of the obvious. A game with more complex rules may be exactly what someone wants, either generally or for a specific purpose. If, for instance, small scale tactical combat in a fantasy setting is your thing, then I don't think many games can compete with D&D.

By the way, I don't really agree with the idea that reviewers shouldn't make wider points about the hobby when covering a particular product. It gives everyone an idea of where the reviewer is coming from, what they want the product to do and therefore why they liked it or didn't like it. Reviewers wider opinions on gaming are always going to shape their reviews, and I don't think it's a bad thing to make those opinions explicit. If for instance someone explains that they like a product because it is so unlike a supposedly flawed, hideous game which you don't think is flawed or hideous at all... well isn't that of more use to you than a blander comment along the lines of "this is great"? Even if it irritates you to read a comment you disagree with.

[Spectral Knight]

Nice review, all told. Just a few sidenotes from a fellow veteran of Star Wars gaming...

This having been said, the original d20 Star Wars probably could have worked if Wizards had only been willing to do what Cthulhu and Buffy did—strip down and rebuild the parent system. But clearly, they were not taking any chances. As a result, the first set of d20 Star Wars rules felt less like Star Wars and more like, to paraphrase the Muppet Show, “D&D IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE!” And whatever your feelings about 3rd Edition D&D may be, it is a far more rules heavy and bulky system than most modern RPGs. I’m not talking about the core mechanic—the d20 + modifier roll—but rather the classes, the levels, the Feats, Skills, class abilities, etc, etc, etc. 30 years ago, all that was the pinnacle of game design, but in an era of games like Savage Worlds, it seems curiously weighted down. Now, before you get all Johnny Storm on me and “flame on,” let me state that all this works fine—indeed, it’s even necessary—for d20 D&D. After all, though Wizards changed the core mechanic of the grand old game, they still wanted to maintain continuity with the old system. But the mistake they have made in their other d20 games, like Call of Cthulhu and Star Wars, was to assume that the old D&D holdovers needed to be included part and parcel with every d20 game. Thus in Cthulhu, a genre in which the protagonists are supposed to continually degenerate into horror and madness, they are gaining hit points instead. And in Star Wars, known for it’s fast and furious combat, gamers found themselves bogged down in issues of line-of-sight, attacks of opportunity, et al. By contrast other companies, such as Green Ronin, have demonstrated that the core d20 system can be stripped down and modified to suit other genres. It just seemed Wizards was unwilling to do so.

While I agree with you that D&D is needlessly complicated, I think it was more that WotC had only just put the game system itself out and was still plumbing the depths of its strengths and weaknesses. Not being terribly sure how well modifying this behemoth of rules would work, they went the path of least danger. Well, we all saw how well that worked (Death Stars & Droids for two whole editions), but I don't think it was a malicious design decision, just a necessary one at the time.

Sadly, iterative attacks are gone, but the real crippler of combat speed and necessitator of minis, the Attack of Opportunity, remains. Fortunately, it is easily houseruled out. The game doesn't need it.

2. Here is change from previous editions. There are now 5 classes rather than 9. This is more a bit of streamlining, and readjusting to the new movies, than anything else. For example, the two previous Jedi classes gave the impression that one kind of Jedi went around kicking butt and taking names while the other sat around communing with the Force and giving advice. But since Episodes II and III clearly demonstrated Yoda’s ability to do both, the separate classes didn’t make much sense. The new classes are Jedi, Noble, Scoundrel, Scout, and Soldier. Instead of being a Fringer in Episode IV, Luke would now be a Scout. 3. Now, classes all have “Talent Trees,” (a la d20 Modern) groups of abilities you can select while belonging to the class, which differentiate one class character from another. Scoundrels, for example, can follow the Fortune path (emphasizing Gamblers), the Misfortune path (assassins and bad guys), Slicers (holonet hackers) or Spacers (pilots and travelers). You don’t have to stick to one path, so you can customize your character as you go. This allows players to have their cake and eat it too; the archetypical class gives you a general idea of who your character is, while the talent trees allow you to craft exactly what you want.

The Class and Talent system still has holes, and apparently WotC isn't blind to this fact. On the web page for the Wizards' Star Wars game, you'll find another class they've recently added to address the issue of technical prowess in the game. Okay, so it's a revamped Tech Whiz... the game does need it. Hopefully more additions to the Talent system will be forthcoming as fans find more holes. Playtesting will show that they are there.

4. Skills have been changed. Now, each class gives you a base number of “Trained Skills” which you pick from a skill list and add +5 to (Jedi get 2 + their INT modifer, while Nobles get 6 + INT modifer). The +5 bonus is on top of the appropriate ability modifier. Some skills, naturally, can only be used trained. The upshot of all this is that you’ve either been trained in a skill or not. If you haven’t, you need to rely on your natural talents (ability modifiers). If you have, you get a bonus to the roll. It’s fast, clean, and simple. In addition, the skill list has also been condensed and simplified.

Untrained Skills are rated by Attribute Modifier (Why do they still use separate attribute scores?) + 1/2 Character Level, rounded down. Trained Skills, as you mention, get a +5 bonus. You can further add to this with a feat, which gives you another +5.

Just a small nitpick, but I think the readers will appreciate the knowledge. It's one of the reasons the trained skill system works at all. The previous idea of this, in Unearthed Arcana, was horrible as published. You either knew nothing at all about a skill, or you were an expert, and the difference between the two was only a level taken in a different class! It's nice to see someone found a way to make it work.

9. Characters may also have a Destiny. Depending on the campaign the GM may chose this for you, or let the players chose it for themselves. Corruption, Destruction, Discovery, Education, Redemption, and Rescue are all given as example Destinies. Palpatine’s Destiny may have been to Corrupt Anakin Skywalker, the Republic, or both. Anakin’s might have been Redemption, by way of killing the Emperor. Having a Destiny comes with Destiny points (you earn one every level, and unlike Force points they do add up). They operate like very strong Force points. For example, a Force point might by you a bonus of +1d6 on a combat roll, while a Destiny point would buy you an automatic Critical Hit. Destiny Points need to be spent furthering your Destiny in some way, however. In addition, doing something that significantly furthers your Destiny gives you a benefit of some kind, while significant failure nets you a penalty. Another very cool touch is that character death doesn’t necessarily stand in the way of a Destiny…especially for Jedi. Obi Wan’s Destiny was to Educate Luke. Though he died before it could be fulfilled, he became a Force Spirit to continue pursuing it. All the Destiny rules are optional, but they are a nice touch, and in my opinion, the most original contribution this game makes to RPGs at large.

Nice touch, definitely, but it really adds very little to the game itself. Check out the bonuses and penalties for Destinies to see what I mean. I think I'll be borrowing the Passions mechanics from The Riddle Of Steel and Lace & Steel to cobble together something more satisfying.

10. The previous editions measured damage with Wound points (equal to CON) and Vitality Points, which increased each level. Vitality Points could be lost without serious impairment. This has all bee scrapped in favor of the more standard Hit Points mechanic, but there are some serious innovations here as well. For starters, heroic characters start the game with Hit Points equal to 3 x their class Hit Die, + a CON modifier. Thus, Jedi (with a d10 Hit Point gain each level) start with a base of 30 points, while a Scout (with a d8 gain) begins with 24. Note that non-heroic characters (see below) only get 1d4 + CON modifier each level, making them canon fodder even for 1st level heroes. I like this. It is very Star Wars. However, to make Hit Points more “realistic,” Wizards has added a few twists. Specifically, heroic characters now have a Damage Threshold and a Condition Track to monitor their state of being. Damage Threshold is equal to your Fortitude Defense (characters larger than humans receive a size bonus). The Condition Track registers 5 levels of increasing disability; -1, -2, -5, -10, and Helpless. Any time you receive a single blow that inflicts more damage than your Damage Threshold, you move down 1 step on the Condition Track. This means that light wounds and scrapes lower hit points, but don’t disable you (you’re a Hero, after all). Only the really big hits matter. In addition, to die, you need to receive a blow that exceeds your Damage Threshold and lowers you below 0. Simply going below 0 will render you unconscious, not dead. Conditions are also inflicted by environmental hazards and failed Fortitude Defense rolls. 11. Combat holds no surprises for d20 players, but players of the previous edition will note that Saving Throws have been renamed “Defenses”, and now play a larger roll. This is particularly true of the Reflex Defense, which is now the “Armor Class/Defense” score of D&D/previous Star Wars editions. To attack you, opponents need to overcome your Reflex Defense, and in the same way you can use this attribute to get out of the way of other physical threats, making it useful in an out of combat. Another change to combat is that in previous editions, as characters increased in levels they gained the ability to make multiple attacks each round. That has changed. Now you must take special Feats to allow Double or Triple attacks in a single round. To make up for this a little, all characters now receive a damage bonus equal to 1/2 their level to each successful attack. Thus, a 6th Level character would add +3 to all damage rolls, while a 14th level character would add +7.

The Conditions system is honestly a tack-on, and not a well thought-out one at that. At low levels, you're more likely to die than to suffer more than one Condition level of damage. At higher levels, you're still more likely to die before you suffer more than two or three. Even if you do, it feels more like a failed way to capture that "one-shot, one-kill" spirit of Star Wars combat than a real fix for the slowness of hit point systems. Fights do take less time than before, but not because of Conditions.

On the NPC side of things, the same holds true: they're far more likely to be whittled down at high levels and simply killed at low levels. For example, the basic Battle Droid has 10 hit points. Its Damage Threshold is 11! So it'll literally be scrap metal instead of ever being impaired. There are other examples of this, but I don't have my book close to hand. And I've been working all night, so I'm not going to go get it.

The Vitality system is easily enough used, for those who prefer it.

15. Finally, there is a single class to represent non-sentient life forms and another to represent “non-heroic” characters. Non-heroic characters don’t get Talents, or Force Points. They simply have skills, a few Feats, and a lot fewer hit points. What this means is that a 1st level PC should have little trouble taking down a 4th level Stormtrooper, which really is as it should be. Creatures get 1d8 hit points for level, modified by size.

GMs, be prepared to learn a whole new challenge scale for this one. It takes practice to get it right, because the heroic classes and the NPC classes aren't created on the same scale. But NPC classes can still be formidable combatants by skills and combat ratings alone, so PCs in a fight that was intended to be a blow-by might end up fairly seriously wounded if there are a lot of capable opponents, no matter how few hit points those opponents have. A blaster shot hurts in this game, so take care what you send at your players!

From the Author’s Introduction
“ After the successful launch of the (Wizards of the Coast Star Wars) miniatures line, we knew that we wanted a roleplaying game book that embraced our pre-painted plastic miniatures—over 500 of them and counting. And what a great way to give Star Wars Miniature Game players another way to use their miniatures!” - page 5
Or
From the Gamemaster Accessories Sidebar
“…the rules in this book assume that you are using Star Wars miniatures—attractive, pre-painted plastic figures that can be used to represent heroes and adversaries in the game.” - page 240
That last paragraph continues singing the praises of miniatures, before the rest of the side bar explains why you also want Battle Maps and Galaxy Tiles (also from Wizards of the Coast).
Hmmm. As Buffy Summers might ponder, “commercial me much?”
In Saga, all character, creature, and vehicle rates are given in “squares,” and the illustrations in the combat section all show those “attractive, pre-painted figures.” True, a GM could comb through the rules and edit miniatures out, but it might be easier to just chuck the book and reach for another system if you’re not the miniatures type.

Hey, they've got to sell that collectible minis money pit somehow!

For anyone who either isn't interested (like me), or can't afford the minis (also like me), squares are two meters on a side, according to what little of the minis game I've previously bought. Other rates of movement are easily converted by using this as a guideline. From what I've seen, it may not even be hard to convert vehicles and ships from earlier editions, or even Starships of the Galaxy.

But all in all, a nice review for a serious improvement over the previous WotC editions. The days of Death Stars & Droids are gone, hopefully for good, and the game is already getting support. WEG's Star Wars RPG has been without a worthy successor since they lost the license. We'll soon see if this is it, but it's the closest the official published works have ever gotten to getting the feel of the game right. Hopefully they'll keep getting it right.

[Particle_Man]

Originally Posted by Spectral Knight

For anyone who either isn't interested (like me), or can't afford the minis (also like me), squares are two meters on a side, according to what little of the minis game I've previously bought.

Star Wars is different: 1.5 m per side.

[Spectral Knight]

Originally Posted by buzz

We could easily derail the thread arguing about the points you're making...

Nope. We could simply agree to disagree. You like D&D (obviously, since you're running it), I think it's a pain in the ass, and I seriously doubt either of us will change the other's mind. Since my points stem from this dislike as much as from facts, as does your dislike of the review, no point in either of us wasting our time.

And not understanding the main thrust of your post is not why I wrote mine. I got it. I just felt free to disagree.

Originally Posted by buzz

Honestly, I was so put off by the review by the time it actually started talking about the product, that it took effort to even keep skimming.

I don't want to hear about why the reviewer thinks minis are evil with some RPGs and not with others, how WotC is an Evil Corporate Machine, what they know about other people's tastes, or why D&D sucks.

Some people like that style of review. Besides, it's not a personal attack on you or your favorite game company, Buzz. But frankly, that kind of commentary's gonna happen: Wizards is the biggest game company out there. They do lots of heavy systems work, but they can't write an original setting (no, Eberron does NOT count, as it was solicited from someone else), and their two biggest licenses are currently being used as collectible money trees; just look at the starting prices for that SW starship combat game! They have the current most popular system out there for better or for worse... you get my point. d20 has been a public character for about eight years now. Some like it hot, some like it cold... and some just wish the cook would fix something besides rat soup. Or that they'd at least use a different rat.

Originally Posted by buzz

I just want to know about the product, whether the reviewer actually played it, and what their assessment is.

The reviewer gives no indication of having played the game. As for the product and assessment, you get all of that from the review. The commentary is just an added bonus... or penalty, as you see it. If you feel strongly enough that space devoted to it is wasted, I don't doubt RPGnet would be glad to get a review from you on this game. For which you may get disagreeing posts of your own. That's what these forums are for. But there's no point in commenting on others' opinions simply to be doing so. It's a REVIEW... it's all about the opinion.

[Spectral Knight]

Originally Posted by Particle_Man

Star Wars is different: 1.5 m per side.

Whoops-a-doodle! My mistake. I can tell I really don't play the minis game.

That would round out to about 5 feet. It might actually be easier to convert to feet and work from that, then.