Jump to content

bloody malth

Members
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bloody malth

  1. And if I remember correctly, "Before the Awakening" (which I clearly haven't read) was published concurrently with the release of The Force Awakens opening in theatres, right? So it wasn't like it was some random author retconning silly parts of Finn's character, this was a part of Finn from the beginning. Thank you for the information, although, as you wrote, leaving it out of the films wasn't helpful. I don't think it would hurt the character to impart some explanatory backstory instead of yet another scene of him being the butt of the joke.
  2. What? I assume that must be from supplementary material somewhere because it isn't in the Force Awakens or The Last Jedi. It goes a long way toward explaining Finn's ability to fight against a lightsaber (but not with one), but neither film bothers to do that.
  3. @SEApocalypse you thought that was forced? Man, I'll have to work on my routine. Even the Force Awakens plays his position as a janitor for laughs. I don't know what he did for 20 years, but I doubt it was training with a lightsaber. I don't know if his unit was made up entirely of janitors, but he was certainly a janitor and he doesn't bother to defend his apparent lack of expertise to Han Solo. I also don't know what you are referring to when you write that his unit seems to be made up of elites, I didn't get that impression. I have no problem with Finn being portrayed as proficient with stormtrooper weapons, but his handiness with a lightsaber helped me come to the conclusion that in this trilogy you don't need any special training to wield one. If it were a card game, it would be called power creep.
  4. Though I agree with Maelora on a lot of her points about Rey, I still thought Rey was a good character in 7 and 8, with an emotional vulnerability that worked as a good counterbalance to her natural protagonist excellence. She was one of the only things I liked about episode 8. I enjoyed her relationship with Finn in episode 7, it was human and witty, and it was one of the only things I liked in that movie. I missed the three leads interacting with each other while I watched The Last Jedi, especially since I hated nearly every attempt at humor in that movie; it felt forced. Still, Rey does seem like a bit of a Mary Sue to me (as far as gender goes, I always thought that the phrase "Mary Sue" worked equally well for any gender: I don't like Superman because he is a Mary Sue), but I find that to be a problem that is indicative of this new trilogy and not specific to her. Luke was training in the Falcon before he ever used the Force for anything or before he used a lightsaber in combat, I thought that scene implied there was more training off-screen, but that could just be me projecting. But now a stormtrooper janitor can fight with a lightsaber almost as well as Kylo Ren, who was trained by Luke and Snoke. The same janitor is also immune to the dangers of crashing, it would seem. And the scripts for both movies make Poe Dameron such a ridiculously superior fighter pilot you wonder why he isn't sent to fight the entire First Order fleet by himself. The new protagonist, Rose, I think? Is a plumber who also happens to be mechanical engineer, a superlative horse rider, a solid pilot, and a quick-draw expert good enough to get the jump on the janitor who could fight one on one with Kylo Ren. I like all of these characters, with the possible exception of Rose, who I found to be boring after the scene that introduced her. And I understand the necessity to have them be extremely skilled at what they do in these movies. But it just feels unearned, like Mary Sue is now the starting point for all Star Wars heroes. It's not just that Luke and Anakin receive more training then Rey (they do), but this new era seems to heavily imply that you really don't need any training to use the Force or wield a lightsaber. I assume Oliver Twist the Force Witch isn't getting trained by the psycho space-horse beater before the former pulls the broom into his hand.
  5. I hated most of the movie, but yeah, it annoys me to no end to see people writing things like "anyone who likes (or dislikes) this movie is not a true fan of Star Wars!". Get over yourself.
  6. I hated the movie. Well, mostly. But I'm not here to convince anyone who liked it, or even loved it, that they're wrong. Far more interesting than the movie (from my perspective, of course), has been how divided opinions are on it, and despite some name calling in media forums and threads like these, they don't seem to be divided among demographic lines. My gaming group is pretty evenly split among those who loved it, those who felt "meh", and those who hated it. I've seen people who loved the movie be accused of being fanboys, while elsewhere, the same accusation is leveled at people who hated the movie. I've read a bunch of testimonials from people who grew up with the OT that felt like the Last Jedi re-captured the spirit of their youth and others who felt like it betrayed the spirit of Star Wars. My millennial friends hated it, but of course this is mostly anecdotal, plenty of people felt like this was the Star Wars for their generation. When I spoke to some friends who loved it, I found that our general impressions of what worked and what didn't were very similar, but how that translated to our overall enjoyment of the movie was very different.
  7. Well, if your gm is also a fan of ancient Roman literature, The Golden Hind could meet another ship that's been almost completely changed by modifications, The Golden ***, and you could see how long your group's maturity lasted.
  8. Deathwatch was his first RPG, and he loved it, as you guessed. He is a huge Space Wolf fanboy, but he could do without the Wolfy Wolf Wolfy Wolfen McFrostWulf Frost that seems to be modern Space Wolves. Come to think of it, Rogue Trader adventures could probably also be re-skinned for Star Wars investigations. Less so Deathwatch.
  9. The other day I was talking to a friend of mine about why I liked Dark Heresy (of the old Warhammer 40k RPG line) and he didn't. He said it lacked the epic things he liked about 40k: Space Marines, rampaging Orks, Eldar, and the like; that it was too much like Blade Runner. By contrast, that's exactly why I liked it. There is a slightly generic feel to Dark Heresy that means you could re-skin it for Star Wars if you have access to any of the books. As far as I know, all the published adventures for it are investigative, but they usually end up with the pc's fighting a daemon at the end (even the introductory adventures, for some reason), so you would have to change that to something else like the Sith or a dark side spirit.
  10. @Archlyte I should be clear that I agree with you wholeheartedly when it comes to character death. My suggestions above are not meant to be taken as a way for a gm to cheat death for his or her players. In a game in which combat is one of the main conflicts (this includes most rpg's), there must usually be the real threat of death and failure for success and the rewards to have any depth of meaning. Most anything else is just kids' candy: sweet but unsatisfying. There are some exceptions of course (I once ran a Changeling game where the PC's were effectively immortal and I used a partially homebrewed system of slowly increasing insanity to replace the threat of death. And they could still fail, of course. But this digression is off topic), but some of my favorite memories as a player are when we escaped what looked like certain death by our wits and the skin of our teeth, or when we eked out a partial success against tough opposition and we had unfinished business and still alive enemies to look forward to later. By contrast, some of my most unsatisfying moments in gaming were when I could tell the gm had started pulling his punches, usually because our opposition was much deadlier than he anticipated, but sometimes because it served his story or because one of the other pc's was too attached to their character and the character became "sacrosanct" as you describe.
  11. @Archlyte Yeah, you were right to ask me to back up my assumptions. After I read through my original post I realized that in my zeal to express my ideas about fair gm'ing, I had glossed over the reasons I felt that the post was needed in the first place.
  12. Because that is not my opinion of the situation. Based on several factors: the "newness" of the gm to narrative role-playing and role-playing in general, the 20 minute scene in the sewers where nothing happened, the overpowered force of enemies that they had no chance to win against yet were immediately thrown into combat with because of the Despair, the unwillingness of anyone to talk about it face to face afterwards, the abandonment of the campaign and gm for something else, and the central point of this thread, that one PC wanted their character "resurrected", seem like very strong indicators that the PC's were frustrated as a group, not just the one player. As I wrote before, this is my assumption, based on my personal experience, because I don't know of any data sets to reference for player behavior. You have a different opinion. That's fine, I wanted it to come across in my above post that I did not believe that I was correct in my assumption with 100% certainty. I too have friends that would not bring a character back if they felt it cheapened the game. I also have other friends that would move heaven and earth to keep their characters alive and would charge the gates of **** to bring their dead characters back.
  13. @Imperial Stormtrooper At this point I believe that the real issue is that you lost the trust and respect of your players. This is an assumption sure, but the fact that the player who wanted his character back now just wants to play a completely different game, coupled with the other two players deciding that they don't want their characters back even when offered, speaks to my assumption. Plus your description of the situation. You've come to the realization that you should not have forcibly put the characters in an unwinnable situation and if you apologize and explain your mistake, this should go a long way toward regaining their trust and respect. In the same vein, although you like the "reality" of deciding to go right or left in an unfamiliar area (in this case, the sewers), you admitted that you weren't prepared to run them there. So I can assume that you lacked real life sewer maps for reference, that you didn't have a clear idea of how water reclamation and sanitation works in Star Wars, that you didn't know what chemicals would be present in the water, and that you hadn't watched every sewer scene you could find in Star Wars media. I don't mean to be pedantic and this may seem facetious, but my point is that is you are already lacking a great many details that will add realism to the scene, so why be a stickler for direction? In a narrative game like this one, you can simulate reality well enough with a statement of intention from the players and a die roll: i.e. "What do you guys want to accomplish here in the sewers?" "We want to find out where our adversaries went" "Okay, you don't see any clues at first. Roll Streetwise (Cunning) to navigate your way down here". Wait for roll. "Okay an hour has passed and you still can't find any clues, but you've explored this area". Draw a map of where they went, including any left or right directions you think are important. Even players who like realism as much as you do will get frustrated if 20 minutes or more of precious game time is spent exploring someplace that has no importance and nothing happens. You can waste the character's time all you want, but don't waste your player's time. Frustrated players make stupid, rebellious decisions and then blame you (I've been on both sides, because I was either gm'ing poorly or I was getting frustrated as a player). Also, I highly recommend against sending extremely powerful characters against new players or new characters. In a new game, even experienced role-players may be unsure of their characters capabilities within the game system, but after a few games in their characters' shoes, players begin to understand how powerful they are (and aren't) and what they can stand up to. Your players may not have known they were completely outclassed in that combat encounter (especially if they were silently frustrated from the sewers), but after a few regular normal combat encounters, they might have understood what Rivals with vibro-axes and 5 minions really means in terms of power. Now having written that, you might have still salvaged the situation if you hadn't had the enemies all burst in at once. They rolled a Triumph with Despair, right? So you could have told them that the enemies are already here in the building (or the vicinity of the building), but the Triumph is that they don't know exactly where the PC's are. Then, because they are new, tell that it looks like they are outnumbered two to one and heavily outclassed in a straight up fight. This would give them the chance to try to sneak past the enemies, create a distraction, pigeonhole or ambush them one at a time so that they don't have to fight them all at once, create traps, or yes, even escape through the window.
  14. In my experience, munchkins are types of players, not disposable bad habits. If you find yourself seated with an entire group of them, you will probably have to accept that there will always be some level of munchkinism in your game, unless you want to go home. "Item worship", as you put it, has been around in Star Wars rpg's since West End games and it's part of the enjoyment for even non-munchkin players. So, my first point is that you are going to have to tailor your expectations if you find yourself with another group of munchkins. But really you want to know how to mitigate their munchkinism. The best and most reliable ways to do that, from my experience, is to make their characters seem like total badasses when they succeed at challenges they didn't munchkin for and to make a lot of their over-preparing/min-maxing moot by throwing challenges at them that they are not prepared for. When you show the munchkin player that they can be awesome without min/maxing and that over-preparation is often fruitless, it can help to change their ideas of risk and reward (although I've never seen munchkinism disappear completely from a player who has those tendencies). There are a lot of good ideas in this thread to do that, and even punitive measures can work if you are fair and even-handed. This isn't necessarily easy and will require some really good improvisational skills as you will be changes things on the fly a lot. Being extremely clear with your players about your expectations (and vice-versa) before the game starts is a really important lesson that I had to painfully re-learn recently. But it's not too late to talk even if you're deep in the campaign. I often find that post-game discussions are the best for figuring out what everyone wants, as you can point to specific actions and decisions relatively soon after they happened. Stop the game early and find out what everyone thought of it and don't be shy about bringing up things you think didn't work, both PC decisions and your own. Good luck, and at least they aren't cheaters...
  15. I didn't GM it, but I know that the GM loved the elderly Chiss pacifist doctor who scolded the rest of us all the time for our violence and sometimes healed our enemies. There was also Trey Nord, a human droid engineer whose hands were so clammy and limp that shaking them was like grabbing a dead fish, complete with the slightly moist feeling afterwards. He had all the charisma and sex appeal of a spider, but was generally a nice guy if you got to know him, which almost no one did. I played a brutish thug of a smuggler who was sick of beating people and just wanted to play pranks on the rest of the crew. He accomplished that last part. There was also Castor Troy, who earned the title of Galaxy's Worst Bounty Hunter in game by forgetting to get an IPKC and by not claiming a single bounty during the entire campaign until the very end, when he returned a prized pet pig-thing to a distraught, but bemused, noblewoman. The captain, who just wanted to make money and lower our Obligation, had no idea what to do with us. The GM thought it was the greatest, though.
  16. See, what you do is keep all the beer, liquor, and coffee at your place. I haven't had to use my weatherproof, ballistic nylon Chrome and Ortlieb carrier bags in years.
  17. One of the first things alcohol does is impair your judgement, hence the saying "there's no such thing as just one drink". In a narrative system like this one, I wouldn't keep track of how many drinks your pc's are downing, since their characters almost certainly won't be able to if they are at the point where you are thinking they have to roll vs. drunkenness. The roll for getting drunk could conceivably be Discipline, although Resilience could give you an idea of how long it would take; although I agree that you shouldn't need to roll, but if you do, it's simply to indicate the magnitude of the drunkenness. It might be fun to narrate the empty shot glasses and bottles around a character after s/he thinks s/he only has had two or three. Advance the clock several hours when they think it's only been one. Invent some drinking games for the characters. Let them narrate some hilarious antics while they rage.
  18. Actually, the website is correct. Multiple minions in a group do not directly upgrade dice, they add skill ranks. Page 360, Edge of the Empire (under Minions can fight as a group): "A minion group gains one skill rank for each member of the group beyond the first, if that skill is on the minion's list". I've made this mistake myself, several times.
  19. @Concise Locket: I'm not sure we're arguing anymore, because I agree with your second post. My problem with the first post was that you wrote in absolutes, i.e. "controlling water isn't a business operation" (emphasis mine). I took that to mean that you did not think that water was a business operation anywhere, not Tatooine, not the entire Star Wars galaxy, and not Earth. Your first post makes more sense to me in the context of just Tatooine. However, since Closecraig's players' have a ship, I don't believe it would be that difficult for them to find a place in the galaxy where they could sell the water for good profit. With that in mind... Concise Locket is right that Star Wars people using vaporators probably won't be able to afford water in bulk and anywhere else won't pay half as much. There is a need for water outside of that, which was the point I was trying to make earlier, but it's probably much closer to Grimmerling's original estimate of cr 1 to cr 4 per metric tonne (I got excited by the maths and forgot to mention this in my first post). And I'm not sure if Grimmerling's original estimate was based on the consumer's price or not; if it is, the pc's will get much less than that (the wholesalers, distributors, and retailers need to make a profit too, with the government taking its cut, in the form of taxes or bribes, at each step). If Closecraig drops the price down from cr 1 per tonne to cr .25, his players will make 4,750 (19,000 tonnes times .25) for the whole group. A decent haul, but not excessive. Closecraig, if you feel that the water should be more valuable than that and want to stick to some of the original estimates, then I would urge you to talk to your players before giving them a fortune and then ripping it away. That sort of thing works well in caper movies like the Ocean's series, but usually leaves a sour taste in peoples' mouths at the gaming table unless the whole thing happens "off-screen". Tell them that it is too much money this early in the game and you need to take most/all of it away. If they understand this going into it, then they may even help you come up with ideas for losing or even wasting the money.
  20. That's not quite correct, at least here in the real world. While a single dirt-poor farmer may not have the money to buy large amounts of water, coalitions, governments, crime syndicates, and businesses will. Controlling water is a business operation; the drought in California cost the state billions of dollars. Getting water from the air, enough for subsistence living, is certainly possible with condensers, but most water that humans on earth use is for agriculture and a condenser simply doesn't produce enough for that. The pc's in this scenario could make a lot of money selling water to agricultural or industrial concerns, if closecraig wants to use a real-world model for this. They could also "launder" the water by selling fake Naboo natural spring water in fancy bottles to uninformed twenty-somethings in the Core Worlds. I believe Grimmerling is calculating the yearly business cost of the initial investment and maintenance here. Since both are 100 (cr 10,000 spread evenly over 100 years for initial investment and 1% of cr 10,000 for maintenance each year), cr 200 makes sense. Tatooine has 304 days per year according to Wookiepedia, so I believe that is what Grimmerling is referencing. He is also very generously allowing that the vaporator would work at full capacity (1.5 liters of water produced per day) every day for 100 years, in order to simplify his calculations, I believe. His model does not account for holidays, injuries, adverse weather conditions, mechanical failures/problems, labor force problems (in a large operation this could mean a strike or work force shortage, in a family-operation, this could mean your adopted son keeps ditching work to go play with his friends at Tosche Station and wants to leave permanently to attend the Academy), theft, or even deliberate sabotage. 200/456 is how he got cr .43 per liter. However, using Grimmerling's formula, if it were my business, I wouldn't charge less than cr .86 for a liter of water (this keeps production costs at 50%, which is pretty high). Now times that by a thousand and you have cr 860 for a metric tonne of water. I may give a discount for bulk purchase, but I may not, as it has been shown that costs have been simplified and would actually be much higher. @Grimmerling: your maths were fantastic and gave me all these ideas, but it took me a minute to realize what the numbers represented, so I thought that would try to explain it more clearly. I hope I extrapolated correctly.
  21. This would work just fine, even if you don't use some of the loads of good ideas about Obligation, Hutt involvement, bounty hunters, forgeries, etc... If you still want to mitigate the amount of money they receive, you can do that with taxes, fees, and money laundering expenses if they want the money to be legit, but that's boring for most people. However, do your players roleplay their characters drinking? Would they like to celebrate their new wealth at the cantina? Flip a dark side point and your characters wake up with a fully gold-plated E-11 blaster, a rare Sriluurian pygmy nerf, a Twi'lek dancer with a bad spice habit who now follows them around, twelve bottles of the best Savareen brandy that have been half drunk already, a large canvas of overpriced street art with a huge tear down the middle (maybe repairable?), a plastic wrapped crate filled with all new plastic furniture from one of the best interior design firms (but they're last years models), an entire new wardrobe of fashions of the type that only runway models wear, several unconscious new friends, and no idea where they stashed the rest of the money. Make sure you talk to them about it before using this option. If the moral implications bother you more than the money itself, then you have a built in way to handle it without being too preachy: your characters' already established connections with the Alliance. Perhaps their Alliance handler, in disgust, asks for them to be transferred to another handler. Perhaps the characters meet someone that they find very attractive, but once this person finds out who they are, refuses to have anything to do with them. Old friends may ignore the characters or tell them that they are despicable, to their face. There are lots of people in the Alliance who would judge your pc's poorly for what they did ("If money is the only thing you care about..."). Don't overdo it, not everyone in the Alliance will feel this way, but enough that the characters and their players would notice it.
  22. Emphasis mine. Lot's of players in my group, including me, have wanted to play or played stealthy characters and looked for rules for surprise and surprise rounds. They aren't there, you just roll Vigilance if you are surprised, no matter how stealthy the attack is. Fortunately, themensch and Ghostofman (apropos of nothing, what a nice ironic pairing of names), have already given some good ideas, but I'll elaborate. I would definitely give the sniper's Cool check several boost dice and almost certainly give the PC's Vigilance some setback, mitigated by how alert they are. This last part is important for you: If you don't give them some time before the encounter to role-play their level of alertness, they may be upset at all the setback dice, but if you gave them plenty of time to look around and they don't, they will usually be okay with the setback. If there is a sniper in the group or someone else who likes to fight at longer ranges, you could casually suggest that the abandoned buildings over there/tree-lined ridge/mountain cave/ com tower would be a great sniper nest. You would be surprised how often PC's miss really obvious clues like that (I still do). There is no arguing over setback after that. Rolling Vigilance vs. the sniper's stealth is a brilliant idea. I don't think it's strictly RAW, but it's not outside the rules either. It might be a little too brutal, though. Before reading that I had thought of giving your sniper a homebrew version of Adversary, where he upgraded opponent's Initiative checks (since Initiative checks are usually Simple, the first level of Sniper Adversary would add one purple die to the pc's Initiative rolls, the next would change the die to red, etc). Still, Ghostofman's idea is good, if you want your PC's to have virtually no chance of going first. So far, everyone seems to be in agreement that even if your PC's win Initiative, they should have no idea where the sniper is or possibly why they are even in structured time. I agree with this. I think the sniper needs a weapon that can fire at Extreme range, although you may have him fire closer if that suits the story, but the ability to fire from nearly anywhere will give this nemesis (It is a nemesis, right?) excellent flexibility. Most of the sniper weapons in this game are Slow-Firing 1 and I would absolutely keep that for a sniper encounter. It ratchets up the tension (When is he going to fire? Why didn't he fire? Did he move? Where is he?), gives your PC's a short break from an extremely lethal weapon that they probably don't have the ability to fight back against yet, and the sniper can use the off-round to change location and aim. For a more in-depth encounter, I would try to give the PC's more to do than just make Perception checks until they find the sniper. A formidable Ranged (Heavy) check might be able to identify the caliber of the weapon, the range the shooter fired from, or even the identity of the weapon; decrease the difficulty by one for each shot the sniper has fired. Survival or Streetwise checks might be able to pick out likely spots for a sniper's nest, depending on if they are in a mainly urban setting or a mainly rural one. The appropriate Knowledge skill might suffice for either of those checks, too. You might ask for Discipline or Cool checks if the pc's go a couple rounds without spotting the sniper or if someone is hit. If you make the terrain an interesting tumble of different elevations and broken trees/rocks/duracrete (think of bombed-out Dresden, or Sarajevo, or Mogadishu, or Aleppo), you can ask for Athletics and Coordination checks. Sometimes snipers mine and bomb the areas around them to provide extra protection. Throw in some hidden explosives if you think it won't overwhelm your PC's. Then they will be looking for bombs, not just the sniper, and will have to use Mechanics to diffuse them (or collect them if they are resourceful). You can also use this to hint to your PC's that they are getting close to the sniper's location. The newest supplement, No Disintegrations, has some new talents under Martial Artist that let the attacker pick their Critical instead of rolling, with some game-balancing restrictions. If you have access to this information, you could crib these talents (Precision Strike, Improved Precision Strike, Supreme Precision Strike) for NPC use: if your sniper aims at a particular body part and rolls a Critical, you might pick a particular Critical related to that area of the body, with some self-imposed restrictions. It is a pretty common and vicious tactic for snipers to maim the first target while he is out in the open, leaving him exposed, screaming, and unable to move. Then they pick off anyone who runs out of cover to try and rescue the first target.
  23. I don't think that "plot-armor", while true, is a very compelling reason to already "freaked out" pcs. That would make me roll my eyes and disengage a little from the story if a gm told me that. As I see it, the job of a gm is to explain abilities like Adversary in a compelling manner. You are halfway there already, every idea you put down is a decent explanation. If you have difficulty coming up with an explanation on the fly, take a look at all the nemeses you might use and try to come up with an explanation as part of session prep. Non-combat nemeses are the most difficult to interpret adversary upgrades for, as has been implied, but you can use reasons like secret armor, limited use personal shields (or unlimited use if you don't mind your pc's picking it up afterwards), combat training, bodyguards deflecting the shot/hit if the nemesis has bodyguards (most do, right?), the Force (obvious for Force-sensitive nemeses), uncanny luck (Star Wars does a have a bit of silliness to it, try to make your players laugh with this one), a batman-like sense of tactics or body mechanics (a highly intelligent/cunning character may not know how to fight as well as the pc's, but may be able to predict where their strikes and hits would land), the nemesis showing unexpected strength through willpower (like Kylo Ren getting hit with a bowcaster), etc... All that may not be necessary if you describe the nemesis in a way that makes it clear that s/he is a total badass. They went through their first combat with one already, so part of them knows what to expect. If you spend considerable more time narrating your depiction of this character than you do other NPC's, playing up the traits that make him/her formidable and unique (an unforgiving grimace, a sense of cold foreboding around him/her, an unwavering stare, describing a look that seems to calculate the pc's every move, a Persian cat on his lap), they should pick up on the fact that this character has "plot armor" without you ever needing to break the 4th wall.
  24. I hate resurrection and cheating death in any system. I would much prefer death over the gm going soft to spare my feelings and as a gm I feel that not including death removes some of the emotional pathos and drains all the tension and feelings of accomplishment from combat. So I'm biased, but I say kill the pc if it comes down to it. But make it as badass as possible. We're not here to role-play slowly dying of a disease on a hospital bed. I can get a pc killed, take 5 to 15 minutes to mourn, and then stat up a new guy before the end of the session and some players may be like that, but others may need help. If they need a break, let them take a break. Some people may prefer to just watch for the rest of the session; they are with friends after all. After the combat or whatever event got the pc killed is over, you can have your best player help the mourning pc make a new character while you slow the pace of the session to a crawl; give the other pc's some time to for unimportant role-playing, maybe hold a service for the dead character. Encourage everyone to think of ways their pc's might already be connected to the new character, so that they have a reason to trust the new guy (Think of Lando and Han as mentioned above... actually that might be a bad example for trust). Then have everyone think of reasons that they need the new guy, so they actually want him/her around. As for the amount of xp to give the new character, well that is solely based on your judgement of the player. Some people would have no problem playing a beginning character and could even make the character useful in an experienced party, but most players won't be like that. I would suggest giving at least some extra xp, up to the xp level of the dead pc, especially if the player made the death heroic and awesome and didn't sulk (too much) over it.
  25. Everything in The Phantom Menace is no longer canon except for Darth Maul's Duel. All the scenes of Padmé and Anakin speaking together in Attack of the Clones are no longer canon, in fact, most of Hayden Christiansen's lines are no longer canon. No writer is ever allowed to use the phrase 'aggressive negotiations' ever again in any canon work. The deleted scene of Padmé with her family, where she begins to explain her feelings for Anakin and the audience begins to remember that Natalie Portman can actually be a great actress, that is canon. There is no high ground. Ewoks are no longer canon. They are replaced by wookies. There is no second death star (or third), but many Bothans died to find the hidden sanctuary of the Emperor on Byss. The rebels think they can win if they can take out the Emperor and his fortress, giving Luke's personal journey meaning to the rebellion too. Jar Jar Binks, C-3PO, and Artoo are no longer canon. Yes, even Artoo. He's just a walking, flying, rolling plot device.
×
×
  • Create New...