Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jedimerc

  • Rank
  • Birthday March 1

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Arlington, Texas, United States
  1. I actually don't really like playing unless it is online or a video game. I've GM'd so long I get bored with only one part to play. I love the planning aspect of the game and playing the various roles and my players seem to keep coming back in every iteration of the game. I still have one player who started with me in 1994 when we picked up 2ed WEG (and on occasion another player from that game but RL keeps him committed to other things). The rest of my group has been around since the first WoTC game... as an aside the first game I ran was a TSR Marvel Super Heroes game for my brother followed the next week by my first Robotech game (i was the oldest of my friends and family so I defaulted to GM and haven't really stopped). I have enjoyed playing a few times now and then, but GMing keeps me at the table
  2. I've used some large (Silhouette 6+) ships in a couple of games, mostly as obstacles in battle (especially after the Stay on Target book); however, some of my PC's have done some damage to a large vessel with torpedoes and the like and for a well-constructed Sil 4 vessel, taking on a Sil 5 vessel is not that difficult (especially with Critical Hits and Triumphs For the most part, though, I like to use the larger ships as scenery and deal with fighters, transports and gunships as the main combatants.
  3. And that's great if it works for you but you have had to make adjustments for the lack of specificity in the rules. And I do like some of those mechanics btw Really, this whole discussion seems to have stemmed from a lack of specificity in the rules... but last I checked we are not discussing X-Wing, Armada or Imperial Assault. Roleplaying, to me, warrants if not requires a little improvisation and compromise. If the rule is unclear... improvise. By all means come up with something that works for you. I'm not going to report you to Disney or FFG. If you don't like something... change it. The rules, in a good game, should be of secondary concern, to help the story along. I personally feel FFG got it right with this game. I have run my sessions with very few skill checks and have run some with many but it has never felt like I was leaning too much on the rules. In the end, I just love running Star Wars. How I get from point A to point B really should not matter to anyone but my players.
  4. I have to agree. Demolitions, especially mines, in my experience have been handled as the situation warrants it (and with a lot of mishaps... I mean care I like using Perception vs. Skulduggery or Survival and Vigilance vs. Mechanics. All seem to work well (might depend on the Specs involved. A Mechanic might be more inclined toward using Mechanics while an Outlaw Tech could use Skulduggery?)
  5. I am not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I even gave you the page of EotE which contains the rules about performing skill checks in combat, aka in structured gameplay. To paraphrase again, the GM determines how much time a skill heck takes. Well, that I can understand. My old gaming instinct works like that, too (which is probably due to playing Rolemaster a lot). But I have to come to understand that the narrative approach is just as valid. Both ways of handling things can be fun, of course, there is no right or wrong. For us, the narrative approach works great, because it captures the feel of the Star Wars movies, at least how we experienced them. The Star Wars RPGs from FFG use the narrative approach (in many instances; there is a surprising amount of crunch in other parts). This means that anybody who wants tables and lots of pre-defined stuff needs to do some work, because the system itself is not built like that. But that is how it is when you use gaming systems that do not do exactly what you want. That is not a failure of the system itself but simply the fact that no system will work for everybody all the time. Nothing wrong with a narrative approach at all, but I notice that word is being used a lot to cover all sorts of aspects found within the game, including rules issues or omissions. It does, actually. And that is the point of a narrative system whether you are willing to admit it or not. The whole point of being a GM is to interpret the rules and apply them in a fashion that makes sense to the situation even if they contradict some aspect of the rules. You might say 'what is the point', then? Well, in the long run it doesn't matter. What I interpret at the gaming table for my players matters little to what you might interpret. I understand wanting some more to some of the rules, sure; however, the designers made a conscious choice in allowing for a wider band of interpretation in some cases over others. I have no issue with this. And if they have covered some defects or omissions, so be it. Many systems are far, far worse and have had more glaring errors. I understand the frustration, but this issue is not going to get resolved unless you ask the designers what their intent was in rules for Astrogation. I am satisfied with the rules to a point. Sure, I tinker with some but certainly within the narrative framework. In the end, whatever works for you and for your table is the best rule to apply to any situation. That may not be correct or even satisfactory to you, but it has worked for me and for many others. I hope you can find some resolution that works best for your group.
  6. I've made a few Babylon 5 references, mostly in dealing with Ancient Enemies and Far Outsiders (Shadows or Vorlons? Who knows? In all instances, I have kept it fairly vague). I did introduce a couple of species (Narn and Drazi) and they translate very well to the Star Wars universe and treated Minbari as a 'lost' civilization of rumor and legend. In another game, I introduced Erasmus 'the thinking machine' renegade from the Dune prequels series as a foil and foe. I like elements of the technology in Mass Effect (I love blasters but slughtrowers have great use and utility) and have a soft spot for elements of Firefly and Star Trek (I did create a freighter loosely based on the Firefly-class that was used by NPC's). Overall, I prefer introducing multiple elements of multiple series that have their own complexity within my game but interact peripherally or as needed. Sometimes they are mere window dressing and sometimes not (such as one of my player's Drazi Marauder... perfect spec for a species that loves nothing more than a good scrap Love the other elements from above as well... except maybe the Pony-Bantha... my daughter would love it though
  7. That is tough for me as I love a great mix of characters and in my last game I allowed a mix of specs from all settings and the one I like from that group I might try: Started as Artisan then moved to Smuggler: Pilot and then Gunslinger. I've always had a soft spot for the Makashi style, so I might try a Makashi Duelist then Gadgeteer, just to see
  8. That confused me as well. I remember the changes but we had always been playing as full damage for a Linked attack (so if I do 10 points with the first attack, the second is 10 as well). Why Linked and Autofire can be so deadly, but as pointed out above a number of specs, abilities and talents can have devastating effects. That, combined with the narrative interpretation of results and narrative style, is what gives this system so much flexibility in play styles (if players are willing to branch out. I still have trouble with the min-max players but even they have relented to an extent).
  9. I just ordered it over Chronicles of the Gatekeeper (even though I am running a Force and Destiny Game) but the PC's will be utilizing the Alliance from time to time and I like setting books as a whole. Plus, the Verpine are one of my all time favorite species. I hope they have a good write up for them
  10. I appreciate the input as I think this system handles its specializations well with all those abilities. I hadn't quite gotten that far in our endgame with the Beta (and we are re-setting with the new books in a couple of weeks) so your insight is welcome. Admittedly, I like to tinker a lot with my games and sometimes I need to draw myself back a little. I think hybrid forms are probably conceptually a fair idea (and I mean high level concept) but as you point out, in practice, it can develop organically with the talents at hand. Thanks!
  11. Sorry, I guess I should have pointed out that a form such as listed above would require the specializations in those forms and having bought one form to the bottom of the tree, maybe both (probably so). For me, I think that someone who has mastered two forms should be able to experiment and create hence my thoughts in the matter.
  12. Since this is the only forum that I am aware of for GM's, I thought I would bring this up in this setting rather than throwing it out to the general forums first. Have any of you experimented with Combination Forms? Clearly this would be home-brew/non-canon and I have only lightly addressed this in a brief West End game I ran and I can see these more as a signature ability (like Vaapad or Juyo or other Forms not mentioned in the book being such as well) or lost secret, etc. For example, I actually had Juyo as an ability accessed in a special holocron and it could be bought for 25 xp (mechanically it simply increased the damage of any lightsaber attack by 2 and the Vicious rating by 2 and was only used once I think). I think something like that could work in that context. The one combination form I came up with was a modification of Shii-Cho and Ataru called Rishii-Sho which allowed for swift fluid combination attacks and defense. The weakness would be against ranged attacks but it would be designed to handle melee and multiple melee opponents well. For this system, I am merely in an experimental stage and may only allow it is a 'Force Secret' from a holocron or lost knowledge, etc if one of my players gets good enough if I progress at all. Regardless, would love to hear some thoughts about it and combination forms or other form techniques in general. Thanks all.
  13. That is an awesome endgame talent (I'm not sure any of my players have really exploited it... yet) and thanks noting Exar Kun was a practitioner of this form. It's funny, many of my players remember Form VI /Niman from the rather useless Feat in RCR (I think it allowed you to use Diplomacy skills while fighting) and even the fluff text did not give it much thought. Glad it has become a more useful style within this system's framework.
  14. I like the above posts and have experimented with various house rules since the Beta off and on. Certainly, the best house rule is rewarding the PC's for a creative solution to an issue whenever possible as that is the heart of the game... having fun within the narrative style and creative solutions within that framework, to me, is the game at its best. That being said, I have a few rules I really haven't changed. 1) I usually roll 1 or 2 Force Dice to help 'set' the Destiny pool. It has always added some depth and entertainment to the game 2) From the outset, I have reduced the cost of additional specializations, similar to the last poster. I have never been a fan of the +10 surcharge (I think I started with 10 and 20 per, but now it is 20 and 30 as the previous post) I admit, as a long time GM, I am always experimenting and trying to find the right balance with players and my own interests; however, I do find the narrative mechanics of the dice system to be fairly unique in the methods and choices in interpretation. This allows for fewer 'house rules' in implementation of the dice results and the rest being a choice in modifying the mechanics in character creation, XP expenditure and items and attachments for the most part.
  15. Extended Hilt increases Damage by 1 and has 1 Vicious +1 mod. It requires 1 Hard Point.
  • Create New...