I am now officially in love with SW Saga Edition, although I’m not surprised that I would be. I’ve always heard about what a great system it is, how great it runs, and how it served as a sort of pre-4e testing ground of sorts. Well after fully reading it and running it, I can say without hesitation that it is the only version of SW I’ll play again, which means that D6, it’s time for bed. Good night my dear old friend, catch you on the flip side.
There are so many things we loved about the system, but one of the ones that stuck out the most for us was the lack of condition tracking during fights. For almost 2 years under 4e we’ve had to learn to keep track of who is dazed, who is slowed, who is this and who is that. This led to experimenting with many different ways to attempt condition tracking: cards, tokens, magnets, paper, until finally I settled on a program on my laptop that I’ll keep until I stop running 4e. SW Saga, if you aren’t familiar with it, has a very elegant mechanic called the “condition track”, which is a 5 step track of minuses applied to rolls and defenses ending in falling unconscious. (Now, not every attack causes conditions, only certain ones, so this isn’t something you’d be constantly turning to in the game. Keep that fully in mind. I don’t think it came up once in ours.) To climb steps in the condition track, and get back to the top, you have to spend 3 swift actions, SW’s version of a minor action. You can split these up into different rounds, 2 now, and 1 next round for example.
This led us to think about conditions in D&D, and when compared to the speed of fights in SW, some of my players thought that conditions slowed down play. I’m not so sure if that’s correct, but what I am sure of is that not having to track conditions makes my job a lot more fun as a DM than having to. The way I see the SW Saga condition track, it is an abstraction of being hurt, rather than being a simulation of being blind and deafened, for example. So where am I going with this? Well, I started thinking of the SW condition track if applied to D&D.
Here are the D&D conditions:
- Blinded
- Deaf
- Dazed
- Dominated
- Dying
- Helpless
- Immobilized
- Marked
- Petrified
- Prone
- Restrained
- Slowed
- Stunned
- Surprised
- Weakened
- Unconscious
Now to put this post in context, I have to show you the condition track steps for SW Saga, in case you are not familiar with the system.
- Normal State
- -1 step on track: -1 penalty to defenses, attack rolls, ability and skill checks.
- further -1 step down the track: -2 penalty to defenses, attack rolls, ability and skill checks.
- further -1 step down the track: -5 penalty to defenses, attack rolls, ability and skill checks.
- further -1 step down the track: Move at half speed; -10 penalty to defenses, attack rolls, ability and skill checks.
- further -1 step down the track: Helpless (unconscious or disabled)
Remember, 3 swift actions allow you to move a step up the track to improve your condition. So in one round you can move up a step if it’s all you do that round.
So the idea here, it’s my assumption, that SW track serves as an abstract representation of injuries and conditions, while D&D takes a more “simulation” approach to combat and conditions. Not a bad thing, but two very different ways of looking at a fight, and managing the bookkeeping of an encounter.
So the question I ask, and I don’t have the answers because I don’t have experience in game design or in reverse engineering games is, can certain conditions in D&D be abstracted to the point that SW Saga has done it?
There are certain conditions I would keep as-is in D&D. For example, Prone, Dominated, Petrified and Restrained are very specific things that can occur and add flavor. A medusa will petrify you, and that’s that. But blind and deaf? I’m not so sure a few minuses can’t stand in for that instead. Dazed and Stunned aren’t fun conditions, at least I really haven’t found them to be. Couldn’t those be bundled into the bottom of the condition track instead?
Of course, with these changes, come bigger issues. Monster and PC powers cause conditions, you’d have to have powers cause “-1 step on the condition track” instead.
I’m a big fan of abstraction. I am also a big fan of not assuming that what is happening in a combat round is exactly *that* one hit you are hitting with. Meaning that it could be a few blaster bolts that are flying. You aren’t just pulling the trigger once, but rather the die roll represents a few shots or a few swings of the sword. But I digress, that’s a blog post for another time.
I’d like to see someone take a swipe at something like this for D&D. I don’t think I could, simply by not really having much experience with SW, (I’ve only ran it once!) and not being a good inner workings guy, but I do think the idea is not bad. So what do you all think? Are conditions in D&D that much of a slow down at your table? Long time Saga players, any thoughts?
Aaron
April 22, 2010
I think ultimately it just trades one type of tracking for another and won’t necessarily speed things up. I’ve put some long time into SWSE as a player and I don’t think that it honestly came out much different in terms of time than my D&D4e time in terms of tracking conditions. Once you have a character hit about level 3 on the condition monitor, they’re having to spend actions just to get into position so that they have a chance to succeed at something. That slows down combat at least some and negates any faster play that was gained from abstracting in the first place.
dreadgazebo
April 22, 2010
I think maybe wait for the ‘honeymoon’ period of running SW is over before you finalize the judgment about how great it is before you go implementing something into D&D. It could funkify PC/Monster mechanics among other things.
I do agree though, something really should be done to speed up 4e combat, and as far as condition tracking goes, I hand out all our markers to my players too and they aid in marking/unmarking conditions as the game progresses. They all want to play fair and have a good time so they help out which I find immensely helpful.
Lately to speed combat, towards the end of an encounter, when they vastly outnumber of overpower the remaining monsters I just wrap up combat via story in order to progress things, it almost makes me feel dirty in some odd way but it works. I hope this method doesn’t take away from the combat aspect of the game but it sure as hell helps speed things along.
newbiedm
April 22, 2010
@dreadgazebo: I know what you mean about the honeymoon period. But I must say that it did feel faster even vs. 1st lvl D&D. And yes, I also handwave the end of D&D combats because at some point, it becomes obviosu that the PC’s are going to win it, so why draw it out?
Chuck Benscoter
April 22, 2010
May I offer an alternative thought.
My group had found condition tracking to be a royal pain. We tried a track, tokens, rubber bands, magnets, you name it. I finally settled on having a player manage conditions using home made tokens but it still was painful.
WARNING Product plug here. And no I don’t work for them, these things are just fantastic.
In my group we are using Action Stands from Dark-Platypus.
http://www.dark-platypus.com/action_stands.htm#action%20stands
If you have not used these they are perfect for this situation. They function as a tracking system that you are talking about here, but they are on the map and visible to all. The also do double duty for initiative too.
One of my players places and removes the condition flags for any affected combatant. All you have to do is take one look at the action stand of a combatant to see what is going on with them. A simple ‘cheat-sheet’ with a summary of the combat affects allows both myself and the players to determine what is the condition of ‘X’ combatant at a glance. This has greatly reduced the time needed for combat. We also have another player manage initiative tracking using these stands, but that is another subject.
Sorry about the plug, but these saved us a huge hassle with out re-writing the game mechanics at all.
McLuvinz
April 22, 2010
My group also uses the action stands from dark platypus and they make it easy to remember, and obvious what’s on you at all times. You still need to keep track of when conditions end, however, but there’s only 3 ending conditions start of next turn, end of next turn, and save.
Players just need to know the condition and some shorthand for the ending criteria (me-SoT, skeleton-E0T, or SV). Then do a fast mental checklist at the start and end of turns for SoT and EoT effects to remove.
People probably wont like this comment, but it helps to think of 4E combat as Magic the Gathering. On your turn there’s a bunch of steps to walk through (untap, upkeep, draw, declare attackers, declare defenders, assess damage, end combat, end main phase, clean up). Seems like a lot, but since it’s a formal order eventually it becomes second nature and magic games can play very quickly.
D&D has the same structure. Start of turn, end effects, regen, ongoing damage, main turn standard/move/minor, end of turn, end effects, saving throws, etc. If you write one of the 3 ending conditions with the condition, you just learn to look for them and they can pop on and off of players without slowing anything down.
Greg White
April 22, 2010
hey there newbie,
would love to hear your opinion about the overhead of ‘monster’ management with SWSE. the monster stat blocks of 4e are so great i worry about the SWSE talents requiring either a lot of page flipping or excessive prep work
newbiedm
April 22, 2010
@greg: Yesterday was the first time I ran Saga. The stat blocks are obviously different from 4e, but they were fairly simple to read.
The attacks available are clearly labeled, the attack bonus and damage is easily found.
I had no issues with page flipping or with reading the stat block. The caveat being that I was running a 1st level adventure. I don’t know what to expect later on….
Jeremy Patrick
April 23, 2010
I’ve been running Saga since it first came out and I have very mixed feelings about it. Like you, I really like the elegance of the condition track and there’s some other nice things (starship combat is quite intuitively linked to normal combat, the books are quite good, etc.). Unfortunately, my gaming group and many others have found the system tends to break down around level 13 or so–characters tend to get extraordinarily high Reflex defenses that no sane NPCs can hit, characters at even lower levels can get unbelievable modifiers to their favorite skills through Skill Training and Skill Focus (e.g., a Level 1 Jedi with a good Charisma could easily have a +13 to Use the Force, which no character’s Fort or Will defence of that level could possible stand up to), etc.
So I wouldn’t get rid of any of your books from older systems until you’ve played through at least one long-term campaign to ensure it really is as good as you think it is now.
Greymarch
April 25, 2010
newbiedm, you are aware that WOTC has dropped the Star Wars Saga RPG? The Star Wars d20 game is now a dead game. Three different times WOTC created a d20 Star Wars game, and none of the three versions sold well enough to keep it going.
newbiedm
April 25, 2010
I am well aware of it. But there are plenty of books to make it last a long time. My d6 books are still on my shelf and have seen lots of action since the games “death”. Support from wotc doesnt mean much to me 🙂
Mike
April 26, 2010
I wouldn’t port SWSE over to 4e. The simplified conditions work well for the blaster-centric combat of SWSE, but the various conditions in 4e seem to be better suited to magical/melee combat.
Anothergreg
April 27, 2010
I played SWSE for a while and I like the system better than 4ed for a lot of things, but I have to say it really doesn’t keep that Star Wars “feel” very long. The whole levels things just doesn’t do SW justice and the Force abilities are just too spell like. Jedi’s eventually become super Wizards with swords and all the rest of the classes end up being ungodly powerful as well. The books look great, the info in them is great, and the system is pretty good, it just isn’t that good for SW. Plus it’s so tied to the minis and a grid that combats just become a bland tactical boardgame.
Star Wars was never really about being super powerful or being limited by a grid, at least for me. It was about being great at somethings for sure, but mostly about being heroic and the Force was a fluid open ended, poorly defined power. WEG 2nd Rev. and the info and adventure supplements really had it down. They had the “feel” of SW. It got a bit muddled with some the added and converted (from d20) Force Powers and the overly complex lightsaber combat supplement, but over all the D6 system itself really fit the SW universe.
So, if your having good time with it I’m happy for you, because thats what it’s all about really. I gave it up though, because it just didn’t do it for me.
Kenneth Newquist
April 28, 2010
I’ve been running Star Wars: Saga Edition for a year and half, accounting for something like 40+ game sessions. Our PCs just hit level 8, and overall I’ve found combats run a lot smoother and faster than 3E and 4E, mostly because of all those conditional modifiers that have been thrown out the airlock.
I don’t miss tracking things like “daze” or “sickened” or all the other states that 3E/4E maintain — while I think there are some that might be appropriate as results from magical attacks (e.g. slowed, petrified, etc) I think you could replace half the existing conditions from 3E/4E with a flat -2 penalty and be done with it. That’s actually what I did when I ran a recent 3E The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, and it helped considerably.
I think 3E is worse in this regard than 4E, because 4E has fewer conditions that cause you to miss combat turns outright and at this point anything that would normally disable a character for around (like nauseated) I replaced with a simple -4 penalty.
We also ran a 4E one-shot recently, and I agree that it ran better once you switched to more of a “Magic the Gathering” mindset — unlike our first 4E run through, where we treated our characters as traditional D&D characters, the second time through everyone had power cards, and people were playing from their “hands”. It was much more efficient. Condition tracking was less of an issue in the one-shot, perhaps because we were fighting elementals and giants, which had fewer condition-imposing powers. We also had fewer classes with mark mechanics.
As far as Saga Edition’s condition track goes, the thing I like best about it is that it provides you with an alternative to hit points for taking down a character. There are a number of Force powers and talents that allow you to knock someone down the condition track two or more notches at a time. It can really shift the course of the battle, and allows you to introduce some of those dramatic “will they escape!?” moments without killing the heroes outright. IMHO Hitting higher level PCs is only a problem if your mooks aren’t using tactics. I typically have mine use aid another actions to help each other or their leader, but honestly, it doesn’t bother me that much. Stormtroopers have a hard time standing up to your average hero in the movie as well and I’d rather have the part blast through the encounter than get into the sort of slugfests we see at the end of most 4E fights. Actually, I don’t think we’ve had a single “slugfest” in the time we’ve been playing Saga.
Force powers and skills have worked well in my game — yes, they can be powerful, but at least at my table they’ve matched the cinematic feel we’re going for in Star Wars. It may help that we’re playing in the Knights of the Old Republic era, and we have the video games as one of our primary frames of reference, but IMHO we do work hard to make sure things have a cinematic feel to them. The high skill bonuses can take some getting used to, but I think they feed into the idea that these are heroes, they *should* be good at what they do. I make extensive use of Skill Challenges in Star Wars, and I’ve found the DC charts from Scum & Villainy (reprinted in Galaxy at War and Galaxy of Intrigue as well) worked well for those purposes. That said, we’re just now heading into higher levels, so we’ll see how things hold up.
My biggest problem with the prepared statbocks is that the talents and feats don’t have any page numbers associated with them, so you do need to do a bit of research before a game to make sure you know what they all do (as opposed to 4E, which is far, far easier on the GM). That said, my game prep time in Star Wars is considerably less than it was for 3E, and maybe 30 minutes more than what I was spending on 4E.
We’ll see how things hold up going forward. We’re about to jump the campaign ahead to 10th level, and once that happens we may leave the sweet spot of lower-level combat and we may start to see some of the problems that others have mentioned. I suspect it will still run better than high level 3E, if for no other reason than iterative attacks are gone. 🙂
Alphastream
May 10, 2011
I have issues with a number of ways you can cause the condition track to be an auto-kill or auto-incapacitate. PCs can especially come up with builds (let alone team builds) that make a mockery of the condition track. Thankfully, my groups have not cared to do that… they note it and make a different choice for the fun of the game.
In general I find SWSE to be fun but to be in between editions. SWSE is to 4E what Alternity was to 3E. both fine settings and alternate rules but when I look back at them I see why we have moved on. SWSE tries to do several things halfway (such as removing 3Es full attack actions) but doesn’t do so as well as 4E. The rules are often not thought through well enough to remove cheese. Jedi builds are still way too ahead of others, in general.
Don’t get me wrong. I’ll play SWSE any time just for the fun of it. But I would not port another game to the SWSE rules.