Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JediHamlet

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    San Jose, California, United States
  1. Ahhh... you're talking about events. The characters were involved in (witnessed, directly brought about, etc...) a momentous event that should have a profound effect on their character. I'd go with LethalDose on that. These events are part of the narrative, and the boons and banes received from them should be brought about by the same. The GM narrates it with particular gravitas and eloquence, and the players do the same from their character's perspective. Each character may take this in a particular direction for themselves. Which may not match the overall intention of the GM, but therein lies gaming/improv. From there, it's up to the GM to come up with what 'happens' and what, or if, there is any mechanical benefit to each characters reaction to the event.
  2. In the beta book's adventure, there was mention about granting a point (maybe two) of morality if the character(s) accomplished a section of the adventure particularly well, and altruistically. I liked that idea, and it could easily be expanded upon. The greater the deed, the greater morality gained. It would also have to be story driven, and suffused with the chance to gain conflict (the situation in the beta adventure was geared very strongly to generating conflict via hostile opposition). No chance for conflict, no morality bonus. Which means no cookies for helping old lady's across the streets. As for the chance to mitigate conflict during play (with some crunchy mechanics) I'd go with presenting the players with an opportunity to meditate/reflect/harness a lightside nexus/etc... Spend a destiny point, and make a Hard Discipline check, each {failure}/{threat} adding one point of conflict, if successful, make a morality roll at that time, otherwise nothing happens (except for conflict gained for {failure}/{threat}). (Not sure what to do with {advantage} yet...) This allows the player to actively face their conflicted feelings (if they can -- destiny point) with all that entails... with enough insight and discipline, they might cleanse their conflicted feelings and come out on the moral high-ground. But, sometimes we can't face those things we've done, and we slip further towards the abyss... MWAA...HA.HA.HA. Ahem... Anyway, just some ideas.
  3. Yeah, while the cores are compatible, they aren't stackable. You get the one that comes with your character's starting Career. With GM approval may swap it for something else, and there's nothing to stop the GM from adding more on to it, but you can only ever benefit from one. While AoR and FaD don't make it so clear, in EotE it's stated that the starting minimum Obligation you are required to take represents how your character got their base starting gear and ship. By extension it's probably safe to assume Duty and Morality are similar. Nice point Ghostofman. Tying which core mechanic to use based on the starting career.
  4. Is anyone else getting a broken UI experience when logged in? When I log in, I get the "old" look & feel, but almost all the graphics are missing. When I'm not logged in, I get the newer experience, and everything looks hunky-dory. Started happening a few days ago. Anyway, realize this is not the place to complain, just wondering if anyone else is seeing what I am seeing.
  5. I think I found the crux of the problem in its reasoning. The table on page 324 regarding common conflict point penalties, lists "Knowing Inaction" as a 1 point conflict penalty for knowingly allowing a 5+ conflict event to occur. So, in this case, only gaining one point of conflict as compared to 2-3 for flipping that DP and tapping into those pesky emotions that allow you to be the hero, is a rational trade-off (for the power-gamer). Personally, (for non dark-siders), I would bump that up to "2 conflict + the amount of conflict of the action in which you're allowing to happen." Usually good people who allow, or believe they could have prevented, a gruesome crime/event are more conflicted than those who commit the crime/event. In the situation it describes, I wonder if its position would be the same if it knew that it would gain 9-12 conflict for allowing the death of an ally (dare we say 'friend'), or take the 2-3 for tapping the dark side? Anyway, my point is probably mute with it, but perhaps others will see the problem with the "Knowing Inaction" conflict cost and adjust it in their game to provide the right amount of Conflict to propel their players to be heroes, and not dogmatic sociopaths.
  6. Oops. Looks like I missed some bolded print in the top left of page 196... FU's still get to reduce the difficulty by two when modifying their own lightsaber... which is up to the GM and player(s) to decide. ("Loaning" a lightsaber to another character who's better at Mechanics is discouraged.) The GM kit gives a way of bypassing a roll to install the first mod of a crystal. [This is not the proofreader you're looking for. Move along.]
  7. What is the check to succeed/fail on installing a crystal now? Not to be a Gamorean named Richard, but you're going to have to get the kit to find out.
  8. They changed the "specialness" of lightsaber construction!!! Changed it for the better in my opinion: The core book explains that a Force Sensitive can add their Force Rating when making a mod install check and spend pips to add success or advantage to the results. The GM's kit goes into actually constructing a lightsaber hilt and installing a crystal: When successful, the crafter may install the crystal and one modification for that crystal. This definitely feels more in line with everyone's expectation -- and allows the Technician source book (and Engineer's) to go into crafting specialness into their items too!
  9. My FLGS just listed it as "in stock." I should be getting a call for my pre-order tonight or tomorrow! Weehoo!
  10. Ah, the dissonant cry of the homonym "roleplay" versus "rollplay"... I think we all forget that the two are intertwined. Especially in a narrative system such as this. Narration lends to building a better or worse pool of dice, and the results on those dice inform how things happened. The role playing lens has to be applied to both. Gaining Conflict, losing Morality due to a die roll, Force dice not cooperating with you when you are supposedly "Calm, and at peace...", all are informed by die rolls. If you are not using those die rolls to narratively describe what happened, then its your loss at a chance to role play. Characters we play in a game are not pre-defined and static. They should grow based on what happens in the game. Sometimes in directions we may least expect. Authors writing of fictional characters are often surprised where they end up and how they act. Many times those character's make 'choices' later in the novel that didn't fit the author's initial concept of them. And, good author's know that character's are driven, and revealed by Conflict.
  11. The thing I found most intriguing about the article was the change in the wording when it comes to using the Dark Side to fuel your force power: You may also spend Dark Side Force results if you're a light side Force user, but it requires flipping a Destiny Point from light to dark and taking a strain. I wonder if they changed the core rule from "He then suffers strain equal to the number of Dark Side Force results, and suffers one Conflict per Dark Side Force result"? The key change is going from "equal" to "a". The article only mentions strain, not Conflict, however it would be an interesting change if Conflict was so affected also. It would really reduce the penalty for dipping into the Dark Side, and make it ever more seductive. Only to wammy you at the end of the session/adventure. Or, it may be a typo and they just didn't catch the "a" before strain and it was supposed to read "and take strain."
  12. Excellent work GM Hooly. I'll have to read that in more detail later. One suggestion: build up the 'blotches' a bit more so there's not quite as strong/sharp a transition, especially at the midpoint of the fade/blotch. @FangGrip: You beat me to saying that you have to 'paint' in the mask channel, and not the layer itself.
  • Create New...