Donovan Morningfire said:

No, it's not novel.  You've been telling me I shouldn't read/post/comment on these forums for practically as long as I've been posting, so you telling me I shouldn't play the game either isn't exactly a fresh idea.  

Futher, you don't know me or my players so saying the game isn't for us seems presumptuous.  We like the game and enjoy playing it.  

We also understand its appropriate to critically discuss games and media we like, especially with the creators.  In fact, its neccesary since critical challenge is how media gets moved foward.  If you think that there's no room for improvement, and that EotE as it stands is simply the perfect game, then that's great.  But other people who like the game but have questions about how it works or see problems with it shouldn't be told to shove off and not to play the game.

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Little, I love WFRPG and X-Wing.  In the general sense, I appreciate designers writing about their designs, but if they're going to talk about game balance, then they should talk about game balance.  If they're going to talk about how the dice influence design decsions, then there should be talk about design decisions.  If designers post something that doesn't make sense or is wrong and all the community does is post shallow comments like "Oh gee whiz, that's neat Mr. Designer.  We're so greatful you deign to post for us!" then the games are not going to get any better.  And I think they can be better. Much better, and so I will continue to discuss and challenge the design decisions that didn't make sense.  

Maybe its because my players are lawyers and academics that we think like this, but we understand that to put a fine egde on a model or concept, it has to get intellectually battered around until the crap gets knocked out.  That's what my questions designers are.

Finally, if I'm not starting another round of mutually antagonistic $h!#-slinging with you.  I'm not posting here to talk to you.

-WJL

For once, I agree with LethalDose… The articles are interesting, but hardly go far enough. I'm curious as to the design decisions influenced as well - I can guess at some of them. Some are a result of the statistics of the dice, no doubt… but having written proof of this goes a long way.

aramis said:

Uh, thanks?

LethalDose said:

You're welcome. It's nothing personal; I find myself disagrring with your posts quite often. 

LethalDose,

There's a difference between disagreeing and badgering.  Jay Little took time out of his (quite likely) very busy schedule to give folks a peek behind the screen as to what goes in developing a game.  I read your replies on the GSA website, and from their tone I give Jay plenty of credit for taking the time to respond to them with as much depth as he did.  But quite frankly, you came across as a needy, ungrateful internet troll.  And that's not me talking, that's several other folks, most of whom have never seen any of your posts here and thus had no preconcieved notions about what sort of person you were.

You're a math nerd.  Your group are math nerds. You've got a giant collective hard-on for math and analyzing things down to the most minute detail.  Fine, we get it.

But at the end of the day, FFG has decided the dice system they have in place works just fine and in accordance to what their objectives are, and in spite of all your protests and Skywalker-level whining about how the math doesn't work according to your extensive calculations, they aren't going to change it anytime soon.  And from the tone of many of your posts, both in the Beta forum before you decided to take a leave of absence (quite convienently on the same day the Beta feedback submission period ended), there's been little to suggest that you and your group actually enjoyed the game.

As for the lack of full disclosure that seems to be your latest sticking point, there is such a thing as trade secrets, something even Paizo and Evil Hat and WotC have.  Perhaps Jay isn't quite ready to pull the curtain all the way back just yet, if ever.  And given some of your responses when he did decide to offer up some insight, I wouldn't blame him if he choose to remain quiet on the subject going forward.

It is rare I ever post on our own threads, but I wanted to implore everyone to please keep this conversation and thread civil -- all around.

I was happy to share everything I have been able to share up to this point, especially to spend as much time as I have talking about EotE through various outlets like Order 66 and the GSA.

Unfortunately, the reality is I simply cannot talk about certain topics, or go into a level of detail many readers would like. For all the readers / fans / posters out there who have been disappointed or have wanted to learn more about Topic X over Topic Y, I really am sorry. I can (and generally do) share as much as I am able to, because I love the fan community and share the same passion for gaming that many of you do. 

And with that, let's please steer this discussion back on course lest we find ourselves in an asteroid field. And you know how slim the odds are for succesfully navigating one of those.

ynnen said:

"Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1!"

Appreciate the insight on what you can talk about.. Having been on both sides of the fence it is totally understandable that you may not be able to talk about everything. Doesn't stop me from wanting to pull that knowledge out though. Now if only I can get those pesky telepathic abilities working consistantly. Only been able to read my mind up to this point. And boy do I feel dirty now.

ynnen said:

Duly noted.

Especially as I seem to have left my tricked-out YT-1300 back at Anchorhead… something about needing to reverse the nuetron flow of the jelly baby or some-such

Personally, I'm glad Lethal Dose posts his thoughts on the game. I find them very interesting. I don't typically agree with his conclusions, but to date I have never once seen anyone prove him wrong regarding the math or the facts supporting his arguments. It really is just a difference in opinion regarding what conclusions to draw. For instance, one of the things I find most fascinating about the system is something that LD brings up. LD describes it as problematic  For me, the fact that net success and net advantage are inversely correlated strengthens story telling, in the way I like to tell tell stories. 

Success with advantage = Yes, and …

Success with threat = Yes, but …

Failure with advantage = No, but …

Failure with threat = No, and …

For my Star Wars games, I want to live mostly in the "Yes, but… " and "No, but …" space. For me personally, that's where drama lies, especially space opera drama like Star Wars. Yes, you blast the door, but you sabotaged the bridge controls … No,you aren't able to make it to safety,but a vision of old Ben suddenly appears …

So, Lethal Dose please do keep posting your ideas and comments. 

Donovan Morningfire said:

Well, I'm sorry that you have so much bile for me and my opposing view points.  But maybe watch how you depricate the term "math nerd", especially in this context.  If you don't see what I'm getting at, consider re-reading Jay's first article, starting with the title…

I'm also sorry that you have such distaste for my players, who you have never met, and as I've stated before, don't think you can judge.

Finally, and most regretful of all, I'm sorry that you have such a distaste for math and facts.  Fine, I'm a math nerd, because frankly, it's my job as an epidemiologist and biostatistican.  I use math to improve public health and understand complex systems.  The exact same tools can be used to improve the games we're all so passionate about.  Sometimes you need complex math to describe what's going on.  

You can choose to have a Ludditious view on the use of math and statistics to improve games, and that's your choice.  I can't see how you'd have a problem with better game systems being produced with your benefit, but /shrug.  If I see a designer who's voluntarily posting discussion on the use of math in the design, but making mistakes or unacknowledged over-simplifications, then… yeah, I'm gonna say something.  The same way my colleagues would ask questions in a presentation if I misintepreted results.

Simply, I want a bettter game.

I will always want a better game, no matter how good the current game is (EotE is GOOD!).  And I'm willing to use 'teh maths' to get it.

Again, this isn't antagonistic.  It's just a different point of view.

-WJL

Sorry, Lethal, but you *are* antagonistic.  Whether you intend to be or not, it's consistently how you come across, and when someone calls you on it, you simply crank it up a few notches.

Voice said:

Well, since you've already labeled me as antagonistic, instead of the content/tone of my posts antagonisitic, you can't percieve anything I do/say/post as anything but antagonistic.  So trying to convince you otherwise would be as futile as trying to teach math to a troupe of screaming chimpanzees.

-WJL

To those compaining about the lack of info in the article, and would rather hear more of the design ideas and what led to them, I would suggest listening to the Order66 podcasts that featured Jay Little. 

http://rpggeek.com/rpgpodcastepisode/83376/episode-163-edge-of-the-empire  This is the episode that Jay really gets into game the most I think and was really interesting to listen to.

http://rpggeek.com/rpgpodcastepisode/92877/the-order-66-podcast-episode-1-the-edge-of-the-e  Another show featuring Jay with some great discussion about Edge.

Hope this helps some people get some more insight into the games development.

I'm going to go with most of you are butt hurt that you can't argue at the same level as LD. As a free-lance dev there were some pretty glaring omissions and side tracking going on by Jay in how he handled questions in that article. I totally see why he had to answer certain questions the way he did because quite frankly giving the exact math and other things away would turn EotE into an OGL which it's not.

As far as math vs gut feeling in game design I think most devs find both equally necessary. In my experience you set a target number for any outcome you desire. Example: You want players to succeed on easy check 80% of the time. Then you figure out using math how to reach that desired number. Then you playtest the crap out of it and see what needs to change.

Final decisions tend to be based on “feeling” more than math though. Does this mechanic feel fun? If yes , then that mechanic is right no matter what the math says.

Droma said:

I think this is what it boils down to. Number crunchers and linear thinkers may not enjoy it as much. Many, though, are enjoying results which are not just pass/fail.