Poll: Heavily Non-Canon Star Wars

[Benjamin Olson]

Personally I think I'd prefer an equivalent set-up of "would-be hero turned and brought darkness to the galaxy" somewhere in the old republic era (or whatever distant Star Wars era you prefer), without the need to involve major iconic franchise characters in key roles. It's way less pressure on the GM to portray characters everyone grew up with in a way that satisfies everyone at the table (a sometimes impossible bar to clear), and as a player lowers the chance of me getting sucked into a "Luke would never do that" type argument.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't mind an alt-history game, provided that's told to me in advance. I hate encountering lots of alternate history in a game where I'm expecting traditional history.

 

[overgeeked]

Yes. To me, part of the point of playing in lore-heavy settings is changing the setting to be unique to us and our table. Write up a quick summary of the major changes from widely known canon and go. Sounds fun.

 

[Blue]

One of my biggest issues with IP where a small group saves the universe, is that my character isn't part of that small group. This nicely sidesteps all of that.

I'd play. Especially as you have a nice obvious event where you change from established lore so I know what lore is still good and what should be discarded in my head.

 

[aramis erak]

I've never cared for the OP's level of canon hack, tho' I've run several "Canon ends at Ep VI" campaigns. I've always run it with "Canon ends the first time dice get rolled"... and in FFG, thats start of session one, to set the destiny pool.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'd play.

I love it when the GM is enthusiastic about the game and the setting.

Enthusiasm is a lot like sincerity- if you don't have it, ya gotta fake it.

 

[Longspeak]

But, unless I played in your previous game, sequel to alt history is uninteresting to me.

This was exactly what my son warned me of. "Everyone who play for three years in the other will play this one. No-one else will.

I don't mind an alt-history game, provided that's told to me in advance. I hate encountering lots of alternate history in a game where I'm expecting traditional history.

And this is what my friend warned me of. To be up front with the changes.

 

[Theory of Games]

Hi all,

I've been toying with an idea for a while, and a friend suggests I check to see if there's interest before I got too far down the rabbit hole.

I ran, for a few years, a Star Wars Game in which I changed the Canon just a bit. At the end of Episode VI, Luke Turned, Vader Took Over, and the Rebellion was Crushed. Set Twenty Years later, new heroes carried on the fight. That ran for a few years, and the PCs ultimately won after several adventures and much new history

The idea that's been in my head recently is a sequel to THAT.

In a galaxy rich with NPCs both new and familiar, with history both new and familiar, new Heroes would begin by helping to remake the Jedi as the Republic reemerges into a new era of peace. I expect some sandboxing, but also some goals of their own, some Imperial remnants and other fallout from the war and a few things new to the story.

I'm trying to see the the concept itself holds any interest before I even consider any further details, like a system I'd used, when and how we'd play. My son says people won't want to play a games with a heavily non-canon setting. He says "To them, it won't even be Star Wars. My friend says he's play... but he was in the original and knows its history.

This is mainly a yes/no, but there's a third option here for the inevitable 'other.'

As long as I play the Jedi who kills Darth WoobyWooby (evil Luke Skywalker).

 

[Maxperson]

As long as I play the Jedi who kills Darth WoobyWooby (evil Luke Skywalker).

Wouldn't that be Darth Whiny or Darth Snivelus?

 

[aramis erak]

I'd play.

I love it when the GM is enthusiastic about the game and the setting.

Enthusiasm is a lot like sincerity- if you don't have it, ya gotta fake it.

Deep lore settings are a double edged sword... They can create a shared space in which to adventure

If no one is into the lore, its value is dependent highly upon the mechanics and how they're used.
If any of the players are into the lore, but the GM is ignorant¹ of it, it turns alt-hist almost immediately. ANd can be pretty damned ugly if the players are unaware.
If the GM is into the lore, but the players are ignorant¹ of it, it can be either a constant learning situation, or it can be a "Can we get on with it?" situation.
If everyone is into the lore, GM and players alike it can be great or horrible... if the system supports the setting as understood by the participants, and everyone's close on their understandings of it, it can be wonderful.
If everyone's into the lore, but don't actually understand it in the same way, it can be intensely problematic.
If everyone's into the lore, but the system used doesn't fit, it can be problematic.

And occasionally, the whole group may be ignorant, but the system supports the lore mechanically, and directs them into play compatible with that deep lore... I've had that thrice... Mouse Guard, L5R, and Pendragon.

Good lore-heavy settings with good games can lead players and GMs to delve into the lore, too... as I did with MG, L5R, Pendragon, Traveller, Mystara, WFRP, and 40K...

-=-=-=-
¹: ignorant in the technical sense: lacking meaningful &/or useful knowledge. No derrogation intended.