Jump to content

angelicdoctor

Members
  • Content Count

    255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by angelicdoctor

  1. I find that players who play children often don't like the results. In this game they would be sil 1 with the mods that would grant. They would generally be ignored by the adult population about anything meaningful. The other players would get rants by those well intentioned do-gooders who cannot believe that they are taking a child into danger. They are unable to own property legally, have complicated skills that require training (unless you go the child prodigy route...overused blecht!), and will often be treated as just a kid. Most players don't want to be dismissed as often as it would happen. Almost like droids... I suppose then that your mileage may vary. I have played a number of games wherein the players took on roles as kids. No issues here, mates.
  2. That assumes that you would not think a child is a good character concept. I am open to it. In fact, the spiritual predecessor of this game included such a template.
  3. Yes, but even Darth Maul did not start out as a dark side devil, cf. TCW. Of course not everyone plays 'the' heroes though everyone likes to play a hero, or an anti-hero as the case may be. Heck, even the character creation section starts out with a curious title in this regard. But this is beside the point and to argue further would be to continue going around and around on this carousel. I have written my mind on the matter and some of you have made some interesting points on the subject. Still. I would like to see a return to the original rule.
  4. Take it easy, amigo. I was just offering my opinion, a dissenting one, but an opinion nonetheless. That is what this forum is for, no? And this based on the precedent set by the six films in their entirety. Agree with me? That's great. No? Then it is no skin off my nose.
  5. True, but by your preference for Star Wars this whole book would be a house rule... Now, now Phil. Let us not go making generalizations. Thus far, I have only desired that the designers return to the original rule.
  6. Again, like I mentioned earlier, 'play it how you want to'. I just wish that the original rule remained as a default setting especially for a role-playing system which calls itself 'Star Wars'. With the way it is written now, it will have to be a house rule.
  7. Agree completely, not fond of it myself, but glad they made the change because now it's a viable choice and it's there for the ppl who want it. Personally, I would forbid it as a starting option, but not everyone has to play it that way. This could be so that we have a chance to playtest the rules for Lightside and Darkside Paragons. Who knows if the rule will be that way in the final product. One could only hope...well...at least I could...
  8. While you might be right about starting fully light, the previus rule for starting "almost dark" was pointless, because of the way morality is biased towards falling to darkness. Starting as a dark side adept, on the other hand, is a perfectly resonable character concept.. If you want to play a redemption arc, spending the first session slaughtering children to fall first is disruptive to your concept and to the game. Yeah, maybe. It just seems to me that the SW movies support a rise, fall and redemption motif. I am not saying you could do otherwise in your personal games it just seems to me that the default 'setting' should encourage what the SW movies have themselves set up as a groundwork. In the end, play it how you want to. I am just disappointed that the core suggests that what I believe should be a standard approach (and what the designers seemed to agree with in its initial offering) is now an optional one, i.e. a house ruled option. There. That is all. I dont see the "Rise and fall" as a houserule because of this change- rather, the default option is 50 morality (which you can rise and fall from just fine) and extra stuff, which you can give up to start your story "in media rez," either on the cusp of Light (I would prefer this being one episode away, but FFG seems to want to have the options mirror) or shrouded in Darkness. Yes, I considered that as well. Then it becomes a matter of how much time would a typical group have to accomplish either the fall to the dark side or the obtainment of light side mastery, as it were? For my group, starting at 50 may not be much of an issue as we can get together for a game with great frequency, i.e. once a week if not with even greater frequency. For others who may meet once or perhaps twice a month, the drift or push to one side or the other may take a great deal of time if played by the book. The advantage of starting just on the brink of either light side paragon or dark side demon was that the time it may take to reach either in a milieu that screams rise, fall, redemption, would be greatly reduced and at the same time give players something to actively work towards, i.e. provided the additional motivation for the telling of a great story. My two Republic credits to be spent in the outer rim territories.
  9. While you might be right about starting fully light, the previus rule for starting "almost dark" was pointless, because of the way morality is biased towards falling to darkness. Starting as a dark side adept, on the other hand, is a perfectly resonable character concept.. If you want to play a redemption arc, spending the first session slaughtering children to fall first is disruptive to your concept and to the game. Yeah, maybe. It just seems to me that the SW movies support a rise, fall and redemption motif. I am not saying you could do otherwise in your personal games it just seems to me that the default 'setting' should encourage what the SW movies have themselves set up as a groundwork. In the end, play it how you want to. I am just disappointed that the core suggests that what I believe should be a standard approach (and what the designers seemed to agree with in its initial offering) is now an optional one, i.e. a house ruled option. There. That is all.
  10. I am not too wild about the Morality change. Starting out fully dark or fully light kind of defeats the point of a narrative role-playing game. The obtainment of either should be a journey for the character giving purpose or further motivation for the player adventuring in the first place. Instead of being codified in the rule set, something like this should have been best left to house ruling, imho.
  11. Uhuh. Read it, but failed to understand it. And the 4 people my character actually killed himself, I took the full ten on. Note: Those were also the only people my character ever directly did damage to. The few times I engaged in combat my Blaster was on Stun (my Droid minions were also on Stun, once I had Droid Minions).However, as I said, I was "in the driver's seat" so to speak. So in situations that we "ended up" shooting first (about half the time) I took 2, the others took 1. 3 times we were shot at first and I still took 1 Conflict (for having put us there and ensured we'd end up fighting). The only actions my character took that were really questionable, that I got a pass on, was the "cannibalism". Which was a ritualistic eating of my revenge targets (it's not like I went around snacking on every Imperial we downed... though I did joke about the waste of meat). Hmmm. We did stop at 0 and I had more than 50 in that particular session (I think it was like 65 or so and that was after the die roll), so had we gone into the negatives I might not have climbed back quite so "high". Thank you for the clarifications, however, I am confused by what you wrote concerning if you had actually been using the Morality system.
  12. I actually read his post, and it sounds like he and his "GM" weren't really applying the Conflict table in the GM chapter right, ... Yes. That was my thinking as well.
  13. That is pretty odd. Is that the way that the system is supposed to work? It doesn't appear to be working very well if your experience is the common one.
  14. This was the suggestion on the relevant episode of Order 66 with Sam Stewart, I believe.
  15. Keep your eyes on the Mad Adventurer's Society YALP podcast. They may be doing this soon as they have done for Age of Rebellion and Mearls D&D.
  16. I would be curious to know why you and your players think that the Conflict 'random die roll leaves a lot to be desired.' I have not yet put this into practice so I would like to have a bit of foreknowledge on the matter based on your experience. Thanks.
  17. Having finally read the last page of this adventure today and therefore the entire Beta book, I have decided that I rather like this game. Despite my earlier objections, of the three Star Wars offerings, this is the best. It was the adventure that pushed me over the edge (no pun intended) and revealed to me what is possible for a Force and Destiny-style game. I love it.
  18. I like this idea. In fact, I would probably start the adventure with the characters in the middle of one of those big game hunts. Well, actually as having the tables turned on them from once being the hunter to now the hunted. Shortly after the skirmish was over, I'd throw in a clue concerning the whereabouts of a temple or drop them right outside of it if the threat was dealt with or in it as a means to take shelter 'all of a sudden-like' from the aforementioned threat. Is it me, or is Indiana Jones written all over this adventure?
  19. As a parent of 8 kids who also happens to be a gamer, Morality is a positive mechanic especially as it may assist me in supporting the values I and my wife are tying to impart to them. Having this game as a teaching tool in this respect is, dare I write, a blessing. As a mechanic which is supposed to be along the lines of Obligation/Duty, however, is somewhat problematic as has been already noted and highlighted in your post. But, then again, perhaps the authors intended it this way on purpose? Something somewhat similar to the previous two games but at the same time innovative?
  20. Yes. I am a 'both/and' kind of guy in many respects as opposed to 'either/or'. It sometimes drives my beloved spouse crazy. Your original post was a delight to read and I must admit that it was initially difficult to understand. Once I relaxed a bit and read through the subsequent posts did I finally understand your point and even agreed. As much as I liked the mechanic, your thoughts on the matter considering its inclusion and in the manner in which it was included, made a good deal of sense.
  21. I have read through the pertinent section and my first thought was that 'Hey, this smells like Modernism!' After a few more moments of further consideration and with a realization that the game is not necessarily to be considered a proper theological treatise on human behavior and motivation I turned my attention to the question T3CHN0Shaman has asked though without realizing that this topic had previously existed. I had not, after all, received my copy of Force and Destiny Beta until late last week and only begun to read it through until this afternoon. First, I must admit that I take great delight in a modern role-playing game taking more of an interest in including such a mechanic. A bold thing in today's post-modern society and FFG should be applauded in my humble opinion, for having done so. The confusion of terms, that is equating emotion with virtue and vice, aside and reading through the 'Emotional Strengths' and 'Emotional Weaknesses', it seemed to me that the writers of the game were offering specific motivations for a character's practice of virtue that might discourage player agency, as it was described earlier. I would have preferred simply a description of the virtue and its natural negative tendency and left it to the player to decide how each would materialize during game play. For this alone I might have found cause to jettison the mechanic were it not for the specific milieu presented by the game itself, that is as a 'playground' for Force sensitive characters in the universe that sprang from the mind of George Lucas. Still, Moralitytm seems a superlative overlay that could have easily been included in the previous iterations of FFG Star Wars Role-playing. I understand T3CHN0Shaman's point, I think, in that unlike Obligation and Duty, Moralitytm does not appear to provide a clear expectation for the player or function within the game that the previous two accomplish in their respective games. I might have included something akin to Honor or Destiny as T3CHN0Shaman has suggested in addition, perhaps, to Moralitytm though that might serve only to complicate the game even further.
  22. I am thinking something along the lines of Outlaw Josey Wales or any manner of the spaghetti westerns wherein a former confederate soldier (that is, a Jedi or group of Jedi) has to carve out a way in a galaxy dominated by Unionists, bounty hunters, criminals, et al but all the while providing aid, comfort and defense of the defenseless.
×
×
  • Create New...