Jump to content

Nyarlathotep5150

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nyarlathotep5150

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States
  1. DVeight said: daddystabz said: Unfortunately this is probably the #1 reason I cannot get ANYONE I know to play this game except one friend I have that is a Star Wars geek. I can't seem to pay people to play. As soon as they hear 'no Jedi' that say they would rather play Firefly or something different then. Well off your group goes to play Firefly (as if that has Jedi). Dont forget to check in every now and then. Take a peak over the fence at how we are going with our Edge of the Empire adventures. This vast outer rim galaxy with its infinite stories, opportunities, adventures and not a Jedi in sight. I have to assume that the ones 'complaining' and arguments presented are just kids. If not then you certainly are behaving childish rather than providing constructive input. I read and it sounds and reads like a toddler tantrum. I even see my 18yo kids devolve into toddlers when they loose something beloved and the world is not right any more because there is no more Jersey Shore or favourite drink in the fridge. Such a "me" culture. Frustrates me when I see it creeping into this gaming industry. I play to get away from all of that. If a game mechanic and system doesnt suit me, I move on. Provide some constructive rationale, usually tabled against the dice mechanic, general rules. Never really the flavour. That is what this Jedi absence is. Its the absence of a particular flavour. You want a rule set that gives you Jedi and you can choose whatever epoch you want your group to play in?? Hmmm, let me think. Oh yea, something called Saga that fits that very desire. And hey, its been out for years and there are more splat books than there are hairs on my butt cheeks. You have it all. Fantasy Flight have deliberatly set this book to a particular epoch. They have explained their rationale. It was constructive, engaging and made obvious sense. Now get on board and go for this ride or look elsewhere. Dont just ignore everything that the developers have said as if it just never existed and continue to beat your drums. Classic toddler tantrum syndrome. Rationale and logic will never work on toddlers, though I was hoping here I would be finiding reasonable and rational gents and ladies that can carry on a constructive conversation. All I am hearing is "I WANT MY PACIFIER!!!" And now that you're done with that beligerant rant, you can go back and read the quoted text again and see how it clearly states that the poster WANTS to play, but it is the REST of his group who would rather play Firefly if there are no Jedi. Then you can explain to the rest of us exactly what your four paragraphs of ranting and whining were meant to accomplish besides wasting everyones time reading it.
  2. Another thing to remember is the theme of the movies. While it is easy to get dropped in combat, it is pretty hard to actually be killed (a crit result of 151+). So, if the PC's get taken out, that's not the end, just the setup for another kind of challenge. Just think of all the times the main characters in the movies get taken prisoner, or held for a more elaborate execution. In Star Wars, like the pulpy serials it was based on, the bad guys never really try to kill the good guys. Or, if they do, they make an overly complex display of it that blows up in their face. At least that's how I read it. The PC s losing a fight is a chance for the GM to add another twist to the story, not to say, "The stormtroopers slit your throat, roll up new characters." It should be more Flash Gordon, less George R.R. Martin.
  3. I. J. Thompson said: I've heard others say that only the Legacy era affords them the freedom they need, but I don't get it - in the Legacy era, aren't you just playing second fiddle to Cade Skywalker's adventures, instead? Simple answer is, no. Cade Skywalker is not Luke or Anakin. He spends the vast majority of the series actively trying not to get involved and only takes a direct hand at the very end. The story was far larger than him. He was no hero and, in fact, the events would have progressed mostly the same without him. And that's without pointing out that there is a fifteen year gap between Kols death and the major events of the story, in which Cade is nothing more than a low key pirate (this is when my stories usually take place), or that you can set stories after the legacy war, in a completely untouched timeframe, inwhich there are many Jedi, Sith and Imperial Knights.
  4. DVeight said: Greg, you want your players and yourself to the centre of the action??? Really struggling with this comment because any role playing game you do play with your friends, YOU ARE THE CENTRE OF THE ACTION. It does not matter what class or role your players are using, they innevitably are the centre of the action. I really fail to grasp how a particular class creates that 'feeling' over other classes. I also get it. The Jedi is the iconic class. I have one player that was very dissapointed that Jedi arent in. But in the end it comes down to what the designers have created and their intentions and your willingness/ability to keep an open, rather than closed, mind. Actually, I totally see where he's coming from there and it's the same reason I don't set games in the rebellion era. It's not strictly because of the lack of Jedi (I put limits on how many Jedi can be played anyway), it's because of the nature of the timeframe. There is one major story going on there and it's someone elses story. During the rebellion era (and, to a lesser extent, the clone wars), everything truly important in the galaxy is being done by the skywalkers. They are the prophecied heroes, fighting the great, galactic evil, and any PC's in that time period are, at best, supporting cast. By the same token, you wouldn't want to play a Dune game set in the time of the first book. There's only one story happening then (or only one that matters) and it's Pauls story. When the Wheel of Time RPG came out, I played in one particularly bad game, in which our PC party essentially set out to follow Rand al'thors group and basically just played through the events of "Eye of the World," having all the same encounters, just after the actual group had them. This was an extreme example but at it's core, this is the problem with running a game set in a heroic fantasy world, during the time the hero is taking his journey. It will never be your story, it's Luke Skywalkers story, you're just helping out a little, That's why I prefer to set my games during the Legacy era, it gives all the visuals and themes of the OT wihout being shackled to someone elses story. However, I also don't foresee any trouble using EotE for that setting. The lack of Jedi shouldn't be a problem since most of the Jedi are in hiding (making them mechanically, some other career with hidden force powers).
  5. I remember this being covered, though I don't have the page number handy, but yes. I remember it saying you can only have one critical per hit. If you trigger multiple hits from one attack (from automatic weapons, limked weapons, dual weilding, etc), then you can trigger one crit per hit. Otherwise, triggering a critical hit multiple times just adds +10 to the roll per time it's triggered.
  6. mouthymerc said: I do hope the re-releasevthe original trilogy on BlueRay with the original film cuts like they did on dvd. This is what I said when I first heard about the buy-out. I'm not as anti-Disney as some, I don't think they can do worse than Lucas has for the past couple decades, but I they want to get the rest of the haters onboard, all they need to do is re-release the Blu-Rays with Han shooting first, Old Anakins ghost and (for the love of the gods) without that obnoxious CGI furry alien in the Jabbas palace scene (wouldn't complain if they dropped Vader screaming, "NOOOO" as well).
  7. Donovan Morningfire said: There's also been some growing discontent amidst the Star Wars fanbase about being inundated with Jedi, particularly in the wake of the Clone Wars TV series, and a desire for a "return to basics" of the Original Trilogy and the Rebellion Era, where Jedi weren't a dime a dozen and most of the leading heroes were skilled muggles. This, I totally agree with. One of my (many) problems with the prequels was that Jedi were too plentiful. From the OT, I always felt like, even at their hight as "guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy," the Jedi were pretty rare and mostly organized around individual, master/apprentice cells (Much like the, "One riot, one Ranger" model in Deadlands). This makes the idea of Darth Vader hunting them down far more plausible than the one-man army killer approach of the prequels.
  8. I'm sure this has been covered but I didn't see it. Is there any word on whether the Disney buyout will effect Fantasy Flights rights to publish EotE? Or is there any word from FF about whether they'll be able to/willing to release material focusing on the upcoming trilogy?
  9. Also, a cardset summarizing the weapon qualities (similar to the Tannhauser equipment deck), so each player can have all the rules for how their weapons work right in front of them, rather than looking through the book. That would be awesome. Could do the same for talents, but I'll probably just photocopy the talent trees so each player can have a copy.
  10. Gamgee said: Nyarlathotep5150 said: Gamgee said: That sucks, no Sith? What if we want to play a group of not so good people? I'm alrewady on the fence about how they are handling this game, when I get the core rules I'll see if its worth any sort of real investment. Well, Edge of the Empire is specifically set in the rebellion era (more specifically, set for fringer characters in the rebellion era, but other corebooks will open that focus up a little). So, there are only two Sith and two Jedi in existence and we know who they are. You can easily play a not so good person (infact, you're meant to), you could even play a morally ambiguous force user (basic force rules are there), but he wont be a Sith. See the best thing about Star Wars is that epic feeling of adventure and of being the heroes. I would not be so inclined to limit my players if they want to be a chosen one even. As long as they can explain it. Star Wars is all about the players being larger than life. So I have no idea why you would fosake what is the most distinguishing apsect of the original triology. We didn't watch the movies because they were gangster films or bounty hunter films in space. I also have no problem with others playing this way. It's Star Wars the possibilities are endless. Which is why I don't like the direciton this game is going in. It's giving you a very narrow vertical slice of what Star Wars is. Not really a good imagining. Even the rules seem more dense and slow to play than a simple d20 system. It's not supposed to have tons of rules. Star Wars was a very elegant and simple story told masterfully. It was no game of thrones, and yet it's titanic in size of its fanbase. I feel a very complicated rule system would be a bad way to interpret what is supposed to be a science fantasy feel. Even the social situations that crop up can easily just be done by simply roleplaying which is also another thing Star Wars had (memorable characters). I'll reserve final judgement when I have the first core rules in my hand to see if this entire line will just be wasted potential. I agree that it's weird to make a bunch of different RPG's each set in the same universe but with a very narrow focus in story and character type. I don't know if they do that to maximize profit or if it's just a biproduct of a boardgame company making RPG's. I do feel that that is a little annoying. Each game is essentially what should be a small supplement in any other game system. That being said, this is EXACTLY what they did with Warhammer 40,000. They made 5 different RPG lines, all set in the same universe and each with an incredibly narrow scope. So, I don't really see your complaint. You knew it was coming and from your profile pips, you bought into it the last time they did this. Why is it a problem this time? No, EotE isn't set up to play Jedi because it's focus is Fringer charactrers in the rebellion era. Just like Deathwatch isn't set up to play Chaos Marines (I assume), because that is the focus of a different game. Yes, this set up bothers me a little. Waiting two years for a Jedi RPG that could just be a supplement to a more broadbase game is a bit obnoxious to me, but I never bought into the 40,000 games and am only interested in this game because it is Star Wars. I do like the system as, it sets up the ability to have actions set up possitive and negative side effects to actions that are independent of the success or failure of the action (as opposed to the simple pass/fail system of D20). I don't see it as complicated. After a couple rolls it will be very quick to calculate all these different variables (this is what happened with descent). Yes, I do wish they hadn't set it in the Rebellion era. The original trilogy is a great story, but that story was very limitted and has been told already. We know what happens and who it happens to. I'd rather set my games in a setting that doen't impose as many limitations on my creativity (like the need to jump through hoops to explain the existence of any Jedi or Sith I want to throw in). Yes I wish they would make Sith career and talent trees, not to let people play them (because there's no quicker way to turn a game into a snuff fantasy/pissing contest), but to help design major NPC's. However, every Star Wars RPG has to tackle this issue in some way. Star Wars is about Jedi and most people want to play them (and why not, according to the movies, they're just all around better than everyone else). So, from a game perspective, you have a couple options. First, you can take the focus of the game off of Jedi (this is what EotE is doing and backing it up by setting it in a time where there weren't many force users). Secondly, you can give the Jedi so many options that no two are the same, enxuring that when you get a group of all Jedi, everyone has a focus and no one is stealing anybodies thunder. There are two problems with the second option, the first being that it is an insane amount of work to put in giving that many options to Jedi on the ground floor. You would have to make the Jedi so diverse, that they actually constitute a completely separate set of core "classes" (plus you might as well not bother with non-Jedi classes. If the Jedi get all those different focuses plus force powers, it's going to be a Jedi only game). Secondly, it undercuts the nature of the heroes journey to have that many Jedi main characters. If everyone is that special, nobody is. I'm just not seeing your argument. They did this exact thing before and you bought it, why is it bad this time? No, there aren't Sith and Jedi character options in the core game because that isn't the focus and because there were no Jedi or Sith running around at the time of the setting. You can still play a force user. You just wont be a Jedi (that is also true in d20 Rebellion era).
  11. Gamgee said: That sucks, no Sith? What if we want to play a group of not so good people? I'm alrewady on the fence about how they are handling this game, when I get the core rules I'll see if its worth any sort of real investment. Well, Edge of the Empire is specifically set in the rebellion era (more specifically, set for fringer characters in the rebellion era, but other corebooks will open that focus up a little). So, there are only two Sith and two Jedi in existence and we know who they are. You can easily play a not so good person (infact, you're meant to), you could even play a morally ambiguous force user (basic force rules are there), but he wont be a Sith.
  12. Actually, the way I read it, each player can use 1 destiny point per action. Now, you can only use destiny points to enhance your own rolls however, you can use them to raise the stakes (upgrade difficulty) on opposing rolls. So, in theory (and if I'm reading it correctly), if there were enough destiny points available, the players could gang up against a single roll and upgrade its difficulty by one each.
  13. An Alien Anthology (though, not called Alien Anthology because, in Star Wars, the term alien has no meaning. Even the humans are aliens) with a huge amount of playable species. A similar book for careers. (or maybe just a players guide combinig both those ideas). And it wont happen, but I'd like a Legacy era and/or Old Republic sourcebook, since I've never been too interested in running games set in the rebellion era. However, it isn't that hard to run a Legacy game with the rules as written. I just want to see career writups for Imperial Knights and Sith.
  14. I actually think that Aragorn as a leadership character didn't really make sense as he doesn't start displaying his kingly side until Anduril is forged and the cardgame is supposed to take place before Frodo leaves the Shire. The lore version makes sense to me (and maybe a tactics version). But I wasn't really complaining that they did it. Its actually a good idea. Just commenting on the fact that they did it so early. When there isn't a whole lot of variety of heroes in the game yet. Certainly many of the characters could hold multiple versions. Most of the Hobbits should start out Spirit, but become something else (Lore for Bilbo, Tactics for Merry and Pippin… Actually, Sam and Frodo should just be spirit), and you could argue a Lore version of Legolas since he seemed to know something about everything. I'd love to see all that. I would just like to see a good variety of different heroes before they get too heavily into that.
  15. I totally agree with that. Though I was originally working on the assumption that the Hobbits and Theodan would not appear because of the position of those characters during the timeframe of the game (but then, there is Frodo, so who knows). And Galadriel is another of the characters I noticed missing. But the reason I brought it up is, they've done some "reprints" of characters (Aragorn, Glorfindel), while notable characters have yet to appear. And while the diversity between those reprints is an interesting addition, they are still unique by name. Since there aren't a whole lot of heroes out yet, it seems strange to do that. Also, I'm hoping to not have to wait till the "Two Towers" saga expansion to get the rest of my Rohirrim.
×
×
  • Create New...