Jump to content



Photo

Force user advancement thoughts


  • Please log in to reply
125 replies to this topic

#121 whafrog

whafrog

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,219 posts

Posted 28 February 2014 - 09:21 AM

 

By the way:

  • Yes, Obi-Wan Kenobi call to the Dark Side when he kill Darth Maul, obviously with anger.

I have to disagree.... Obi-Wan didn't kill Maul for revenge.

 

But he did, if you missed that you missed one of the key elements of the scene.

 

Maul even references it in TCW, goads Obiwan into descending again, and mocks him for being unbalanced.  Obiwan only escapes with the help of Ventress.

 

But it's a good lesson:  the next time they meet Obiwan is up to the challenge, even after Adi Gallia goes down.


  • Shakespearian_Soldier likes this

#122 MosesofWar

MosesofWar

    Member

  • Members
  • 225 posts

Posted 28 February 2014 - 12:28 PM

One of the things that I've always found interesting is that the Force balances itself... The was always the 'prophesied one' that would bring 'balance to the Force', what if the Force wasn't 'balanced'? I know it's heretical to say, but with all the 'good' Jedi represent, that doesn't necessarily mean 'balance'. If the prophecy, was the Force was to be balanced, perhaps the essence of the Force, represented itself in Palpatine and Vader as a balancing mechanism.

 

An interesting concept is that if there is no good or evil, things stagnate - when too much good is in the world, nothing drives the populace to really do anything. Imagine a world with no disease, no hunger, infinite life, you don't have people working toward making things better, or improving. The opposite would be true in a world filled with malice, pestilence  and hunger... Perhaps those that could fix the problems are killed before they get a chance.

 

This brings in play the concepts of 'balance' - there are many references to force users that must 'balance' their connection with the Force Kyle Katarn, from Dark Forces is one the comes to mind. A man who started out an Imperial, and while a friend to Luke and the Jedi Academy, Katarn was constantly faced with balancing his light and dark tendencies, eventually becoming a member of the new Jedi Council. The path wasn't easy, but canonically as the Dark Forces and Jedi Knight series were both made by LucasArts, we've got a Jedi that many times defied the will of Luke, used Dark Side powers and worked alone to fight what he considered to be evil. Another reference, from another previously mentioned Jedi is Jolee Bindo, who, while good, disagreed with many of the tenets of the Jedi order and eventually left them. He 'walked the line' if you will, but was never turned to the Dark Side.

 

I think the Force is more of a reference to fate and how it interacts with all things - the Force manifests itself in certain beings to do great good, or great evil. Is the Force User truly in control of the Force, or is the Force in control of the user? I believe both the Jedi and Sith would like to believe that they are in control, but that might not necessarily be the case...

 

The greatest example of what I believe is the force acting in mysterious ways with balancing was with Revan, which I won't sit here and go into mass amount of detail, because many of us are aware of that story.

 

Just as a conclusion, perhaps the Force doesn't 'see' good or evil, it uses instruments to bring 'balance' if either 'good' or 'evil' gets too powerful. Tis just a philosophy. :)


Edited by MosesofWar, 28 February 2014 - 12:28 PM.

  • Aservan likes this

“I’ve been waiting for you, Obi-wan. We meet again at last. The circle is now complete. When I left you I was but the learner. Now I am the master”

 


#123 Desslok

Desslok

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 28 February 2014 - 01:51 PM

The force player had lifted him up and turned him around so he couldn't shoot the group.

 

Okay, coming in late to the game here, so I dont know if this has been resolved yet - but this sounds like a great opportunity for a recurring nemesis! The 'jedi' is being flashy and showy with his powers got the attention of the Bounty Hunter. The Hunter, knowing that he's going in for much bigger game than he anticipated, gears up for bear. He gets weapons that are attached to his armor that can't be yanked away by the force, area effect weapons that cant be deflected, projectile weapons that cant be sent back to it's target, sonic weapons to disrupt his concentration and some friends to deal with his companions. The 'jedi' does that lift and spin trick again? Thank goodness for the magnetic clamp boots that keep him rooted in place!

 

And yeah, they blew up the station with him on it. Rule one: if you don't see the body, they're not dead. The guy easily got off while the players were escaping. This hunter totally needs to return with payback on his mind.


  • EldritchFire, CaptainRaspberry and jerrypocalypse like this

#124 ScooterinAB

ScooterinAB

    Member

  • Members
  • 120 posts

Posted 28 February 2014 - 02:02 PM

I am fully aware that this games allows and actually encourages people to mod the rules to best suit their needs. To create a "house rule". If a rule or idea comes from a podcast, and incorporated into a game, that is still a house rule. It is not part of the official publication or errata. Even when Jay Little and Sam Stewart says you can do this or that, it would still be a house ruling. That optional rule would not be allowed in tournament play. So using "ADVICE" from a podcast is not 100% RAW.

 

A house rule is a standing change to the rules. A ruling (like those mentioned in this podcast) as decisions you are making when you run and not necessarily a standing rule. Rulings do no affect someone's ability to use the rules as written. You are getting the two mixed up.

 

But I'm done with you. Like I said, you asked people for their advice on this matter and then shot everything and flipped out because of their responses. Your replies to me are extremely and personally offensive, as I assume are your responses to other. I wish you no luck in dealing with your game. If you cannot take comments from people when you ask for their, I don't know what you are doing here. If you're going to throw everything back at people, may this player continue to abuse your game.



#125 Mike

Mike

    Member

  • Members
  • 378 posts

Posted 28 February 2014 - 02:05 PM

 

I am fully aware that this games allows and actually encourages people to mod the rules to best suit their needs. To create a "house rule". If a rule or idea comes from a podcast, and incorporated into a game, that is still a house rule. It is not part of the official publication or errata. Even when Jay Little and Sam Stewart says you can do this or that, it would still be a house ruling. That optional rule would not be allowed in tournament play. So using "ADVICE" from a podcast is not 100% RAW.

 

A house rule is a standing change to the rules. A ruling (like those mentioned in this podcast) as decisions you are making when you run and not necessarily a standing rule. Rulings do no affect someone's ability to use the rules as written. You are getting the two mixed up.

 

But I'm done with you. Like I said, you asked people for their advice on this matter and then shot everything and flipped out because of their responses. Your replies to me are extremely and personally offensive, as I assume are your responses to other. I wish you no luck in dealing with your game. If you cannot take comments from people when you ask for their, I don't know what you are doing here. If you're going to throw everything back at people, may this player continue to abuse your game.

 

 

Scooter, from my point of view, you are the one who's insulting and condescending. If you're really done, maybe you should just stop posting in this thread.


  • R2builder likes this

#126 Dbuntu

Dbuntu

    Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 28 February 2014 - 03:54 PM

I am fully aware that this games allows and actually encourages people to mod the rules to best suit their needs. To create a "house rule". If a rule or idea comes from a podcast, and incorporated into a game, that is still a house rule. It is not part of the official publication or errata. Even when Jay Little and Sam Stewart says you can do this or that, it would still be a house ruling. That optional rule would not be allowed in tournament play. So using "ADVICE" from a podcast is not 100% RAW. 

 

If I have a player who owns the CRB, and creates a character around said rules, thinking this is how the game will operate, then I change the rules on him mid-game is pretty jacked up in my opinion. For example, going with this topic, he uses move to pull a gun from someone. He has all the appropriate talents and abilities. He rolls the Force die, gets his two light pips, he thinks he succeeded, but then I tell him, nope,  you still have to roll Discipline vs. his Discipline. !?!?! I as a player would be like WTF!?!? Even after if the GM told me after the game, thats how it would be. I would feel very slighted. 

If a character had a build going to improve armor and weapons, but I told him he can never apply the bonus to his armor, that is my right as a GM, but is still pretty F'ed up if he didn't know it from the beginning. If a player is playing by the rules, and the GM feels that they (GM) is not winning enough, so changes the rules to make things harder on the PC, then that is seriously wrong. I have stated in this thread that I am now very excited to see my force user gain a rating of +2 and +3. 

When I read that using Dedication to bring up Brawl will not have an effect on Wound Threshold, my first thought was, well, I'll change that. But why do I need to change it? Do I put so little stock in this game that I can make it better? The developers put that in there for a reason. Yes, I am free to change it, but is the reason good enough. Now if a player buys Dedication expecting the WT to go up, I can refer him to the page explaining it does not. Perhaps he should have read the rules better. 

Yes, if I am the GM, I can do anything I want. I can have people shooting a blaster also need to roll a Discipline check, or they pass out from shooting another living being, or I can say that while using a doing Mechanics, you also need to roll an Agility check to use the fine tools...I can also have a Grudge Death Star just come blow up the universe my players are in too. To change the rules to penalize your players is about the worst thing a Game Master can do. That does not win the boards for anything. It shows a callous individual who will cheat to get their way, when the players are not doing what he wants. 

Some of my originals questions were about the powers and how they operate inside the game world. When people start throwing out their versions of rules, that does not really help in anyones understanding of said rules. People on this thread started talking about what if rules, how they should have been done. I asked people to refrain from that subject as it has nothing to do with my topic at hand. 

Yes, I understand that I have the power GOD in my games, but changing the rules just to change them or to "punish" a player or to teach them a lesson is advice I don't really need or want. 

Are you being willfully obtuse?

Nobody has suggested that you arbitraily make changes to the rules to punish a player. That is an absurd conclusion to draw. I think just about everyone has suggested that you talk things out with your player to reach a solution together, and offered some suggestions on tweaks you could consider to smooth over the issue you brought to the forums. No one said you should start trying to punish your players just because you have the power to as a GM.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS